Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-10 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 10, 2003 6:15 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the l0w day of December, 2003, at 6:15 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda Interview applicants for Housing Authority Discussion and appointments to Housing Authority Adjoumment City of South San Francisco Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: December 10, 2003 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City Clerk CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - INTERVIEWS FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY Back~ound: Due to the resignation of Gary Smith on July 11, 2003 (term expiring 3/31/04) and the untimely passing of Jim Claar on October 25, 2003 (term expiring 3/31/07) there are two non-tenant vacancies on the Housing Authority. Notices of vacancy were first posted in July and a deadline to submit applications was set for October 31, 2003. Applications: Five applications were received (copies attached) and interview times are set as follows: · Ronald Burgess - 6:15 p.m. · Frank Roman* 6:23 p.m. · Albert Martin 6:30 p.m. · Harold Molumby 6:38 p.m. · Eva Cezana 6:45 p.m. *Although Mr. Roman is a tenant of the Housing Authority, he is eligible for appointment as a non-tenant commissioner in accordance with Section 34286 H&S. Conclusion: If there is a consensus from Council to move forward with the two appointments at this time, Council must first consider the unexpired seat of Gary Smith, which is a partial term, expiring March 31, 2004. The second appointment is to fill the vacancy let~ by Jim Claar, which is considered a full term, expiring March 31, 2007. Two sets of ballots have been provided. A motion to confirm the appointments is required. It is anticipated that board/commission interviews will be scheduled in January, 2004 for the Conference Center Authority and Parking Place Commission. Enc: 1) Applications 2) Council Questions 3) Ballots INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIl. COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 10, 2003 6:50 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Industrial Development Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 10th day of December, 2003, at 6:50 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call o Public Comments Motion to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2002 meeting Adjournment SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 10, 2003 6:53 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the South San Francisco Capital Improvement Financing Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 10th day of December, 2003, at 6:53 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments o Motion to approve the minutes of December 11, 2002 Adjoumment City//Clerk SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 10, 2003 6:55 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of Califomia, the Surplus Property Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the lffh day of December, 2003, at 6:55 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments 4. Motion to approve the minutes of December 11, 2002 5. Adjournment RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting will be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 10, 2003 6:57 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Recreation and Park District of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 10~ day of December, 2003, at 6:57 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments Motion to approve minutes of December 11, 2002 Adjournment City/Clerk 3. Motion to cancel regular meeting of December 24, 2003 Redevelopment Agency Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 Redevelopment Agency Board Assistant Director Commercial Rehabilitation Loan in the amount not to exceed $100,000 for Royal Theater Group RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Agency Board evaluate the merit of providing a loan, not to exceed $100,000, to the Royal Theater Group for the remodel of the building located at 211 Linden Avenue, the new home for Group 4 Architecture, and if so approved, to adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute a loan agreement with the Royal Theater Group. BACKGROUND The Royal Building, situated in the Downtown Central Redevelopment Project Area, has been a Giorgi Brothers Showroom for the last eight years. The building has a colorful history, perhaps best remembered as the former Melody Paint building but it originally housed the Royal Theater, South San Francisco's first movie theater circa 1920. In 1996, the Giorgi family acquired and restored the Royal Building bringing it back into the commercial market (after ten years of vacancy and neglect) by completing a seismic retrofit and restoring the original architectural character. The redevelopment agency sponsored the restoration undertaken by Giorgi Brothers with a loan of one hundred and fifty-five thousand ($155,000) dollars. At the time, the Agency had implemented a seismic retrofit loan program which required owner's in the downtown commercial district to retrofit their buildings or close them down permanently within seven years. Agency seismic loan funds were combined with community development block grant facade improvement grants to undertake the required improvements. At that time, the original facade was exposed and new brick facing was restored and the modem circular glass entry was constructed. This year when Giorgi Brother's agreed to sell the property to Group 4, they initially requested that the Agency transfer the remaining balance of the loan to be secured with a lien against the State Building instead of 211 Linden Avenue. Staff indicated that the Agency Board would be required to approve such a transfer and had scheduled the item on the Board's agenda forecast. Wanting to transfer the property free of liens, the Giorgi's decided to pay offthe balance of the Agency loan in full. The loan balance to Giorgi Brothers was paid in full on October 8, 2003, in order to facilitate the transfer of ownership to Group 4 Architecture. STAFF REPORT TO: Redevelopment Agency Board SUBJECT Commercial Rehabilitation Loan for Royal Theater Group DATE: December 10, 2003 Page 2 Under new ownership, the building is now under remodel to accommodate Group 4 Architecture Planning and Research firm. This acquisition will enable Group 4 to retain their firm in the historic downtown business district. Group 4 has approximately twenty-five staff that appreciate the opportunity to work in our downtown with access to restaurants, shops and services. Group 4 has formed a real estate holding company titled Royal Theater Group, LLC, of which, the principals of Group 4 are members. The Royal Theater Group is in fact acquiring and remodeling the building and is the financial entity that will secure the requested loan. Group 4 is required to essentially gut the building, install a sprinkler system, and provide new exit stairwells from the mezzanine to the rear exit and three new bathrooms. The firm will need to modify the existing