HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-01 e-packet@3:00Monday, May 1, 2017
3:00 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
May 1, 2017Housing 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 Monday, May 1, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., at City Hall,
City Manager's Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call To Order.
Roll Call.
Public Comments.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Staff is seeking direction from the Housing Subcommittee regarding the transfer of
the property located at 339-341 Commercial Avenue to a nonprofit service agency.
(Alex Greenwood, ECD Director)
1.
Report regarding a potential new residential development project on the Vacant
Miller Avenue Parking Lots within the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning
District. (Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager and Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner)
2.
Report regarding an update for the preliminary residential/ mixed-use development
proposal at 200 Linden Avenue, a City-owned property, in the Downtown Transit
Core (DTC) Zoning District. (Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner)
3.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/3/2017
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:17-270 Agenda Date:5/1/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
Staff is seeking direction from the Housing Subcommittee regarding the transfer of the property located at 339-
341 Commercial Avenue to a nonprofit service agency.(Alex Greenwood, ECD Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Housing Subcommittee provide direction regarding the transfer of the
property located at 339-341 Commercial Avenue to a nonprofit agency.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City of South San Francisco (“City”),as the housing successor,owns the property at 339-341 Commercial
Avenue (APN 012-333-050)(“Property”).This property consists of four two-bedroom units in two buildings,
which the City purchased in 1999 for the purpose of preserving the affordability of the units.On October 8,
2014,the City Council approved the Housing Investment Plan (“HIP”),see Attachment 1,which recommended
the transfer of the property to a nonprofit service agency through an RFP process that gives priority to agencies
serving clients in priority areas identified by the City Council.
The HIP states that the Property was largely purchased with Federal HOME funds and because of this,there is
little financial advantage for the City to divest of the property as it would have to repay the HOME program.
Additionally,it is not clear whether City (or a subsequent owner)could terminate the affordability restrictions
due to the HOME funds.It is recommended that the City reduce its management burden by transferring the
property to a nonprofit agency that would continue to operate it as affordable housing serving a special needs
group.
HUD states that for the eligibility of households for HOME rental housing and rental assistance,at least 90
percent of benefiting families must have incomes that are no more than 60 percent of the HUD-adjusted median
family income for the area.The Property is currently being rented out to four (4)low income families and
managed by SC Properties.The tenants pay an approximate gross of $3,525 (monthly),$2,000 of which is paid
to the Property Manager, leaving the City monthly revenue of about $1,525.
DISCUSSION
At this time,staff is preparing to implement the recommendations of the HIP by initiating a RFP process to
identify a nonprofit.At the request of the Subcommittee,this matter is being brought back to the
Subcommittee to assess whether Council’s original direction for the Property should be revisited.The
Subcommittee has several options it could consider recommending to the City Council:
If the Subcommittee agrees with the Council’s original direction (per the HIP),then no further action is
required at this time, and staff would proceed with a RFP to identify a nonprofit.
If the Subcommittee recommends that the Council reconsider its original direction for the Property,then the
matter would be forwarded to the Council for the HIP to be amended.In this case,the Subcommittee could
recommend one of several potential options for the Property, including:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/1/2017Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-270 Agenda Date:5/1/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
1.Continue to have the Property managed directly by the City,using the City’s property management
consultant; OR
2.List the property for sale.On a preliminary basis,the Property might generate a sale price in the range
of $1.3 million to $1.5 million (according to Zillow.com).Any profits from the sale could be used for
building,buying,and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct
rental assistance to low-income people.Staff estimates that the property could be sold with the home
covenants intact giving the City the opportunity to pay off the HOME loan and gain a reasonable profit.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Housing Subcommittee reaffirm the Council’s original direction,per the 2014 Housing
Investment Plan,to the transfer of the property located at 339-341 Commercial Avenue to a nonprofit service
agency.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/1/2017Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
0
City of South San Francisco
October, 2014
Housing Investment Plan
1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
II. Assets ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Residential Property Assets ........................................................................................................... 3
Loan Portfolio Assets ................................................................................................................... 13
Cash Assets ................................................................................................................................... 14
Total Housing Assets ....................................................................................................................15
III. Current Situation ....................................................................................................................... 16
Property Management ................................................................................................................. 16
Tenant Issues ............................................................................................................................ 16
Maintenance .............................................................................................................................. 17
Current Revenues ...................................................................................................................... 17
IV. Land Utilization Strategies and Options ................................................................................... 18
V. Recommendations for Affordable Residential and Commercial Properties ............................. 19
A. 109 Longford ............................................................................................................................ 20
B. 380 Alta Vista .......................................................................................................................... 20
C. 714-718 Linden ......................................................................................................................... 21
D. 339-341 Commercial ............................................................................................................... 21
E. Miller Avenue ........................................................................................................................... 22
F. 418 Linden Avenue .................................................................................................................. 23
G. 201 Baden Avenue ................................................................................................................... 23
VI. Housing Investment .................................................................................................................. 24
VII. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 25
2
I. Introduction
The City of South San Francisco seeks to create a thriving city where its residents have the
ability to live, work, and participate in the community. In order to create a thriving community,
the City needs quality housing for residents of all income levels. Currently, the City has an array
of housing and commercial land assets that are underutilized. This Housing Investment Plan
(“Plan”) seeks to provide strategies to maximize the development of affordable and market-rate
housing while aligning these efforts with the City Council’s goals of improving the Downtown.
The recent dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies (“RDA”) by the California Legislature
eliminated the City’s main tool for developing affordable housing. Without RDA funding the City
must be creative, collaborative, and flexible in order to continue creating affordable housing.
During the Redevelopment era the City had a robust and sustainable funding source, however
the City now faces an era of limited resources and assets. The few resources the City does have
must be strategically used to create quality affordable housing.
The end of Redevelopment has also diminished the City’s ability to support the development of
market-rate housing. The Successor Agency Oversight Board, however, has been amenable to
allowing the City to pursue development opportunities on the properties owned by the former
RDA. These properties are discussed in detail in the Successor Agency’s Long Range Property
Management Plan (LRPMP) and are not discussed in this Plan. The City, however, does own the
former Central Fire Station at 201 Baden Avenue which presents an opportunity to develop
housing and is therefore included in this report.
This Plan will 1) look at the City’s current housing assets and the 201 Baden Avenue land asseet;
2) describe the current situation and challenges the City faces regarding its affordable housing
assets; 3) identify potential strategies for how the City can better utilize and manage its housing
assets; 4) assess the possibility of increasing affordable housing for each strategy and; 5) provide
recommendations for which strategy to implement on a per property basis.
3
II. Assets
The City has limited assets in the form of real property, outstanding loans and cash. When the
RDA was dissolved on January 31, 2011 the City opted to become the Housing Successor Agency.
This allowed the City to retain the RDA’s housing loan portfolio and real property. However, the
City was not able to retain RDA’s $20 million in affordable housing funds which were disbursed
to the taxing agencies pursuant to the RDA dissolution statutes. In addition, the City also has
cash assets collected from housing developers in the form of housing in-lieu fees. The City’s
assets also include the former Central Fire Station. This section looks at each of these assets and
their allowable uses. The total estimated value of the City’s affordable housing property assets is
$7,262,266 and $1,089,000 for 201 Baden Avenue.
