HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-23 e-packet@1:00City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Special Meeting Agenda
Thursday, June 23, 2016
1:00 PM
City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Housing Subcommittee of the City Council and Planning
Commission
Housing Subcommittee of the City Special Meeting Agenda June 23, 2016
Council and Planning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council and the Planning Commission Housing Subcommittee of the City of South
San Francisco will hold a Joint Meeting on Thursday, June 23, 2016, at 1:00 a.m., at City Hall, City
Manager Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call To Order
Roll Call
Public Comments
Matters for Consideration
1. Motion to approve the minutes of the meetings of February 25, 2016 and April 20,
2016.
2. Open Session
Interview and discussion regarding shortlisted developers for property located at 200
Linden Avenue, 212 and 216 Baden Avenue (Ron Gerber, Housing Manager)
3. Request for an additional Joint Housing Subcommittee meeting ahead of the July 13,
2016 City Council meeting.
Closed Session
4. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Properties: 200 Linden Avenue, 212 and 216 Baden Avenue
Negotiating Parties: South San Francisco Successor Agency /City of South San
Francisco and BayRock Multifamily LLC, Proferian, RAHM Investments and Omni
Investment Group
Under Negotiation: Review Price and Terms. (Ron Gerber, Housing Manager).
Adjournment
City of South San Francisco Page 2 Printed on 7/28/2016
0
y
City of South San Francisco
v1 0 Staff Report
c'�LIFO �l� File Number:
Agenda Date: 6/23/2016
Version: 1
In Control: Housing Subcommittee of the City Council and Planning Commission
Agenda Number: 1
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
out San Francisco, CA
Status: Agenda Ready -
Administrative Business
File Type: Minutes
Motion to approve the minutes of the meetings of February 25, 2016 and April 20, 2016.
City of South San Francisco Page 1 Printed on 712812016
Meeting will be held at:
CITY MANAGER CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
FRIDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2016
8:30 A.M.
1. Call to Order. TIME: 8:32 A.M.
2. Roll Call, PRESENT: Councilmembers Addiego and Matsumoto,
and Planning Commissioners Faria and Ruiz.
ABSENT: None.
3. Public Comments.
City resident, Bertha stated her opinion of the developers presenting today. Mayor Addiego
thanked her for her comments.
4. Motion to approve the minutes of meetings of July 8, 2015, August 5, 2015 and October
23, 2015.
Mayor Addiego had a question about the status of A -frames that were referenced in the July 8,
2015 Minutes. Councilmember Matsumoto stated that the A -frame issue would come back for
review at a later date.
Motion — Councilmember Matsumoto /Second — Planning Commissioner Ruiz: to approve the
Minutes. Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
5. Interview Prospective Developers for Affordable Workforce Housing at Miller /Maple
Avenue Sites, APN 012311330 and consider recommendation to the City Council for the
Preferred Developer(s). (Julie Barnard/Ron Gerber, Housing Manager).
Housing and Redevelopment Manager Gerber presented the item to board members, provided a
quick summary of the review process with each developer and requested a recommendation to
the City Council for the preferred developer.
MINUTES
�zx
JOINT SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND
V O
PLANNING COMMISSTON HOUSING
�gLrFO���
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting will be held at:
CITY MANAGER CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
FRIDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2016
8:30 A.M.
1. Call to Order. TIME: 8:32 A.M.
2. Roll Call, PRESENT: Councilmembers Addiego and Matsumoto,
and Planning Commissioners Faria and Ruiz.
ABSENT: None.
3. Public Comments.
City resident, Bertha stated her opinion of the developers presenting today. Mayor Addiego
thanked her for her comments.
4. Motion to approve the minutes of meetings of July 8, 2015, August 5, 2015 and October
23, 2015.
Mayor Addiego had a question about the status of A -frames that were referenced in the July 8,
2015 Minutes. Councilmember Matsumoto stated that the A -frame issue would come back for
review at a later date.
Motion — Councilmember Matsumoto /Second — Planning Commissioner Ruiz: to approve the
Minutes. Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
5. Interview Prospective Developers for Affordable Workforce Housing at Miller /Maple
Avenue Sites, APN 012311330 and consider recommendation to the City Council for the
Preferred Developer(s). (Julie Barnard/Ron Gerber, Housing Manager).
Housing and Redevelopment Manager Gerber presented the item to board members, provided a
quick summary of the review process with each developer and requested a recommendation to
the City Council for the preferred developer.
Representatives from Bridge Housing, MidPen Housing, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
(SAHA) and Eden Housing presented their respective proposals to the Subcommittee, showcased
pictures of similar projects and answered questions from Subcommittee members.
Subcommittee members supported the idea of designating the development as affordable housing
for City employees and veterans that wouldn't normally be able afford to live in the City. Board
members agreed on tentative consideration for Bridge Housing at a conceptual level. Staff would
present design, financing, affordability levels for employees, and consideration of expansion to
additional sites for board members at the next scheduled special meeting on March 1, 2016 at
00 P.M. in the City Manager's Conference Room.
1. Adjournment.
Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:46 A.M.
Submitted by:
Gabriel Rodriguez, Deputy City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Approved by:
Councilmember
City of South San Francisco
FEBRUARY 25, 2016
PAGE 2
MINUTES
JOINT SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
co
Q CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION HOUSING
c'�LIF0 SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting will be held at:
CITY MANAGER CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND A%TENi TE
Sol T'I'H SAN FRANCISCO, CA
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2016
10:30 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT STYLE MINUTES. PROCEEDINGS CAPTURED VIA AUDIO WITH
►/Il W-0-0
1. Call to Order. TIME: 10:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call. PRESENT: Councilmembers Addiego and Matsumoto,
and Planning Commissioners Faria, Ruiz
and Wong.
ABSENT: None.
3. Public Comments.
None.
4. Motion to approve the ininutes of the meeting of April 11, 2016.
Commissioner Wong stated lie would make a inotion to approve unless discussion was needed.
City Clerk Martinelli, present for this portion of the meeting, stated her interest in learning of the
group's preferences regarding the transcribed minutes approach for these meetings.
Mayor Addiego stated lie would like to hear the Clerk's thoughts on the nninutcs format.
City Clerk Martinelli stated that the "court reporter" format iniposes an unedited "transcript" feel,
but accomplishes the goal of snaking sure the detail the committee is sifting through is captured.
The difficulty with the particular nieans chosen, namely that the transcription service is not present,
is challenging for Clerk's staff in tcrnis of snatching up speakers with coinnicntary, but is doable.
The Clerk's Office was willing to take tills task on, given that (lie service charged only $25/hour
and would provide the coinmittec with the level of detail it desired.
:Mayor Addiego did not prefer the transcription format to the niore story telling approach generally
taken by the City Clerk's Office. Nevertheless, he believed 825/liour was a great price for anyone
to do anything, and asked how many hours it took the service provider.
City Clerk Martinelli stated staff wouldn't have that answer until receipt of tlic bill.
Councilnicnnbcr Matsumoto stated that she liked the turnaround time. She preferred to have the
minutes of the Housing Standing Conunittec available for review when the itenis appear before
Council, even if in draft form, mid this approach pernnitted that.
Mayor Addiego staled that he completely appreciates that when (lie Connnitlec went through the
session with the workforce housing it seemed like there were different conversations every time
they sat down to meet. He felt that was a problem. He stated that tine only thing worthy of
renncmbering from the meeting was when Conunissioner Wong hit upon the fact that a
commercial aspect might be the most important aspect on that corner. He stated, if lie had a
notepad, lie would have jotted it down and retained it, adding that it was the only different thing
that came up in the meeting. He stated that they will see what the bottom line cost, as it doesn't
matter to him. He stated that he didn't like the stenographer version.
Councilnncmber Matsumoto stated that it might help if they identify, explaining that they do
conference calls wish ether regional bodies in which she sits by teleconferencing. '1'kne person oil
the other line doesn't know who was speaking because they are not familiar with theta anal they
always identify.
City Clerk Martinelli stated ilia( it will be lielpful.
Mayor Addiego asked if, before they comnnent for the first tinic, they could identify thennselves.
Mayor Addiego stated that the priniary problem was, if they roll the clock back, there weren't
published agendas or minutes for what were formerly ad hoc meetings. This allowed people to get
together to share sonic ideas, somewhat informally. Now that these connmittees have risen to the
level of Standing Connnittees, the free flow of thinking and verbalization is the victim.
City Clerk Martinelli agreed, inentioning that most of-their standing committees were ad hoc, up
until about two years ago, when they started to be used in a different way. Whcn they started to
nnect snore frequently and have continuing jurisdiction, the clerk's office had to implement the law
and make sure to abide by its paranncters.
Mayor Addiego understood that.
Councilinernber Matsumoto commented on transparency.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 2
City- Clerk Martinelli stated that the City went from zero (0) standing con- unittees to seven (7). Her
style of minutes takes about a week or two (2) to fine tune and edit when written in a story,
depending on the other business coining through licr office at the time. Since the general level of
activity in the office had increased, ail immediate turn around for multiple sets of minutes was not
possible. She knew, once the City changed over to seven (7) standing conunittees, she could not
sustain that type of quality for seven (7) new committees.
Mayor Addicgo understood, but added that lie was frustrated with where they Find themselves. He
suggested ilia( they get into the meeting and lie will be very cautious.
City Clerk Martinelli stated that the alternative for the standing couinxittecs was suinmary style
minutes, as they cannot do the full story telling for the seven standing con;niittees. She agreed ilia(,
in doing a deposition type transcript word for word, no one ever sounds like they would want to
sound as every detail was put in there and you lose that sort of polish, but you gain a very solid
record of what was said if you want to go back and try and remember, especially on a quick
tuniaroun d time, which was what they were all facing with the housing decisions. She stated that
they were considering the transcript style record of what was said versus a quick summary of what
the decision was which was what the Clerk's Office could provide.
Councilmember Matsumoto added that it goes to another point. She itientioned receiving a call
from Councihnember Normandy asking her about 150, and she had no idea. 'I'lie
counrilmentber called leer because she was on (he Housing committee and she had no idea what
they were talking about because it was not shared with sonic of their on Council. She stated ilia(,
in the future, she can suggest that the counciIineinbcr, who was asked about 150, go and look at
the irnimries of the meeting.
