Hello everybody.

Welcome to the Thursday, April 16th, 2026, regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission.

This meeting is being held in person at the Library Parks and Rec Building Council Chambers.

To provide a comment during the meeting, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

You'll have three minutes to make your comments.

Please note that all commission time limits and rules of decorum will apply to public comments.

This meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission is hereby called to order.

Will you please stand and join in the Pledge of Allegiance?

May we please have roll call?

Chairperson Pomiku.

Here.

Commissioner Faria.

Here.

Commissioner Shahade.

Here.

Commissioner Zhang.

Here.

Commissioner Spunes and Evans are Evans are absent.

Thank you.

Are there any changes to the agenda?

No changes to the agenda.

Any um items or announcements from staff?

We do have two announcements.

Um the first is that there is a planning commissioner's training being held on April 29th on inclusionary housing.

Um I believe I emailed the commissioners the training information and I will send it out again if anybody's interested in signing up.

Um and then the other announcement is that we will be holding a special planning commission meeting next Thursday evening, 7 p.m.

It will be held at City Hall, and we will be um sending out the agenda tomorrow for that.

So just wanted to remind everybody because it is a special meeting.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Uh does any member of the public wish to address the commission on an item that's not on the agenda at this time?

If so, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

We have nobody wishing to provide prop public comment.

Thank you.

Hearing no speakers, we will move on.

Next on the agenda is the disclosure of ex parte communications.

If any commun if any commissioner has had any communication with applicants, did any site or project visits, had interactions with third parties, or has any conflicts regarding any items on the agenda, you may disclose them at this time.

If you would like to recuse yourself for an item, you can also do that at this time.

Just in the interest of full disclosure, I walked by the uh CUC site, which is on tonight's agenda and looked over the fence this afternoon.

Thank you.

Noted.

All right, thank you.

Um then we will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the consent calendar.

May we have a listing of the consent calendar items?

Yes, we have one item on the consent calendar.

Number one is consideration and approval of minutes.

Then the March 19th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you.

Um does any commissioner wish to uh pull the item from consent.

Does any member of the public wish to address the commission on the item on the consent calendar at this time?

If so, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

We have nobody in the public wishing to provide public comment.

Thank you.

Hearing no speakers, um, I'll take a motion on the consent calendar.

Madam Chair, I move the consent calendar.

I second.

Uh thank you.

Uh can we uh have a vote, please?

Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Yes.

Chairperson Papaku.

Yes.

Commissioner Faria.

Yes.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes.

Commissioner Spunes and Evans are absent.

Thank you.

We will continue on uh next on the agenda is item number two.

Uh will the clerk please read item number two.

Item number two is a report regarding consideration of an application for a tentative subdivision map related to the previously entitled six residential unit development at 616 Maple Avenue in the downtown residential media medium zoning district in accordance with chapter 20.080 and Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and a determination that the project is categorically exempt under the provisions of CEQA class 3.

Section 15303B, new construction or conversion of small structures and class 32, section 15332.

Infill development and um item 2A is the resolution.

And Victoria Kim is going to give the staff report.

Good evening, Chair Vice Chair and Planning Commissioner.

Um Victoria King planning staff for uh 616 Maple Avenue tentative substitute map.

Um briefly going over the background of the project.

Uh in last year, October 2025, the design review entitlement came to the planning commission hearing, and then planning commission approved the uh entitlement for six residential unit at 616 Maple Avenue.

And at the time the owner was not certain about whether the project uh would be a for sale or rental, so the tentative subdivision map was not included, and after the approval, the owner made a decision that the tentative map should be um included and the for sale.

So uh this project is about just tenantship subscription map, and there will be no change to the previously approved project and then uh entitlement scope.

So just going over briefly here's a project site 616 Maple Avenue with the one existing residence building, and here's a map of the existing condition.

And again, this is no change to the previously approved project.

The same scope.

And you can find the tentative subvision map plan set as the um exhibit A to associated intolerance resolution.

And back then uh planning commission determined that the project was categorically exempt under the following qua-section, and the tentative map continue uh to be consistent with the project, and again this will be categorically exempt under um section U construction and conversion of a small structure and infill project.

During the previous meeting, um the uh there were a few concerned neighbors about the existing uh residents and planning staff uh worked with housing staff, uh created a replacement housing supplementary packet uh according to the state housing crisis act SB 330, and the packet was provided to the applicant and owner and the complete packet you will find uh it has attachment three.

And again, this is not requirement or it's just for the your information, and of course, one inclusionary housing and along with the affordable housing agreement will be um required as a previously approved.

So therefore staff recommends a planning commission adopted a resolution making findings and uh determination that the project is categorically exam for following CEQA sections and approve the tentative subdivision map subject to the attached findings and condition of uh approval and this concludes the uh staff presentation and thank you for your attention uh thank you and I'm also belatedly noting that we've opened public hearing and have called for the staff report.

Um is the applicant president would like to make a presentation?

Um the applicant has no comment, it's just constant item, and then I just want to update the planning commissioner about the project.

Yeah, uh do any commissioners have questions for staff?

Yeah, through the chair.

The biggest concern that we had at the time was the family living in the existing house.

Now I can see in the report that the applicant got the application.

But what is the status of the existing tenant?

Status of there's one inclusionary unit.

Is that going to be for that tenant?

But since they're all for sale, I don't believe they're able to afford to buy that unit.

I believe So what is the status of the tenant?

How is he going to be supported?

I believe that I believe that there was a conversation occurred between the property owner and existing current tenant, and the packet was for the uh replacement for the existing tenant in the um during the construction of a new uh development.

And the more detail will be provided as uh required or needed in the future.

Yeah, I can add to say that we don't have a report.

So the owner has been supplied the information.

That's what's happened so far is that we've been we've we've been made the owner aware of the requirement.

The require before pulling building permits, they will be required to submit this what the plan is.

They're working with our housing division to determine what the replacement housing solution is, whether it's replacement on site or some other location.

We don't have that answer tonight, but it is in process.

So how are we asked?

We're being asked to approve the entitlements, yet we don't have the conclusive, you know, the information that's being asked.

Oh, because the biggest concern that we had as a commission was the existing tenant.

I don't know.

Um am I being clear?

No, no, you're definitely being clear.

And and that will be it is in process now, and it will be required before building permits are issued.

But is it the planning commission that has to approve that, or is it the planning department?

It would be our housing division.

And then the tentative submission map do not require the uh replacement packet.

It was just for your information, and I just want to share what's the status, and that's for your knowledge.

It was not the part of the requirements for approval of the uh tentative substitute map application.

Correct.

Yeah, that's a that's a good um clarification.

This is just a follow-up item because it was such a large conversation on planning commission.

We wanted to come back, give the commissioners a follow-up and explain this is what is happening behind the scenes as the as the tenative maps coming forward.

Uh to me, it's still not clear.

I mean, I understand the process.

They're going through the procedure.

So now our housing department is addressing the matter.

Correct.

But how does the communication go between within the departments within the city?

Should we just leave it up to them?

They're aware of the concerns that we have.

So that those issues are gonna be addressed.

Right.

So if I may chime in the action before the planning commission tonight is not related to the um underlying proceedings related to the uh securing newer alternative housing for the existing tenant.

Um that's not part of the um entitlements proceedings or the uh CEQA exemptions that the planning commission is being asked to make tonight, and it's not within the purview of the planning commission for this meeting.

However, um staff can certainly take these um concerns into consideration and provide the planning commission with the supplemental informational report as to like a current status of how the rehousing is going for the for the existing tenant.

And if staff has any insight, like any current updates or any additional updates as to how that process is going, they can provide it during this meeting, but that's not part of the actions of this proceeding.

It's purely informational.

I would also just add the way that the kind of the the closing the loop will be at the building permit stage.

That the applicant will not be a will not be able to obtain building permits until the requirements of the SB 330 housing replacement act, the housing replacement.

Sorry, I don't remember what it's called.

Yeah, for the housing until the housing replacement has been satisfied.

I think part of the confusion is first, let me be clear.

We understand tonight's action is only to approve the subdivision.

We already approved entitlements previously.

Um but we did ask the previous meeting about the status of the current tenant.

And I will say at least my confusion was a little bit continuing because we do appreciate you following up on it.

Um, but the unit relocation affidavit that was included with the packet.

Um I don't know if it was just a when the packet was converted to PDF or something, a lot of it still seemed incomplete.

It didn't see say if like relocation assistance has been offered, that sort of thing, and the boxes weren't checked.

Correct.

This is just the packet.

This is for information only.

This is not the actual application that has been provided.

That is still in that the our housing division is still working with the applicant on that, and that's not available yet to be shared.

All right, thank you.

I I don't want to spend too much time on something that's not actually on our action items tonight.

Um maybe just one um procedural clarification.

Um just building on what uh Commissioner Baker was uh saying, you know, understanding the scope uh being very specific tonight.

Uh would it be helpful or appropriate for commissioners to share just additional reflections or concerns about the process that could then be you know taken to the relevant staff?

Yes, if the um planning commissioners would like to um provide staff with an action item to be um presented as an as an agenda item for a future meeting.

Um just as an informational item, that's that's certainly acceptable.

Uh sounds like that might be helpful to folks if we have a follow-up item uh specific to uh the status of the current tenant.

Yeah, we can um definitely ask our cow our colleagues in the housing division to provide that as an update.

Great, thank you.

Uh any other questions for staff.

Again, it's not involved with this, but in the future going.

I know that there's an AMI involved with this, and I know that'll be all calculated when they whoever fills out the application to purchase.

So I'd want to make sure that we kind of get an idea that there is equity in that decision because any landlord is going to try and get as much out of their asset as they can.

I mean, I completely understand that.

But I'd like to make sure there's some kind of equity for those who are at least being considered with a lower AMI.

Yes, absolutely.

Um there will be an affordable housing agreement required um to be executed again prior to issuance of building permits, and that will be filled out, you know, per the requirement for the income requirements of our zoning code.

Thank you.

Um again, I know that's a bit outside the immediate scope, but is there uh a time restriction for the affordability agreement?

Oh, a deed restriction for ownership.

I would ask 55 years.

Um other questions for staff.

All right.

Um, does any member of the public wish to address the commission on this item at this time?

Uh please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

We have no members of the public wanting to provide public comment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh then I will close the public hearing and turn the matter over to the commission for discussion.

Um, would folks like to comment on this report?

All right.

Um, may I have a motion to accept item two?

