HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-08 e-packet
AGENDA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2007
7:00 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency is held on the second Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please
complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk.
Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment.
California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda
(except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation
and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive
action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for
the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for
your cooperation.
The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Board action.
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR.
Chair
PEDRO GONZALEZ
Vice Chair
MARK N. ADDIEGO
Boardmember
JOSEPH A. FERNEKES
Boardmember
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Boardmember
RICHARD BATTAGLIA
Investment Officer
FLO DERBY
Interim City Clerk
BARRY M. NAGEL
Executive Director
STEVEN T. MATT AS
Counsel
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS A V AILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the minutes of July 11, 2007
2. Motion to confirm expense claims of August 8, 2007
CLOSED SESSION
4. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 415-417 Grand Avenue
Agency Negotiator: Marty Van Duyn
Under Negotiations: Price, terms and conditions for acquisition
Negotiating Parties: SSF Redevelopment Agency and owner Dalal Metwalli
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 216 Baden Avenue
Agency Negotiator: Marty Van Duyn
Under Negotiations: Price, terms and conditions for acquisition
Negotiating Parties: SSF Redevelopment Agency and owner Evelyn Raffin Trustee, Raffin
Family Trust
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 356 Grand Avenue
Agency Negotiator: Marty Van Duyn
Under Negotiations: Price, terms and conditions for acquisition
Negotiation Parties: SSF Redevelopment Agency and owner David Tsui
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
AGENDA
AUGUST 8, 2007
PAGE 2
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDA Y, AUGUST 8, 2007
7:30 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting
Council business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San
Francisco, California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the
City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda
(except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for
investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more
comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your
name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES
PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR
Mayor
PEDRO GONZALEZ
Vice Mayor
MARK N. ADDIEGO
Councilman
JOSEPH A. FERNEKES
Councilman
KARYLMATSUMOTO
Councilwoman
RICHARD BATTAGLIA
City Treasurer
FLO DERBY
Interim City Clerk
BARRY M. NAGEL
City Manager
STEVEN T. MATT AS
City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMP AIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
PRESENTATIONS
. Enrichment Summer Camp 2007: Junior Firefighter and Junior Police Academy - Elaine
Porter, Recreation; Captain Brian Metcho and Captain Arthur Mosqueda, Fire
Department; Corporal Doug Smith, Police Department
. City-wide Garage Sale Power Point Presentation - Rob Bartoli
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
. Certificate of Recognition
. Announcements
. Committee Reports
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of July 11,2007, July 25,
2007 and the special City Council meeting of July 18, 2007
2. Motion to confirm expense claims of August 8, 2007
3. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funding in the amount of $33,000 to
support Project Read and amending the Library Department's 2007/2008 operating
budget
4. Approval of Affordable Housing Agreement between the City of South San Francisco
and Watt Communities for the City Lights Development
5. Motion to approve $15,000 in funding for the South San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce to produce a South San Francisco Restaurant and Outlet Guide
6. Adoption of an Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 3,
Chapter 8.54, Sec. 8.54.205 related to cost recovery of public nuisance abatement
[second reading]
7. Adoption of an Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
4.22 to add administrative provisions for the collection of the commercial parking tax
[second reading]
8. Adoption of an Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
11.68.020 and 11.68.025 to update streets subject to radar enforcement of speeding
violations and adopting updates to the Radar Survey Report of May 2005 [second
reading]
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
August 8, 2007
PAGE 2
PUBLIC HEARING
9. Appeal of Use Permit Condition of Approval #A.6 requiring approximately 2,800 square
foot reduction in the top floor of the 5-story building in accordance with South San
Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.90 (Genentech)
ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS
10. Consideration of ballot arguments in favor of South San Francisco parking and business
license tax measures
COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
August 8, 2007
PAGE 3
AGENDA ITEM # 3
DATE:
August 8, 2007
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Valerie Sommer, Library Director
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $33,000 IN
GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT PROJECT READ AND AMENDING
THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2007/2008 OPERATING BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant
funding in the amount of $33,000 to support Project Read programming and amending the
Library Department's operating budget for fiscal year 200712008.
BACKGROUND
Project Read has received $25,000 from the Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit Grant Program to
provide health and family literacy information and programming to low-income/low-literacy families in
South San Francisco and its surrounding communities. Programming to encourage healthy eating and
lifestyle choices, as well as free children's books, will be distributed during Learning Wheels visits at
family daycare centers, homeless shelters, Headstart programs, and Health Centers. Additionally,
Project Read received $5,000 in California Library Literacy Services (CLLS) funding from the
California State Library to extend a project begun in fiscal year 2006/2007 to evaluate audio/visual tutor
training materials on a statewide basis and to develop a tutor training model to be posted on the CLLS
website for use in new programs. Project Read also received $3,000 from the Silicon Valley Community
Foundation to develop a marketing strategy to support future fundraising efforts and to maximize future
grant opportunities.
FUNDING:
The funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. Funds not
expended at the end of fiscal year 2007/2008 will be carried over into fiscal year 2008/2009. Receipt of
these funds does not commit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycles.
CONCLUSION:
Receipt of these funds will enable Project Read to continue programs and services which are not otherwise
funded. It is recommended that the City Council accept $33,000 in grant funding to support Project Read
programming and amend the Library Department's fiscal year 2007/2008 operating budget.
By V~;.., k
Approve
--'
Valerie Sommer
Library Director
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
$33,000 IN GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT PROJECT
READ PROGRAMMING AND AMENDING THE
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2007/2008 OPERATING
BUDGET
WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of $25,000 in grant funding from the Kaiser
Permanente Community Benefit Grant Program, $5,000 in California Library Literacy Services
(CLLS) funding from the California State Library, and $3,000 from the Silicon Valley Community
Foundation to support the Project Read programming; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library
Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $25,000 in grant funding from the Kaiser Permanente
Community Benefit Grant Program, $5,000 in California Library Literacy Services (CLLS) funding
from the California State Library, and $3,000 from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to
support Project Read programming and amends the 2007-2008 Operating Budget to reflect an
increase of $33,000 to the Library Department's budget.
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the ,2007 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
07 -08-8 ProjectRead_ CLLS_KaisecReso,doc
~'t\l 8:1#
6'C~Z _ p~,
~ . ::.~\
o (")
>-< ~l
~ C')
v 0
~4l~~\~ Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM # 4
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 8, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager
Affordable Housing Agreement for South City Lights
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of an
Affordable Housing Agreement for South City Lights (formerly Marbella) to preserve
affordable housing within the project. The Agreement will authorize the City Manager to
negotiate Below Market Rate (BMR) unit trades with the developer to lower the cost of a
portion of moderate-income units by releasing others from price restrictions.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On January 9, 2002, the City Council adopted ordinance 1306-2002 approving a Development
Agreement for the Marbella Housing Development, now known as South City Lights. As part of the
Development Agreement, the developer agreed to provide 70 Below Market Rate (BMR) Units
affordable to families of low-, median-, and moderate-incomes. The City Council approved this
project before it adopted the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which set specific guidelines and
requirements for the provision and price ofBMR units in subsequent housing developments.
Watt Communities, the project's developer, has completed three condominium buildings at City
Lights. The developer has had success selling low- and median-income units in the project.
However, selling moderate-income units has been challenging. Despite identifying many
potential moderate-income buyers, these buyers ultimately realized it is not in their interest to
purchase BMR units that cost slightly less than market rate housing elsewhere.
Ifthe moderate-income units remain unsold for six months, they will lose their affordable price
restrictions and the developer will be able to sell them as market rate units. Realizing the
difficulty of selling high priced moderate-income units, the City Council reviewed several
options to minimize the loss of affordable units. At its meeting on April 11, 2007 the Council
authorized the City Manager to negotiate unit trades with Watt Communities to lower the cost of
some moderate-income BMR units by releasing others from price restrictions. However, the City
Attorney has since determined it is necessary to execute an Affordable Housing Agreement in
order to allow the City Manager to make these trades and comply with the project's Development
Agreement.
Staff Report
Subject: Affordable Housing Agreement for South City Lights Project
Page 2
FUNDING
No City funds would be used.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of an Affordable
Housing Agreement with Watt Communities to preserve affordable housing within the South City
Lights (formerly Marbella) development. The City Manager will only pursue unit trades when it
becomes evident no buyers exist for moderate-income units and the units are at risk of being lost
from the BMR inventory. In making unit trades, the total number ofBMR units offered for sale will
not dip below 20% of total units. This will ensure that at a minimum the project will comply with
the City's Inc1usionary Housing Ordinance.
By.
Marty Van Duyn
Assistant City Manager
--,
Exhibits: Resolution
Affordable Housing Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF EXHIBIT C TO THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CITY LIGHTS
(FORMERLY MARBELLA) TO PRESERVE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WITHIN THE
PROJECT
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1306-2002 approving a
Development Agreement for the Marbella Housing Development, currently known as City Lights;
and
WHEREAS, as a part of that Development Agreement, the Developer agreed to provide 70
Below Market Rate (BMR) units affordable to families oflow-, median- and moderate-incomes; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement predated the City's adoption of a comprehensive
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance setting specific guidelines and requirements for the provision of
BMR units; and
WHEREAS, Section l(b) of Exhibit C of the Development Agreement provides that,
consistent with Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and its requirements for
Inclusionary Housing ("Inc1usionary Housing Ordinance"), Developer may submit an Mfordable
Housing Agreement that proposes a distribution of units that differs from that stated in subsection (b)
of section 1 of the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, owing to market conditions, strict adherence to the express terms setting forth
requirements for the distribution of affordable units contemplated by subsection (b) of Section 1 of
Exhibit C of the Development Agreement has not been practicable. Specifically, sales of moderate
income units has been challenging, and the City and Watt wish to provide for a flexible discretionary
process that may enable a mutually-agreeable redistribution of affordable units subject to City
approval; and
WHEEREAS, execution of an Affordable Housing Agreement will allow the City and Watt
to negotiate unit trades by releasing other low- and median-income units from resale restrictions, and
help preserve the City's overall stock of affordable housing units.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes execution of an Affordable Housing Agreement to
993265-1
P.I
preserve affordable housing within the Watt Communities project by authorizing the City Manager to
negotiate BMR unit trades with the developer to lower the cost of a portion of moderate-income
units by releasing others from resale restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the ,2007 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
993265-1
P.2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND SOUTH CITY LIGHTS
This Affordable Housing Agreement made to implement provisions of Exhibit C to that
certain Development Agreement for South City Lights (this "Agreeement") dated as of July 24,
2007 is made by and between the City of South San Francisco ("City"), and CityView Marbella
280, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Developer"), each a "Party" and together, the
"Parties," with reference to the following facts:
WHEREAS, on January 9,2002, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
adopted Ordinance No. 1306-2002 approving a Development Agreement for Marbella Housing
Project to develop a 280 unit multi-family residential condominium project now known as
"South City Lights" (herein, the "Project"), said Development Agreement having been recorded
as Document No. 2003-115798 (hereinafter, the "Development Agreement") in the Official
Records of San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit C of the Development Agreement provides that Developer shall
offer for sale seventy (70) of the Project's two hundred eighty (280) units at below-market rate
prices affordable to families of low-, median- and moderate-income households, a copy of said
Exhibit C being attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (herein, "DA Exhibit C"); and
WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that, owing to market conditions, strict adherence
to the express terms setting forth the requirements for the distribution of Affordable Units
contemplated by Section l(b) of DA Exhibit C may not be practicable; and
WHEREAS, Developer has found it difficult to sell the Affordable Units allocated to
Moderate Income households and has therefore requested that the City permit the use of a
flexible discretionary process that may enable a mutually-agreeable redistribution of Affordable
Units subject in each instance to City approval; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Developer
agree as follows:
1. Defined Terms. Terms with initial capitalized letters used but not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings set forth therefor in DA Exhibit C.
2. Current Designation. -of Affordable Units. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a table
that identifies the Affordable Units in each of the buildings at the Project as well as the income
level (i.e., low, median or moderate) of the households that may purchase the same. To the extent
that certificates of occupancy have been issued for the same as of the date hereof, then said
Exhibit 2 also identifies the date when such Affordable Units were placed on the market for sale
to purchasers with the requisite household income level.
3. Exchange Procedure. In the event that Developer is unable to sell one or more of
the Affordable Units designated for households of moderate income following good-faith
marketing efforts, Developer may sell one or more moderate-income Affordable Units at market
WaU. SoCityLights
Affordable Housing Agreement
Page 1
P.3
rate in exchange for a redesignation of one or more moderate-income Affordable Units to be sold
as low or median income Affordable Units. In each instance, such a release and exchange shall
be subject to the prior review and approval of City's Economic and Community Development
Department and City Manager. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties understand and agree
that Developer shall offer for sale at least fifty-six (56) Affordable Units to the applicable
qualified households when certificates of occupancy are issued for same. The Parties further
understand and agree, however, that the total number of Affordable Units within the Project may
ultimately be less than fifty-six (56) given that Affordable Units that are not sold within six
months after certificates of occupancy are issued for the same are automatically released from
the requirements ofDA Exhibit C and may be sold at market rates unless City elects to purchase
the same from Developer in lieu of such release
4. Resale Restrictions. All Affordable Units in the Project upon sale shall be subject
to the terms and provisions set forth in the Resale Restriction and Right of First Refusal
Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
5. Effect of Agreement. This Agreement clarifies and implements the provisions of
Section I (b) ofDA Exhibit C to the extent inconsistent therewith. Otherwise the provisions of
DA Exhibit C and other applicable provisions of the Development Agreement remain in full
force and effect.
6. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective and binding upon the Parties
and the Project as of the date on which the City Council approves the same.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written
above.
DEVELOPER:
CITY:
CityView Marbella 280, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
By: Watt Communities at Marbella, LLC, a
California limited liability company, its
authorized agent
By:
By: Watt Developers, LLC, a California
limited company, its sole Member Barry M. Nagel, City Manager
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jeffrey B. Lawrence,
its Senior Vice President
Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
Exhibit 1: DA Exhibit C
Exhibit 2: Current Project Affordable Units
Exhibit 3: Form of Resale Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement
Watt.SoCityLights
Affordable Housing Agreement
Page 2
PA
EXIllBIT 1
EXJ:Ll.HITC
OBLIGATIONS OF OWNER AND CITY .
1. Below Market Rate Housing Unit Pro gram:
Owner shall offer for sale seventy (70) (or 25%) housing units within the Residential
Project at the below market sales price's specified below ("Affordable Unitsn) in accordance
with the following terms and conditions:
(a) Based upon the median income for San Mateo County households as of March,
2001 (the "Base Median Income"), which median income equals $64,100 for a
two (2) person household; $80,100 for a four (4) person household and $92,900
for a six (6) person household, the fixed below market sales prices (the "Fixed
Sales Prices") for the Affordable Units shall be: .
(i) For a Low Income household (which is a household with an income level
equal to 80% of the applicable median income), a one (1) bedroom for two (2)
persons = $179,602;
(ii) For a Low Income household, a two (2) bedroom for three (3) perSons =
$206,62'1 ;
(ill) For a Low Income household, a two (2) bedroom for four (4) persons :::;
$233,641;
(iv) For a Low Income household, a three (3) bedroom for five (5) persons =
~~2~ '
(v) For a Low Income household, a three (3) bedroom for six (6) persons =
$276,952; .
(vi) For a Median recome household (which is a household with an income
level eqrial to 100% ofllie applicable median income), a one (1) bedroom for
two (2) persons = $218,145;
(vii) For a ~edian Income household, a two (2) bedroom for three (3) persons
= $249,933;
(viii) For a Median Inco?1e household, a two (2) bedroom for four (4) persons
= $281,720;
(ix) For a Median Income household, a three (3) bedroom for five (5) persons
:::; $307,151;
(x) For a Median Income household, a t1ll-ee (3) bedroom for six (6) persons
= $332,581;
Development Agreement For Marbella Housing Project - January 29, 2002
J:\wpd\Mnrsw\405\1 OO\Development Agreement\DUC_DA.Jan29 _fiDal.doc Filial Draft
,- . -- "--'-" ,.-..--- .h..__..J?asze 16.0[22.""",__ ,_,_,,_, '_'__. "'__".'._'_ '.'.
1111/1/ ff1111 IIIJI 1111 111I1 11I111 11111I11I 11111111I 111I ~~:n~~6 1 ~ ~r -; aa
P.5
(xi) For a Moderate Income household (which is a household with an income
level equal to 120% of the applicable median income); a one (1) bedroom for
two (2) persoDB = $266,315;
(xii) For a Moderate Income household, a two (2) bedroom for three (3)
persons = $304,079;
(xiii) For a Moderate Income household, a two (2) bedroom for four (4)
persons = $341,843;
(xiv) For a Moderate Income household, a three (3) bedroom for five (5)
persons = $372,133; and '
(xv) For a Moderate Income household, a three (3) bedroom for six (6)
persons = $402A23.
Such Fixed Sales Prices may be increased by OWner annually in proPOrtiOll to
any increases in the. median income level for San Mateo County households over
the Base Median Income, but in no instance shall the Fixed Sales Price be
decreased by an amount, even in the event of a reduction of the median income
level below the Base Median Income.
(b) A total of twenty (28) uriits (or 1 0% of the total number of units ) shall be
targeted to Low Income with an average fixed sales price of these units being at
least $219,180. A total of forty-two (42) units (or 15% of the total number of
units) shall be targeted to Median (21 units) and Moderate (21 Units) Income
households, with the average fixed sales price for these units being at least
$295,293.
Owner may submit an Affordable Housing Agreement, cODBistent with Chapter
20.125 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, to the Director of
Economic and Community Development that proposes a distribution of units
that differs from that stated in subsection (b) above. Said Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Economic
and Community Development; provided, however, that if the proposed
Affordable Housing Agreement alters the proportion of units between low and
median/moderate income or otherwise results in an. .'offset" as defined in
Chapter 20.125.020 (0), the Affordable Housing Agreement shall be' subject to
review and approval by the City Council. Neither the filing of an Affordable
Housing Agreement or the terms oftbis provision entitle Owner to develop
affordable units in a number or distribution other thaIi the 10% arid 15%
distribution set forth in paragraph 1 of this subsection (b).
(c) Owner shall designate which units in the Residential Project will be offered for
sale as Affordable Units. However, all affordable units shall be constructed with
the same materials and to the same quality as the market rate units.
".
