Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-2008 PC e-packetCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE May 1, 2008 7:30 PM WELCOME If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons in favor of the application. Then persons who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn. If you wish to speak, please fill out a card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for the record. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or by a-mail at web- ecd(a~ssf.net. Mary Giusti Marc C. Teglia Chairperson Vice-Chairperson Wallace M. Moore Stacey Oborne John Prouty Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Eugene Sim William Zemke Commissioner Commissioner Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Secretary to the Planning Commission Steve Carlson Michael Lappen Senior Planner Acting Economic Development Coordinator Gerry Beaudin Associate Planner Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar Clerk Please Turn Cellular Phones And Passers Off. Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 829-3800, five working days before the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE May 1, 2008 Time 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL /CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Starbucks (Sherri Boisemenu)/applicant Armanino, Rosemary/owner 329 Grand Ave P05-0012: UPM08-0002 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 PO6-0088: 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, 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 is requesting the Planning Commission to continue the matter off calendar). Planning Commission Agenda - Cont'd Page 3 of 4 May 1, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 3. Myers Peninsula Venture„ LLC/applicant Myers Peninsula Venture, LLC/owner San Bruno Mnt / Bayshore Blvd P06-0073: SPM08-0001, PPM08-0001 & 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 dollar in-lieu fee. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Fed-Ex Ground/Pat Esquino/applicant A-M-J 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-1) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.71, 20.74, 20.81 & 20.85 & 20.120. 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 .s:\~gewdas\PlawwCv,,g cow~va~ssLow\2oo8\os-oi-o8 RPC Agewda.doc Planning Commission Agenda - Cont'd Page 4 of 4 May 1, 2008 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. ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT !~~ Susy Kalki Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT Regular Meeting May 15, 2008, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, MEETING: South San Francisco, CA. Staff Reports can now be accessed online at: http://www.ssf.neUdepts/comms/alanning/agenda minutes.asa or via htt a: //we bl i n k. ssf. net SK/bla s:~tgewdAS~PlawwCwg cow~w~issCow~2oo8~os-oi-o8 Rpc,4gewda.doc 5°~~H"sue -~~ Plannin Commission 9' v c9L ~tiAo Sta Re o rt IFOR ff P DATE: May 1, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Starbucks -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 Owner: Rosemary Armanino Applicant: Starbucks Case No. POS-0012: UPM08-0002 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Planning Application POS- 0012:UPM08-0002, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION In March 2005, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit to allow a Starbucks Coffee shop at 329 Grand Avenue in the Downtown area, with hours of operation of 6 AM to 10 PM daily. The applicant is requesting a modification to condition A.S. to allow Starbucks to open an hour earlier, at 5 AM daily, to better accommodate customer demand. The applicant has met with Police Department staff who have indicated they have no concern with the extended hours. At least one other business on the block, Galli's Bakery, currently is open during these early hours. Additionally, the applicant continues to work with the City's Code Enforcement office who report no on-going concerns with Starbucks' operations. Legal notices were sent to approximately 325 owners and tenants within 500 feet of the property and to date no comments have been received. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit Modification to Condition A.S. to allow hours of operation of 5 AM to 10 PM daily. ,J Su y K m Chief Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL UPM08-0002 (As recommended by City Staff on May 1, 2008) As required by the "Revocation and Modification of Permits Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.91) and the "Use Permit Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.81) the following findings are made in support of the request to amend condition A.S. of the original Starbucks Use Permit, UPOS- 0003, to allow the existing store at 329 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zoning District to open at 5 AM instead of 6 AM in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26, 20.81 & 20.91 based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Planning Commission staff report dated May 1, 2008; and testimony received at the Planning Commission meeting of May 1, 2008. 1. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan which designates this site for Downtown Commercial Use. This designation provides for a wide range of uses and specifically identifies retail store and eating and drinking establishments as appropriate in the downtown core. Specifically, the proposal furthers General Plan Goal 3.1-G-2 which encourages development of Downtown as apedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center, and Goa13.1-G-3 which promotes intensification and reuse of currently underutilized sites. 2. On February 8, 2005, the Parking Place Commission granted a 35 space parking exception for the proposed use, as provided for in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.74.080(d). 3. The proposed project complies with the standards and requirements of the D-C-L Downtown Commercial Zone District which permits "limited service" eating and drinking establishments with outdoor seating and hours of operation between midnight and 6 AM subject to approval of a conditional use permit. All applicable development standards shall be met or exceeded. 4. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The proposal reuses an existing retail space along in the central downtown core for another commercial use. The Parking Place Commission determined that the parking demands of the use could be accommodated within the existing public parking areas in the Downtown Parking District. 5. The proposed project is categorically exempt under the provisions of CEQA. (Class 1, Section 15301: Minor Alteration of existing facilities). DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL POS-0012:UPM08-0002 (As proposed by City Staff on May 1, 2008) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: 1. Condition A.S. of UPOS-0003 shall be modified as follows: Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:A9 S:OOAM to lOPM daily. 2. All other conditions of the original Use Permit, UPOS-0003 shall remain in full force and effect. [Planning Division contact: Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner (650) 877-8535] yo~~x„s~~ Planning Commission o - ~. o Staff Report c9tIFOR~~A DATE: May 1, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 1. 