Mayor Addiego thought it was valuable and superior to having a conversation with another
councilincinber person and you have three people ni the mix.
Councilnneniber Matsumoto acknowledged it was about the Brown Act.
City Clerk Martinelli stated that she could note at the top that they were transcript style minutes
and would alert people to the fact that they aren't polished.
Mayor Addiego stated that he will keep it in iiiind that they were putting down every word
potentially, adding that lie was Mark Addiego.
Councilinenzber Matsumoto stated that they didn't approve the ininutes.
Mayor Addiego acknowledged that they didn't, but they talked about them a little bit.
Commissioner Faria agreed that talking more legibly into the inike would lielp. He stated that one
comment lie made on page 5 said that Commmissioner Faria stated that they had a bid of at least
$30 to $ 60 Ynillion and you have an idea. He stated that lie could have been not legible. He also
made a conntient that the Brookwood group had stated parking not addressed and tha( may be
one of the comments. He thought he said concern.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 3
Mayor Addiego stated that lie has the right to correct tiein as lie remembers them, and lie just did
that by mentioning it.
Commissioner Faria stated that it was on page 6 and lie would change the word Iron "comments"
to "concern."
City Clerk Martinelli stated that they also had "ether ".
Commissioner Faria stated that he was snaking that change for the record.
Commissioner Faria moved that they approve the minutes of April 11, 2016; Commissioner Ruiz
seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ADMINISTR.UlI`'E BUSINI?SS
5. Discussion of' 150 Airport Boulevard proposed development: 107 rental units, a mix of
studios, one (1) bedroom and two (2) bedroom units; two (2) level garage 0 38 spaces); bicycle
parking spaces; fitness room; gaine room and clubhouse; podium and roof deck open space
areas; 85' in height. (Sailesli Melira, Planning Manager).
Mayor Addicgo asked if Alex was subbing for Sailesli Melira.
Alex Greenwood stated that Sailesh Mehra sends his regrets but lie is sick and their senior planner,
Adena, will be giving the report. He stated that this was the same project they reported in the weekly
reports in late March and most recently on April 12. He stated that they were very excited to bring this
project forward. He expressed that it was important to realize that this is the start of what will need to
be an in depth design process but it was coming forward at this time as a first look of a project being
developed for downtown. They are excited to have this first look and proVldc comments, following
which it will go to successive public meetings through the design review board and back to this body
followed by die Planning Commission and Council. He stated that it was exciting to see the fruits of
lie downtown plan, as approved by Council, coming to fruition. He stated that the main point was to
prime the pump for a developer investment and interest in downtown. "I'iey were seeing dial transpire
today in an early project. He then turned it over to Adena for the report.
Adena Friedman stated that she would not talk too long as slit would like the project designers to give
a presentation and get into the details of the design. She reiterated that this was very close to the
redesigned Caltrain station and will be a great example of transit oriented design in downtown and
implementation ol' the downtown station area specific plan. She then turned it over to the project
designers for a brief presentation and then opened it to discussion. She stated that it was very early in
lie process and they want feedback and give direction to move forward.
Marisa Cadsen stated tliat she was with Rocky Shen with DNA Design & Architecture to present tie
150 Airport Boulevard project.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 4
Mayor Addiego stated that they have had trouble in the past when people arc away froiin the
microphone when turning and looking at the screen that doesn't carry sound. He was sorry, but lie
thought she would want her words to be recorded correctly.
Councilmember Matsumoto stated that slic was at the MSB during the design review and they were
kind enough to give lier a sneak preview.
Mayor Addiego asked Marisa to introduce her tcalil so they know the tcann in regard to the project.
Marisa Cadsen introduced Rocky Shen with DNA Design & Architecture, along with talon Ma and
Victor I.ow of the developiliellt team. She then stated that the project was located between Airport
Boulevard and the Caltrain tracks, south of the new pla7-a and Caltrain platform, southeastern corner
of [lie downtown core and across the 101 Freeway from the newer Biotech office buildings. 'They
were using both the character of the Historic downtown as well as the Biotech offices to help form the
design of their building, with this location being a gateway between these two neighborhoods. She
showed images of the site which was currently an industrial building and, looking away from the site.
They were focusing oil trying to create a strong pedestrian connection toward Grand Avenue and the
new Caltrain plaza. She added that the project was between the trallsit / downtown core and the R &D
core. They were connecting, veliicularly, to both areas, with two points of access to (lie building. 'I'liey
also incorporated multi -use loading zones. They were using the naturally occurring slope of Airport
Boulevard to access the two levels of tfic garage, lower level accessed from the south and upper level
from the north, foregoing an internal parking ramp. The parking was toward tine train tracks to
concentrate the amenity spaces, leasing areas and public spaces along Airport Boulevard toward the
northern portion to activate the sidewalk along Airport Boulevard. She pointed out the locations of
other open areas, and mentioned that tflcy have five Ievels of 107 residential units, She then pointed
out the colors proposed, as well as materials such as plaster, etc., with a store front system in front of
the leasing office, as well as the designs of the three main landscape areas. She pointed out seating
areas on the sidewalk area in front of the leasing office, and mentioned many of the other features.
Commissioner Ruiz stated that lie looked at die site in regard to a lot of noise from the trains, Hwy
101 and Airport Boulevard traffic. He asked, aside from insulated windows, if they had any buffered
walls, especially on the train track side.
Marisa Cadsen stated that they had a wall incorporated on the edge of the podium deck to protect the
outdoor space, and they were working on tllelr acoustical consultant on the construction of the walls,
with staggered stud wall on both exterior and corridor walls and on both sides of tine building to lielp
with the acoustics. They were still working through the process but they have every intention to do
what they can to initigate the acoustics.
Commissioner Ruiz thought they might want to consider a sound barrier or buffer between the land
itself and the train tracks, such as a sound fence.
A representative from DNA Design & Architecture stated that they were working with their acoustical
consultants to refine the amount of mass acid height and distance necessary to bring the decibel level to
an acceptable level.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2015
MINUTES PAGE 5
Commissioner Ruiz iliought the speed train will be using the same track with the same right of way.
Councilincinber Matsumoto mentioned that Caltrain was doing some 'ro D where the city owns the
property and they don't have to reinvent the wheel relative to other sounds. She mentioned a project
in San Carlos that faced (lie saine kind of problems and they might want to see how they arc
addressing it, adding that the people in San Carlos are really particular and they might check out how
tlley are dealing with those issues. She stated that she liked the way they have utilized the space,
mentioning that it was a very (lifficult configuration. She mentioned dealing witli the soot from Hwy
101 and the rail, and she asked if their exterior material was easily washable, as they will get a grey
Binge.
A representative from DNA Design & Architecture stated that, for the walls closest to the tracks, they
were proposing masonry block. He stated that they had to consider (lie residue from the trains, but
also in talking with fire, they were concerned about potential graffiti on that side of the building. `11ey
have propose(] to add some screening materials that buffer the garage from the track side which helps
discourage potential graffiti artists. Tile garage f acing the tracks was fairly open and they were trying to
employ a naturally ventilated system for the upper level garage. He stated that CM1 l would probably
fine] a finish that is easily washable. He stated that the materials oil the higlicr parts of the building
were Further away from the tracks and (flat will help. They pulled most of the residents as far away
from the tracks as possible, but the materials were maintenance easy.
Councilmcinber Matsumoto had another suggestion. She mentioned other cities that were faced with
the graffiti, stating they were finding out that putting creeping fig oil the wall doesn't require a lot of
water, and was pleasant and llcaltliy. She also asked what green features they will be using, such as
electric charge pumps, bike storage because it was TOD or oilier green amenities.
A representative from DNA Design & Architecture staled that they have bike storage and they are
parked at the reduced ratio plat the specific plan called out and by nature of being near dilierent
modes of transit, this was about as mucli T()D as they can get, adding that it was under the flight path
of the airport. He stated that it presents its challenges because it was so close to the infrastructure
around it, but it also presents opportunities because of close proximity to freeway, train tracks and a
major arterial. 'They were also enhancing the pedestrian experience by coniice6ing to ]lie train station
and encouraging people to use that mode by orienting most of the public space closer toward the new
train station.
Councilinnember Matsumoto tbankcd them for the parking ratio, but she adder] that what inevitably
comes up to this Council and other bodies on which she sits, was guest parking. She asked bow they
were handling guest parking.
Marisa Cadscii stated they were providing the amount required by the parking standards. They
separated it behind the gate and the resident parking is assigned.
Commissioner raria asked the height of the masonry wall to be built by the tracks.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 6
Marisa Cadsen stated that, above the podium deck, they were proposing a 6410ot wall, but they were
still working ti %rith their acoustical consultants to determine factors for the appropriate height necessary
to mitigate the sound.
Commissioner Faria stated Fiat inight be all easy wall to gel over if tlicy have individuals along those
railroad tracks, not wanted, but they are there.
Marisa Cadsen stated that the podium deck is up about 15 feet and the wall was six feet above that, so
they would have to climb a 20 -foot wall.
Commissioner Faria stated that, from a rental standpoint, as a potential tenant, lie would ask why lie
would pay the same as a front view when lye has a rear view of tracks. He thought they might want to
consider that, even if this was the cart before the horse as they are only designing now.
Marisa Cadsen thought the different units will have a different premium depending oil their location.
Commissioner Faria then asked if part of the agreement was that the actual site will take care of all
Iandscaping on Airport Boulevard and all around the project.
Marisa Cadsen responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Wong liked the renderings of wliat they were proposing. He stated that lie usually pays
more attention to the buildings along Hwy 101 because everyone was driving by and the properties
along the freeway represents what people think of their city. He liked the view of the side facing the
downtown area, but on the other side he didn't see as much indentation as line historical downtown
view in teens of balconies, etc. He asked if there was anything they can do to snake that side look
nicer as people drive up and down the freeway. He then referred to Airport Boulevard, stating that
there was no parking along the sidewalks so lie wanted to make sure they have enough parking spaces
for all residents and guests. While they talked about commercial last line, lie felt that, for this
building, parking was more important. He stated that this was one of the few projects in the
downtown area that leas nice landscaping and a grass area. He liked that they were including that. He
loved the trees and the benches. He liked as much greenery as possible because of the limited grass
area in the downtown area besides the City Hall area.