Development Agreement For Marbella Housing Project - January 29, 2002
J:\wpd\Mnrsw\405\1 OO\Development Agreement\DUC _ DA.Jan29 _final.doc Fillal Draft
_____nEaJZe..11 of.22..._._...:__ ___ ._ __n_~__,
, 1111I111111111111111111111111I11111111I1111111\ 11111111 ~~:~~~71~~ ~f79B
.": 'P.6..
(d)' The City shall be responsible for locating and qualifying buyers for the
Affordable Units and for marketing such Affordable Units. Owner shall pay
City an Administrative Fee equal to the City's costs incurred in locating and
qualifying buyers and marlceti:i:tg the Affordable Units. City shall provide
. Owner/Seller with an invoice establishing the City's costs and shall submit said
invoice into escrow. Said Administrative Fee shall be paid as an obligation of .
Owner/Seller at or prior to the close of escrow on the Affordable Unit butmay
be waived, at the City's discretion, in order to further the goal of providing
affordable housing.
( e) The terms and conditions of the sale of any Affordable Unit to a qualifying
buyer shall be subject to the reasonable approval ofllie Owner.
(f) All Affordable Units shall be subject to resale restrictions, to he recorded upon
sale of the Unit After the initial sale of the Affordable Units at a price
affordable to the target income level group, Affordable Units shall remain
affordable to subsequent income eligible buyers, at the same income level,
pursuant to a resale ,restriction with a term of thirty (30) years or for-sale units,
may be sold at a market price to other than targeted households under the terms
and conditions set forth below. The Resale Restrictions applicable to the units
shall be specifically identified in the Project CC&Rs and are subject to the
review and approval of the City Attorney.
1. Base Resale Price: The price at which the Owner purchased the
Affordable Unit shall be adjusted by the percentage increase or decrease in the
median annual income at 100% of median of a family offour in San Mateo
County. The percentage increase or decrease shall be computed for the period
that the Affordable Unit is held by Owner. This adjusted price shall be
increased by the market value, if any, of any documented, permanent capital real
estate or fixed improvements approved by City. No price adjuStment will be
made except'upon presentation to the City of written documentation of all
expenditures made by Owner for which an adjustment is requested. The
adjusted price shall be decreased by the amount necessary to repair any damages
and to put the unit into a.sellable condition, including items such as paint,
cleaning,. construction repairs, and to bring said unit into conformity with all
applicable provisions of the South San Francisc,o Municipal Code and the
affordable housing guidelines established by the City. The value of price
adjustments shall be reasonably determined by the City.
? Upon resale of the unit, if the Affordable Unit is sold at market price, the
City will teceive the difference between the Base Resale Price and the actual
market sales price of the unit.
(g) FUnds recaptured by the City shall be used in assisting other eligible households
with home purchases at affordable prices. To the extent possible, the Project
shall be designed to be compatible with conventional mortgage financing
programs including .secondary marlcet requirements.
Development Agreement For MarbellaHousing Project - January 29, 2002
J:\wpd\Mnrsw\405\lOO\Development Agreement\DUC_DA-3an29 _finaLdoc . Fillal Draft
\, ----hJ:~g0~9..t2.L_._..__.___..____ _.__.__.__.___ ,_..
111111111111I11111111111I11 11I111111I11111111111111 1111
P.7
2003-"1"15788
04/30/2003 12:0SP
AS Pase: 38 Qr 42
In the event Owner converts the Residential Proj ect to units for rental, or any
individual owner of an affordable unit in the project, converts an Affordable
Unit to a rental unit, said unit shall be subject to the affordability criteria
established in this Agreement and applicable to the unit. Said rental restrictions
shall be contained in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the
Residential Project.
.Any income limits or allocation of rental units shall be subj ect to further review
and approval by the City and in any event shall be consistent with any
Tnclusionary Ordinance adopted by the City.
Ifunits are offered as rental units, Owner shall be responsible for filing a report
annually with the City that specifies the number of Affordable Unit rented; the
income levels established for the units and the annual rent charged and shall
cooperate with the City to locate and qualify renters for the .Project. In no event
shall the'maxiinum monthly rent for an Affordable Unit exceed ninety percent
(90%) ofllie actual market rent charged for a unit of comparable size in the
~~ . .
2. Terrirination of Below Market Rate Housing Unit Program. Any Affordable Units. that (i)
are not under a sales contract within six (6) months of the City's issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for such unit, or (ii) are put under a sales contracts prior to the expi:r:ation,of such
six (6) month period, but which have not closed escrow for such sale within ninety (90)
. days after such sales contract was entered into, shall thereafter no longer be subject to the
terms and conditions set forth in Paragraph 1 above and Owner shall have the right to sell
such Affordable Units free of such restrictions.
(i)
CD
(h)
A. Nothwithstanding anything in the preceding sentence to the contrary, in the event
escrow for an Affordable Unit that would 'othervvise qualify under subparagraph eii) ,
was delayed in closing or failed to close for any reason other than the City's failure to
satisfy its obligations in escrow or to complete the sale of me Affordable Unit, such
Affordable Unit shall remain subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Par!lgraph 1
above for'an additional 90 days from the date the original escrow period was to end or
Owner may sell the unit as a market unit and provide an alternate, equivalent
Affordable Unit to the Buyer. If Owner provides an equivalent, alternate Affordable
Unit, escrow shall be completed within 90 days from the date Owner provides an
Alternate Equivalent Unit that is ready for immediate occupancy as evidenced by a
Certificate of Occupancy or Final Permit for the unit.
. B. Nothwithstandi:i:J.g Paragraph 2 and 2( a), the total number of Affordable Units within the
Project upon build-out shall equal twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of
units unless it can be proven to the City's satisfaction that Owner has exercised
commercially reasonable efforts to provide the required Affordable Units.
3. Certificates of Occunancv for Below Market Rate Housing Unit ProQIam. The City
covenants and agrees that the City will issue certificates of occupancy for Affordable Units
Development Agreement For Marbella Housing Project - , January 29,2002
J:\wpd\Mnrsw\405\lOO\Development Agreement\DUC_DA.jan29 _final. doc Fillal Draft
-.-..-"--'--_'"__ ",_.Pag!3.l2.of:l2,_________u,
1111I111111111111111111111111I111 11111I III IIlII 1111 111I ~ff~n~~91!t~r79S
P.8..-
,.
once the requirements for issuance are met and that such requirements for issuance shall in
no way differ from tlie requirements for issuance of certificates of occupancy for market
rate units in the Residential Project.
4; Right of First Refusal for Affordable Units. In the event the City is unable to locate buyers
fDr any of the Affordable Units, the City shall have the right tD purchase such Affordable
Units pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in Paragraph 1 above, provided that any
such purchases by the City shall remain subj ect tD the time limitations set forth in
Paragraph 2 above. City shall alSD have a right of .first refusal on any subsequent sale of an
Affordable Unit within the Project.
S. Marlcetirig Plan. The Parties agree that the market rate units in Residential Pi-oj ect shall be
marketed in a manner such that the units are targeted specifically for sale to residents of the
City of South San Francisco; emplDyees of businesses within South San Francisco; and
local and state government employees working in South San Francisco; including but not
limited to City of South San Francisco employees and employees of the South San
Francisco UIPiied School District. The Marketing Plan shall be developed by Owner or,
his/b.er representative and approved by the Director ofEcononnc and Community
Development at or prior to receipt ofa building permit for the Project. The Marketing PUm
shall include, at a minimum, a comprehensive strategy for notifying the target groups and
for soliciting their interest in purchasing the units.
The parties acknowledge that nothing herein or in the marketing plan shall obligate or cause
Owner or City to violate the Federal Fair Housing Law;
6. On-Site Amenities. In furtherance of the Planned Unit Development, Owner shall provide
on-site amenities for the use of the occupants of the Residential Proj ect, including, at least.
one indoor recreation area, at least one outdoor children's play area and at least one. outdoor
passive recreation area.
7. Art/LandScape Display. In furtherance of the Planned Unit Development, Owner has agreed
to provide at least one art/landscape display, which display shall be located on the Property
and viewable from both the Residential Proj ect and specifically designated locations off the
Property as set forth in the Planned Unit Development. The design of suchart/landscape
display shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Economic and
Community Development and said approval shall be obtained prior to ,receipt of a building
permit for the Project.
8. Traffic Programs. In order to reduce the traffic generated from the Residential Project,
Owner shall cause the Homeowners Association to implement, monitor and enforce the
following: .
(a) a ride shar.iiJ.g program for the occupants of the Residential Project;
(b) a preferential parking program for the participants in the ride sharing program; and
(c) an on-site shuttle program to public transportation locationS, including, without
limitation, BART stations, Cal Train stations, and bus terminals.
Development Agreement For Marhella Housing Project - January 29, 2002
J:\wpd\Mnrsw\405\100IDevelopment AgreementIDUC _ DAjan29 _final. doc FilIal Draft
. :------- .._"D~....,-'a.I:\f.::2::l. __.u._,,______. _____., _____
111I1II1fI1111IJ/llf1J 111I111I11I11111I1111111I1111 1111 ~f!~~~i01~ ~r7sa
" --. P.9.,
In addition, in order to satisfy the traffic mitigation requirements set forth as a condition to
the City Council's approval of the Residential Project, Owner agrees to satisfy the traffic
mitigation requirements and conditions .set forth in that certain DKS Associates Traffic
Report dated October 2, 2001, prepared byDKS Associates.
9. Waiver of Densitv Bonus Offsets: In consideration of City's participation in the
marke:ting and sale of the Affordable Units, Owner agrees to waive any right to a Density
Bonus or other incentive for the provision of Affordable Units pursuant to this Agreement.
.----------.-....-- ..._. ------~...------_.._.. .R....... .... _ ...
1111111 11I111 11111111111111 11/111 111t11 1111111I 11111111
2003-1"1.5788.
04/30/2603 12:09P
AG Page: 41 of 42
Development Agreement For Marbella Housmg Project _
J:\wpd\Mnrsw\405\1 OO\Development Agreement\DUC _DA .Jan29 _ final.doc
Page 21 of22
January 29,2002
Filzal Draft
P.10
Building 6:
Unit Number Plan Type UMe/Mo Release Date
6102 3 Mod N/A
6105 4 Med N/A
6107 1 Low Sept. 2006
6109 2 Med Sept. 2006
6111 4 Low Sept. 2006
6203 2 Med Sept. 2006
6205 4 Low Sept. 2006
6207 1 Med Sept. 2006
6209 2 Mod Sept. 2006
6211 4 Low Sept. 2006
6303 2 Med Sept. 2006
6309 2 Med Sept. 2006
Building 5:
Unit Number Plan Type UMe/Mo Release Date
5101 1 Low Sept. 2006
5103 2 Low Sept. 2006
5105 4 Med Sept. 2006
5107 1 Mod Sept. 2006
5109 2 Mod Sept. 2006
5111 4 Mod Sept. 2006
5203 2 Low Sept. 2006
5205 4 Mod Sept. 2006
5209 2 Low Sept. 2006
5211 4 Low Sept. 2006
5303 2 Mod Sept. 2006
5309 2 Mod Sept. 2006
Building 4:
Unit Number Plan Type UMe/Mo Release Date
4101 1 Med 22-May-07
4103 2 Low 22-May-07
4105 4 Low 22-May-07
4107 1 Low 22-May-07
4109 2 Low 22-May-07
4111 4 Low 22-May-07
4203 2 Med 22-May-07
4205 4 Mod 22-May-07
4209 2 Med 22-May-07
4211 4 Med 22-May-07
4303 2 Mod 22-May-07
4309 2 Mod 22-May-07
EXHIBIT 2
Cert. of Occ.
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
2-Jan-07
Cert. of Occ.
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
8-Feb-07
Cert. of Occ.
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
P.II
Close of Escrow
TBD (Temp Rec Ctr.)
TBD (Temp Sales Off.)
12/29/2006
1/4/2007
12/29/2006
3/27/2007
3/7/2007
12/29/2006
12/29/2006
1/3/2007
1/12/2007
1/9/2007
Close of Escrow
4/25/2007
2/21/2007
2/16/2007
TBD
TBD
2/16/2007
2/16/2007
4/18/2007
2/16/2007
2/16/2007
5/7/2007
2/28/2007
Close of Escrow
7/30/2007
TBD
7/25/2007
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
7/27/2007
TBD
7/13/2007
TBD
TBD
Building 3:
Unit Number Plan Type LlMe/Mo Release Date
3101 1 TBD 9/1/2007
3103 2 TBD 9/1/2007
3107 1 TBD 9/1/2007
3109 2 TBD 9/1/2007
3111 4 TBD 9/1/2007
3203 2 TBD 9/1/2007
3209 2 TBD 9/1/2007
3211 4 TBD 9/1/2007
3303 2 TBD 9/1/2007
3309 2 TBD 9/1/2007
3311 4 TBD 9/1/2007
Building 2:
Unit Number Plan Type LlMe/Mo Release Date
2101 1 TBD TBD
2103 2 TBD TBD
2107 1 TBD TBD
2109 2 TBD TBD
2111 4 TBD TBD
2203 2 TBD TBD
2209 2 TBD TBD
2211 4 TBD TBD
2303 2 TBD TBD
2309 2 TBD TBD
2311 4 TBD TBD
EXHIBIT 2
Cert. of Occ.
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Cert. of Occ.
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Building 1:
Unit Number Plan Type LlMe/Mo Release Date Cert. of Occ.
1101 1 TBD TBD TBD
1103 2 TBD TBD TBD
1105 4 TBD TBD TBD
1107 1 TBD TBD TBD
1109 2 TBD TBD TBD
1111 4 TBD TBD TBD
1203 2 TBD TBD TBD
1205 4 TBD TBD TBD
1209 2 TBD TBD TBD
1211 4 TBD TBD TBD
1303 2 TBD TBD TBD
1305 4 TBD TBD TBD
P.12
Close of Escrow
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Close of Escrow
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Close of Escrow
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Exhibit 3
Form ofResaIe Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
CO~TYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPI\1ENT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
Documentary Transfer Tax $
EXEMPT
County of San Mateo
City of South San Francisco [8]
Right of Way Agent
SPACE ABOVE TIllS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
RESALE RESTRICTION AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
AGREEMENT FOR BELOW MARKET RATE PROPERTY
This Resale Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement for Below Market Rate
Property (this "Agreement") is entered into as of this _ day of _,2007, by and between
the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ("CITY") and ("OWNER").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2002, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
adopted Ordinance No. 1306-2002 approving a Development Agreement for Marbella
Housing Project to develop a 280 unit multi-family residential condominium project now
known as "South City Lights" (herein, the "Project"), said Development Agreement having
been recorded as Document No. 2003-115798 (hereinafter, the "Development Agreement")
in the Official Records of San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, the developer of the Project is required by the Development Agreement
to set aside twenty-five percent (25%) of new housing within the Project as low-, median- and
P.13
moderate-income level housing, as more particularly described on Exhibit C to the
Development Agreement (herein, "DA Exhibit C"); and
WHEREAS, the developer is meeting this requirement by offering for sale seventy
(70) condominiums (herein, the "Below Market Rate Units" or "BMR Units") to persons
who meet the household income requirements set forth on DA Exhibit C Section l(a), said
BMR Units have been heretofore identified by developer to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed that onsite sales ofthe Below Market Rate Units will
be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City requires that each buyer of a Below Market Rate Unit enter into
this Agreement with the City and cause the same to be recorded against the Below Market
Rate Unit being purchased; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the CITY is to preserve the number and availability of
affordable homes within the City for persons with low to moderate incomes for the longest
feasible time;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits received by the OWNER in
purchasing a HMR Unit subject to the Development Agreement, OWNER and CITY agree as
follows:
1. Premises. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is
commonly known as _ Gellert Blvd. # _ South San Francisco, CA 94080, more fully
described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
Exhibit A. Said real property (the "Premises") is hereby designated as a Below Market Rate
Unit and the same shall be subject to the terms and conditions herein set forth.
2. Occupancy and Ownership Restricted to Eligible Households. Pursuant to DA
Exhibit C Section 1, OWNER hereunder qualifies as a -Income Household (herein, the
"Eligible Household" with respect to the Premises). During the term of this Agreement,
OWNER must occupy the Premises as his or her principal residence subject to the provisions
of Section 21 below. The OWNER shall be presumed to be occupying the Premises as his or
her principal residence if the OWNER is living in the Premises for at least ten (10) months out
of each calendar year. The OWNER shall not lease or rent the Premises except as otherwise
provided and permitted in Section 21 below. OWNER shall provide CITY with a copy of the
lease or rental agreement. Any lease or rental in violation of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be prohibited and void. Except as otherwise provided and permitted in this Agreement,
all leasing or rental of the Premises shall be a Prohibited Transfer (as herein defmed) subject to
the provisions of this Agreement. By purchasing the Premises subject to this Agreement,
OWNER, and all successive owners and assigns, hereby acknowledge that the Premises are
restricted to occupancy by an Eligible Household.
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 2 of 16
P.14
3. Supersession. This Agreement shall supersede any and all resale agreements,
deed restrictions and other similar conditions and/or restrictions previously imposed on the
Premises whether or not such previous agreements or restrictions were recorded.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Development Agreement and the terms and conditions of
DA Exhibit C are not intended to be superseded hereby. Rather the parties hereto intend that
this Agreement shall confIrm the provisions of the Development Agreement and in doing so
the parties may supplement the Development Agreement where necessary in order to clarify
its provisions. Such supplemental provisions are not intended to conflict with the
Development Agreement. In the event, however, of any actual conflict between the
provisions of the Development Agreement and the provisions hereof, then the provisions of
the Development Agreement shall govern and control.
4. Misrepresentation of Pact as a Material Breach. OWNER hereby declares and
agrees that the fmancial and other information previously provided to the CITY for the
purpose of qualifying OWNER to purchase the Premises was true and correct at the time it
was given and remains hue and correct as of the date of this Agreement, or, in the alternative,
the financial and other information has been updated to be true and correct today. OWNER
further understands that any material misstatement or misrepresentation shall be deemed to be
a material breach of this Agreement and shall be grounds for declaring a default, terminating
the Agreement, or seeking other such relief and remedies as are appropriate under the
circumstances as herein provided.