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. 2. Use Permit and Design Review allowing a new canopy entry and landscaping, 24 hour operation, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, fences greater than 3 feet in height within the minimum required street setbacks, and expanding the existing commercial parking use to several abutting lots. Address: 160 Produce Avenue and portions of 14 abutting lots (APNs 015- 13-210, 015-113-290, 015-113-330, 015-113-340, 015-113-350, 015-113-390, 015-113-420, 015-113-440, 015-113-450, 015-113-460, 015-113-470, 015- 113-480, 015-113-490 & 015-13-500). Zoning: Planned Industrial Zone and the Industrial Zone Districts. SSFMC: Chapters 20.30, 20.32, 20.73, 20.81, 20.84 & 20.85. Owner: Elias S. Hanna Trust (primary owner) Applicant: Farias & Marrugo Architects Case No.: P06-0088 (UP06-0020 & DR06-0072) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the matter off calendar. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting additional time to continue to work out several issues associated with the proposed development as briefly described in the attached letter. While the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to the Commission meeting of June 5, staff is recommending that the matter be continued to a date uncertain in order that the applicant have sufficient time to complete their review, and if not, will not need to make an additional extension request. If the applicant is able to resolve the issues in the next week or two, we will notice the meeting for the June 5 meeting. St a Carlson, Senior Planner Attachment: Letter of April 15, 2008 FARIAS & MARRUGO A R C H I T E C T S F A M A ARCHITECTURE ~ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT April 15, 2008 Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Planning Department City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: PCAA Parking Lot Replacement Canopy -Rescheduled Planning Commission Meeting Dear Mr. Carlson, I'm writing this letter to formerly request that the item noted above be rescheduled from the Planning Commission meeting on April 17, 2008 to the meeting on June 5, 2008. The reason for this request is that additional time is required for review of the property leases, proposed project's costs, feasibility & phasing by my client, Parking Company of America Airports LLC. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from us. Thank You. Sincerely, Isidro Farias Principal cc: Henry Rodriguez (Parking Company of America LLC) via email. 525 Green Street, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925 229-8806 Fax: 925- 229-8809 E-mail [email protected]'et o~~x„~.~ Planning Commission ~ o -~ o Staff Report c'~LIFOR~~A DATE: May 1, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 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 dollar in-lieu fee. Owner: Myers Peninsula Venture, LLC Applicant: Myers Peninsula Venture, LLC Case No.: P06-0073: SPM08-0001, PPM08-0001 and AHA08- 0001 Env. Doc.: Exempt Section15061 (b) (3) California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council accept 1) the 418 Linden Avenue Property, $300,000 in "in kind" development review fees and various due diligence documents or 2) Payment of $2.2 million, in lieu of the requirement to construct 32 units of moderate income housing. BACKGROUND: The City approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan which included the requirement to construct 32 moderate income housing units at 120% of the median income (November 21, 2000 by Resolution No. 148-2000). The proposal to construct the units is contained in the Specific Plan which was approved by the City prior to the City adopting the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2001. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is now codified in Chapter 20.125 of the Zoning Ordinance. On October 11, 2006 by Resolution 82-2006 the City approved an amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan (2006 Amendment). The 2006 Amendment permitted the construction of the office approved by the 2000 Plan in two towers and added approximately 17,000 square feet of retail land use to that of the 7,500 square feet approved in 2000 Plan. In summary, the 2006 Amendment approved the construction of 665,000 square feet of Class A office in two towers, 25,000 square feet of retail use and a minimum of one quality restaurant, a shared use 200-seat performing arts center, a 100-child day care facility, a public art program and the requirement to produce 32 moderate income housing units (120% of median) off the Terrabay site. Staff Report RE: P06-0073: SPM08-0001, AHA08-0001 and PPM08-0001 Date: May 1, 2008 Page 2 of 8 Project Description The proposed amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan page I-43 and Condition of Approval A-20 (hereby referred to as the "2008 Plan Amendment") is shown below. The language is shown in its entirety with strikeout indicating the proposed deletions and underline indicating the proposed additions. Terrabay Specific Plan b. Off Site The 2000 Plan proposed and was subsequently required to provide 32 moderate-income units to be developed by MDC elsewhere within the City of South San Francisco. These units may be parked at one space per unit, provided that the site is located within close proximity to public transportation. The project will be developed in concert with the City and preferably within the densely populated central district of the City. The 2006 Plan Amendment requiresd 32 moderate income housing units to be constructed off site and depending on their location as noted above, may be parked at one space per unit. -rt,° r;+„ ,,.:" ,. ~ `i.° °~':+'°...,°„+° ~ ..+~,° III~e~te--inc-e~~--aid ,~~,,;~~.~;,,,.,~~~.. ° ,~~_+~ ~LIIy 4• ~ +• ~+1, r:+.. ~. 4ti,° , r,:+c, n n:~n~~n +^ mll/Y°Y.l , " ° uavvaa.v rn~cr~ vx~r,~RCiivu~-pcvp°cr«~r'rairrrcnL, cvrpviuccwmiac'~r°c~ orrrl~.~ .,~ its. The 2008 Plan Amendment provides that MDC convey certain real property known as 418 Linden Avenue in South San Francisco, a $300,000 in lieu fee and various due diligence documents to the City as satisfaction ofthe 32 moderate income housing unit requirement. In the unlikely event that conveyance of the Linden Avenue property fails, MDC will provide the City a $2.2 million in lieu payment to fulfill the 32 unit moderate income housing requirement. Condition of Approval A-20 would be modified as follows: The Applicant shall ha~ee~ed~ite-~l-eat~e~ent}tlemen~fo-~e~ °a°r~*° ~ ° ''^~~°~n^ I~n~+r convey the 418 Linden Avenue property, $300,000 in lieu fee and background documents including the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the geotechnical study, the topographic survey and architectural drawings within 60 days of City Council action on Staff Report RE: P06-0073: SPM08-0001, AHA08-0001 and PPM08-0001 Date: May 1, 2008 Page 3 of 8 the 2008 Plan Amendment ~r;°~ *° ° °°~*~~°°*° °~°°°~~~~~°-~ ~°~^^ ~°°~~°a ~ r . In the event that the Linden Avenue property cannot be successfulldyed tothe City on or before September 15, 2008 the $2.2 million in lieu fee shall be paid to the Cit~y September 30, 2008. The certificate of occupancy on the office tower shall be withheld until the in lieu fee is paid. z4 The existing "Affordable Housing Agreement", approved by the City Council in 2007, shall be modified to reflect the 2008 Plan Amendment and executed between the Developer and the City within 30 days of City Council action on the 2008 Plan Amendment te~nc~~de~-€e~e-~A96-P-~ej~"~~ " ^~d~ett~~tl~e- A~Iie-ate'-s e~~t~~~,-Ieria~s~ ° ~~~.,>> t,° ~ .:ae~te t1~C~t3'-~~t~tie-ti9rr-6€~n° ~~ , ,,;.