HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-01MINUTES
May 1, 2008
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
TAPE 1
CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Zemke, Vice
Chairperson Teglia and Chairperson Giusti
ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
CHAIR COMMENTS
AGENDA REVIEW
Commissioner Oborne
Planning Division:
City Attorney:
Engineering Division:
Police Department:
Fire Prevention.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Starbucks (Sherri Boisemenu)/applicant
Armanino, Rosemary/owner
329 Grand Ave
P05-0012: UPM08-0002
No Changes
Use Permit Modification to allow Starbucks to open at 5:00 am at 329 Grand Avenue in the Downtown
Commercial (D-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26 & 20.91
2. Parking Company of America/applicant
Elias S. Hanna/owner
160 Produce Ave.
P06-0088: PUD07-0003, UP06-0020 & DR06-0072
Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing a combined on-site and off-site landscape area of 14,113
square feet instead of the minimum requirement of 47,350 square feet.
Use Permit and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24 hour operation, generating in
excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips vehicles trips vehicles, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the
minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use on several lots adjacent to
San Mateo Drive in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.30, 20.32, 20.73, 20.81, 20.84 & 20.85.
Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner
Steve Carlson, Senior Planner
Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner
Patti Cabano, Admin. Asst. I
Sky Woodruff, Assistant City Attorney
Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer
Sergeant Jon Kallas, Planning Liaison
Tom Carney, Acting Fire Marshall
(Applicant requested the Planning Commission continue the matter off calendar).
Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 2008
Commissioner Teglia pulled item number 2 from the Consent Calendar.
Motion Teglia /Second Prouty to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous
voice vote. Commissioner Oborne -absent.
PUBLIC HEARING -Consent Calendar
2. Parking Company of America/applicant
Elias S. Hanna/owner
160 Produce Ave.
P06-0088: PUD07-0003, UP06-0020 & DR06-0072
Commercial Planned Unit Development Permit allowing a combined on-site and off-site landscape area of 14,113
square feet instead of the minimum requirement of 47,350 square feet.
Use Permit and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24 hour operation, generating in
excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips vehicles trips vehicles, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the
minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use on several lots adjacent to
San Mateo Drive in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.30, 20.32, 20.73, 20.81, 20.84 & 20.85.
(Applicant requested the Planning Commission continue the matter off calendar).
Commissioner Teglia noted his concern with the lack of landscaping at the site, much of which was required
pursuant to earlier use permit applications and now is no longer in place. He was also concerned with public
safety issues near the entrance due to accidents. He added that a review of the use permit would be necessary if
the applicant was not going to return to the Commission soon to address public safety, landscaping and current
use permit requirements. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the applicants felt they could resolve their issues,
which are mostly monetary because their original architect did not look at their budget at the time. He added
that the applicant was working on the Police and Fire Department issues as well as Planning issues. He further
added that there was landscaping on the lot that has been removed over the years and notified the applicant that
they will have to reinstall this landscaping. He noted that the applicants believe they can return to the
Commission by July 5"', and added that staff suggested an off calendar continuance to allow staff time to review
their submittal.
Commissioner Teglia suggested looking at the site entrance to provide a right hand turn lane. Senior Planner
Carlson replied that staff informed the applicant to redo their entrance because it is too dangerous for current
conditions.
Motion Teglia to continue the item ofF calendar.
On the question
Chairperson Prouty noted that it is better to continue the item to a date certain and make sure these issues are
resolved. Chief Planner Kalkin suggested that the Commission continue the item off calendar with the
understanding that if they don't come back in a reasonable period of time then it would return to the Commission
for potential revocation. Chairperson Prouty suggested that the reasonable amount of time should be 30-45 days.
Motion Teglia /Second Moore to continue P06-0088: PUD07-0003, UP06-0020 & DR06-0072 off calendar with
the requirement that they return in 30-45 days or be scheduled for revocation of their use permit after this time.
