HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-19 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
o
OF THE
��L1FOR� CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting to be held at:
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2014
6:00 P.M.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the
State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting
on Wednesday, the 19'' day of March, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Hall Conference Room, 400
Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Public Comments — comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting
Agenda.
4. Agenda Review.
5. Study Session: Economic Development Strategy:
a. Proposed marketing program for the 2014 Bio International Convention in
San Diego.
b. Proposed development of 310 -320 Miller Avenue.
6. Study Session: Discussion of ordinance related to downtown smoking ban.
7. Adjourmnent.
Deputy City Clerk
DATE: March 19, 2014
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Rosenberg, Interim City Attorney
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ORDINANCE RELATED TO DOWNTOWN
SMOKING BAN
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide City staff with direction on whether to
prepare a potential ordinance amending Chapter 8.50 of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code regarding the regulation of smoking in downtown areas.
BACKGROUND
California Health and Safety Code Section 118910 permits cities to regulate smoking more strictly
than what state law regulates. "A local governing body may ban completely the smoking of tobacco,
or may regulate smoking in any manner not inconsistent [with state law]." The City of South San
Francisco ( "City ") currently regulates smoking through Chapter 8.50 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code. In July, 2010, the City considered a full update to the City's smoking regulations,
including a ban on smoking in highly traveled corridors in the downtown area. At that time, the City
elected to not proceed with any of the proposed Chapter 8.50 revisions.
2013 Ordinance
In January 2013, the City adopted an ordinance incorporating revisions to Chapter 8.50 in order to be
consistent with state law, but that 2013 ordinance did not regulate smoking in the downtown area
( "2013 Ordinance "). The 2013 Ordinance simplified Chapter 8.50 and conformed the City's
regulations to current state standards. Prior to the 2013 Ordinance, the City's smoking Ordinance was
last updated in 1993, and federal and state law had expanded considerably over that time. The 2013
Ordinance also modified Chapter 8.50 to prohibit smoking within City parks and certain public spaces
designated by the City Manager (e.g. breezeways). Following adoption of the 2013 Ordinance, the
City Manager designated the entire green space and picnic areas surrounding the City Hall buildings,
as well as the City -owned breezeways off of Grand Avenue as non - smoking areas.
Secondhand Smoke
Since the early 1990s, substantial evidence has emerged that details the health risks of secondhand
smoke. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has included secondhand
Staff Report
Subject: DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ORDINANCE RELATED TO DOWNTOWN
SMOKING BAN
Date: March 19, 2014
Page: 2 of 2
smoke on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth
defects, and other reproductive harm. Additionally, exposure to secondhand smoke is the third
leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing over 52,000 non- smokers each year,
including 3,000 deaths from lung cancer. A number of California cities have adopted ordinances
regulating secondhand smoke beyond places of employment, including sidewalks. Some cities have
extended their smoking ban to the entire city.
Study Session
The purpose of this Study Session is to reintroduce the issue of regulation of smoking downtown and
to receive input from the City Council on its preferred approach. Currently, Chapter 8.50 prohibits
smoking in enclosed and unenclosed areas. Smoking is currently prohibited in the following
unenclosed areas:
1. All parks and recreation areas within the city, designated as parks and recreation (PR) on the
South San Francisco Zoning Map;
2. Within twenty (20) feet of a main exit, entrance or operable window of any facility owned or
operated by the City;
3. All city -owned parking lots; and
4. Any open -air public places on city -owned property when designated by the city manager.
If desired, the City could direct staff to prepare an ordinance that includes additional regulations
prohibiting smoking in unenclosed areas located within the Downtown Commercial and Downtown
Mixed -Use zones. For example, an ordinance could be enacted to prohibit smoking on sidewalks,
benches, walkways, and/or outside dining areas within the major Downtown corridors (streets). A
map showing one version of the potential area covered is included as an attachment. This area could
be modified based on public input and City Council direction received as part of the public hearing
process. If the City were to proceed with such an ordinance, smoking could still be allowed on private
property facing the "lanes" and in public unenclosed areas outside of the Downtown area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide staff input on whether to prepare potential ordinance
amending Chapter 8.50 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to regulate smoking in the
downtown. Staff further recommends that if the City Council directs staff to prepare such an ordinance
that the City Council also direct staff to conduct public outreach to the Chamber of Commerce and
downtown businesses and report that information to the City Council.
.r
By: Approved:
asort. Rosenberg Steven T. Mattas
Interim City Attorney Interim City Manager
Attachment: Map of Downtown Area Commercial Zone Districts
2252463.1
Magnolia
Averyue
�„ 3
(D %
ro00
venue
L,
engye "ue ljgl
tQ
rD
Q
v
O
O
CD
�--r C0C
� C
z Ln
O p
O aJ
�. TI
QJ
rD
O
DATE: March 19, 2014
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick O'Keeffe, Economic and Community Development Consultant
SUBJECT: PROPOSED MARKETING PROGRAM FOR THE 2014 BIO INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION IN SAN DIEGO
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide comments and direction on the following
marketing program for the 2014 BIO International Convention.
BACKGROUND
The 2014 B10 International Convention will be held in San Diego from June 23 to June 26, 2014. The
BIO International Convention is the annual conference of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO),
which represents companies and institutions that research, develop and produce innovative healthcare,
agricultural, industrial and environmental technologies. The BIO Convention presents an ideal opportunity
for South San Francisco to continue to make a significant impression on this growing industry, especially
the start-ups emerging from Stanford and UCSF. Attached are the draft schedule of events by BIO for the
week and the workshops planned at the California Pavilion for two of the days.
This year, the California Delegation decided to invest in a larger and more interactive pavilion space,
which will cost approximately $150,000. This year's Pavilion will grow to approximately 1,000 square
feet and will offer a premium location at the entrance of the Exhibit Hall and at the main entrance into the
Business Forum area. The Pavilion will include separate kiosks, a television screen for each major
sponsor, give sponsors access to LEAD retrieval information post - convention, and allow priority access to
the One -on -One Partnering system to schedule appointments. During the Convention, the Pavilion will
offer several forums that will target the following:
• Companies, especially those from abroad, are constantly seeking funding and contact with Venture
Capitalists (VC).
Another area where companies are constantly on the prowl is technology (licensing from
universities and research institutions). The Pavilion can sponsor a "how to" session involving
licensing specialists from various institutions that can talk about hot new areas of research and how
to partner with them.
• For companies that are looking to move into California (and for Economic Development
Authorities worldwide), the Pavilion plans to host a "we built this city on biotech" session,
focusing on successes of South San Francisco and San Diego. For this Forum, staff suggests that
Assembly member Kevin Mullin and the mayors from South San Francisco, Emeryville, Berkeley,
and San Diego would participate as speakers and facilitators.
Staff Report
Subject: Bio International Convention 2014, Marketing Program
Page 2 of 4
• BayBio and BIOCOM are working with the Governor's office to have him stop -by the Pavilion (on
the day when he addresses Convention) and say a few words about state's recent initiatives to
encourage biotech industry growth (tax incentives, etc.). They anticipate that the Governor will
visit the Pavilion on Tuesday.
DISCUSSION
In January, the City Council directed staff to augment the marketing program for the BIO Convention,
which includes selecting a marketing consultant, identify goals and the targeted market, establish
measurable performance standards, assist in updating the City's website, and prepare marketing materials.
ECD staff hired Gunnink Media to help develop creative messaging and design for the City to promote the
City's Biotechnology Cluster at the 2014 1310 International Convention. Gunnink Media has completed
Phases I and 2 of the Scope of Work. Based on the initial discussion with City staff, the Biotechnology
Organization staff, and media representatives, and two Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT) in South San
Francisco (BioMed Realty Trust and HCP Investments), the consultant has made the following
observations and preliminary recommendations (which are also set forth in the attached power point that
will be presented to Council on 3119):
Benefits of Attending the BIO Convention:
• The BIO Convention is a great venue for reaching the decision makers in Biotechnology firms.
• On average, 16,000 attendees, with approximately 60 percent US based and the rest from a mix of
about 38 different counties, attend the Convention each year.
• Representatives from large and small companies, including all levels from the CEO down to mid-
level scientists, attend the forums and sessions.
• The Convention has a business - oriented focus, which is what the city is looking for.
• The Convention is international and one of very few options in reaching a large group of industry
prospects at one time.
Target Companies:
• Smaller companies and start -ups (under ten employees) generally focus on a specific task or
function. These companies do not employ real estate specialists or site location individuals. Real
estate decisions are made by the founder.
• Mid -level (20 -99 employees) and more established companies may use an outside consultant to
help to locate to a larger facility. These firms have successfully found VC funds to finance research
and development and real estate needs. HCP Investments recommends that the City focus on these
companies since the City has three REITs that have space for these groups.
• Large Corporations (100+ employees) have large bureaucracies and established site location
decision - making.
Recommendations:
• The City's goals for the BIO Convention are:
• Encourage biotech firms to locate in South San Francisco to potentially occupy the nearly
10 million square feet of entitled biotech space available in South San Francisco (The
attached Fast Facts 2014 provides the list of available properties offered by each REIT).
• Retain existing companies by ensuring they are aware they are valuable assets to the City.
Staff Report
Subject: Bio International Convention 2014, Marketing Program
Page 3 of 4
• Small Companies —South San Francisco's biotech cluster currently does not offer incubator type
space for small companies. Therefore the City's goal for small companies should be to build
awareness of the opportunities for locating their companies in South San Francisco as they grow. It
will also be useful to gauge how many inquiries we receive for this type of space to assist us in our
discussion with the creation of an incubator to be organized by Skyline College.