~ ~i,,,» ~.° zrr~a-vrrrcc-cvwcr-vraz~. ircrx~~cxrcrcrro~rcrrc-Pro cr'd`~...,,.... +i, ,,:+~ ,:» ~.° :~.,~,~° .,, +~,° r;.., r^ ,.i°.;,, ~~+~,° ,,;~~. Failure of the Applicant to meet the deadlines stipulated in this 2008 Plan Amendment shall result in the revocation of 2008 Plan Amendment and the requirement shall revert to that stipulated by and approved in the 2006 Plan Amendment. DISCUSSION: In furtherance of the aforementioned conditions, the applicant has pursued several potential opportunities for providing the requisite units. Most recently, the applicant submitted a proposal to construct afour-story mixed use building consisting of 32 residential units, 5,760 square feet of ground floor retail and 37 subterranean parking spaces on a 14,000 square foot site at 418 Linden Avenue (formerly the All-American Cafe). The plans were very well received by both staff and the Design Review Board, but due to the high cost of the land combined with the cost of the overall development the applicant has been unable to finance the project as designed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the City accept this real property (418 Linden Avenue) and $300,000 in development fees (approximate value of $2.2 million) in place of the requirement to construct the 32 moderate income housing units. The land and in lieu fees would be accompanied with background documents. These documents include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a geotechnical study, a topographic survey and the detailed architectural drawings. In the unlikely event that something unforeseen were to occur to preclude the provision of the land the applicant proposes an alternative in lieu payment of $2.2 million. Several conditions exist which have precipitated the Applicant's request to convey the land and an in lieu fee in exchange for constructing the units. The conditions are outlined in the following paragraphs. Staff Report RE: P06-0073: SPM08-0001, AHA08-0001 and PPM08-0001 Date: May 1, 2008 Page 4 of 8 A. Market Influences 1. The affordability gap between market and moderate rate housing was considerably wider in 2000 when the moderate income housing requirement was negotiated for the Terrabay project. Market rate rental and purchase prices were highly competitive and inflated due to the dot.com market and many mid-income households were priced out of the market by the very competitive bidding of the time. The moderate income units tied to the office component of Terrabay were seen as "work force housing" at 120% of the median in support of the office development on Phase III. The Phase III office was anticipated to provide office space for the dot.com industry. Therefore, in light of the escalating cost of housing associated with the dot.com demand the housing was tied to the office component. The decline of the dot.com sector and the more recent downturn of the economy have resulted in narrowing the gap between moderate and market rate housing prices. The annual income for a moderate income family of four is $114,000 and for a family of two $91,200 which translate into rent ceilings of $2180 and $2750 per month as shown on Attachment II to this staff report. As a result there is less of a demand for moderate income units than there was two to six years ago. Households that qualify for moderate income units are more likely to purchase market rate units as these units are not encumbered with deed restrictions capping rates of return on the investment and assuring affordability for 35 to 50 years. Therefore, the homebuyer has the opportunity to invest in a market rate property not encumbered with deed restrictions and take advantage of equity and leveraging over the years. 2. The Terrabay and City Lights (located west side of Gellert Boulevard, north of Westborough Boulevard) projects were negotiated and approved prior to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance being in effect. The City Lights project is 100 percent residential and as such the City negotiated various levels of affordability into the project. The Terrabay Project is a mixed use development and as such the moderate income housing was viewed as work force housing for the office component. Both of these projects have found that the moderate income portion of the housing requirement is too close to market rate to be as effective as originally envisioned. In April of 2007, City Council adopted a resolution to permit the City Lights project to construct the moderate income units as lower income units and receive certain credits and off-sets; thereby retaining affordable housing stock. The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance sets specific guidelines and requirements for the provision and pricing of Below Market Rate (BMR) units in housing developments which target low income households. As a result we now have a method to ensure that housing subsidies meet the housing need. The Ordinance also Staff Report RE: P06-0073: SPM08-0001, AHA08-0001 and PPM08-0001 Date: May 1, 2008 Page 5 of 8 permits in lieu fees, off-site alternatives and deeper subsidies which provide the City with the flexibility needed to assess the type of housing need on a project by project and neighborhood by neighborhood basis. B. City Vision 3. Chapter 6.3 Economic Development Strategy, of the South San Francisco General Plan identifies economic development strategies. Land acquisition, assembly and redevelopment are economic development strategies identified in the City's General Plan (page 216). Policy 6-1-15 states that: Establish criteria for the assembly of land by the Ciry where redevelopment and revitalization would support community development goals, maximize economic benefit, and promote private sector investment that would not otherwise be possible. The Downtown area is identified as an area targeted for such redevelopment and economic revitalization (General Plan page 216). The Downtown area is the most economically depressed neighborhood in the City. The City and Redevelopment Agency have been working on economic strategies and programs to support and enhance the businesses in the Downtown area. The Downtown area has its own Redevelopment Plan Area (Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan Area). One economic strategy is to bring more market rate residential units into the Downtown; those with more discretionary income, in order to support the Downtown businesses. 