Approved by majority voice vote. Commissioner Oborne absent.
PUBLIC HEARING
3. Myers Peninsula Venture„ LLC/applicant
Myers Peninsula Venture, LLC/owner
San Bruno Mnt / Bayshore Blvd
s:V~Lwutes~~~walCzed M%wutes\os-ai-o8 Rpc MLwutes.doc page 2 of 8
Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 2008
PO6-0073: SPM08-0001, PPMOS-0001 & AHAM08-0001
A text amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan Phase III page I-43, Condition of Approval A-20 and the
Affordable Housing Agreement to satisfy the Applicant's requirement to produce 32 moderate income housing
units by 1) The conveyance of real property known as 418 Linden Avenue, various project drawings and due
diligence documents along with a $300,000 development fee; or, 2) Payment of a $2.2 million in-lieu fee.
Public Hearing opened.
Allison Knapp, Consulting Planner, presented the staff report, noting that the proposed modifications would not
alter any aspects of the development that is approved and under construction currently on the Phase III site, nor
any of the conditions of approval (except the modification of condition A20, as noted in the staff report) or
mitigation measures that are required under the EIR which was certified for this project.
Shepard Heery, Myers Development Senior Vice President, gave a presentation.
Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Sim requested to see drawings for the proposed project at 418 Linden. Mr. Heery stated they
would contact the architect to provide them for the Commission. He informed the Commission that the lot size
was 14,000 sf (140'x100. Chief Planner Kalkin explained that the Commission had approved a use permit a year
or more ago for a small retail project on this lot that would be voided if this proposal is approved. Consulting
Planner Knapp noted that due diligence documents would be provided should the City agree to this in-lieu
process, and clarified that what is before the Commission is not a project to be constructed but the opportunity to
take the properly, related documents, and the associated funds. The City would then have the opportunity to
develop the site as it sees fit.
Commissioner Sim inquired about the adequacy of in-lieu fees of $2.2 million or the land and $300,000 in cash
that was proposed, noting he had done some quick calculations and thought the cost for 32 units would far
exceed $2.2 million. He supported the idea of trying to come to a solution but was concerned that there would
be no advantages, flexibility or control for the City in the future if the City couldn't afford to do anything on this
site due to inadequate funding. He asked if the City was going to solicit proposals from developers who specialize
in affordable housing to develop a proposal that is feasible. He was concerned that the City would not be able to
afford to develop the project if Myers couldn't afford to develop the project.
Chief Planner Kalkin mentioned the City's ability to leverage its redevelopment funds, noting there are a lot of
housing funds in the Redevelopment pot right now. One of the options is to partner with a development team.
Assistant City Manager Van Duyn clarified that the City is not looking for an in-lieu fee to cover the overall cost of
construction of 32 below market rate housing units, but rather to cover the delta between a 32-unit moderate
income housing project and a 32-unit market rate housing project.
Commissioner Prouty agreed with Commissioner Sim and stated that he would rather see the units being built.
Assistant City Manager Van Duyn explained that the project may not be built per the design presented to the
Design Review Board. The City will look at a variety of options, including an opportunity to build market rate
housing on this site. Commissioner Teglia stated that the City shouldn't be concentrating below market housing
all on one site; affordable units should be mixed with market rate housing.
Assistant City Manager Van Duyn clarified that the City is not walking away from this project. The City is getting
value in return. The objective is to take this site and build housing that attracts new people to the area, such as
employees working in the East of 101 area. He noted further that the City would be gaining a key downtown
piece of property with a potential for a quality housing development.