5. Conditions of Transfer. For purposes of this Agreement, a "Transfer" shall
mean any voluntary or involuntary sale, assignment or transfer of ownership or any interest in
the Premises, including, but not limited to, a fee simple interest, joint tenancy interest, life
estate, leasehold interest including any rental of the Premises, or any interest evidenced by a
land contract by which physical possession of the Premises is transferred and OWNER retains
title. Any Transfer of the Premises shall be subject to the conditions set forth in this
Agreement. OWNER may not lease or rent the Premises for any period of time, except as
otherwise provided and permitted in Section 21 below. Each transferee shall execute an
agreement under the terms of which the transferee shall assume all of the obligations and
duties of UWNER and agree to be bound by the restrictions of this Agreement.
6. Prohibited Transfer/Default. Any Transfer which is not in substantial
compliance with this Agreement shall be deemed a "Prohibited Transfer." Upon receipt of
any evidence of a Prohibited Transfer or any other violation of the terms of this Agreement,
CITY shall give written notice to the OWNER specifying the nature of the violation. If the
violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of the CITY within ten (10) days after the date of
the notice, or within such further time as CITY determines is necessary to correct the
violation, then such failure to correct shall be deemed an Event of Default under Section 26
below and the CITY may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for specific performance
of the Agreement, for an injunction prohibiting the Prohibited Transfer in violation of this
Agreement, for a declaration that the Prohibited Transfer is void, or for any such other relief as
may be appropriate under the circumstances.
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 3 of 16
P.lS
7. Senior Lien Holder. Any attempt to transfer title or any interest therein in
violation of these covenants shall be void, provided, however, that any deed restrictions herein
shall be subordinate to a mortgage ("First Deed of Trust") held by a Senior Lien Holder
and/or a federally or state chartered bank or savings and loan association qualified to do
business in the State of California which mortgage was obtained at the time OWNER
purchased the Premises ("Senior Lien Holder"). CITY and OWNER acknowledge and agree
that this Agreement is subject and subordinate in all respects to the liens, terms, covenants and
conditions of the First Deed of Trust and to all advances heretofore made or which may
hereafter be made pursuant to the First Deed of Trust held by a Senior Lien Holder including
all sums advanced for the purposes of (a) protecting or further securing the lien of the First
Deed of Trust, curing defaults by the OWNER under the First Deed of Trust or for any other
purpose expressly pennitted by the First Deed of Trust, or (b) constructing, renovating,
repairing, furnishing, fixturing or equipping the Premises. The terms and provisions of the
First Deed of Trust are paramount and controlling, and they supersede any other terms and
provision hereof in conflict therewith. In the event of a foreclosure or deed in lieu of
foreclosure of the First Deed of Trust, any provisions herein or any provisions in any other
collateral agreement restricting the use of Premises to an Eligible Household or otherwise
restricting the owner's ability to sell the Premises shall have no further force or effect on
subsequent owners or purchasers of the Premises. Any person, including his or her successors
or assigns (other than the OWNER or related entity of the OWNER), receiving title to the
Premises through a foreclosure or deed in lieu offoreclosure of the First Deed or Trust shall
receive title to the Premises free and clear from such restrictions. Further, if the Senior Lien
Holder acquires title to the Premises pursuant to a deed in lieu of foreclosure, this Agreement
shall automatically terminate upon the Senior Lien Holder's acquisition of title, provided that
the CITY shall not have cured the default under the First Deed of Trust, or diligently pursued
curing the default as determined by the Senior Lien Holder, within the time period provided in
such notice sent to the CITY.
8. Attorneys' Fees. OWNER hereby agrees to reimburse CITY the full cost and
expense, including staff time and attorneys' fees and costs, incurred by CITY in an effort to
correct any default or enforce any violation of the terms of this Agreement, and OWNER
further understands and agrees that if such funds are not reimbursed, in addition to other
available legal remedies, CITY may deduct same from the proceeds upon resale of the
Premises.
9. Covenant Runnin!! with the Land. The terms and conditions set forth herein
are intended to run with the land and shall bind OWNER and all successors, heirs, grantees
and assigns, unless and until superseded by subsequently recorded Agreements. These terms
and conditions shall be made part of each deed subsequently recorded and shall bind each
successor in interest until the earlier of (a) thirty (30) years from the date of recordation hereof,
or (b) the recordation of a subsequent and superceding agreement or (c) the date of termination
and/or release hereof pursuant to Sections 12,24, and/or 28 of this Agreement. Each
successor in interest shall assume the rights and obligations set forth and herein undertaken by
OWNER in this Agreement. This Agreement and the covenants contained herein shall
survive delivery of the Deed.
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 4 of 16
P.16
10. Right of First Refusal. Subject to the provisions hereof, OWNER hereby
grants and gives the City of South San Francisco or its designee or assignee a right of fIrst
refusal (herein, the "First Refusal Right") to purchase the Premises under the conditions set
forth in Section 11 below. CITY, at it sole discretion, may assign its First Refusal Right to an
individual buyer who qualifies as an Eligible Household. CITY reserves the right to reassign
the First Refusal Right to another Eligible Household buyer in the event the initial designee
fails or is unable to complete the transaction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no assignment
or reassignment of this First Refusal Right shall extend any time limits for performance under
this Agreement without mutual, express and written agreement signed by both the OWNER
and any assignee.
II. Resale Procedures.
A. Notice of Offer to Sell. Whenever the OWNER wishes to sell the Premises,
OWNER shall notify CITY of the same. Such notice (herein, the "Notice of Offer to Sell")
shall be in writing and may be personally delivered or sent by certified/return receipt, fIrst
class mail through the United States Postal Service, addressed to Economic, and Community
Development, CITY of South San Francisco at 400 Grand A venue, South San Francisco, CA
94080. OWNER's Notice of Offer To Sell may be withdrawn by OWNER, provided that its
notice of withdrawal has been received by CITY or its designee, in writing, prior to
acceptance by CITY or its designee.
B. Acceptance. CITY, its designee or assignee shall have thirty (30) days from
the date of receipt of OWNER's Notice of Offer To Sell within which to exercise its First
Refusal Right to purchase the Premises. This acceptance shall be in writing and personally
delivered or sent by first class mail through the United States Postal Services, addressed to the
OWNER of record at the official address of the Premises or at such other address as OWNER
may have specifIed in its Notice of Offer To Sell. For purposes of fulfillment of the terms of
this procedure, the Notice of Offer To Sell the Premises shall be deemed to be an offer to sell,
and the exercise of the First Refusal Right to purchase by the CITY or its designee or assignee
shall be deemed to be an acceptance of that offer. Acceptance by CITY or its designee or
assignee shall constitute a legally binding contract for the transfer of title, and once accepted,
the Notice of Offer To Sell may not be withdrawn without the express, written consent of the
party who accepted the offer.
C. Escrow. Within thirty (30) days of the date of acceptance by the CITY or its
designee of the OWNER's Notice of Offer To Sell, an escrow account shall be opened by the
CITY or its designee or assignee. CITY reserves the right, at any time during this process, to
subsequently assign its right to purchase to an individual who is qualified as an Eligible
Household. Once opened, an escrow must be closed within thirty (30) days, unless both
parties mutually agree, in writing, to an extension of time. In no case shall the time between
receipt of the Notice of Offer To Sell and the date of close of escrow exceed ninety (90) days,
unless both parties mutually agree, in writing, to extend that date, or if for any reason the time
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 5 of 16
P.17
periods herein are tolled. OWNER shall be responsible for paying all customary closing costs
assigned to sellers.
12. Transfer by Owner if First Refusal Right Not Exercised. In the event the
CITY or its designee does not exercise its First Refusal Right timely pursuant to Section 11
above, then OWNER may offer the Premises for sale to other than targeted households at
market price under the terms of this Section. Upon resale of the Premises at market price, the
CITY shall receive the difference between the Base Resale Price (defmed in Section 14
below) and the actual market sales price of the Premises. The CITY shall have the right to
submit a demand into escrow for said excess proceeds. Together with such demand and
subject to receiving the excess proceeds, CITY shall provide a recordable document stating
that the Premises are forever released from the provisions of this Agreement and the
Development Agreement.
13. Owner's Obligation to Cooperate. At all times from and after the date on
which the CITY timely exercises its First Refusal Right, OWNER shall ensure that the
Premises are clean and in good repair and available to be shown to prospective buyers.
OWNER shall cooperate with the CITY and its respective officers, employees and
representatives in connection with the sale of the Premises to a buyer qualified as an Eligible
Household. Failure to comply with these conditions shall be deemed a material breach of
OWNER'sobligations pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and upon determination by
the CITY that OWNER has failed to comply \vith any of the above conditions, CITY shall
notify OWNER that the time periods stated herein shall be tolled, and the applicable time
periods extended accordingly, until OWNER has complied with all of the conditions of this
Agreement. Acts by OWNER which shall be deemed to be a breach of this obligation
include, but are not limited to, failure to make the Premises available for showing to
prospective buyers upon reasonable notice, willful or deliberate actions to dissuade
prospective buyers from purchasing the Premises, and failure or refusal to return telephone
calls, complete forms, provide required reports, or perform other actions ordinarily required by
a party to a real estate transaction in a timely manner. In addition to tolling the applicable time
periods, the CITY may pursue any other remedies for breach based upon this section.
14. Purchase Price. The purchase price shall be paid in cash at the close of escrow
or as may be otherwise provided by mutual agreement of buyer and seller. The purchase price
of the Premises to an Eligible Household shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of this
Section:
A. Base Resale Price. The "Fixed Sales Price" paid by OWNER for the
Premises is ($ ). The "Base
Resale Price" for the Premises shall be calculated as follows. The Fixed Sales Price shall be
adjusted by the percentage increase or decrease in the median annual income for a family of
four in San Mateo County as published by IDJD. The percentage increase or decrease shall be
computed for the period that the Premises are held by OWNER beginning on the date the
OWNER acquired the Premises based upon the date of recordation of the deed conveying the
Premises. CITY shall provide to OWNER, upon written request for the same from time to
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 6 of 16
P.18
time, the Base Resale Price then applicable to the Premises. The Base Resale Price shall be
increased by the market value, if any, of any documented, permanent capital real estate or
fixed improvements approved by CITY. Owner shall provide the CITY a list of
improvements, ifany, with the Notice of Offer to Sell. No price adjustment will be made
except upon presentation to the CITY of written documentation of all expenditures made by
OWNER for which an adjustment is requested. The adjusted Base Resale Price shall be
decreased by the amOlll1t necessary to repair any damages and to put the Premises into a
sellable condition, including items such as paint, cleaning, construction repairs, and to bring
the Premises into conformity with all applicable provisions of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code. The value of adjustments to the Base Resale Price shall be reasonably
determined by the CITY.
B. Deferred Maintenance. The Base Resale Price shall also be adjusted by an
amount to compensate for deferred maintenance costs, which amount shall be determined in
the following manner. Upon receipt of OWNER's Notice of Offer To Sell, CITY or its
designee or assignee shall be entitled to inspect the Premises. CITY or its designee or
assignee shall have an opportunity to determine whether any violations of applicable building,
plumbing, electric, fire, or housing codes or any other provisions of Title 16 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code exist.
15. Wood Destroying Pests and Organisms. O\VNER shall bear the expense of
, providing a current written report of an inspection by a licensed Structural Pest Control
Operator. All work recommended in said report to repair damage caused by infestation or
infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms found and all work to correct conditions that
caused such infestation or infection shall be done at the expense of the O\VNER. Any work to
correct conditions usually deemed likely to lead to infestation or infection of wood-destroying
pests or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or infection is found with respect to
such conditions, is not the responsibility of the OWNER, and such work shall be done only if
requested by the buyer and then at the expense of the buyer.
16. Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement. Upon the opening of the sale
escrow, O\VNER shall provide the CITY with a full disclosure of the condition of the premise
under Civil Code Section 1102, et seq. The CITY will provide the O\VNER with the form of
Real Estate Transfer Disclosure, which shall be completed by the OWNER and submitted to
the CITY within five (5) business days after delivery of the OWNER's Notice of Offer To
Sell.
17. Property Deficiencies. If deficiencies are noted following an inspection of the
Premises by the CITY, the CITY or its designee or assignee shall obtain estimates to cure the
deficiencies. The OWNER shall cure the deficiencies in a reasonable manner acceptable to
CITY or its designee or assignee within sixty (60) days of being notified of the results of the
inspection, but in no event later than close of escrow. Should OWNER fail to cure such
deficiencies prior to the scheduled date of close of escrow, at the option of CITY, its designee
or assignee, escrow may be closed, titled passed and money paid to the selling OWNER,
subject to the condition that such funds as are necessary to pay for curing such deficiencies
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 7 of 16
P.19
(based upon written estimates obtained by CITY, its designee or assignee), shall cause such
deficiencies to be cured, and upon certification by CITY of completion of work, escrow holder
shall utilize such funds to pay for said work. Any remaining funds shall be paid to the selling
OWNER.
18. Intentionally Omitted.
19. Assignment of Right to Purchase. In no event shall CITY become in any way
liable to OWNER, nor become obligated in any manner, by reason of the assignment of its
right to purchase, nor shall CITY be in any way obligated or liable to OWNER for any failure
of CITY's designee or assignee to consummate a purchase of the Premises or to comply with
the terms of any purchase and sale agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed
to obligate CITY to purchase the Premises in the event that a buyer participating in the BMR
program fails to close escrow.
20. Refmance of Senior Lien Holder Loan; Junior Loan
A. Refinance. CITY shall permit a prepayment and refmance of the Senior Lien
Holder loan if:
1. Such refinance reduces OWNER's monthly payments of principal and
interest on the Senior Lien Holder Loan or provides fmancing for
permanent capital real estate or fixed improvements;
11. Does not cause the principal amount of all debt secured by the
Premises (including all liens secured when the Premises were
purchased) to exceed more than 95% of the Base Resale Price of the
Premises as established by CITY at the time the Premises are
refinanced;
111. The total new housing cost to OWNER does not exceed a housing cost
that is affordable to lower to moderate income households as
determined by CITY in accordance with criteria established by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (BUD).
B. Junior Loans. Mortgage loans or equity lines of credit junior in lien priority to
the liens and Trust Deeds established when the Premises were purchased are not permitted,
except as when expressly approved by the CITY in writing. Notwithstanding the provisions
of this subsection, mortgage loans from other public agencies designed to increase affordable
homeownership, that are compatible with the CITY'S First Time Homebuyer Program and
that do not cause the OWNER'S total housing costs to exceed a housing cost that is affordable
to low- to moderate-income households as determined by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (BUD) are permitted.
21. Rental Requirements. In the event OWNER wishes to convert the Premises to
a rental unit, OWNER shall notify CITY of its desire to offer the Premises for rent under the
conditions set forth below. Such notice from OWNER (the "For Rent Notice") shall be in
writing, and may be personally delivered or sent by certified/return receipt, first class mail
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 8 of 16
P.20
through the United States Postal Service, addressed to Economic and Community
Development, City of South San Francisco, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
94080. OWNER's For Rent Notice may be withdrawn by OWNER at any time.
A. In the event OWNER converts the Premises to a rental unit, OWNER shall
rent the Premises to persons who meet the requirements of an Eligible Household. Upon
OWNER's request, CITY will provide to OWNER the criteria for making that determination
as to prospective tenants.
B. Within thirty days following receipt of the For Rent Notice, CITY shall notify
OWNER in writing of the amount of rent permitted to be charged by OWNER to an Eligible
Household for the rental of the Premises. The parties acknowledge and agree that the total
monthly rent payable by a tenant for the Premises shall be (1) detennined in accordance with
the annual income limits published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at
the time the Premises are converted to a rental unit, (2) shall not exceed thirty percent (30%)
of the applicable tenant's monthly household income, and (3) may be adjusted annually
pursuant to the annual percentage increase in median income for a San Mateo County
household in the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, published annually by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The parties further acknowledge and
agree that rent detennined in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be deemed
"affordable" in accordance with the DevelopmentAgreement and this Agreement and that
such formula shali be the manner in which rent is calculated for the Premises.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in accordance with the Development Agreement, no tenant
shall be obligated to pay rent for the Premises in an amount greater than ninety percent (90%)
of the market rental rate for a unit of comparable size in the Project. If no comparable units
exist CITY will use Fair Market Rents for San Mateo County as published by BUD to
determine the market rental rate for the Premises.
C. The total monthly rental amount for the Premises shall include a utility
allowance as determined annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(the "Utility Allowance"). The CITY acknowledges and agrees that OWNER may reduce the
monthly rent amount payable by tenants of the Premises by the amount of such Utility
Allowance and obligate tenants of the Premises to pay for utilities directly to the applicable
utility providers. Except as otherwise set forth herein, OWNER shall not be obligated to pay
utilities for the Premises.
D. The Premises shall meet minimum below market rate and habitability
standards. Said standards determined by the CITY are set forth in Exhib~t B, incorporated
herein and attached hereto. Furthermore, the rental of the Premises pursuant hereto shall be
subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibit C hereto. Said conditions shall be reflected in all
rental agreements for the Premises.
22. Intentionally Omitted.
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM) Page 9 of 16
P.2l
23. Exempt Transfers. The following transfers of title or any interest therein are
not subject to the CITY's First Refusal Right: transfer by gift, devise, or inheritance to
grantee's spouse or issue; taking of title by surviving joint tenant or a surviving spouse of
community property; transfer of title to a spouse as part of marriage dissolution proceedings;
acquisition of title or interest therein in conjunction with marriage; transfer pursuant to the
provisions of any Fannie Mae mortgage; provided, however, that with the exception of Fannie
Mae acquisitions through foreclosure or acceptance of deed in lieu of foreclosure, these
covenants shall continue to run with the title to said Premises following said transfers. An
instrument shall be executed, acknowledged and recorded by the transferee containing the
following covenant:
"This property is subject to the terms and provisions of that certain 'Resale
Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement'. Transferee, on behalf of
transferee, and by transferee's successors and assigns, covenants and agrees to
be bound by, and to perform in accordance with, such Agreement, and to
include this covenant in any further transfer of the property."
24. Default and Foreclosure. OWNER covenants to cause to be fIled for record in
the Office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo a request for a copy of any notice of
default and of any notice of sale under any deed of trust or mortgage with power of sale
encumbering said Premises pursuant to Section 2924b of the Civil Code of the State of
California. Such request shall specify that any such notice shall be mailed to the City of South
San Francisco, Economic and Community Development, 400 Grand Avenue, South San
Francisco, California, 94080. Any notice of sale given pursuant to Civil Code Section 2924f
shall constitute a Notice of Offer To Sell hereunder and CITY may exercise its First Refusal
Rights prior to any trustee's sale, judicial foreclosure sale, or transfer by deed in lieu of
foreclosure. In the event OWNER fails to file such request for notice, CITY's right to
purchase shall run from the date CITY obtains actual knowledge of a sale or proposed sale.