Mayer Addiego thought the ingress /egress was Iimited by the geography, and he asked if there was any
discussion with the city about aligning tine project. He asked confirmation that it was city land directly
across from Baden Avenue under the standard billboard.
City Manager Futrell responded affirmatively.
Mayor Addiego stated that, if they envision a larger project in agreement witli the city for
compensation that allows ingress /egress with the intersection of Baden and Airport Boulevard, what
they are faced with is that, traveling south on Airport Boulevard, they need to drive down to San Mateo
Avenue, take a hard i l -tum at a very impacted intersection to get home. When you leave and want to
get on the freeway, you are heading in the opposite direction for some time before you can double
back to head south on 101. He first said lie loved the project and applauded them for being willing to
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 7
tackle this unique site. He stated that the liurdleson Spun Stcak Factory llas been a bit of an eyesore
fir the last 30 years. lie stated that it was called Spun Steal: and lie suggested they imagine a clay in the
50s and 60s when they actually wore meat material togctlier in a patty, put butter on lop, froze it and
sent it to local groceries. He stated that they rail into a problem and they declined. He reiterated that
it was good to see that someone was willing to tackle this unique property. He asked if anyone can
comment oil the circulation of traffic.
City Manager Futrell asked why they didn't include their parcel to snake it a larger project.
A rcpresclitative from DNA Design & Architecture stated that they didn't know.
Mayor Addiego stated that it was for sale.
A representative from DNA Design cC- Architecture thought that was a viable option that they can
explore. He acknowledged that it was a very challenging site. 'l'licy have exhausted a lot of options as
far as looking at how to design the building and how best to enter and exit die building with the traffic.
He added that, if they had known that was an option early on, they might have explored it further.
Now that they do know, they can look at what that brings to the project and consider that.
Mayor Addiego asked if Commissioner Wong had any coinnient.
ECD Director Grcenwood stated that they would be interested in discussing and preparing that site
with the city property at 168 to 180 Airport. He stated that there were some logistics to work out with
the existing billboard, but it was pretty straightforward.
Mayor Addiego stated that they need to tackle that someday.
ECD Director Greenwood agreed. He then stated that lie wasn't sure of the chronology, but he
diougllt this project has clianged hands a couple of tinges or there was some activity during the last
couple of months. He thought the current developers just took possession of the property in the last
couple of months. He thought, at one point, there was an exploration of whether it could be paired
with 180, but die discussions didn't go anywhere and lie wasn't sure why. He stated that, if the
applicant was interested, (they would love to have that conversation.
Mayor Addiego stated that Marisa Cadsen was talking about orientation and the view corridor and view
of biotech offices. He asked if this building goes above the freeway.
Marisa Cadsen stated tliat it does a little bit.
Mayor Addiego asked if you are above the freeway, do you have a view oftlic biotech land or the bay.
Marisa Cadscii responded affirmatively.
Mayor Addiego referred to talk about making the wall graffiti resistant which lie thought was great. He
didn't think they would have a problem with a developer who lias created something this magnificent
but, over time, they have had difficulty with private property owners who don't rush out to take care of
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 8
graffiti problems and it has become more of a challenge to get that done in a lithely manner. He stated
that it was in that spirit that lie wondered if there was some language they could build into the
agreement that would give them the proper amount of time if there was graffiti that needs to be taken
care of within a certain number of clays or hours.
Councilmenlber Matsumoto stated that part of it was the city's responsibility. She was referring to
graffiti removal. She staled that once it was noted, they have to wait for the PD to collie out because
they keep a record and they have to identify it. She stated that she has complained about the time,
adding that it was internal to them as well as the city because there was a process. She stated that, the
way it was built, the PD has been acting without proper compliance with the railroad, adding that they
are not allowed oil the railway right of way and it takes time.
Mayor Addiego stated that his comment was about this project.
CouncilIllember Matsumoto stated that It was flaying access since it was so close to the rail.
Mayor Addiego stated that their wall was not on the rail right -of -way.
Councilmeniber Matsumoto understood, but said you need one or two clays.
Mayor Addiego stated that it could be more than that, but sonic burden was on the city if the PD
needs to take picture and they need to get there in a timely fashion.
City Manager Futrell stated that they have improved that process in code eniarcenient and Park &
Rec, Public Works or PD can take the picture. He stated it doesn't have to be PD.
Mayor Addiego thought even a property owner could take the picture.
City Manager Futrell stated that they could probably work that out, as all PD needs is the picture and
they have changed the process.
Mayor Addiego asked if anyone wanted to collie to the mike and talk about their enthusiasm far South
San Francisco or have any questions they would like to ask the Mayor or Couneilperson.
Councillnenlber Matsumoto stated that, as a member of the committee, she wanted to go on record
that approval of this project was not predicated on their purchasing the extra parking for that.
Mayor Addiego staled that it was not offered in that spirit at all. He felt, if it makes a better project and
works fins - icially for theirs, and improves ingress egress, they might be able to coIrie to terms, but lie
felt the project was going to be challenged by getting home and getting on the freeway.
Commissioner Faria stated that it was critical because they were just relating to the egress and entrance
because of the exact spot where it was located to laden Avenue, He stated that, if you were too close
to come out of the unit and have to get over to inakc the i T -turn to head back north, you were literally
cutting across four lanes and fitting a car in to make a turn. He stated that, if you tried to go out the
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2015
MINUTES PAGE 9
other way, your next access north would be at Oyster Point. He diought it was critical from
maneuverability as well as safety if it doesn't line up �6tli Baden in sonic neat manner.
Mayor Addicgo commented that Conunissio tier Faria wanted to get credit for that brilliance. He then
thanked thcin for joining them.
6. Status Report and Policy Discussion related to the City of South San Francisco and MidPen
Housing Corp Developnient of Affordable Workforce Housing at the City Owned
Miller /Maple Parking I.ot (APN 012311330).
Ron Gerber, Econn>inic Dcvelopinent Housing Manager, stated that this was an update since MidPen
was selected to be the affordable workforce housing developer for the Miller /Maple lot. He stated that
stall and MidPen have been spending a lot of fours every week with conference calls, meetings,
refuieineiit, clarifications, and looking at different ways to finance with the goal of providing sonic
moderate to middle income housing opportunities in this developnlent. He stated that, as the project
proceeds, it will come to the full Council for discussion and working with the authorization the City
Manager received to negotiate the ENRA. He stated that there are a nuniber of policy questions the
Council raised when MidPen was selected on inovingforvvard on the different types of housinggroups.
Because stafllias been working with MidPen every week and discussing this more than once a week,
and they were working on refining thoughts, looking at financing structures, working with the new
architect, they thought it would be important, tiiiiely and lielpful fi>r their to colic back and touch
base and come up with questions and get feedback. He concluded that the purpose of this session was
an update and to get sonic feedback.
Jan I.indentliall with MidPen Housing commended dienn on their excellent stall working on this
project. She stated that Ron, Julie and Yvonne have hit tine ground, going from 0 to 60. 'They wanted
to check in with therm avid get input, as well as give diem a sense of the next steps coining up and get
feedback about that as well. Tliey see this as a very collaborative and iterative process as they nnove
forward. She introduced the developnlent teain working on tic project, Novato Merriman, director
of their Peninsula office, who will be heading the team, and Sara Brett will be the project manager.
Alice Talcott was the director of finance and Felix Adiyung was in -house cap and trade expert and
would stay involved in the project. She stated that they will likely see therm at the next presentation.
She stated that they have retained Rick Williams, of Van Meter Williams Pollack, who lias done sonic
work for the city in the past, as the project architect. She briefly touched on the schedule, specifically
that ENRA will conie to the City Council for approval the following Wednesday starling a 90 -clay
negotiating period. She stated that, because they were working in a short tiniefraine, they wanted
additional input and guidance and will be coming back for an in depth working session in late May or
earlyJune, looking at different building design alternatives and financing alternatives and i naking actual
decisions. She stated that three questions they want to explore now are affordability levels of who they
should think about serving, input on available resources for the project and target population and lastly
the unit niix and sues. She stated that they have examples of properties that MidPen has recently
completed or was in the process of completing and properties they might like to tour. She then gave
the examples of city employees who would fall into the workforce income category, such as librarians,
planners, ctc., and asked for guidance as to whether this was an important group to include in the
project. She then pointed out the housing funds the city had that could target individuals in the gap
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 10
between aff ordabilily provided by (lie tax credit program and market rate housing if the city was willing
to consider that moderate income group. If diey want to consider setting aside units as a priority for
city employees, that would take them in a direction in terms of structuring financing.
Mayor Addiego asked if tlxcy should begin to answer some of the questions.
Ms. Ijndentliall stated slic wanted to share one more statistic with iheni.
Mayor Addiego stated that she will have to rcinind liiin of the questions.
Ms. Ijndenthall stated that she will go back and recap. She then addressed the statistics on 49,000 city
employees, of whom only 4,000 live in the city which she thought was shocking. She stated that, of the
45,000 who don't live in the city, 55% are commuting more than ten miles and 31%i are commuting
mare than 25 miles. She thought they "lilt [lie nail on the head" when they set out to serve workforce
housing as there was a real need. Then, looking a( the income of the 45,000, 71 % of the downtown
area employees make less llian $40,000 a year which is much higher than other cities on the peninsula
and 41% in the entire city are in that less than .$40,000 a year. She felt there was definitely a need.
Mayor Addiego asked if she was talking about workers, not the general population.
Ms. Undentliall responded affirmatively, clarifying that i( was just (lie people who do not live in the city
now and are commuting to work. She stated that one of their goals was to lielp people who work here
but aren'( able to live liere. Slic then stated that they would like direction about the interest in
continuing to pursue housing for that moderate income workforce and consider evaluating using some
of (lie city's funding set aside for moderate income to serve thein.
Councilmeinber Matsumoto was in support of the very low who cannot afford market rate and feels
strongly about providing housing for that workforce. She considers them working poor, with a good
salary once you delve into evcrything else.
Ms. Undenthall stated, as relating to city employees, there were two options, having a preference and
then actually setting aside units dedicated for city employees. She asked if they should consider both
options.
Couiicilinciribcr Matsumoto stated that when (lie survey was narrowed down, they found the number
narrowed, allot she thought they would open it up to some of the workers who were not city cruployees,
and she would like to keep it at that and substantiated her support of that category.
Mayor Addiego stated that lie needs to be reminded. He asked how many units they were talking
about on a floor.