Commissioner Teglia stated that he was excited about the potential of this project since the Downtown needs
more market rate housing with incomes to support its businesses. Commission Teglia noted that Myers
Development is on the hook for the difference between what market rate units vs. below market rate units would
be, not the entire project. He noted that Myers would have made money on some of the units. He feels the City
s:\Mi.wutes\~%wal~zed n~Cwutes~os-oi-o8 RPC Mtwutes.doc page s o{ g
Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 2008
should have a clear policy to direct that lower income units need to be disbursed throughout the City rather than
concentrated in one project, and noted that the requisite BMR's should have been included in the residential
projects on the hill. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn explained that portions of the Terrabay phases were
processed prior to the time of the City's Inclusionary housing requirements. Other portions were obligated under
development agreements even after the Inclusionary Ordinance was adopted; that is what a development
agreement gives them -protection against any ordinance changes. He assured the Commission that the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has policies that address scattered site housing.
Commissioner Teglia commented that the Inclusionary Ordinance works because the lower income units have to
be financed as part of the overall project. He asked Assistant City Manager Van Duyn, considering the value of
building 32 market rate units vs. the value of 32 below market rate units, whether he felt $ 2.2 million was the
differential. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn responded "no", clarifying that in these situations you can never
get like for like. He provided the example of another recent project, City Lights, noting there were problems
marketing the affordable units in the project because of its varied Inclusionary requirement. It was difficult to sell
the 120% units, which is the same targeted obligation that Myers has, because the selling price of the units at
120% are too close to market rate and people would prefer to buy a unit that does not carry the restrictions of a
"BMR". He explained how he came up with an estimated in lieu Fgure.
Commissioner Prouty commented that it should not be the City's problem that the applicant chose to construct
the units and fufill his obligation at a time that market and moderate rate units are so close in selling price. He
was concerned that if the City bought the lot we would not pay $2.2 million. Moreover, if we developed it, it
would cost closer to $3.2mi1. or even $6.4mi1. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn stated that the City values this
location and site and in the final analysis the City will be getting $2.2 million toward that project. He noted his
respect for the Commission's opinion and if the Commission felt there is a better way to go, staff will follow that
lead. Commissioner Sim stated that there were no other options provided. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn
responded that this was the only option before them tonight, but if the Commission directed other options,
perhaps the applicant could respond. Commissioner Teglia asked if the Assistant City Manager VanDuyn
recommended this option. Assistant City Manager VanDuyn affirmed that he would just like to move on with this.
Speaker Colleen Rudd, 106 Drake Avenue, expressed her exasperation with Myers Development. She noted
concerns with putting this housing on Linden Avenue. She felt the lot was too small for 32 units and was already
a low income area. She noted further concern with traffic, parking and public utilities in this already too
concentrated area, and reminded the Commission about San Francisco's Eichler Towers. She thanked staff for
the public notice that allowed her to speak. Many of the people on her block got together and were upset that
this had been going on since 2000. She felt this issue was Myers Development's problem, not the City's.
Commissioner Teglia noted he shared the speaker's frustration, but felt this decision was made for the
Commission years ago when the City let the developer off the hook by not requiring the BMRs to be included
within the housing in the development, but rather allowed an off-site alternative. He noted that if Myers
Development were to build the 32 units, the City should demand it be done in conjunction with another project so
as to not concentrate the units in one location. He also noted he is not interested in the City sitting on this
property for a long period of time since this could be a great stimulus to spur development along the Linden
Avenue Corridor. Further he noted the site is a prime location to support Grand Avenue with a mixed use
development. Commissioner Teglia recommended taking the plans, the property and the money and allowing the
staff and Redevelopment Agency to see what they could do to maximize its potential.