CITY or its designee or assignee shall have the right to cure any such notice of default. The
exercise of such right to cure shall in no way affect the operation of the notice of default as a
notice of intent to sell by OWNER. CITY, its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover
all costs incurred in curing such default from OWNER. Such costs shall be paid through
escrow from the proceeds of sale if the sale is consummated. If the sale is not consummated
and OWNER retains ownership of the Premises, CITY, its designee or assignee, shall be
entitled to recover its costs directly from OWNER. None of the foregoing shall be interpreted
to impair the right of the FNMA (Fannie Mae) to take legal action under the terms of its First
Deed of Trust or to require FNMA to send default or foreclosure notice to any third party. In
the event CITY fails to exercise its First Refusal Right to purchase or prevent foreclosure or
trustee's sale, a completed action of foreclosure or trustee's sale shall render this Agreement
and the restrictions imposed thereby to be null and void and of no further force or effect. In
the event CITY elects not to exercise its First Refusal Right to purchase upon default, any
surplus to which OWNER may be entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 727
shall be paid as follows: That portion of surplus (after payment of encumbrances), if any, up to
but not exceeding the Base Resale Price, shall be paid to OWNER on the date of the
foreclosure sale; the balance of surplus, if any, shall be paid to the CITY in order to
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 10 of 16
P.22
compensate the CITY for the loss of the Premises as a BMR Unit and to preserve the CITY's
Below Market Rate Housing Program. Forthwith following any foreclosure sale of the
Premises, the City shall forthwith cause to be recorded a termination of this Agreement and
release of the Premises of and from the Development Agreement.
25. Defaults. The following events shall constitute a default by the OWNER under
this Agreement:
(a) The CITY determines that the OWNER has made a misrepresentation to
obtain the benefits of purchase of the Premises or in connection with its
obligations under this Agreement;
(b) The OWNER fails to occupy or lease the Premises in compliance with the
provisions and conditions hereof; or
(c) The OWNER makes a Prohibited Transfer in violation of this Agreement;
(d) The OWNER fails to comply with or otherwise violates the requirements of
this Agreement;
( e) A notice of default is issued under the Senior Lien Holder's First Deed of
Trust and the same is not cured before a notice of sale is recorded by said
Senior Lien Holder; or
(f) A lien is recorded against the Premises other than the lien of a bona fide first
mortgage loan or ajunior loan approved by the CITY in accordance with
Section 20B.
26. Notice and Cure; Event of Default. Upon the occurrence of a default by
OWNER under this Agreement, the CITY shall give written notice to the OWNER specifying
the nature of the default. If the violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of CITY within a
reasonable period of time, not longer than thirty (30) days after the date the notice of default is
mailed, or within such further time as the CITY determines is necessary to correct the default,
or if the OWNER is in default under any other mortgage loan on the Premises, then such
uncured default shall be deemed an "Event of Default" hereunder, whereupon the CITY shall
provide written notice of the Event of Default to OWNER and to the Senior Lien Holder at the
address and in the manner provided by the Senior Lien Holder to the CITY.
27. Procedures Upon Event of Default. Upon an Event of Default, the CITY may:
(a) Exercise its Purchase Option under Section 28 hereof;
(b) Apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for such relief at law or in equity as
may be appropriate; and
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 11 of 16
P.23
( c) Pursue all CITY remedies under the this Agreement; and
(d) Exercise its First Refusal Right under Section 10 above.
28 Purchase Option Upon Default. Notwithstanding, and in addition to, the
remedies provided the CITY in this Agreement, the OWNER hereby grants to the CITY (or
its assignee) an option to purchase (herein, the "Purchase Option") the Premises upon the
occurrence of an Event of Default. CITY, at it sole discretion, may assign its Purchase Option
to an individual buyer who qualifies as an Eligible Household.This Purchase Option is given
in consideration of the economic benefits received by the OWNER resulting from purchase
and ownership of the Premises. The CITY (or its assignee) shall have thirty (30) days after
written notice of an Event of Default is given to OWNER and the Senior Lien Holder to notifY
the OWNER and the Senior Lien Holder of its decision to exercise its Purchase Option under
this Section. Not later than ninety (90) days after the notice is given by the CITY to the
OWNER of the CITY'S intent to exercise its option under this Section, the CITY or its
assignee shall purchase the Premises for the Base Resale Price calculated in the manner set
forth in Section 14. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CITY become in any
way liable to OWNER, nor become obligated in any manner to purchase the Premises..
29. Entirety of Agreement. This Agreement comprises the entire agreement
between the parties, and no other terms or conditions shall be deemed to apply, unless by a
mutually executed, written amendment, modification or superseding agreement which
references this Agreement. OWNER covenants that he or she has not and will not execute
any other agreement with provisions contradictory to or in opposition to the provisions hereof,
and that in any event, OWNER understands and agrees that this Agreement shall control the
rights and obligations between and among the parties and respective successors.
30. Severability. If anyone or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement
shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, then such
provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions contained in this
Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable
provision(s) had never been contained herein.
31. Distribution of Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds. If the condominium
project of which the Premises are a part is destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to
OWNER instead of being used to rebuild; or in the event of condemnation, if proceeds thereof
are distributed to OWNER; or in the event of termination of the condominium, liquidation of
the association and distribution of the assets of the association to the members thereof,
including OWNER, any surplus of proceeds so distributed remaining after payment of
encumbrances of said Premises shall be distributed as follows: That portion of the surplus up
to but not to exceed the Base Resale Price shall be distributed to OWNER, and the balance of
such surplus, if any, shall be distributed to CITY.
32. Nonwaiver. With the exception of the CITY's First Refusal Right, the failure
of the CITY to take an action to enforce a right or to seek a remedy under the terms and
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 12 of 16
P.24
conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the CITY to take such
action or enforce any rights it may otherwise have pursuant to this Agreement.
33.
Notices. All notices required herein shall be sent to the following addresses:
CITY
OWNER:
Economic and Community Development
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
South San Fransicsco, CA 94080
By acceptance of this Agreement, OWNER accepts and agrees to be bound by the covenants
contained herein.
DATED:
Signature of OWNER
Print or Type Name
Signature of OWNER
Print or Type Name
Print or Type Address of Unit
DATED:
City of South San Francisco
Barry M. Nagel, City Manager
(Rev 12-12-06 LSM)
Page 13 of 16
P.25
EXIllBIT A
Legal Description of the Premises
P.26
EXIllBIT B
Minimum Habitability Standards
Below Market Rate Rental Units shall meet minimum habitability standards. OWNER must
ensure compliance with all state and local housing codes, licensing requirements and any other
standards regarding the condition of a Structure and the operation of the housing and/or
services. Specifically, OWNER must adhere to proper standards regarding accessibility,
sanitation, security, illumination, electricity, and fire safety. These standard include, but are
not limited to:
· Effective waterproofmg and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, including
unbroken windows and walls;
· Functional plumbing facilities, including hot and cold running water, and efficient
sewage disposal;
· Gas facilities, heating resources and electrical system in good working order;
· Lights and wiring that work and are safe. At least two functioning electrical outlets in
every room, with at least one light in the bathroom;
· Well-lighted common areas, such as stairs and hallways;
· Buildings, grounds and fixtures that are clean, sanitary and free from debris, rodents
and vermin;
· Adequate and properly maintained trash receptacles;
· Doors and windows in good repair. Functional outer doors and locks, including a
deadboIt lock for the main entry door, and window locks;
· Functional smoke detector-it's the tenant's responsibility to buy and install batteries
for the smoke detector;
· Floors, stairways and railings that are safe and in good repair;
· Prevention and elimination of mold and mildew;
· Interior and exterior paint in fair to excellent condition.
The OWNER shall allow and make arrangements with tenants to pennit the City, at its
discretion, to inspect all units on a biannual basis to monitor compliance with the habitability
standards.
P.27
EXHIBIT C
The following conditions shall apply to the rental of all Below Market Rate Units and, to the
extent applicable, the conditions shall be reflected in the rental agreements between the
OWNER and all Tenants of the Below Market Rate Units:
1. Tenants shall be annually certified as to income eligibility for the Below
Market Rate Units and the annual certification shall be submitted to the office of
Community Development. If OWNER fails to perform an annual certification, CITY
shall notify OWNER in writing that OWNER is in violation of the Resale Restriction and
Right of First Refusal Agreement and OWNER is subject to Declaration of Default.
Upon receiving written notice, OWNER shall have thirty (30) days from the date of
notification to perform the certification. In the event OWNER fails to perform the
certification within the thirty (30) day period, CITY shall declare OWNER in default of
the Resale Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in the event Tenant is not cooperating with OWNER in preparing the annual
certification, so long as OWNER is using commercially reasonable efforts to obtain such
annual certification, CITY shall not declare OWNER in default of Resale Restriction and
Right of First Refusal Agreement. In addition, notwithstanding the foregoing, OWNER
shall not be obligated to provide an annual certification for any Tenant that OWNER is in
the process of evicting at the time such annual certifications are due to the CITY.
2. In the event any income eligible Tenants are subsequently determined to
be ineligible (or over income tenants), said Tenant shall be given three (3) months from
the date of ineligibility to vacate the Below Income Unit. Nothing, however, shall
prevent the OWNER from evicting said Tenants for cause such as, including but not
limited to, conducting illegal activities on or about the Premises or failing to pay rent.
3. The parties acknowledge and agree that in the event OWNER is not
allowed to evict a Tenant, OWNER shall not be deemed in violation of the Resale
Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement and such Tenant shall be deemed an
income eligible Tenant, unless OWNER is not using commercially reasonable efforts to
evict such Tenant.
P.28
~'t\\ ~
II
~ . ~~
l~ j)
~4ll!Q~ Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM # 5
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 8, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Susan Kennedy, Assistant to the City Manager
APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, approve $15,000 in funding for the South
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to produce a South San Francisco Restaurant and
Outlet Guide.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Attached is a request for $15,000 for production of a South San Francisco Restaurant and Outlet
Guide. This project will provide greater visibility for the Chamber of Commerce with its members
and the community-at-Iarge. It will also be used as a tool to increase Chamber membership and a
guide for residents, employees and visitors.
The Chamber plans to print 10,000 copies of the Restaurant and Outlet Guide and will distribute
them at hotels, the Conference Center, City Departments and facilities, and Chamber businesses.
This funding request will offset the cost of printing and part-time/hourly clerical assistance at $15.00
per hour. It is estimated that the total clerical time needed would be 1,000 hours. This project has
been discussed with members of the Chamber of Commerce Subcommittee (Pedro Gonzalez and
Karyl Matsumoto) who approved placing it on the agenda for consideration.
FUNDING
Money is available in the 2007-08 Non-Departmental Budget to cover this request.
CONCLUSION
Approval of this funding request will allow the Chamber of Commerce to increase its visibility with
its members and the community-at-Iarge. This project will also provide residents, employees and
visitors with a greater awareness of the dining and shopping opportunities South San Francisco has to
offer.
Staff Report
Subject: Approval of Funding for the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
Page 2
By:
'h.~ ~//ii~
~-~
Approved: (
Susan E. Kennedy I
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachment: Funding Request
'<".~'~..
SOllth San Francisco
Chamber of Commerce
213 Linden Avenue
South San Francisco, Ca. 94080
650588-1911
FAX 588-1529
E-mail [email protected]
July 30, 2007
Mr. Barry Nagel
City Manager
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
DearMr.:~~
~.
On behalf of the Board of Directors and the membership of the South San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce, please accept this request for funding a South San Francisco Restaurant and Outlet Guide
Guide.
Request for funding: $15,000
Total cost of the project: $ $25,189
Time frame for the project: 1000 hrs
Breakdown of the cost is as follows:
Administrative Support $18,000
(One part-time staff person @ $15 per hr plus payroll taxes)
Restaurant and Outlet Guide: $7189.00
Tasks required for Restaurant and Outlet Guide: Research and place phone calls to all restaurants, caterers,
food providers, and outlets in South San Francisco for placement in the guide. Mail membership forms to
non-members. Provide publisher with editorial content, photos, and graphics.
The Chamber appreciates the City of South San Francisco's consideration of this request. This new project
will allow the Chamber more visibility with its members and the community at large. It will also be used as
a selling tool to increase membership.
Please feel free to contact me at any time should you require more information.
Sincerely
Maria Martinucci-CEO
/J. . ~
.. II Q/1--'u2 /J!.-L,;,u .
July 30,2007
So. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
213 Linden Avenue
So. San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Maria Martinucci
Executive Director
Re: Restaurant & Outlet Guide Quotation
Dear Maria,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to quote your Restaurant and Outlet Guide. Per your
Request I am enclosing prices based on the following quantities and specifications. They are as
follows.
16 Paqe Self Cover:
. Paper: 100 # Gloss Book, Coated 2-Sides.
. Imprint: Outside Cover - 4-Color Process
Inside Cover - 1-Color, Black Ink
Inside Pages - 1-Color. Black Ink
. Size: Flat - 8" x 9 ~:
. Bindery: Trim, Collate and Saddle Stitch to a finish size of 4" x 9 W'.
. Packaging: Bulk Box
. Quantity and Price: 10,000 Guides - $ 6,983.00
20 Paqe Self Cover:
. Paper: 100 # Gloss Book, Coated 2-Sides.
. Imprint: Outside Cover - 4-Color Process
Inside Cover - 1-Color, Black Ink.
Inside Pages - 1-Color, Black Ink..
. Size: Flat - 8" x 9 ~"
. Bindery: Trim, Collate and Saddle Stitch to finish size of 4" x 9 ~"
. Package: Bulk Box.
. Quantity and Price: 10,000 Guides - $ 7,189.00
Prices are based on complete digital art being provided, if we have to layout guide, composition
is calculated at $70.00 per hour, prices do not include tax or shipping
If you have any questions Please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Jim Metz
Rocky Point LLC.
436 N. Canal st. suite 9
So. San Francisco CA 94080
Phone: 650-873-3095
Fax: 650-873-3158
J [email protected]
art
AGENDA ITEM # 6
DATE: August 8, 2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 8.54.205 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 8.54.205 of Chapter 8.54 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is
now ready for adoption.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8.54.205 OF CHAPTER 8.54 OF THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AND COST RECOVERY OF
PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT.
(Introduced on 7/25/07 Vote 5-0)
By:
\ l l /'
, .+\ <J '71-",~..".
/\ . -\\., I '\
Ste~en T. M~1:.1asre1ty Attorney
992442
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.54, SECTION
8.54.205 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATED TO COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AND COST RECOVERY
OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends Section 8.54.205 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
read as follows:
8.54.205 Definition of costs. For the purposes of this chapter, "costs" shall mean
administrative costs, including staff time expended and reasonably related to nuisance abatement
cases, for items including, but not limited to, investigation, site inspection and monitoring,
reports, telephone contracts, correspondence and meetings with affected parties, as well as all
attorneys fees for the prevailing party incurred pursuant to abatement proceedings, including but
not limited to filing fees and fees for witnesses, and the actual costs of abating the violation. The
prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of its attorneys' fees from the other party only if, at
the outset of the action, the city elects to recover its attorneys' fees. Any recovery of attorneys'
fees pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in subdivision
(b) of Government Code section 38773.5 and any successor statutes thereto.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY
In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional,
such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or
against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San
Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
*
*
*
*
*
986588-1
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held
the 25th day of July, 2007.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the 8th day of August, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance
this 8th day of August, 2007.
Mayor
986588-1
ort
AGENDA ITEM # 7
DATE: August 8, 2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
Add Administrative Provisions for the Collection of the Commercial Parking
Tax.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is
now ready for adoption.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4.22 OF THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD ADMINISTRATIVE
PROVISIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL
PARKING TAX.
(Introduced on 7 /25/07 Vote 5-0)
r\ \ i, \ //'
By: \.. ~'~~~~.~"
Ste en T. Mattas, Ci~ Att:Jney
'_/
992442
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.22 OF THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE COLLECTION
OF THE COMMERCIAL PARKING TAX
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 76-2007, which
put a measure to create a Commercial Parking Tax on the ballot for the November 6, 2007
general election. If passed by the voters of the City of South San Francisco, the Commercial
Parking Tax will be codified in chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, if passed by the voters of the City of South San Francisco, the Commercial
Parking Tax will begin being imposed on January 1, 2008, unless the City Council passes a
resolution to have the business license tax on commercial parking facilities be imposed instead of
the Commercial Parking Tax; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that if the Commercial Parking Tax is passed by the
voters of the City of South San Francisco and begins to be imposed on January 1, 2008, certain
administrative provisions would aid the Director of Finance in the administration of this tax; and
WHEREAS, if the Commercial Parking Tax is passed by the voters there will not be
sufficient time to enact these administrative provisions between the time that the results of the
election are confirmed and the implementation of the Commercial Parking Tax on January 1,
2008.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMENDMENTS IN THIS ORDINANCE
Section 2 of this Ordinance contains amendments to Chapter 4.22 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, which shall go into effect only if the voters of the City of South San
Francisco approve the measure on the ballot of the November 6, 2007 general election creating a
Commercial Parking Tax, in which case the amendments in Section 2 of this Ordinance shall
automatically go into effect once the City Council has declared the results of the election.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby amends Chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
read as follows:
4.22.0'0
Short title.
This chapter shall be known as the Commercial Parking Tax of the City of South
San Francisco.
4.22.020
Definitions.
When used in this chapter the following terms shall mean or include:
(a) "Cancelled transaction" - A transaction that an operator cancels prior to
payment because of an equipment malfunction.
~
(b) "The city" - The city of South San Francisco.
(c) "Issued tickets" - The total number of parking tickets issued to occupants,
including voided tickets and parking tickets otherwise used or consumed in the operation
of the parking facility for a given period.
(d) "Lost ticket" - A parking ticket that has been issued to and misplaced by an
occupant and which has not been returned to the operator with payment of rent.
(e) "Motor vehicle" - Any self-propelled vehicle operated or suitable for
operation on the highway,
ff) "Occupancy" - The use or possession or the right to the use or possession of
any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking station.
(g) "Occupant" - A person who, for consideration, uses, possesses or has the
right to use or possess any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking station
under any lease, concession, permit, right of access, license to use, or other agreement.