entry, eliminating the recessed circular entry that exists, in order to provide sufficient space to accommodate the staff areas and meeting rooms. The existing entry was installed by Giorgi Brothers in their remodel of 1996. The curvature of the exterior facade entry will remain; however, the circular recessed entry needs to be shortened to create additional inside office space. The new facade design incorporates the historic curvature of the facade with a contemporary metal awning consisting of a simple frame without a roof and new signage for the design firm. This allows one to see up through the awning and appreciate the historic facade without distraction. Group 4 has indicated that they could be flexible and willing to forego the new awning if that is a focus of concern. They are not, however, able to provide sufficient space for their operations without straitening out the recessed circular entry to gain back that needed office space. Thus the entry would still be recessed several feet, but not curved. Attached is an exhibit provided by the Group 4 Architecture presenting background on the project and Group 4's rational as to why the loan would benefit the City and Redevelopment Area. It should be noted that the attachment is provided at the request of Group 4 and that it solely represents the opinions of Group 4 and not the opinions of Agency staff, directors or officials. The total construction cost is estimated to be a minimum of $200,000 of which the Royal Theater Group is requesting a loan of $100,000. The standard loan terms for the downtown commercial program is four percent (4%) simple interest over a term of fifteen (15) years. In making such loans to businesses the Agency generally tries to accomplish two objectives: Improve the substandard condition of a building, and provide an incentive io attract or retain a valuable businesses. This loan clearly meets the second objective by keeping Group 4 Architecture in the downtown, but there is some question as to whether it would meet the first objective. If the loan is approved, the Agency would retain second place on the Deed for the building as security against the loan. CONCLUSION It is estimated that the architectural firm will generate increased pedestrian traffic on Linden Avenue and will be a permanent business in the district. Group 4 has been evicted from the current building at the corner of Grand and Linden Avenue and is required to move by the end of this calendar year. It is recommended that the Agency evaluate the merits of providing a loan to the Royal Theater Group to remodel the building. If the Board desires to provide the requested loan amount, such funds are available in the current year's budget from the Agency's downtown commercial program. STAFF REPORT TO: Redevelopment Agency Board SUBJECT Commercial Rehabilitation Loan for Royal Theater Group DATE: December 10, 2003 Page 3 Assistant Director Michael A. Wilson Executive Director MAW:MVD:NF Attachments: Resolution Group 4 Project Background RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE AGENCY BOARD APPROVE A LOAN NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 TO THE ROYAL THEATER GROUP FOR THE REMODEL OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 211 LINDEN AVENUE WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Agency Board approve a loan, not to exceed $100,000, to the Royal Theater Group for the remodel of the building located at 211 Linden Avenue, the new home for Group 4 Architecture; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco that the Agency Board approves a loan not to exceed $100,000 to the Royal Theater Group for the remodel of the building located at 211 Linden. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute the loan agreement on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\Current Reso's\l 2-10royal.theater.rda.res .doc 211 Linden City Loan Application City Council Briefing December 10, 2003 GROUP 4, who we are... · architecture, research + planning · 25-30 staff · many local projects · state-wide practice · 28 years in South San Francisco · 13 years at 301 Linden · active participant in downtown community 11/24./2003 2 11/24/2003 GROUP 4, lost our lease... · our landlord looked to sell 301 Linden · City staff proposed to help Group 4 buy it · our offer outbid and building sold out from under us · lost our lease - must be out by Dec. 31 !! · Group 4 committed to downtown SSF company location · we approached Giorgi about 211 Linden · purchased 211 Linden (closes 10.31.03 !) /24/2003 211 Linden Planning context · Giorgi sold because didn't have sufficient business traffic at this location · Group 4 received Conditional Use Permit for conversion to office · design and use supported by Planning Commission · design supported by Design Review Board as well 4 GROUp · 11/~'~./2003 USE PERMIT - change in use Benefits of change in use: · more people regularly in space · frees 301 Linden for more active street use · keeps G4 in downtown · no additional parking impact · G4 responsibility, Owner contribution Challenge: · space much smaller 4,600 sf vs. 5,700 sf · losing space for second exit · therefore must be very efficient in layout, and capture any available space 11/24/2003 211 Linden, proposed redevelopment · fire safety upgrades - adding fire sprinklers throughout and alarm · life safety upgrades including new second exit stair including related structural improvements and modifications · new electrical · new restrooms new water service from street and tie-ins back to sanitary system. · replace storefront to increased floor area because space is 25% smaller than current location 6 11/24/2003 Active Uses inside and up-front 7 Linden Ave - partial history... · Built in 1920's (?) · Originally the Royal Theater · SSF's first silent picture movie house /24/2005 8 211 Linden Building History (?!?) 11/24/2003 PAINT COMPANY · Up until 1996, 211 Linden looked something like this... 9 21 1 Linden Ave - recent history ...... 11/24/2003 · purchased with adjacent buildings 1994 by Robert & Kathleen Giorgi · converted to warehouse use - furniture sales · added second floor, seismically upgraded · new HVAC, storefront, etc. 10 GBOU~ 4 11/24/2003 New Improvements 11 Marquee Options - A 11/24/2003 1 2 Marquee Options - B 11/24/2003 13 Marquee Options (none) 11/24/2003 14 11/24/2003 City Loan Q & A · Did Oiorgi receive a City Grant for his project? YES - to restore the fagade - uncovering and restoring the brick arch - ALL of which remains in our work · Did Giorgi pay off the previous City loan? YES - although there had been discussion about trying to transfer it - he has paid it off. The original funds are available again to leverage New improvements! · Is the new loan for past work? NO - the City loan will help finance NEW improvements and facility upgrades 15 City Loan Q & A · Is there a back log of projects needing these loan funds? NO - there is not a waiting list for this loan. No other current applications will be impacted by this loan · Is the proposed work eligible for the loan? YES - These funds help redevelop a property and help retain a long standing business in downtown. 