HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-13 e-packet@3:30Thursday, October 13, 2016
3:30 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Housing Standing Committee of the City Council and
Planning Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
October 13, 2016Housing Standing Committee of
the City Council and Planning
Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
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 Standing Committee of the City of
South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Thursday, October 13, 2016, at 3:30 p.m., at City
Hall, City Manager's Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call To Order.
Roll Call.
Public Comments.
Matters for Consideration.
Motion to approve the minutes from the meetings of July 25, 2016 and August 10,
2016.
1.
Miller/Maple Design and Funding Sources. (Ron Gerber, Economic Development
and Housing Manager)
2.
Closed Session.
Closed Session
Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Properties: 201 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue
Negotiating Parties: South San Francisco Successor Agency/City of South San
Francisco and Curtis Development, ROEM Development, Palo Alto Partners and
MidPen Housing
Under Negotiation: Review Price and Terms. (Ron Gerber, Housing Manager)
3.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/18/2016
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-849,Version:1
Motion to approve the minutes from the meetings of July 25, 2016 and August 10, 2016.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-772,Version:1
Miller/Maple Design and Funding Sources. (Ron Gerber, Economic Development and Housing Manager)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On August 24,2016,the City Council held a study session to discuss the proposed Miller/Maple Housing
Development (“Miller/Maple”or “Project”).After providing feedback,the Council directed staff to conduct
additional analysis,working with MidPen Housing,and bring the Project back to the Joint Housing
Subcommittee (“the Subcommittee”).This memorandum and MidPen’s accompanying presentation (see
Attachment)outlines some development scenarios related to the project for the Subcommittee’s consideration.
Several technical and policy issues have a significant effect on the potential development approach.
Specifically, staff is seeking the Subcommittee’s feedback on the following three items:
1.Unit Sizes tradeoffs.
2.Affordability Levels tradeoffs.
3.Financing.
At the outset,the Council expressed an interest in offering workforce housing that would accommodate larger
unit sizes at the moderate income level,to the extent possible.Affordability levels at the moderate level would
typically be households with incomes that are above 80 percent Area Median Income (AMI).
Offering workforce housing,larger unit sizes and higher affordability levels have significant impact on
financing scenarios and building massing.The Subcommittee,and then Council,will consider these trade-offs
in order to allow staff and MidPen to proceed with the design of the development.
UNIT SIZES
Constructing a building with larger units will require more massing and,importantly,more parking.A building
with smaller units would require less massing and may be considered better suited to the urban landscape.
The discussion below outlines some of the advantages and disadvantages of offering the smaller units as
opposed to offering larger sized units for the Subcommittee’s consideration.
Larger Unit Types (two bedrooms, one bedroom, and studio)
This scenario offers a greater variety of unit types.The variety would be more suited to larger households and
even families, rather than one to two person households.
Tradeoffs
1.In order to construct the maximum number of units allowable on the site (40 units)with larger-sized
units,a taller building would be required.A 40-unit building with one bedroom and studios and one
level of parking would necessitate 4.5 floors with a height of approximately 50 feet.In contrast,to
construct a building with 40 larger units,the Subcommittee will need to consider allowing for a taller
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2016Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-772,Version:1
construct a building with 40 larger units,the Subcommittee will need to consider allowing for a taller
building in the neighborhood (an estimated 60 foot tall building or one additional floor).This is within
the 65 feet height restriction for the Downtown Residential Core.
2.In the alternative,if the Subcommittee and the City Council was willing to accept a development that
did not construct the maximum number of units allowable on the site,then a building with larger units
but fewer in number (i.e.36 units rather than 40)could be developed.However,the fewer the number of
units, the higher the cost of the development per door, and also the lower the long term feasibility.
3.In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code 20.330.007 Downtown Parking,larger units require more
parking.For example,a studio unit requires a maximum of one parking space,whereas a two bedroom
unit requires a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces.In order to comply with these regulations,the developer
would have to either obtain a parking reduction as part of the entitlements process or would have to
develop multiple levels of expensive below grade parking.Construction of below grade parking would
have an impact on the Total Development Cost (TDC) and local subsidy required.
Smaller Unit Types (one bedrooms and studios)
This configuration would be more suitable for smaller households,possibly workers in the earlier stages of
their career.Living in these units would allow them to save money and be in a better position to purchase
homes of their own in the future.
If the development were to include smaller units and one level of parking,the building would require less
height and would be less visually impactful.Further,this would be more suitable for the small site.A smaller
building (e.g.50 feet in height)would be less expensive and would provide maximum financial feasibility on a
per door basis.This scenario,therefore,would require a lower local subsidy requirement.Finally,providing
smaller units would enable the development to meet the parking regulations with one level of parking.
Tradeoffs
1.Smaller units are less suited for larger households.
At the August 24,2016 City Council meeting,staff and MidPen proposed a smaller building with more units.
Council expressed that larger units may be the preference and instructed the team to further investigate this
option.MidPen revised the potential development scenarios and included scenarios that would accommodate
larger units. These scenarios are outlined in the attachment.
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS
For affordable housing projects,available financing is largely contingent upon the level of affordability of the
units.Offering units with lower affordability levels leverages opportunities to maximize funding sources for
affordable housing.The City does have funds available to contribute towards affordable housing projects;
however,the City’s housing funds are bound by certain restrictions.Affordable housing projects are eligible for
multiple other sources of non-City funding as noted below.