• Mid -size companies — The Convention offers a "Business Forum" that offers one -to -one contacts
between companies /entities and prospects. The City should identify the names and type of
prospects (targeted companies) to the Business Forum organizers to arrange meetings with the City
Council and staff.
• Large companies —Since large companies not currently present in the City have their own real
estate advisors, the efforts for this group should be directed towards retention of existing
businesses. It is recommended he City Council meet with existing South San Francisco company
representatives to show that the City appreciates their presence in South San Francisco. Staff will
work with the Mayor to finalize the invitation letter.. The City Council should also meet with
representatives of prospective companies to highlight SSF's location benefits.
• There are many competing locations and cities offering incentives. Therefore, the City of South
San Francisco should define the benefits of locating and doing business in South San Francisco,
such as available land or space, labor pool characteristics, housing availability and cost, the
existence of three experienced biotech REITs, transportation infrastructure and location benefits.
• Develop a message that communicates the benefits South San Francisco offers when talking to
these prospects, with marketing materials to communicate message.
• Prior to the Convention, staff will develop a list of top company prospects (work with the REITs to
develop that list and combine with the conference attendees list), contact the prospects with
marketing material and invite company representatives to meet with City Council or staff, and
share marketing materials provided by our developers (as an example, see attached brochure from
BioMed).
• While at the conference, and as a sponsor at the California Pavilion with BayBio, City Council and
staff should participate in the Pavilion forums and sessions.
• Following the conference there should be follow up messaging with company representatives that
were contacted providing additional information and reminding them of South San Francisco
opportunities.
• Staff will prepare a report on the contacts made prior to, during and after the conference to provide
a measure of the number of prospects that were generated through the investment of time in
conference attendance.
Next Steps
• Obtain Council feedback on March 19'h on goals, marketing strategy, and company prospects.
• Undertake Phase 3 marketing plan, which wouId include honing the message of City benefits and
identifying the marketing materials that should be produced for each market segment. Phase 3
includes preparing the "Marketing Mix and Creative Development."
Staff Report
Subject: Bio International Convention 2014, Marketing Program
Page 3 of 4
• Small Companies —South San Francisco's biotech cluster currently does not offer incubator type
space for small companies. Therefore the City's goal for small companies should be to build
awareness of the opportunities for locating their companies in South San Francisco as they grow. It
will also be useful to gauge how many inquiries we receive for this type of space to assist us in our
discussion with the creation of an incubator to be organized by Skyline College.
• Mid -size companies — The Convention offers a "Business Forum" that offers one-to -one contacts
between companies /entities and prospects. The City should identify the names and type of
prospects (targeted companies) to the Business Forum organizers to arrange meetings with the City
Council and staff.
• Large companies - -Since large companies not currently present in the City have their own real
estate advisors, the efforts for this group should be directed towards retention of existing
businesses. It is recommended he City Council meet with existing South San Francisco company
representatives to show that the City appreciates their presence in South San Francisco. Staff will
work with the Mayor to finalize the invitation letter. The City Council should also meet with
representatives of prospective companies to highlight SSF's location benefits.
• There are many competing locations and cities offering incentives. Therefore, the City of South
San Francisco should define the benefits of locating and doing business in South San Francisco,
such as available land or space, labor pool characteristics, housing availability and cost, the
existence of three experienced biotech REITs, transportation infrastructure and location benefits.
• Develop a message that communicates the benefits South San Francisco offers when talking to
these prospects, with marketing materials to communicate message.
• Prior to the Convention, staff will develop a list of top company prospects (work with the REITs to
develop that list and combine with the conference attendees list), contact the prospects with
marketing material and invite company representatives to meet with City Council or staff, and
share marketing materials provided by our developers (as an example, see attached brochure from
BioMed).
• While at the conference, and as a sponsor at the California Pavilion with BayBio, City Council and
staff should participate in the Pavilion forums and sessions.
• Following the conference there should be follow up messaging with company representatives that
were contacted providing additional information and reminding them of South San Francisco
opportunities.
• Staff will prepare a report on the contacts made prior to, during and after the conference to provide
a measure of the number of prospects that were generated through the investment of time in
conference attendance.
Next Steps
• Obtain Council feedback on March 19a` on goals, marketing strategy, and company prospects.
• Undertake Phase 3 marketing plan, which would include honing the message of City benefits and
identifying the marketing materials that should be produced for each market segment. Phase 3
includes preparing the "Marketing Mix and Creative Development."
Staff Report
Subject: Bio International Convention 2014, Marketing Program
Page 4 of 4
• Return to Council in April/May with draft marketing materials and conference itinerary for
comments.
By:
Patrick O'Keeffe
Economic and Community De lopment
Consultant
Attachments:
1. Draft Schedule of Events and Workshops
2. Power Point Presentation
3. Fast Facts 2014, Biotech Flyer 2014, and list
of businesses in the South San Francisco
biotech cluster
4. Sample Brochure on Space Available
By:
Steven T. a s
Interim City Manager
BIO 2014 — Schedule of Events — San Die o
*Exhibitor move -in starts at 8:00 am on Wednesday, June 18, 2014.
Saturday June 21— Registration Opens 1:00 — 5:00 pm
Monday —June 23
Pre- Convention Meetings - BIO Golf Tournament - TBD
Welcome Reception on the USS Midway: 7:15 pm — 9:00 pm
Tuesday —June 24
BIO Business Forum: 7:00 am — 5:30 pm - Education: 9:00 am — 5:00 pm
BIO Exhibition Opening and Exhibitor Booth Partnering Hours — 9:30a — 5:30pm
Exhibitor Hospitality Receptions on the Show Floor - 5:00 pm — 6:30 pm
Wednesday — June 25
BIO Business Forum: 7:00 am — 5:30 pm - Education: 9:00 am — 5:00 pm
BIO Exhibition and Exhibitor Booth Partnering Hours: 10:00 am — 5:30 pm
B10 Business Forum Wine and Cheese Reception: 5 :30 pm — 6:30 pm
810 Gaslamp Receptions — offsite walking distance from the show
Thursday — June 26
BIO Business Forum: 7:00 am — 5:30 pm - Education: 9:00 am — 3:30 pm
BIO Exhibition and Exhibitor Booth Partnering Hours: 10:00am — 5:00 pm
Exhibitor Move -out: 5:30 pm —11:59 pm & continues through 12:00 p n on Saturday, June 28, 2014.
CALIFORNIA PAVILION PROGRAM (CHI, TEAM CALIFORNIA, BAY BIO, & BIOCOM)
Tuesday
10,00am Funding Innovation (30 minutes)
California is blessed with many sources of capital, funding innovative California life
science companies even during the worst of recent economic downturn. During this
session venture capitalists, corporate VCs and angel investors will talk about what gets
funded today and why and their outlook for the future of life science industry
• Janis Naeve, Amgen Ventures
• Ken Haas, Abingworth Management
• Ed Hurwitz, Alta Partners
• Craig Muir, Third Rock Ventures
• Kurt von Emster, venBio
• Tim Draper, Draper FisherJurvetson
• Vinod Khosla
11,00am Company Presentation 1 I Calico. the new face of aging (5 minutes /NorCal)
Company Presentation 2 (5 minutes /SoCal)
1.30pm TBD Governor Brown official visit to California Pavilion
2,00pm New Tools for a New Economy (30 minutes)
Economic Development initiative and how California plans to invest $750 million
annually into new business incentive programs to spur development in the
biotechnology and manufacturing sector
• Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
2.40pm Company Presentation 11 (5 minutes /NorCal)
Company Presentation 2 (5 minutes /SoCal)
3.30pm We Built this City on Biotech (30 minutes)
What is that "secret sauce" that sets South San Francisco and San Diego apart from
other clusters in US and worldwide? This session focuses on how to build and maintain a
biotech- friendly local government in order to attract new and retain existing biotech
businesses.
• Assemblymember Kevin Mullin, 22nd California Assembly District
• Daryl Matsumoto, Mayor, City of South San Francisw
• 'odd Gloria, Interim Mayor, City of San Diego
• Jac Asher, Mayor, City of Emeryville
• Jim Wood, Mayor, City of Oceanside
• Tom Bates, Mayor, City of Berkele
3
Wednesday
10:00am The Changing Landscape of Healthcare in the Digital Age (30 minutes)
How a wish of physician cloning came true as teieawaedidne s4es become a part of our
limes, allowing doctors to see patients at miles away and prcWWinag, patients with world -
class specialty care without having to leave their communWes and Mn iss significant time
from school and work.
• Kathy English, Global Senior Director Heald re & Public Sector Marketing,
Cisco
• Dr. William Kennedy, Associate Professor of Llrollogy —Stanford University
School of Medicine; Chief, Pediatric UrohW -- Ludle PadkaT d Children's Hospital
• Rick Valencia, Senior Vice President and Generall NaWe3r, Quaicomm Life
10:40arn Company Presentation 1(5 minutes /SoCal)
Company Presentation 2 (5 minutes /NorCal)
1:30pm CALSIO Report (30 minutes)
The 2013 CAL81O Report provides a comprehensive smpsW of the Rafe science industry
in California and provides a 10 -year strategic plan —a bluep0int for government,
universities and research institutions, companies and ewroormic development
organizations— to create a positive impact on Califamiia life sciences.
• Joseph Panetta, President and CEO, Bkx mt
• Gail Maderiis, President and CEO, Saoio
2.10pm UC San Diego Presentation 1(5 minutes)
UC Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy (5 minutes)
The Rady School of Management, UC, San Diego (5 minutes)
QB3 Presentation (5 minutes)
300pm Golden State IRS (30 minutes)
The Partnership to Accelerate Clinical Trials is building a motional model to accelerate
and increase the quality of clinical trials in California and aorossthe US, This session will
announce first clinical trial sites to have joined PACT andl iimpaa on companies in
California and beyond.