Residential Property Assets
The City currently owns and manages seven (7) scattered site residential properties ranging
from single family homes to multi-unit properties. This section will provide an overview of the
properties, their size, the purpose of acquisition, the purchase price and current estimated value1
and their current uses. With the exception of 109 Longford Avenue, these assets were
transferred from the RDA to the City.
A. 109 Longford – This single family home (3 bedrooms/1 bath) was purchased in 1998
for the purpose of removing a blighted unit. The City rehabilitated the property in 2009
using a wide array of green building techniques, such as solar panels, tank-less water
heaters, and recyclable insulation. Since then it has been used as a model “green” home
to educate contractors, students, and homeowners. While this home has served as an
educational tool for the City, the home’s technology is no longer cutting edge and is
quickly becoming obsolete as a model “green” home.
109 Longford Avenue
1 The estimated values of the properties were derived on September 30, 2014 from Zillow.com, an online
home and real estate database.
4
Summary Profile:
Property size: 4,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 1998
Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property – previous owner believed
home was unsafe, refused to occupy it and let it fall into disrepair.
Age of Building: 61 years (1952)
Building Sq. Ft.: 1,030
Purchase Price: $207,000 (funding source : General Fund)
Current Estimated Value:$585,610
Current Use: Green building model home
5
B. 380 Alta Vista – A single family home (3 bedrooms/2 bathrooms) purchased in 2005.
It was purchased by the City because the unit had become a nuisance and social problem
for the neighborhood. In order to remove the blighting conditions and illegal bedrooms,
the City expended $328,818 in addition to the $1,035,000 acquisition price. Due to the
size of this home it could be modified again to accommodate several more bedrooms or
subdivided into 2 separate units.
380 Alta Vista
6
Summary Profile
Property Size: 9,100 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2005
Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property – previous owner had let
house fall into disrepair and had overcrowding conditions with nuisance tenants.
Age of Building: 68 years (1945)
Building Sq. Ft.: 3,828
Purchase Price: $1,035,000 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value: $1,507,798
Current Use: rented to city employee at below market rental rates
7
C. 714-718 Linden Avenue – This triplex of two bedroom units is located near the City’s
Downtown core. It was purchased in 2005 for the purpose of preserving the affordability
of the units.
714-718 Linden Avenue
Summary Profile
Property Size: 4,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2005
Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing – City helped owner
rehabilitate property in return for charging affordable rents. At expiration of
affordable restriction, owner intended to sell property. City acquired property to
maintain affordability.
Age of Building: 72 years (1941)
Building Sq. Ft.: 2,856
Purchase Price: $862,000 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value:$864,582
Current Use: Affordable housing
8
D. 339-341 Commercial Avenue – This property consists of four two-bedroom units in
two buildings. The City purchased the property in 1999 for the purpose of preserving the
affordability of the units.
339-341 Commercial Avenue
Summary Profile
Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 1999
Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property/create affordable housing
units – property had fallen into disrepair and presented an opportunity to create
affordable units.
Age of Building: 118 years (1895)
Building Sq. Ft.: 3,874
Purchase Price: $430,000 (funding source: $107,500 RDA, $322,500 HOME)
Estimated Value: $1,142,298
Current Use: Affordable housing
9
E. 310 -314 Miller Avenue – The Miller Avenue properties consists of three adjacent
properties: a triplex with three one- bedroom units (310 Miller), a fourplex with units
ranging from one bedroom to three bedrooms (312 Miller), and a 3 bedroom single
family home (314 Miller). The estimated value of the combined properties is $2,461,978.
These properties were purchased between 2004 and 2008. The City purchased these
units to preserve the affordability in the short-term and for the future development of
the property. The City also owns a parking lot adjacent to 314 Miller making this site
assemblage more attractive for a new development.
310-314 Miller Avenue
Summary Profiles
310 Miller
Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2005
Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing – City financed
rehabilitation in return for affordable rents. Owner intended to sell property
putting affordability at risk. City acquired property to maintain affordability.
Age of Building: 101 years (1912)
Building Sq. Ft.: Not Available
Purchase Price: $589,000 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value: $800,000
Current Use: Affordable housing. Currently leased to the San Mateo County
Emancipated Youth Program.
10
312 Miller
Property Size: 6,000 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2004
Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing – City helped owner
rehabilitate property in return for charging affordable rents. Owner intended to
sell property putting affordability at risk. City acquired property to maintain
affordability.
Age of Building: 106 years (1907)
Building Sq. Ft.: 3,650
Purchase Price: $715,000 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value: $950,397
Current Use: Affordable housing. Currently leased to the San Mateo County
Emancipated Youth Program.
314 Miller Ave
Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2008
Purpose of Acquisition: Parcel assembly for future development. This property
sits between City owned properties at 310-312 Miller Avenue and surface parking
lot. Acquisition resulted in the assembly of a 0.56 acre site.
Age of Building: 107 years (1906)
Building Sq. Ft.: 1,456
Purchase Price: $679,950 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value: $711,581
Current Use: Affordable housing. Currently leased to the San Mateo County
Emancipated Youth Program.
11
F. 418 Linden Avenue – In 2008, the City Council amended the Affordable Housing
Agreement (Amended AHA) with Myers Peninsula Venture (Myers) that required Myers
to construct 32 affordable housing units as a condition of the Final Terrabay Specific
Plan. In lieu of developing the 32 affordable housing units, the Amended AHA required
Myers to convey to the City the property located at 418 Linden Avenue at no cost. The
property was previously entitled to build a 25-unit market-rate development with 7,000
square feet of retail but the project became unviable after the demise of redevelopment.
418 Linden Avenue
Property Size: 14,000 sq. ft.
Acquisition Date: 2008
Purpose of Acquisition: Land bank for the future development of affordable
housing in lieu of Myers developing 32 affordable efficiency units on the site.
Age of Building: N/A
Building Sq. Ft.: N/A
Purchase Price: $0 (conveyed at no cost to the City)
Estimated Value: $700,000 (based on $50 per square foot)
Current Use: Surface parking lot
12
G. 201 Baden Avenue – This site (APN #012-335-100) is the old City Central Fire
Station, located in the southeast part of the downtown area one block south of Grand
Avenue near the corner of Baden Avenue and Cypress Avenue. The main building is one-
story with a second story area over the apparatus bay and a three-story drill tower. It has
three apparatus bays, offices, a kitchen, a recreation room, restrooms, a repair shop, a
locker room with showers and a dormitory. It was purchased/built in 1949 for $85,899
for the purpose of housing a fire station. Currently the building is vacant, the bays
however are rented to Giorgi Brothers for furniture storage on a month-to-month basis.
The building is largely obsolete. Potential options for this property include: (1) Sell
property to an interested buyer for the purpose of redevelopment into market-rate
housing; (2) Hold as City-owned property for the purpose of redevelopment into
affordable housing units.
201 Baden Avenue
Summary Profile
Property Size: Approximately 21,780 sq. ft.
Purchase Date/Year Built: 1949
Purpose of Acquisition: Housing a Fire Station
Age of Building: 65 years old
Building Sq. Ft.: 11,690 sq. ft.