All Units Below 60 Percent AMI
In this scenario,all units would be eligible for external funding.These sources include Federal Tax Credits,
Cap and Trade grant and Measure A Funds.Maximizing the external funding sources would result in a lower
local subsidy and would leverage all funding sources to the greatest extent.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2016Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-772,Version:1
Tradeoffs
1.This scenario does not serve the moderate income levels of affordability, which was the initial policy
intention of the development.
Mixed Income: Some Units at 80 Percent AMI
This scenario,to some extent,achieves the initial Project aspirations by serving a broader range of income
levels.There is a possibility to utilize some of the City’s housing funds to provide moderate income housing.
Given that most Below Market Rate (BMR)units in the region are offered at the 60 percent or less affordability
level, this scenario would fill a gap in the regional market.
Tradeoffs
1.Moderate units are not eligible for external funding and a greater local subsidy would be required.
Target Population
At the request of Council,staff explored the possibility of offering a City-employee preference program.
According to MidPen,federal tax-credit funding sources cannot be used for units that are subject to a City-
employee preference because federal regulations require that such funding be used for residential units that are
open to the general public.Consequently,MidPen indicated that in order to preserve the ability to seek such tax
-credits for the Project,any units subject to a City-employee preference,would have to be legally distinct from
the rest of the Project.Thus,any units subject to the City-employee preference would have to be
condominiumized and constitute a separate legal parcel owned and operated by the City.As such,these City-
owned and operated condominium units would have to be separately financed by the City.
In addition to the above financing considerations,pursuant to federal and state law,housing preference policies
may not inadvertently favor certain groups to the detriment of protected groups.To evaluate whether a
proposed preference policy inadvertently creates a disparate impact on protected groups,jurisdictions often
conduct demographic analyses to assess whether the population of individuals that would be eligible for the
preference reflect the demographics of the broader population.If the population eligible for a preference
reflects the broader population,then it is less likely that the preference creates a disparate impact on a protected
group.
Depending upon the level of affordability that the Subcommittee and the Council prefers,a demographic study
could be prepared to determine whether the population of City employees earning incomes within the Project’s
affordability levels,reflect the demographics of the broader population.If the demographic study indicated that
the population of City employees did not reflect the broader population,then the City-employee preference
policy could be susceptible to legal challenge.
Tradeoffs
1.The portion of the Project subject to the City-employee preference would need to remain owned and
operated by the City.
2.City employee preference units are ineligible for tax credits.
3.According to MidPen,Federal,County and State funding sources may not be spent on City-employee
preference programs.
4.As outlined in MidPen’s attached Miller/Maple financing scenario table,implementing a City-employee
preference program would require a City-contribution of nearly an additional $4 million in General
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2016Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-772,Version:1
Fund money, due to the unavailability of external funding sources.
5.Even if the City elected to finance the condominiumized units,if a demographic study demonstrates that
the population of City-employees eligible for the preference does not reflect the demographics of the
broader population, then the City-employee preference could subject to legal challenge.
Note that MidPen has indicated that if the City was interested in implementing a broader preference policy for
all individuals that live/work in the City,such a live/work preference would not disqualify the Project from
external funding sources.Therefore,the local subsidy would not have to be as great and condominiumization
would not be required.
In addition,a larger group of individuals would be eligible for a live/work preference than a preference limited
to City-employees.The larger the group eligible for a preference,the more likely it is that the preference will
reflect the broader population and not inadvertently create a disparate impact on a protected group.To that end,
if the Subcommittee and Council were interested in implementing a broader preference policy for all
individuals that live and/or work in the City,there is Federal Housing and Urban Development guidelines for
adopting such a policy that staff could investigate.MidPen has indicated that they have implemented live/work
preference policies at other development projects.Similar to other residents and employees of businesses
within the City,City-employees earning incomes that fall within the affordability thresholds,could be eligible
for the live/work preference.If the Subcommittee and Council are interested in a live/work preference,staff
could further explore the feasibility and desirability of this option and present further details at a later time.
FUNDING AVAILABILITY
The developer and City’s funding resources available for Miller/Maple include:
·City Housing Fund (“Fund 241”):Currently,the City has $1.9 million in Fund 241,which contains
former redevelopment funds that are earmarked for affordable housing.By the end of this year,staff
expects the balance of Fund 241 to increase to approximately $2.9 million when the City closes escrow
on the sale of 380 Alta Vista.In order to comply with State law,at least 30 percent of Fund 241 (i.e.
$900,000)must be used for units at 30 percent AMI or below;and the remaining $2.0 million must be
used for units at 60 percent or below.
·Affordable Housing Trust Fund (“Fund 205”):There is a current balance of approximately $1.3 million
in the City’s Fund 205.Fund 205 can be used to finance units at any affordability level,up to 120
percent AMI.Pursuant to Section 20.380.012 of the Municipal Code,these funds may only be used for
the purpose of “providing funding assistance for the provision of affordable housing and reasonable
costs of administration consistent with the policies and programs contained in the housing element of
the General Plan.”
·Discounted Land Contribution:By contributing the land on a deeply discounted basis (e.g.long term
ground lease at very low rental rate),the City can demonstrate to outside funding sources that local
resources are committed.