* Clay Johnston, Vice Chancellor of Research, UCSF
* President of the UC, Napolitano (NOT AVAILABLE)
Thursday
10:00am Setting the Stage for Science (30 minutes)
Giving students hands -on experiences is so much more pov+werU than learning from a
book. Home to many innovative life science companies, Califonnia shines when it comes
to increasing STEM literacy in students, including Amgerfs " Biotmh Experience",
Genentech's "Co-op internships", Bayer's long collaboration wWh 'Biotech Partners ",
The Biogen ldec "Community Lab" and projects supporWd by the, Life Technologies
Fecundation.
10.40am Student Voices 11 LSSI Bio -Poems (10 minutes/SoCal)
Student Voices 2 ( Science Rap: Tom McFadden (5 minuate NorCa►l)
(check with Cal Endowment to poy for trans a6b a; dwi* a 8#0 to orronge for
comp admission for students and instructors)
12;30pm Education for Everyone (30 minutes)
Oinfine learning is revolutionizing access to education. As KWn Academy founder Sal
Khan explains, it may also revolutionize STEM education and how organizations find the
workers they need.
• Sal Khan, Founder, !Chan Academy
• Susan Bonilla, Assemblymember (D- Concord),Chair- Sellert Committee on STEM
• Henry Hipps, Senior Program Officer, Bill & Melinda Games Foundation
• Michelle Rhee, Students First
• Kareem Abdul- 3abbar
• Mo Yun Lei Fong, Director, Google (K -12 Education Ciurtreach Programs)
• Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Publik Inser Lion
2.00pm Made in California (30 minutes)
As China is starting to look as too difficult a place to conduct business, manufacturers
are increasingly looking closer to home. Whatever your goal 9 from a painless glucose
diagnostic kit to a novel nanoscale delivery mechanism to a complex trivalent malaria
vaccine, having the work done here in California actually saves costsvia efficiencies and
time savings.
2:40pm (Raffle
• Autographed surfboard
• Vacation packages from amusement park assoiiabon of California
X;
sJ
uJ
45
0
0
0
vs
0
0
ca
ll�
E
rl
0
c
. f
Erw E
-TIM- D
UZ t
17,
L L
_:Zol
LJ
1--y
cj N—,
FE,
u7n ,
IIJ
Iv
ri L
vJ v!
..........
IS
C:
0
cz
O
75
10 1
11
O
V
(A
V
ct
N
C� O
� Q
O
V U
O
•� U
V W
I I -... I
i
> eom",�%
0
a�
o 0.-0
V o23
o �
NZP
V)
U_
ai
a--+
N
Lf)
V)
4--►
L
t
as
a-J
O
•cn
O
0
0
Q3
a--+
O
�
N
�E
�
[Q
ro
U
�
O
cz
O
Ln
Lam,,
O
O
N
Lnn
CAA
O
U
L
O
4-'
�
cn
m
a
0-
�
o
co
0
O
Ln
4
L
V
-�
•�
Qj
u
O
U
~
1
N
4
ai
N
U
-C
m
L
0
O
4-J
CL
C
c
0
v
Z
o
O
L
0O
N
Q
V
�--+
Q }
❑
C6
0
`'
V
❑
V)
U_
ai
a--+
N
Lf)
V)
4--►
L
t
0
0
0
c�
0
w
o
i
cz
�
�
o
a
v
C)
u
5—
ro
t._
(1)
ct
a
O
a� +j
O
O L
O
O v
4-J O
co —
N
•� E
CLO a
CL
�X E
O
.� V
10
0 Q
O
4-J C:
V
_O W
Q +j
w ao
r4
v?
0
V
f6
L
O
a�
+-;
hA
�L
O
O
V
0
m
L
Wel
N
r4
Ilt
r,*6-
4J
V
Z3
m
W
L
CU
a-+
Q
Ln
0
ct
F�
a--r
N
to
tA
a-J
U
a�
f
cu
N
O
0
'n v
v ,n
cn aJ
Q] a)
O
o a
cL E
E a
a�
Ln
t v
C)
f� CL
Q
E o
o
U
Q >
-0
v?
<.
O
O
c--
V)
a
a
O
Q
N
V)
.C:
m
E
O
U
a)
tw
L-
m
,O
m
I`l
4---
0
Ln
L
CO
cu
N
Q
F-
0
Ca
L
ru
E
0
cn
t
I-
•
f'6
E
Q�
L
0
Ln
V
v?
0
E
•— ca
C
Q�
0
CA
� O
� C6
� •O
S2 .�
r
ct
F�
CL
E
L
4-1
Ln
C6
N
Q
E
O
L
m
E
V7
•
�o
�4-
C:�
C: (U
.2Em
0-
.0 O E
CU -0 N u
aJ E_ w
E +�-+
W •-
a) � C
= o �
N � �
U
O v
— o
U � �
N L O
x O Q�
_ >
aJ 0 a)
> i-j —
0) ru U �
u O ro
N E
� O
-+
>• Q `}-
q)
-Y O E
u O
W U
7- .0 Z7
Vf +�
O p
2 ° U
IN
V)
cu
. E
ii
E
O
U
[)
IrA
cu
4-r
Q�
L.
O
E
L
4A
L
a
i
�c
C
•
e.
bjD
C
.Q
O
V,
O
+-+
U
N
(�
Q
•'
_0
U)
O
�
c
o
C
�
N
E
�
L
M
4A
C
C
O
Q
Q)
�
m
Ea--
(U
_0
•V1
C
C
(v
E
O
Z7; .
O
"�
(D
u
O
vii
O
Q
O
p
E
.T)
l
v
m
Q
r6
:
o
°
e.
(A
CU
"Ic�
0
a�
0
U
0
C
N
f�
i
V
s
1
O
a-J
N
O
U
tU
ate-J
a..r
f6
O
O
� L
Q
�o
•- N
rII L
E O
o �
C
a o
Q ca
Q�
+j
0
E
O
4A
.E
O
U
0
,}_„ cn
•� 4-J
� O
Q.� +
00
4-Jm
O
CL
ca �
C)
L
•
13
O
O
a-J
ra
O
20
•
QJ
N
.E
N
E
i
v
v
U
.E
v •�
V
Ln E
}' o
u1 U
N
�C
O
c�
o C:
U �
V) a-'
+.j +-1
E E
Ui Ui
L
0 �
bD f�
c:
°O
� L
Q
E bn
Q
N =3
� U
in a--+
O
E
L Q
tA O
a} (u
a� >
cn O
Zn
U
O
L
•
cn
c
O
�V
s
V
N
L
L
0
N
N
Q�
L
Q
Ln
a-J
U
MINOS
L?
E
to
0
cu
V
4-a
O
m
Ln
L
c6
l*
s
f6
O
fu
C6
L
CQ
L
L
0
E
0
f'-
ate-1
fa
s
Ln
L
a�
fCf
E
O
.V)
�U
DJ
0
0
a--+
.0
m
0
V)
0
ca
E
V_
.0
14
O
v
0
i
fp N
s a-J
V �
L j
Ln 7
L
� U �
� s �
OJ I ai
V "0 O
(U L
� � o
a) 0
L o
o (.0
Ln
a-� 0 -J
U a-J Q
L-
CL % n
cu O
Q _ U
LL V
r
m - N limmy'A
I�
0
L4
cu
c
• E
a/
. O
Q
E
j
0
�
o
��0
■�
L
�
4A
U
4
s
a
m
C:
o
_
ra
E
-
+j
°
v
• -
Ln
aJ
c6
-0
Q
Cl)
OL
—
O�
G
N
U
+-�
O
O
O
��
Q
o
�t�_�
0�0
E
Ln
i-�
Q.
4=J
0
ao
�
o
°
4_
=3
0
,�
ra
�
OTC
Li
�
�
U
U
_
s
•
I�
0 mmlmmy-�,l
II:
O
a-J
a-J
O
o
4-J
.�
—
0
aJ
4-
'3:
O
ai
Q
°
E
ai
o
a3
O
W)
%-#
},
U
E
t
O
Q
Ln
O
j
7,
p
'U
N
O
O
c6
Q
•U
0
L
LL
U
■ ��
OU
a)
j
C6
ro
�
�
a)
75
E
•�
E
N
Ln
O
o
o
-�
ate--+
as
4-
o
a�
h
C:
�
a
0
�
0
ca
�
j
0
O
E.
+
m
o
O
O
U
+'
w
O_
O
ED
f�
CL
L3n:
E
m
U
LL
o
c
U
•>
-C
m
°
o
m
°
�
�—
V)
•°
CO
Q
- -°
m
U
L
�
II:
C/1
Ct
Q
I
k�
I�
0
w
CU
r�4
9 Pon*
C/1
L
a�
0
IA
a)
.E
ca
CL
E
O
V
laA
ate-+
CL
c/f
ca
ra
ca
a,o
U
4-J
cu
E
ca
. cn
L
L.L
Ln
V)
au
.Ln
a,}
ra
m U
c
H I
c
O
O a-'
C �
O O
W
tn O
aJ (U
-r-s
S E
O O
v1 Q�
aJ O
L E
ca
cn O
v0
as o
�Ln
� N
4-J .�
ca �
o(l)
O ±.,
o =; rt
'
L !