I'll make the motion.

Move to approve the resolution determining that the proposed project is categorically exempt under the provision of CEQA.

Class 3 section 15303B.

New construction or conversion of small structures and class 32 section 15332 in field development project and approve the tentative map SA 26-001 for 616 Maple Avenue.

Thank you.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Faria.

Yes.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes.

Chairperson Palmiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Vice Chair Baker.

Yes.

Commissioner Spunes and Evans are absent.

Thank you.

Item two passes.

Next on the agenda, we have 2A.

Will the clerk please read the item?

Oh, I'm sorry, 2A was the resolution.

Oh, okay.

So I will move on to three.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

Okay.

Item number three is report regarding consideration of proposed amendments to the existing development agreement for 1051 Mission Road, known as the PUC site, to revise the economic terms to provide support for the affordable housing portions of the project and extend the term of the development agreement and make findings that the amendments are consistent with a general plan and with previously adopted environmental review.

And Nell Sealander is going to give the staff report.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Planning Commissioners.

It's exciting to be here.

And I hope this is an exciting item and one that you may be familiar with from years past on the Planning Commission.

So do I have a clicker?

Do you have that on.

So this evening I'm here to present a resolution for the Planning Commission's consideration, which would recommend the first major amendment to the development agreement for the 1051 Mission Road Project, also known as the PUC site or the PUC project, and right here next to LPR.

So it's probably a large vacant field you are very familiar with.

The city entered into a development agreement with SSF PUC housing partners, LLC, which is a mouthful and is a development team primarily made up of L37 and CASA, which are two market rate developers.

Eric Tao from L37 is here this evening.

So at the end, I'll introduce him as well if you have questions.

So as I mentioned, you may recall this project.

It was discussed with the community and at Council, Planning Commission, DRB, for nearly a year before it was approved, recommended by the planning commission and approved by city council.

It includes 800 units.

Of those 800 units, 20% of them are affordable.

So it is a quite deeply affordable project that we're very much looking forward to.

The rest of the development also includes a 100-head child care center.

That's in pink on this site plan.

Acres of public parks and open space and a new bridge over Colma Creek.

So to date, since the project was approved in 2019.

The development teams, really L37 on the Markerate side and bridge on the affordable side have made quite a bit of progress.

So one of the big contingencies in this project was removing the site from the hundred-year floodplain, which really allows for any residential development there.

So L37 undertook that major endeavor.

It took a couple of years working closely with FEMA and the city's public works department.

And so now the property really can be developed easily for housing.

There was also a process with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers to cover the culvert that runs the length of mission, the mission road frontage of the property.

And the team was able to secure a $2 million loan from BAFA, that's the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority to advance the infrastructure design on the site.

This is essentially a new neighborhood.

So not only does it include the housing development, but also quite a bit of infrastructure.

L37 also assisted the city and bridge with grant applications to fund the affordable housing component.

And they submitted a building permit set in December of 2025.

On the affordable side, Bridge had helped the city secure a 29 million dollar infill infrastructure grant from the state, and that's to pay for much of the horizontal construction, the new bridge over Colma Creek, some pathways and other infrastructure that's critical to both the market development and the affordable development.

Bridge was also able to secure $9.5 million in county funding for the affordable housing and applied three times for the affordable housing sustainable communities grant, which is a very, very competitive state grant and narrowly missed in all three of those applications, and that's really what has slowed down the affordable project from moving forward.

Like L37 Bridge did submit a building permit set in December of 25.

So now we're here, which a lot of progress has been made, but you still don't see any housing coming out of the ground.

And the economic conditions really present substantial barriers to this project, namely to the market rate component of the project.

Most of those projects had very unique financing characteristics that allowed them to move forward that this project doesn't benefit from.

Also, very notably, Bridge is withdrawing from the project.

They don't feel like it is a project that they can finance right now, and have asked to transfer the property back to the marker rate developer for a future for a new affordable developer to be selected.

So in all of this, in these new developments over the past several months, L37, so the Marker 8 developer requested a first amendment to the development agreement to make the project more feasible and to free up fees in particular for the affordable project.

So the first major amendment to the development agreement does a few things.

It adds flexibility to how 14.6 million dollars of fees associated with the market rate development can be spent so that they could be allocated toward the affordable project.

These do include a number of impact fees, which the developer would pay, a community benefit fee in the same amount as the impact fee to allow for that to happen.

And then there were also these three items: the Oak Avenue Phase 2, Mission Road Pedestrian Connection, and the pedestrian bridge connection to Centennial Trail, all of those were call outs in the development agreement that have not materialized into real projects today, and so at the city's discretion that the city council's discretion could be allocated to the affordable project to close a funding gap.

The DA also contemplates waiving applicable impact fees for the affordable housing project, again, if needed.

So both of these changes are at the city's discretion if after another affordable housing sustainable communities grant application to the state and another grant, another loan application to the county, and after applying for state and federal tax credits, there is still a funding gap.

Then the city could utilize these sources of funding to help close that funding gap on the affordable housing component.

The first amendment to the DA would also affirm that prevailing wage is required for any portion of the construction when required by state law.

And so this simply affirms that the language in the DA stands that the developers need to pay prevailing wage when it is required.

So that's if there is a public subsidy to that component of the project.

So when that gets built, the city can share in some of the profit if it exceeds their investor expectations.

And that would be limited to the amount of additional funding that the city puts into the affordable housing project.

So if the city ended up closing that affordable housing gap by another 10 million, that would be the maximum that we would participate in the profits from that smaller market rate building.

And then finally, it the amendment would extend the development agreement to December 31st, 2032.

Right now it expires at the end of 2029.

The Planning Commission resolution recommends the terms of the of this first major amendment to the city council.

City Council is anticipated to take this up next Wednesday.

It's been noticed already in this the packet would go out tomorrow.

The resolution also determines that the amendments are consistent with the city's general plan and that the amendments don't substantially alter the project's scope and that it remains consistent with the adopted environmental review.

So there are four resolutions that council will consider in addition to the DA amendment by ordinance, and one of them is to approve a fourth phasing plan from the project.

And the phasing plan for the project really governs the overall timeline.

So when each project needs to be delivered.

So as it shows here for the affordable project and the larger market rate building, those building permits have already been submitted.

But for the smaller market rate building, and the smaller market rate building is the one right here that would share the parking lot for LPR would end at a sidewalk for that smaller market rate building.

It is on our side of the creek, if you will.

Whereas the larger market rate building is across Cuomo Creek, and then the affordable building is the last building because it needs to be within a half a mile of the BART station.

And you just narrowly catch the corner of that affordable building at that end.

The affordable building needed to have started construction by December of this past year.

So this would move out that deadline to about a year and a half from now, as with the larger market rate building, and to finish construction three years later.

Typically, a construction period is about two years, but this is a very, very large development with a lot of site work.

And so we feel that that's a reasonable time frame to finish construction.

Oak Avenue, the new Oak Avenue extension across Colmack Creek and that vehicular or bike ped connection across Colmack Creek will be delivered at the same time as the affordable and the larger market rate building, and that's a requirement.

And then the smaller market rate building can trail.

You may wonder about the parking for LPR.

The addition there's like a whole right now, there's the wood chips.

That would actually be like a drive aisle and parking on either side to serve LPR, and that is in the Oak Avenue bucket.

So that is the within that first phase of the development.

So additional actions, like I said, there are three more resolutions.

One is to consent to assign the affordable housing parcel to a new developer.

The affordable housing parcel will probably the whole LLC right now, it is in an organ in a LLC called 1051 Mission Affordable LLC.

And that LLC will transfer probably temporarily to the marker rate developer, and then the city would consent to a new affordable developer, which we are working on vetting now and recommending now to our city council.

And then loans that the city has made to bridge in the past and that others have made to bridge and that LLC, that affordable LLC would transfer to the new housing developer.

And we're working closely with the county to make sure their funding commitment remains in place and with the state for that infill infrastructure grant that that remains in place as well.

And so far, that's all good news.

The third, well, second on this list resolution is in support of again another ASIC application, and that's due on May 4th.

That's why we are taking this to council on April 22nd to make sure that we get it done before the May 4th deadline for that grant application.

And that also includes a lot of infrastructure for the city.

So ASIC really demands that you provide transportation infrastructure that reduces greenhouse gas emissions along with the affordable development.

So that will come with some funding for bike improvements and our shuttle operation improvements.

And the last resolution is to commit those 14.6 million dollars that are freed up in the DA amendment to the affordable housing building for the purposes of funding applications.

So it's not the loan agreement, it is sort of pre-committing, it's like a conditional award that if the project needs those, they are available.

Um, and that is to satisfy applications that are due May 15th and May 22nd, it looks like right now from the county.

And so we're this this pivot is happening sort of in a in a hurry um to meet these deadlines in May.

Um so the staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution recommending the DA amendments to the city council for their consideration.

And um I'm available, Tony Rosie's been working on this a lot, and he's available as is Eric Tao with L37.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Uh do any commissioners have questions for Christoph?

Yeah, thanks.

I had written this down, and I think you just answered it.

Um, but we knew that the seven years ago when this came before the planning commission, the council and everything, there was um some concern about all the affordable housing being concentrated in the one location, and because it had to be within a certain distance of art.

Um I was one again, I think you just answered this, but that has not changed, has it with the with the with bridge being out or anything?

No, and we we did ask that question to the market rate development team that would it be more feasible if instead of doing the hundred percent standalone affordable building, it was incorporated as inclusionary throughout the project, and it doesn't improve the feasibility of any of the housing moving forward.

And so we are staying on this hundred percent affordable path, and we have gotten very sincere interest from reputable affordable housing developers in this project.

So I think you know, this is a pivot for bridge.

This their organization is focusing a lot more on acquisition rehab.

They've put out a lot of rest releases about that recently, and so this is not, it seems like not their bread and butter anymore.

This like large joint venture, high risk uh new construction.

Um, but there are still a lot of developers that are operating in that space and that are excited about this project.

Yeah, I I mean uh I would I was hoping maybe that you know now we'd have a chance to diffuse those those uh affordable units throughout the entire project, maybe making all three buildings a little more likely.

Um but okay, thank you.

I will note though, because I think it's of interest the inclusionary housing that all three of the large multifamily projects that are under construction right now do include quite a few inclusionary units.

So you will see some great income diversity in those projects, which is really exciting.

I think I will uh say a few words.

Um see the project backed.