Purchase Price: $85,899
Estimated Value: $1,089,000 (based on $50 per square foot)
Current Use: Vacant
13
Loan Portfolio Assets
The City has two types of housing loans in its portfolio: 1) amortized first time homebuyer loans,
and 2) deferred loans to nonprofit housing developers.
Amortized First Time Homebuyer Loans
The City of South San Francisco has a first time homebuyer loan program that is open to
individuals and households who live or work in the City of South San Francisco. In the
past, the program provide qualified buyers low-interest loans of up to $100,000 to
purchase a Below Market Rate (BMR) homes or a homes on the open market. At the start
of the housing crisis in 2008, the City suspended making loans on homes in the open
market and only made loans on BMR units. Since the dissolution of redevelopment, the
City program has been limited to rolling existing loans from sellers to new homebuyers
at existing BMR units. The City is currently not initiating loans that require new funds
going into the program. Excluding loan pay offs, the program currently generates
approximately $4,000 per month in payments.
As a result of past lending activity, the City currently has 22 outstanding first time
homebuyer loans. As of September 30, 2015, the value of this portfolio is valued at
$1,401,899. This amount is composed from the following fund sources:
o $933,507 is from former RDA funds (now the City’s Housing Fund 241)
o $445,856 is from federal Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG),
and
o $22,536 is from developer in-lieu fees.
Monthly payments received and loan payoffs are deposited into their respective funding
sources.
Because the monthly cash flows from repayments are limited and loan payoffs are
sporadic, the outstanding loan fund balances are not included in the available cash asset
discussion below.
Deferred Loans to Nonprofit Developers
These loans were made to nonprofit developers to build the City’s main affordable
housing stock including 636 El Camino, Grand Oak Apartments, Greenridge, Chestnut
Creek Senior housing and others. This loan portfolio is estimated at about $24,760,669.
The loans were made by the RDA and are now a City asset per the Redevelopment
Dissolution Statutes.
Unfortunately, the City cannot count on using these funds. First, nonprofit developers
only make annual payments on the loans if they have excess cash proceeds after paying
for all operating and reserve expenses. Generally the City received total repayments of
$0 to $2,000 per year from this source. Second, the loans are not due for 25+ years. In
all likelihood when these loans come due they will have to be renewed into new 50 year
terms in order to continue the affordability, replacement and maintenance of the
14
properties. The one exception to this that City recently received a repayment of
$1,115,839 from Mid-Peninsula Housing due to construction cost savings at 636 El
Camino Real (this was negotiated into the funding contract approved by both parties).
These funds were deposited into Housing Fund 241 and are available for uses as
described below.
Cash Assets
In addition to the City’s residential properties, the City has cash assets that are available for
creating and/or preserving affordable housing. Although the City has these cash assets, the
dissolution of the RDA has left the City with no mechanism for generating new funds. The City
must consider whether it wants to utilize these funds the traditional way through a single use
scenario by working with a nonprofit housing developer, or utilize them in a way that will recycle
the funds over the years for continuous use. Currently, the total cash available for affordable
housing is $4,535,233. Below is a description of the City’s cash assets and how they can be
expended.
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund 205)
The City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund was created as a result of developer
agreements and the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. If developers were unable to
incorporate affordable units into their housing or commercial developments, the City in
limited cases accepted in-lieu fees (e.g. Terrabay). In other cases, the City required a
housing fee in addition to the affordable units (e.g. Oak Farms). These funds can only be
used for the development of new affordable housing. These funds can be used to help
residents at any affordable income level – 0% to 120% of area median income (AMI).
Funds Available: $1,045,0002
Housing Fund (Fund 241)
Upon becoming the Successor Agency for the RDA’s housing assets on February 1, 2011,
the City established the Housing Fund. Revenues from housing rental properties, RDA-
funded loan repayments, and interest are deposited into this fund. The fund can be used
to develop housing or for any other purposes that advances the creation or preservation
of affordable units, including staffing. The funds can be used for any housing related
expenses, including new construction, first time homebuyer loans, rehabilitation and
staff expenses as long as they are consistent with past RDA law. Currently, these funds
are being used for housing related expenses including staff, maintenance and other
incidental expenses. Funds can be used to help residents at any affordable income level
(0% to 120% AMI).
Funds Available: $1,079,444 3
2 Fund balance as of September 30, 2014
15
Bonds
On February 1, 1999, the City’s RDA issued bonds for the purpose of creating
affordable housing. Pursuant to HSC Section 34176(g)(2) dissolving
redevelopment agencies, the housing successor agency (i.e. the City as successor
agency) has the right to retain and expend bond proceeds at its discretion so
long as it is in a manner that is consistent with the bond covenants.
The bond funds are made available to the City upon 1) the Successor Agency
receiving its Finding of Completion, 2) the City committing the bond funds to a
project, and 3) the Successor Agency including the obligation in an approved
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS).
The Successor Agency received its Finding of Completion on May 24, 2013. Staff
included the bond fund request in ROPS 13-14B (January 1 through June 30,
2014) and the California Department of Finance (DOF) authorized the City to
draw these funds down. However, the funds are not committed to a project
therefore the City cannot draw the funds until it does so. These funds can only
be used for the development of new affordable housing. The use of these funds
must also be consistent with past RDA law and can be used to help residents at
any affordable income level (0% to 120% AMI).
Funds Available: $2,410,789 4
Total Housing Assets
The total value of the City’s housing assets is approximately $37,960,067. However, as
described above, the liquidity of these funds and the City’s ability to utilize them varies
by type. As listed in Table 1 below, the City has approximately $4,535,233 in cash and
cash equivalents that the City can immediately utilize for affordable housing purposes.
The City also has $7,262,266 in land assets that the City can convert into cash by selling
the properties, or in the case of the Miller Avenue properties and 418 Linden Avenue,
have the value contributed towards the development of affordable housing. The
remaining $26,162,568 is composed of amortized and deferred loans that are not
readily available for use, or may not be available at all.
Table 1
Asset Type
Liquid Assets Illiquid Assets
Total Cash Land Sales Not Liquid
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
$4,535,233 $4,535,233
Land $7,262,266 $7,262,266
Loans $26,162,568 $26,162,568
Total $4,535,233 $7,262,266 $26,162,568 $37,960,067
3 Fund balance as of September 30, 2014, net of recent encumbrances
4 Fund balance as of September 30, 2014
16
Given the City’s current cash and land assets, the City has the potential to utilize these
assets to increase the City’s supply of affordable housing. Options for utilizing these
funds and/or developing affordable housing are discussed in Sections V and VI below.
III. Current Situation
With the end of redevelopment, the City is faced with the need to reassess and develop new
strategies for managing its housing assets. Some of the main issues affecting the City are an
increasing property management burden, limited resources, and the desire to stimulate
development in the Downtown.