0
O v
O
tic
+-
.O E
Q a)
Q O
O
O
ri
Ln
f0
C
[>3
E
Ln
m
cu
cu
E
O
Ln
Ln
r-i
.'_^
Ln
co
s
1u
O_
O
u
ca
M �
�u
o cu
u �
L o
QJ
GA
API
f4
U
U
17
O
� U
4- (�
0 L4.-
o
aJ
I
o v
C�
4-, O
Q
CU
- U
C �
Q
LA
0
v CL
4-J�
M
CU
U �
qp O
tLo
�u O
v
Q
(D -C
Vq)' 4-0
qL
W
cn fa
O
N
- L
�.RFJ
(U
E
V
4T
L-
0
Ln
m
00
cu
fB
.0
fa
Q
0
V)
L
w
E
L
M
Ln
N
a-j
Ln
O
H
N
L
a)
L
co
Q
tko
0
LP
cli
�U
rI}
a-J
4
r-I
O
N
N
L
0
CL
Q)
fA
E
t
t
3
Q
L
f6
a�
U
QJ
w
QJ
L
�1--+
0
U
QJ
t
m
r
bn
rhl..4
a�
cz
a
0
0
x
w
C
O
7
LL
L
O
4—
co
U
N
O
L
4-J
CL
L
O
r-
0
Ln
E
C6
t
•
O
i
f�
I
4-J
O
O
bn
.L
N
L
ca
a-j
O
m
x
W
c
O
ul
U
V
Q�
0
L
U
f0
L
a-J
IMMTA
18
I
0
a
p
0
M
a
��
v�
�s
O
O
Ln
O
to
O
cn
•�
E
c!
0
Ul
_
—
t]A
m
fE3
s
cn
O
O
U
OD
}►
N
•�
V
O
U
U
-
L�
•L
�
��
fa
U
'n
Ln
ai
:
N
o
ai
X
—
0
.>
U
i
�
[0
L L
a}
O
>.
�
O
V)
-•—
C:
=
V
4-J
CL
un
'r-
C?
•v
D
0
4-P
O
C)
pE
�
M
0 p
O
H
C
—
_
tU
-+
O
Ln
C:
L
U
tea-
,+�_
o-
>Q'�
4
0
a
L
O=
a,
.�?a
._
0
},
0
0
■
p
V
Ln
E
�,
>
X
,
>
..
v
0
•�
m
L
O
r�
Q
�Osz
cCL
E-
w
I
4
r
boom
PER
a
a
a--i
LA
0
C: �--'
�L c
N O
t�: o
O
L Q)
O O
L-
O 0-
V O O
o
aUCL
f
L 4-
fu
cn
a
BEEN �--_
O O
L
E E
O
�-+ O
� O
a)
cr a—' >
L-�
4-J O
oc U) u
01
Y
� O
O
*r3 Q
0 Q
O
r E
� U
Q�
4-p;
V ro
ro cn
V
own 4-
M .1 u
0L
a
U41
U/
4)
cr U O
L`•'~ >-
V 4-J
_ .�
OMMM V)
E
L � �
� � O
L
� O �
T
. � 1
r--
O
u
V
U
f�
._
o
;.
o
u
"O
O
c
`�.
. � 1
PAS
r--
O
._
;.
o
u
`�.
.
U
(v
C
bLO
�
L
L-
m
C
�
O
V
{D
a)
�
;
L
�
>
.N
O
LL
N
=
rt•
a�
°;
o
(1)
0
4.1
cry
t to
�
'L
0
�
LA
r
V)
�
C:
o
U
p
-0
O
L
U
[/i
p
�
o
0L
0
ra
C
°
a--+
U
u1
�
,
a
u
0
4-J
-a
o
,O
U
C
i
N
fp
i
d}
Q
��
Q�
Q
o
4-J
o
cn
a�
o
�_
—°
j
CL
=
O
a)
U
U
Q
�
o
�o
o
p
ai
o
}'
�
s�
7-
Q
'
L-
E
O
41
cn
N
O
O
(v
0
o
-
>
O
v
bD
UV)
0
v
�
�
4
4
O
to
c
m
�
'co:
�
_
(U
�
ateJ
V
,j
E
�
.�
i
�_
L
m
O
u1
aj
.0
Q}
L
k
+j
a--+
O
❑
V)
a--3
�
+�
U
U
s—
,N
4-J
e
J
cu
a..+
4-J
LA
PAS
IM
a-+
E
aA
as
aA
r�
V
f�
a�
Q�
L
O
O
M�
F�
PO
0
4-
0
V
+-+
a
.E
I-
a�
0
v
a
C
o
r� V)
.L ,U
N �
V L.L
W
c
ca
�
0
0
N
�
U
�
o
o
a�
a�
O
V
O
0
p
.E
40
o
re
O
u
a-+
E
aA
as
aA
r�
V
f�
a�
Q�
L
O
O
M�
F�
PO
0
4-
0
V
+-+
a
.E
I-
a�
0
v
a
C
o
r� V)
.L ,U
N �
V L.L
x
C�
bA
c�
23
C)
a
Imi
I Dim
mwirn
i
as
a--+
r*
24
(A
4-J
QJ
4A
L-
a)
i
ci
�n
ai
to
L
a)
Ca
�
Ln
Q
Qa
4.1
L-
(�3
O
as
H
+:�
CL
a
O
L
••
0
0
cn
0
Ln
O
+.j
06
06
~
3:
E
�--�
0
aA
J-
�
•�
.�.
Q�
as
a
F-
Q j
L�
L
0
O
❑
E
24
aj
Q
O
N4.
W.
06-
a-1
U b.0
fa �
N1 O
4J �U
� N
4J a
4-J PG
cu a-J
f�
,� QJ
1
� 1
�4-�
V
'0
-Q
0
>
L
Q
�
L
V
4-J
O
1
�
L
E
L
0
U
L
m
L
i 6
U-
O
C:
co
t�
•Eb
on
V)
Q�
E
0
cz
V
aj
Q
O
N4.
W.
06-
a-1
U b.0
fa �
N1 O
4J �U
� N
4J a
4-J PG
cu a-J
f�
,� QJ
1
� 1
10 . M.. mlmm".� --
W,
�
Q3
'—
O
O
O
_0
>-
�
U
'
c�
}'
Q�
�
O
L
�a
+,
4--
O
.�
a�
Lf)
o
c
a)
j
x
O
Ln
��
U
•Ln
to
+
�►
+�.+
U
O
O
Q
•3
4-J
Ul
C
o
V
CD
N
Q
CD
U
C:
o
ca
�
•w
fu
E
o
N�
J
U
�-J
Q
O
V
Q-
4--J
�
L
L
CL
O
R3
N
W,
cz•
•
O
L
0
4 �L
f6 •U
�
N
V)
fa �
L
L.L
cn
s c
v
0
L
0 N cu
a
0
u o
as �
o },
Ln 0
CD Co
CU
to .�
i
0 O
m�
27
0
a
0
Q)
EDIM4 I
VD
c
0
[z
E
0
C
N
0
E
0
a�
Ln
0
flJ
L
O
E
Ln
U
Q
Ln
O
0
V
E
N
0
0
c
0
O
d--+
ai
L
W
CaA
■ PMMM4
m
Q
Ct
m
0
a�
�..r
o
~y
V
CCU
o
L-
0
cz•
•
O
L
0
4 �L
f6 •U
�
N
V)
fa �
L
L.L
cn
s c
v
0
L
0 N cu
a
0
u o
as �
o },
Ln 0
CD Co
CU
to .�
i
0 O
m�
27
0
a
0
Q)
EDIM4 I
VD
c
0
[z
E
0
C
N
0
E
0
a�
Ln
0
flJ
L
O
E
Ln
U
Q
Ln
O
0
V
E
N
0
0
c
0
O
d--+
ai
L
W
0- 1 1 MMTA
28
v/
a
•
V
lai
.Q
,Q
L
Qj
L
a}
Q
Q
E
0
hA
o
rf)
r-I
L
'i/liU .
N
E
L
I.J�
�.i•y
~
O
O
m
o
O
U
0
o
o
T-A
N
c
0
0
o
+-+
L-
N
I
C?
O
Lo
•�
C
4-
�
o
o
O
Q---
�-
ca
•`�'
•v
Q
=
Ln
��
L
�
Lr)
_p
{o
..
{f}
r n
QJ
o6
—
a)
i
E
U
O
_
•�
W
E
Q
.—
C6
m
m
Ln
0
V
O
O
4--+
L
u
U
Cu
Z
O-
j
cn
t1A
O
Q)
O
L
�
V
�
Q
._
—
m
m
•fa
c�
U
ii
�
W
28
v/
a
•
.
V
lai
.Q
,Q
L
Qj
L
a}
Q
Q
(3)
0
hA
o
rf)
r-I
L
'i/liU .
�C:
�
I.J�
�.i•y
~
0
O
m
o
O
U
0
o
o
T-A
N
o
. �
I
C?
o
o
C
4-
�
o
N
O
ul
o
•v
Q
=
0
��
L
Co
Lr)
_p
{o
..