4. Higher density market rate housing in mixed use projects is a vision the City is pursuing. The "New Urbanism", greener approach was discussed at length during a joint study session between the Planning Commission and City Council in January 2008, wherein Dan Ionescu was a guest speaker. The Downtown Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation supports this vision by allowing up to a 3.0 Floor Area Ratio, and no maximum residential density. The vision discussed in January is toward higher densities in multiple storied buildings (four to six stories) that include a retail and residential mix, strongly support a pedestrian and/or transit-oriented lifestyle and goods and services that are contained in a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. Analysis Accepting the land and the in lieu fee in place of the 32 units would give the City control over development of a key site, benefit the Downtown, provide housing and further City goals in a number of ways. If the City owns the land, it can control the design and quality of the project. Starting with zero land cost, the City would be in a better position to demand and maintain quality Staff Report RE: P06-0073: SPM08-0001, AHA08-0001 and PPM08-0001 Date: May 1, 2008 Page6of8 standards with greater control and oversight than a private developer when facing development cost overruns. The City could elect to develop a mixed use project consisting of market-rate units and affordable units at 120% of median income. Even with the affordable units component the project would still bring in a higher income demographic to the Downtown area and help support Downtown businesses. Alternatively, the City could build a smaller project on the Linden site. A smaller project of 16-24 units may be a more appropriate density both in terms of fit on the site and in the neighborhood and could reduce development costs. A smaller project would require less parking which is typically a large development expense. Redevelopment Law would still require 15 percent of the units to be affordable to low and very low households. The moderate income as well as the low and very low housing requirement could be produced in other neighborhoods within the City that are currently carrying less of the City's affordable housing requirements. Worthy of note, the Downtown area provides housing for 89 households at or below 30 percent of the median while the remaining areas of the City combined provide 68 units of housing affordable to households at 30 percent or below the median income. Conversely, the Downtown area provides six units of housing at 61-80 percent of the median and all other areas of the City combined provides 51 units of housing at 61-80 percent of the median. The City would also control the retail component of the project. As owner, the City could demand quality tenants and perhaps as an economic development tool subsidize certain uses through lower rents. Promoting quality retail on the site could serve as an economic catalyst for the Downtown area. Due Diligence Several documents and studies have been prepared for the site. The documents include the following: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: There were no environmental hazards identified in connection with the property (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 418 Linden Avenue South San Francisco, CA, Strata Environmental. April 14, 2008). Geotechnical Report: Two borings were conducted on the site. The borings found that the site is underlain by approximately 10 feet of soft to very stiff clay and clay with silt. The clay is underlain with very dense silty sand to depths of approximately 20 feet and below that by stiff to hard clay to the maximum depth explored by borings which is 38.5 feet. Groundwater was encountered 13 feet below ground surface. The geotechnical report contains recommendations for construction of a basement garage and four floors of retail and residential and demonstrates that development of the Staff Report RE: P06-0073: SPM08-0001, AHA08-0001 and PPM08-0001 Date: May 1, 2008 Page 7 of 8 site is feasible without extraordinary measures. (Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, 418 Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA , Treadwell and Rollo. August 29, 2007.). Topographical Survey: A Topographical Survey Plan was prepared by MacLeod and Associates and identifies the dimensions, slope and location of utilities and improvements on the parcel. The site is 140 feet in width (Linden frontage) and 100 feet in depth, with a slight down slope to the southeast corner (Apri128, 2005). Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Compliance The 2008 Plan Amendment complies with California Government Code Section 65451 which governs the content of specific plans. The text amendment pertains to the way in which the 32 moderate income housing requirement is to be satisfied; not the land use on Terrabay parcels. Therefore, • The approved 2006 Final Terrabay Specific Plan would only be modified as shown in the above discussion pertaining to the moderate income units. • The distribution, location, and extent of land uses governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan would not be altered. • The distribution, location, extent and intensity of major components of the public and private improvements including transportation, water, wastewater, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities would not be altered as a result of the proposed 2008 Plan Amendment. • The standards and criteria by which the Terrabay development has and will proceed and the standards and conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources would not be altered by the 2008 Plan Amendment. • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by City Council Resolution No. 81-2006 would not be altered by the 2008 Plan Amendment and would remain in full force and effect. The conditions of approval adopted by Resolution No. 82-2006 would not be altered by the 2008 Plan Amendment save for the method by which the moderate income housing units would be provided. • The 2006 Plan Amendment complies with the General Plan as identified in City Council Resolution No. 82-2006 and the 2008 Plan Amendment complies with all the General Plan findings contained in Resolution 82-2006 and the additional Economic Development Policy 6-I-15 discussed above. Staff Report RE: P06-0073: SPM08-0001, AHA08-0001 and PPM08-0001 Date: May 1, 2008 Page 8 of 8 The 2008 Plan Amendment to the 2006 Plan provides the City with the control over how and where the moderate income units are produced and provides the City with control over the design and quality of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt under Section 15061 (b) (3) California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3. The proposed project is a modification to the Specific Plan text and as such does not meet the definition of a "project" under CEQA. The action being considered would not result in an activity that could cause a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The action at hand is a request to modify the Specific Plan, Condition of Approval A-20 and affordable housing agreement to allow the Applicant to provide fees and /or fees and land for the future construction of housing that would be undertaken by the City or its designee. Future development of the 418 Linden Avenue site, or any other site that the City may select to construct housing would be contingent upon an application, development plans and environmental review based upon the proposal. CONCLUSION: Based upon the foregoing analysis, staff believes that acceptance of the Linden Avenue parcel, development fees and due diligence documents would benefit the City by allowing it to leverage the site and/or in lieu fees for both affordable housing (at less than 120 percent of the median) and allow direct control over a key parcel in the Downtown area. Market and housing prices have substantially cooled in the past few years resulting in moderate income housing being synonymous with market rate housing; there is no social benefit in subsidizing market rate housing. The site and in lieu fees provides the City with a valuable tool to provide deeper (low and very low) housing subsidies; the ones most difficult to provide. Moreover, accepting the Linden Avenue property would give the City ultimate control indeveloping ahigh-quality mixed use project that would add discretionary income to the Downtown and support Downtown business retention and development. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council modify the Final Terrabay Specific Plan text to accept real property known as 418 Linden Avenue, $300,000 of in kind development fees and various due diligence documents (or payment of $2.2 million) in lieu of producing the 32 moderate income units. In doing so, the City would have ownership and control of a key development site in the Downtown area. ~~~~~~ anning Consultant to the City of South San Francisco achments: I. Resolution of Specific Plan AmendmentApproval with Attached Conditions of Approval II. BMR Income and Rent Limits III. Letter from Applicant. RESOLUTION NO. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL TERRABAY PHASE III SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL A-20 P06-0073: SPM08-0001, PPM08-0001 and AHA08- 0001 and, WHEREAS, the Terrabay lands have an extensive planning history dating to the early 1980's; WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, certified the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which builds upon the certified 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 Environmental Impact Report, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for Terrabay Phase III by Resolution 81-2006 which remains in effect for the 2008 Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the 2006 Amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific October 2006 by Resolution 82-2006 with conditions of approval which remain in effect for the 2008 Plan Amendment with the exception of the modification to Condition A-20; and, WHEREAS, the 2006 Plan Amendment and the Condition of Approval A-20 requires the Developer to produce 32 moderate income housing units at120 percent of median as a condition to provide work force housing in support of the approved 665,000 square feet of office on the Phase III site; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested to provide real property known as 418 Linden Avenue, $300,000 in development fees and various due diligence documents in lieu of producing 32 units of moderate income housing; and, WHEREAS, the project is exempt under Section 15061 (b) (3) California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 because the proposed project is a modification to the Specific Plan text and as such does not meet the definition of a "project" under CEQA. The action being considered would not result in an activity that could cause a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The action at hand is a request to modify the Specific Plan, Condition of Approval A-20 and affordable housing agreement to allow the Applicant to provide fees and /or fees and land for the future construction of housing that would be undertaken by the City or its designee. Future development of the 418 Linden Avenue site, or any other site that the City may select to construct housing would be contingent upon an application, development plans and environmental review based upon the proposal. i WHEREAS, market and housing prices have substantially cooled since 2000 resulting in moderate income housing at 120 percent of the median being synonymous with market rate housing and acceptance of the property, in lieu fee, and due diligence documents would benefit the City by allowing it to leverage the site and/or in lieu fees for both affordable housing (at less than 120 percent of the median) and allow direct control over a key parcel in the Downtown area; and, WHEREAS, the City's acceptance of the Linden Avenue property would give the City ultimate control indeveloping ahigh-quality mixed use project that would add discretionary income to the Downtown and support Downtown business retention and development; and, WHEREAS the amendment to the Specific Plan page I-43 would read: "The 2000 Plan proposed and was subsequently required to provide 32moderate-income units to be developed by MDC elsewhere within the City of South San Francisco. These units may be parked at one space per unit, provided that the site is located within close proximity to public transportation. The project will be developed in concert with the City and preferably within the densely populated central district of the City. The 2006 Plan Amendment required 32 moderate income housing units to be constructed off site and depending on their location as noted above, may be parked at one space per unit. The 2008 Plan Amendment provides that MDC convey certain real property known as 418 Linden Avenue in South San Francisco, a $300,000 in lieu fee and various due diligence documents to the City as satisfaction of the 32 moderate income housing unit requirement. In the unlikely event that conveyance of the Linden Avenue property fails, MDC will provide the City a $2.2 million in lieu payment to fulfill the 32 unit moderate income housing requirement"; and, WHEREAS, should the City Council approve the 2008 Plan Amendment the City Manager and City Attorney will modify the existing Affordable Housing Agreement to reflect the in lieu provisions for the 32 moderate income housing units; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on May 1, 2008 before the Planning Commission to consider the Applicant's request; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based upon the entire record for the Terrabay development. The record includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) The South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) The Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended in 2000, 2006 and proposed in 2008; 3) The 2005 Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and 2006 Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998-1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, 4) All public hearings and the entirety of the administrative record. 