·In Lieu Park Fee Waiver:MidPen estimates that $550,000 to $750,000 in savings could be realized if a
park fee waiver was granted.The ordinance does not currently have a waiver provision.An ordinance
amendment would be required to grant the waiver.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2016Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-772,Version:1
·Non-City Funding Sources:As described earlier,these sources include:Federal Tax Credits,Cap and
Trade grant and Measure A Funds.All of these funding sources are restricted to units at 60 percent AMI
or below.
·Community Development Block Grant:Approximately $200,000 may be available for off-site public
right-of-way or infrastructural improvements.
In the long term,the City is at risk of forfeiting much of the former redevelopment financing (Fund 241)if
those funds are not spent.Miller/Maple is an ideal candidate for using these City funds.However,as stated
above, those funds are restricted to units reserved for individuals earning 30 percent AMI and 60 percent AMI.
NEXT STEPS
Following direction from the Subcommittee,staff will further refine the scenarios and present findings to the
City Council for their review.The direction provided by the Subcommittee and Council will allow staff to
complete negotiations with MidPen for an Option to Ground Lease of the property -which would be brought to
the Council for review in November 2016.The proposed deal would be structured to allow MidPen to obtain
planning approvals prior to the start of the ground lease.
CONCLUSION
The Subcommittee is requested to review the policy issues outlined above and provide direction to staff and
MidPen on:
1.Preferences for Unit Sizes.
2.Preferences for Affordability Levels.
3.Financing that may be utilized.
Staff and MidPen will continue to refine the Miller/Maple concept in preparation for the future City Council
meeting.
Attachment: MidPen Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2016Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
1
Memo
To: City of South San Francisco Housing Subcommittee
From: Sarah Brett, MidPen Housing
Date: September 29, 2016
RE: Miller Maple Workforce Housing – Design and Financing Scenarios Trade-Offs
BACKGROUND:
The Miller Maple development is a proposed workforce housing community on City-owned land
in the South San Francisco downtown neighborhood. It would provide approximately 31-40
homes for households at various area median income (AMI) levels.
Preliminary design and financing scenarios were presented at the August 24, 2016 City Council
meeting. Initial Council design feedback indicated a preference for fewer studio units and a
greater number of larger unit types, as well as an interest in considering a taller building and a
lower parking ratio in order to accommodate a building with larger units. Council also expressed
support for inclusion of Project Based Rental Assistance to support the most affordable units
(20% - 30% AMI) and to create some units that were affordable to moderate income households
(80% AMI).
Based on this initial City Council feedback, MidPen has worked with City staff to modify the
potential development scenarios to better align with Council’s policy objectives. These updated
design and financing scenarios will be presented at the October 13, 2016 Housing Subcommittee
meeting. This memo is intended to provide the Subcommittee with background information on
the design and financing scenarios considered along with the trade-offs associated with these
scenarios. Our goal at the Subcommittee meeting is to obtain policy guidance on preferred unit
sizes and mix, and affordability levels. Following direction from the Subcommittee, the preferred
design and financing scenario will be further refined and presented to City Council for review
and approval along with the Option to Ground Lease at the November 9, 2016 City Council
meeting.
With this policy direction, MidPen and the project architect, Van Meter William Pollack, will
subsequently proceed with preparing an entitlement package. Together the City and MidPen
intend to submit a Cap and Trade funding application, also known as the Affordable Housing
and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC), in the 2017 round. A Planning and Design
Review Application must be submitted to the City in 2016 in order the meet the minimum AHSC
threshold requirements.
Similarly, City staff and MidPen will continue to refine the preferred financing scenario based
off this policy direction, and will return to the Subcommittee and Council for approval of the
final financing plan in early 2017.
2
DESIGN AND FINANCING SCENARIOS & TRADE-OFFS:
Below, and in the attached PowerPoint presentation, are design scenarios updated based on the
initial Council feedback, along with an analysis of trade-offs related to policy issues, including
unit sizes and mix, and affordability levels, for Subcommittee review and comment.
Design Scenarios:
Design Option 1: Smaller Units – Two Levels of Parking
Unit Mix: 40 units - 17 studios, 19 one-bedrooms, 4 two-bedrooms
Parking: 29 stalls (2 podium levels), 0.73 ratio, meets code
Height: 60 feet/5 stories
Trade-Offs:
o Maximizes number of units and households served
o More suited to smaller households
o Meets parking code, but requires expensive 2nd level of subgrade podium parking
to do so
o Taller building with greater mass and bulk
o Highest total construction costs due to expensive below grade parking
Design Option 2: Smaller Units – One Level of Parking
Unit Mix: 38 units - 18 studios, 19 one-bedrooms, 1 two-bedroom
Parking: 27 stalls (1 podium level), 0.71 ratio, meets code
Height: 50 feet/4.5 stories
Trade-Offs:
o Maximizes number of units and households served
o More suited to smaller households
o Meets parking code with only 1 level of podium parking
o Shorter building with more articulation
o Lowest total construction cost due to most efficient building design and all
parking at grade
Design Option 2A: Larger Units – Fewer Units
Unit Mix: 31 units - 4 studios, 20 one-bedrooms, 7 two-bedrooms
Parking: 27 stalls (1 podium level), 0.87 ratio, 4 fewer stalls than code
Height: 50 feet/4.5 stories
Trade-Offs:
o Does not maximize number of units or households served
o More suited to larger households
o Does not meet parking code minimums
o Shorter building with more articulation
o Highest per unit construction cost due to larger units and lower unit count
3
Design Option 3A: Larger Units – Taller Building
Unit Mix: 38 units - 5 studios, 26 one-bedrooms, 7 two-bedrooms
Parking: 27 stalls (1 podium level), 0.71 ratio, 10 fewer stalls than code
Height: 58 feet/5 stories
Trade-Offs:
o Maximizes number of units and households served
o More suited to larger households
o Does not meet parking code minimums
o Taller building with greater massing
o Balances increased number of larger units with overall construction cost
efficiency
The preliminary massing diagrams associated with each of these design options and the
accompanying financial implications can be found on the attached summary tables and in the
attached PowerPoint presentation.