Ms. Ijndenthall stated that it would be nine.
Mayor Addiego stated that lie met three individuals who would likely put their naane on a list to be
able to live here instead of northern Sonoma County. He stated that they know within their family of
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 20I6
MINUTES PAGE I I
workers there are people whose life would greatly benefit by being able to live in the city- to which they
are committed. He didn't sec a problenn with delineating nine units for city workers.
Councihnennber Matsumoto agreed, adding that they were losing ennployecs to oilier cities, through no
fault of their own, due to the market. She thought this would be a benefit, mentioning that for teacher
housing, SSF I Tnificd pays very low.
Mayor Addiego stated that the nicinbers of their workforce were housing challenged as they earn
money equal to what lie earned in his Fast career. He stated that lie never felt poor, but it was so
difficul( in this emironment compared to even 15 years ago.
City Manager Futrell thought there was a strong demand signal. He met a police officer this morning
that commutes an hour anicl a liall' and was looking for a room to rent in South San Francisco but
hasn't found it.
Mayor Addiego commented that the City Manager has a large home.
City Manager Futrell asked if it was possible to have a cascade effect, such as setting aside Irene and end
up with 30 employees who want the housing, explaining that if they say it was for city employees but if
they don't ill] it, then it cascades to a second tier of people. He stated that they could limit it to nine
and the other 30 would form quickly. He was concerned about what would happen if they lead a long
list of city employees and they only had nine units available. He acknowledged that it was better than
where they arc, but lie asked why they are going to put a ceiling at this stage.
Ms. Undenthall stated that it comes down to the fair housing. If the city's goal was to have sonic units
reserved for only city employees, that needs to get financed in a different way and they talked about
having it on a floor and condo out that portion of the building and (lie city would essentially retain
ownership of that portion of the building.
Mayor Addiego asked if they would still manage the entire building.
Ms. I.indenthall responded affirmatively. She slated that they can get into more detail when they bring
back plans and financing to show how it works, but that was what that would mean. She stated that it
sloes impact the financing of the rest of the building as they are segregating that portion. For the city to
totally control it, it has to be completely financed that way.
City Manager Futrell anticipates] that, clue to the fair housing laws, they would have to do a
demographic study of the city and a demographic study of the workforce. He thought, if the two
matched, they would pass that test.
Ms. Lindendiall agreed.
City Manager Futrell asked if tliat would solve the problem she described.
Ms. Lindenthall stated that it would.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 12
City Manager Futrell stated that lie has already talked to the city attorney and that was their Flan to go
forth, He thought I.os Angeles has already done the wine thing as they Massed the test. He thought,
knowing their workforce, they would pass the test as well.
Ms. I,indentliall stated that they would be looking at, and engage Goldfarb and I1pmain as the attorney
they have used in fair housing issues in the bast, and they would not have to go to the extent of a legally
defined separate parcel, which snakes the overall financing more efficient. She stated that they would
have a priority 1'()r a certain number of units for city employees and then other workers. She stated if
there was more interest than units, they would have to wrestle with that.
City Manager Futrell stated that, by going through that, that would give Council and the niaxinnum
flexibility to do whatever makes the most sense.
Ms. Undentliall agreed that the demographic analysis was key.
Novato Merriman, Director of Housing; Development, agreed with what was stated, that the function
of fair housing as it overlays with which income groups they want to serve makes it snore tricky and
something they will have to dive into. She stated that the cascading effect works if all the units are
being targeted to the same income group of people.
City Manager Futrell recognized that (lie results of the study may have some nuances that require them
to adjust.
Mayor Addiego stated that lie wanted to attempt to understand what just transpired. He asked Ms.
Merriman if she was saying that they get involve in a cascade effect to another floor then that floor also
has to be financed in the same nnanner as the condom floor.
Ms. Merriman slated iliat potentially that was the case.
City Manager Futrell stated that, if the demographic study works out that their workforce was, in fact,
completely reflective of the community, then all the rules go away and they don't have to play that
gwile.
Mayor Addiego asked what rules they were talking about, file ability to get the 4% monies or the tax
advantage.
Ms. Merriman stated that it was the ability to reserve a floor or more for a specific category of city
workers.
Mayor Addiego understood, but die thought that had nothing to do with financing the building.
Ms. I,indenthall stated that it does if tlicy have to go to that extreme and hopefully they don't. She
thought it was great that they are going to do that analysis which will be helpful. She stated that they
have to segregate the financing; so the city can have total control over those units. She stated that it
means you have a portion of the building financed leveraging other sources. She stated that this was
how the community college district has done it. To prioritize their employees for that housing, they
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 13
pay 100% of the cost. She slated that they waist to conic up %yids a strategy that allows the city to
prioritize some nuniber of units for their employees as well as leverage other sources and is more
financially efficient for the city.
City Manager Futrell stated that the fair Housing laws arc trying to avoid over or inadvertent racism.
You end up Nvidi people getting a preference and racially they do not represent the community. He
didn't think that was our case.
Mayor Addiego mentioned that, if you only rented to firefighters and the department happened to be
all white, it would be a problem.
Ms. Merriman stated that it was helpful clarification that city employees remain an important priority;
they will get the demographic information which will lielp them detennine if they leave to junip through
some hoops to make that happen and what they are. She asked if she was correct that slie was also
hearing a strong need for other workers in the community and not limited to city employees but soiree
units set aside for city employees was preferred.
Mayor Addiego stated sonic, not all, and that was what lie thought was the intent.
Commissioner Wong was in agreement. He felt City employees Bold the preference. He stated that
the study they slid showed that not that many were interested, but lie wonders if, once it happens and
people learn about it, more people will realize the benefit of it and they will surpass the nine and go
much higher. While lie realized there were financing issues and one option may be more attractive
than the other, dic more city employees they can help out is better to him. He thought of considering
extending to teachers who live around (lie area and others who work in South San Francisco and
would lessen their commute.
Mayor Addiego thought lie filled it ten times.
Commissioner Faria thought it answered a lot of questions for him. He was in favor of city Housing.
He thought they have to clo the demographic study to see what the interest would be, because when
talking about the nine units, he wondered if they needed nine units of one bedroom, two bedrooms,
)low much overflow they have, what will die AMI going to be if they show an interest w)icre they aren't
single individuals but families or a couple. He thought there were a lot of variables for Bins to get
answers on how to go by just what they were looking at, adding that lie could not answer the bedroom
issue now as they didn't know what the inventory was asking for. He gave tfic exaniple of' two
employees who make $30,000 and they combine the income, which would impact the financing. He
reiterated that a lot of the questions have to be answered before lie can snake honest opinions of what
the need is.
Commissioner Ruiz asked, out of the 45,000 that live outside the city, if they know how many of those
need to conic in and rent or lease one of die units available.
Ms. Iandenthall stated that, in the downtown, they have roughly 600 workers who make less than
$40,000 a year. On that salary, they are doubled up, living with their parents, and likely commuting.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 14
Commissioner Ruiz asked if they know if some of tlieni are already property owners even if they live
outside the city.
Ms. I.indenthall stated that they don't know that. She stated that looking at the city as a whole, the
percentage was still very high of people commuting in and is in the lower wage rare.
Commissioner Ruiz stated that his point was what the city manager was saying, which is a police officer
living in Santa Cruz who wanted to rent a unit here. He asked, if lie was a property owner in Santa
Cruz, whether lie would be prioritized to get a unit here.
Ms. Merriman stated that not under the lax credit program, but that vas where, if (lie city controlled a
number of the units, that was a policy decision the city could make. It would have to do with the
financing sources they use to finance those units and any restrictions oil how people's income was
calculated. She stated that, even in affordable housing, someone isn't prevented from owningproperty
but you have to take into account (lie revenue that was generated from that asset,
Councilinember Matsumoto asked, when they say work outside of South San Francisco, whether they
were able to define whether they work on the peninsula, San Bruno, or in Oakland.
Ms. Undendiall stated that there are 41,000 jobs in the city and only 4,000 of these people live in the
city and 30,000 commute outside for work. They have data that they can share and she will get it to
Ron Gerber about where those 30,000 are going. She stated that it doesn't say where they are working
but tells diem what direction in which they are going and how far they commute.
Councilnnermber Matsumoto thought that would help.
Ms. Undenthall added that, as they know, they have more jobs than they have workers.
Councilrnernber Matsumoto stated that it was the economic engine in San Mateo County, addingthat
the bad comes with the good.
Ms. Undentlrall stated that these were things they know, but seeing the numbers brought it into focus
of wby this was such all important priority and it impacts their employees as well as other workers.
She stated that, in consultation with staff, they will look at a range of options, factoring in the
demographic inforamation which will be helpful. She stated that, in terms of the unit mix and sizes,
they need more information from the market as to household sizes. She stated that what they see
coming out of this was a series of different alternatives with pros and cons that they will need to
collectively wrestle with and they thought a good forum would be a meeting like this in a workshop
format. "I 'liey would have the architect and financial experts present and they would go through the
options and talk through the pros and cons and cause them to tweak a version and look at it
differently, They anticipate dial it could be an iterative process. She wanted to get their interest in
that kind of a working session that they would have together and then move forward from that.
Councilrncmber Matsumoto stated that she would like it to be a study session and have all
councilmernbers involved as opposed to a subcommittee.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 15
Mayor Addiego thought a nice way to jump start that would be to take them up on their offer for the
Foster Square property and take a tour of what they have done there. He would be interested in that
and suggested that they offer it to all councilmembers.
Ms. I.indcnthall asked il' the planning commissioners will be invited as well.
Mayor Addiego stated that he didn't see the harm in offering it.
Ms. I indcnlllall stated that Ms. Sara Brett was the project manager for that project.
Mayor Addiego asked for the address.
Sara Brett stated that it was 790 Alma Lane, adding that it was a new street.
Ms. IandentbalI stated it was right next to the Jewish Community Center.
Mayor Addiego commented that they were on the 15 acres that they have wrestled with forever.
Commissioner Wong asked confirmation that it was 790 Ahna.
Sara Brett confirmed that the correct address was 710 Alma Lane, reiterating that it was a new street.
Novato Merrimen stated that the 15 -acre site lie knows so well was a former city -awned site that they
purchased, with the project on approximately a lialf acre and it was similar in that they are trying to do
a lot with limited ibotprint.