Property Management
As mentioned earlier, the City owns and manages all of its residential properties. Given the City
Council’s new priorities and the need to sell the former RDA’s non-housing land assets, the
management of the residential properties has become an increased burden on staff and
resources. Property management requires staff to collect rent, market and lease vacant units,
issue late payment and eviction notices and address various maintenance issues ranging from
large scale repairs such as broken sewer lines to minor repairs such as a clogged sink. Due to the
demanding nature of property management, i.e. tenant requests/issues and the timing of when
these issues occur, staff is frequently on call. As a result, staff at all levels has to be involved in
managing the properties. For example, lower level staff typically deals with collecting rents
however higher level staff has to approve repairs and issue late payment or eviction notices. This
has created a highly ineffective and costly way of managing the properties. It also takes staff
away from fulfilling other responsibilities. Finally, the City is faced with difficult tenants and
continuous maintenance issues while receiving minimal rent revenues due to the affordable
rents being charged.
Tenant Issues
The City has difficult tenants who routinely pay rent late, which has required staff to spend an
exorbitant amount of time addressing the issue. City inherited these tenants when it acquired
the buildings or from North Peninsula Neighborhood Services which briefly managed the
properties in the past. Since 2011, staff has had to issue nine (9) Three-Day Notices to Pay or
Quit. A Notice to Pay or Quit is a notice whereby if the tenant does not pay within three days the
City will proceed with the eviction process. The City has also received twenty-four (24) late
payments and evicted one tenant in the last two years. The eviction process is very lengthy and
can last up to six months which consumes a significant amount of staff and City Attorney time.
In FY 12-13, the Housing and Community Development Division (HCD) staff spent a combined
1,349 hours managing the various properties.
Recently, the City leased several of the Miller Avenue properties to the County for its
emancipated youth program with the expectation that this would relieve some property
management issues as well as provide housing for youth. Unfortunately, the youth have required
the same level of City staff resources as past tenants and the County has added an extra level of
administrative coordination resulting in a total increase in staff resource utilization.
17
Maintenance
The City is also faced with ongoing and deferred maintenance issues due to the age of its
residential properties. For example, all of the City’s residential properties are over 50 years old
and four of them are over 100 years old. Most of the properties have some deferred maintenance
that needs to be addressed, as described in Appendix 1. Additionally, the City has experienced
unforeseen and/or emergency maintenance issues due to the age of the buildings. Most recently
the City had to spend approximately $180,000 5 to make emergency repairs to the gas and sewer
lines at the 310 and 312 Miller Avenue properties. These repairs had to be made immediately to
avoid a potentially catastrophic gas explosion.
Current Revenues
The City’s residential properties are not generating enough revenue to keep up with staff costs to
manage the properties and address the increasing maintenance needs. In FY 12-13 the City had
$60,575 6 in staff and maintenance expenses while receiving $121,170 in rent revenues. While
the City is not operating on a deficit it is only netting approximately 50% of its rent revenues. As
shown in Table 2 below the properties also offer the City a low annual return on investment
(ROI). Since the properties are intended to be affordable units and are rented at below market
rates, there are few options for increasing revenue therefore the City must find a solution to
reduce its operating expenses.
Table 2
Net
Revenue
(Rev)-(Exp)
0.03870-387207,000-0.2%
24.51,12716,80015,6731,035,0001.5%
298.613,84828,95015,102430,0003.5%
205.410,23525,16014,925700,0002.1%
310 Miller Ave 338.514,4729,000-5,472589,000-0.9%
312 Miller Ave 398.016,31419,6603,347715,0000.5%
314 Miller Ave 84.94,19221,60017,408679,9502.6%
821.334,97750,26015,2831,983,9502.1%
All Properties1,350 60,575121,17060,5954,355,9501.4%
Miller Ave*
Miller Ave Total
109 Longford
Property
380 Alta Vista
Commercial Ave
Linden Ave
ExpensesRevenues
HCD
Staff
Hours
City
InvestmentROI
* This does not include the approximate $180,000 used to make emergency repairs at 310-312 Miller or $328,818 in
rehabilitation costs at 380 Alta Vista.
5 This amount is not included in the expenses provided in the section below
6 This does not include the approximate $180,000 used to make emergency repairs at 310-312 Miller
18
IV. Land Utilization Strategies and Options
As discussed above, the City’s current property management system is inefficient and needs to
change in order to reduce resource utilization. Taking into consideration these issues, this
section describes potential strategies to overcome these issues while maintaining or increasing
the City’s affordable housing stock.
City staff has identified four strategies for managing the City’s housing land assets: 1) divest, 2)
transfer to a non-profit, 3) hold, or 4) redevelop (note: the redevelopment option only applies to
the Miller Avenue properties). This section will define each strategy and analyze the positive and
negative implications of each strategy. The next section will identify which strategy can provide
the most benefit on a property by property basis.
1. Divest: The City would sell its housing land asset(s) at market rate. This option would
eliminate the staffing and financial issues the City faces regarding property management
and would increase the City’s housing cash assets. However the implications of this
would be that the City would need to replace the affordable units elsewhere along with
providing relocation payments to a few of the current tenants that are eligible for
relocation. If the City divests itself of the Miller Avenue properties it will also lose the
opportunity to develop new housing on that site.
2. Transfer Management to a Non-profit: The City would transfer management of its
housing land assets to a non-profit organization and impose affordability restrictions on
the properties. This would allow the City to preserve the affordability of the units and
relieve the City of its property management burdens. However, this strategy would not
relieve the City of on-going repair liabilities
3. Hold Assets: The City would keep its current housing assets however it would need to
make operational changes. For example, the City would need to contract with a third
party property management company to oversee the lease up process, rent collection,
maintenance, and tenant eligibility screening. This strategy would relieve City staff of its
property management burdens and potentially increase the City’s net rent revenue by
allowing the property manager to increase the affordability income levels of the tenants.
Currently the City is only netting 50% of its rent revenues, however, if the City uses a
property management company, the City could allow the company to increase the
income affordability to 80% AMI, thus offsetting the property management cost and
potentially increasing the City’s net revenue. Holding the City’s housing land assets,
however, does not increase the City’s affordable housing stock, generate significant new
cash flows, and still leaves the City facing the deferred maintenance and rehabilitation
needs of the properties.
4. Redevelopment: Staff has been studying the development potential of City-owned and
Successor Agency-owned downtown properties. The City Council has expressed the goal
of revitalizing the Downtown through the development of market-rate and mixed-
income housing. Staff has determined that the best way to accomplish this on the smaller
19
sites is by collaborating with a private developer to build mixed-income projects or an
affordable housing project. Under this strategy the City would contribute the land and
potentially make a financial contribution to the project in return for the developer
providing a specified number of affordable units within a market-rate housing
development. This strategy would relieve the City of the burden of managing scattered
affordable housing sites with myriad problems and create revenues for additional future
affordable housing development.
V. Recommendations for Affordable
Residential and Commercial Properties
This section recommends an optimal strategy for each of the City’s properties. Each property is
discussed in detail below and the information is summarized in Table 3 below. The
recommendations are based on the issues the City is currently facing and an analysis of the
potential strategies described above.