11/24/2003 16 11/24/2003 City Loan Q & A · Will the proposed new work result in the loss of earlier City supported improvements? NO - Previous City supported improvements including uncovering the original arch front adding a second floor, seismic upgrades and mechanical systems. All of these remain! · What about the storefront? The restored arch will be preserved and enhanced. The replaced storefront, required to further expand the interior space (supported by the Planning Commission and DRB ) is a small part of the additional expense that will be carried by us. 17 City Loan - City Council Support City Council Support of Loan will: · support downtown vitality · assist in essential life safety and fire safety upgrades · keep a beautiful historic building attractive and active ~]/24/2003 18 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM DECEMBER 10, 2003 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each. month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. In the event that there are more than six persons desiring to speak, the Mayor may reduce the amount of time per speaker to three (3) minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. KARYL MATSUMOTO Mayor RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RICHARD A GARBARINO, SR. Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman RICHARD A. BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE iNVOCATION PRESENTATIONS Donation from Citigroup Foundation to Project Read - presented by Citibank Vice President Financial Center Manager Bradley C. Lai and accepted by Literacy Program Manager Holly Fulghum-Nutters Municipal Information Systems Association of California Award - presented by Mr. Ron Kaetzel and accepted by Information Technology Director Doug Hollis AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Community Forum · Subcommittee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of November 12, 19, and 25, 2003 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of December 10, 2003 Resolutions authorizing the new City Treasurer to invest City and Redevelopment Agency funds in the Local Agency Investment Fund and authorizing the City Manager to sign forms and the City Clerk to attest to forms required by investment banking institutions that would be necessary for Richard A. Battaglia to invest and transfer funds Resolution accepting a donation of a television and camcorder for a value not to exceed $1000 from Samsung Electronics to the Fire Department Resolution supporting the South San Francisco Caltrain station project and to provide a grade separation on South Linden Avenue 6. Resolution accepting the Oak Farms Subdivision public improvements for maintenance o Resolution approving the San Mateo County-wide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Model Integrated Pest Management Policy Resolution authorizing the submission of a joint reapplication for the Municipal Stormwater NPDES permit dated July 2004-June 2009 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2003 AGENDA PAGE 2 Resolution authorizing the purchase of sculpture "Obelisk" for the Orange Memorial Park Sculpture Garden in the amount of $18,500 10. Resolution accepting grant funds from the California State Library and Citigroup Foundation in the amount of $34,802 11. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funding, from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency, the Peninsula Partnership for Children, Youth and Families, and from the Peninsula Community Foundation to support the South San Francisco Community Partnership for the total amount of $181,682 Resolution accepting funds from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund Program in the amount of $100,000 Resolution authorizing submittal of request for HOME funds from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium in the amount of $500,000 and designating a contact person for the City 14. Motion to cancel regular meeting of December 24, 2003 15. Acknowledgement of proclamations issued: Sam Bonanno, 11/15/03; Gloria Castro Larrazabal, 11/19/03; Aurelia Lemos Henriques, 12/1/03; Steven L. Ungaretti, City employee retiree, 12/4/03; Aegis of South San Francisco, 12/5/03; and Robert Easterday, City employee retiree, 12/10/03 PUBLIC HEARING 16. Consideration of appeal of Planning Commission approval of residential planned unit development permit modification and related approvals, including Mitigated Negative Declaration, allowing a lot split and a new single dwelling at 22 Vista Court in the Single Family Residential Zone District; PO 1-0019, PUD02~0019, SA02-0019, DR02- 0019 and MND02-0019; Owner: Frank & Nannette Diokno ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 17. Resolution authorizing the purchase and sale agreement for the property located at 178- 190 Airport Boulevard and amending the Parking Place District budget to appropriate funds for the acquisition CLOSED SESSION 18. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation: significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9: one case ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 10, 2003 PAGE 3 Sta55 Reoort Date: To: From: Subject: December 10, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO NEW CITY TREASURER RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the two attached resolutions: 1) 2) Authorizing the new City Treasurer to invest City and Redevelopment Agency Funds in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF); and Authorizing the City Manager to sign documents on behalf of the City Council with banks and investment institutions the City does business with to facilitate the changing of authorized investment authority for the City. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 25, 2003, the City Council appointed Richard Battaglia to fill the remaining term of City Treasurer, through November 8, 2005 after the former City Treasurer, Beverly Bonalanza-Ford passed away. The City has investment and bank arrangements with the following institutions: Investment Institutions: -State of California, Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) -County of San Marco, Investment Pool -Wells Fargo Bank -First Tennessee Bank Staff Report To~ From: Subject: Page 2 of 2 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance Resolutions Related to New City Treasurer Banking Institutions: -First National Bank (City's main bank accounts) -Beu~ of New York (two roles: third party safekeeping trustee on behalf of City's portfolio, and holder of various bond reserve accounts) -U.S. Bank (holder of various bond reserve accounts); -Sierra Point Credit Union (for the Westborough Pool Donations Account Fund). Attached for Council's approval are two resolutions. The first is required by the State, and would allow the new City Treasurer to invest and withdraw funds from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), with the Deputy Treasurer and Finance Director as backup. The second resolution authorizes the City Manager to sign any forms, and/or the City Clerk to attest to any forms required by our other investment and banking institutions that would be necessary for Richard Battaglia to invest and move funds. As Council directed on November 25, 2003, the Deputy Treasurer and the Finance Director will be added as authorized backup for these transactions. Prepared by: ?