Mayor Addiego thought it was a great location with the lagoon across.
Novato Merrimen thought the city has clone an excellent job, locating all of the senior services right
there. She thought it will be a wonderful place.
Ms. I.indenthall stated that Sara Brett will work with their staff. r111ey were rapidly approaching
completion and they expect residents to be moving in by JuIIC 1, and it will be great to be able to do
the tour in May. She thought they have covered all the questions they had.
Mr. Gerber stated that Jan did a really good job, and looking at the different sources of funds. The city
was III a unique position because, at (lie Council's discretion, it has sonic funds available to it that can
touch upon the moderate to medium Income range. He stated that, If they want to pursue reaching
the moderate to middle income workforce and go through the process and the Council and
subcommittee would like to connect those funds with that income category, they were in a unique
position to do so compared to most colmnunides.
Councilmember Matsumoto thougllt they were going after cap and trade and she asked where they
were on that.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMI'T'TEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINUTES PAGE 16
Ms. lindentltall stated that they worked with staff to submit an application by the March deadline. As
they don't have their entitlements yet, they were not optimistic for this year, but their goal was to be
ready for next March and it would still be a part of any financing plan.
City Manager Futrell thought the announcement of'April 28 on which applications for cap and trade
would be invited to go to the next round.
Councilmentber Matsumoto asked confirmation that it was April.
Ms. Undetttltall stated it would be about a week.
Councilmember Matsumoto had a concerti, explaiiiing that while they were developing 636, as a city,
they were being asked to put in more money, and slic didn't want than to be there again, so she asked
how they make sure. She thought they were coming to Council for the ENRA which she felt was
important. She referred to what they did for the mentally ill, but there were glitches and, before they
go there, she didn't want that to be an issue when they were dealingwith things. She understood they
couldn't promise anything but she wanted that tightened up.
Ms. I indenthall stated that was the purpose of this discussion. She stated that their proposal assumed
a certain level of affordability and leveraging of tax credits and the cap and trade funding. She stated
that, depending oil the demographic analysis of the city employees and the moderate income
workforce, those would impact the overall financing. 'llxey were asking, in the context of looking at all
the options, if the city was open to factoring in the possibility of leveraging the funds in their financial
analysis. She stated that the ultimate decision of the city would be as to whether they do that or not.
Then, as she mentioned during the inteiiiew process, they intend to agree upon a financing plan and
execute it. She stated that, once They agree on that, they would not be coming back for more funding
along tlic way. She asked that they decide if they were open to considering the use of the funds in their
analysis, and then they would make the decision of whether to do that or not.
Counciltnetmber Matsumoto stated that sdtc was not iatmiliar with the cap and trade and asked if there
was a dollar amount. She asked, if you don't get cap and trade, were they responsible because the
money has to be found. She asked if there was a dollar amount when they submit the cap and trade.
City Manager Futrell stated that tic maximum you can request is $8 million.
Mayor Addicgo recalled that, at a previous meeting Commissioner Wong had sonic good information
on that, but the number might be significantly higher.
Commissioner Wong stated that lie would have to look at the number again, but lie remembered it
Changed.
City Manager Futrell stated that the overall cap and trade pot is $3 billion with the expectation that the
next year it will grow to $5 billion, so it was the most lucrative grant prograim in California. He stated
that their individual application was for $8 trillion. He stated that they had discussed from the
beginning that, if they didn't get that, they would have Plan 13 for financing for MidPen.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2016
MINU'T'ES PAGE 17
Ms.1.iiidcntliall thanked him, adding that she was about to say that. She stated that the previous year,
applications for funds available were 6 -1 and this year applications were 3 -1. She confnned with what
lie said that, as the fund has grown, the number of applications didn't grow at the same rate, but
remained the sane number of applications. They continue to feel very good about their chances,
adding that it inay take one more try than they would like it to take, but they will also have Plan B acid
Plait C financing scenarios and they can look at all the options and the tradeoffs.
Councilmeiuber Matsumoto stated that, when approval of ENRA conics before Council on the 27th,
she would appreciate having Plaits A and B.
Ms. Iandentliall stated that they won't have that by Wednesday. 'I'liey will be working on that with
them prior to actually seeing the final ground lease agreement. She stated that was where it would get
codified. She clarified that I?NRA was just approving the negotiating period.
Councilinember Matsumoto asked if that was a 90 {lay period.
Ms. Iandenthall responded affirniatively.
Ms. I.indendiall stated that during that negotiating period, they would iron out all of the details with
Council's input. She stated that what they want to accomplish at the end of that was to have ail
agreement about their preferred plait, who they waiit to serve, what it will cost, and then their job was
to snake that Happen. 'I'liey will have backup plans which are always needed.
Councilincinber Matsumoto thanked her.
Commissioner Wong assumed that, if tliey don't get the funding for this round, they have the option of'
applying for next year. He asked if tlic decision of wliether they waist nine units or more units will
affect how inuch money they caii get or is that an independent factor.
Commissioner Wong acknowledged that it does affect how much they get,
Ms. Merriniwi confirmed that it would. She stated that they would be looking at sizing the cap and
trade for the maximum amount possible but there were also some considerations as to how
competitive their application was. She gave the example that, if you are eligible for $10 mullion but you
collie in at $8 million, it might boost your score which is part of the competitive analysis and the
financial understanding. She stated that, when they elicited support from Alice Talcott and Felix
Adiyung, they were resources they have on their tcain to lielp them put forth the most competitive
application possible.
Commissioner Wong stated that they hope they get the funding this round, but if they don't, lie asked
if they give thcin feedback in terms of what they can do to make a stronger application for the Hine.
Ms. Merriman stated that it varies with the state administers. 'lhcy would ask for technical feedback
and try to make some of tlioSe resources available to the city.
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 20, 2015
MINUTES PAGE 18
City Manager Futrell added that last year the city didn't make it to the final round and was not funded
but they did niect with some of the decision makers to get feedback on their package which wade this
year's package better.
Mayor Addiego concluded that, if tliey were tighter on their negotiations, there should be no surprises
Financially and there probably won't be ail additional $1 million to give them back at the end. '11ey
shouldn't anticipate that because they were able to do that at 636. He stated that he has been very
difficult with them on the 636 question, but lie wanted to end this on a more positive note. He stated
that lie enjoyed this meeting and past ieicc6iigs where lie was getting to know licr and her tcaiii. He
mentioned that, when lie was leaving his honic on laden, four blocks away, a neighbor came over
because they received their 60 -day notice by the landlord who wants to take possession of die home.
He wants to fix it up which mcans bring it up and put it back in the iiiarketplace at full market rent and
they were devastated. He stated that it was a four - bedroom luniic and they were a relatively large
family and lie can't imagine what their options are. He didn't think that they will be South San
Francisco residents much longer. He stated that what he really remembers from 636 was tlicre was a
wonderful little woman who lived on a trailer on the property and she had no belief* In the system that
she would actually live in this inagnificent building but she is there and very Happy, and lie wanted to
thank her.
Ms. l indendiall thanked him fi>r sharing that. She asked if she was hearing, for purposes of this
analysis, that they cat) factor in the possibility of accessing the funds the city has for moderate income
housing as are alternative.
Mayor Addiew) staled that, when you ideiitif }, some of the projects, like the Alta Vista property, which
could be $1 million, where lee thought that was what they were doing, creating housing for the inid-
level person. He stated that, if he can roll out of that property and times it by 3 or 4 units, he was in
support of that.
Councilmeinber Matsumoto agreed, adding that the current tenants were leaving a liard time hiding
something and that exemplifies why they were doing this.
Ms. Lindcadiall thanked them very much.
7. Adjournment.
Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
City of
JOINT HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Approved by:
Councilmember
City of South San Francisco
APRIL 20, 2016
PAGE 19
���SK =NSA of South •
0
Staff Report
c'QLIFOR���
►.u.- �1
Agenda Date: 6/23/2016
Version: 1
In Control: Housing Subcommittee of the City Council and Planning Commission
Agenda Number: 2
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
out San Francisco, CA
Status: Agenda Ready -
Administrative Business
File Type: Staff Report
Open Session
Interview and discussion regarding shortlisted developers for property located at 200 Linden
Avenue, 212 and 216 Baden Avenue (Ron Gerber, Housing Manager)
Background and Discussion
The City of South San Francisco's Long Range Property Management Plan ( LRPMP), outlines
the Permissible Uses for the various Fortner Redevelopment Agency's properties. The LRPMP
recommended that the parcels located at 200 Linden and 212 -216 Baden Avenue ( "200
Linden ") be assembled with the intent of developer acquisition and development. This 0.72 acre
property is located in the heart of the downtown, with convenient access to US -101, bus and
Caltrain service, and has significant development potential.
On December 4, staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the disposition of the
properties (see Exhibit A). A pre - submittal meeting and site visit was held on January 22, 2016,
and submittals were due February 3, 2016. The City received responses from seven developers
which included land uses such as mixed use condominiums, market rental housing, affordable
housing, a hotel and a boutique hotel.
Staff requested that the seven developers submit a confidential Price and Tetras offer that was
due ahead of the April 11, 2016 Joint Housing Subcommittee ( "Subcommittee ") meeting. The
Subcommittee met for two hours to review the seven developer RFQ submittals. In an RFQ
process, the primary emphasis is on reviewing price, experience and financial capacity; with the
expectation that once a developer is selected then a specific development concept can be refined
during the Exclusive Negotiation phase. In addition, however, the Subcommittee did take note
of the various development concepts being proposed (from residential to hotel) as well as the
envisioned building height, commercial space, and other considerations.
Upon reviewing the Price and
Terms in
closed session, the Subcommittee recommended
to the
Successor Agency that four of
the seven
developers - BayRock, Proferian, RAHM, and
OMNI
Investments - be shortlisted for
further consideration. On May 11, 2016, the Successor
Agency
approved this shortlist for the
Oversight
Board's consideration at the May 17, 2016 meeting.
The Oversight Board concurred with
the Subcommittee and Successor Agency's
shortlist
recommendation.