2 WHEREAS, the 2008 Plan Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan policies as identified in approved Resolution 82-2006 with the addition and restatement of: 1. Specific Plan Conformance with State Law and the General Plan The proposed land uses identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan conform to the City's General Plan. • The 2008 Plan Amendment does not change the General Plan conformance findings identified and adopted in Resolution 82-2006. • The approved 2006 Final Terrabay Specific Plan would only be modified as shown in the above discussion pertaining to the moderate income units. • The distribution, location, and extent of land uses governed by the Terrabay Specific Plan would not be altered. • The distribution, location, extent and intensity of major components of the public and private improvements including transportation, water, wastewater, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities would not be altered as a result of the proposed 2008 Plan Amendment. • The standards and criteria by which the Terrabay development has and will proceed and the standards and conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources would not be altered by the 2008 Plan Amendment. • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by City Council Resolution No. 81-2006 would not be altered by the 2008 Plan Amendment and would remain in full force and effect. The conditions of approval adopted by Resolution No. 82-2006 would not be altered by the 2008 Plan Amendment save for the method by which the moderate income housing units would be provided. • The 2006 Plan Amendment complies with the General Plan as identified in City Council Resolution No. 82-2006 and the 2008 Plan Amendment complies with all the General Plan findings contained in Resolution 82-2006 and the additional Economic Development Policy 6-I-15 discussed above. • The 008 Plan Amendment to the 2006 Plan provides the City with the control over how and where the moderate income units are produced and provides the City with control over the design and quality of the project. 3 Economic Development Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan Policy 6-1-15: Establish criteria for the assembly of land by the City where redevelopment and revitalization would support community developmentgoals, maximize economic benefit, and promote private sector investment that would not otherwise be possible. Analysis: The Downtown Area is identified as an area targeted for such redevelopment and economic revitalization (General Plan page 216). The Downtown Area is the most economically depressed neighborhood in the City. The City and Redevelopment Agency have been working on economic strategies and programs to support and enhance the businesses in the Downtown Area. The Downtown Area has its own Redevelopment Plan Area (Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan Area). One economic strategy is to bring more market rate residential units into the Downtown; those with more discretionary income, in order to support the Downtown businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: Recommend approval of an amendment to the 2006 Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Condition of Approval A-20 subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment A. The amendment hereby states: Terrabay Specific Plan b. Off Site The 2000 Plan proposed and was subsequently required to provide 32 moderate-income units to be developed by MDC elsewhere within the City of South San Francisco. These units may be parked at one space per unit, provided that the site is located within close proximity to public transportation. The project will be developed in concert with the City and preferably within the densely populated central district of the City. The 2006 Plan Amendment required 32 moderate income housing units to be constructed off site and depending on their location as noted above, may be parked at one space per unit. The 2008 Plan Amendment provides that MDC convey certain real property known as 418 Linden Avenue in South San Francisco, a $300,000 in lieu fee and various due diligence documents to the City as satisfaction of the 32 moderate income housing unit requirement. In the unlikely event that conveyance of the Linden Avenue property fails, MDC will provide the City a $2.2 million in lieu payment to fulfill the 32 unit moderate income housing requirement. 4 Condition of Approval A-20: approved in the 2006 Plan Amendment. The Applicant shall convey the 418 Linden Avenue property, $300,000 in lieu fee and background documents including the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the geotechnical study, the topographic survey and architectural drawings within 60 days of City Council action on the 2008 Plan Amendment In the event that the Linden Avenue property cannot be successfully conveyed to the City on or before September 15, 2008 the $2.2 million in lieu fee shall be paid to the City by September 30, 2008. The certificate of occupancy on the office tower shall be withheld until the in lieu fee is paid. The existing "Affordable Housing Agreement", approved by the City Council in 2007, shall be modified to reflect the 2008 Plan Amendment and executed between the Developer and the City within 30 days of City Council action on the 2008 Plan Amendment. Failure of the Applicant to meet the deadlines stipulated in this 2008 Plan Amendment shall result in the revocation of 2008 Plan Amendment and the requirement shall revert to that stipulated by and I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the day of , 2008, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission 5 EXHIBIT A 2008 AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL TERRABAY PHASE III SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL A-20 P06-0073: SPM08-0001, PPM08-0001 and AHA08- 0001 1. The Applicant shall conform to all the conditions of approval identified in Resolution 82-2006 with the exception to the following amendment to COA A- 20: The Applicant shall convey the 418 Linden Avenue property, $300,000 in lieu fee and background documents including the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the geotechnical study, the topographic survey and architectural drawings within 60 days of City Council action on the 2008 Plan Amendment In the event that the Linden Avenue property cannot be successfully conveyed to the City on or before September 15, 2008 the $2.2 million in lieu fee shall be paid to the City by September 30, 2008. The certificate of occupancy on the office tower shall be withheld until the in lieu fee is paid. The existing "Affordable Housing Agreement", approved by the City Council in 2007, shall be modified to reflect the 2008 Plan Amendment and executed between the Developer and the City within 30 days of City Council action on the 2008 Plan Amendment. Failure of the Applicant to meet the deadlines stipulated in this 2008 Plan Amendment shall result in the revocation of 2008 Plan Amendment and the requirement shall revert to that stipulated by and approved in the 2006 Plan Amendment. 2. The Applicant and Project shall implement all the mitigation measures identified in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Terrabay adopted by City Council Resolution 81-2006. 3. The approved Affordable Housing Agreement shall be modified to reflect the provisions of the 2008 Plan Amendment and Condition of Approval A-20. ~ O N Q O Q p ~ a N ~ ~ _ ~ ~ d C ~= o (~ ~ ~ U L ~ J .~ ~ U = O c N ~U~~ m ~ ~ ~ ~~ .v ~ °o ''^^ ~ U O v/ ~ ~ ~ C W °° o O c c ~ U °' `° ~ °' ~a ~ Q ~ N ~ o a 00 aD ti ~ N 00 M O O 00 ~ N O) M t0 O ~ +-. O N ~t ~ I~ 00 O .