Financing Scenarios:
City staff and MidPen evaluated multiple financing scenarios for each design scenario, including
a 100% affordable building (all units under 60% AMI), a mixed income building (some units at
80% AMI), and a version with a preference for City employees. The affordable versions of each
design option results in a lower local gap than the mixed income versions, since all units under
60% AMI are eligible for external funding.
However, the cost of the more expensive moderate income units can be underwritten in the
mixed income scenarios by increasing the number of project-based rental assistance units. As
shown on the Financing Scenarios attachment, by pursuing 14 project-based rental assistance
units in the mixed income scenarios, as opposed to 7 in the affordable scenarios, 2 to 3 moderate
income units can be provided at a similar local subsidy as the corresponding affordable
scenarios. It should be noted that project-based rental assistance units are awarded through a
competitive process by the County’s Housing Authority, so no local preference could be offered
on those units.
A scenario that includes units with a preference for City employees was also analyzed. This
would require a condominium structure, since these employee preference units are incompatible
with public affordable housing funding sources and, therefore, must be owned out-right by the
City. Additionally, because the City employee preference units must be entirely separately
funded, the local subsidy per unit is extremely high in this scenario.
However, MidPen has consulted with legal experts and determined that a local preference for
those who live and/or work in the City of South San Francisco would be compatible with typical
affordable housing financing sources and could be applied to any units, with the exception of the
project-based rental assistance units, without an additional cost to the City.
Lastly, two notable shared assumptions across all financing scenarios include:
Park in Lieu Fee waiver on all affordable units
o Approximately $550,000 - $750,000 total, or $19,000 a door
o Reduces local gap
o Increases project competitiveness for outside funding by demonstrating local
funding commitment
4
83% Cap and Trade (AHSC) request amount
o Competitiveness for Cap and Trade funding is increased by requesting less than
the maximum loan amount
o Competitiveness for Cap and Trade funding is also increased by greater number
of units in the project
POLICY DECISIONS:
MidPen appreciates the Subcommittee’s time in reviewing these materials and looks forward to
obtaining feedback on the following policy decisions at the October 13, 2016 meeting:
Preferences for unit sizes and mix
Preferences for affordability levels and targeting
MILLER MAPLE|OPTION 1 - HOUSING COMM. MEEETING
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA| | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
PARKING
20 SPACES
RA
M
P
U
P
10
%
MECH.
STOR.
BIKE PARKING
40 SPACES
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
10
11
12
13
14
151617181920
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
UPDN
UP
PARKING
C
C
C
C
R
R
R
COURTYARD
R
PARKING
PARKING
R
R
R
R
0'-0"
ENTRY
12'-0"
2ND FLOOR
22'-0"
3RD FLOOR
32'-0"
4TH FLOOR
52'-0"
ROOF
-10'-0"
PARKING
62'-0"
ROOF
0'-0"
ENTRY
12'-0"
2ND FLOOR
22'-0"
3RD FLOOR
32'-0"
4TH FLOOR
52'-0"
ROOF
-10'-0"
PARKING
62'-0"
ROOF
PARKING
STORAGE
C
C
C
R
R
R
COMMON
COURTYARD
COMMON
R
R
R
15
'
20' CLR.
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
PL
A
N
T
V
I
N
E
S
O
N
W
A
L
L
F
O
R
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
10'
16' CLR.
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
FIRE BACKFLOW
PREVENTER
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
PARKING
9 SPACES
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
OFFICE
430 SF OFFICE
270 SF
LOBBY
980 SF COMMON
510 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAINTENANCE
400 SF
LAUNDRY
290 SF
STORAGE
670 SF
ELEC.
TRASH
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
VA
N
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
STOR.
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
P
O
S
S
I
B
L
E
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
MAIL
UPDN
DN
UP
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 1 - HOUSING COMM. MEEETING
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
PARKING
20 SPACES
RA
M
P
U
P
10
%
MECH.
STOR.
BIKE PARKING
40 SPACES
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
10
11
12
13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
UPDN
UP
PARKING
C
C
C
C
R
R
R
COURTYARD
R
PARKING
PARKING
R
R
R
R
0'-0"
ENTRY
12'-0"
2ND FLOOR
22'-0"
3RD FLOOR
32'-0"
4TH FLOOR
52'-0"
ROOF
-10'-0"
PARKING
62'-0"
ROOF
0'-0"
ENTRY
12'-0"
2ND FLOOR
22'-0"
3RD FLOOR
32'-0"
4TH FLOOR
52'-0"
ROOF
-10'-0"
PARKING
62'-0"
ROOF
PARKING
STORAGE
C
C
C
R
R
R
COMMON
COURTYARD
COMMON
R
R
R
15
'
20' CLR.