{f}
L
QJ
i
O
C6
m
m
Ln
V
.
bn
r-4
Ct
a
P...j
o
o
V) C)
w
c�
Pit
r-G
Q"V
7�d
0-
`m
pU
J2 0
N
n
E E M1
❑r �
tD
O N
O
�'7
y�
U
� o T
Z p LL N
(7 N N (D
m
N
v
r
+�
N
�
fo
C
i
n C V
N
"D
°
N N
N b
�V
LW'
C
a
•C
D•w
NEa+
N
m
`�°
a
dC
dQ
W
IL
a N
C
N
'�
°mU
p m
U N
-cc D[� UJ
V
°
L
C
Q
X
H C
W
a
W C
C
py1
(6 C
m A
m
C
d
C
D
V
N
yy
Q)
Q) N W C
C
C
a
W
R
wmr
C
? 16
m
A
W
d
E
U-
3
U
n
b
N
M1
O
0. O
W N E U
U
m C C
N SaiC � p W
W
C°
O C
d
E m
� i N
N
F
m
`W
L
m C
U
D
� E
N} U
w
N
tlh
en
c
°r c
w m
m�
.5 }s ¢
U
m y
o
o n
G O
v
c
m NN
° o
rt
ami
m C°
v y
Y j
aWa
N i-
w
2
V
O
O
m
C
X C O �+
du
-
O
❑ = O
i
C Y
W
ad
A
d
_v�
pp
O
y
yV
oe
cnn
W b N
C
❑ = G
N
M
C taLa b
O
_�' L ii
N
LrL
.AO N
q Lef
''.� o
m
v' m
N
O J
m
ui
T
C
a
C d C
,
❑ -' dF-
N
N
L
ate+ d
c,
=
p O
O-
O
L
O
O
y
b L _� d
C> Q N
N
U
y C D✓ to
C U 0,
.i
t
p
ry
d
h
O
M
O
"n
M
m y~
O` m ai fa d
7
`e
0. C 1 Q
L
C.
o o
.po. n
O O
O
m
O O
P N
o
N tlCr
nr
d N co C q,
°' D❑ E
-�'
❑ L
'C b tro i+
w
N; b
DG
Q
O
C4
r'1 O
ry
y�q
P
P
W
N
cD �"i
V 'C
N C
Vy N
�
N
O
D
4 uj
N
D
A
m r¢
' m 0. u
0. jp ❑ C y
>
C
E C N C C U
lL d
45 c
d
N
C
O W
O
m
W
N
P
N
O
N
o0
p 0
C
D
O .J
- N
E C= ll C L
N d C i 9 W
°
N
�O N
Vt
N
m
N
IeC
]. d
Ep
c v e°a N a
E
a
w
m V a y
N
N%
G
O:
^
m
s li
° C
9
O o1 m a O L
L
a a
C
`a
O
C
z
a 3
u y O>
O
L y Q v u b c
O
u
h
CO d
a `a
tr
ry
v
a r" m
u
aTi o v
a 4
N
4
a d w
G o
b
c
L s
Qsd °OaHU balm H
vti
a
"c °�
o
ad �,
u a
NS,m
d c n
w
O h
c
u
ay
d
Vi
N ti
N u A '4
IA
V
Lu
vc
a ❑ pp
�yL _ i n N 'pd��q yC N C _ R 1�
79 9
E -ag
Ea
i N CF 3 G 9 f ao
y
g _ m ry N o
0 T
' m - A >
mm 2 YO ij ?.0 - -- c 0 c S p O B9
i
E o Id+ p G� g`1 c!4 m Ste+ n DoE N -=
o
b -1 P v .Q r� a 2 '��° O .� F
w°.
i.c d u° p °o n W c occ ecc aL c E E p y^,r ° c 5 cl
E
3 E c $ � !- ➢ 9 .- Ora a ° _ E P 3 r ,: _ ._ a g ;9
'E� a a O ` a w a' c tic g$ p a$ 'a S
` e 29 - gpp 5g ^°^s v �s� g ay = b g ❑ Ear &$pyE a C Sys
E NPO N AN 4 m[i rl p sN 6 ;� C N Y� J n -�LJ s 4tf rd
17 CN r+ E E
0
U
Q
w a ° u m
e n
0
U
33
LIST OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMPANIES THAT ARE
CLASSIFIED IN THE SSF BIOTECHNOLOGY CLUSTER
JANUARY 2014
COMPANY
GENENTECH,INC
794
_ _
ONYX PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
650
LI F E TECHNOOOGI ES CORPORA710N
600
AMGEN SAN FRANCISCO LLC
406
.RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
15
.MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES INC.
14
RINAT LABORATORIES
143
,CRESCENDO BIOSCIENCE, INC.
130
EXELIMS, INC.
12
FLUIDIGM CORPORATfON
109
GYTOKINETICS INC.
99
STEM CENTRX INC
95
1EXEUXIS, INC.
83
L59, INC
83
MONOGRAM BIO5CIENCES INC.
83
NGM BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
70
DIADEXUS, INC.
67
SUTRO SIOPHARMA, INC.
62
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC
56
NODALITY, INC
47
YOU TECHNOLOGY BRAND SERVICES, INC.
42
.FIVE PRIME THERAPEUTICS, INC.
3
IKALpBIpS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
3
,TOSOH BIOSCIENCE, INC. _
31
,MCLAB
31
GLOBAL BLOOD THERAPEUTICS, INC
31
ASPIRANET
3
MYOKARDIA, INC
30
ACHAOGENINC _
29
SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC
27
ALIOS BIOPHARMA, INC.
27
1 CYTOMXTHERAPEUTICS, INC
27
:HITACHI SOLUTIONS AMERICA, LTD.
2
!JANSSEN ALZHEIMER IMMUNO THERAPY RESEARC
25
MACROGENICS WEST INC.
25
(FLUXION BIOSCIENCES, INC.
23
CALITH ERA BIOSCIENCES INC
23
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.
19
ENVIVIO,INC
19
ALIOS BIOPHARMA, INC
18�
'GENEMED BIOTECHNOLOGIES INC
17
;BAYAREA BIOSCIENCE ASSOCIATION {BAY BID
17
'BI TEE THERAPIES, INC.
15
.THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC
'CATALYST BIOSCIENCES, INC
_ _l_b�
15i
,PROTHENA BIOSCIENCES INC.
1
;TRUE NORTH TERAPEUTICS INC.
_151
14�
TRIAD ISOTOPES, INC
1
_
VERACYTE, INC.__
14
AVIDBIOTICS CORP
�13
TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
13
RESET THERAPEUTICS INC.
13
TRELLIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC
11
TLC BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
10
LIMERICK BIOPHARMA INC.
10
SUTRO BIOPHARMA, INC.
1
LINKAGE BIOSCIENCES, INC
10
DMNICIA INC.
10
OXIGENE, INC.
1
CARD] OCORE LAB INC
10
VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS INC
10
BRAMASOL INC.
16
RLJUVI LABORATORY INC.
9
EXELIXIS, INC
9
OCULEVE, INC.
AIRSTONE LABS
ALTHEOS, INC
8
CHEMUX BIOSCIENCE, INC
7
IOMETRIX INC.
6
AFS BIOOIL CO
6
PSI USA, INC.
6
TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS
6
BLUEBAY MEDICAL SUPPLIES
5
SECOND GENOME
5
COMENTIS, INC
4
PHARMACEUTICAL INSTITUTE, INC
4
ROCHE INSULIN DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC.
4
ECARDIO DIAGNOSTICS, LLC
VELOCITY PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
COUNSYL INC
4
HCP ESTATES USA INC.
3
YENZYM ANTIBODIES, LLC
3
PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA INC.
3
QUINTARA BIOSCIENCES
3
DC3 THERAPEUTICS
3
FULL SPECTRUM GENETICS
2
REVMAB BIOSCIENCES USA, INC
2
OYSTER POINT BUSINESS PARK
COTHERIX INC.
1
EXELIXIS, INC
1
EXPERIMED BIOSCIENCE, INC
1
IiPIERIAN, INC.
1
IGENENCATNETWORK
1
_
11898 DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
OYSTER COVE MARINA
,THERAVANCE, INC.
;GATEWAY LLC -MGMT OFFICE
�I
1 BIOMIMEDICA, INC. _
C URELINE BIOPATHOLOGY LLC
1!
=SOLSTICE NEUROSCIENCES LL_CA US WO_RLDMED
SOLSTICE NEU ROSCI ENCES LLCA WORLDMEDS C
34
a s�
'i " �
CY)
cr
co
AMF 'r -' i; '4x-,-
jr-
V*
R Fri ANY
ipr
AM - av
A�lw
PA
WA
lk.-**i r
ALI,
0i
Lo
CO
cel
73
CL
U
0
.0
(D
ul
w
En
owft -Aw.
0
ri
U
cn
u
LU 0
U
< <
0 n
71
rid
a s�
'i " �
AMF 'r -' i; '4x-,-
jr-
V*
R Fri ANY
ipr
AM - av
A�lw
PA
WA
lk.-**i r
ALI,
owft -Aw.
LU 0
U
< <
0 n
m.
LL
i
LU
■
02
p L
,--�
C�
_� � ..
4-✓ -�
Y
w
'
�-•. JAY^-
-
Y ��,
•`„�'' '- -._
AV
.fin "� • w�.�,
..].
c -
ell
39
Y
w
me
P--
S
Q
\ ƒ
\
ƒ
L
z
\ /6\
ZL
g
5 « =3
oe33
\
V3
DATE: March 19, 2014
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick O'Keeffe, Economic & Community Development Consultant
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 310 -320 MILLER AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and provide direction to staff on one of the
following development options.
1. Direct staff to negotiate a Collaborative Development Agreement with Brookwood
Equities (Brookwood) for a 55 -unit mixed- income housing development at 310 -320 Miller
Avenue; or
2. Direct staff to negotiate an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement that will lead to a
Collaborative Development Agreement with the Rotary Club for a 69 unit senior
affordable development at 310 -320 Miller Avenue; or
3. Direct staff to negotiate an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Rotary for the
310 -320 parcels, AND a Collaborative Development Agreement with Brookwood for the
development of two mixed - income housing developments at Grand- Cypress and 418
Linden Avenue; or
4. Issue a request for proposal (RFP) for development of some or all of the properties
discussed herein.
BACKGROUND /DISCUS SION
On February 19, 2014, the City Council considered proposals for the development of 310 -320 Miller
Avenue from Rotary Plaza (Rotary) and Brookwood Group (Brookwood) (see attached concept plans).
Rotary is proposing a 69 -unit, 100% affordable senior residential complex and Brookwood a 55 -unit,
mixed- income (20% affordable) development. Both projects require the City's financial participation
and the adoption of the Downtown Station Area Plan.