(h) "Operator" - Any person operating a parking station in the City, including but
not limited to, the owner or proprietor of such premises, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in
possession, licensee or any other person otherwise operating such parking station. A
person who otherwise qualifies as an operator as herein defined shall not, by reason of the
fact that he or she is exempt from the parking tax herein imposed, be exempted from the
obligations of an operator hereunder.
(i) "Parking space" - A marked area or space designated for and only large
enough for the parking of a single motor vehicle.
U) "Parking Station" - The term "parking station" shall include, but is not limited
to:
(1) Any outdoor space or uncovered plot, place, lot, parcel, yard or
enclosure, or any portion thereof, where motor vehicles may be parked, stored,
housed or kept, for which any charge is made; or
(2) Any building or structure, or any portion thereof in which motor
vehicles may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any charge is made.
(k) "Parking ticket" - The record provided by the operator to the occupant setting
forth the time and date that the occupant's vehicle entered the parking station that is used
by the operator to determine the rent charged to the occupant.
(1) "Public transit authority" - A public entity or agency of a public entity that
provides public transportation by using trains, ferries, or buses to transport passengers
between multiple stops, terminals, or stations that are located in multiple communities or
cities.
(m) "Rent" - The consideration received for occupancy valued in money, whether
received in money or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property or
services of any kind or nature, and also the amount for which credit is allowed by the
operator to the occupant without any deduction therefrom whatsoever.
(n) "Tax administrator" - The director of finance.
(0) "Transaction" - The calculation and payment of rent for occupancy.
(p) "Unaccounted ticket" - A ticket that is issued to an occupant and is not
returned to the operator. A lost ticket is an unaccounted ticket.
(q) "Unaccounted ticket ratio" - The ratio of unaccounted tickets to issued tickets
for a given period, expressed as a percentage of issued tickets.
(r) "Voided ticket" - A parking ticket that is not issued to an occupant, but which
is used in the course of the operator's testing, repair, or maintenance of equipment used by
the operator for transactions.
4.22.030
Imposition and rate of parking tax.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter, there is hereby imposed a tax of eight
percent of the rent of every occupancy of a parking space in a parking station in the city.
4.22.040
Charges subject to parking tax.
The term "rent," as defined in section 4.22.020(m), shall be deemed to include the
total charges required to be paid by an occupant (including but not limited to any
separately stated valet or service labor charge for parking) in connection with the use or
occupancy of a parking space, provided that nothing herein shall require the payment of
parking tax on the sale of petroleum products, automobile parts, or the like, or the
rendering of services (including car-wash services) totally unconnected with the use or
occupancy of a parking space. The cost of services provided by an operator to an
occupant at no extra or separate charge shall not reduce the amount of rent subject to the
tax.
4.22.050
Occupant to pay parking tax to operator.
Unless prohibited by the laws of the United States, the State of California, or
exempted by the provisions of this code, every occupant occupying a parking space or
spaces in a parking station in the city shall be required to pay the parking tax to the
operator along with the rent for occupancy. This obligation is not satisfied until the
parking tax has been paid to the city, except that a receipt indicating payment of the rent
from an operator maintaining a place of business in the city or from an operator who is
authorized by the tax administrator to collect the parking tax shall be sufficient to relieve
the occupant from further liability for the parking tax for the transaction to which the
receipt refers.
4.22.060
Exemptions.
No parking tax shall be imposed
( a) On the rent for the occupancy of a parking space in a parking station of which
the city is the owner or operator, either directly or through contract.
(b) On the rent for the occupancy of a parking space in a parking station where
(1) the operator is a public transit authority,
(2) the parking station serves users of a bus stop, ferry terminal, or train
station of that public transit authority, and
hours.
(3) the occupant occupies the parking space for less than 24 consecutive
(c) On the rent for the occupancy of a parking space in a parking station where
the occupant is exempt from being subject to the parking tax under the laws of the United
States or the State of California,
4.22.070
Administration.
(a) The tax administrator shall deposit all moneys collected pursuant to this
chapter into the general fund of the city. The collections may be expended for any city
purpose.
(b) The tax administrator shall enforce the provisions of this chapter and may
prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of
this chapter as may be necessary or desirable to aid in the administration and enforcement
of the provisions of this chapter. Such rules and regulations may include exemptions from
the parking tax and may otherwise create limitations to the application of the parking tax.
However, any rule or regulation promulgated by the tax administrator that creates an
exemption or limitation to the parking tax shall be only temporary unless explicitly
approved by the city council as a permanent exemption or limitation. The tax
administrator may also prescribe the extent to which any rule or regulation shall be applied
without retroactive effects.
4.22.080
Collection of parking tax by operator; receipt to occupant.
(a) Every operator renting a parking space in a parking station in the city to an
occupant who is not exempted under this chapter or elsewhere in this code, shall at the
time of collecting the rent from the occupant collect the parking tax from the occupant
and on demand shall give to the occupant a receipt for the transaction. In all cases in
which the parking tax is not collected by the operator the operator shall be liable to the
city for the amount of parking tax due on the amount of taxable rent collected from the
occupant under the provisions of this chapter, the same as though the parking tax were
paid by the occupant.
(b) Unless the operator can provide an explanation or other sufficient proof that
the tax administrator in his or her sole discretion deems to be credible to establish the
validity of a claim for a lost ticket or an otherwise unaccounted ticket, every lost ticket
and unaccounted ticket shall be considered as a full value parking ticket for which the
operator is liable for transmitting to the city the full value of the parking tax required
under this code applicable to a full day's rent for a single parking space occupancy without
discount, except that an operator shall be allowed an unaccounted ticket ratio of 1.5
percent for each parking station that it operates in a reporting period for which the
operator shall not be liable for failure to remit the parking tax.
( c) The operator shall have the burden of explaining and establishing the validity
of lost tickets and cancelled transactions. The tax administrator may consider a verified
statement signed by the occupant claiming a lost ticket that includes the occupant's name,
address, telephone number, the occupant's motor vehicle license plate number, the time of
entry and the time of exit as sufficient proof of a valid lost ticket transaction. An operator
shall maintain a log of all lost tickets and cancelled transactions.
4.22.090
Reporting and remitting.
(a) On or before the last day of each month, each operator shall file a return with
the tax administrator on forms provided by the city reporting the total amount of rent
charged and received and the total amount of parking tax collected by the operator for the
occupancy of the operator's parking spaces in the previous month.
(b) On or before the last day of each month, each operator shall remit to the tax
administrator the parking tax collected by the operator for the occupancy of the operator's
parking spaces in the previous month.
(c) Returns and remittances are due within ten days of the cessation of business
for any reason, or within ten days of a change in ownership of the business. All parking
taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account
of the city until payment thereof is made to the tax administrator.
4.22.100
Penalties and interest.
(a) Any parking tax that is not remitted to the city within the time required is
delinquent and the operator shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount of delinquent
parking tax.
(b) An operator who fails to remit any delinquent parking tax on or before a
period of thirty days following the date on which the parking tax first became delinquent
shall pay an additional delinquency penalty of another ten percent of the amount of the
delinquent parking tax.
(c) If the tax administrator determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due
under this chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax shall
be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subdivisions ( a) and (b) of this
section.
(d) In addition to the penalties imposed by this section, any operator who fails to
remit any tax imposed by this chapter shall pay interest at the rate of one percent per
month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of the delinquent tax, exclusive of penalties,
from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.
(e) Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this
section shall become a part of the parking tax required to be remitted by the operator.
4.22.110
Failure to collect or to report parking tax; determination by tax collector of
amount due; right to hearing on determination.
( a) If an operator fails or refuses to collect the parking tax or to make within the
time provided in this chapter any report or remittance of the parking tax or any portion
thereof required by this chapter, the tax administrator shall proceed in such manner as he
or she may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to make an estimate of the
parking tax due. The tax administrator shall then determine and assess against the
operator the parking tax, interest, and penalties, as provided for by this chapter. The tax
administrator shall give notice to the operator of the amount determined and assessed as
provided in section 4.22.130.
(b) If an operator files a tax return and remits the amount of parking tax stated on
the return, but it appears to the tax administrator that the operator has not remitted the full
amount of parking tax that has been or should have been collected, the tax administrator
shall proceed in such manner as he or she may deem best to obtain facts and information
on which to make an estimate of the parking tax that should have been collected and
remitted. The tax administrator shall then determine the amount of parking tax that should
have been collected and remitted, but which was not remitted, and assess against the
operator this amount of parking tax, interest, and penalties, if any, as provided for by this
chapter. The tax administrator shall give notice to the operator of the amount determined
and assessed as provided in section 4.22.130.
(c) Within ten days after the serving or mailing of notice of a determination and
assessment by the tax administrator made pursuant to subdivisions (a) or (b) above, the
operator may submit to the tax administrator an application in writing for a hearing on the
amount assessed in the determination. If no application by the operator for a hearing is
made within the time prescribed, the parking tax, interest and penalties, if any, determined
and assessed by the tax administrator pursuant to subdivisions (a) or (b) above shall
become final and conclusive and immediately due and payable. If such application is
made, the tax administrator shall give not less than five days' written notice in the manner
prescribed in section 4.22.130 to the operator to show cause at a time and place fixed in
the notice as to why the amount determined and assessed by the tax administrator should
not be fixed as the amount of parking tax, penalties, and interest owing. At such hearing,
the operator may appear and offer evidence why such specified parking tax, interest, and
penalties should not be so fixed. After such hearing the tax administrator shall determine
the proper parking tax to be assessed and shall thereafter give written notice to the
operator in the manner prescribed in section 4.22.130. The amount determined and
assessed to be due shall be payable ten days from the service of the decision, unless an
appeal is taken as provided in section 4.20. 120(a).
4.22.120
Appeal.
(a) Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the tax administrator with respect
to the amount of parking tax, interest, or penalties determined to be due and owing by the
tax administrator may appeal the tax administrator's decision to the city manager by filing
a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten days of the service of the determination by
the tax administrator that is being appealed. The city manager shall fix a time and place
for hearing such appeal, and the city clerk shall give notice in writing to the operator as
provided in section 4.22.130. Following the hearing the city manager shall make findings
and issue a decision, which shall be served upon the operator as provided is section
4.22.130. The decision of the city manager shall be final and conclusive and any amount
found to be due shall be due and payable ten days from the service of the decision, unless
an appeal is taken as provided in section 4.20. 120(b).
(b) Any operator aggrieved by a decision of the city manager on an appeal taken
pursuant to section 4.22. 120(a) may appeal the city manager's decision to the city council
by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten days of the service of the decision
of the city manager that is being appealed. The city council shall fix a time and place for
hearing such appeal, and the city clerk shall give notice in writing to the operator as
provided in section 4.22.130. Following the hearing the city council shall make findings
and issue a decision, which shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the
operator as provided is section 4.22.130. Any amount found to be due shall be
immediately due and payable upon the service of notice,
4.22.130
Notice.
Whenever notice is required under this chapter, it shall be delivered personally or
by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notice to an operator shall be
delivered to the operator's last known place of business.
4.22.140
Maintenance and examination of books, records, and witnesses.
(a) It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and remittance to
the city of the parking tax imposed by this chapter to keep and preserve for a period of
three years all records as may be necessary to determine the amount of parking tax as the
operator may have been liable for the collection and remittance to the city.
(b) The tax administrator, or his or her designee, is authorized to examine the
books, papers, and records of any operator, including any person subject to this chapter,
for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of any return made, or if no return was made, to
ascertain the parking tax due. Every operator or person subject to the provisions of this
chapter is required to furnish to the tax administrator or his or her designee the means,
facilities, and opportunity for making such examination and investigations. The tax
administrator is authorized to examine any person under oath and to compel the
production of books, papers, and records for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of any
return made, or if no return was made to ascertain the parking tax due.
4.22.150
Information confidential.
(a) The tax administrator and any person having an administrative duty under the
provisions of this chapter shall keep confidential and not disclose the business affairs,
operations, or information obtained by an investigation of records and equipment of any
operator, including the amount or source of income, profits, losses, or expenditures of the
operator.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent:
(1) The disclosure to, or the examination of records and equipment by, another
city official, employee, or agent for collection of taxes for the sole purpose of
administering or enforcing any provisions of this or any other city codes.
(2) The disclosure of information to or the examination of records by federal or
state officials, or the tax officials of another city or county, or city and county, if a
reciprocal arrangement exists, or to a grand jury or court of law upon subpoena;
(3) The disclosure of information and results of an examination of records of a
particular operator, or relating to a particular operator, to a court oflaw in a proceeding
brought to determine the existence or amount of any parking tax liability of the particular
operator to the city;
(4) The disclosure by way of public meeting or otherwise of such information as
may be necessary to the city council in order to permit it to be fully advised as to the facts
when an occupant or operator files a claim for refund of parking tax, or submits an offer
of compromise with regard to a claim asserted against an occupant or operator by the city
for parking tax.
(5) The disclosure of general statistics regarding taxes collected or business done
in the city,
4.22.160
Nonconclusiveness of statements.
No declarations or statements shall be conclusive as to the matters set forth
therein. Declarations and statements shall be subject to audit and verification by the tax
administrator or his or her designees who are authorized to examine, audit, and inspect
such books and records of any operator as may be necessary in their judgment to verify or
ascertain the amount of parking tax due.
4.22.170
Refunds.
( a) Wherever the amount of any parking tax, interest, or penalty has been
overpaid or paid more than once or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received
by the city under this chapter it may be refunded as provided in this section provided a
claim in writing stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim
is founded is filed with the tax administrator within one year of the date of payment. The
claim shall be on forms furnished by the tax administrator.
(b) An operator may claim a refund for the amount of parking tax overpaid or
erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established in a manner prescribed
by the tax administrator that the occupant from whom the parking tax was collected was
exempt from the parking tax; provided, however, that a refund shall not be allowed unless
the amount of the parking tax so collected has been refunded to the occupant who paid the
parking tax.
(c) An operator may claim a refund for the amount of parking tax remitted to the
city in excess of the parking tax that was due to be collected and which, in fact, was not
actually collected from occupants when it is established in a manner prescribed by the tax
administrator that the operator remitted more parking tax than was required and that this
excess parking tax was not in fact collected from occupants.
(d) An occupant who has paid the parking tax may obtain a refund of parking tax
overpaid or illegally collected or received by the city by filing a claim in the manner
provided in subdivision (a), but only when the parking tax was paid by the occupant
directly to the tax administrator, or when the occupant, having paid the parking tax to the
operator, establishes to the satisfaction of the tax administrator that the occupant has been
unable to obtain a refund from the operator who collected the parking tax.
(e) No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant
establishes his or her right thereto by written records showing entitlement thereto.
(f) Any decision by the tax administrator regarding a claim for refund under this
section may be appealed by the claimant to the city manager by filing a notice of appeal
with the city clerk within ten days of the service of the decision by the tax administrator
that is being appealed. The city manager shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal,
and the city clerk shall give notice in writing to the claimant as provided in section
4.22.130. Following the hearing the city manager shall make findings and issue a decision,
which shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the claimant as provided in
section 4.22.130.
4.22.180
Actions to collect; lien procedures.
(a) Any parking tax required to be paid by any occupant under the provisions of
this chapter shall be deemed a debt owed by the occupant to the city. Any such parking
tax collected by an operator, which has not been paid to the city, shall be deemed a debt
owed by the operator to the city. Any person owing money to the city under the
provisions of this chapter shall be liable in an action brought in the name of the city for the
recovery of such amount.
(b) In an action authorized by this section, the prevailing party shall recover court
costs, attorney's fees, personnel costs, and auditor's fees to be added to the judgment and
set by the court. These fees are recoverable at all levels of trial and appeal.
(c) If any amount required to be paid to the city by an operator under this chapter
is not paid when due, the tax administrator may, within three years after the amount is
due, file for recording in the office of the San Mateo County Recorder a Certificate of
Delinquency of Parking Tax Lien specifying the amount of tax, penalties, interest, and
attorney's fees and personnel costs due, the name and address of the operator liable for
the same as it appears on the records of the tax administrator, and the fact that the tax
administrator has complied with all provisions of this chapter in the determination of the
amount required to be paid. From the time of the recording of the Certificate of
Delinquency of Parking Tax Lien, the amount required to be paid together with interest,
penalties, and attorney's fees shall constitute a lien upon all real property in the county
owned by the operator or thereafter acquired by the operator before the lien expires. The
lien has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien and shall continue for thirty years
unless sooner released or otherwise discharged.
(d) The amounts required to be remitted and/or paid by any operator under this
chapter, including penalties and interest, shall be satisfied first in any of the following
cases:
(1) Whenever the operator is insolvent;
(2) Whenever the operator makes a voluntary assignment of his or her assets;
(3) Whenever the estate of an operator in the hands of executors, administrators,
or heirs is insufficient to pay all the debts due from the operator;
(4) Whenever the estate and effects of an absconding, concealed, or absent person
required to pay any amount under this chapter are levied upon by process of law.
(e) This section does not give the city a preference over any recorded lien which
attached prior to the date when the amounts required to be paid became a lien. The
preference given to the city by this section shall subordinate to the preference given to
claims for personal service by Sections 1204 and 1206 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(f) At any time within three (3) years after any operator is delinquent in the
payment of any amount, the tax administrator may forthwith collect the amount in the
following manner: the tax administrator shall seize the property, real or personal, of the
operator and sell the property, or a sufficient part of it, at public auction to pay the
amount due together with any penalties and interest imposed for the delinquency and any
costs incurred on account of the seizure and sale. Any seizure made to collect parking tax
due shall be only property of the operator not exempt from execution under provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
(g) If any operator that is liable for any amount under this chapter sells out his or
her business or quits the business, his or her successor or assignee shall withhold sufficient
of the purchase price to cover such amount for which the operator is liable until the former
owner produces a receipt from the tax administrator showing that it has been paid or a
certificate stating that no amount is due.
(h) If the purchaser of a parking station fails to withhold from the purchase price
as required in subdivision (g) of this section, the purchaser shall become personally liable
for the payment of the amount required to be withheld by the purchaser to the extent of
the purchase price, valued in money. Within 30 days after receiving a written request from
the purchaser for a certificate, or within 30 days from the date the former owner's records
are made available for audit, whichever period expires the later, but in any event not later
than 60 days after receiving the request, the tax administrator shall either issue the
certificate or mail notice to the purchaser at the purchaser's address as it appears on the
records of the tax administrator of the amount that must be paid as a condition of issuing
the certificate. Failure of the tax administrator to mail the notice will release the purchaser
from any further obligation to withhold from the purchase price as above provided. The
time within which the obligation of the successor may be enforced shall start to run at the
time the operator sells his or her business or at the time that the determination against the
operator becomes final, whichever event occurs later.