Schedule of interviews
The next phase in this project involves interviewing the four shortlisted developers, in order to
City of South San Francisco Page 1 Printed on 7/28/2016
File Number: 16 -401
further understand their experience and development concept. The Subcommittee will interview
all four developers and make a recommendation of a preferred developer and two alternate
developers to be interviewed by the Successor Agency. The Successor Agency will consider the
Subcommittee's recommendation and confirm or, at its discretion, amend the preferred
developer recommendation and select two alternate developers, in order of preference. The
purpose of selecting alternate developers is that in the event that the preferred developer is
unable to successfully negotiate the purchase and sale agreement within 60 -90 days, the City
may revert to the alternate developer.
The final selection of the preferred and alternate developers will additionally require the
Oversight Board's consideration and approval. With the Oversight Board's approval an
Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) may be negotiated with the preferred
developer.
The Subcommittee is reminded that Price and Terms and Total Development Cost (TDC)
should not be discussed in open session. Review of the above will take place in closed session
only. Developers have too been advised accordingly.
Each interview will last approximately 25 minutes and will consist of a 10- minute presentation
by the developers and allow for 15 minutes of Q &A. Developers have been requested to discuss
their development concept and team, related experience, community outreach approach, green
and environmental strategies, and funding resources.
The interview schedule is as follows:
1. Bayrock Multifamily: 1.10pm- 1.35pm
2. OMNI Investments 1.35pm- 2.00pm
3. Proferian 2.00pm- 2.25pm
4. RAHM Hotels 2.25pm- 2.50pm
The interviews will allow the Subcommittee to gauge each teams' probability of performance,
based on their team experience with projects similar in size and scope and completed projects.
Exhibit B provides a guideline of the criteria that developers should discuss in their interview
and some related sample interview questions.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Subcommittee interview the developers and in closed session review
Price and Terms and the Total Development Cost. It is recommended that the Subcommittee
select a preferred developer and two alternate developers that will be interviewed by the
Successor Agency.
Exhibit A: 200 Linden RFQ Solicitation
Exhibit B: Interview Open Session Criteria
City of South San Francisco Page 2 Printed on 7/28/2016
H SAN
o �
c�
� o
'iZZ�J
City of South San Francisco
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONSFOR THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
THE200 LINDEN AVENUE AND 212 & 216 BADEN AVENUE PARCELSFOR A RETAIL,
MIXED -USE - HOTEL - OFFICE /HEADQUARTERS DEVELOPMENT
"SITE AVAILABLE (0.72 ACRE) - TRANSIT ORIENTED
DOWNTOWN URBAN INFILL OPPORTUNITY - 65' HEIGHT ".
Former City redevelopment site proximate to Caltrain Station & 101. In the heart of
Downtown's walkable main street (Grand Avenue) with numerous restaurants, craft
brewery and shopping. Also access to two BART stations, ferry and daytime
workforce of 100,000. Known as "The Birthplace of Biotech" South City has over 200
biotech firms.
Submittal Deadline: February 3, 2016*
1
200 Linden - Downtown Development Opportunity Site
*Price and terms to be negotiated after prequalification
The City of South San Francisco is seeking experienced development firms to submit qualifications
and proposals in a two -step process for the development of four parcels with a combined size of
approximately 31,500 square feet. The parcels were previously acquired by the former
redevelopment agency, and are located in the historic Downtown area. The parcels are located at
the intersection of Linden Avenue and Baden Avenue two blocks from the Grand Avenue shopping
and dining district. This solicitation is for the first phase Request for Qualifications.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
SITE AREA AND HISTORY
The gross development is an assemblage of four parcels with an area of .72 acre, per the attached
parcel map. The 200 Linden parcels contain two uses: 1) a commercial building which was
historically occupied by banks, and is currently temporarily occupied by the City's Information
Technology department; and 2) a public surface parking lot. The adjacent Baden street parcels are
also occupied by surface public parking, and when combined with the Linden parking totals 63
spaces serving the surrounding commercial area.
The disposition of the parcels is governed by the Successor Agency's (to the former redevelopment
agency) Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP). The plan states the purpose of the
acquisition and assemblage of the parcels "... as a potential site for the development of a major
mixed -use project that would include residential housing, retail space and a public parking
structure."
In addition to these uses the City also invites proposals for a quality business hotel, such as a Hilton
Garden Inn, Marriott Town Place, or Hyatt Place. Both a hotel and mixed -use residential are seen as
appropriate development that will enliven the Downtown area and the Grand Avenue retail and
restaurant district.
200 LINDEN — BADEN PARCEL ASSEMBLEGE
ADDRESS
PARCEL #
SQUARE FEET
CURRENT USE
200 Linden
012 - 334 -013
14,000
Building w/ City IT
Department
200 Linden Ave
012 - 334 -016
7,000
Parking lot
216 Baden
012 - 334 -003
3,500
Public parking lot
212 Linden
012 - 334 -004
7,000
Public parking lot
Combined Site
31,500
.72 Acre
2
ROW •9:
Al
CAGE" —PC — _ _
O
Avenue
Mp
ftr
ROw a 11: � 16 Bad�KVenue
�x
a
QI( /S
Al — — IVANC/scA _.' — / R.SA! z/
L] SA. SAN fRANCl PLAT —1 RSA/ 0�6PP
Throughout the Downtown area, west of US 101, there are several vacant or underutilized sites
which represent opportunities for new development of residential, employment and retail uses
within a 1/4- or 1/2 -mile radius of the Caltrain Station. This site represents one of those
opportunities. In addition, the adjacent lot at 211 Airport Boulevard has been fully entitled for the
"Pinefino" residential development. The "Pinefino" development will consist of 69 units on a 30,144
square foot lot, and the developer has recently applied for Building Permits (see entitled rendering
below).
211 AIRPORT BLVD
ENTITLED PINEFINO PROJECT
301145 SF SITE (.69 ACRES)
115,243 GROSS FL. AREA
60' HEIGHT
69 UNITS i `
4
l�
TV
-�
I 111
3
ar
KIN
Ili A�
/6
I
_•_.s»eA_
P
I II 331 /
4
_
A �QE
9
1
I
iYtl
J
'
pS
/S
/T
1
1
/9 N P/
��
e 5 II ASS•
QRi
4 secavo
33
e
-
1
> caA.A a-RnAG
,IVC. x
4
1
R f/ ST
/! /P •H
�
k In
w
k RAlGRGEAP
AIF r s
Al
CAGE" —PC — _ _
O
Avenue
Mp
ftr
ROw a 11: � 16 Bad�KVenue
�x
a
QI( /S
Al — — IVANC/scA _.' — / R.SA! z/
L] SA. SAN fRANCl PLAT —1 RSA/ 0�6PP
Throughout the Downtown area, west of US 101, there are several vacant or underutilized sites
which represent opportunities for new development of residential, employment and retail uses
within a 1/4- or 1/2 -mile radius of the Caltrain Station. This site represents one of those
opportunities. In addition, the adjacent lot at 211 Airport Boulevard has been fully entitled for the
"Pinefino" residential development. The "Pinefino" development will consist of 69 units on a 30,144
square foot lot, and the developer has recently applied for Building Permits (see entitled rendering
below).
211 AIRPORT BLVD
ENTITLED PINEFINO PROJECT
301145 SF SITE (.69 ACRES)
115,243 GROSS FL. AREA
60' HEIGHT
69 UNITS i `
4
l�
TV
-�
I 111
3
ar
KIN
Ili A�
/6
I
CAGE" —PC — _ _
O
Avenue
Mp
ftr
ROw a 11: � 16 Bad�KVenue
�x
a
QI( /S
Al — — IVANC/scA _.' — / R.SA! z/
L] SA. SAN fRANCl PLAT —1 RSA/ 0�6PP
Throughout the Downtown area, west of US 101, there are several vacant or underutilized sites
which represent opportunities for new development of residential, employment and retail uses
within a 1/4- or 1/2 -mile radius of the Caltrain Station. This site represents one of those
opportunities. In addition, the adjacent lot at 211 Airport Boulevard has been fully entitled for the
"Pinefino" residential development. The "Pinefino" development will consist of 69 units on a 30,144
square foot lot, and the developer has recently applied for Building Permits (see entitled rendering
below).
211 AIRPORT BLVD
ENTITLED PINEFINO PROJECT
301145 SF SITE (.69 ACRES)
115,243 GROSS FL. AREA
60' HEIGHT
69 UNITS i `
4
l�
TV
-�
I 111
3
ar
KIN
Ili A�
CITY VISION
The vision for the parcels and the Downtown area is set forth in the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan ( "Downtown Plan" - see link below to City website archive of the document). The
Downtown Plan contains the following land use objectives that apply to the site:
Grand Avenue Streetscape Improvement Plan
Grand Avenue Enhancement
Grand Avenue needs to become a more robust and economically thriving destination for
nearby residents, employees both east and west of 101, and residents of the City as a whole.
Investments on the part of the City as well as business and property owners will be
required.
Invigorating the downtown with new residential uses will be a key step in this
revitalization.
Caltrain Station and Pedestrian Connection
This station is located within Zone 1 of the Caltrain commuter rail corridor, just over nine miles
from the northern terminus at King Street Station in San Francisco. It serves local and limited stop
trains and provides access to commuters with South San Francisco origins, East of 101 area
destinations, and commuters connecting from the newly established ferry service at Oyster Point
Ferry Terminal. The Caltrain Modernization Program will electrify and upgrade the performance,
11
operating efficiency, capacity, safety, and reliability of Caltrain's commuter service and is scheduled
to be completed by 2019.
In parallel, plans have been prepared to reconfigure the Caltrain Station to better serve South San
Francisco. These plans include lengthening the station platforms to the south so that they reach the
east -west alignment of Grand Avenue. A pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of the 101 freeway at
Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue on the west, and emerging at and connecting to the extended
platform at the station is also planned. The undercrossing would provide greatly improved and
direct access to the station from the Downtown and from the employment areas east of US 101. The
City received a grant in early 2014 to partially support design and engineering of the
undercrossing.
F
CALTRAIN STATION PLATFORM AND PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING PLAN
74' 4
AIRPORT NORTH-
BLVD. BOUND 4
- -
US 101 rJ Q
SOUTH- 4
- - BOUND
1�
GRAND AVENUE L
Transit Oriented Development
PEDESTRIAN U
AND AVENUE &
• The most transit accessible area, within 1/4 mile of the Caltrain Station west of the freeway,
provides particular opportunities for new transit - oriented mixed -use development. The site
is within this 1/4 mile radius of the station.