I have to say I've been with this project since the housing subcommittee back many, many moons ago.

Um when I heard a lot of first of all, the main thing is we want to get the project going.

I understand all the pitfalls we've run into.

So I have a couple questions for you.

I know with the AHSC they've been turned down.

Is there any reason it gives or it's completely arbitrary?

So they don't run into the same roadblock again.

Um so the it is not it it is about 20% subjective, at least where it's subjective instead of arbitrary.

So um the ASIC scoring is out of a score of 100, and about 80% of that is somewhat predictable.

Like we could guess what our score is for about 80% of that, and then 20% of that is a narrative score.

And and that is sort of black box.

And and that is sort of black box, it's it's what the strategic growth council, it's a agency basically made up of department heads from another a number of other state agencies.

So um uh anyway, so that that's how it's scored, but we do get feedback on our score and a detailed score when you don't win an award.

So um in this past round we had a very competitive application, but bridge was assessed um a few negative points because of a compliance issue on a property in Oakland.

So one of the risks with affordable housing development is that any projects funded with state housing and community development dollars can then negatively impact any new application.

So in their case, it was a tenant that would not fill out an income qualification form, and so they weren't able not able to provide it to the state in a timely manner, and the state assessed negative points.

That is also a discretionary process by the state.

The state could have chosen not to do that, but the state did assess at the negative point.

So that's what happened in this past round.

And in the prior round, we were uh given a low narrative score that we could not explain, and we met with staff afterwards and they're like, that's your score.

So that one we we had to live with.

We fought hard for, but um yeah, this project is right on the bubble of what is competitive for this source of grant funding because it's really geared to projects that are doing things like buying new BART cars, like the whole train car.

And and um BART is not doing those partnerships anymore unless it's their land that is being developed.

And so, unless you've got a very major piece of high volume transit infrastructure that you're buying, um, it's very hard to get a very high greenhouse gas score and be ultra competitive.

Thank you.

I'm glad you showed me that phase four, because when you hear of changes that occurred, anything.

Now I know any plan will be changing.

I know a lot of these things that were there at one time all can change, like the old marketplace and things that were there initially.

Now, will the will the plans to best of our knowledge pretty much stay what was approved from a from a let's say building-wise, yeah.

So I think that's one of the upsides of amending this DA and continuing to work with this development team under this development agreement, is that it really is the project that the community envisioned and got used to and informed, right?

A lot different than sort of the streamlining that occurs now with private development, where maybe there's a little bit less say and in exactly how the buildings turn out and the amenities in them.

I'm glad to see the child care is still in on the table.

Now I understand the pedestrian bridge that will now be put on hold or I know we had no access, and so people understand at home oak is not for vehicles, it's bicycles walking, it's not vehicles.

So want them to understand that.

Oak Avenue.

So the Oak Av, the first section does have vehicles.

To a point.

To a point to a turnaround by rivers.

Correct, but not all the way up to El Camino.

So the Oak Avenue extension goes from Mission Road to the city.

Like to the interest almost without marketplace inners.

Exactly.

Okay.

Now what about the pedestrian uh what about the pedestrian bridge?

Well, that's up to Kaiser.

Yeah, it was sort of envisioned to connect to Kaiser or around Kaiser Sequoia.

Um so the DA amendment allows that funding to be reallocated to the affordable project if needed.

Um, but if the affordable team is able to secure other grant sources, we do not have to use those pedestrian bridge dollars for the affordable project.

I mean, that's the hope, right?

If if we're able to secure ASIC, then those that 14.6 million dollars is not needed from the city.

It's really if we cannot get ASIC and we're cobbling together a lot of smaller sources of funding, some of that 14.6 might be needed.

Thank you, Neil.

Uh no, I I just wanted to clarify what this I again, if you can maybe just restate what you just said in a little abbreviated fashion about the Oak Avenue connection.

I remember the council meeting where this was approved, and granted this is seven years ago at this point, but um I remember it was around midnight, you know, obviously well after the planning commission had talked about after public comment.

I believe it was then council member now Mayor uh Diego had cut the price for by the sale, the proposed sale price by approximately five billion dollars to build a connection.

Was he talking about this pedestrian?

Because uh my impression at walking away from the meeting was that it was supposed to be a vehicle.

So okay, so no matter what, if this project is built, it will include the vehicle pedestrian the vehicle bridge that you see at the top right corner.

That is the Oak, what we call Oak Avenue extension, phase one.

That's phase one.

Okay, that that is necessary for the project.

It was contemplated with circulation and everything.

What was negotiated at the 11th hour or midnight, maybe one or it was a late meeting.

I think there were more than three and a half hours of public comment.

Um that the what was deducted from the sale price was 5.5 million dollars to be contributed as a payment for Oak Avenue phase two, which if the city elected to go ahead and continue the vehicle connection from our cul-de-sac here at Civic Campus Way all the way up to El Camino, that those funds could be contributed toward that vehicle connection, but it did not require the developer to build the vehicle connection, and it did not guarantee it.

It was simply at the option of the city in the future, because there wasn't certainty that one it was needed or two that it was desired.

Um it the grade change between El Camino and the parking lot down here is significant, and it it would require very large retaining walls.

It would change the whole look and feel of this edge of the campus.

So, but it it was a consideration during that public hearing.

You're absolutely correct.

But at this time, it is not being planned.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Wasn't there some issues with BART right away, too?

If I remember correct, correct me if I'm wrong with my old memory.

Yeah, because you can see the BART BART's got this infrastructure in blue right below the triangular-shaped building.

So that's um I think it's some transformers and maybe access to the BART tunnel.

They do have to get um, you know, approvals from BART to oper to build within a certain distance of the tunnel, and that's all contemplated in you know, their per what they're doing with their permitting.

Um we did have to get actually some property from Kaiser.

So we call them like the switchbacks.

It's this intricate bike switchbacks up to El Camino to deal with that grade change, and then there's this grand staircase.

And that was actually Kaiserland.

So shortly after this project was approved, Kaiser was like, great, here you go, transferred it to us.

No problem.

I think the planning commission had to have a general plan conformity finding to accept the property.

Um so that was reasonably easy to obtain.

Um they were grateful the city would be maintaining it instead of them in the interim.

And then um the BART approval will we can't cut off access to that BART um facility there.

So that's why you've got the theory.

I knew there was something involved in so through the chair.

So we've been talking about the affordable housing, and I understand what's in front of us.

I would like to hear more from the developers.

Sure, absolutely.

Where are we at financially?

Are you able to move forward with a project?

Because that's been the issue from day one.

Can you build this project?

And then we had a lot of questions and a lot of concerns because I believe this is part of parcel of this package.

Well, thank you for the question.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Uh, Eric Tell, managing partner for L37, one of the lead developers for this master plan.

Um, I can say we've been trying since approvals to get this thing funded.

We've had multiple financial partners.

Our original financial partner was Brookfield, one of the largest Canadian uh real estate companies.

They recently um about four or five years ago, they bought Forest City and their entire portfolio has gone upside down.

If you come to San Francisco, it's called the 5M project.

Uh it's a giant vacant building and they have multiple vacant buildings.

So we've been scrambling to find a new investment.

But meanwhile, as Nell said, we've been advancing the project, um, spending money to get the designs done to figure out how we could make this more affordable.

I mean, when cost-wise, and one of the things that we've been working on is also partnering with the affordable developer, bridge housing and the city.

I feel like to some extent we've been I've been working for the city of South San Francisco because we have the mutual end.

If we can get the affordable project funded, it unlocks all of that infrastructure grant money so that we can build all these amazing parks and sidewalks and unlock a lot of the infrastructure necessary to get the four um residential buildings built.

Therefore, one of the kind of public-private partnerships that we are looking at is the 14 and a half million, all of that money comes from our project.

So if we know if we can fund our project, then the 14 and a half million becomes available, it can go towards affordable project, which solves the funding gaps that we've been experiencing, and if we can solve that funding gap, it unlocks the infrastructure money to build all the infrastructure that's needed for these projects.

So it's kind of like a domino effect.

And that's why these event uh these proposed amendments are in place to give the city the discretion to be able to allocate these monies to unlock what I think is the key to having all these projects go forward.

Um again, I that is our I think this is the closest that we've come to figuring out the grand solution.

And if we build these two buildings together, the savings of the efficiencies of building them together is four to five million dollars because there's shared, you know, walkways, shared, you know, trades that can work in concert together and save money on general conditions and and overhead.

So again, I I I wish I could just say yes, we're starting tomorrow.

Uh I would like nothing more.

It's been seven and eight years of effort, and um, but this is the closest we've come.

No, I appreciate that, Derek.

The bottom line is I'm in business.

You guys are developers, you're in business.

14 million is a drop in the bucket, it's nothing for this massive project.

Okay.

We're being approached as a planning commission as a city to help.

But where are you at with the project as a whole?

If you don't have funding, what is this gonna do to the project as a whole?

Whether it's infra infrastructure, we understand it's gonna help benefit both.

Affordable housing and the market rate and development as a whole.

But it's a big project.

I mean, that's how close we are though.

We're close.

I I know it seems like a if you don't have if you don't have anybody willing to commit, what is the cost?

In your opinion, total build-out cost for the whole project.

I mean for the affordable the whole project.

Um $300 million.

And of that $300 million, let me just break it down, for example, the affordable between tax credits, tax exempt bonds, this uh the state grant, um, the the county grant, there's about a 20 million dollar gap to get it built.

So there's 80 million, 20 million is missing.

Of that 20 million, if we can put the 14 and a half, plus also the request to waive 3.7 million of impact fees, that solves the 20 million dollar gap.

On our end, we have talked to Mill Creek, MBK, Heinz, as well as Northwestern Mutual life insurance company, they like the project, but they know it can't go forward unless the infrastructure is built.

So they said we're ready to move forward, and we'll have underwritten the 14 and a half, which is contributed to that 20 million dollar gap, if that unlocks infrastructure.

So, yes, it does seem like a small amount of money in comparison to the overall 300 million, but this is the hardest money.

It's that last dollar that no one can get to.

So that's what we're trying to get to by figuring out by combining the resources of the market rate to help fill the bucket of the affordable so they can unlock the infrastructure money so that everything can go forward.

So my last question do you have commitment letters from those companies that are willing to finance?

Or is it I have non-I I I have I have um non-binding letters of intent of that's typically where we are.

They are not going to be formal until we they know that there is a path forward for everything we're talking about today.

Thank you.