Commissioner Zemke questioned if the $2.2mi1 value is an appropriate value in exchange for relieving Myers
Development of its obligation. He noted his respect for the time and effort staff has put into the item before
them, and that he did not want to have staff start all over. He agreed with Commissioner Teglia that this may be
the best thing to do. Commissioner Prouty disagreed and was not sympathetic. He felt that the applicant was
given a break, but it should not be done again. He could not support approval of the request in light of the value,
but he agrees with dispersing the units throughout the City. He stated that the site is too small and that
approving this would set a precedent. Commissioner Moore supported a sum closer to $6mil. Commissioner Sim
stated that he was concerned that a clear vision had not been presented for the Linden Avenue site, but he
believed that this was an opportunity for a catalyst project. He stressed a need to see the whole picture, but
echoed Commissioner Prouty's sentiments that the amount of the in-lieu fee did not make sense to him. Chief
s:V~~wutes~~LwaLLzed MCwutes\os-oz-o8 R.PG MCwutes.doc page 4 of 8
Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 2008
Planner Kalkin responded that the Commission and the City Council had discussed that the grand vision for the
downtown was to build high intensity/mixed use development throughout the area. She noted that while the City
did not have a fixed plan for the Linden Avenue site, the direction is to develop a high density/mixed use project.
The site is strategic due to of the amount of frontage along Linden Avenue - essentially an entire block.
Commissioner Prouty requested that in the future we require the developer to satisfy all obligations before they
receive any occupancy. Assistant City Attorney Woodruff explained that this project was approved before the
Inclusionary Ordinance was adopted. The below market rate unit obligation for the Terrabay project was unique
and outside of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The conditions of approval required the units to be built prior
to the Certificate of Occupancy for the first tower in the non residential portion of the project. He clarified that
what was before them was a package of approvals in which the applicant was asking to amend the Affordable
Housing Agreement with the City. The Affordable Housing Agreement stipulates when the 32 units must be built.
The request was an amendment to that agreement and in order to get to that agreement there had to be an
amendment to the Specific Plan and the Conditions of Approval. In order to amend the Specific Plan a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council was needed.
Commissioner Teglia suggested the Commission adopt the resolution but send along with it a clear message to
the City Council that a higher dollar amount should be negotiated to better reflect the value of the commitment.
Motion Prouty /Second Sim to continue the item to the next meeting directing the applicant to return with a
more reasonable value based on all that was discussed. Roll call vote:
Ayes: Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Prouty,
Noes: Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Teglia ,Chairperson Giusti
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioner Oborne
Motion failed.
Motion -Teglia /Second Zemke to approve resolution 2670-2008 with a recommendation to Council give
consideration to re-negotiating the value of the in lieu fee. Roll call vote:
Ayes: Commissioner Zemke, Commissioner Moore, Vice Chairperson Teglia and Chairperson Giusti
Noes: Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Prouty
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioner Oborne
Motion passed.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
4. Fed-Ex Ground/Pat Esquino/applicant
A-M-7 ASSOCIATES/owner
222 Littlefield Ave
P06-0056: UP06-0017, DR06-0044 & TDM06-0005
One year review of a Use Permit to legalize a commercial postal facility with 24 hour daily operations and
generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, and off-site parking at 222 Littlefield Avenue; Design
Review of a new open at-grade parking lot and landscaping upgrades; Transportation Demand Management Plan
to reduce traffic associated with the development located at 222 Littlefield in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone
District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32, 20.74, 20.81, 20.85 & 20.120.outdoor overnight storage of up
to five (5) tractor trailers, and three (30 foot long loading docks, generating in excess of one hundred (100)
average daily vehicle trips, and twenty-four (24) hour operation; Transportation Demand Management Plan to
reduce traffic associated with the development located at 202 Littlefield Avenue in the Planned Industrial (P-I)
Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.71, 20.74, 20.81 & 20.85 & 20.120.
Heard in conjunction with item #5.
s:\M~wutes\~%wal%zed MLvi.utes\os-oz-o8 RFC MC~.utes.doc Page sof e
Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 2008
5. One Year Review -Federal Express Use Permit
Fed-Ex Ground/Jim Bowman/applicant
WELL ENTERPISES/owner
202 Littlefield Ave.
P06-0054: UP06-0016, DR06-0043 & TDM06-0004
One Year review of a Use Permit and Design Review allowing a two tenant building comprised of a 10,228 square
foot industrial use and a 17,600 square foot commercial mail distribution center with a 32,000 square foot indoor
garage for occupants of 202 and 222 Littlefield Avenue, outdoor parking for twenty-five (25) vehicles and indoor
parking garage for up to eighty-two (82) vehicles, outdoor overnight storage of up to five (5) tractor trailers, and
three (30 foot long loading docks, generating in excess of one hundred (100) average daily vehicle trips, and
twenty-four (24) hour operation; Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce traffic associated with the
development located at 202 Littlefield Avenue in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District in accordance with
SSFMC Chapters 20.71, 20.74, 20.81 & 20.85 & 20.120.