Table 3
Property
Divest
Transfer to
NPO*
Hold
Assets
Redevelopment
A. 109 Longford
B. 380 Alta Vista
C. 714-718 Linden
D. 339-341 Commercial
E. 310-314 Miller
Avenue Properties
F. 418 Linden Avenue
G. 201 Baden Avenue
*Non-profit Organization
20
A. 109 Longford
Recommendation: Divest
It is recommended the City sell this property on the open market. Its value is approximately
$585,610. As mentioned previously in this report, the home is quickly becoming unusable as a
model “green” home due to outdated technology. It is also operating on a deficit due to no rental
revenue. The property would be able to generate a high sale price due to its fairly recent
remodel and green technology upgrades. Additionally the City wouldn’t need to pay any
relocation costs or replace this unit elsewhere as the property was never operated as an
affordable rental unit. The City would contract with a real estate company to market, show, and
sell the property. Due to the limited supply of housing on the market and an increasing demand,
the City anticipates that this property would sell quickly. Since the property was purchased with
general funds, part of the proceeds could be deposited into the general fund and part should be
deposited into the housing fund since the housing fund paid for the extensive rehabilitation of
the property.
Alternatives: No other alternative recommended. This property is not suitable for
redevelopment and continuous ownership by the City is not financially sound. The property may
be transferred to a nonprofit housing agency and maintained as affordable housing. However,
when leased to Shelter Network in the past, the house frequently remained vacant for long
stretches of time due to the City’s requirement that only South San Francisco victims of
domestic violence be housed there.
B. 380 Alta Vista
Recommendation: Divest
It is recommended the City sell this property on the open market. Its value is approximately
$1,507,798. The home is very large and underutilized in its current single-family configuration.
It is also rented as a low-income unit and generates very little rental revenue. Having been
recently remodeled and in a fairly desirable area, the property should sell quickly. There are no
relocation issues but the current tenant (a City employee) must be given a 90-day notice to
vacate. The affordable unit has to be replaced but it can easily be accommodated in an
affordable or mixed-income project elsewhere. The replacement unit cost will be offset by the
estimated sale price of approximately $1,000,000. The City may consider remodeling the
unused lower portion of the building to create a legal second unit if it results in a net financial
gain to the City.
Alternatives: No other alternative recommended. This property is not suitable for
redevelopment and continuous ownership by the City is not financially sound. The property may
be transferred to a nonprofit housing agency and maintained as affordable housing. However,
its distance from public transit could be a burden to low-income tenants that would likely rely
on public transit.
21
C. 714-718 Linden
Recommendation: Divest
It is recommended the City sell this property on the open market. The property’s resale value is
approximately $864,582. Selling the property relieves the City of the property management
burden and generates revenue for use in a new affordable or mixed-income housing
development. As indicated earlier in this report, the revenue generated from this property is
insufficient to fund operating expenses, maintenance and a replacement reserve. However, if the
City sells the property it will have to replace three affordable units. The City will also have to
relocate two families currently residing there that are eligible for relocation assistance. The City
will have to relocate the families at a cost of $15,000 to $20,000 each. The funds generated by
the sale will be sufficient to replace the units in another development and to reimburse the
housing fund for relocation costs.
Alternative: Transfer to a Nonprofit
The City Council also considered transferring the property to a nonprofit agency but opted to go
with recommendation to sell the property.
D. 339-341 Commercial
Recommendation: Transfer to NPO
It is recommended the City transfer this property to a nonprofit service agency through an RFP
process that gives priority to agencies serving clients in priority areas identified by the City
Council. This property was largely purchased with Federal HOME funds. Because it was
predominantly purchased with HOME funds there is little financial advantage for the City to
divest of the property as it would have to repay the HOME program. Additionally, it is not clear
whether City (or a subsequent owner) could terminate the affordability restrictions due to the
HOME funds. Therefore, the best option for the City is to reduce its management burden by
transferring the property to a nonprofit agency that would continue to operate it as affordable
housing serving a special needs group. Under this scenario, the City can issue an RFP to
nonprofit agencies offering them the opportunity to take ownership of the property and utilize it
to serve their clients. The nonprofit agency would assume the HOME loan and either repay the
City its limited investment or take a second loan against the City’s funds. In the RFP the City can
stipulate its conditions for transferring the property as well as giving the nonprofit agencies the
opportunity to indicate whether they would be able to repay the City its funds and/or establish a
repayment schedule (if any).
22
Alternative: Hold
Based on the use of restrictive HOME funds to purchase this property and the City’s limited
financial interest, the second best alternative is to hold this property under its current status.
However, if the City Council elects to hold this property, staff recommends that City contract
with a commercial property manager to manage the property. Doing so would increase the
operating costs of owning property but will substantially reduce the utilization of City
Resources. The City would still have a net positive cash flow from the property which it would
need to set aside in a capital replacement reserve.
E. Miller Avenue
Recommendation: Redevelopment
It is recommended these properties be redeveloped. The City currently owns three affordable
residential properties and a parking lot on the 300 block of Miller Avenue. The 0.56 acre site is
suitable for a housing development of 50 or more residential units that would make better use of
the land. A market-rate project can potentially be built on the site but the City will face
challenges finding a developer willing to build the project due to the smaller lot size. The site
may also be suitable for a mixed-income project or an affordable project as described below.
A 100% affordable project could be built on the site. Nonprofit housing developers have
expressed an interest in building in the City. However, a 100% affordable project may require
financial assistance from the City including the contribution of land. If a nonprofit housing
developer is not able to raise sufficient private capital, the City would likely have to contribute
the land.
A mixed-income project on the site would have to include a minimum of seven affordable units
to replace the units currently existing on the site. Given the site’s development challenges, it is
likely the City would need to collaborate with a developer in some capacity to develop the site.
The City’s participation would make the project feasible by reducing the developer’s entitlement
and financial risk. By helping to reduce these risks, a developer will be more likely to develop a
smaller project (<100 units) and invest in an unproven housing market. To participate in such a
project, the City would contribute the land to the project in return for the required affordable
units. The new units would benefit the City and residents by replacing the older, run down units
with modern units.
Alternative: No other alternative recommended. Continuous ownership by the City is not a
financially sound option. The property may be transferred to a nonprofit housing agency and
maintained as affordable housing. However, even a nonprofit agency taking ownership of these
homes would likely look at the land as a future higher-density development site. If not
developed, the parking lot next to the units would also go underutilized.
23
F. 418 Linden Avenue
Recommendation: Redevelopment
It is recommended this property be redeveloped. The City currently uses the property as a
surface parking lot. The 14,000 square foot site is suitable for a housing development of 25-30
residential units. A market-rate project can potentially be built on the site but the City will face
challenges finding a developer willing to build the project due to the smaller lot size. Therefore,
the site is more suitable for a mixed-income project. Given the site’s development challenges,
the City Council has determined that the City would collaborate with a developer on the site. The
City’s participation will consist of grant and loan financing in return for the production of
affordable units in the project.
Alternative: No other alternative recommended.
G. 201 Baden Avenue
Recommendation: Redevelopment
It is recommended this property be redeveloped. The property is currently vacant with the
exception of a month-to-month lease with Giorgi Brothers who uses the bays for storage. The
0.5 acre site is suitable for a housing development of 50-60 residential units that would make
better use of the land. A market-rate project can potentially be built on the site. Given the site’s
smaller size, the City may need to provide developer incentives to have this site developed.
Alternative: No other alternative recommended. The site is underutilized and the building
may exterior may become blighted soon and require upkeep if an alternate use is not found.