Um and just relatedly um first I I appreciate the creativity and the commitment to getting the affordable units built.

Um recognize the complexity of um building this capital stack.

But between the fee waivers and um reallocating some of the funding on the on the city side, you were kind of touching on this.

Were you saying that that's so that's not enough to close the gap?

Correct, right?

But that could um incentivize or unlock additional dollars to come into play.

So we think that it'll close the gap for the affordable project.

Oh, okay.

And with that um, I think the the language of the infra infrastructure in field grant is says we will start releasing those funds to the city, the grant is to the city upon demonstration that affordable housing has irrevent irrevocable, irrevocable funding commitments.

And so once we see these funding commitments in place, I think, and then we can get our market rate funding in place to say we can cover those 14 and a half, then I think the IAG money can be released to start the infrastructure work.

Thank you.

Sure.

That AHSC money, hopefully if you're successful on your on your attempt.

Now, what impact would it be on delaying this project any more, let's say if it's not successful on this current application?

So we have to wait for the next go around, which would be 27.

Well, so the a we call it ASIC, the ASIC money.

Yeah.

We're doing it because if we can get that, then we'll pay the 14 and a half million for our project, and you can keep it.

You don't have to spend it on an affordable project.

The ASIC money will cover the gap and unlock the infrastructure.

But you know, it's been painful three times.

We've missed it.

And um we're s and to your point, Commissioner Sam, sorry, Shahade.

Um you want to see this thing go forward.

So we're having a plan A and a plan B.

Plan A is we get the ASIC money, then we can go forward and we don't and we still pay the 14 and a half, and the city gets to keep it.

If we don't get the ASIC again, then we try to have another plan to fill the gap so we can get the affordable going and unlock the infrastructure money.

Um then one just kind of looking ahead to staff, you all have kind of said probably look out on the horizon for more DA amendments just in general, because of the economic climate.

Do you expect that um we maybe ask to consider these types of uh flexibility needs or um you know what could be public dollars like the reallocation and the the fee waivers we don't expect to see any other development agreements or amendments for housing projects?

Um we have seen as the commission has reviewed several for some commercial RD, and there may be others of those coming forward, but this is currently the only DA for housing housing.

So this would be the only amendment contemplated.

Does that answer the question or their specifics about some of the other commercial and that answers the question?

But did I just have one thing to add on the public subsidy piece of that, which is of we we are in the past, the city has not waived impact fees for affordable housing.

And um in the past, we have provided subsidy at maybe 50, 75,000 per unit.

What's being asked of the city now is far in excess of that for affordable housing because state sources of funding are going away or being severely reduced.

And and now, you know, there's just discussion at the county level about measure K and Measure K is the big housing funding source at this county level.

And so if if that is reduced or even just slightly, that will have an effect on how much public subsidy affordable housing projects are seeking directly from the city.

So that is something that we're starting to contemplate.

Um we are seeing bigger awards to individual projects and requests to waive impact fees and willingness by city council to do so.

Council recently approved a 50% waiver of impact fees for rotary gardens, their first senior building.

So that is changing.

That's really that's really helpful context, and that's just kind of um what I was trying to get a handle on, right?

Because we're as a city adapting to um changing economic and uh government contexts.

So thank you.

Uh any other questions from commissioners.

Okay.

Does any member of the public wish to address the commission on this item at this time?

Please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

We have no members of the public wanting to provide comment.

Okay, thank you.

Um then I will close the public hearing, turn the matter over to the commission for discussion.

Um please chime in if you'd like to make a comment.

Yeah, haven't spoken.

Um it's gonna be pretty straightforward.

So bottom line.

If the project doesn't go through the city has nothing, like there's not even a single benefit to the city.

We we need housing.

Uh and what's being proposed, we're not losing much, or if anything, any we still have the units, we still have child care.

We have a plan.

Uh to actually fulfill uh a good dream that everyone wants.

So that's a great thing.

And uh I think it's a crazy strategy that you guys brought in front.

I mean, I mean it it it's uh it's an amazing strategy.

Uh plan A, plan B, the explanation is actually very good.

So luckily planning commissioners don't really have much say about how much money you have to get or something.

So honestly, if you say 14.7 or two two million or three thousand million, it's seriously none of our business.

So in that sense, I don't know how I how to not support this.

So thank you.

Uh I mean, I think we all know that and it's been mentioned many times, this has been a long time coming.

Um, I'm disappointed that we've had seven years of waiting, you know, disappointed bridge falled out, and I think the term used in the uh in the documentation is a forced major of the uh the COVID pandemic.

Um but I am pleased to see that we're finally making some progress here.

I'm pleased to see that some that alternative sources for the um non-market rate housing have been identified.

Um as we probably taught by my earlier comment, I do support uh redirecting some of that Oak Avenue connector money over.

I was, you know, at the time, it was across the street in the old building.

You know, I was kind of stewing there in that room because uh that was money that I think the city could have put good use more specifically.

40% of that money would have been the school districts, and they definitely could have put it to good use.

But if you told me then, well, we'll reduce the price five million dollars to help ensure the affordable housing gets built.

I probably would have thought differently.

So I'm I'm happy to see this going forward because I in since November 19, so not that long, November 2019, uh, when this was uh approved by the council, the affordable situation for housing in the city has not improved.

So this needs to go forward, and I'm happy these sources have been identified.

I will support I can go ahead and first of all, I'm happy to say you're still around.

So I give you credit for your persistence over the last years.

I think we as a city up to support them.

I know we had a project on a corner of Elkamino spruce that live with us for many a year.

I think we have to give them all the opportunity in the world to succeed with this because any opportunity to build housing units, and they've never they have improved by coming forward and dealing with Eric's been forward and your president L.

I think I will be supporting this because we have to give them the opportunity to come through because I think if we get it in there, and once people start seeing it being built, the amount of years it's been on the table will go be forgotten.

So I think we just have to go along, give them the accommodation.

Because as we know, the economy now in many ways is uh it's like a crystal ball or rolling the dice for a better way of putting it.

So yeah, my support.

Thank you for your persistence, being diligent to weather all your disappointments.

Um, and I will be supporting it.

Yeah, I mean I should sent my fellow commissioners.

You've been uh all along, you've stuck through it.

You've met a lot of the challenges.

We've challenged you on some of your ambitious project on this side specifically.

And you know, with COVID, with the present economic conditions and the state of the economy.

It is challenging, extremely challenging.

I'm just always on the side of being conservative of giving away money unless we see a path moving forward.

And I see a lot of the uncertainties in this project still.

And I'm hoping that we can see, and I understand we're not gonna be able to achieve our goal of being able to plan ahead.

So navigating this uh these uncertain times is tough.

So I support support you, but I hope you also understand our commitment to the city of not to keep giving away.

I call it giving away money.

And you know, affordable housing's badly needed for the city.

No, just we saw the previous agenda item.

People being displaced.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

Uh again for the excellent and determined many years of work that has gone to getting us to this point.

I agree that there's still a lot of uncertainty ahead, but that we should give this project every opportunity to succeed, uh, including equipping the city with the necessary flexibility and if necessary, the capacity to make some painful decisions, painful but necessary decisions around what's a nice to have versus a must-have.

And I think we're all it sounds in this room very clear on what what the musts must-haves are, especially around some of the urgent and uh ongoing needs around housing affordability, um, and that if we can take this to completion, it's just a win-win on so many levels.

Um, so I I will be in support.

All right, that concludes commission discussion.

Uh, can I please have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

I move to approve resolution recommending that the city council approve the proposed development agreement amendment for the 1051 mission road, the PUC side D A 26-0002, as reflected in the term sheet, determining that the amendments are consistent with the general plan and determining that the amount amendments will not alter the project scope and remain consistent with previously adopted invo environmental reviews.

Second, thank you.

Can we have a rule of call?

Chairperson Palmiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Faria.

Yes.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes.

Vice Chair Baker.

Yes.

Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Commissioners Funes and Evans are absent.

Okay.

Motion passes.

We wish all the best of luck to this important work.

All right, that concludes the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Um, we will now move to administrative business.

Um, will the clerk please uh read agenda item four?

Yes, we have a report.

Number four is a report regarding a resolution finding that the proposed fiscal year 26-27 capital improvement program and fiscal year 27-28 through fiscal year 2030-31 five-year outlook are consistent with the city's general plan in accordance with government code section 65401 and item 4A is the resolution.

And Matt Rubal, our principal engineer, is gonna give the staff report.

Good evening, uh Chair, Vice Chair and Commissioners.

I'm Matt Ruble, your principal engineer.

It is my pleasure to come before you again this year.

I believe this is my sixth or seventh time giving uh some version of this presentation to share with you our proposed capital improvement program, uh, specifically focusing on uh fiscal year 26-27 and hoping to seek a resolution supporting findings that it's consistent with the city's general plan.

As we've done in the past, I'll kind of do an overview of the budget, even though we're not it's in your direct purview.

I do think it's very interesting, and I like to share that information.

Uh I'll kind of do a run through of some of the projects to um see if you have any comments or provide a little context.

If at any point you want more information, feel free to stop me and I can share now.

And if I don't know it, I can always follow up in uh another fashion.

And at the end, happy to answer any more of your questions.

So the CIP outlines major capital expenditures and infrastructure improvements throughout our city.

The fiscal year 26-27 proposed CIP includes 15 new projects and 17 existing projects requesting additional funding.

The chart breaks down the proposed new appropriations to approximately 20 million dollars by project type.

You can see the largest uh allocations are for parks, streets, and traffic.

The city's CIP is supported by a wide range of funding sources, which allows us to meet the varying infrastructure needs across departments and project types.

The slide before you, which I'm not going to read, kind of gives you a breakdown of those funding sources.

And then it's really worth pointing out that the diversity of these fundings help us not rely on one funding source and helps us maintain certain projects moving forward as the economic times kind of vary from year to year.

So for the first set of projects will be our parks projects.

So parks projects focus on improving and enhancing recreational spaces across the city, including playground upgrades, trail enhancements, and other major facility investments.

The largest funding request is for the Orange Memorial Park playground replacement for uh $3.8 million, which will include a new inclusive equipment designed for all users and ability.

The centennial trail improvements for $600,000 will enhance connectivity and access by relocating the skate park and adding new pathways from new pathways from Centennial Trail to Mission Road.

And we are also allocating $865,000 for the Aquatic Center to ensuring the progress of the major uh project underway.