Senior Planner Carlson gave staff report and recommended that the matter be reviewed by the Commission and
allow the applicant a 90 day extension to address remaining fire issues.
Mike Nilmeyer, project architect, gave a presentation and announced that he had four other individuals to assist
with any questions. Three were from FedEx Ground and one from the law firm FedEx had hired to assist with the
fire lane and parking agreement issue between the two properties that has now been resolved. Mr. Nilmeyer
went through the outstanding items of concern to the Commission. He noted that all the items on the list had
been completed with the exception of a Police Department issue related to the signage on the front of the
building. He explained that United Signs was handling the signage and it would be installed in 7-10 days.
Another outstanding issue was the replacement of the shared driveway at 222 and 212/218 Littlefield. He noted
that an engineering survey would be completed by May 13"', with the expectation that FedEx would review and
approve it by May 16~', It would then be constructed in two phases to facilitate access to the buildings. Finally,
Mr. Nilmeyer discussed the requirement for fire lane striping and signage around the building. He noted that
FedEx was working with Response Fire of San Diego who was studying alternatives. He explained that Response
Fire was preparing a letter to the Fire Chief White addressing the fire issues and requesting a 90 day extension on
FedEx's behalf.
Commissioner Teglia asked what the targeted date for completion was. Mr. Nilmeyer reiterated the request for a
90 day extension to complete all items.
Commissioner Prouty mentioned that he had recently seen two 18-wheelers and three tractors from FedEx parked
in the Oyster Pt. Marina. Mr. Nilmeyer noted that planning staff had advised him of this and he had called FedEx
and was told they would address the situation.
Acting Fire Marshal Carney mentioned that Code Enforcement and the Fire Department were working with FedEx
to address the fire issues. He stated the Fire Dept. had not yet received the referenced letter, but as long as it
meets the Fire Department's needs he would allow them to keep working on correcting their outstanding issues.
He noted that while the Fire Departments was open to some flexibility, life-safety is imperative. He mentioned
that he had spoken with Senior Planner Carlson about the use of thermal plastic paint and the need to keep the
public access to the bay clear of storage of trucks or dollies. Commissioner Prouty questioned whether a shorter
extension, such as 60 days, would be more appropriate since the building was occupied. Acting Fire Marshal
Carney noted that 30 days was what had originally agreed upon, but FedEx was requesting the Chief allow 90
days. Commissioner Sim asked whether all the liability was on the applicant during the time extension.
Commissioner Teglia questioned staff regarding the Business License issue. He was interested in having staff
pursue a requirement that the FedEx drivers post a sticker in their window, similar to catering trucks. Senior
Planner Carlson stated that he would follow upon that request but noted that FedEx managers were available at
the meeting to answer any questions. Mr. Nilmeyer noted the drivers are in compliance with business license
requirements, but they do not have stickers.
s:V~ti~n.utes\~ewaltzed Mlwutes\os-o-z-o8 RpC n-t~nutes.doc Page 6 of 8
Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 2008
Commissioner Teglia asked Assistant Fire Marshal Carney if he wanted the Commission to give a flat 60 day
extension. Assistant Fire Marshal Carney explained the Commission could give a 60 day extension, but the Fire
Dept. has a 30 day agreement in its paperwork. After the 30 days, the parties would meet again to discuss
progress in addressing the life safety issues, and additional extensions could be granted.