At the February meeting, the Council discussed the projects but was did not to decide between the
alternatives and, instead, sought additional information on the proposals. hollowing the City Council's
study session, staff had discussions with both Rotary and Brookwood about potential site alternatives to
their proposals. The following provides additional information for Council to consider and provide staff
direction for the preparation of documents that would allow the development of the Miller site to
Staff Report
Subject: DEVELOPMENT OF 310 -320 MILLER AVENUE
Page No. 2 of 6
proceed. Staff s discussions with the developers has also yielded a third alternative that would allow
both developers to proceed with a project on different sites.
Rotary Discussions
The Council asked staff to report how occupancy preferences for South San Francisco residents would
work in the Rotary project. According to the City Attorney:
"The City cannot require residence preferences without having studies and data
demonstrating why the residency preference is permissible under state and federal anti-
discrimination housing laws. Whether a proposed housing program would violate state
or federal fair housing laws depends on whether the demographic makeup of seniors in
the City is representative of the demographic makeup of the greater metropolitan area.
If the demographic makeup of seniors in the City is homogeneous, it is more likely that
that the program would have a discriminatory effect on racial minorities. However, if
the City can demonstrate several nondiscriminatory reasons for its program, then, the
burden would be on a plaintiff to demonstrate that the City's reasons are pretextual. To
avoid a fair housing challenge to the City's proposed program, the City should provide a
record of local conditions and needs that demonstrates why the local preference is
necessary. The City should also consider the impact of its program on minorities and on
its compliance with other civil rights obligations, and investigate the potential effects of
its proposed program before its implementation. Lastly, the City is more likely to avoid
a fair housing challenge if it makes the program as broad as possible." ECD staff
concludes from this advice that it may be possible to establish preferences but more
prudent not to do so.
Staff asked Rotary whether it would reconsider other sites in or outside the downtown. Three sites staff
suggested were 1256 Mission Road, the residential portion of the 180 El Camino Real Safeway project
and the 200 block of Miller Avenue. Rotary provided staff with a site plan it had developed for 1256
Mission Road in 2011 (see Exhibit B). However, this site is no longer attractive to Rotary because of
the cost of purchasing the property, the slope of the site, the PG &E electrical transmission towers in the
adjacent property and concerns about neighborhood acceptance of the project. The 180 ECR site has
positive attributes but Rotary does not like the complications of a mixed use and multi owner site. In
addition, this option was discussed with the 180 developer, Bill Mitchell, who informed staff that he is
under negotiations with other developers for the residential development and did not want to consider
the Rotary proposal at this point. Finally the 200 Miller project was not attractive to Rotary as the site is
smaller than the 300 Miller parcels and would not yield sufficient units for their financing. After some
consideration, Rotary informed staff that no other sites would meet its objectives and that it would
continue to focus its efforts on pursuing 310 -320 Miller Avenue.
As discussed at the last Study Session the Rotary proposal will not require City financial assistance for
the design of the project and the entitlements. Rotary will have these funds available from their
refinancing proceeds from the existing project. Rotary is still seeking the land for free and will also
need $1,000,000 in public funding.
Staff Report
Subject: DEVELOPMENT OF 310 -320 MILLER AVENUE
Page No. 3 of 6
Brookwood Discussions
Brookwood re- stated its belief in the importance of creating a critical mass of market -rate housing in the
downtown and the need to start market -rate projects while favorable conditions exist. With this in mind,
Brookwood would be willing to collaborate with the City on other downtown sites in lieu of 310 -320
Miller Avenue if requested to do so. Brookwood indicated that shifting to another project would create
some difficulties in terms of timing and private equity financing, but that through collaboration these
challenges could be overcome. Specifically Brookwood proposes the following alternative: 418 Linden
Avenue and the Grand- Cypress parcels (201 -219 Grand Avenue). The project at 418 Linden Avenue is
currently entitled but is not economically feasible due to certain development designs such as a retail
component and underground parking. In order to make this project economically feasible now that
redevelopment has been terminated the City will need to compromise on the design and allow a new
design with grade level parking under a residential podium without ground floor retail. The redesign can
still be an attractive addition to the downtown with the proper building design.
The project at 310 -320 Miller Avenue provided a 55 -unit scale that began to make it attractive to
institutional equity. Individually, the projects at 418 Linden Avenue (20 -30 units depending or redesign)
and Grand - Cypress (37 units with the potential for additional units) are not large enough to attract
institutional investors on their own. Attached as Exhibit C are site plans for both properties. Combining
the two sites into one program constructed in two phases would yield sufficient units to attract
institutional investors. Attracting equity capital to each project individually is possible but it would
require identifying smaller investors — either a single small investor or a group of investors which is a
smaller pool of capital resources to draw from.
Although the combined sites are more attractive for financing, there is a difference in their availability.
The Linden parcels can be conveyed without Oversight Board and State Department of Finance (DOF)
approval, but the Grand Cypress parcels are subject to the uncertainty of when DOF will release these
sites for disposition. Despite this obstacle, Brookwood recommends pursuing the development of both
418 Linden and Grand - Cypress at the same time. In addition to delivering both projects to market
simultaneously, pursuing both projects at the same time would:
1) Attract institutional investors (union pension funds in this case)
2) Result in project management costs savings
3) Allow the development of Grand- Cypress to occur seamlessly between the City Council's
authorization to proceed with entitlements and DOF's release of the property to the City.
Pursuing a development on any of the sites with Brookwood will require that the City pay for the costs
of the preparation of preliminary plans and the cost of the entitlements. Brookwood will not have the
ability to raise funds for project expenses until it is in a disposition agreement with the City and has
project entitlements. Staff estimates it will cost the City approximately $245,000 to redesign and re-
entitle the Linden site on its own, and $662,000 to design and entitle the Cypress site on its own. lfboth
projects proceed at the same time, the design and entitlement phase would cost $853,000, a savings of
$54,000.
Staff Report
Subject: DEVELOPMENT OF 310 -320 MILLER AVENUE
Page No. 4 of b
Staff Analysis
In the event the City Council wants to pursue Option #3 with Brookwood and Rotary, staff would like
to make the City Council aware of additional considerations:
DOF Disposition Approval and Timing
Since the Cypress parcels are subject to DOF approval, staff investigated whether DOF had released any
individual properties before a city's Long Range Property Management Plan ( LRPMP) was approved.
The only case staff identified was in the City of Hayward where DOF released one property ahead of
approving Hayward's LRPMP. The case was unique on several levels and cannot be replicated in South
San Francisco. During this process, staff learned that DOF estimates it will take 90 -120 days to review
the LRPMP of cities with 30 or more properties (South San Francisco has 32). Furthermore, DOF is
reviewing LRPMPs in the order received. Given this information, it is unlikely that DOF will release
Grand - Cypress (or the Ford) properties until 2015. This means that the Brookwood proposal to develop
Cypress with Linden will require both sites to wait until 2015 for disposition, or the projects will need
to be phased with Linden parcels proceeding first. Since both sites need to be entitled or re- entitled this
design and approval process can be undertaken while we wait for DOF to act on the LRPMP.
Available City Funds
As stated in the February 19 staff report, the City has approximately $4.3 million dollars available for
projects. Additional money may become available by changing the City's affordable housing asset mix.
Staff anticipates having a broader discussion on the City's affordable housing assets at the April Study
Session at which time it will become clear whether additional money is available. Below is a table with
a preliminary estimate of the amount of City /public money that would be needed if the development of
all three sites went forward. This amount is subject to change up or down, but not by a significant
amount, as project designs and unit counts are finalized.
Project
Affordable
Units Units
Public
Money
Land
Total
Investment
Return on
Investment"
Rotary
69 69
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$2,200,000
$0
310 -320 Miller
Brookwood
37 7 -8
$1,375,000
$1,010,000
$2,385,000
$4,828,278
Grand- Cypress
Brookwood
20 -30 4 -6
$1,530,000
$700,000
$2,230,000
$4,514,491
418 Linden*
Total
126 -136 80 -83
$3,905,000
$2,910,000
$6,815,000
$9,342,769
*418 Linden currently entitled for 25 market -rate
units but would be redesigned
"Projects would return capital invested and a return on investment at project disposition
As demonstrated above, it maybe possible to complete all three housing developments using the City's
existing affordable housing resources. However, it would be prudent to ask Rotary and/or Brookwood
to bring outside public funds (HEART or County of San Mateo) to leverage the City's financial
contribution so that the City has the ability to assist other projects in the future. This is especially
Staff Report
Subject: DEVELOPMENT OF 310 -320 MILLER AVENUE
Page No. 5 of 6
important with the Brookwood projects so that the City does not have to provide all of the
predevelopment funding need for the projects.
Housing Advocacy Groups
Attached as Exhibit D is a letter from the Palo Alto based Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter speaking for
itself and on behalf of the Community Benefits Coalition. The Sierra Club is expressing concern that
the City council is considering projects at 310 -320 Miller Avenue (Rotary or Brookwood's proposals)
and the Ford properties (Sares -Regis or Thompson- Dorfinan) ahead of the adoption of the Downtown
Area Specific Plan (DSAP) and that by doing so is circumventing the public process. Specifically, the
Sierra Club is concerned about 1) what it describes as ineffective public outreach on the projects before
the City Council, and 2) that the proposed projects may not meet the goals of the DSAP, particularly as
they pertain to the creation of affordable housing and prevailing wage.
First it should be noted that the City did comply with all noticing requirements. Second, the City
Council discussed the proposed projects at a study session, not at a regular or special meeting where it
would make actual decisions on going forward with a project. The purpose of study session is for the
City Council to discuss matters that will formally come to the City Council at a later date. In this case, it
was for the City Council to discuss how to handle the proposals it received from various developers.