Lastly, there's two million dollars being proposed for the common green playground rehabilitation, addressing safety concerns and replacing aging and closed clay areas.

Some pretty exciting projects.

Next, uh, we'll be sharing some public facilities.

So public facilities projects focus on maintaining and improving critical city buildings and infrastructure with an emphasis on fire station upgrades and sustainability this year.

The Fire Station 61 dorm reconfiguration is proposing $100,000 to address the lack of adequate sleeping quarters for on-duty personnel during large scale incidents.

At fire station 65, a roof replacement is being proposed for 125,000 due to the roof reaching the end of its life and experiencing leaks, along with an HVAC installation of $75,000 to replace an undersized system.

We are also proposing $100,000 for EV chargers located here at the LPR site, replacing the current ones, and new chargers at the Orange Memorial Park pool to support city's ongoing sustainability efforts.

Lastly, 214,000 will be used for minor improvements to this LPR building, including park pathways, ventilation improvements, security enhancements, and interior wall treatment.

And it's worth pointing out those are bond funds that have accumulated interest and can only really be used for this project.

So they're being allocated at this time.

Next, we have uh sanitary sewer projects, which focus on maintaining critical wastewater infrastructure, including our water quality control plant, pump stations, sewer lines throughout the city.

The sanitary sewer rehabilitation project is proposed for $1 million to support construction needed to repair any defective sewer mains ahead of the planned 2027 surface seal projects.

So as we've shared in the past, we do our road improvements going around the city.

We would like to before we redo the roadway, address the undergrounding infrastructure before we tear up the road for a second time.

Storm drain projects focus on repairing and improving storm drain infrastructure while also implementing green infrastructure to reduce pollution runoff into the San Francisco Bay.

The Francisco Terrace Flood Protection Levy project is proposed 100,000 to continue the design of a project to reduce flooding in the Francisco Terrace neighborhood.

If you look at the map, it's kind of that center blue squiggly area.

It's really hard to see.

My apologies.

But a neighborhood that has historically had flooding concerns.

So this project is seeking to reduce those flooding concerns, protect that neighborhood by addressing the water that's emanating from the storm drain system right as it goes under Centennial Trail.

Next, we have our street projects, which focus on improving transportation infrastructure across the city, including roadway rehabilitation, safety enhancements, and long-term planning efforts.

The largest investment is the 2027 surface seal projects with $3 million, which will provide street resurfacing treatments and base repairs to preserve roadway conditions and extend pavement life.

The South Linden Avenue grade separation project is proposed for $1 million to advance preliminary engineering for the grade separation at the railroad crossing, improving safety and traffic flow, and the Tamferin Avenue reconstruction project is proposed for $1 million to fully reconstruct the roadway between San Mateo Avenue and Railroad Place.

And the Tamferin Avenue reconstruction project is proposed for one million dollars to fully reconstruct the roadway between San Mateo Avenue and Railroad Place.

In addition to those large projects, uh we're also including funding for the complete streets improvements, the 26, 28 surface seal projects, pedestrian rehabilitation of pedestrian bridge, and future pavement rehab efforts, which collectively enhance the safety, accessibility, and long-term roadway performance.

Total $6.6 million.

And lastly, we have the traffic projects, which focus on improving safety, traffic flow, and multimodal access across key corridors, intersection, and school zones throughout the city.

The largest investment is the signalize intersection battery backup project for 1 million dollars, which will upgrade approximately 50 intersections to maintain signal operation during power outages and improve overall system reliability.

Two additional major investments include the downtown to Bay project for $600,000, which will advance the design of a direct car-free connection between downtown and the Bay Trail, and the trains to technology project for $600,000, which will support a multimodal connection between Caltrain and Key Employment Centre east of 101.

Additional projects include street light replacement, corridor and intersection signal upgrades, traffic calming near schools, corridor improvements along Orange Avenue and Oyster Point, and then ongoing traffic studies and small scale safety enhancements.

These projects collectively have safety, reduce congestion, and support future growth and transportation needs.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yes.

Matt, I have a question.

You mentioned about when barra goes out, traffic lights go out.

There's a million dollars for battery backup.

Can you educate us on what that would be?

Is that something new?

Yeah, happy to.

So part of our new signal designs right now, all new signals that have been constructed in our city is there's a uh signal cabinet that's usually one of the corners of the traffic uh intersection, and on the side of it, we have a battery backup.

So just like a Tesla wall in your house, large batteries, which will enable us to run the intersection while power is out, maintaining safe traffic flow.

What we're doing with this is recognizing a lot of our intersections are not going to be replaced in the near future.

And so this is our chance to retrofit those existing uh traffic signal cabinets and add either a battery onto the side of the cabinet or an adjacent cabinet nearby where we hardwire in.

And the total construction project we're anticipating is about two million dollars.

What we did last year is we actually provided two million dollars in citywide traffic impact fees for that project.

And during this budget cycle, we have identified that about half of those intersections are actually east of 101.

So we are going to release a million dollars of citywide traffic impact fees and replace it with a million dollars of east of 101 fees.

And the advantage to the city is those monies are older and we're obligated to spend that first, and those east of 101 funds are more restrictive.

They can only be using that geographical area.

So we are freeing up the dollars that have more flexibility.

So, like for example, airport boulevards.

Would that be covered as part of that package?

Yes.

So every intersection in our city will have a battery backup, whether they currently have one now, and we need to upsize it based on maybe the needs and the importance of the intersection, or uh they'll be added as part of this project.

Thanks.

Questionnaire on I know on all projects you want to bring them in under cost.

My question to you is on projects phased out to like 2030.

Is there enough of a I don't want to use the word cushion?

Because you know, in four years, cost can go up by five, six, maybe up to 10%, which no one wants it.

That one million may have allocated.

Is there enough of a use the word wiggle room to bring in that one million, or do you just reapply for more of that?

Uh great question.

Unless you're a crystal ball works better than mine, we don't really know costs going out forward.

Um, when project costs come in high, we have two choices.

We either have to de scope and do a little bit less with our budget we have, or we have to request of city council and the city additional funding.

Uh, one fortunate area when it comes to traffic or transportation projects, is the city does receive traffic impact fees, and we usually have the flexibility to fund those projects.

So if it's a project of high desire and need, we would usually request the additional funding.

Of course, safety projects would have priority, would probably get automatic approval.

We do look at projected cost values, and we make our best guess.

But um, like for example, right now I'm expecting oil prices to shoot up.

So the asphalt prices are probably going to be coming really high this year, and um we're gonna try to take that into account, but that is something we just didn't forecast last year, right?

So you wouldn't have known these are real concerns, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just a quick clarification on the safety piece.

Um what's the high injury network?

Uh um item 37.

Great question.

So the city has done a study of which roadway net uh segments or or which corridors in our city have the highest uh injury rates or where we see the most uh crashes or um for both pedestrian bikes and uh automobiles.

So the city has actually formally adopted a high injury network where our and it's the large arterials that you would imagine uh throughout our city that really need our top attention.

So it's really helping the city focus our funding and our attention to the areas that need it the most.

Um, and so that's what the high injury network is.

Thank you.

Questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

Okay.

Uh oh, at this time I will ask the clerk if there are any members of the public who would like to provide comments on this item.

We have no members of the public wanting to provide comments.

Thank you.

Uh then next piece of administrative business is item number five.

Oh, um, I believe there is a motion.

Oh, yes, and I get a motion to accept uh item four and four A.

I'll make a motion to accept it.

Thank you.

Uh real call, please.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes.

Vice Chair Baker.

Yes.

Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Chairperson Palmiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Faria.

Yes.

Commissioner Spunez and Evans are absent.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Uh now we really are.

Item five.

Um, number five is the anti-displacement roadmap presentation.

And Tony Rossi is going to give a brief presentation on the anti-displacement study.

Three minutes up, it's nice to see you all.

Uh it's been so long.

I've prepared 125 slide presentation for you all.

Anyone wants to take a break, get a cup of tea.

It's about 20.

There's just a lot of backup slides if you have questions.

Okay.

This is new since I've seen you last.

Um, first off, I want to apologize that we didn't come and share this with you all sooner.

We were really focused on kind of wrapping up the roadmap in that two-year window we were shooting for, getting to council by the end of last year.

And so I really appreciate that you requested uh an update on what we have been doing.

Uh initially, when we did our presentation at council, we did it uh fully translated with uh live translation for some of our monolingual Spanish speakers, but tonight you just stuck with me.

I apologize.

Uh here's what we're gonna cover.

I'm gonna give you a little background on displacement, what the city has been doing for several years to try and stem it.

Um, the way we engage with our community through this roadmap process, uh, and then what we learned on the displacement trends we've been seeing both on the residential and the commercial side, and then some highlights of uh path forward to try and uh mitigate it.

So this started in 2024.

Council launched a formal study of both residential commercial displacement South City, and that really came directly from comments we were getting when we were going through our general plan process and our housing element process.

We had advocates, committee members saying, Hey, what are you doing?

And this is not a new question, you know, as far back as the downtown stationary specific plan, these very similar concerns were asked if you're gonna build all of this new housing downtown, rents rise, what's gonna happen to the existing residents?

And so to lead this effort, we hired HRNA.

This is their specialty.

They do this nationwide.

And they brought in a community engagement specialist called Kerns End West, and they helped really lead our community conversations when we were at pop-up events and with our community advisory committee.

I'll go into that in a second.

Just to define displacement, the key word here is involuntary.

It's an involuntary relocation of residents or businesses from an area.

And there's permutations.

That somebody leaves or a business shutters.

And so that's kind of the background thought as we approached, you know, this study.

And I wanted to when we presented to council, we wanted to highlight the things that both planning commission and the city council have already adopted as a way to manage displacement and reduce it.

So we're patting ourselves on the back for a second here.

But it's important to note we weren't complacent.

We've had programs and policies in place, several of them prior to the pandemic.

There's a relocation ordinance.

Since just before the pandemic, and that's really focused on situations where a property is found to be poorly maintained or in some sort of uh defunct status, and it gets a yellow or a red tag, and that's through no fault of the tenant.

So this is not the tenant tried to do some electrical work and cause a small fire.

This is poorly maintained building that the property owner should have, may have known about and didn't fix, and it ended up resulting in some sort of co-enforcement case that you know displaced a tenant because of an unsafe building.

We've had that in place.

Tenants are obligated to get some money for short-term uh relocation until they can move back to the site if it get fixed, or permanent relocation if the unit is beyond repair or is get taken off of the market.