24
VI. Housing Investment
The City has a total of approximately $11,797,499 available to invest on affordable housing. The
funds must be used for the production or rehabilitation of affordable housing. Funds can be
used for 100% affordable projects (newly constructed or rehabilitated) or to subsidize units in
market-rate projects so that a portion of them are affordable (i.e. mixed-income projects).
Currently the City Council is considering the current projects:
$2,461,978 Rotary, approximately 69-94 senior units on Miller Avenue properties
$3,105,000 Brookwood, approximately 12 affordable in 60 unit development (48 market-
rate) at Grand-Cypress
$1,615,000 Brookwood, approximately 6 affordable in 30 unit development (24 market-
rate) at 418 Linden Avenue
$2,500,0007 Acquire and rehabilitate an existing 25-unit apartment building
$2,115,521 Future projects
$11,797,499 Total Available
Strategic Economics estimated the subsidy needed to produce a two-bedroom affordable rental
unit in San Mateo County for a family at 90% of median income as $200,083. Using this metric,
the City would be able to produce and additional 11 affordable units with the $2,115,521
remaining for future projects. If the City Council elected to use these funds to encourage the
development of mixed-income projects with 20% of the units affordable, this would yield a 55
unit development with 11 affordable units and 44 market rate units.
VII. Conclusion
The Housing Asset Management Plan is recommending that the City end the practice of owning
hard-to-manage, scattered affordable housing sites and instead recapture financial resources by
selling various sites and using the Miller Avenue properties to advance the development of
higher density housing in the downtown. Combined with cash assets, the sale properties and/or
the contribution of land into projects gives the City over $11 million with which to advance its
affordable housing mission and to potentially facilitate market-rate housing in the downtown
through mixed-income projects. Finally, the City should attempt to utilize strategies that would
leverage the limited supply of affordable housing funds and ensure that these funds are recycled
so they can be reutilized again in the future.
Enacting the recommendations in this plan will allow the City to achieve various goals including,
initiating development of market-rate housing in the downtown, eliminating the City’s cost and
burden of managing affordable housing, replacing old affordable housing units with new units
and potentially recycling affordable housing funds for future developments. If the City Council
supports the strategies outlined in this Plan, staff will initiate steps to carry out the strategies
contained herein including steps to sell the scattered affordable housing sites and preparing
agreements for the development of 418 Linden Avenue and the Miller Avenue properties.
7 This amount is an estimate based on contributing both acquisition and rehabilitation matching funds to a nonprofit
entity that would pursue tax credits or other funding sources to complete a project.
25
Appendix 1
Property Repairs Needed
109 Longford No repairs needed
380 Alta Vista New window screens and paint for one exterior wall
Fill holes in yard
Repair broken fence
339 A Commercial New door bell, window screens, stove fan, and closet door
Replace missing kitchen cabinet door
339 B Commercial Not recently inspected
341 A Commercial New screen door and interior painting
341 B Commercial New window screens, interior paint, kitchen fan, and bedroom light
fixture
Replace missing kitchen cabinet door
Remediate mold on bathroom ceiling
Repair heater
714 Linden Repair cracked ceiling and damaged wall
New interior paint and light covers
Remove graffiti from garage door
716 Linden New blinds, refrigerator, door, window screen, and light covers
718 Linden No repairs needed
310 Miller New window screen and refrigerator
Fix hard to open windows and damaged ceiling
Clean the flooring
310 A Miller Remediate mold in bedroom
Fix hard to open windows and repair broken window
New stove, porch light, and door bell
Entire unit needs to be cleaned
311 Tamarack New stove
312 Miller New interior paint, carpet, and light fixtures
Repair damaged wall
312 A Miller New interior paint and carpet
313 A Tamarack No repairs needed
313 B Tamarack Repair leaking toilet
New kitchen fan and linoleum
314 Miller Repair broken steps/landing
New carpet
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:17-266 Agenda Date:5/1/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding a potential new residential development project on the Vacant Miller Avenue Parking Lots
within the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District.(Sailesh Mehra,Planning Manager and Tony Rozzi,
Senior Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Housing Subcommittee provide input regarding a potential new residential
development project and zoning amendment request.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In February 2016,Sares Regis received entitlements for a 260-unit development on 309,315,and 401 Airport
Boulevard.As part of the entitled project,the development footprint included two former Ford Dealership
parking lots -one on Miller Avenue (no address)and the other on 405 Cypress Avenue.The overall
development density for the approved project relied on the square footage from both of these parking lots to
permit the focused development of 260 units along Airport Boulevard.
Since approval of the project,Sares Regis has entered into purchase contracts/agreements for 204 and 214
Miller Avenue and has contemplated a more dense development for these parcels and the vacant parking lots on
Miller Avenue and 405 Cypress Avenue.A project of up to 160 additional market rate units could be possible
under this development scenario.The project is limited by the current allowed density within the DTC zoning
district, which permits 120 units per acre with the provision of community benefits.
In order to address this issue and to achieve a feasible “Phase 2”project,Sares Regis is requesting that the City
consider an increase to the maximum density within a six-block portion of the Downtown Station Area Plan
(known as the “DTC Zoning District”)from 120 units/acre up to at least 175 units/acre.This proposed change
would necessitate an update to the DSASP and Title 20 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance).
All other existing development standards for the DTC zoning district would remain in place,and include the
following:
·Maximum Floor Area Ratio - 6.0, With Incentive Program - 8.0
·Maximum Building Height - 85’-0”
·Minimum Sidewalk Width - 10’0”
·Maximum Lot Coverage - 100%
·Minimum Open Space per residential unit - 100 SF
CONCLUSION
The intent of this meeting is to provide the Subcommittee with an early site plan by Sares Regis and receive
input on the request to consider a zoning change in the downtown area that would permit higher density
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/1/2017Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-266 Agenda Date:5/1/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
input on the request to consider a zoning change in the downtown area that would permit higher density
development. The project representatives will provide further information at the meeting.
Attachment:
Draft Plans for “Vacant Miller Avenue Parking Lots”
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/1/2017Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAMARCH 29, 2017
VACANT MILLER AVEPARKING LOTS
BC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
C BMILLER AVE
LUX AVE
LIN
D
E
N
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
BA
Y
S
H
O
R
E
F
W
Y
GRAND AVE
AIR
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CALIFO
R
N
I
A
AVE
PROJECT ADDRESS:
GROSS SITE AREA:
EXISTING LOT COVERAGE:EXISTING FAR:
REQUIRED PARKING:
216 Miller Ave / 214 Miller AveSouth San Francisco, CA 9408024,514 sf (0.56 acres)
3,500 sf or 14%0.14
*110 spaces x 0.75 (25% reduction) = 83 spaces
PROJECT ADDRESS:
GROSS SITE AREA:
EXISTING LOT COVERAGE:EXISTING FAR:
REQUIRED PARKING:
405 Cypress Ave / 204 Miller AveSouth San Francisco, CA 9408015,757 sf (0.36 acres)
885 sf or 5%0.05
*78 spaces x 0.75 (25% reduction) = 59 spaces
GROSS SITE AREA:
EXISTING LOT COVERAGE:EXISTING FAR:
REQUIRED PARKING:
40,271 sf (0.92 acres)
4,385 sf or 11%0.11
*188 spaces x 0.75 (25% reduction) = 141 spaces
EXISTING SITES ARE CURRENTLY ON-GRADE PARKING LOTS AND OLDER LOW-RISE BUILDINGS. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IS PROPOSED ON BOTH SITES. SITE B PROJECT WILL BE 5 FLOORS OF WOOD OVER 2 FLOORS OF CONCRETE. SITE C WILL BE 5 FLOORS OF WOOD OVER 2 FLOORS OF CONCRETE WHERE LOWER CONCRETE FLOOR IS A PARTIAL BASEMENT. BOTH PROJECTS WILL BE TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE IA CONSTRUCTION. BUILDING HEIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY 73 FEET TO TOP OF ROOF FOR BOTH SITES.