- y r r r r r r N N X ~ EA lfl 69 E~? EA d9 EA ER a~ 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w~~ r r r r ~-- r r r 3 ~ cfl ~» ~» c~ ~ ~ va C ~ o x ¢ Oo Oo I~ ti N ao M O ~<+, y00tnNOM000~ O~ r M 0 O 00 O r N ~ o O ~-- r ~- ~- r r N N i.,a p ~ d9 EA fA lf3 EA Et? Eft EA G> M ~--~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G N O 00 CO (fl N N 00 ~--~ ~ U ~ M O 00 N f` ~- In ~ 0 ~ ~ r I~ M ap ~' ~ O^ U~ l1') 0 0 ~ N 00 00 ,oQ~~v~c~v3~~~~ b 0 N N ~ ~ O •- N M tt 0 (D I~ ~ x .~ ~ C7 ~ U .~'~' 3 Who 0 x o ~, ~ o O O ~ ~ C i.r 3 O ~ a~ ~, C O U Q .Ci O 'd O ~ L" N N N O ~ ~ O CO M M ~ ~ (O ~ 00 ~-- M (O ~ N O 00 ~ y p,,/ •-- .-- ~- N N N N N 69 E,9 Et} EA 69 to fA to ~ y ' ~ ~ .-. ~ 0 ~' 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r U Ui- 3 v~~~~~~~~ -- 3 ~ ~ o ~, ~ o W ¢ o Ow a~ ~~M(D~'NO000 rCr~.. y -~r O ~ to 00 O N~ CO 00 O C O ~/ \° O r r N N N CV N N ~~ O a~ p ~ EA EA ER EA EA EA 69 EA ~p O C O M rr ~ M ~ u C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \° `~ 3~ U ~ O lI') 0 0 0 0 0 <`') ~? ~ 0~ W N W p p~ U D O l ~ ~ M N ~- O 1~ E N O ^" ~ O r C (0 f~ 00 O O) O r r U ~ i Q c 69 (A EA b4 b9 r r r Q -~ ~~~» 0 00 -o -o 0 0 ~ ~ r N M ~ lt') CO f~ ~ N N O ~ ~ ~ ~ Z r M ~ CO CO M O M I~ r N M 0 tD O r M d~ ~ (O 1~ '~ ~ r r ~- r r r r y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C~ r r r r r \"' r O r M ~ CO 00 M CO O M 1~ r N M lf) (D O) r N ~ 0 CD I~ O ~ ~- r r r r r r 69 69 EA b9 EA E+9 EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o~no~n~noo~n (fl N O) ~ O l1) r (p O) to O Cfl r 0 O ~ M ~ l1') 0 CO 0 ~ ~ EA b9 EA (f3 fA (~} d9 EA ~~ 3 ~° -¢ a ~- o Q y M .~ G ~..+ °o ~ a~ n ~ "O~ CJ r- N M ~ ~ (D f~ ~ v °~_ ~ ~ O 000 ~ Op O M Q> _~ ~ N d'^I CO 00 O r M lf') r r~- r N NN.N ~~~~~~~~ 00 °o °o o° °o °a o0 0 T [~ r r..r r r r ~~~~m~~ M to f~ ~ r N ~t:<D t- r r r N N N N 69 EH 69 69 69 tf) tf> ER ~°nc~DaMOaMOOC~p~ ~' M N ~ ~ CD r Lf) to M r O In r O V- tf~ Cp f~ 1~- CO 0) O O (f} d4 d4 ER EH EA fA rEf~ r N M V' ~ (D fem. ~ M (O O O 6R M CO 0 O O 0 CO (D r M N .~ ~ tt) .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °o r 3 ~ ~o ~ Q a ~ N o d U O C r.i 0O O~ N C O t~ V Q ~ ,.5." v ~ ~ ~ O rte. M N CD d3 N o ao ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n O M f~ (fl ~ ~ M QO O N ~ (O 00 O N N N N N M EA 69 EA EA fR 69 E!3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r T {~ r r' r r EA lf! EA Efl Ef} EA b9 O o0 ~ ~ to ~ ~ O M I~ (O ~ ~ M O e- M In ~ O ~ ~- N N N N N M ffl ER EA d9 EA EA EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~OCflNao~ (fl ~ ~ N O f~ ~ I~OOO~~N EA EA EA i- ~- ~ ~ EA 69 69 EA ~ ~no~noeoocovM O OOCfl~~f~OM(D a-. 00 r ~ ~~ .O N ~' (O y e- N N ((~~ N M M M .~ ~ EA EA EA d9 EA 69 EA EA a7 ~ a~OOO(~OOOO v O O O d O O O O .^, 3 b9 fA EA ~ 69 Ef3 b9 EA y O O Q U C ~ O ~ 01 N ~ ~~ O M ~ ~ i o O •- N N N! M M M M ~ p v b9 fA Et? EEd~~~~~9~yy EA EA fA EA O M '""' ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 t1') ~ O O i~ ~oONCOO~NM~ ~~ ~~ ~ N~ M N i- O v~OO~-NM~t1y ..ti U~ Efl EH EA d9 EA b O ,S' N N M V' ~ CO I~ ~ ~ O ~ O x ~nr~rn rn~r- ~ ~ O ~ M I` Q~ N ~t ~ 1` O ~- ~^- N CV N N N lfl tf~ El3 ER ER EF? to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r '~"' ~ r \"~ ~' ~' ~' U') ~ O 'at O tf) r'- lt) W e- O OD 1~ CU 00'OM~CDoOO ~- N N N N N M fA Efl 69 (A EA 69 EA O lf) O O tt') O ~ O h. to t[7 h- O' N N .~ r, r ~ O 'V` ~t M N O 1~ ~ N I~00O0O.-N 6~3 69 4fl ~ ~ ~- ~-^ FA EA ER EA N M cr to (fl P. ~ ~ N M ~' t,f) (O I~ ~ O>' O ~- M N ~- O O NO7t,[i~-NMr1'~ ~ M ~~~~~6M964 ~< N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^J^ T r `"' P f r l^ ~ .~ ~ ~ to tf) 6g E{} d9 fR Efl ~ Q CD 0= ~ M N '~"' O O ;~,y., ONd~~-NM d' COOMCOGO:"QN~ ~ Oo ~ ~ N N N'N M M tM V 69 ~} 6f} f,9 EA fA EH H3 ~ O '-' o ©O 0 0 0 0 0 0 c v~nO~nocoNO~ ,'~"i , ~ ~ ~ cS7 O't17 Ofd N ~ W O M M cr d' N '-- d~ v ti M d O`r N N M ,5 6R} ER EA ~ •- •- •- r- EA 69 d~ ~} ER TS .~ a~ ~ N_ O ~- N M rJ' to c0 1~ ~ MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ~s ~~, r z.. April 15, 2008 APR `i ~ 2008 Ms. Susy Kalkin Chief Planner City of South San Francisco City Hall - 315 Maple Avenue, P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Below Market Rate Housing Dear Susy, ~'~,AI~)zl°v ~~ ,~,V Via Hand Delivery Based on the Specific Plan and Condition of Approval A-20 of Mandalay Terrace Terrabay Development--Phase III Commercial Office Towers, and the Affordable Housing Agreement pursuant thereto as required by Condition of Approval A-20, Myers Peninsula Venture, LLC ("Owner") is required to provide 32 Below Market Rate ("BMR") housing units for households earning 120% of San Mateo County Area Median Income ("AMI"). For more than a year, Owner, through Myers Development Company ("MDC") and Myers Peninsula Residential, LLC, has pursued several different strategies consistent with its obligation, including pursuing a number of sites which might be suitable for 32 units of new development and sites with existing buildings which might be converted to a 32 unit BMR use. Through such efforts, the property at 418 Linden Avenue became identified as the most suitable and attractive for redevelopment. This is particularly true given the City's longer tei7n view of how the downtown area might ideally be redeveloped. Certain market conditions, current zoning issues and other constraints make redevelopment a significant challenge for a private party. With the proposed assistance by MDC, however, a project by the City would be more reasonably and feasibly accomplished. For a prof ect that the City might develop, the City would be in a position to develop a prof ect with greater affordability for lower-income families or a project with both market-rate and affordable units at less than 120% AMI. These options and numerous others -maybe more in line with the City's current long term objectives for the Linden Avenue corridor within the downtown area. 1 O1 Second Street, Suire 555 • San Francisco, CA 941 US • ~Iclephonc (415) ???-3330 • Fax: (415) 777-3331 www.mycrsdcvclopmrnt.com Ms. Susy Kalkin Chief Planner City of South San Francisco April 15, 2008 Page 2 of 3 MDC, through its affiliate Myers Peninsula Residential, LLC, has, for the second time and with the encouragement of the City acquired the right to purchase the 418 Linden Avenue property. Together with the planning that MDC has already accomplished for the 418 Linden Avenue property, MDC is agreeable to assign all of its rights under the Purchase & Sale Agreement to the City, thereby enabling the City to directly acquire the 418 Linden Site at no cost. In addition, MDC would pay $300,000 in cash to the City at the time of conveyance to cover City costs in connection with the development of the Property. Although a City project at 418 Linden offers the best opportunity for redeveloping the downtown area, MDC is proposing that if the property conveyance does not take place for any reason, then the City will accept an in lieu cash payment of $2,200,000 f$19M + $0.3M~ as complete satisfaction of the BMR requirement. These funds will give the City the ability to leverage other public funds and develop more than the 32 affordable housing units currently required by MDC. If the City were to accept a conveyance