The most common reason something gets taken off of uh the market doesn't get fixed.

It was, you know, an unpermitted second unit in the first place, and really just camp some of those building code requirements.

Uh we also have an emergency rental assistance program.

Um this went into place just before the pandemic, but when federal funds started to flow in for kind of managing some of the loss of uh income and high uh eviction concerns and joblessness, we were able to use that money with our existing program in place by the YMCA.

Um I'd forgotten this number, but you know, Bay Area Unemployment spiked to 13% right after those first few months after the pandemic, people were not paying rent.

This was a uh a way to keep people in their housing at landlord's bed.

Uh, we've got a live work preference in place now for affordable units.

So when you build an affordable unit and when you apply, you get a preference if you live here or work in the area or have lived and worked in the area within a certain range.

Um that was brought by our housing division in 2025.

And then you saw the single room occupancy and the mobile home conversion ordinances.

Really, those were designed to make sure we have long lead up time if something's gonna be converted so that residents have a chance to plan and relocate, you know, up to a year without you know, finding out they're gonna be out of their unit in two weeks.

And those are some of our most vulnerable residents in SROs or in mobile homes.

Uh on the commercial side, it's a smaller list, but it's been effective.

You know, the community benefit agreements that come forward along with some of our new life science projects often uh have negotiated space for local businesses, either if they're being displaced to come back or they are local and looking for a new location.

Um the Lindaville uh specific plan or area plan was brought forward.

There was an uh makers space overlay that was that was laid on to try and preserve some of those creative arts industrial jobs that we already have out in Lindenville.

Uh, and then launch local has been sort of bridged between last year and this year, um, but that's taking city commercial space and offering it at low market rates so that folks who have a concept or want to move from an online to a brick mortar operation test it in one of our locations.

Okay, so there's things we've been done, and you know, the community engagement was really the the key piece to developing this roadmap over the last few years.

Uh main piece was our community advisory committee.

Um I'll tell you a little bit about them in a second.

Uh there were also interviews with experts that maybe couldn't serve on the CAC but wanted to provide their insight as a property owner or a business operator or a large residential developer.

Um then we had pop-up events kind of throughout the year to try and hit some targeted groups that became apparent through our data analysis were most at risk of displacement.

I apologize we don't have our CAC members here.

Um, but what I can say about them is that they were a very diverse group, and I think we we got really lucky that we captured kind of a broadway array of perspectives and opinions.

So there were some nights where voices weren't elevated, but folks were definitely in disagreement, and then ultimately, you know, we took a break, had some dessert, had dinner, chatted about it, and and and folks really started to recognize the validity of everyone's viewpoints, really kind of the the heartwarming takeaway from this you know, weighty topic.

Um, these were lifelong residents, recent arrivals.

We had one person who was a non-resident but had a lot of local experience as a realtor, mix of homeowners and tenants, real estate specialists, business owners, commercial landlords, and folks at kind of all stages of life young family, recently retired, caretakers for a family member.

And we had we had two monolingual Spanish speakers, so this was also a really great opportunity for us to uh use uh uh instantaneous translation and devices, so everyone was was listening and communicating as one.

They covered a lot of topics over about a year of meeting.

There were some folks who had some familiarity with these concepts, but really one of the big things we were doing was making sure everyone became sort of fluent in like a baseline understanding of displacement, you know, our economic trends in the city will general plan.

Um, all that so that when they brought forward a roadmap to council, they were bringing a set of uh ideas that were specific to South City, right?

It wasn't HRNA's master lists that it was just sort of rinse and repeat.

You could do anywhere.

I think that was an important sort of success from having this local group meet every month for a year.

And we did some fun things.

We were at the lunar new year.

Um we were at Martin Elementary and at the senior health fair.

A couple of the statistics that came out of the anti-displacement uh data analysis were that um Latinos were disproportionately facing displacement in downtown.

So Martin Elementary is in downtown, serves a lot of that community, and seniors very much at risk of homelessness, but you know, some new and scary statistics that emerged in our analysis.

Some of the things we heard at our open houses and at the fair at the uh senior fair, um priorities were I think aligned with with how you would guess.

Want to see more affordable housing, but also want to preserve what we have, even if it's naturally affordable housing, um, and then some focus on downtown and making sure we can you know keep our small businesses and those businesses that uh make South City.

So big forces at work causing displacement, not like a single thing that we can go and solve easily.

Um we've seen a huge shift in industries over the last decade.

Um when I started here, there were big swaths of dirt land east of 101 and Genentech, and now there's you know the cove and all of Biomed Realty along Gateway, Kilroy, ARE has developed several locations.

At the same time, all that industrial or former industrial land has started to shrink.

So we've been trading a lot of industrial land and industrial jobs that fit a lot of the qualifications and professional interests of current residents for new life science RD, which is not necessarily creating jobs that are going to local residents.

Show that to you in a second.

It's also supercharged rents, commercial side and residential side, just for that dramatic change.

And it's not just us, right?

This is a Bay Area-wide problem of housing just not keeping pace with demand.

Affordable housing not even coming close to keeping pace.

And we're seeing locally in South City higher income earners moving in and lower income earners leaving and truly displaced from South San Francisco or even San Mateo County as a whole.

At census data it was 2012 to 2022.

So that's that's what this window is capturing.

But you see gross rents increasing by over three quarters, home values increasing by over three quarters.

So you're you have a situation where housing's unaffordable to renters and to aspiring homeowners.

And kind of like I mentioned below, you're seeing that pretty dramatic loss of households below the I hate saying this 150,000 mark.

That's you know, considered you know lower income for a family of four, and households that are coming in earning more than that.

Uh every time I see this slide, I have to remind myself what this insanity is trying to tell you.

The the two columns on the right are the most important are easier to understand.

We're doing a great job of building housing at market rate levels, and there's a surplus on the demand side, meaning we we're building it.

Folks have plenty of ease moving into market state housing.

The demand for all other income categories far outstrips the amount of housing we're creating.

And it's been a while since you've looked at the housing element, but I know you had the annual progress report recently, and you know, we've got 10,000 opportunity sites in that latest housing element, and applying our inclusionary ordinance to it barely meets our arena obligation.

It is just so hard for just the the private market to create affordable housing, and it's so expensive as you saw in the last item for the public to subsidize affordable housing.

So it's not a it's not an easy solution.

That's what this slide's sort of trying to tell you.

And then this is a focus on downtown where we're seeing that that really high, almost 40% uh reduction in Latino families in downtown.

Uh the commercial side is you know a little bit different.

Uh there's certainly the redevelopment I discussed, industrial land turning over, which is our our kind of biggest commercial president presence.

Um, but also we've got competitors.

You can go to the East Bay.

It could be Alameda, it could be San Leandro, it could be Hayward, but they have available industrial space, and that space is renting at lower prices, with the plus side that you might also have workers that are closer by because they're able to, you know, tap into the East Bay counties and in sort of larger land mass, and we're we're pretty landlocked on the peninsula.

Uh another thing we learned about commercial displacement is that a lot of the businesses that we're losing are because of retirement or business sales.

Um folks may not have a person or a family member that wants to continue to run that business, it gets sold, the name gets changed, and uh someone comes in and blames City Hall for displacing sanitary bakery, which is not true.

They retired.

Um I think what we're trying to show here is that we're losing industrial jobs, losing industrial space.

We did this willingly, right?

We have rezoned over the years to focus on creating this incredible life science biocluster, but it has come at the expense of a loss of some land, and the jobs we are building are RD or RD adjacent, and um that's the kind of square footage we're building.

On the retail side, it's it looks like it's a more positive picture.

We've actually added some retail jobs, um, but I think we've lost over 300,000, almost 300,000 square feet in downtown on El Camino.

That's space for small businesses.

That's you know, you can maybe work a chain in, and we've seen a few of those, but all the new retail East of 101 is going to large national established commercial chains for the most part.

Downtown El Camino, those are sort of the mom and pop smaller uh commercial businesses that you know I think we've grown to love as a part of our urban fabric.

Um then this slide's really kind of telling a story that on the RD side, so everything kind of captured in the the orange.

Um 85% of those jobs are going to non-residents.

The industrial side where we've got a much stronger presence and matchup with local workers in those jobs, that's the square footage that has been disappearing as part of the redevelopment over the last decade and a half.

So that's kind of the backdrop that our CAC has been work was working through that the consultant was was was illustrating and sharing presentations every month so that we could you know come to some conclusions about what would be a good path forward, and all of the potential interventions for stemming either residential or commercial displacement needed to be evaluated against this criteria.

Does it actually help, or does it just make us feel good and do nothing?

Um does it need a lot of money, a little bit of money, something in between, and so we're ranking kind of on a continuum all of the uh potential mitigations.

Does it take a lot of staff or consultants?

Can we do something quickly?

And is it what we need?

So this kind of captured it's it's much prettier in our our presentation, but this is a way to get it on one slide.

Really kind of some short-term, medium-term, and long-term uh interventions.

And one of the things that came uh became really apparent, and that the community advisory committee um got excited about short-term intervention, was just realizing that there's a pretty big mismatch between what renters and landlords know about their rights and responsibilities, and that's something we can engage on pretty quickly.

And so you're gonna see in May, we've got a couple South San Francisco specific workshops that we're gonna do, one here, one downtown at the EAC, and that is gonna be focused on chatting with tenants and landlords about rights responsibilities, state laws, our relocation ordinance, some of the things that we have locally, just as an educational sort of beginning to have this conversation.

Um, something else that came out of it was that on the commercial side, we could have a more robust technical assistance program.

You know, you you go through uh a planning process to start a business, but that doesn't your questions don't end when you leave the program, and we're gonna try and develop uh stronger kind of continuum of of education and support for business operators, and then there are some engagement.

You know, the things in bold are what CIC the CAC really wanted to focus on, and it was what they got a chance to present to our council at our meeting in November of last year.

I was leaving those up so you can see them.

Medium term, something everyone was excited about, maybe build some housing on a city-owned site that is vacant and across from where we're standing right now.

Um, maybe we can engage with the school district on building on some of their you know closed or no longer operating school sites, always continue with downtown storefront activation, and that's really kind of getting folded into the launch local as it expands spaces.

Um then long term this idea that we maybe spend some real money through uh on the commercial side to have an emergency anti-displacement fund.

You'll see that you know some of our small businesses downtown get hit with an ADA lawsuit, um, or someone breaks a window and they don't they're underinsured and they can't replace it easily, or they have some other kind of acute economic shock, and that might be a way for the city to step in and provide some tactile.