(i) If the taxes are not paid when due, such tax, penalty and interest shall
constitute a special assessment against such business property and shall be a lien on the
property for the amount thereof, which lien shall continue until the amount thereof
including all penalties, interest and costs of collection are paid, or until it is discharged of
record
4.22.190
Violations; misdemeanor.
(a) Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be punishable therefore by a fine of not more than five hundred
dollars or by imprisonment for a period of not more than six months or by both such fine
and imprisonment.
(b) Any operator or other person who fails or refuses to furnish any return
required to be made, or who fails or refuses to furnish a supplemental return or other data
required by the tax administrator, or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, is
guilty of a misdemeanor, and is punishable therefore by a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars or by imprisonment for a period of not more than six months or by both
such fine and imprisonment.
(c) Any person required to make, render, sign or verify any report or claim who
makes any false or fraudulent report or claim \vith intent to defeat or evade the
determination of any amount due required by this chapter to be made, is guilty of a
misdemeanor and is punishable therefore by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or
by imprisonment for a period of not more than six months or by both such fine and
imprisonment.
4.22.200
Determination by city council to impose either the commercial parking tax
or the business license tax on commercial parking facilities.
(a) For any calendar year the city may only impose throughout the city either the
commercial parking tax of this chapter or the business license tax on commercial parking
facilities in section 6.16.047 of this Code. The city may not impose both taxes anywhere
in the city at the same time, The decision whether to impose the commercial parking tax
or the business license tax on commercial parking facilities is within the discretion of the
city council to decide. If the city council wishes to change which tax is being collected, it
shall do so by resolution passed before the start of the calendar year to which it is to
apply.
(b) Whenever the commercial parking tax of this chapter is being imposed, and the
business license tax on commercial parking facilities in section 6.16.047 is not being
imposed, commercial parking facilities shall be subject to the business license tax provided
for in section 6.16.240.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY
In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or
unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or
portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for
or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San
Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its
adoption, although the amendments in Section 2 of this Ordinance will not be implemented until
such time as provided in Section 1,
*
*
*
*
*
Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, held the 25th day of July, 2007.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the 8th day of August, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this 8th day of August, 2007.
Richard A Garbarino, Mayor
ort
AGENDA ITEM # 8
DA TE: August 8, 2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 11.68 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11.68 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is
now ready for adoption.
AMEND1vlENT TO CHAPTER 11.68 OF THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE STREETS
SUBJECT TO RADAR ENFORCE1vlENT OF SPEEDING
VIOLATIONS AND ADOPT UPDATES TO THE RADAR SURVEY
REPORT OF MAY 2005.
(Introduced on 7/25/07 Vote 5-0)
By:
\" \ \, \ /~.
\.1\ -t~t\i'<1f'\
\' I,
Ste~en T. Matt~J,.~Qlty Attorney
992442
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.68 OF THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIP AL CODE TO
UPDATE THE STREETS SUBJECT TO RADAR
ENFORCEMENT OF SPEEDING VIOLATIONS AND
ADOPT UPDATES TO THE RADAR SURVEY REPORT
OF MAY 2005.
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: DELETE PHRASE FROM SECTION 11.68.020, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT
DECLARED THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR."
The words "Bayshore Boulevard - from city limits to Sister Cities Boulevard" are hereby deleted
from Section 11.68.020 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
SECTION 2: ADD PHRASE TO SECTION 11.68.025, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT DECLARED
FORTY MILES PER HOUR."
The words "Airport Boulevard (formerly Bayshore Boulevard) - from city limits to Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard" are hereby added to Section 11.68.025 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code.
SECTION 3: ADOPT UPDATE TO THE MAY 25,2005 RADAR SURVEY REPORT IN SECTION
11.68.005, DETERMINATION AND DECLARATION OF PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS,
Section 11.68.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
11.68.005 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits.
The City Council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic survey dated May 25, 2005, and
the June 27, 2007 update to said survey, prepared by the Police Department and City Engineer, for the
streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public
inspection in the offices of the City Clerk and City Engineer. The City Council finds and determines that
the survey was conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering
and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation and that the survey justifies
the speed limits set forth in this chapter. The City Council further finds and determines upon the basis of
the survey that a speed greater than twenty-five miles per hour will facilitate the orderly movement of
vehicular traffic and will be reasonable and safe upon the streets or portions of streets designated in
Sections 11.68.015 through 11.68.035 and declares that the prima facie speed limit of each street or
portion thereof is the most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and
safe. The City Council declares these speed limits as prima facie speed limits for the streets or portions
thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the
streets or portions thereof.
1
SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY
In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such
section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 4: PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those members of the City Council voting for
or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San
Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the
25th day of July, 2007.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the 8th day of August, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this
8th day of August, 2007.
Mayor
2
~'t\\ s4N
ii
(0 n
~ ...
~ ~
v ~llFO#" Staff Re120rt
AGENDA ITEM # 9
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
August 8, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:
Appeal - Condition of Approval #A6 of Planning Commission Approval of
Genentech Building 50 (B50)
Applicant: Lisa Sullivan, Director of Strategic Facilities Planning, Genentech Inc.
Case Numbers: AP07-0001: P06-0136, UP06-0032, DR06-0102
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Genentech's Building 50
project, including all conditions, and deny the appeal.
BACKGROUND
Genentech has proposed to construct a five-story building with 168,500 square feet of gross floor area at
680 Forbes Boulevard, in the Genentech Lower Campus between Building 7 and Building 51.
The Planning Commission approved the project (6-0-1) at its July 19, 2007 meeting subject to
conditions of approval that include Planning Division Condition #6 (Condition #A6) which reads: "Prior
to submitting for building permits, the applicant shall work with the Planning Division to redesign the
top floor so it is 25,000 square feet or less, resulting in a building that is 165,700 square feet or less.
The majority of the floor area reduction should be most evident from Forbes Boulevard. The final
design shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner".
Genentech has appealed the imposition of Condition of Approval #A6 citing project delays related to
removing square footage from the design, as well as their programmatic needs for the subject site.
DISCUSSION
(A complete discussion of the project and background are contained in the attached Planning
Commission Staff Report dated July 19, 2007)
Genentech's current building submittal (plans dated July 2, 2007 are attached) shares the same building
square footage and is virtually the same design and massing as a preliminary application that was
presented by Genentech to the Design Review Board (DRB) in December of2006.
Staff Report
Subject:
Date:
Page 2
Genentech B50 - Appeal
August 8, 2007
The December, 2006 application was considered 'preliminary' because Genentech projects could not be
processed by the City until the Genentech Facilities Ten-Year Plan (Master Plan) and the environmental
document were finalized. As a courtesy to Genentech, the City's DRB provided comments on the
project at the December DRB meeting. The DRB provided additional input on two subsequent revisions
at meetings held on March 20,2007 and April 17, 2007.
In March of 2007, the City Council approved the Master Plan, which allowed Genentech to formally
present the project to the Planning Commission at the April 19, 2007 meeting.
The April 19, 2007 Planning Commission submittal included a building with 165,340 square feet of
floor area. The April submittal was 3,160 square feet smaller than the current building proposal.
At the April 19, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reiterated concerns that the
building was too large for the site. In an effort to keep the project moving forward, the applicant
requested that a subcommittee be formed to address the Planning Commission's concerns.
Two subcommittee meetings were held - the first on May 3,2007 and the second on June 7, 2007. At
the first subcommittee meeting Genentech presented three building design options, all of which included
a floor area in the range of 154,000 square feet, which was approximately 14,500 square feet smaller
than the original project presented in December 2006 and approximately 11,000 square feet smaller than
the April submittal. At the second subcommittee meeting, Genentech presented the 'preferred option'
from the first subcommittee meeting, which still had a floor area of approximately 154,000 square feet.
At this meeting, Genentech stated that they were concerned about the amount of square footage that had
been lost, noting the loss had compromised their programmatic needs. The applicant asked the
subcommittee to assist them in identifying areas where floor area could be recaptured. Additional
suggestions were provided to re-introduce some floor area back into the design, and direction was given
that the building be brought back to the full Commission for consideration.
In early July, Genentech submitted a letter that formally states their concern about the amount of
building floor area that had been lost during the review process (see Genentech's letter dated July 3,
2007, which is attached to the staff report). At that time, the applicant submitted the current proposal
which incorporates site design changes recommended by the DRB and Planning Commission, but which
include a building that is massed in virtually the same manner as the December, 2006 submittal. The
building square footage proposed with the latest submittal is 3,160 square feet larger than the April
submittal to the Planning Commission.
In formulating a staff recommendation to the Planning Commission, staff attempted to find a balance
between the design issues raised repeatedly by the DRB and Planning Commission, the programmatic
needs ofGenentech, and consistency with the Master Plan. The Lower Campus Land Use and Structure
section of the Master Plan identifies a "lab building of 165,000 square feet, with 140,000 square feet of
laboratory and support space and 25,000 square feet of office uses" for the site. Although square footage
numbers in the Master Plan are not 'set-in-stone', it is noted that during the Master Plan review process,
the Commission identified a concern that the site was too "congested" and the building was too "large"
Staff Report
Subject:
Date:
Page 3
Genentech B50 - Appeal
August 8, 2007
in relation to the neighboring buildings.
The current proposal contains 140,700 square feet oflaboratory and support space and 27,800 square
feet of office space, for a total of 168,500 square feet. Understanding Genentech's programmatic needs
for this site (manufacturing and processing being the most important components), staff recommended,
and the Planning Commission concurred, that the project move closer to the 165,000 square feet that is
approximated in the Master Plan; and that is approximately the same size as the building Genentech had
submitted in April for the Commission's initial consideration. The Commission's approval provides
360 square feet more than the building Genentech submitted for initial review in April, 2007.
The approved project maintains all the manufacturing and processing floor area that is critical to
Genentech for this site - none of the office and research and development floor area assigned to
scientists is reduced. Condition #A6 requires only that the supervisory office square footage, found on
the fifth floor, be reduced by not less than 2,800 square feet.
This reduction in floor area accomplishes three key objectives:
· It makes the project conform to the recently approved Master Plan, which identifies the
development potential for this site;
· It acknowledges the input of staff, the Design Review Board (DRB), and the Planning
Commission, including the Subcommittee, who clearly identified as early as September 2006
the fact that the proposed building is too large for the site as it was initially proposed; and
· It addresses components of the Master Plan Design Guidelines related to 'Building Exterior
Design' , including Massing A -4.1 and Building Articulation and Composition A -4.3.
While the 2,800-square-foot reduction in floor area does not address all of the Commission's massing
and setback concerns, the Planning Commission understood the critical importance of addressing the
programmatic needs expressed by the applicant. As indicated in Genentech' s letter dated July 3, 2007,
the primary needs for this building are related to manufacturing and production.
APPEAL
On July 23,2007 Genentech submitted an Application for Appeal (attached). In the application the
applicant states, "[t]he imposition of the condition [Condition of Approval #A6] will result in an
estimated six month project delay due to the resulting structural modifications to create an additional
rooftop terrace". The appeal application also includes the July 3, 2007 letter which states that
Genentech's programmatic needs will be compromised.
Genentech's 'programmatic needs' are addressed in this staff report as well as in the attached Planning
Commission staff report.
Staff is particularly concerned about the "six month project delay" that Genentech stated at the Planning
Commission public hearing and that is identified in the appeal. The six month delay is a direct result of
Staff Report
Subject:
Date:
Page 4
Genentech B50 - Appeal
August 8, 2007
Genentech completing engineered construction drawings for the building prior to securing requisite City
approvals.
CONCLUSION
The building square footage is actually larger than the building Genentech submitted for the Planning
Commission's initial consideration in April, 2007 and the first four floors of the building, which contain
the research and development (manufacturing and processing) floor area are not affected. Therefore,
staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Genentech' s
Building 50, including all conditions of approval, and deny the appeal.
BY~~
Marty VanDuyn i
-ASSiStant City Manager -
APProve~ N~sf- j
City Manager -.
MVD:SK:GHB:bla:pc
Attachments:
· Genentech Appeal Letter, dated July 23,2007
· Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 19,2007
· Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 19, 2007 and July 19, 2007
· Plans, dated July 2, 2007
~a\'-~ \
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080*
(650) 877-8535
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Applicants who wish to file an appeal of a decision' of the Chief Planner or the Planning Commission,
or a Design Review decision, shall submit the following (a letter or additional sheets may also be submitted):
1 'What, specifically, is being appealed? Case No:
Case No: P06-0l36
Weare appealing the imposition of the condition of approval of the B50 Project, which
requires that Genentech reduce the square footage of the top floor by a minimum of
2800 square feet in accordance with the "April design".
2 'What is the basis of your appeal? Include facts to support your appeal and all pertinent information.
Genentech believes that the unconditioned project is consistent with the Master Plan
and East of 101 Guidelines by creating step backs on the upper levels along Forbes
Boulevard on the pre-cast portion of the fa<;ade. The imposition of the condition will
result in an estimated six month project delay due to resulting structural modifications
to create an additional rooftop terrace. Please see the attached letter that was
submitted to the Planning Commission on July 3Td, 2007 for additional background on
the reasons for our appeal.
3 If you are the original applicant, submit thirty-five (35) reduced copies (8 1/2" x 11 ") of all exhIbIts
(maps, plans, elevations, etc) which were submitted with the original application.
4 Filing fee - See Fee Schedule
Lisa Sullivan
~'s_~
...
Name:
Signature
MaHin!! Address:
1 DNA Way
South San Francisco, CA 94080
7 -23-07
Date
Phone No. 650-225-6650
"'Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083
- 1-
July 3, 2007
Mr. John Prouty
City of South San Francisco Planning Commission
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Mr. Prouty:
We would like to thank the City staff, Design Review Board, Planning Commission members
and most especially the subcommittee members for their patience and contributions to the
Genentech Building 50 review and approval process. The input that Genentech design team
received has improved the project, as described in more detail below.
We recognize the changes in this submittal package are not as significant as the Planning
Commission would have liked and we offer this letter as an explanation that we hope will give
the Commission a better understanding of the program and design issues that have led to this
submission. The Design Review Board and Planning Commission members have been consistent
in stating the Building 50 project as proposed at 168,500 square feet and five stories tall feels
large given the surrounding context. Another consistent theme from these sessions is that the
City expects a "world class" facility, which 'we interpret to mean a facility that stands out, with
best-in-class architecture. While the quality of the architecture is very important to Genentech,
the most important objective is that the facility supports our mission to discover, develop,
manufacture and deliver biotherapeutics that improve the lives of our patients. Building 50 is an
important component of that process, and must accommodate the required program needs to
fulfill this mission.
At the previous subcommittee study session on June 7, 2007, Genentech and the design team
presented a preliminary concept that addressed a number of issues raised previously by the
Commission, including pushing the building face back from Forbes Boulevard at the office areas,
stepping the laboratory portion of the building face back further from Forbes, and moving
mechanical equipment into the lower floor to diminish the size of the penthouse mechanical
enclosure.
At this session, Genentech indicated that, with those changes, the building would not be able to
meet the Company's programmatic needs, and the internal organization and relationships
between building components would be compromised. Further, those changes would result in
insufficient office space to support the scientists who work in the laboratories, compromising a
fundamental aspect of the project design. (This close office-to-Iaboratory relationship was a
specific objective of the Building 50 design, helping to enhance communication between and
efficiency of the researchers.) In addition, the inclusion of the requested stepbacks would result
in a corresponding reduction in the laboratory areas, which would lead to cuts in a number of
essential program components. Finally, the space that would be lost on the first floor would
-2-
compromise the pilot plant and technical services functions, leaving essentially none of the
original programmatic elements fully functional. At this study session, Genentech asked for
guidance from the subcommittee members regarding how these spaces and functional
relationships might be regained, and received some suggestions, including pushing out the glass
portion of the building toward Forbes.
After that subcommittee study session, Genentech and the design team carefully considered the
options for moving forward, hoping to balance the functional, programmatic, and architectural
issues raised by the City. After six months of intensive study ofaltematives, Genentech feels that
a modified version of the original Genentech design concept offered the best balance of these
considerations. This solution pushes the glass box portion of the building towards Forbes,
offering both the necessary programmatic space and a bolder architectural statement.
These modifications include:
· Kaufmann Court Enhancements: We have converted this space to a pedestrian-focused
plaza with materials and character very similar to the B5-B7 courtyard and the B7 plaza
areas. The revised plaza design at Kaufmann Court has eliminated most of the parking
except the essential accessible parking spaces plus a very limited number of guest and
motorcycle spots. Service and fire truck access are still maintained, but are treated is a
subtle manner. An additional bioswale has been added in the Kaufinann Court plaza area
and paving materials have been changed to more permeable modular pavers with colored
concrete edging. Landscaping in the Kaufinann Court plaza and along Forbes Boulevard
has been enhanced, with plant material changes to add interest and to support the concept
of coastal plantings between the bay and the back of the courtyards, changing to a more
urban landscape atthe Central Spine.
· Central Spine Expansion: The site development has been expanded into the Central
Spine. eliminating one lane along the face of Building 6 and converting this area to a
pedestrian plaza. Roads and plantings through the area between Building 6, Building 7,
and Building 50 have been enhanced, creating a much more pleasant pedestrian-focused
area while still accommodating the requisite fire department and service traffic.
· Building Massing: The building mass has been revised at the precast portion of the west
elevation, incorporating an additional stepback at the Fourth Floor. The roof screen has
been shortened and shaped to add visual interest and for consistency with the adjacent
roofforms of Buildings 7. The roof screen has also been pushed back from the Forbes
Boulevard edge, made possible by the reorganization of the rooftop equipment behind the
screen.
· Building Detailing: The glass areas at the northwest corner of the building along Forbes
Boulevard have been increased, and color added inside of the comer conference rooms to
add visual interest and variety to this comer ofthe building. The color of the glass on the
building has been revised, to utilize a combination of a more transparent blue-gray and
gray glass throughout in lieu of the previous green glass as used on Building 7. The two
tone glass will provide more visual interest. The detailing of the curtainwall components
on the northwest and southeast elevations of the building has been enhanced with
increased mullions to incorporate additional depth, shadow, and interest The building
2
-3-
entries at the west and south sides have been modified, incorporating more transparency
through the use of clear glass, more color, and better integration of the interior and
exterior materials.