Third, the City Council will not approve any of these developments until after it approves the DSAP,
and only if they are consistent with the DSAP. However, every development project needs an extensive
lead time before receiving funding commitments and formally submitting plans for approvals.
Therefore, it is appropriate to begin discussions and planning on how to handle these projects now so
that they can be implemented upon approval of the DSAP. Fourth, the proposed developments are
consistent with the vision being developed in the DSAP, namely the creation of high- density in -fill
housing in a transit oriented area so as to mitigate the environmental impact of urban sprawl.
Nevertheless, as soon as reasonably possible, staff will make an effort to notify the public and public
interest groups about development discussions scheduled for City Council meetings. Also, staff reports
will be available when they are conveyed to the City Council and not prior as the Council must be able
to see what has been released to the public to be able to respond to questions.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff on the potential development of 310-
320 Miller Avenue and Grand- Cypress and 418 Linden Avenue. The City Council should determine is
staff should:
Direct staff to negotiate a Collaborative Development Agreement with Brookwood Equities
(Brookwood) for a 55 -unit mixed - income housing development at 310 -320 Miller Avenue; or
2. Direct staff to negotiate an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement that will lead to a
Collaborative Development Agreement with the Rotary Club for a 69 unit senior affordable
development at 310 -320 Miller Avenue; or
Staff Report
Subject: DEVELOPMENT OF 310 -320 MILLER AVENUE
Page No. 6 of 6
3. Direct staff to negotiate an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Rotary for the 310-
320 parcels, AND a Collaborative Development Agreement with Brookwood for the
development of two mixed - income housing developments at Grand - Cypress and 418 Linden
Avenue; or
4. Direct staff to prepare a draft RFP for some or all of the properties discussed herein.
By: Approved:
Patrick O'Keeffe Steven T. Mattas
Economic and Communi Interim City Manager
Development Consultant
Attachment: Exhibit A — Rotary and Brookwood Proposals for 310 -320 Miller Avenue
Exhibit B — Rotary 1256 Mission Road Site Plan
Exhibit C — Site plans for 418 Linden Avenue and Grand - Cypress
Exhibit D — Loma Prieta Sierra Club letter
EXHIBIT A - Brookwood (Miller Ave Proposal)
TAMARACKLANE
+b
MILLER AVENUE
GROUND/GARAGE
+3
310 MILLER AVE.
ENTRANCE
+3
+0
47 PARKING STALLS
WORKFORCE
MARKET RATE
T0
+ 9
+6
1 SDRM
T E flLAE
+1.5
+11.5 -
Q
r c�
STORAGE TRASH
-
ITT T T T T T T T T
i......ii HC
m
L 310G 310E 310E ~ 310D 3100 �310B �310A
+b
MILLER AVENUE
GROUND/GARAGE
+3
310 MILLER AVE.
ENTRANCE
+3
+0
47 PARKING STALLS
WORKFORCE
MARKET RATE
T0
1 BDRM
BD
1 SDRM
N
Brookwood Group MILLER AVENUE w
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA o' 1B� 32'
eAUM i o� EY -- CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION -- APRIL 18, 2012
0
0
TAMARACKLANE
175' -0'
TRANS.
MILLER AVENUE
COURTYARD
Brookwood Groin MILLER AVENUE
Evans SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
BAUM THORNLEY -- CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION --
`a
WORD( FORCE
MARKET RATE
9 BDRM
2/3 BDRM
1 131)
2 BORM
N
0' 16' 32'
APRIL 18, 2012
LL]
LU
Z
Q
w
J
2
w
z
PENTHOUSE
Uj
z
J
3
J
L
U
Q
W
[L�
0
CIO
�-
O
a
COURTYARD
CL
I
60
I
GROUNDIGARAGE
+0
PENTHOUSE
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
0
3
LL,
C7
0
2
w
W
S
o
U
o
1
0
cm
d
'
COURTYARD
`°
O-
-- - --
i
GARAGE
LATERAL SECTION
LU
z
J
0
LL'
!Q1
H
+60 -
-
PENTHOUSE
+50
3
+40
2
+30 =
+20
�r --
-
COURTYARD
+10 t
-'
GROUNDIGARAGE
+0
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
SECTIONS
Brookwood Group
E am
BAUM THORNLEY
MILLER AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
-- CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION --
3
a
G
OF
s
•
,u
li
0' 16' 32'
APRIL 18, 2012
00—.
0
Q
0
CL
Q
L
L
4-J
I
Q
m
x
LU
LU
d
�2 w
H an0
Q W O W N
LA Z
F, Q m0: 0 wQ
u a
V #z N aQy
�� � z °u rM ;z�u Or
i� W d LU Z Lr H 0 I.11
IL � 00 o�ZD C�<L
w
Z
Y
Q
2
U
LU
E
I'
LU
IL c
F W LL' N
LC V)
w 0 U o ^_
Q Q M N
O w N o Q
�H ti
Z
Hu �aa
zz add
O_u�O z`z
H w Z K H x Y
0.6 oLaL•joco '.a
w
J
LL
LU Q LL;
0� N
1/7
J
J Ln
Z
Q
O O N
LL
o
LL: +
vi H to
z
U
w
CD
.p Q
En
1/7
J
Z
Q
? m
V) m
n
dA
O�
z
U
w
4
V)
LL]
N o
Z °C
O
ON
I— �
Z 'd
L
LL
0 c
ON
L�
N Z [/1
li
N
0
2
0
Z
LU
I LU
' Z
Lu
>
a
ui
� J
W
0� w
� / N
d
V 1L N
0
J u
00
a
LL 0 E
i T I z Co
oC
ti ui
6 O
U m LL. - Z
O
LLU Z V) w
r
V)
C7
u u
� �•� Z Q U
LU
Q Z
L- W
LU u
w Q
' l
ti
V
W_
CL
i�
KA
w
a
V
LLI
Q
a
uJ
F
w
IL
V p a N O c.
'U0 U �o
fY d Q n .c
0 W �, m
F F — w m
In LU 00 M �. Z of J
.. u m 'i '--r Q
z ry QQv~i
0 �o C7w
Ou
�> w< Z 5 w K
00 a";Dmad
>L
a
7
LL: LL
� Wi
Yl vi Ln
W 0 U a n
cc a Q C
0w V, oQv
W F
?LC Z a�J
V Q
z Qa�
0 u F °
0 U F Y O� Z OC Z N
C> w�ZFnX°c c7
00 o Dm C
0
LLI
U
z
oc
wz
wLL.
L,
M
U
az
o�
Z
w
U U
zQ
�z a F
�w
on ,.
W L
on o
ZElf
0 o
OU
.N
Zc
[4
L
LL
O�
Ul
R
� L
o
Zvj
h
O
O
Z
w
N
Z
LLJ
a
�c
W
J
J_
Y o
V 06 N
O
J �
m
0
0
M
Q
w
V)
L
U
Lu
I—
U
Q
0
a
c
Yf
H
2
N
N
C
40
W
d
4
L
i0
0
co
s
x
W
Z
W
f
IL
O
TI'
O�
z
O
J
ZO
g�
a?p
J >
`�W ❑ w
L9 Q�
Z t; Q
O Qa
vi
❑C7"' p❑
OZ m
W Ci
m z�
a — 0 OC
0
Z¢�a�OZ
�
a
W
�a�
z'�a
�
O O
O¢�
LLI
y�diOy
Q
ate_
X
S O M
F.
90 a [L m F
0
O O
LU
L7
a
D
0
CL
J
a: Z
W 2 m
z0Q0
ort;
Q d �
al7°CH
z z D z
a0W
LLI
0
W Z z 2
aJJ =� -H�
d a v, J
l � J —
�aa6¢
Z
20
00
aZLu
LL
Z
2
F--
0
J
Q
LU
V)
a
m
Q
af
Z
O
cam_
L
N
O
N
rt
7
w
a z �, 0
w 0 z
a Z Z Z� 0
F- 0 F 0�
LLI
F- OQa in pC7 �p Zm W aC7LD F-
w ot� <Z� "p OV a � ?0�
cu0 &aCp�o� L7 �" nl<�iuw
d mz` F• Z<Fv z Q Sa:Lu(D0
LL a oCL D�00 If a �p�z= IL
J LL X2 IL F-
pam W Qi7'L Z� !� w� L
O W L f mddm 0 0� V7 W E
o�L
v, = tVtriQ�-1 Q D ua.
du
z
20
U
T
UZ
Z�
LL
z
2
F-
D
0
v
J
LLI
Q
F-
V)
tE -
Q N
m O
N
T
Q
LL
Z
0
V)
V)
w
u
Q
i
rrrlraR'
• riiRyt■
• ��w�ii
awflt■i i
Av■ii■i k
rtiliaw �
Nwww M_
li ■ ■■ !, t ]NAME.
0 '
some
Loam •�, Imo` -
Iowa 3 •
rarrR y r
!..Loin � kw�ww
M ■i1■ I. r ; t ■iii
j rwrr
iR.w■
rRii.
stfiwR
l
I
I!
iCEN , r R.r
"NON i ]iii1
'
owi r irl, e
�..... ■
IMi1
stfiwR
l
:�u::
: nisi
RM -;
ammo ; ;
Lonna
lifm'.
40111.11,
ARMr.Y
DBMS
wt■wws
1211,
■!i ■■
sue..*
! ■i1■
y tits,
iCEN , r R.r
"NON i ]iii1
'
owi r irl, e
�..... ■
■::i.