Um, at this point in the presentation, we would we had a couple of our members get up and speak on because they felt really passionate about I will not do it justice, but it's in your hits in it's in your PowerPoint.

You can certainly take a look.

Um this was really that communication of rights and responsibilities, which we're doing, thankfully.

Um Marjorie spoke about prioritizing city controlled sites for new housing.

Um we're trying.

UC site is hopefully has a a couple paths forward.

Um Bertha Benton is a residential sort of tenants' rights expert.

She spoke about um having a rental inspection program.

Sometimes you could prevent displacement if you manage some issues earlier on, and San Mateo County provides a rental inspection program that individual cities can um pay to be a part of.

That's something we're gonna evaluate.

Um CC member Jennifer uh was really excited about taking launch local on our first site and starting to expand it throughout the city.

Maybe a new site on El, you know, Ron Higgs.

Um and so we're gonna try and partner with private property owners who perhaps have had long-term vacancies and want a little push and some advertising momentum for our program.

Uh that's the small business anti-displacement fund that I touched base on.

This was something we we highlighted to the council.

Um and then we closed with a video, and I'll I'll give you a chance to to hear one of our more vocal CSC members kind of speak on his take on the overall process.

If you do that, hello, Lee Ginsburg here.

How are you?

Thank you for the opportunity to be on the community advisory.

The committee was very diverse group of people.

Business people, real estate people, property owners, tenants.

It was just great.

Often the discussions were a wake-up call for others.

We reached full consensus that overall tenants and landlords are good.

They need to communicate and understand the law and their obligation a little better.

It was an overwhelming decision to support education for both parties and give access to additional support.

We thought of great project sentinel and legal aid of San Mattel County to meet here locally once in a while.

We do not support pre-legal problems.

The communication between landlord and tenant must be sessions may help on the commercial side.

Something education was also something uh agreed upon.

At a minimum cost, we retire business people and students at San Francisco State and Skyline College.

We all agree support continue to grow, launch local and business uh document.

We all support inspections of rental.

Self-serv certification was brought up, and I think will work the best, and least costly, both tenant and landlord can complete it, but it has to be kept very basic.

Hot and cold water, no mold, no rodents, insulation, heating work, very simple.

All and probably done every two years, every three years, you know, whatever.

All of our discussions were reality here.

How we are going to pay for this new program.

We tried hard, cost down.

Realize if copy owners face higher costs, those costs cash on for the tenants, only increase the rent.

So once again, I got a lot out of it.

I hope everyone else did the group was just a phenomenal group.

Everyone got along very well, respected, and so diverse.

So we really heard some real life stories.

Everyone involved.

Thanks and have a great day.

That's presentation is kind of fun to close with Lee and his perspective.

Um happy to answer questions.

I know it's a lot of data.

Um I appreciate that uh we had your support as we were moving along, even though we maybe didn't check back in with you uh as often as we should have.

So thanks for your patience.

Thank you so much.

Um questions from the commission.

Thanks for the great work.

Yeah, no questions, but uh just to comment.

Um thanks for the presentation.

You know, a lot of the issues actually came up in our earlier items tonight that we were talking about.

So it's uh uh it's uh important that this work gets done.

I do agree with that.

I do agree with that real inspection because I think um we had a we had an issue become before us.

We had an arbitration on here because renter disagreement, evictions.

I think if you have things we can get ahead of potential problems, long as the cost factors not too much.

I'm sure the feet in the counties hopefully be absorbed, but I pursue that if you could that's prudent.

I I pursue that if you could that's prudent.

I really appreciate the thoughtful process uh and the community engagement.

Uh I just also want to connect the dots between two things I heard around the market rate surplus.

Um also seeing that um preservation intervention had been one of the identified strategies and really just reiterating that so much cheaper to keep affordable housing affordable than it is to create it in the first place.

So just really I think the more strategies that we can have around preservation as well, the better.

Um just also thinking ahead, and this might be something to look at in the future is um down the line in twenty thirty when the um state tenant protection uh law expires.

Uh just if we as South City have covered those bases.

Um, or if that would leave gaps in some of our community's protections.

Um more future topic just to flag is I think there's going to be just an ongoing and pressing conversation around how the things that come before us are going to be affected by some uh budgetary issues maybe uh coming from the the county and even the state.

Uh Metric was mentioned and you know, other things of the sort.

But um just ending with a lot of appreciation for this, and this was incredibly useful uh and helpful to see and really glad to see that this is happening alongside all the other great work.

Appreciate that.

Yeah, we're hoping now our housing division has a roadmap.

They've got a uh marching orders from council, so this won't just be a document that'll sort of guide their workflow and planning over the next year and a half.

So this be will this be a yearly type thing or if continuity.

You know, we've been doing regular updates to the council on their priorities.

And I don't know if this has been something we've we reported in the last um last meeting a couple of weeks ago.

Um but I anticipate this is going to be uh kind of an annual because even though no one likes to hear the of a decrease where the exodus of a demographic, I think it has to be made aware you just can't keep your head in the sand if you're having like that major exodus out of Old Town.

I think we're also happy to maybe glom on to the annual progress report, use that as a way to update you on anti-displacement.

Thank you.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

At this time I will ask the clerk if there are any members of the public who would like to provide comments on this item.

We have no members of the public wanting to provide comments.

Uh then let's see, and we are not voting on this, right?

That's a report.

Then uh do any commissioners have items or announcements?

No.

All right.

Well then the meeting is adjourned.

Imagine that I banged a gavel.

Hello everyone, welcome to the South San Francisco Planning Commission meeting for January or excuse me, February 19, 2026.

I call this to order.

To write a comment during the meeting, please fill a speaker card and give it to this the clerk.

You will have three minutes to make your comments.

Please note that all commission time limits and rules of decorum will apply to public comments.

This meeting of South San Francisco Order.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the public of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands under the Indivisible Liberty and Justice for All.

Thank you.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Baker.

Here.

Chairperson Funes.

Here.

Commissioner Furia.

Here.

Commissioner Shahade.

Here.

Vice Chair Pomiku.

Here.

Commissioner Zhang.

Here.

Commissioner Evans is absent.

Thank you.

Are there any changes to the agenda?

No changes to the agenda.

Thank you.

Does any member of the public wish to address the commission on any item that is not on the agenda tonight at this time?

Please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

At this time, I will ask the clerk if there are any members of the public who would like to provide comments.

We have no members of the public wishing to provide comments.

Thank you.

Hearing no speakers, we will move on.

Next on the agenda is the disclosure of ex parte communications.

If any commissioner has had any communication with applicants, did any site or project visits had any interactions with third parties or has any conflicts regarding any of the items on the agenda?

You may disclose them at this time.

If you would like to recuse yourself for an item, you can also do so at this time.

Yes.

Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Commissioner Baker.

Yes.

Chairperson Funes.

Yes.

Vice Chair Palmiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes.

Commissioner Evans is absent.

If the clerk can please read the next agenda item.

Yes.

The next item is number two.

And it is a report regarding an application for design reviews for the Westboro Preschool Expansion Project, including the construction and operation of an approximately 7,000 square foot child daycare center at 2360 Galway Drive at Westboro Park in the parks and recreation zoning district in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is consistent with the 2040 general plan environmental impact report and that no new environmental document is needed per sequel guidelines 15162, 15168, and 15183.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Funes and Planning Commissioners.

For your consideration tonight is an application for design review for the Westboro Preschool Expansion Project, including the construction and operation of an approximately 7,000 square foot preschool located at 2360 Galway Drive at Westboro Park.

The project site has an approximately half acre footprint that is located within the boundaries of the 10 acre city owned Westboro Park, located at the corner of Westboro Boulevard and Galway Drive.

The new preschool will be located in the northeastern corner of Westboro Park, where currently a public restroom, maintenance yard, existing lawn, and maintenance road exist.

Also includes a community center, picnic areas, baseball field, walking trails, tennis courts, playgrounds, and basketball courts.

The project site is bound by fire station 62 and residences to the north, Galway Drive and residences to the east, Westboro Boulevard to the south, and Westboro Middle School to the west.

The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department offers child care through its preschool early learning program serving children ages two and a half to five years old.

The existing child care program at the community center at Westboro Park has an enrollment of 59 children, distributed among three classrooms and up to eight staff members on site during preschool hours.

The community center would continue to function as a preschool until construction is complete.

Preschool operations would then move to the new preschool facilities immediately following completion.

The community center currently houses one preschool classroom with two additional classrooms in modular buildings directly adjacent.

The relocating of the preschool component may allow for increased community programming at the community center.

The new preschool facilities would include five indoor classrooms, one covered outdoor classroom, and administrative office space with a total of approximately 7,000 square feet.

There would also be outdoor play areas with climbing structures and natural play areas.

Oh sorry, the preschool expansion project would increase student capacity from the existing 59 children to 100 and would require up to 15 staff.

The proposed preschool will serve children ages two and a half to five years old.

And the preschool will maintain the same operational hours of the day and days of the week as the existing preschool, which include uh 7:30 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

The proposed exterior materials for the building would be a composite a combination of stucco, cement fiber, composite shiplap siding, and exposed wood elements, and would be surrounded by wood and metal fence.

The proposed preschool is a one-story with a maximum height of less than 18 feet.

And the new preschool building would meet energy efficiency requirements and be all electric.

The design review board reviewed the project in October of last year and recommended approval to the planning commission.

The DRB liked the creative modern design, the finishes, artwork, and color palette.

They found the design to be well integrated into the surrounding residential neighborhood and lacking an institutional appearance, which made it also appear very welcoming.

The DRB also praised the proposed ADA enhancements, which improved path of travel to the baseball field and tennis courts, as well as improved access for city maintenance vehicles.

In March of 2025, the Westboro Preschool Expansion Project was the primary topic at the annual town hall meeting for District 2, hosted by Vice Mayor Nagales.

The meeting was held at the Westboro Community Center, and over or approximately 80 residences attended.

At the meeting, the project was presented, as well as the overall need for the additional preschool space and the benefit of creating a new facility separate of the existing community center.

The community members in attendance were appreciative of the update and raised no concerns about the project.

Staff did receive six letters in support of this project.

In summary, these letters express support for the project because it will increase availability of preschool enrollment, which is in very high demand based on the wait list.

It will provide high quality preschool curriculum, or I should say it would continue high quality preschool curriculum.