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
PL
A
N
T
V
I
N
E
S
O
N
W
A
L
L
F
O
R
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
10'
16' CLR.
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
FIRE BACKFLOW
PREVENTER
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
PARKING
9 SPACES
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
OFFICE
430 SF OFFICE
270 SF
LOBBY
980 SF COMMON
510 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAINTENANCE
400 SF
LAUNDRY
290 SF
STORAGE
670 SF
ELEC.
TRASH
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
VA
N
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
STOR.
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
P
O
S
S
I
B
L
E
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
MAIL
UPDN
DN
UP
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 1 - HOUSING COMM. MEEETING
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
PARKING
20 SPACES
RA
M
P
U
P
10
%
MECH.
STOR.
BIKE PARKING
40 SPACES
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
10
11
12
13
14
151617 181920
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
UPDN
UP
PARKING
C
C
C
C
R
R
R
COURTYARD
R
PARKING
PARKING
R
R
R
R
0'-0"
ENTRY
12'-0"
2ND FLOOR
22'-0"
3RD FLOOR
32'-0"
4TH FLOOR
52'-0"
ROOF
-10'-0"
PARKING
62'-0"
ROOF
0'-0"
ENTRY
12'-0"
2ND FLOOR
22'-0"
3RD FLOOR
32'-0"
4TH FLOOR
52'-0"
ROOF
-10'-0"
PARKING
62'-0"
ROOF
PARKING
STORAGE
C
C
C
R
R
R
COMMON
COURTYARD
COMMON
R
R
R
15
'
20' CLR.
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
PL
A
N
T
V
I
N
E
S
O
N
W
A
L
L
F
O
R
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
10'
16' CLR.
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
FIRE BACKFLOW
PREVENTER
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
PARKING
9 SPACES
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
OFFICE
430 SF OFFICE
270 SF
LOBBY
980 SF COMMON
510 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAINTENANCE
400 SF
LAUNDRY
290 SF
STORAGE
670 SF
ELEC.
TRASH
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
VA
N
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
STOR.
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
P
O
S
S
I
B
L
E
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
MAIL
UPDN
DN
UP
VIEW FACING NORTHEAST
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
B
A
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
VIEW FACING DOWN MILLER AVENUE
SECTION B
SECTION A
32’16’0
MILLER MAPLE | OPTION 1: 40 UNITS, 29 PARKING SPACES (2-LEVEL PODIUM)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA | AUGUST 4, 2016 | MIDPEN HOUSING
Option 1 – Two Levels of Podium Parking
MILLER MAPLE|OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA| | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASHT
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
VIEW FACING NORTHEAST
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
VIEW FACING DOWN MILLER AVENUE
B
A
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SECTION B
SECTION A
MILLER MAPLE | OPTION 2: 38 UNITS, 27 PARKING SPACES (1-LEVEL PODIUM)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA | AUGUST 4, 2016 | MIDPEN HOUSING
32’16’0
Option 2 & 2A– One Level of Podium Parking
MILLER MAPLE|OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA| | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASHT
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
5TH
44’-6”
ROOF
60’-0”
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
5TH
44’-6”
ROOF
60’-0”
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
MILLER MAPLE |OPTION 2 - HOUSING COM. MEEETING BOARD
SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA | | MIDPEN HOUSING | # 1610
DW
F
DW F
UP
DW
F
DW
F
FDW
DW
F
DW
F
DW F
DW F
15
'
3
(
E
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
24
'
3 (N) SPACES
0'-0"+4'-6"
(N) FIRE
HYDRANT
GAS METER
WATER, FIRE, AND
IRRIGATION
BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS
WATER
METERS
(E) ABOVE
GRADE
UTLITY
BOXES, TYP.
(E) POWER
POLE, TYP.
FDC
MILLER AVENUE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
WH
I
T
E
Z
O
N
E
(E)
HOUSE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE
350 SF
CO
P
Y
/
FI
L
E
R
M
.
MAIL
LOBBY
470 SF
INFILTRATION
PLANTER
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
PO
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
TROOF BELOW
COURTYARD
2,050 SF
COURTYARD
370 SF
COMMUNITY
ROOM
825 SF
UP
UP
ST
O
R
.
UP
DN
UP
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
TO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
UP
UP
UP
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
STUDIO
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
OFFICE
270 SF
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
3
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
C
K
E
R
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
14
19
15
16
18
20212223
27252426
VAN
PARKING
27 SPACES
(+8 STACKERS = 35 POSSIBLE SPACES)
MECH.ELEC.TRASH T
ELEV.
MACH.