-'-~!;~~-'-~ Jim/ Steele Director of Finance Approved by: ~/~~~ Michael A. Wilson City Manager Approved by: :' RiChard A. Battaglia City Treasurer Attachments: Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 730 of the statues of 1976, Section 164291.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein as in the best interests of the City of South San Francisco. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the deposit and withdrawal of the City of South San Francisco monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein, and verification by the State Treasurer' s Office of all braCing information provided in that regard. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the forwarding City of South San Francisco officers or their successors in office shall be authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund: Richard A. Battaglia, Treasurer; Gloria F. Taormina, Deputy Treasurer; and James Steele, Finance Director. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S :\C urren t Res o's\ 12 - 10 investment, of. mon les. res. doc ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO.__ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RES()L[ITI()N AIITH()RIZIN(; THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN FORMS, AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO FORMS REQUIRED BY INVESTMENT BANKING INSTITUTIONS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR RICHARD A. BArFI'AGLIA TO INVEST AND TRANSFER FUNDS WHEREAS, on November 25, 2003 the City Council appointed Richard A. Battaglia to fill out the term of the former City Treasurer, Beverly Bonalanza-Ford. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the following: The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute forms and agreements with the City's banking and investment institutions to add Richard A. Battaglia, City Treasurer, Finance Director and Assistant Finance Director as authorized .signatories to banking and investment arrangements; and ° The City Clerk is hereby authorized to attest to the signatures for the City Treasurer, Deputy City Treasurer, City Manager, Finance Director and Assistant Finance Director as related to forms and agreements for City investment and banking institutions. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES' NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S :\Current Reso's\l 2-10treasurer.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council Fire Department Resolution to accept a donation of a television and camcorder from Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. for a value not to exceed One Thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for use in the stations and by the department. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution accepting a donation of a television and camcorder for a value not to exceed One Thousand dollars ($1,000.00). This equipment is for use in one of the fire stations and for use by the employees of the Fire Department. BA CKGROUND/DIS CUSSION On October 7, 2003, members of the Fire Department witnessed a theft in progress when a Federal Express truck stopped at the traffic signal at Baden Avenue and Airport Boulevard. The members of the Fire Department reported the theft; which resulted in the arrest of members of a high tech theft ring and recovered the stolen items. To show their appreciation, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. would like to donate a television and camcorder to the South San Francisco Fire Department. FUNDING No City funds are required for this donation to occur CONCLUSION The Fire Department recommends that a Resolution authorizing acceptance of this donation. Russell J. Lee,~re Chief Attachment: Resolution Approved: Michael A. Wils~ City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION OF A TELEVISION AND CAMCORDER FOR A VALUE NOT TO EXCEED ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. WHEREAS, the members of the Fire Department witnessed a theft in progress that resulted in the arrest of members of a high tech theft ring and stolen items were recovered; and WHEREAS, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. would like to show their appreciation by donating a television and camcorder to the South San Francisco Fire Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council authorizes the acceptance of a donation ora television and camcorder for a value not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) from Samsung Semiconductor Inc. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Current Reso's\l 2-10fire.donation.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk StaffReport DATE: December 10, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: CALTRAIN'S PROJECT TO RELOCATE AND UPGRADE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAIN STATION AND PROVDE GRADE SEPARATION ON SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE, ENGINEERING FILE ST-03-6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution in support of Caltrain's project to relocate and upgrade the South San Francisco train station and provide grade separation on South Linden Avenue. The preliminary engineering of the project is contained in the Railway Project Study Report (RPSR) dated November 24, 2003. B ACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project will relocate the existing train station approximately 600 feet south of the existing location to "connect" to downtown. This will improve pedestrian access to the station with new shuttle and drop off on the east side. Pedestrians will safely access the west and east side of the station through either a submerged passageway or elevated walkway that will be determined during the final design jointly with Joint Powers Board (JPB). The station will be constructed in accordance with Caltrain's latest standards and adopted practices, complete with canopies, amenities and expanded parking. The Union Pacific (UP) team track/dock facility will be relocated from the present location at the Caltrain station parking area to another UP spur track adjacent to Colma Creek. The proposed grade separation on South Linden Avenue will improve safety and traffic circulation by elimination of the crossing gate. The preliminary plan contained in the RPSR includes raising the railroad tracks approximately 11 feet and lower South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue approximately 10 feet. Some of the existing driveways along South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue will need to be regraded to match the profile of the lowered avenues. The grade separation will allow JPB one additional track for a total of four (4) tracks. This additional train track is required for Caltrain express trains and potential High Speed Rail service. Staff Report ro~ Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Caltrain's Project to Relocate and Upgrade SSF Train Station & Provide Grade Separation on South Linden Avenue December 10, 2003 Page: 2 of 2 City Staff has had five