• A significant number of underutilized or vacant parcels are located within an easy walk of
the Caltrain Station as well as Grand Avenue amenities. While protecting the scale of Grand
Avenue, higher residential densities are possible and will not negatively affect nearby
neighborhoods or views. The site will both benefit from its proximity to Grand Avenue and
the Caltrain station as well as contribute to their activity.
• Providing significant residential opportunities in this Downtown zone will build a robust
residential environment particularly suited to younger employees and older retirees who
M
desire a convenient location and are drawn to the availability of convenient transportation.
This enhanced population will support Grand Avenue businesses, and thus attract even
more residents and nearby workers to this destination.
Mixed -Use & Higher Density Development
• Require ground level retail or other active ground floor uses in future development along
Grand Avenue and on key intersecting streets— Linden, Cypress and Maple Avenues —to
ensure activity and vitality in the Downtown.
Increase development intensities in the Downtown to grow the resident population and
thus support a variety of commercial and service uses.
• Establish the highest intensity land uses within 1/4 mile of the Caltrain Station. Here
densities up to 120 dwelling units per acre will be encouraged.
r?IU IY fl ILLS
Downtown Transit Area Specific Plan Land Use Map
Downtown Transit Core
• The site is within the Downtown Transit Core sub area.
• The Downtown Transit Core is the area most suitable for the highest intensities of new
development in the Downtown area.
• The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80
dwelling units per acre is required.
• A maximum of 120 units per acre would be allowed under specified criteria.
• The maximum base FAR allowed is 6.0, with density up to 8.0 allowed under specified
31
criteria. (requirements for Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program may be found
under Section 20.280.005 of the SSFMC)
Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
Pedestrian Environment and Accessibility Improvements
• The Downtown Plan area will require public streetscape investments to create an attractive
pedestrian environment, improve the sense of safety and security, and ensure accessibility
to all.
• The intersection of Linden Ave. and Baden Ave. is considered a critical intersection
requiring design modifications.
• Among the design improvements to be provided are: Increased sidewalk width, pedestrian -
scaled lighting, street trees and planting, street furniture and amenities, and public art.
• Sidewalk /curb bulb -outs and reduced crosswalk lengths are required.
rn
m:
■■ ■ ■■ 1 I �.711i : *:
I �I ■� ■ ■IIIILII��
I
■ l�l �.*
i i l 1■i
I�
m
s
Excerpt from Downtown Specific Plan Height Limits Map
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS - ZONING ORDINANCE - SECTION 20.280
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT& RELATED
REQUIREMENTS
The development will shaped by the following requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance:
ZONING
"Downtown Transit Core (DTQ. The Downtown Transit Core sub - district is focused within a 1/4
radius of a point just east of US 101 at East Grand Avenue. This location corresponds to the planned
extension of the Caltrain Station and accompanying pedestrian /bicycle rail undercrossing. It is
intended to provide sites for mixed -use development at high intensities in proximity to the Caltrain
Station. It encourages active ground floor uses and high intensity development that will generate
pedestrian traffic in the area. The Downtown Transit Core sub - district flanks the Grand Avenue
7
Core sub - district which will be the epicenter of Downtown commercial uses. The Downtown
Transit Core District, will provide additional population and activities to support Grand Avenue
uses, increase Caltrain transit ridership, and provide housing with high amenity value for new
residents." (From Section 20.280.002, Sub - Districts, of the Zoning Ordinance)
PERMITTED USES
• Multi- family residential is conditionally permitted (Planning Commission)
• General retail permitted
• Restaurants are allowed with a minor use permit (administrative)
• Hotels are allowed with a conditional use permit (Planning Commission)
• Offices are allowed with a minor use permit (administrative)
HEIGHT LIMIT
• Up to a maximum of 85 feet maybe allowable if all developmental criteria and standards
are achieved
FLOOR AREA RATIO — FAR
• 6.0. (8.0 allowed under special criteria as outlined by Section 20.280.005 of the SSFMC)
OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT
• 100 square feet per residential unit.
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS
• 20% for developments within 1/4 mile of transit station
PARKING STANDARDS - BASE STANDARDS
The following is a summary of the relevant parking standards set forth in Section 20.330 of the
Zoning Ordinance. See ordinance for complete detail and qualifiers.
3
BASE PARKING STANDARDS
Per Downtown Parking Standards Section 20.330.007 of Zoning Ordinance
USE
# OF SPACES
PER D/U OR S.F.
COMMENTS
Multi- Residential
Also see shared parking
provisions
Studio
1 Max
Unit of 500 sf or less
1 Bedroom
1 Min - 1.5 Max
Unit of 500 to 800 sf
2 Bedroom
1.5 Min - 1.8 Max
Unit of 800 - 1,100 sf
3 bedroom
2
Unit of 1,100 +
Retail
1
400 sf
Restaurant
1
100 sf seating area
150 sf for cafes
Hotels
3
For every 5 rooms
See airport hotel
reduction standards
Office
1
400
300 for medical
PARKING STANDARDS REDUCTIONS
Airport- Oriented Hotels and Motels
"A Conditional Use Permit may be approved for a reduced off - street parking ratio of not less than
one space for each three rooms, one -half space for each 20 rooms for employee parking and one
space for every 50 square feet of meeting rooms and one space for each 200 square feet of lobby
and office area. Parking for restaurants shall be as required for freestanding eating and drinking
establishments. A lower than one space per unit ratio may be approved if the applicant provides
substantial justification. Justification of a lower than 1:1 parking ratio shall take into account the
following factors and conditions and any other factors deemed applicable:
1. Distance the hotel or motel is located from the airport. Airport- oriented hotels and
motels are usually located no further than three miles from the San Francisco International
Airport.
2. Availability of airport bus and /or limousine service.
3. Proximity of auto rental agencies to the site. Additional parking may be required for
rental facilities on the site.
4. Availability of parking facilities adjoining the site which have peak use hours different
from peak hours of the hotel or motel.
5. Documentation of actual use of parking spaces at an existing and comparable facility for
an extended period of time.
6. Availability of on -site meeting rooms and conference facilities.
7. Designation of additional parking spaces to allow for extended parking for guests using
the airport.
8. In determining the required number of off - street parking spaces needed for an airport -
oriented hotel or motel, the Planning Commission shall include provisions for additional off -
street parking spaces to serve employee needs at the rate of one -half space per employee
and for related uses such as restaurants and conference /meeting rooms."
Go
Shared Parking
"Where a shared parking facility serving more than one use will be provided, the total number of
required parking spaces may be reduced up to 50 percent with a Conditional Use Permit, if the
Planning Commission finds that all of the following are true:
1. The peak hours of use will not overlap or coincide to the degree that peak demand for
parking spaces from all uses will be greater than the total supply of spaces;
2. The adequacy of the quantity and efficiency of parking provided will equal or exceed the
level that can be expected if parking for each use were provided separately;
3. If the Chief Planner requires a parking demand study, the study shall be prepared by an
independent traffic engineering professional approved by the City supports the proposed
reduction; and
4. In the case of a shared parking facility that serves more than one property, a parking
agreement has been prepared consistent with the provisions of Off -Site Parking Facilities."
Limitations on Location of Parking
"Commercial and mixed -use buildings shall be placed as close to the street as possible, with
parking located either underground, behind habitable space, or on the interior side or rear of the
site ".
TABLE 20.330.010: STANDARD PARKING SPACE AND AISLE DIMENSIONS
Angle of
Parking
Stall Width
Curb Length
Per Stall
Stall Depth
Aisle Width
Parallel
816"
2010"
816"
15'
300
816"
1710"
1710"
15'
450*
816"
1210"
1910"
15'
600 *
816"
916"
1916"
18'
750
816"
910"
1916"
22'
900 *
816"
8'6"
1810"
25'
*Most frequently used.
MAXIMUM SETBACKS AND USE OF SETBACK
W
Front and Street Side Setback
Buildings shall be constructed to the front and street side property lines. However, buildings may
be constructed up to five feet from the front or street side property line if the area between building
and property line is:
1. Paved for public use so that it functions as part of a wider public sidewalk.
2. Directly accessible from the public sidewalk and improved with pedestrian amenities
such as benches.
3. If a setback is created, the property owner shall grant a public access easement for the
setback area. Landscaping may be included in the setback area, but shall not exceed a
depth — generally two feet —that prevents pedestrian access up to building windows or
detracts from a pedestrian- oriented street frontage.
Interior Side Setback
Buildings shall be constructed to the side property line and no interior side setback shall be created,
unless the property abuts a Residential district or unless:
1. The side setback will be utilized for active outdoor uses, including but not limited to
outdoor dining;
2. The proposed setback does not exceed 30 percent of the length of the lot frontage."
C3 STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS
All development within the City must comply with the countywide NPDES storm water discharge
permit requirements. The Public Works Department provides standard worksheets to be used to
calculate run off. The City discourages the use of mechanical filters and other devices and
encourages the use of more natural control and filtering methods such as retention areas and bio
swales. New guidelines for compliance will likely include the implementation of "green streets" and
vehicle circulation improvements will need to be designed accordingly.
DEVELOPMENT FEES
The development will be subject to the following development fees for high - density residential
development that are applicable to all developments (in addition to Building Division and Planning
Division Fees):
• Child Care Impact Fee: $1,851 per unit
• Public Safety Impact Fee: $563 per unit
• Sewer Capacity Fee $1.80 per square foot
• Traffic Impact Fee: None for residential; Hotel - $1,214 /Room; Commercial - $21.62 /sf
• Other Fees - school fees: contact SSFUSD for info; City inclusionary housing
requirement of 20% affordable units required for projects that have units for sale.
• Park Fees - The City is currently considering adoption of a park fee; the amount of
assessment is unknown at this time.
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS - REPLACEMENT PUBLIC PARKING
11
The Long Range Property Management Plan that governs the disposition of the site states that a
portion of the site will continue to be used for public parking. There are 63 spaces of paid public
parking currently on the site that serve the surrounding commercial area. Replacement of a portion
of this parking capacity is a requirement of the development. Subject to Planning Commission
approval, the public parking may be shared with the private development. An example of how this
might be accomplished includes setting aside a portion of the spaces for paid public parking that
the hotel guests also use and pay for; or in the case of residential development, residents may pay
for a portion of their parking through monthly parking passes obtained from the City. The City
expects to continue to receive revenues from paid public parking spaces.