RM.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SMAINTENANCE
335 SF
BIKE STORAGE
38 SPACES
UP
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
10
%
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
5%
UP
PARKING
STORAGE
L C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
PARKING
COMMUNITY
R
R
R
C
C
C
C COURTYARD
0'-0"
ENTRY
14'-6"
2ND FLOOR
24'-6"
3RD FLOOR
34'-6"
4TH FLOOR
44'-6"
ROOF
-14'-6"
PARKING
N
VIEW FACING NORTHEAST
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
VIEW FACING DOWN MILLER AVENUE
B
A
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SECTION B
SECTION A
MILLER MAPLE | OPTION 3A: 43 UNI TS, 27 PARKING SPACES (1-LEVEL PODIUM)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA | AUGUST 24, 2016 | MIDPEN HOUSING
32’16’0
Option 3A – One Level of Podium Parking – Taller Building
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
Un
i
t
M
i
x
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ra
t
i
o
St
a
l
l
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
Mi
n
S
t
a
l
l
s
Pe
r
C
o
d
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Su
r
p
l
u
s
o
r
(D
e
f
i
c
i
t
)
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
i
g
h
t
/
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
Co
u
n
t
y
AH
F
Ca
p
&
Tr
a
d
e
(A
H
S
C
)
To
t
a
l
H
a
r
d
Co
s
t
Hard Cost/UnitTotal Dev Cost/UnitLocal GapLocal Gap/Unit
4%
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
w
/
C
a
p
&
T
r
a
d
e
(
A
H
S
C
)
-
Op
t
i
o
n
1
(
S
m
a
l
l
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
-
T
w
o
L
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
st
u
d
i
o
:
1
7
1
b
d
:
1
9
2
b
d
:
4
To
t
a
l
:
4
0
0.
7
3
2
9
s
t
a
l
l
s
2
5
s
t
a
l
l
s
4
6
0
F
e
e
t
/
5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
$
1
M
$
4
.
4
M
$
1
6
,
0
7
3
,
6
6
6
$401,842 ($1M subgrade garage)$632,197 $2,827,350 $70,684
4%
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
w
/
C
a
p
&
T
r
a
d
e
(
A
H
S
C
)
-
Op
t
i
o
n
2
(
S
m
a
l
l
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
-
O
n
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
st
u
d
i
o
:
1
8
1
b
d
:
1
9
2
b
d
:
1
To
t
a
l
:
3
8
0.
7
1
2
7
s
t
a
l
l
s
2
1
s
t
a
l
l
s
6
5
0
F
e
e
t
/
4
.
5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
$
1
M
$
4
.
2
M
$
1
4
,
0
6
1
,
7
5
2
$
3
7
0
,
0
4
6
$
5
9
7
,
8
0
6
$
2
,
0
4
6
,
4
5
2
$
5
3
,
8
5
4
4%
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
w
/
C
a
p
&
T
r
a
d
e
(
A
H
S
C
)
-
Op
t
i
o
n
2
A
(
L
a
r
g
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
-
O
n
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
-
F
e
w
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
)
st
u
d
i
o
:
4
1
b
d
:
2
0
2
b
d
:
7
To
t
a
l
:
3
1
0.
8
7
2
7
s
t
a
l
l
s
3
1
s
t
a
l
l
s
-
4
5
0
F
e
e
t
/
4
.
5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
$
1
M
$
3
.
4
5
$
1
3
,
5
5
2
,
5
2
2
$
4
3
7
,
1
7
8
$
6
9
3
,
5
3
3
$
2
,
4
2
3
,
3
3
8
$
7
8
,
1
7
2
4%
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
w
/
C
a
p
&
T
r
a
d
e
(
A
H
S
C
)
-
Op
t
i
o
n
3
A
(
L
a
r
g
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
-
O
n
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
-
T
a
l
l
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
)
st
u
d
i
o
:
5
1
b
d
:
2
6
2
b
d
:
7
To
t
a
l
:
3
8
0.
7
1
2
7
s
t
a
l
l
s
3
7
s
t
a
l
l
s
-
1
0
5
8
F
e
e
t
/
5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
$
1
M
$
4
.
2
M
$
1
5
,
4
6
7
,
9
5
4
$
4
0
7
,
0
5
1
$
6
4
2
,
6
6
4
$
2
,
3
7
4
,
6
4
5
$
6
2
,
4
9
1
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ra
t
i
o
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Mi
n
S
t
a
l
l
s
Pe
r
C
o
d
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Su
r
p
l
u
s
o
r
(D
e
f
i
c
i
t
)
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
i
g
h
t
/
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
Co
u
n
t
y
AH
F
Ca
p
&
Tr
a
d
e
(A
H
S
C
)
To
t
a
l
H
a
r
d
Co
s
t
Hard Cost/UnitTotal Dev Cost/UnitLocal GapLocal Gap/Unit
4%
M
i
x
e
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
w
/
C
a
p
&
T
r
a
d
e
(
A
H
S
C
)
-
Op
t
i
o
n
2
A
(L
a
r
g
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
-
O
n
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
-
F
e
w
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
)
st
u
d
i
o
:
4
1
b
d
:
2
0
2
b
d
:
7
To
t
a
l
:
3
1
0.
8
7
2
7
s
t
a
l
l
s
3
1
s
t
a
l
l
s
-
4
5
0
F
e
e
t
/
4
.
5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
$
1
M
$
3
.