VICINITY MAP
TOTAL UNITS:
urban 1:1 bedroom:2 bedroom:3 bedroom:
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY:GROSS FLOOR AREA:
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:PROPOSED FAR:
PROVIDED PARKING:
standard:compact:
65
0 units40 units 25 units 0 units
180 units/acre97,434 sf
15,617 sf or 99%6.18
53 spaces total
23 30
TOTAL UNITS:
urban 1:1 bedroom:2 bedroom:3 bedroom:
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY:GROSS FLOOR AREA:
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:PROPOSED FAR:
PROVIDED PARKING:
standard:compact:
95
5 units65 units20 units 5 units
170 units/acre146,818 sf
24,234 sf or 99%5.99
116 spaces total
68 48
TOTAL UNITS:
urban 1:1 bedroom:2 bedroom:3 bedroom:
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY:GROSS FLOOR AREA:
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:PROPOSED FAR:
PROVIDED PARKING:
standard:compact:
160
5 units 105 units45 units5 units
174 units/acre244,252 sf
39,851 sf or 99%6.06
169 spaces total
9178
PARCEL B
PARCEL C
PARCEL B+CSHEET INDEX
1 PROJECT SUMMARIES, DATA, INDEX2SITE CONTEXT3DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE4NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT5SITE DIAGRAM6SITE PLAN7FLOOR B1 PLAN8FLOOR B2 PLAN9FLOORS 3-7 PLAN10BUILDING SECTIONS11ELEVATION12RENDERING13TYPICAL UNIT PLANSL1.1 LANDSCAPE LAYOUT PLAN
* 1 space/urban1; 1 space/1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces/2 bedroom; 2 spaces/3 bedroom
* 1 space/urban1; 1 space/1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces/2 bedroom; 2 spaces/3 bedroom
* 1 space/urban1; 1 space/1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces/2 bedroom; 2 spaces/3 bedroom
SITE
1/4 MILE RADIUS
DOWNT
O
W
N
BC
US RO
U
T
E
101
CAL
T
R
A
I
N
BIOTECH COMPANIES
C
DOWNTOWN STATIONAREA BOUNDARY
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATIONC
PROPOSED CALTRAIN STATION
BC
SITE
MAX. HEIGHT: 85 FT
5
3
2
1
C B
1
MILLER AVE
LUX AVE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
234
5
4
LUX AVE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
PA
R
C
E
L
B
PA
R
C
E
L
C PARCEL B
PARCEL C
PARCEL A
UNDERCONSTRUCTION
PARCEL D
UNDERCONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
COMMUNITYCONNECTION GATEWAYDOWNTOWN
LEGEND
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
BUILDING ENTRY
COURTYARD OVER PODIUM STRUCTURE
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
A31/1732 SqFt
A71/1
858 SqFt
B12/2
1067 SqFt
B52/2
1014 SqFt
A11/1
758 SqFt
B52/21014 SqFt
B42/2
864 SqFt
A61/1840 SqFt
S1ST
464 SqFt
A11/1
758 SqFt
A31/1
732 SqFt
A31/1
732 SqFt
A31/1
732 SqFt
B22/2
990 SqFt
A51/1
670 SqFt
A11/1
758 SqFt
B12/2
1076 SqFt
C13/2
1259 SqFt
B32/2
929 SqFt
B22/2
990 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A41/1
812 SqFt
UP
DN
A41/1
812 SqFt
T
T
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
B12/21067 SqFt
LUX AVE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
MILLER AVE
TAMARACK LN
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
PARCEL B
PARCEL C
PARCEL A
UNDERCONSTRUCTION
PARCEL D
UNDERCONSTRUCTION
MILLER AVENUE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
23.0' +/-
24
.0' +/-
32
.0' +/-
31.0' +/-
T
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
UP
DN
GARAGEENTRY
UTIL.
58 PKG SPACES
24
'
-
0
"
TY
P
.
LOBBYAMENITIES
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
GARAGERAMPUP
ELECMPOE LEASING
21 PKGSPACES
A81/1
480 SF
LOBBY
GARAGEENTRY
UTIL
BA
C
K
F
L
O
W
S
32'31'30'29'24'25'26'27'28'
31'30'29'23'24'25'26'27'28'
26'
28'
23'
23'
UTIL
DN
5
%
TRASHTERMIN
UP
DN
TR
A
S
H
T
E
R
M
I
N
A81/1
480 SF
A81/1
480 SF
A81/1
480 SF
A81/1
480 SF
BLDG BBLDG C
UTIL.
3
10
3
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
2
10
MILLER AVENUE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
23.0' +/-
24
.0' +/-
32
.0' +/-
31.0' +/-
T
BIKE STORAGE
10 BIKES 10 BIKES 10 BIKES
24
'
-
0
"
TY
P
.