'li.w■
' . ki-i
tonam I"
is��■
lwiii
ANON I
1Mwiii
ri.wi■ i ■i ■= Hsti■
.i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■! 1 ■ ■�i_ ' .l■ ■iii
r.wARw; 1wiiw li ■i■ ;�
rR1.Yrr l�Lo.krir� -
' 1iw ■ii f■■■■ V 1 ■1!■
s ■ ■� ■ ■i' ■ ■i■ i 9 iim it
■ ■i�1Nw if ■ ■■ _ iiass
't
0
� )!\
} |�\
U)
u
> z
Z9
z
�5 cn
4 i
� L
. r
§ ( /(
P` )f!
LAI
C
m
C
EN
T T
T I Tpt.s T
I
10
r
O
0
J
w
N
b
P�
�8
�ig
omwm
0
0
b
m a
F
d B r
� ro
O per°
� s a
CO
a�
m
] V
U
i
zz
rr
G
N =
� Q r
Mir
iv
FU
j
i � i q►
I
10
r
O
0
J
w
N
b
P�
�8
�ig
omwm
0
0
b
m a
F
d B r
� ro
O per°
� s a
CO
a�
m
] V
U
i
zz
rr
G
N =
� Q r
Mir
Exhibit C - Grand- Cypress
LOT AREA: 20,200 SF
FAR: 3.0 (ABOVE GRADE PARKING INCLUDED, I.E. NOT EXEMPT)
MAX. ALLOWABLE: &0 X 20,200 SF = 60,600 SF
GROSS AREA SUMMARY:
G
2
3
4
TOTAL
UNIT SUMMARY:
AREA (SF)
19,287
14,267
13,967
12,067
59,588
REMARKS
8,000 SF RETAIL
880 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
5,350 SF PODIUM OPEN SPACE
59,588 SF 1 20,200 SF = 2.95 F.A.R.
PARKING SUMMARY:
Brookwood Group
gouldevans
RETAIL: 0 STALLS PROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL: 49 + 1 H.C. STALLS PROVIDED
PROJECT DATA
SCHEME 1
CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBM 12, 2012
11
1
1+
2
2+
TOTAL
G
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
5
1
6
14
3
2
5
0
5
12
4
1
5
0
5
11
TOTAL
5
15
1
16
37
PARKING SUMMARY:
Brookwood Group
gouldevans
RETAIL: 0 STALLS PROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL: 49 + 1 H.C. STALLS PROVIDED
PROJECT DATA
SCHEME 1
CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBM 12, 2012
11
OPEN SPACE
LOBBY
RETAIL 1
5,500
i
i�
CYPRESS AVENUE
GROUND LEVEL
SCHEME 1
Brookwood Group CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
g o u I d e v a n s CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBEfl 12, 2012
12
0' 8' 32' 64'
PROJECT
NORTH
w
73
[V
w
w
Q
Q
o
ED
o
N
J
cr-
cn
TRANSFER STAIR HORIZ EXIT
C�
F
-
U
�
I
I
He
w
L
-J
RETAIL
2,500
49 STALLS
�.
3 -TIER PUZZLE LIFT
PARKING
35' -0'
I
I
L
BIKE AND GENERAL
MECH.
STORAGE
/
OPEN SPACE
LOBBY
RETAIL 1
5,500
i
i�
CYPRESS AVENUE
GROUND LEVEL
SCHEME 1
Brookwood Group CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
g o u I d e v a n s CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBEfl 12, 2012
12
0' 8' 32' 64'
PROJECT
NORTH
[V
ED
N
J
OPEN SPACE
LOBBY
RETAIL 1
5,500
i
i�
CYPRESS AVENUE
GROUND LEVEL
SCHEME 1
Brookwood Group CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
g o u I d e v a n s CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBEfl 12, 2012
12
0' 8' 32' 64'
PROJECT
NORTH
2 -STORY UNITS WINDSCREEN
WI ACCESS FROM PODIUM
2 +BDRM 2 +BDRM COMMON 1 BDRM
1240 1200 _ 750
1 BDRM
754
Brookwood Group
g o u I d e v a n s
FLOOR 2 (3 SIM.)
SCHEME 1
CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBM 12, 2012
13
01 sE 321 64'
PROJECT
NORTH
1+ BDRM
825
WINDSCREEN
PODIUM
2BDRM
TERRACE
875
1+ BDRM
_ _
825
LOBBY
2+ BDRM
2+ BDRM
oSs
1,000
1,000
w
TOR. ~
825
2+ BDRM 1+ BDRM 1+ BDRM
1,115 800 800 2 +BDRM
1,200
Brookwood Group
g o u I d e v a n s
FLOOR 2 (3 SIM.)
SCHEME 1
CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBM 12, 2012
13
01 sE 321 64'
PROJECT
NORTH
ni
Mood
•
I
NORTH - SOUTH SECTION
a
IWO
n
105" r
:1
7i
I.
ril
RETAIL
'
M il
I.
r
L6
Z
Q
c7
EAST -WEST SECTION
SECTIONS
Brookwood Group CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
g o u l d e v a n s CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBER 12, 2012
14
0' 8' 32' E4'
(+PROJECT
FORTH
4
x
w
o
3
Q
PODIUM
w
z o
v
o
TERRACE
J
2
�
D
PARKING
o
�uL- JUL_JL!L__JLu L —J
�
— uuuuuuuu
NORTH - SOUTH SECTION
a
IWO
n
105" r
:1
7i
I.
ril
RETAIL
'
M il
I.
r
L6
Z
Q
c7
EAST -WEST SECTION
SECTIONS
Brookwood Group CYPRESS GRAND MIXED USE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
g o u l d e v a n s CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
DECEMBER 12, 2012
14
0' 8' 32' E4'
(+PROJECT
FORTH
StE[tRA
CLUB
February 27, 2014
City of South San Francisco
Municipal Services Building
22 Arroyo Dr.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Exhibit D
Sierra Club Loma Prieta
Chapter
Celebrating 81 Years of Protecting the Planet
3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
loma.prieta.cha pier@ sierra clu b.org
TELEPHONE: (650) 390 -8411 FAX: (650) 390 -8497
Re: Response to the Downtown Economic Improvement Strategy
Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter would like to respond to the staff presentation on the
Downtown Economic Development Strategy held on February 19, 2014. In this letter, you will find
a description of our concerns and suggestions for your consideration as you move fon and with the
study and implementation of the strategy.
For your awareness, our comments are in solidarity with those submitted by the Community
Benefits Coalition, which comprises of environmentalists, labor organizations, and affordable
housing and public transportation advocates. This group is focused on the sustainability, prosperity,
and equitability of the Downtown Station Area Plan's (DSAP) future residents. Please see attached
for the community benefits platform we have created with the Coalition in 2013 for a detailed scope
of our joint position.
Our comments focus on two sections of the Special City Council meeting:
1) The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter has been pushing for a more all- encompassing and
transparent outreach process with South San Francisco (SSF) residents in order to create an
inclusive Downtown vision. The February 19, 2014 Special City Council meeting information
was available on the City's website and through email alert by the City Clerk, however, this
strategy can be enhanced significantly. The Downtown Economic Improvement Strategy
(DEIS) has provided various effective means in implementing the DSAP's vision, including:
DSAP Website Updates, DSAP Stakeholder Distribution List Emails, and an Email alert System
for the DSAP Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee. The Sierra Club Loma Prieta
15
ilt.".
Chapter suggests that this extended and refined outreach process will increase participation in
Council meetings and avoid future exclusionary conditions experienced on February 19, 2014
where the prevalent audience were developers with a large stake on the projects discussed;
2) The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter has noticed that SSF is currently juggling two projects at
the same time which may be jeopardizing the visioning and overall public processes. The first
being DSAP and the second being the DEIS. Therefore, this has come to our awareness that the
development of the DEIS may be too early. During the study session meeting, SSF City staff
addressed that the DSAP is placing constraints on the progression of developer negotiations on
the sites discussed and had also requested detailed directions from the Council to move forward
with the developers on those negotiations.
As The Coalition for Community Benefits (TCCB) has noted, "these negotiations seem to be
putting the cart before the horse, and we are afraid that further negotiations with developers may
undermine the public process set up for the Downtown SAP." The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
(SCLP), city staff working on the DSAP, and TCCB have implemented a significant amount of
outreach to residents in order to create a vision for the downtown area. However, in the absence of
a draft DSAP, we (SCLP and TCCB) are unsure that the details of these visions will be
implemented.
Since affordable housing is an important concern that the SSF community has addressed at
every meeting, we'd like to use it as an example. It is our understanding that there is a total number
of residential units measured and zoned for the West side of Highway 101, however, it is unknown
how many of those units will be accommodated for affordable housing. Further, four out of the five
(4/5) possible projects discussed during the Special Council meeting were about market -rate
housing.
To make sure that DSAP and the Economic Development Strategy processes align with one
another, we'd like to make four recommendations:
1) The DSAP should act as the "blueprint" or "umbrella" to all other plans and strategies such
as the Downtown Economic Improvement Strategy (DEIS). To this extent, DEIS should
serve as a tool to the DSAP vision, and therefore, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
recommends that decisions made on DEIS should not be made until the final approval of
DSAP is made.
2) The public should be clearly informed by city staff working on DSAP that they are
coordinating with the DEIS staff in the progression and advancement on DSAP goals and
visions.
3) All public meeting information about the downtown development and /or planning should
`r:1
iI:
be distributed on the City website, including the DSAP website. In addition, city staff should
also use the DSAP email distribution list to announce these meetings.
4) The DSAP Technical and Citizen advisory Committees should be notified of any meetings
related to Downtown business.
Thank you and we look forward in enduring our working relationship with you and City staff to plan
a vibrant, equitable, and healthy downtown in South San Francisco.
Sincerely,
Gita Dev
Sierra Club Loma. Prieta Chapter
Sustainable Land Use Committee Chair
Kenneth Rosales
Conservation Programs Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
CCd: Mike Ferreira, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Conservation Committee Chair
17
17