Motion Teglia /Second Prouty to allow FedEx a 30 day extension that may be extended by written request to
the Fire Marshal at his sole discretion for up to 60 days, and that the matter return to the Commission at that
time.
Ayes: Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Prouty Commissioner Zemke, Commissioner Moore, Vice Chairperson
Teglia and Chairperson Giusti
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioner Oborne
Unanimously Approved.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Chief Planner Kalkin announced that Bertha Aguilar had her baby on April 25th and in the interim Patti Cabano
would be attending the Planning Commission meetings.
Genentech 6 Month Review -Chief Planner Kalkin noted that there was a light agenda projected for the May 15th
meeting and suggested that rather than having a special meeting for the Genentech review the Commission may
want to consider hearing the item at the regular Commission meeting of May 15th. Commissioner Teglia
mentioned he would prefer meeting at the Genentech site. The consensus of the Commission was to hear the
item at its regular meeting rather than hold a special meeting.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION
Commissioner Teglia mentioned a number of concerns:
Park Station Lofts - He believed they had changed the exterior from what had been approved, noting he
had previously mentioned to staff that the renderings he had seen differed from the approved plans. Chief
Planner Kalkin apologized and responded she had directed the project planner to contact Commissioner
Teglia directly to discuss. She noted that she had looked into the matter and thought the concern might
stem from the fact that all the exterior finishes have note yet completed. She noted that she had met with
Elaine Breeze of Summerhill who had assured staff that they have not made any changes. He noted the
Commission was given a report that contained a nice colorful picture of what was originally approved at the
site, but Summerhill now had a completely different architectural renderings posted on big signs on the
site. Chief Planner Kalkin stated that they have been notified of the Commission's concern and will follow-
up.
Hillside Avenue -
Commissioner Teglia noted that Hillside is a major corridor in the City and was concerned that at the
intersection at the top of the hill on adjacent to the church there was no sidewalk. The development next
door put in sidewalk which Commissioner Teglia thought was going to extend up the hill. He felt this should
be reviewed by the City and the improvements finished.
He noted the former school site directly across the street had numerous use permits issued where the
Commission required the School District to re-landscape that entrance. It looks terrible. Commissioner
Teglia feels we should give the School District a set amount of time to give a proposal to install well-
irrigated landscaping for that site in order to continue their conditional use permits there.
s:V~Cwutes~~Cwa~tzed M%N.utes\os-o2-o8 R.PC Mtwutes.doc Page ~ of a
Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 2008
Commissioner Prouty asked Chief Planner Kalkin if there was any input as to when Parks and Recreation were
going to put the screening on the new recreation building. She responded that Parks and Recreation are working
on a design solution but she had no details on timing, but agreed to report back as details emerge.
Commissioner Teglia reiterated the importance of this screening as the City should lead by example.
Commissioner Moore reported that homeowners in the Mandalay Bay area have had a number of recent thefts
from their mailboxes. He noted they are freestanding and questioned whether they could be changed to keyed
boxes. Chief Planner Kalkin suggested the Homeowners Association work toward a solution with the Police
Department and the post office.
Commissioner Zemke asked about cancelling the July 3~d Meeting. The Commission noted general agreement
that this meeting should be cancelled if possible.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Collen Rudd, 106 Drake, asked about the status of the sound wall off Sister Cities Blvd. Sam Bautista, Senior Engineer
responded a consultant has been hired to prepare a study and report back to the City Council.
10:00 P.M.
AD7OURNMENT
Commissioner Teglia offered condolences to Commissioner Prouty on the death of his brother, Jim
Prouty.
Motion to adjourn -Commissioner Teglia/Second-Commissioner Prouty
:•_
'~r =i~~r~-~... p
~° l
Su 'Kalkin
Secretary the Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
Mary G ti, Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
SK/pc
s:~n-tCwutes\~Cwal~zed r~i,wutes\os-os-og Fz.PC r~Cwutes.doc gage 8 o f 8