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
GARAGERAMPDN
58 PKG SPACES
ATTICSTOCK
UP
DN
GARAGERAMPDN
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
8
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'
-
6
"
X
1
6
'
8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'
8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'8'-6" X 16'
32 PKG SPACES
21 RESIDSTOR
10 BIKES
11X RESIDSTOR10 BIKES 10 BIKES 10 BIKES10 BIKES
10
B
I
K
E
S
10
B
I
K
E
S
10
B
I
K
E
S
10
B
I
K
E
S
BIKE STORAGE39X RESID STOR
40'
35'
UP
DN
BLDG BBLDG C
3
10
3
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
2
10
MILLER AVENUE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
23.0' +/-
24
.0' +/-
32
.0' +/-
31.0' +/-
T
A31/1
732 SqFt
A7
1/1
858 SqFt
B1
2/2
1067 SqFt
B5
2/2
1014 SqFt
A11/1
758 SqFt
B52/2
1014 SqFt
B42/2
864 SqFt
A61/1
840 SqFt
S1ST
464 SqFt
A11/1
758 SqFt
A31/1
732 SqFt
A31/1
732 SqFt
A31/1
732 SqFt
B22/2
990 SqFt
A51/1
670 SqFt
A11/1
758 SqFt
B12/2
1076 SqFt
C13/2
1259 SqFt
B32/2
929 SqFt
B22/2
990 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A41/1
812 SqFt
UP
DN
A41/1
812 SqFt
T
T
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
A21/1
740 SqFt
B12/2
1067 SqFt
BLDG BBLDG C
3
10
3
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
2
10
GARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE
UNITSUNITS UNITS
UNITS UNITS
FLATS
(E) BLDG
71'-0"
T.O. PLATE62'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 7
52'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 6
42'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 5
32'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 4
22'-0"
T.O. SLAB 3
12'-0"
T.O. SLAB 2
0'-0"
T.O. SLAB 1
71'-0"
T.O. PLATE62'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 7
52'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 6
42'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 5
32'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 4
22'-0"
T.O. SLAB 3
12'-0"
T.O. SLAB 2
0'-0"
T.O. SLAB 1
3'-0"
T.O. INT. SLAB
5'
-
0
"
73'-0"
T.O. ROOF 73'-0"
T.O. ROOF
UNITS
GARAGE
UNITS
GARAGE
STORAGE
71'-0"
T.O. PLATE62'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 7
52'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 6
42'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 5
32'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 4
22'-0"
T.O. SLAB 3
12'-0"
T.O. SLAB 2
0'-0"
T.O. SLAB 1
30.5' (+2'-6")
GRADE
31.5' (+3'-6")
GRADE
73'-0"
T.O. ROOF
UNITS
GARAGE
UNITS
GARAGE
BIKE ROOM
71'-0"
T.O. PLATE62'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 7
52'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 6
42'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 5
32'-0"
T.O. SUBFLOOR 4
22'-0"
T.O. SLAB 3
12'-0"
T.O. SLAB 2
0'-0"
T.O. SLAB 1
73'-0"
T.O. ROOF
SECTION 1 SECTION 2
SECTION 3
3
1 2
TAMARACK LN
MILLER AVE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
MILLER STREET ELEVATION
TAMARACK LN
MILLER AVE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
EXISTING TO REMAIN
TYP. URBAN 1 BEDROOM
W/
D
W/
D
TYP. 1 BEDROOM
21x42
36x60
W/
D
TYP. CORNER 1 BEDROOM
W/
D
TYP. 2 BEDROOM
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:17-379 Agenda Date:5/1/2017
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding an update for the preliminary residential/mixed-use development proposal at 200 Linden
Avenue,a City-owned property,in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District.(Ryan Wassum,
Associate Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Housing Subcommittee provide feedback and input regarding the proposed
massing for the preliminary residential/ mixed-use development proposal at 200 Linden Avenue.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Through a developer request for proposal (RFP)issued by the City of South San Francisco,the City selected
the Omni/Hisense development team to design and develop a for-sale residential mixed-use development
located at 200 Linden Avenue (a City-owned property).The applicant’s design team,BDE Architecture,
requested a study session/design charrette with the Housing Subcommittee that was held on March 13,2017.
During that study session,the Housing Subcommittee provided feedback on the conceptual plans and the
applicant requested to come back to the committee with revised conceptual-level plans (based on HSC
feedback and staff comments).However,it is important to note that it is uncommon for a preliminary project to
be reviewed by the Housing Standing Committee a second time before a Planning Application has been filed
and the project has been reviewed by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG)and the Design review Board
(DRB).When a Planning Application is typically filed,a project is then reviewed in the following order:1)
TAG, 2) DRB, and lastly, 3) Housing Subcommittee (HSC).
PROJECT UPDATE
Since the Housing Subcommittee meeting on March 13,2017,the applicant has met with their development
team to work out project details and key constraints affecting the proposed project.Staff has received several
iterations of conceptual plan changes over the past several months and has provided significant feedback to the
applicant to address;however,the most recent schematic designs have lacked complete site plans,full
elevations,and the necessary architectural details to visualize and articulate the proposed project.With that
said, staff still has the following preliminary concerns regarding the proposed project:
·Height and massing in relation to adjacent structures/ buildings
·Lack of architectural detailing and articulation on all elevations
·Site plan layout
o Layout and size of retail tenant space(s)
o Required parking for residential units vs. retail space
As the architect and development team continue to refine the proposed design for a Planning Application
submittal,staff would like to share the proposed “massing”elevations (attachment 1)and gather the Housing
Subcommittee’s feedback as it relates to initial massing,bulk,and height.Furthermore,the applicant plans on
tentatively submitting a Planning Application by the end of May,which will align the project to be reviewed by
TAG and DRB in mid-June.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/1/2017Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-379 Agenda Date:5/1/2017
Version:1 Item #:3.
Although staff is only seeking comments on the proposed massing and height of the project,the project details
include the following for your reference:
·97-98 for-sale units
·20 percent below-market-rate (BMR) units
·Approximately 5,836 SF - 7,400 sf Ground floor retail
·Residential and retail parking (approximately 126-128 spaces)
The general development standards for the DTC Zoning District are as follows:
·Density: 100 dwelling units to the acre (120 units with a density bonus)
·Height: Up to 85 feet
·Parking (square feet referenced as sf):
-Studio (1 max per unit of 500 sf or less)
-1 Bedroom (1 min to 1.5 max per unit of 500 to 800 sf)
-2 Bedroom (1.5 min to 1.8 max per unit of 800 to 1,100 sf)
-3 Bedroom (2 per unit of 1,100+ sf)
-Retail (1 per 400 sf retail)
-Restaurant (1 per 100 sf seating area / 150 sf for cafes1)
-Office (1 per 400 sf office space / 300 sf for medical)
CONCLUSION
The intent of this meeting is to provide the Subcommittee with a high-level update of the 200 Linden proposed
project,including the massing elevations (attachment 1),and gather feedback related to the overall proposed
height and bulk of the 8-story building at approximately 85 feet.
Attachments:
1.200 Linden - Proposed Massing Renderings
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/1/2017Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
JK A3.201625
1" = 20'-0"
04.20.17
LOOKING NORTH EAST
AERIAL VIEW
2 STORIES
APPROX. 30'
1 STORY
APPROX. 15'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 45'
3 STORIES
APPROX. 40'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 22'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 24'
5 STORIES
APPROX. 60'
7 STORIES
APPROX. 80'
8 STORIES
84'-8" ROOF
3 STORIES
APPROX. 35'
5 STORIES
APPROX. 65'
PROJECT
NORTH
04.25.17
JK A3.211625
1" = 20'-0"
04.20.17
LOOKING SOUTH EAST
AERIAL VIEW
2 STORIES
APPROX. 30'
1 STORY
APPROX. 12'
1 STORY
APPROX. 15'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 22'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 24'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 22'
3 STORIES
APPROX. 36'
1 STORY
APPROX. 12'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 22'
1 STORY & 2
STORY
BUILDINGS
APPROX. 12-22'
PROJECT
NORTH
2 STORIES
APPROX. 45'5 STORIES
APPROX. 60'
7 STORIES
APPROX. 80'
5 STORIES
APPROX. 60'
3 STORIES
APPROX. 40'
8 STORIES
84'-8" ROOF
04.25.17
JK A3.221625
1" = 20'-0"
04.20.17
LOOKING NORTH WEST
AERIAL VIEW
2 STORIES
APPROX. 30'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 45'
1 STORY
APPROX. 12'
1 STORY
APPROX. 12'
1 STORY
APPROX. 15'
1 STORY
APPROX. 12'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 24'
2 STORIES
APPROX. 22'
5 STORIES
APPROX. 65'
5 STORIES
APPROX. 65'
PROJECT
NORTH
8 STORIES
84'-8" ROOF
04.25.17