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