of 418 Linden Avenue, the benefits that would flow to the City would be compelling. First, the land at $1,900,000 (together with a cash payment to the City by Owner of $300,000, all current plans, architectural drawings, due diligence, closing costs, legal work, etc.) would be transferred to the City's ownership at no cost to the City. Beginning with a zero cost basis in the land, the City's development opportunities and control of all aspects of the project including density, product mix, quality and overall design would be enhanced. It would also give the City the ability to carefully choose the best tenants suitable for the retail spaces. As an economic development tool, the City would be in a position to innovate and establish a model development for future downtown improvements in the years to come. The City may elect to incent certain desirable retail uses through lower rents. The City cot>Id tailor the residential and other potential uses to meet the precise demographic and downtown investment objectives that are consistent with both current and possibly -evolving City growth policy objectives. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, MYEIZS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Jack E. Myers Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Ms. Susy Kalkin Chief Planner City of South San Francisco April 15, 2008 Page 3 of 3 cc: Marty Van Duyn, City of South San Francisco Allison Knapp, Consulting Planner, South San Francisco Armando Sanchez, City of South San Francisco Shepherd Heery, Myers Development Company Andrew Kawahara, Myers Development Company Solin Phann, Myers Development Company Jim Holden, Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy Sky Woodniff, Meyers Nave ~o~~X,s~~ Planning Commission o -~ o Staff Report c9lIFOR~IA DATE: May 1, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: REVIEW OF: 1. Use Permit legalizing a commercial postal facility with 24 hour operations, generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, with outdoor overnight truck and trailer storage and off-site parking at 202 Littlefield Avenue. 2. Design Review of a reconfigured parking lot and landscaping upgrades. 3. Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce traffic impacts associated with the development. Zoning: Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District SSFMC Chapters: 20.32, 20.74, 20.81, 20.85 & 20.120. Project Location: the property is situated at 222 Littlefield Avenue (APN 015-143-120, 015-143-130 & 015-143-190) in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District. Owner: A-M-J Associates Applicant: Michael Nilmeyer Case No.: P06-0056 (UP06-0017, DR06-0044 & TDM06-0006) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a review, offer comments and continue the matter to a date certain. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION: The Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting of April 3, 2008. At their meeting the Commissioners noted that the applicants had not completed all of the improvements including the landscaping, sidewalk, and that the fire lane paint had faded. The Commissioners also noted that the off-site improvements at the employee parking garage situated west of the site at 202 Littlefield Avenue were not complete. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P06-0056 FedEx 222 Littlefield Avenue May 1, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The applicant's representative indicated that they are working with city staff and are actively addressing the concerns. The Commissioners continued the matter to their meeting of May 1, 2008 in order to allow the applicant to complete all of the improvements. The Commissioners also strongly encouraged that the facility site manager be made aware of the concerns and be present at the meeting. Because the use of site relies on the functionality of 202 Littlefield Avenue, the review should be conducted in conjunction with the Use Permit approved for the off-site FedEx facilities situated at 202 Littlefield Avenue (P06-0054). ~- St e Carlson, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Conditions of Approval Plans ~~x S~ Planning Commission ~o ,.,,~,,,_ ~~ a o Staff Report c'4LIFOR~1~ DATE: May 1, 2008 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: REVIEW OF: 1. Use Permit Use Permit 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 the occupants of 202 and 222 Littlefield Avenue, outdoor parking for twenty- one (21) vehicles and an indoor parking garage for up to seventy-eight (78) vehicles, outdoor overnight storage of up to five (5) tractor trailers, and 3 thirty (30) foot long loading docks, generating in excess of one hundred (100) average daily vehicle trips, and twenty-four (24) hour operation. 2. Design Review of exterior building changes, new exterior open at-grade parking and landscaping upgrades. 3. Transportation Demand Management Plan reducing traffic associated with the development. Zoning: Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District SSFMC Chapters: 20.32, 20.74, 20.81, 20.85 & 20.120. Project Location: site situated at 202 Littlefield Avenue (APN 015-143-200) and a portion of neighboring property at 212-218 Littlefield Avenue (APN 015-143-150), in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District. Owner: Wells Enterprises Applicant: Michael Nilmeyer Case No.: P06-0054 (UP06-0016, DR06-0043 & TDM06-0005) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a review, offer comments and continue the review to a date certain. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P06-0054 FedEx 202 Littlefield Avenue May 1, 2008 Page 2 of 2 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting of April 3, 2008. At their meeting the Commissioners noted that the applicants had not completed all of the improvements including the landscaping, sidewalk, parking lot paving, foundation footing, storm water features, fire lane and security devices. The applicant's representative indicated that they are working with city staff and are actively addressing the concerns. The Commissioners continued the matter to their meeting of May 1, 2008 in order to allow the applicant to complete all of the improvements with the exception of the fire lane. Regarding the matter of the operational issues (i.e. trucks parking in passenger vehicle stalls, bollards, fire lane) the Commissioners stated their expectation that the applicant will present a solution acceptable to the Fire Chief. The Commissioners also strongly encouraged that the facility site manager be made aware of the concerns and be present at the meeting. The applicant has submitted a letter indicating that they are working on addressing the City's concerns and that they hope to complete the site work in several weeks. With the exception of the rear wall foundation, the site improvements are not complete. Staff will monitor the site and report any changes to the Planning Commission at their meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a review, offer comments and continue the review to a date certain to ensure that the work is completed in a timely fashion. S ve Carlson, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Conditions of Approval Plans