coordination meetings with JPB staff during the development of the RPSR. JPB made an information presentation to the City Council on September 12, 2003, following their presentation to the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce on September 10, 2003. The Chamber of Commerce has expressed their full support to the project. In July 2003, the JPB staff conducted an informal survey of passengers at the South San Francisco train station with the result that confirms the need to rehabilitate the station with improved access and safe crossing. The tentative schedule is for engineering design work to start in February or March 2004 and construction to start in 2005. The entire project will take approximately two and half years to complete. Directir of Public Works ATTACHMENT: Resolution City Manager RTH//JG/ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CALTRAIN'S PROJECT TO RELOCATE AND UPGRADE THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAIN STATION AND PROVIDE GRADE SEPARATION ON SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City support the Caltrain's project to relocate and upgrade the South San Francisco Train Station and to provide a grade separation on South Linden Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby supports the Caltrain project to relocate and upgrade the South San Francisco Train Station and to provide a grade separation on South Linden Avenue. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\old. Res o 12_00\ 12-10caltrain. res.. doc StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works THE OAK FARMS SUBDIVISION FINAL MAP (SA-99-067) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting for maintenance the public improvements constructed within Oak and Commercial Avenues, pursuant to the "Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Between City of South San Francisco and Standard Building Company for Oak Farms Subdivision (SA-99-067)", dated April 11, 2002. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On April 24, 2002, in connection with the approval of the Oak Farms subdivision final map, the City Council also approved a public improvement agreement for the project. This agreement provided for the construction of the various public improvements and infrastructure within the surrounding public streets needed to accommodate the 32 homes within the subdivision, which are served by Farm Road, a private street. The work consisted of the widening and frontage improvement of Oak and Commercial Avenues and the installation of a storm drain and a sanitary sewer main within Commercial Avenue. The improvements have been inspected by the City staff and have found to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. In accordance with Section 15 of the public improvement agreement, the subdivider has filed a $11,600 bond maintenance bond to guarantee the public improvements for a period of one year. By: John ~}ibbs Director of Public Works City Manager ATTACHMENT: Resolution Location Map RPdJG SUNSHI GARDENS SCHOOL DRIVI LOCATION MAP OAK FARMS SUBDIVISION SCALE: 1" = 400' { Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM- INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to protect the health and safety of its employees and the general public, the environment and water quality, as well as to provide sustainable solutions for pest control, through the reduced use of pesticides on property owned or managed by the City to the maximum extent practicable. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION: The Environmental Protection Agency, under amendments to the 1987 Clean Water Act, imposed regulations that mandate local government to control and reduce the amount of stormwater pollution runoff into receiving waters of the United States. Under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water quality Act, the State Water Resources Control board has delegated authority to its regional boards to invoke permitting requirements. In July 1991, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) notified San Mateo County and all its incorporated cities of the requirement to submit a Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit application and to implement a Stormwater Manage Plan (Plan). Under the direction of the City/County Association of governments (C/CAG), the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan 1998-2003 was submitted to the RWQCB in February 1998. The RWQCB adopted the Plan, making it part of the San Mateo Countywide NPDES Stormwater Permit CA0029921 that remains in effect until July 2004. The Plan includes performance standards to which each member agency is committed to control stormwater pollution. Under the Plan, the member agencies developed a Pesticide Management Plan that includes goals for minimizing the effects of pesticide use on municipal stormwater quality, actions to achieve those goals, and monitoring mechanisms to document effectiveness of those actions. One of the required actions is adoption of an Integrated Pest Management OPM) policy and/or ordinance requiring use of IPM techniques in municipal operations, minimizing pesticide use, and restricting use of organophosphate pesticides. Staff Report To~ Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Integrated Pest Management Policy December 10, 2003 Page: 2 of 2 In order for member agencies to adopt IPM policies, the Parks and Recreation branch of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (STOPPP) Municipal Maintenance subcommittee developed a model policy each agency could adopt by resolution. The goal of the model policy is to protect health and safety, the environment, and water quality, and to provide sustainable solutions for pest control through reduced pesticide use. The model policy recommends municipal use of non- pesticide alternatives and least-toxic chemical, if necessary. Employee and contractor pesticide usage will be tracked and reported annually to the state as part of the countywide program deliverables. The model policy encourages pilot projects demonstrating landscape and structural pest control activities, requires review of and modifications to purchasing procedures, contracts, service agreements, and employee training practices to support reduced pesticide use, and requires educational outreach and/or support of countywide or regional IPM educational efforts and pesticide- related water quality issues. Adoption of the policy will formalize the activities already being conducted by City staff. Since the Maintenance Services division is already implementing an IPM program based on the model policy, additional fiscal impacts are minimal. Funding to continue implementing an IPM program will come from the current Stormwater Program budget. Implementing an IPM program was included in the 2002-2003 Stormwater Program budget and will be continued though the 2003- 2004 fiscal year adopted budget. ~)~hr~;tGo;bob~ Pu/oli c W~)rks Approved: Mich~ael~~ City Manager ATTACHMENT: Resolution Model Integrated Pest Management Policy RH/JG/ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMVVATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM MODEL INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency, under the 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act, imposed regulations mandating local governments control and reduce the amount of stormwater pollutant runoff into receiving waters; and WHEREAS, under the authority of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board delegated authority to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to invoke permitting requirements upon counties and cities; and WHEREAS, in July 1991, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board notified San Mateo County of the requirement to submit a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Application by November 30, 1992; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the NPDES Permit Process, San Mateo County, in conjunction with all incorporated cities in San Mateo County, prepared the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan that has a General Program as a fundamental component; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan has been submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and has been approved by the Board and made part of NPDES Permit CA 0029921, issued in 1998 and remaining in effect through 2003; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan and NPDES Permit CA 0029921 required San Mateo County submit a renewal application by March 31, 1998, including a Stormwater Management Plan for 1998 through 2003; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has accepted, adopted, and committed to implement the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan for 1998-2003 and the renewal application and Plan was submitted to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board on March 18, 1998; and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, after Public Hearing, approved the Renewed NPDES Permit CAS0029921, effective July 21, 1999 and which expires July 20, 2004; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan includes a Pesticide Management Plan and performance standards for pesticide usage and integrated pest management. A component of these standards is adoption by all member agencies of an Integrated Pest Management policy and/or ordinance requiring integrated pest management techniques in municipal operations; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco seeks to protect the health and safety of its employees and the general public, the environment and water quality, as well as provide sustainable solutions for pest control, through the reduced use of pesticides on property owned or managed by the City to the maximum extent practicable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that: Employees implementing pest management operations will use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques that emphasize non-pesticide alternatives and, when necessary, employ the least toxic chemicals. Preference will be given to contractors who implement [PM. City of South San Francisco departments and their contractors that apply pesticides will develop and maintain an active IPM Plan to ensure the long-term prevention and suppression of pest problems with minimum negative impacts on the health and safety of the community and environment. The City of South San Francisco will track employee and contractor pesticide use and prepare an annual report summarizing pesticide use and evaluating pest control activities performed. The City of South San Francisco shall encourage pilot projects to demonstrate landscape and structural pest control alternatives, seeking to use the most recent technology, best management practices and least toxic methods for all pest control measures. Pilot projects should include an objective analysis of the effectiveness of the alternative techniques applied. o The City of South San Francisco will review its purchasing procedures, contracts or service agreements with pesticide applicators and employee training practices to determine what changes can be made to support the goal of pesticide reduction and promote the purchase and use of the least harmful chemicals. The CitY of South San Francisco will perform educational outreach and/or support Countywide or regional efforts to educate residential and commercial pesticide users on a.) goals and techniques of [PM, and b.) pesticide related water quality issues. o o Pesticides are defined as: any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Pests can be insects, rodents and other animals, unwanted plants (weeds), bacteria or fungi. The term pesticide applies to herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, rodenticides, molluscicides and other substances used to control pests. Antimicrobial agents are not included in this definition of pesticides. In general, the intent of antimicrobial agents is to reduce or mitigate the growth or development of microbial organisms. They are used to avoid health hazards and include indoor cleaning, spa and swimming pools, medical sterilizer and sanitizer products. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, to beneficial and non-target organisms, and to the environment. IPM techniques could include biological controls (e.g., ladybugs and other natural enemies or predators); physical or mechanical controls (e.g., hand labor or mowing); cultural controls (e.g., mulching, discing, or alternative plant type selection); and reduced risk chemical controls (e.g., soaps or oils). City of South San Francisco owned or managed property includes but is not limited to parks and open space, roadsides, landscaped medians, flood control channels and other outdoor areas, as well as municipal buildings and structures. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\Current Reso's\l 2-10NPDES.res.doc Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of a joint re-application for their Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit dated July 2004 through June 2009, under the auspices of the San Mateo NPDES Technical Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Regional Water Quality Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan specifically requires that all of the municipalities in San Mateo County have municipal stormwater NPDES permit coverage. In 1992 and 1993 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (STOPPP) developed its comprehensive, area-wide, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Control Program under the authority of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), all of the municipalities in San Mateo County submitted an NPDES application, including a Stormwater Management Plan that met the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's requirements. The initial plan included tasks, schedules, and parties responsible for implementation of tasks during the initial five-year NPDES permit period (i.e. 1993-1998). The Regional Board adopted Order No. 93-106 and STOPPP's Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit No. CA0029921 on September 15, 1993. The adopted NPDES permit requires that all of the municipalities in San Mateo County reapply for reissuance of their municipal stormwater NPDES permit by March 18, 1998. The