3
M
$
1
3
,
5
5
2
,
5
2
2
$
4
3
7
,
1
7
8
$
6
9
4
,
3
6
3
$
2
,
4
5
1
,
7
3
4
$
7
9
,
0
8
8
4%
M
i
x
e
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
w
/
C
a
p
&
T
r
a
d
e
(
A
H
S
C
)
-
Op
t
i
o
n
3
A
(
L
a
r
g
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
-
O
n
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
-
T
a
l
l
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
)
st
u
d
i
o
:
5
1
b
d
:
2
6
2
b
d
:
7
To
t
a
l
:
3
8
0.
7
1
2
7
s
t
a
l
l
s
3
7
s
t
a
l
l
s
-
1
0
5
8
F
e
e
t
/
5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
$
1
M
$
4
M
$
1
5
,
4
6
7
,
9
5
4
$
4
0
7
,
0
5
1
$
6
4
3
,
5
3
5
$
2
,
3
7
8
,
9
1
3
$
6
2
,
6
0
3
4%
M
i
x
e
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
w
/
C
a
p
&
T
r
a
d
e
(
A
H
S
C
)
-
C
O
N
D
O
-
Op
t
i
o
n
3
A
(
L
a
r
g
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
-
O
n
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
-
T
a
l
l
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
)
Un
i
t
M
i
x
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ra
t
i
o
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Mi
n
S
t
a
l
l
s
Pe
r
C
o
d
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Su
r
p
l
u
s
o
r
(D
e
f
i
c
i
t
)
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
i
g
h
t
/
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
Co
u
n
t
y
AH
F
Ca
p
&
Tr
a
d
e
(A
H
S
C
)
To
t
a
l
H
a
r
d
Co
s
t
Hard Cost/UnitTotal Dev Cost/UnitLocal GapLocal Gap/Unit
Op
t
i
o
n
3
A
-
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
st
u
d
i
o
:
5
1
b
d
:
1
9
2
b
d
:
4
To
t
a
l
:
2
8
$1
M
$
3
.
1
M
$
6
3
9
,
3
4
4
$
1
,
2
8
1
,
9
6
6
$
4
5
,
7
8
5
Op
t
i
o
n
3
A
-
C
i
t
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
1
b
d
:
7
2
b
d
:
3
To
t
a
l
:
1
0
No
n
e
N
o
n
e
$
6
0
2
,
6
3
3
$
3
,
9
0
7
,
3
8
3
$
3
9
0
,
7
3
8
Sh
a
r
e
d
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
On
e
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
M
a
n
a
ger
'
s
U
n
i
t
Pa
r
k
F
e
e
W
a
i
v
e
r
Ca
p
&
T
r
a
d
e
(
A
H
S
C
)
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
a
t
8
3
%
7
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
B
a
s
e
d
R
e
n
t
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
U
n
i
t
s
o
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
a
n
d
1
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
B
a
s
e
d
R
e
n
t
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
U
n
i
t
s
o
n
M
i
x
e
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
o
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
.
(T
h
e
s
e
c
a
n
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
L
o
c
a
l
L
i
v
e
/
W
o
r
k
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
.
)
27
s
t
a
l
l
s
0.
7
1
5
8
F
e
e
t
/
5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
$
4
0
7
,
0
5
1
$1
5
,
4
6
7
,
9
5
4
37
s
t
a
l
l
s
-
4
12
u
n
i
t
s
:
2
0
%
A
M
I
22
u
n
i
t
s
:
6
0
%
A
M
I
3
u
n
i
t
s
:
8
0
%
A
M
I
10
u
n
i
t
s
:
2
0
%
A
M
I
18
u
n
i
t
s
:
6
0
%
A
M
I
2
u
n
i
t
s
:
8
0
%
A
M
I
10
u
n
i
t
s
:
8
0
%
A
M
I
In
c
o
m
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
10
u
n
i
t
s
:
2
0
%
A
M
I
17
u
n
i
t
s
:
6
0
%
A
M
I
Mi
x
e
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
Ci
t
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
C
o
n
d
o
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
Mi
l
l
e
r
M
a
p
l
e
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
11
u
n
i
t
s
:
2
0
%
A
M
I
19
u
n
i
t
s
:
6
0
%
A
M
I
In
c
o
m
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
14
u
n
i
t
s
:
2
0
%
A
M
I
25
u
n
i
t
s
:
6
0
%
A
M
I
13
u
n
i
t
s
:
2
0
%
A
M
I
24
u
n
i
t
s
:
6
0
%
A
M
I
13
u
n
i
t
s
:
2
0
%
A
M
I
24
u
n
i
t
s
:
6
0
%
A
M
I
In
c
o
m
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
Jan Lindenthal, MidPen Housing Corporation
Rick Williams, Van Meter Williams Pollack
October 13, 2016
City of South San Francisco
Housing Subcommittee
Study Session
Proposed Miller Maple
Workforce Housing
MidPen Development Team
•Jan Lindenthal, VP of Real Estate
Development
•Nevada Merriman, Director of
Housing Development
•Sarah Brett, Project Manager
•Support:
•Alice Talcott, Finance Director
•Felix AuYeung, New Business
Director/Cap & Trade
Modifications in Response to
Initial City Council Feedback
•Design Scenarios
–Fewer studio units and more larger units
–Consider taller building to accommodate larger unit sizes
–Consider lower parking ratio to accommodate larger units
•Financing Scenarios
–Consider underwriting the cost of moderate income units by
pursuing more project-based rental assistance units
1.Design Scenario: Unit Sizes & Mix
2.Financing Scenario: Affordability Levels &
Targeting
Policy Decisions
Policy Decisions – Next Steps
•City Council Meeting - November 9, 2016
Approval of Preferred Scenario & Option to Ground Lease