SITE VALUE
A recent appraisal of similar City owned property in the Downtown area indicates a potential value
of $100 per square foot. Land price will be negotiable based on the type of development and the
amount of public parking provided.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
PRE - SUBMITTAL MEETING, SITE VISIT & SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONS
Responders to the RFQ are encouraged to attend a pre - submittal meeting and site visit (date to be
determined. All interested respondents should submit their contact information at that time. If
there are subsequent questions that arise, responders must email them to the contact person
below. Information from individual emailed questions that pertains to all interested responders
will be emailed to all responders that provided contact information at the site meeting.
SUBMITTAL
Please submit: 1) hard copies consisting of five [5] original collated binders and one [1] unbound,
8.5" x 11" collated copies of the developer qualifications, and 2) an electronic copy of the submittal
with the following materials included in the following order:
Development Concept- Submit:
A narrative description of what the developer team might be interested in proposing for
the site, including uses and a preliminary scope number development such as: number of
hotel rooms, number of residential units and square footage of office and /or retail
development as applicable
Plans are not required at this stage. (They will be required at the request for proposals
stage for the short list of developers that are that are selected for submitting proposals)
Development Team
Submit a list of development team members including their role on the team, their company
affiliation and their contact information. Teams should consist of the following areas of expertise:
12
• Developer
• Ownership entity
• Architect and engineer
• Construction contractor
• Legal representation
• Proposed property manager if applicable
• Equity and debt financing sources
• Public financing advisor
Submit information describing the qualifications of each of the team members. Resumes of the
principals and other team members undertaking the project should be included in the submittal.
The information submitted must be sufficiently detailed to allow the City to judge the team's ability
to complete the project. Clearly identify the principal party or parties who will be responsible for
representing the team during negotiations if your team is shortlisted. Include names of any
proposed, general, limited or joint venture partners. The relationship between the ownership entity
and the developer should be explained if the developer is undertaking the project on a fee basis.
Past Experience
Include a statement of prior development experience of key individuals with project descriptions
similar in size (e.g. sites that are approximately one acre) and nature, as well as visuals of those
projects. Past experience should include project names, locations, sizes, and development costs.
Include information about any prior development projects that required property acquisition from
a former redevelopment agency or current successor agency. If a vertical mixed use concept is
envisioned show examples of similar infill sites developed. Given Downtown's high occupancy of
restaurants and retail, successful execution of the ground floor space is imperative. Sixty -foot
ground floor retail depths will be preferred. A majority of the ground floor commercial space will
have a retail /restaurant emphasis rather than financial and /or personal services emphasis
References
Contact persons and phone numbers should be provided on at least three prior projects. References
from other public entities and lenders are desirable.
Community Outreach
Submit a narrative statement of how local resident input will be solicited for the proposed project
and how such outreach has been conducted for prior projects.
Green and Environmental Benefits
Submit a narrative summary of potential green development elements and a strategy for meeting
the Green Design Requirements per the City's Climate Action Plan. Include examples of green
elements in prior completed projects.
Area Standard Wages
Developers selected for the subsequent submission of proposals and development of the project
will be required to pay area standard wage for all construction trades. Include a statement in the
response to this RFQ that the development team will agree to such a provision and cite examples of
Bay Area projects developed that paid area standard wage and for what trades.
13
DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESS
RFQ & RFP
The City will use a two -step process to select the development team. The first step is to solicit
qualifications from interested teams that will be open to all interested parties. A panel of staff will
evaluate the submittals, and the top two to five teams (depending on the submittals) will be asked
to submit more detailed proposals in the second step.
SELECTION STEPS
The following provides further explanation of the steps set forth above:
• Staff Selection Committee (for RFQ & RFP)- May be comprised of: the Director of Economic
& Community Development, Chief Planner, Economic Development & Housing Manager,
Assistant City Manager and Public Works Director
• The number of development teams that are included on the short list for submitting RFP's
will depend on the number and quality of the submittals received in the qualifications stage.
It is estimated that 3 -5 teams will be selected for the short list and asked to submit
proposals.
• Development teams selected for the RFP list will be asked to make a presentation of their
proposal to the selection committee and respond to questions regarding the proposal and
team experience
• The single development team that is selected to undertake the project will be asked to enter
into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) substantially in the form of the
attached sample ENRA. The ENRA will provide terms for obtaining project entitlements,
private financing commitments, public financing mechanisms, and negotiations for land
acquisition cost. The developer may seek entitlement approvals from the Planning
Commission and Design Review Board during this period to dual track the approval
process.
• If the negotiations are successful, the product of the negotiations will be a Disposition and
Development agreement (DDA) that will serve as the property purchase contract, and will
include: the Planning Commission approved preliminary plans, development schedule,
private development financing plan, and the public improvements financing plan. With DDA
approval the developer will proceed with design development and construction drawings.
• The land is owned by the successor agency (City entity) to the former redevelopment
agency. The sale of the property requires the approval of the successor agency's Oversight
Board (taxing entities) before the sale terms in the DDA are final.
• The DDA will contain pre- conveyance conditions including obtaining building permits and
construction financing, that will need to be satisfied prior to property conveyance close of
escrow.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The following criteria will be used by the Selection Committee to evaluate the qualifications of
teams that have responded to the RFQ (in no particular order):
Experience of each of the team members with similar developments
Completeness of response for information requested
Financial capacity to obtain funding commitments and fund pre - development costs,
14
including letters of interest from financial sources
• Consistency of development concept with City objectives set forth in the Downtown Specific
Plan
• Commitment to prevailing wage for construction
• Commitment to provide open space and sustainability features
• Experience with community engagement during entitlement process
• Design quality of prior similar projects
• Results of staff interviews of references
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
The City reserves the right to:
• Request additional information.
• Extend the due date of the RFQ.
• Interview any or all developers.
• Reject, in whole or in part, any or all qualifications submittals, and to waive minor
irregularities in the submittal.
• Obtain additional qualifications beyond the due date if the qualifications received are
unsatisfactory.
• Cancel, in whole or in part, this Request for Qualifications solicitation.
• All qualifications submittals will become the property of the City and are subject to Public
Information Requests. The RFQ is not a contract or a commitment of any kind by the City
and does not commit the City to award an exclusive development option.
• No reimbursement will be made by the City for any cost incurred by developers in
preparation of the response to this RFQ.
• The issuance of this RFQ does not constitute an agreement by the City that the City Council
will actually enter into any contract.
• Respondent's Duty to Investigate:
1. It will be the sole responsibility of the selected Respondent to investigate and
determine conditions of the Site, including existing and planned utility connections,
and the suitability of the conditions for any proposed improvements.
2. The information presented in this RFQ and in any report or other information
provided by the City is provided solely for the convenience of the interested parties. It
is the responsibility of interested parties to assure themselves that the information
contained in this RFQ or other documents is accurate and complete. The City and its
advisors provide no representations, assurances or warranties pertaining to the
accuracy of the information.
• All responses to this RFQ shall become the property of the City. The City may use any and all
ideas and materials included in any submittal, whether or not the respondent is selected as
the developer.
• Proposals and all other information and documents submitted in response to this RFQ are
subject to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code §§ 6250 through
6276.48) ( "CPRA "), which generally mandates the disclosure of documents in the
possession of the City upon the request of any person, unless the content of the document
falls within a specific exemption category.
15
Non - Liability: By participating in the RFQ process, each Respondent agrees to hold the
Successor Agency and City and its and their officers, employees, agents, representatives, and
consultants harmless from all claims, liabilities, and costs related to all aspects of this RFQ.
"As -Is" Property Condition: As will be addressed in ENR and Disposition and Development
Agreement, the property will be conveyed to the selected developer in an "as -is" condition,
without representation or warranty by the City as to physical or environmental conditions
of the land or any existing structures. The City makes no representations regarding the
character or extent of soil or subsurface conditions or the conditions and existence of
utilities that may be encountered during the course of construction of any work,
development, construction or occupancy of the property. Respondents will be responsible
for independently reviewing all available information that may be available from the City
about existing conditions, and undertaking independent analysis of site conditions,
including any environmental, health and safety issues.
CONTACT INFORMATION
For additional information or questions about this solicitation for qualifications please contact by
email:
Ron Gerber, Economic Development Manager
[email protected]
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE
The following documents are available on -line through the City's web site and will provide
additional background information:
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
http/ /www.ssf .net /DocumentCenter /View /9809
Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP)
http/ /www.ssf .net /DocumentCenter /View /5399
Zoning Ordinance
http:/ /gcode.us /codes /southsanfrancisco/
16
EXHIBIT B
SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Two critical criterion to be considered in the interview stage includes overall
development experience, as well as probability of performance, specifically the
likelihood of the specific development team completing the project on a timely basis.
POTENTIAL QUESTIONS
Overall Qualifications & Experience
- Why do you think your development team should be selected over the other shortlisted
development teams?
- If not already mentioned, please cite examples of completed ground up development
projects similar to the one proposed?
- Who will specifically be the Project Manager overseeing the ground -up development, and
give examples of some of their completed similar projects ?
Project Timing
- When do you anticipate breaking ground and when do you anticipate completing the
project?
0
y
City of South San Francisco
v1 0 Staff Report
File
►.u•
Agenda Date: 6/23/2016
Version: 1
In Control: Housing Subcommittee of the City Council and Planning Commission
Agenda Number: 3
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
out San Francisco, CA
Status: Agenda Ready -
Administrative Business
File Type: Motion
Request for an additional Joint Housing Subcommittee meeting ahead of the July 13, 2016 City
Council meeting.
City of South San Francisco Page 1 Printed on 712812016
0
y
City of South San Francisco
v1 0 Staff Report
c'�LIFO �l� File Number:
Agenda Date: 6/23/2016
Version: 1
In Control: Housing Subcommittee of the City Council and Planning Commission
Agenda Number: 4
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
out San Francisco, CA
Status: Agenda Ready -
Administrative Business
File Type: Motion
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Properties: 200 Linden Avenue, 212 and 216 Baden Avenue
Negotiating Parties: South San Francisco Successor Agency /City of South San Francisco and
BayRock Multifamily LLC, Proferian, RAHM Investments and Omni Investment Group
Under Negotiation: Review Price and Terms. (Ron Gerber, Housing Manager).
City of South San Francisco Page 1 Printed on 712812016