· Bridge Design: The bridge design has been strengthened to create a focal point at the
Kaufmann Court plaza. The bridge materials have been changed to glass making the
bridge more transparent, the structure simplified, and the intersections with both Building
50 and Building 7 simplified.
These modifications strengthen what the Genentech design team believes to have already been a
very strong design. Specific attributes that create this strength, in addition to the functional and
programmatic reasons noted earlier, include:
· The building achieves cutting edge design, with a dynamic play of solid and void while
remaining true to the Genentech campus culture and corporate image.
· The building mass responds to the adjacent Building 7 and while taller, does not
overpower the adjacent structures. The overall building height of97 feet is lower than the
adjacent Building 6 and is significantly lower than the allowable 150 foot height limit for
this site.
· The building setbacks from Forbes Boulevard are consistent with adjacent buildings and
strengthen the rhythm established along the street from B5 to the lower campus parking
structure, and exceed the 20 feet required set back.
· The extent and transparency of the glass at the west elevation, the visual connection
between the interior and surrounding community as the result of this transparency; and
the level of detail in the glass curtainwall all work together to create a strong focal point
for the lower campus, and add visual interest that was not achievable with the preliminary
solutions that pushed the glass face back away from Forbes Boulevard.
· Consistency with the objectives of the Genentech Master Plan, create a campus
atmosphere with a consistent material palette and mid-rise building heights, while
maintaining view corridors and open spaces.
The Genentech design team members have appreciated and listened carefully to the comments of
the Planning Commission members, and have made many substantive changes to the building
design in response to these comments, all of which we believe have improved the design. We
hope that the City appreciates that we cannot compromise to such an extent that the project no
longer meets Genentech's programmatic goals or supports our underlying mission. We submit
this project to you with the belief that it is a high quality building that will both enhance the
Genentech lower campus and fulfill Genentech's programmatic requirements.
Sincerely,
.~S--
Lisa Sullivan
Director Strategic Facilities Planning
3
-4-
-
~'tr\ S:1N
g
(0 n
>< ...
~ ~
r.:> 0
~llFOF-"f.'-~
-
Planning Commission
Staff Report
DATE: July 19,2007
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Use Permit to allow the construction of a new 168,500-square-foot
R&D/Manufacturing/Office Building at 680 Forbes Boulevard between Building
51 and Building 7 on the Lower Campus of the Genentech R&D Overlay District
in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.39,20.40,20.81 & 20.85.
Applicant/Owner:
Architect:
Case Nos.:
Address:
Genentech, Inc.
Flad & Associates
P06-0136: UP06-0032 & DR06-0102
680 Forbes Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the Proposed Findings of
Approval and subject to the Proposed Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Genentech Inc. (Genentech), is proposing to construct a five-story building
containing 168,500 square feet of gross floor area on the Genentech Lower Campus. Building
50 (B50) would replace a surface parking lot located between Building 7 and Building 51. The
site area is 53.6-acres and currently houses Buildings 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and Building 51 as well as
several surface parking lots.
Genentech submitted a preliminary design review application for Building 50 (B50) in December
of 2006. The application was considered 'preliminary' because Genentech projects could not be
processed by the City until the Genentech Facilities Ten-Year Plan (Master Plan) and the
Environmental Document were finalized. As a courtesy to Genentech, the City's Design Review
Board (DRB) provided comments on the project at the December DRB meeting. As
Genentech's project architects attempted to address the DRB's input, additional DRB comments
came at meetings held on March 20,2007 and April 17, 2007 (December, March, and April DRB
Comment Letters are attached).
In March of 2007 the City Council approved the Master Plan, which allowed Genentech to
present B50 to the Planning Commission at the April 19, 2007 meeting. Between December,
2006 and April of 2007, Genentech reduced the square footage of the building by approximately
- 5-
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Genentech, Building B50
DATE: July 19, 2007
Page 2
3,000 square feet and made a number changes to the site, landscape, and building design. These
changes are outlined in the Study Session Staff Report dated April 19, 2007 (attached to this staff
report).
At the April 19, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reiterated concerns that
the building was too large for the site. Concerns about the proposed building's scale were
initially voiced in September of 2006, during a Master Plan Study Session. These comments are
summarized in the September 21, 2006 Master Plan Study Session Staff Report. Based on a
campus display model, the Commission stated, "The building next to the fill facility looks
congested and the building looks large. The Planning Commission would like to see different. . .
views of the project."
The April 19, 2007 Planning Commission meeting concluded with the Commission asking
Genentech to alter the design of the building to better reflect the existing scale of development
on Forbes Boulevard. In an effort to keep the project moving forward, Genentech requested that
a Subcommittee be formed to address the Planning Commission's concerns about the proposed
building. Commissioners Sim and Teglia were appointed to the Subcommittee (select plan
sheets have been attached the Staff Report from the April 19, 2007 meeting).
Two subcommittee meetings were held - the first on May 3, 2007 and the second on June 7,
2007 (select plan sheets have been attached the Staff Report from the May 3 and June 7
Subcommittee meetings). At the first Subcommittee meeting Genentech presented three building
design options. All options included a floor area in the range of 154,000 square feet, which was
approximately 11,500 square feet smaller than the original project presented in December, 2006.
The Subcommittee was satisfied with several of the building modifications that were made,
including the step-backs that were created on the front elevation. In the opinion of the
Subcommittee, the manner in which the building square footage was reduced resulted in a
building design that was better integrated with its surroundings along Forbes Boulevard.
Looking toward the second meeting, the Subcommittee requested additional information
regarding the building materials, pedestrian plaza materials, a design concept for the proposed
pedestrian bridge, and a better exhaust stack screen.
For the second Subcommittee meeting, Genentech presented the 'preferred option' from the first
Subcommittee meeting, which still had a floor area of approximately 154,000 square feet. At
this meeting, Genentech stated that they were concerned about the amount of square-footage that
was being lost. Essentially, their program could not function with the building size that had been
presented. They asked the Subcommittee to assist them in identifying areas where floor area
could be recaptured. Moving sections of the glass element on the northwest corner of the
building back towards Forbes Boulevard was suggested as a means of regaining some floor area.
-6-
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Genentech, Building B50
DATE: July 19, 2007
Page 3
The Subcommittee also had a short list of suggestions and recommendations related to the
building finishes and materials, pedestrian entry areas, the use of color, as well as the
surrounding landscape. At that time, the Subcommittee and Genentech felt that B50 should be
re-introduced to the full Planning Commission.
In early July, Genentech reiterated their concerns about the amount of building floor area that
had been lost during the review process (please see Genentech's letter dated July 3, 2007, which
has been attached to the staff report). Genentech believes that the floor area compromises that
were made during the design process were more than they could espouse in terms of their
programmatic needs for this location.
In early July, Genentech resubmitted plans for Planning Commission review. These plans
include the original December, 2006 building massing. Reverting to the original building
massing was a straightforward way of recapturing the floor area that Genentech has stated that
they need. In an effort to address the design concerns that were voiced by the DRB, the Planning
Commission, and the Subcommittee, Genentech incorporated the following project
modifications: enhancements to Kaufmann Court and the Central Spine, improved building
detailing, and a stronger design for the pedestrian bridge.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has reservations about recommending approval of B50. The Planning Commission
identified this building as too large for the site and its surroundings during the Master Plan
review process and the initial public hearing. It was identified as too massive by the Design
Review Board at three separate meetings, and it was initially deemed too large by the Planning
Commission Subcommittee. Genentech presented options during the Subcommittee meetings
that were between 11,000 and 15,000 square feet smaller than their current proposal. The design
and massing of these iterations were deemed to be more appropriate for the site and the
neighboring buildings on Forbes Boulevard.
However, as noted above, Genentech formally responded to the City's concern regarding B50
with a letter dated July 3, 2007, by stating that "[w]hile the quality of the architecture is very
important to Genentech, the most important objective is that the facility supports our mission to
discover, develop, manufacture and deliver biotherapeutics that improve the lives of our patients.
Building 50 is an important component to that process, and must accommodate the required
program needs to fulfill this mission".
Due to programmatic needs, Genentech has stated that they are not able to reduce the square-
footage for B50 as presented in their various options.
-7-
ST AFP REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Genentech, Building B50
DATE: July 19, 2007
Page 4
Staff understands both the position of the City's reviewers and the position of Genentech and
their production program requirements related to B50. Staff is currently in a position where we
believe that future redevelopment along Forbes Boulevard will likely soften the impact of this
massive building over time. However, staff also seeks a design solution that reflects the
comments and concerns of both the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission; and
one that is consistent with the Master Plan.
Looking toward the future
City staff is working with Genentech to ensure that the B50 design process is not repeated.
Specific problematic issues with the design process for B50 include: a lack of close coordination
with staff early in the design process; a lack of consideration of specific input from the Planning
Commission during the Master Plan process as well as subsequent staff comments regarding the
size and massing of the building; and the applicant's presentation of design alternatives that did
not meet their programmatic needs.
Communication & City Input on Future Genentech Proiects
Genentech submitted the B50 application with a building that was larger than what was
represented during the Master Plan review process, despite the fact that the Planning
Commission identified this site as "congested", with too much building being proposed. City
staff strongly urges the applicant to engage staff much earlier in the planning process for future
buildings. The purpose of early City staff involvement is to identify the elements of a project
that are meeting or exceeding both Genentech's and the City's expectations and to identify areas
that need additional work or investigation. The end goal is to achieve a project that meets the
intent of the various City policies, plans and regulations, as well as Genentech's programmatic
needs. In this case staff did not hear about concrete "programmatic needs" until approximately
six months of discussions has transpired.
B50 Design Modifications
The following discussion contains a number of recommended changes that attempt to bridge the
gap between Genentech's space needs and the City's design concerns regarding B50.
While not making concessions on the building square footage, Genentech's most recent plan
submittal incorporates a number of design suggestions provided by the Design Review Board,
the Planning Commission, and the Subcommittee:
Kaufmann Court
When the design review process started, Kaufmann Court was essentially a parking area with
approximately 14 parking spaces and perimeter landscaping and sidewalks down each side of the
entry area. Through the design review process, the number of parking spaces has been reduced
-8-
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Genentech, Building B50
DATE: July 19, 2007
Page 5
significantly (providing only 4 accessible spaces, 4 guest parking spaces, and a four motorcycle
slots), and a double helix sidewalk, a bioswale, and a decorative paving scheme have been
introduced. The landscaping and lighting for Kaufmann Court has also been changed to add
more visual interest as visitors enter the site.
Central Spine
At this time, the Central Spine in the vicinity of the B50 site is little more than a service alley.
The December, 2006 DRB submittal showed little in terms of improvements to the Central
Spine. However, as the project evolved in the following months, Genentech expanded the scope
of work associated with B50 to include the addition of several cross walks, a more open
pedestrian plaza (adjacent to B50), additional landscaping, and seating areas and a berm
(adjacent to B6) to protect pedestrians. These improvements are a significant step toward
achieving the Central Spine Goals setout in the Master Plan, including:
· Establish distinct Central Spinces as the major organizing element within each campus
neighborhood.
· Promote walkability by locating amenities and open spaces along the Spine.
· Emphasize pedestrian environment by restricting vehicular access within Central Spines.
The landscape plan in the vicinity of the Central Spine was also improved. Deciduous trees
(Sycamore) were used at the perimeter of the Spine and evergreen trees were used in the
pedestrian plaza at the southeast corner of the building. This planting scheme should provide a
quality pedestrian environment through the seasons.
Building Massing
An additional stepback at the Fourth Floor of the building was added in the pre-cast concrete
(northeast) corner of the building facing Forbes Boulevard. The fourth floor now sits 24 feet
back from the first three stories of the pre-cast concrete portion of the building along Forbes
Boulevard.
Building Detailing
Glass color, glass types, mullion size (length and depth) and location, more detailed entries, and
the use of interior color that will be visible from the exterior are additional ways that Genentech
has taken feedback from the various reviews and incorporated it into the building detailing.
Bridge Design
The bridge has moved from a utilitarian corridor which offered little to the project's architectural
design toward an architectural "beacon" in Kaufmann Court. The bridge was improved by
adding more glazing, as well as architectural details such as the single oval support column. By
improving the bridge design, it now meets the intent of the Master Plan Design Guideline AA-l,
-9-
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Genentech, Building B50
DATE: July 19,2007
Page 6
which states, "Design bridges with a vocabulary of transparency and lightness of structure in
simple linear form".
Staff believes that the improvements outlined above coupled with the items outlined below will
allow this building to meet the intent of the General Plan, the Master Plan, the East of 101 Area
Plan, and the Zoning Code.
Additional Plan Modifications Recommended By Staff
Building Massing
The Master Plan speaks specifically about this site when it calls for "a new laboratory building
adjacent to Building 7 of approximately 165,000 square feet, with 140,000 square feet of
laboratory and support space and 25,000 square feet of office uses" (Master Plan, Lower Campus
Summary, p. 30). Although square footage numbers in the Master Plan are not 'set-in-stone', it
is important to remember that during the Master Plan review process, the Planning Commission
did identify their concern that this building was too "congested" and "large" for the site.
The current proposal contains 140,700 square feet of laboratory and support space and 27,800
square feet of office space, for a total of 168,500 square feet. Understanding Genentech' s space
needs for this site, staff is recommending that the project move closer to the 165,000 square feet
that is approximated in the Master Plan. The proposed building contains 140,700 square feet of
laboratory and support space, which is consistent with the Master Plan. The office square
footage, found on the fifth floor, holds the added square-footage that puts the building over the
165,000-square-foot benchmark. Since laboratory space is most critical at this location, staff is
recommending that the office space on the top floor be reduced by not less than 2,800 square
feet. While this does not address all of the massing and setback concerns, staff understands that
this building is an anomaly and believes that future redevelopment along Forbes Boulevard will
soften this design over time. Specifically, staff has discussed the need for better communication
between Staff and Genentech when it comes to project review for the Genentech campus (see
Looking toward the future section above).
Staff is suggesting the following design modification to reduce the floor area to 165,700 square
feet (a 1.6% reduction or 2,800 square feet), which is closer to the "approximately 165,000
square feet" that was assigned to this site during the Master Plan process. This area reduction
addresses Genentech' s FAR requirements by not affecting the laboratory and support spaces:
· The proposed 140,700 square feet oflaboratory and support spaces identified as the first,
second, third, and fourth floors remain unchanged.
-10-
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Genentech, Building B50
DATE: July 19, 2007
Page 7
· Reduce the square footage of the top floor by a minimum of 2,800 square feet. Staff is
recommending that the majority of this space be removed from the portion of the building
fronting Forbes Boulevard and around the perimeter of the building. The floor area
reduction could allow for the creation of roof top terraces, which is consistent with
Master Plan Design Guidelines A.4-1 and A.4-3. In addition, the a: )pearance of mass
would be reduced, as the five story building starts to look more like a .. our story building,
particularly at the northwest corner of the building. The verticality .jf the second, third
and fourth stories fronting Forbes Boulevard would be screened b: the canopies of the
trees proposed along Forbes Boulevard. Views to the building fren Forbes Boulevard,
the Bay Trail and the Marina would be improved from a com:-;atibility and massing
perspective, as the building gains some articulation towards its top
As stated above, this design modification would result in a minor de~rease in the fifth floor
office area and a project that is consistent with the Master Plan.
Planning Division condition of approval #6 has been proposed to address this issue.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Screening
Similar to building massing, the proposed rooftop screening has been deemed inadequate by the
Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, and the Subcommittee. With the most recent
iteration, Genentech has proposed a curvilinear metal and perforated metal roof screen.
However, the building's three smoke stacks remain largely unscreened. Per Master Plan Design
Guidelines A.4-3 and A.5-1, Genentech should avoid exposure of mechanical equipment to
public view. Because the B50 site is located at the perimeter of the campus and is visible not
only from Forbes Boulevard, but also from the Bay Trail and the Marina, staff believes that
Genentech should provide screens for the stacks at this location.
Planning Division condition of approval #7 has been proposed to address this point.
Landscaping, Lighting & Plaza Furniture
The landscape plan should include additional shrub or low level planting adjacent to the service
yard, particularly on the west and north sides. This will achieve the intent of Master Plan Design
Guidelines A.5-2 - "Provide appropriate visual screening of trash disposal areas located outside
the building envelope where possible. Utilize landforms and landscape to blend screening walls
into natural settings".
The pedestrian bridge connecting B7 and B50 is designed as the termination point for non-
service related vehicles. Pedestrian scale and design elements, including lighting standards,
should start on the south side of the bridge. The plans should be revised to include "two single
fixture glowtop" standards as replacements for the two "proposed single fixture with arm" light
- 1 1 -
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Genentech, Building B50
DATE: July 19, 2007
Page 8
standards shown on Sheet B50-008. The "glowtop" light standards are a more typical design
found in pedestrian environments on the campus.
In an effort to enhance the pedestrian plaza, staff is also recommending that additional bench
seating and trash receptacles be placed in the area outside the grab-n-go at the southeast corner of
the building.
Planning Division conditions of approval #8, 9, & 10 have been drafted to address these
concerns.
Bicycle Lockers
Additional bicycle lockers should be placed near the main entrance on the west side of the
building. Including lockers at this location, in addition to the lockers near the pedestrian plaza,
should make coming and going from B50 more convenient for those who choose to use the
lockers.
In addition, details for the proposed bicycle lockers should be presented for review and approval
by the Planning Division.
Planning Division conditions of approval # 11 & 12 have been drafted to address bicycle locker
location and appearance.
Utility Boxes & Standpipes
The location and appearance of utility boxes and standpipes can become a design concern.
Condition of approval #13 has been drafted to ensure that the Planning Division reviews and
approves the location and screening method for all utilities, utility boxes, and standpipes.
Conformance with the General Plan, Master Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and Zoning Code
The proposed project, including the changes noted in the staff report and the Conditions of
Approval, is consistent with the General Plan, the East of 101 Area Plan, the Zoning Code, and
the Master Plan.
Conformance to General Plan and Zoning
The site is part of the Genentech campus zoned in the Genentech Research and Development
Overlay District and designated Business and Technology Park in the General Plan.
Construction and operation of B50 would not alter the present or planned land use of the area
and, therefore, is consistent with the City's General Plan policies. The proposed project, as
conditioned, is consistent with the setback requirements, site planning, landscaping, and building
-12-
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Genentech, Building B50
DATE: July 19, 2007
Page 9
design standards found in the East of 101 Area Plan and the Genentech Research and
Development Overlay District.