•Planning & Entitlement Application Submission December 2016
•Design Review Board Meeting January 2017
•Housing Subcommittee Meeting - February 2017
Review Entitlement Application & City Financing Request
•City Council Meeting – City Financing Commitment February 2017
•Neighborhood Meeting February 2017
•City and MidPen Cap & Trade Concept Application Due March 2017
•Planning Commission Meeting April 2017
•City Council Meeting – Entitlement Approval April 2017
•Appeal Period lapses from April Entitlement Approval May 2017
•City and MidPen Cap & Trade Full Application Due June 2017
DESIGN SCENARIOS
Miller Maple Site
Option 1 – Two Levels of Podium Parking
Option 2 & 2A– One Level of Podium Parking
Option 3A – One Level of Podium Parking –
Taller Building
–Larger Unit Types (2-bdrm, 1-bdrm)
•More suitable for larger households
•Taller building or fewer units
–Taller building
»more expensive construction type
»greater building massing
–Fewer units
»fewer households served
»greater local subsidy/unit
»less competitive for Cap & Trade
•Greater parking demand
–Additional levels of parking, or
–Reduced on-site parking requirement
1. Unit Sizes - Trade -Offs
–Smaller Units Types (studio, 1-bdrm)
•More suitable for smaller households
•Minimizes building height
–L ess expensive construction type
–More building articulation
•Maximizes number of units & households served
–More competitive for Cap & Trade
•Lower local subsidy & local subsidy/unit
•Lower parking demand
–Meets on -site parking requirements with 1 level of parking
1. Unit Sizes - Trade -Offs
–Parking Demand Management Options
•Alternating no-car preference
•Free Transit Passes
–Partially funded by Cap & Trade
•Guest parking off-site
•Reduced resident on-site parking requirement
•MidPen experience with parking demand
1. Unit Sizes - Trade -Offs
FINANCING SCENARIOS
2. Affordability Levels - Trade -Offs
–Affordable Scenarios
•All units under 60% AMI
•All units eligible for external funding
•Lowest local gap
•7 project-based rental assistance units
–Mixed Income Scenarios
•Some units at 80% AMI
•Not all units eligible for external funding
•Greater local gap
–Gap reduced by increasing number of
project-based rental assistance units to 14
2. Affordability Levels - Trade-Offs
Income Levels & Jobs
Income Category 1 Person Household2 Person Household3 Person Household4 Person Household
Extremely Low (30% AMI)$25,830 $29,520 $33,210 $36,900
Very Low (50% AMI)$43,050 $49,200 $55,350 $61,500
HOME Limit (60% AMI)$51,660 $59,040 $66,420 $73,800
Low (80% AMI)$68,880 $78,720 $88,560 $98,400
Median (100% AMI)$86,100 $98,400 $110,700 $123,000
Moderate (120% AMI)$103,320 $118,080 $132,840 $147,600
Source: Housing and Urban Development (2016)
Gross Maximum Rents
Income Category Studio 1 Bedroom2 Bedroom3 Bedroom
Extremely Low (30% AMI)$645 $691 $830 $959
Very Low (50% AMI)$1,076 $1,153 $1,383 $1,599
HOME Limit (60% AMI)$1,291 $1,383 $1,660 $1,919
Low (80% AMI)$1,722 $1,845 $2,213 $2,558
Median (100% AMI)$2,152 $2,306 $2,766 $3,198
Moderate (120% AMI)$2,582 $2,767 $3,319 $3,838
Source: California Tax Credit Advisory Committee (2016)
–City Employee Preference Scenario
•Requires condominium structure
•Incompatible with external funding sources
•Must be owned by City
•Highest local subsidy per unit
–City Employee survey revealed:
•78% live outside South San Francisco
•35% (82 respondents) interested in Employee rental housing
–33% interested in studios or 1-bedroom units
–32% interested in 2-bedroom units
–98% interested in rent below $2,000
–76% indicated designated parking important
–19% indicated designated parking somewhat important
–Local Live/Work Preference
•Compatible with external funding sources
–Except project-based rental assistance units
•No additional cost to the City
2. Targeting - Trade-Offs
–Shared Assumptions
•Project-Based Rental Assistance Units
–7 in Affordable Scenarios
–14 in Mixed Income Scenarios
–Cannot have local live/work preference
•Park in Lieu Fee Waiver
–Approximately $550-$750k total or $19k a door
–Reduces local gap
–Demonstrates local commitment to outside funding sources
–Some cities have exemption for affordable housing in code
»E.g. City of Sunnyvale
•Cap & Trade (AHSC) Request at 83%
–Lower loan request increases competitiveness
2. Financing Scenarios
QUESTIONS?
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-780,Version:1
Closed Session
Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Properties: 201 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue
Negotiating Parties:South San Francisco Successor Agency/City of South San Francisco and Curtis
Development, ROEM Development, Palo Alto Partners and MidPen Housing
Under Negotiation: Review Price and Terms.(Ron Gerber, Housing Manager)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™