It would offer affordable preschool options and provide safe preschool options and allow opportunities for siblings to attend with currently enrolled children.

Again, just summarizing some of the comments in this staff report.

In terms of circulation, the existing circulation pattern is to remain on site.

Minor modifications are proposed to the designated pickup and drop-off spaces, EV spaces, and ADA spaces.

The site is located in the parks and recreation zone district where a preschool is a permitted use.

An environmental checklist was prepared for the preschool expansion project, which concluded that the current project is within the scope of the previous environmental analysis for the general plan EIR, and that subsequent SQL analysis is not required for the proposed project.

In conclusion, the Westboro preschool expansion project complies with the city's municipal code, development standards, and findings for approval for design review, as well as the city's general plan goals and policies.

Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission approved the proposed project of an approximately 7,000 square foot new preschool facility at 2360 Galway Drive in Westboro Park.

That concludes the staff presentation.

The applicant team is also here to present and answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So I will now open the public hearing and call for a staff report.

If there is one applicant, sorry.

And keep it open.

Oh, thank you.

And you added these slides.

Oh, wait a second.

Who's doing that?

Oh, Lehman's there.

Um Good evening, Chair Ferness and Commissioners.

Um Jake Gilkurst, your director of capital projects.

Um, Christy, of course.

Um for the last six.

Oh, this is the last slide.

What's happening?

No.

There we go.

Thank you, Lehman.

For the last six and a half years, I've had the privilege to serve as the city's director of capital projects.

And while I've worked on larger and more complex projects than this one, including the building we're in.

And I'm really excited that we're finally here after five years.

Farshid Samsami from Kitchell Construction and Project Management is here, and you'll also be hearing from Chris Dorman from Dorman Associates, who's also here with Mary Peterson, the project architect.

I really want to appreciate, like express gratitude to them for really putting the community and the children first when it comes to the integration of this building and facility into the park and into the neighborhood.

I'd also like to really thank Christy and Adina for their leadership.

And also because he's here as a resident.

And so I wanted to acknowledge him too.

Five years ago, when this project was originally assigned to me by then city manager Futrell, one of our first tasks was to find a location for the preschool.

And we knew from the preschool wait list and the sort of heat map of where the wait list sort of centered that Westboro was the place that needed expanded preschool within the city.

We searched for a site, and after two fall starts at different locations in the neighborhood, we slowly began to settle on a location somewhere within Westboro Park.

And initially we thought we were going to expand the Bulos Center and build off of that and potentially add more modulars or move the playground or do something in that area.

But as the project developed, Director Mediati and I were really in alignment that this project would really be a success if we didn't just add preschool capacity, but if we also gave something back to the residents in the park users who were never going to pot to use the preschool itself because it's such a narrow group of people who actually get to benefit from the preschool itself.

And so we really felt like the project would succeed if we were going to be able to do other things to help the the park.

And so I think creating this accessible route up to the tennis courts is really important.

Improving the picnic picnic facilities by moving the exterior restrooms away from Galway and closer to the group picnic area is really important.

Opening up the younger kids' playground, the the two to five-year-old playground to public use all day, because right now it's limited in use because of the licensing requirements for the preschool that uses this the playground during the day.

And then excuse me.

Lastly, um just rededicating the Alice Bulos community center to the public.

We've heard a lot of clamoring for additional senior programming.

Um by moving the preschool to its own discrete facility within the park, we're really allowing a lot more flexibility of programming of the um the excellent facility that is the Bulo Center.

I'm happy to stick around and answer any questions about project delivery or otherwise, but um before I hand it off to Chris Dorman for the design presentation.

I just wanted to mention that as a landscape architect, I'm just so impressed with the way they managed to really integrate the facility, not just into the neighborhood, but also with a really light touch into the park itself.

And with that, I will hand it over to Chris Dorman.

Thank you very much.

I'm gonna practice with this and see if I can make it work.

There we go.

Okay.

Well, hello, commissioners.

Thank you very much for taking a minute to listen to our description of a show child care center.

Um I've been blessed to be able to work on children's centers for more than 20 years, and none more interesting and more fun than this one.

Um the city of South San Francisco has been uh really uh fun place to work, people to work with.

So I'm excited to present this.

Um I will be fairly brief because I think Christy did a tremendous job of of introducing the project.

Uh, and I'll be here for questions.

So um this this first uh slide here is about so sort of the the goals that we have for children's center.

So we thought we would show um what it what what will this look like um in the future when we're done and this is a similar center.

We've um learned a lot over the years about um providing uh for children and so this illustrates a lot of our core principles.

We taught we want to get lots of light into classrooms, we want to create space, natural ventilation.

We have a real commitment to indoor outdoor play areas.

So we are trying to incorporate all those things when we come and look at a new project.

So the lighter green area is the administrative area.

And then you know, we utilize the uh interior courtyard, which is also the play area as a circulation spine to access the classroom.

So everybody walks through the entry and then they go out and disperse their classrooms.

And what we tried to do is create a courtyard that creates some visual noise separation from the park.

It also protects a little bit from the wind, depending on the direction, but a lot of the prevailing winds uh will be protected.

Um we have some uh outdoor classroom areas that we'll show you in a minute.

So really giving a good opportunity to create um this space that hopefully you know will will allow for children to feel like they have the space they need, but also create some security and separation from the rest of the park.

Um as was mentioned, the the dark gray area is the new accessible path up to the tennis court, which we're able to incorporate into this design, as well as moving the existing restroom up closer to the picnic area.

So there's a lot of great benefits that we were able to achieve with the design and the layout uh in this park area.

Um so uh you know, if you zoom in, you can see that that the preschool classrooms have um you know have teacher supports and child toileting in each zone, and the drop-off is right located next to the entry so that we can uh hopefully address uh timeline timely drop off uh through the process.

Um for the for the look and feel you've already seen what the elevations look like, but you know, the inspiration was kind of a mid-century modern sort of eichler of the houses that are of the area.

How could we sort of take advantage of light and air and um and space and uh and so an indoor-outdoor environment?

So we tried to utilize that in creating um glass that typically in the in the classrooms is indirect light, north facing light, um, cross-ventilation in all the classrooms, operable windows so that we can reduce the need for air conditioning and really just have this opportunity uh for children to go in and out of the classrooms uh that the entry you know is is intended to be easily readily available and visible so people can come and see that.

And then you can see there's a sort of a moving walkway that um uh roof that allows parents to move through the play area without getting wet in the rain, um, but also gives some additional shade to the to the play area.

So we've tried to utilize uh a few materials without um and and be able to um optimize some of the textures so that the building feels like it's got a few um uh different items that are of interest.

Um one of which is the um is the pattern we made out of this uh cement tile cement panel, which is called equitone.

It's really lovely, and I think we'll be able to add a little splash of color, and then at the same time warm things up with a little bit of uh vertical wood.

Um as you can see, the building does surround the courtyard and the play area um and create sort of like uh a visual separation using landscaping um between the the parking drop-off and and the play area.

Um this is just a you know uh axon from above, and you can kind of get a sense of the the building, its location next to the restroom, which is uh up to the left, and of course the walkway to the tennis court.

Um one of the things we did like about the way we were able to fit the building into the site was the ability to um just create enough of a step in the site so that the building is not too dominant from the park view.

It stepped down about four feet from here, so uh it diminishes some of the visual impact, fits in.

Um you can barely see the fire station and the scale of the fire station behind, but just trying to keep things um you know of uh of a single story and uh you know uh pedestrian scale.

Um and finally, these were all the materials that we used.

Uh we did use them uh we uh we're proposing a mechanical screen for the um rooftop units that will be a laser cut screen to help screen the units from uh from sight lines.

We tried to create a couple of different um accents for metal posts, and as I mentioned, the fiber cement and the wood.

So we've tried to create some um some opportunities for color without overwhelming uh children and and the neighborhood.

Um that's one of the things we try to do is make it feel like a uh residents feel like home.

So happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you so much.

Does any of the do any of my fellow commissioners have any questions for the applicant?

Um can you just through the chair?

Sorry.

No, of course.

Could you describe a little bit about the um kitchen facilities?

Um I know that's important in uh in a preschool.

For the um say that one more time, the kitchen kitchen facilities is there food preparation.

Here, I'll go back.

I mean, uh basically there's what we call effectively a food prep facility, and um, because there's a number of uh meals mostly snacks and and lunch, um, that this gives them the opportunity to bring in foods and and prep for that.

Um there I don't believe they're actually necessarily cooking in that location, but they're able to create preparation for all the snacks that that the children have and and lunch.

Um I think they bring some of that food in pre-prepared, but then if they did, you know, prepare some of it, they're able to do that.

But it's not a full uh commercial kitchen.

The other question I had was related um, especially in the winter um in the afternoons.

Um you're on the east side of a of a hill.

I can imagine that the there's not a lot of sun after probably about three o'clock or so in in the courtyard there.

Um what uh I I guess my question is um have you maximize outdoor exposure in this courtyard?

Is this gonna be a uh a play area?

Because I know there was a play area up front.

You know, you're reminding me that I skipped to because I'm an architect, so I get all excited about the architecture and answering questions, but um I'm gonna skip ahead for one second here because we do have um a blow up of the play area here, uh, which I should have shown before, but essentially um I'll digress for one second, and um you this is intended to give you a sense of the nature play that's involved.

Um that entire uh sand like brownish area, dirt area where the where a play structure would be, the play structure is gonna be sort of a log play structure.

That is completely uncovered.

So the idea is, you know, you're not wrong about the um about the sun uh in the winter time.

Um one of our biggest challenges, and I know that it's very foggy here.

I live in Mill Valley, it's very foggy there too, but on those rare occasions where it is hot.

What we tried to do with the roof is also utilize it to um to help shade in the afternoon sun.

So it was kind of like a you know, we're trying to capture both opportunities there, but um, but we did, you know, we tried to bring in extra light into the classrooms by facing all those windows north.

So I think you know, I think ultimately because of the low the low height of the building itself, we're not gonna have as much trouble with actually shading the courtyard.

It it's really more of the trees that are kind of around and behind that will be a concern.

Yeah, I trust trust me, I'm not worried about their sun exposure in Westboro in the summer.

I know, I know, I know.

Only maybe May and part of September.

Right, thank you.

Any other questions I'll go ahead.

This is to uh to staff the the building wise we're fine.

I notice that we're with this capital project we're we're look we're picking up forty one additional