Conformance to Genentech Facilities Ten-Year Master Plan
The proposed project conforms to the approved build-out on campus since it is considered part of
the Lower Campus development identified in the Master Plan and analyzed in the Master
Environmental Impact Report. The Master Plan outlines the proposed campus expansion, which
encompasses 163 acres, and the 200-acre study area during the ten-year planning period, which
ends in 2016.
Environmental Determination
The City of South San Francisco prepared the Genentech Research & Development Overlay
District Expansion and Master Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2005042121)
to analyze the potential impacts from anticipated growth and development on the Genentech
campus to 2016. The proposed Lower Campus R&D/manufacturing/office building is listed as a
specific project and analyzed in the MEIR and, therefore, no further environmental analysis is
required.
CONCLUSION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve application P06-0136 to allow
construction of a five-story office building (Building 50) with a total floor area not to exceed
165,700 square feet, located in the Upper Campus area of the Genentech Research &
Development Overlay District, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached
conditions of approval.
Ge
Attachments:
1. Proposed Findings of Approval
2. Proposed Conditions of Approval
3. DRB Comment Letters (December 19,2006, March 20,2007, & April 17, 2007)
4. Study Session Staff Report dated April 19, 2007
5. Study Session- Select Plans dated April 19,2007 [Planning Commission Only]
6. Subcommittee - Select Plans dated May 3, 2007 [Planning Commission Only]
7. Subcommittee - Select Plans dated June 7, 2007 [Planning Commission Only]
8. Genentech Letter dated July 3, 2007
9. Plans, revision date July 2, 2007
-13-
1"..11"
I; t',,': ,:\ !~ ;j, ;~
.'.......-.: .'.'....., ......:..
, ',~'i':" :; :1' .:i
.1''''.:i~~~{~~' ,..:..t 'Ui,;;;'ii:i: ~;.,.,,;' '",,,,;,:'
Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing the development impacts.
PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd)
Item moved under Agenda Review
4. Genentech - Bldg 50
GENENTECH INC/Owner
GENENTECH INCI Applicant
680 Forbes Blvd
P06-0136: UP06-0032 & DR06-0102
Building 50 - Use Permit application to allow Genentech to demolish an existing surface parking lot adjacent
to Building 51 (642 Forbes Boulevard) and construct a new 168,500-square-foot
R&D/Manufacturing/Lab/Office Building located at 680 Forbes Boulevard on the Lower Campus within the
Genentech R&D Overlay District per SSFMC Chapters 20.39, 20.40 & 20.81
Public Hearing opened.
Associate Planner Beaudin gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Chairperson Prouty and Commissioner Teglia noted that they met separately with Geraldine O'Connor
regarding the application process and how this project relates to the Ten Year Master Plan.
Lisa Sullivan, Director of Strategic Facilities Planning, noted the building's function is to develop medicines to
combat life threatening diseases. She pointed out that they created a modern design and enhanced the
landscaping of the central spine to give a more pedestrian feel to Kauffman Court. She noted that they
agree with all the Conditions of Approval with the exception of the condition related to reducing the massing
on the 5th floor. She added that the time impact of the proposed design versus staff's recommendation to
reduce the fifth floor massing is 6 months and it is largely due to redesigning the steel to accommodate these
changes.
Commissioner Teglia suggested that there needs to be some type of discussion on how the design guidelines
of the Master Plan should influence the design of buildings and not get caught in time delays. Commissioner
Teglia noted that the use of the design guidelines dictates the direction of the design.
John Mickow, Fladd Architects, noted that the proposed project is an expansion of the process that occurs in
B7 and B50 which will be connected to this building via a second floor pedestrian bridge. He proceeded to
give a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed project that included an overview of open space, setbacks,
height massing and materials proposed for the B50 site.
Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission is concerned with the massing in the front rather than the
rear.
Mr. Mickow continued with the presentation.
Commissioner Teglia questioned if the Commission had seen the current design plans of the project being
presented at this meeting. Associate Planner Beaudin noted that the Design Review Board (DRB) had seen
this rendition of the project in December of 2006 but the Commission had not.
Mr. Mickow concluded his presentation.
S:\MLV\.IAteS\o:r-1j-o:r RPC MLV\.IAtes,c(oc
-14-
Pl1ge 3 of b
Planning Commission Meeting of July 19, 2007
Commissioner Teglia noted that the subcommittee met with Genentech and the architect who had responded
to their comments. He noted that during the subcommittee meeting Genentech had reduced the size of the
fifth floor. In the end, Genentech informed the subcommittee that the reduced floor area would not work for
them functionally. He noted that the subcommittee approve pushing the glass back towards the street. He
noted that the roof screening has been brought forward in the current submittal and asked the architect for
clarification on the mechanical equipment. Mr. Mickow stated that on early design plans they had taken a
portion of the mechanical equipment and moved it into the 5th floor space which compromised the functional
space that Genentech needs. He noted that they reconfigured the equipment on the roof and pushed back
the equipment screening as far as possible without eliminating functional space in the building.
Commissioner Teglia noted that the project has returned to the original floor plate but was surprised to see
the elimination of the balcony in front of the office section where the metal awning was situated. Mr. Mickow
noted that the balcony space was not usable and they were forced to wall it off because of the Building Code
treating the area as occupied space. Commissioner Teglia asked if the balcony could be approved. Associate
Planner Beaudin noted that the Building Division would have to respond to this issue as it pertains to Building
Code standards.
Commissioner Teglia suggested removing the balcony in the back of the building and replacing it in the front.
He stated that he does not see how this will affect the buildings functionality. Mr. Mickow noted that the
braces behind the building is the primary structure of the building that extends from the foundation to the
roof of the structure. He stated that by pushing the west elevation back, the seismic system of the building
would need to be modified.
Commissioner Sim stated that the subcommittee and Genentech were moving in the right direction. He
noted that the "X" bracing effect is a seismic element and noted that the glass can be set on the inside. He
stated that the subcommittee was led to believe that the outer portion of the building was comprised of
offices and conference rooms and had some flexibility with the space. He asked if the seismic element can
be used as an opportunity to create an innovative fa~ade without losing square footage. Mr. Mickow noted
that they do not want to change the structure since that would require redesigning of the construction
drawings because it affects the working schedule.
Commissioner Moore asked if there were elements of the proposal before the Commission that weren't
discussed with the subcommittee. Chairperson Prouty clarified that several variations were presented to the
subcommittee but the proposal before the Commission was not presented to the subcommittee.
Ms. Sullivan noted that there were aspects of the April design that Genentech liked and tried to figure out
how to incorporate them and not impact the steel order. She noted that they did not look at undressing the
building and noted that the architectural style is a classic elegant style.
Commissioner Sim stated that the previous submission with the setbacks came out of the DRB meeting. He
noted that the 5th floor should allow the "X" brace to project vertically to further articulate it.
Commissioner Honan was concerned with speculations of a breakdown in communication and hoped that this
has not occurred. She expressed her concern with having a meeting held with a proposal that the
Commission has never seen and was uncomfortable about voting on this project.
Commissioner Teglia noted that this was not a communication problem and the Commission was blind sided
with the current proposal. He noted that during the Master Plan review process this building's massing was
noted as a concern along the Forbes frontage. He added that the April submission met the Commission's
needs but they wanted to soften the massing a bit more. He stated that the terrace does not have to be
usable. He pointed out that he could vote in favor of the April submittal or staff's recommendation. He asked
Ms. Sullivan if the April submittal would work for Genentech. Ms. Sullivan noted that the April submittal meets
the conditions of staff's recommendation. She stated that the current proposal was a modern statement and
S:\Me"""'tes\o:r-1.;J-oJ' RPC Me""",tes,~oc
-15-
p~ge -'1- of b
Planning Commission Meeting of July 19, 2007
1IIIt
the DRB asked for changes. She noted that they worked hard from December to April to make the changes
and felt that the communication broke down during the study session, which resulted in Genentech asking for
a subcommittee. She added that both of the proposals will work but they are supporting the current
proposal due to the time constraints.
Chairperson Prouty asked for clarification from Ms. Sullivan if the April scheme was workable for them. Ms.
Sullivan replied that Genentech does not agree with staff's recommendation and will go with the scheme that
can be built sooner, which is the December scheme enhanced with the landscaping and all other changes
made since then.
Commissioner Teglia noted that moving the mechanical equipment into the building was slowing down the
process and taking away from the usable space. He added that the floor plate is identical and the only
change is the terrace at the top, which can be unusable, provided solely for massing relief. He pointed out
that there will need to be additional information on how Genentech will handle the roof screening. He noted
that if Genentech continues with the current building, they will need to review it again and questioned if the
April submission works for Genentech.
Commissioner Moore felt that Genentech needs a building that can be built faster and the subcommittee
should have expedited the process. He noted that he is willing to move the process along for the reason of
saving lives. Chairperson Prouty pointed out that the subcommittee was appointed to streamline the project
so that it would return to the Commission for the approval process.
Chairperson Prouty asked what had occurred during April and July to render a change to a larger building
and asked if Genentech feels the can revert to the April project. Ms. Sullivan replied that they would like the
Commission to take action on the project.
Commissioner Honan noted that the Commission's choices are to approve, deny or continue the project and
asked if Genentech would change the proposal if the public hearing was continued. Ms. Sullivan replied that
a continuance would not make an improvement because they have worked on the project for eight months.
Commissioner Honan asked if Genentech is in favor of the April plans for Building 50.
Gary Saunders from Plumbers and Steamfitters Union spoke in favor of the project because it will create
many jobs for their members. He noted that this project is about saving lives in a larger scheme and that the
Commission should approve the project as submitted.
Commissioner Moore noted that when the choice is between aesthetics and saving lives he will choose the
latter. Commissioner Teglia noted that Genentech is the best employer in the county and would like to get
Genentech through the process and what slowed the process down is some internal planning issues at
Genentech. Mr. Saunders noted that Genentech is a medicine manufacturing company and is not in the
business of building award winning architectural buildings.
William Nack from Building Trades Council also spoke in favor of the project and noted that the proposal is
consistent with the Genentech Master Plan.
Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Teglia clarified that the City has been working with Genentech. He noted that with the time
constraint that Genentech has, he is inclined to approve the April 2007 proposal with staff's
recommendations. Commissioner Sim added that the additional changes, for example the horizontal lantern
design for the bridge, glass etc..., be incorporated. He pointed out that if this proposal would have been
presented to the Commission he would have tried to work with their needs. He noted his surprise about how
the current building design came to the Commission.
S:\Ml"""tes\07-1j-07 R'PC Ml"""tes,cloc
-16-
'Pllge 5 of G
Planning Commission Meeting of July 19, 2007
8,III!t
~!';';~.d".. .
Commissioner Moore also noted his surprise in the current proposal and asked staff if they also were
surprised to see the building change. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that the plans that were in the
Commission's packet were seen by staff only recently but it was not presented to the Commission prior to the
meeting. She noted that staff's recommendation is based on the presented plan while trying to address the
issues raised by the DRB and Planning Commission.
Motion Teglia: To approve the proposed project based on the proposed findings of approval and subject to
the proposed conditions of approval in staff's recommendation with the addition that staff and Genentech
return to the Commission with a better rendition for approval of the mechanical screening.
Second Honan.
Chief Planner Kalkin clarified that the Commission is moving the recommendation of staff subject to the
modified conditions that were distributed tonight with an additional condition regarding the roof screening.
Commissioner Teglia noted that this was correct
Roll call vote
Ayes: Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Honan, Vice
Chairperson Giusti and Chairperson Prouty
Noes: None
Abstain:None
Absent: Commissioner Zemke
Approved by roll call vote.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Chief Planner Kalkin asked that the Commission adjourn the meeting to the Special Joint meeting of July 24th
and cancel the August 2nd meeting.
Concensus of the Commission to do so.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION
None
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ADJOURNMENT
10:00 P.M.
Motion TeQlia I Second Honan to adjourn the meeting.
Susy Kalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
John Prouty, Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
SK/bla
S:\M,,,,,utes\o:r-:1J-o:r RPC M,,,,,utes,c\oc
-17-
p~ge b of b
Planning Commission Meeting of April 19, 2007
5. STUDY SESSION
Genentech B50
GENENTECH INCI owner & applicant
680 Forbes Blvd
P06-0136: UP06-0032 & DR06-0102
Building 50 - Use Permit application to allow Genentech to demolish an existing surface parking lot adjacent
to Building 51 (642 Forbes Boulevard) and construct a new 165,340-square-foot
R&D/Manufacturing/Lab/Office Building located at 680 Forbes Boulevard on the Lower Campus within the
Genentech R&D Overlay District per SSFMC Chapters 20.39,20.40 & 20,81
Associate Planner Beaudin presented the staff report.
Shar Zamanpour - Genentech Inc., John Michal - Flad Architects and Michael Painter - MPA Design presented the
project.
Commissioner Honan stated that there should be a PowerPoint presentation when the project returns to allow the
TV audience and those present to view the proposed project
Commissioner Moore asked if the smoke stack will appear as shown in the renderings. Mr. Michal replied that the
stacks are located in the center of the building and will not be visible from many points around the building.
Chairperson Prouty asked for the height of buildings 7.1 and 7.2 and noted that they look smaller than building 50.
Mr. Michal indicated that building 7 is three stories tall plus the penthouse. Chairperson Prouty noted that building
51 does not fit in with the other buildings. Ms. Zamanpour clarified that building 50 is 95 feet high, building 7 is 70
feet and building 6 is 101 feet in height. Chairperson Prouty asked what the difference in height was from building
7 and building 50. Ms. Zamanpour noted that the difference in height is 25 feet and added that the heavy
landscaping allows a park like environment. Chairperson Prouty felt that the requirements of the Master Plan were
to lower the buildings closet to Forbes Boulevard. Ms. Zamanpour noted that they are not going to be higher than
the buildings at the top of the hill.
Chairperson Prouty noted that there massing of the building is too big. Commissioner Teglia noted that the
building does not respect the rest of the heights from the Forbes perspective. He stated that the building 50 steps
forward from buildings 7.1 and 7.2. He noted that building 7 was stepped and building 50 does not step back. He
suggested incorporating the tiering effect, stepping the building back on the property, or lowering the height of the
current proposal. He noted his concern with the perforated metal screening. He noted that the materials from
buildings 7.1 and 7.2 should not be incorporated into the new building because it can stand on its own merits.
Commissioner Honan felt that the building was too big. She was concerned that the building does not comply with
the Master Plan for the lower campus because of the size of the building and it also is predominantly office space.
She noted that office space demands more parking and was concerned with lack of parking. She also stated that
the Fire Department had issues with the proposal and would like to hear the resolution of these issues when the
project returns to the Commission.
Commissioner Zemke reiterated the Commission's concerns with regards to the massing. He pointed out that the
northwest corner of the building will be very prominent. He pointed out that he likes the way the materials were
tied together. He asked if the berm along Forbes Boulevard would stay in place. Mr. Michal noted that the berm
will be reshaped but will remain with new project.
Commissioner Sim stated that Genentech has carved out the lobby in other projects and noted that this could also
be done for this proposal to create an interlock with the landscape theme. He added that there can be a higher
building with architectural devices but the proposal is not stealthed enough to fit the character of the Master Plan.
He added that there could be some horizontal lighting element on the lattice piece that could be an aesthetic
feature to the campus.
S:\Mlv\.l{te5\04-~J-07 RPC Iv\lvcutes,ctoc
-18-
p~ge 4 of b
Planning Commission Meeting of April 19, 2007
Chairperson Prouty reiterated his comments with regards to the height of the building. He noted that the building
needs to setback from the street.
Commissioner Honan and Chairperson Prouty noted that an additional study session is necessary on the project.
Commissioner Teglia was concerned with some of the aspects of the Master Plan that need to be resolved with
regards to this building. He noted that the schedule will need to be accelerated on completing the entrances, open
space and amenities.
Commissioner Honan asked if the Commission should hold off on any approvals until some of the Master Plan items
are resolved. She added that she would be more comfortable having new projects agendized with these issues
being resolved. Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Prouty agreed with Commissioner Honan.
6. STUDY SESSION
SSF Conference Center
The City of SSF/Owner
SSF Conference Center/Applicant
255 S Airport Blvd
P07-0030: UPM07-0003 & DR07-0019
Use Permit Modification to expand the existing Conference Center by constructing a 4,100 sf meeting room
addition in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.S1 & 20.24.
Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff report.
Sandra OToole - Conference Center Director and John Lucchesi - Architect gave a presentation on the proposed
addition to the conference center.
Chairperson Prouty asked how the building frame would be fixed to the foundation. Mr. Lucchesi noted that
columns have base plates that are bolted down to a concrete foundation. Chairperson Prouty questioned if the
roof was a tent type of roof. Mr. Lucchesi noted that it is a three dimensional structure with space frames similar
to pyramidal forms and is about 1jSth of an inch thick.
Vice Chairperson Giusti noted that a department store with this type of roof was in the Fashion Island Shopping
Center and noted that the temperature varied and it had leak problems. Mr. Lucchesi noted that the building will
be conditioned with a very sophisticated drainage system so water does not collect on the roof. Vice Chairperson
Giusti noted that this type of roof seems to move with high winds and asked if this will be the case with this
building. Mr. Lucchesi stated that the roof would be stationary.
Commissioner Moore questioned if the prefabricated building was pursued because it was cost effective or for
timeliness. Mr. Lucchesi noted that efficiency of speed of construction and procurement was one reason and initial
cost was a factor.
Mr. Lucchesi continued with the presentation of the proposed building location.
Commissioner Teglia was concerned with access to the building through the wind tunnel of Wondercolor Drive. He
asked that they look at extending the lobby hall through the storage to have interior access. He stated that the 6
foot corridor could be eliminated to tie the two buildings together.
Chairperson Prouty added that by moving the prefabricated building next to the existing building all the mechanical
and other types of access will be easier. Mr. Lucchesi noted that there will be a new mechanical piece of
equipment for the building on the ground in an enclosure because it cannot go on the roof.
Commissioner Honan asked why the building was not attached to the Conference Center. Mr. Lucchesi stated that
there are structural issues with foundations being up against eachother with two different kinds of buildings and
potential for movement in a seismic event. He noted that another reason is that the existing Conference Center
S:\MLV\.uteS\04-~'J-OT RPC MLV\.utes,ctoc
-19-
p~ge 5 of '"