San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program's Technical Advisory Committee prepared a new five-year San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan for the period from July 1998 through June 2003 that was adopted by the Regional Board on July 21, 1999. This again has requirements for reapplication for reissuance by January 23, 2004. Staff Report To; Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Stormwater Management Program December 10, 2003 Page: 2 of 2 The San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program's Technical Advisory committee prepared a new San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan for the period of July 2004 through June 2009 and compiled other information needed to reapply for NPDES permit reissuance. The San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan 2004-2009 represents mainly a continuation of the stormwater pollution prevention and control activities and costs that are currently being implemented. The recommended resolution, if adopted, will confirm South San Francisco's participation in the joint agency effort. Funding will be provided from the San Mateo Countywide General Program Budget Year 11, which is approximately $1,334.014 financed by a Countywide parcel fee levied against residential land users, commercial/retail/manufacturing/industrial land users, and miscellaneous land users. For Year 11 activities, single-family residential land users are charged $6.0074 per parcel, which establishes the base rate. Miscellaneous, Condominium, Agriculture and Vacant parcels are charged $3.0037/APN; all other land uses a base rate of $6.0074/APN for the first 11.000 square feet plus $0.5442 per 1,000 additional square feet of parcel area. The use of parcel size provides for a more equitable distribution of the fee throughout the various land uses within the County. Approved: fi~~o~ Michael A Wilso City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Executive Summary Stormwater Management Plan RPdJG/ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION TO REAPPLY FOR REISSUANCE OF ITS MUNICIPAL STORMWATER NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT AND TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT THE SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMVv'ATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 2004- 2009 WHEREAS, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under amendments to the 1987 Federal Clean Water Act, imposed regulations that mandate local governments reduce to the maximum extent practicable the amount of pollutants in stormwater discharged from municipal storm drain conveyance systems; and WHEREAS, The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan specifically requires that all of the municipalities in San Mateo County have municipal stormwater NPDES permit coverage; and WHEREAS, under the authority of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the State Water Resources Control Board and its regional boards have been delegated the authority to adopt NPDES permits and waste discharge requirements for municipal stormwater discharges; and WHEREAS, in July 1991, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board notified all of the municipalities in San Mateo County of the requirement to submit an NPDES Permit Application by November 30, 1992; and WHEREAS, under the authority of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), all of the municipalities in San Mateo County submitted an NPDES permit application, including a Stormwater Management Plan, which met the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's requirements; and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted a municipal stormwater NPDES permit CA 0029921 and Waste Discharge Requirements for all of the municipalities in San Mateo County on September 15, 1993, which remained in effect for five years; and WHEREAS, the adopted NPDES permit requires that all of the municipalities in San Mateo County reapply for reissuance of their municipal stormwater NPDES permit by March 18, 1998; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program's Technical Advisory Committee prepared a new San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan for the period from July 1998 through June 2003 and compiled other information needed to reapply for NPDES permit reissuance; and WHEREAS, under the authority of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), all of the municipalities in San Mateo County submitted an NPDES permit renewal application, including a Stormwater Management Plan, which met the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's requirements; and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted a renewed municipal stormwater NPDES permit CA0029921 and Waste Discharge Requirements for all municipalities in San Mateo County on July 21, 1999, which remained in effect for five years; and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board reopened the existing municipal stormwater NPDES permit CA0029921 and Wastewater Discharge Requirements for all municipalities in San Mateo County to include revised new development and erosion control language and adopted the revised municipal stormwater NPDES permit CA0029921 on July 21, 2003; and WHEREAS, the adopted renewed NPDES permit requires that all of the municipalities in San Mateo County again reapply for reissuance of their municipal stormwater NPDES permit by January 23, 2004; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program's Technical Advisory Committee prepared a new San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan for the period of July 2004 through June 2009 and compiled other information needed to reapply for NPDES permit reissuance; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan 2004-2009 represents mainly a continuation of the stormwater pollution prevention and control activities and costs that are currently being implemented. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has held a public heating about application for reissuance of the NPDES permit, including the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan, 2004-2009; and after the public hearing, the City Council resolves the following: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By The City Council of the City of South San Francisco that: The City of South San Francisco hereby agrees to reapply to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for reissuance of the municipal stormwater NPDES permit to discharge water from the municipally owned storm drain system, and The City of South San Francisco accepts, adopts, and commits to implement the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan 2004-2009 and requests that the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program's (STOPPP) NPDES Coordinator submit this plan to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the reapplication for NPDES permit reissuance, and o The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City/County Association of Governments' Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program NPDES Coordinator. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S :\Current Reso's\l 2-10stortnwater.management.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk INTRODUCTION The San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) is a consortium of all 20 cities located within San Mateo County and the county. As described further below, many of STOPPP's activities are coordinated through the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. This partnership also relies on each of the municipalities to implement local stormwater pollution prevention and control activities for their local storm drain systems. This Stormwater Management Plan (Plan) describes what STOPPP will be doing during the five-year period from July 2004 through June 2009 to prevent and control stormwater pollution in San Mateo County. The current Plan has evolved out of the experience developing and implementing two previous stormwater management plans that covered the preceding ten year period. The Plan will serve as part of the basis of STOPPP's third National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to be reissued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Board). As required by the current NPDES permit, the Plan will be submitted to the Regional Board, at least 180 days prior to the permit's expiration on July 21, 2004. The federal Clean Water Act requires stormwater dischargers to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) and to effectively eliminate most types ofnon- stormwater discharges to the storm drain E Executive Summary system. The Plan, in conjunction with the reissued permit adopted by the Regional Board, is designed to enable STOPPP to meet these requirements. ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN The Plan is organized around the following five major stormwater pollution prevention and control components: · Municipal Maintenance · Industrial and Illicit Discharge Controls · Public Information and Participation · New Development and Construction Controls · Watershed Assessment and Monitoring Each of the Plan's five major components describes goals, recent achievements and tasks that will be completed over the five year period. The tasks are part of the General Program that will be implemented by STOPPP for the mutual benefit of the municipalities. The achievements portion of each section summarizes activities and progress during the 1999 - 2003 NPDES permit period in order to set the basis for STOPPP's future direction. The appendices to the Plan include the General Program's work plan and budget for FYs 2003/04 and 2004/05 (Appendix A); performance standards that each of the municipalities has committed to implement F:\Sm3x\SM33-02\SWMP TAC Adopted Version\02-EXSUM,DOC ES-1 November 4, 2003 Executive Summary permit's non-stormwater discharge prohibition (Task 3.3), and by conducting outreach and training (Task 3.4). Lastly, this component includes Task 3.5 to assist the municipalities with NPDES permit compliance reporting, General Program work plans and budgets, and assessing effectiveness. 4.0 Public Information and Participation (PIP) The primary goal of this component is to educate the public about the causes of stormwater pollution and its serious effects on the quality of waterways and neighborhoods, to encourage residents to adopt less polluting and more environmentally beneficial practices, and to increase residents' hands-on involvement in STOPPP activities. The most important task under this component is to achieve public involvement through outreach and education (Task 4.3). The PIP component will continue to implement the Bay Area Wide Integrated Pest Management Point of Purchase Campaign at 20 hardware and nurseries located in San Mateo County. In addition, the PIP Subcommittee will select future stormwater pollution prevention topics for targeted outreach, conduct targeted campaigns, and evaluate the effectiveness of these activities. The other tasks in this component include the following: implement the performance standards (Task 4.1); assist the municipalities to prepare NPDES permit compliance reports and develop the General Program's work plans and budgets (Task 4.2); train PIP staff (Task 4.4); and build partnerships with other agencies and companies and work with volunteer groups and other STOPPP subcommittees (Task 4.5). 5.0 New Development and Construction Controls In February 2003 the Regional Board amended STOPPP's municipal stormwater permit to include extensive new requirements that affect this component of the Plan. The primary goal of this component, to minimize the water quality and beneficial use impacts of land development during and after construction, will be achieved in part by fulfilling the requirements of the permit amendment. This includes identifying and implementing appropriate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures, and managing increases in peak runoff flow and volume in order to prevent increased erosion of creek beds and banks and silt pollutant generation (termed hydrograph modification management in the permit amendment). During the construction phase the goal is achieved by prohibiting non-stormwater discharges from construction sites; reducing stormwater pollutant discharges from construction activities to the maximum extent practicable; and requiring compliance with stormwater best management practices and erosion/sedimentation control at construction sites. The Subcommittee and the General Program will be conducting the following activities: implement and improve the performance standards (Task 5.1); assist with the implementation of the Provision C.3 requirements contained in the February 2003 permit amendment (Task 5.2); assist with the implementation of controls on peak runoff rates and volumes for appropriate projects (Task 5.3); assist with improving construction site stormwater controls (Task 5.4); and promote the outreach and training for municipal staff and builders and their consultants and contractors (Task 5.5). Lastly, this component includes Task 5.6 to F:\Sm3x\SM33-02\SWMP TAC Adopted Version\02-EXSUM.DOC ES-3 November 4, 2003 Executive Summary The performance standards provide an effective, consistent, and predictable countywide approach to minimizing water quality impacts. Having consistent countywide standards assures similar treatment for businesses, builders, contractors, and property owners. In addition, such standards assist STOPPP's municipalities with training and educational outreach. These performance standards define the major portion of what each member agency will need to do to implement the Plan and comply with the NPDES permit. The implementation of these performance standards by member agencies is required by the Plan. CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PLAN While the majority of tasks and performance standards have been continued from the previous plan, there have been a number of changes. Some changes were made to respond to the February 2003 amendment of STOPPP's NPDES permit. This permit amendment added specific detailed requirements for stormwater pollution prevention and treatment at applicable new development and redevelopment projects Other reasons why changes were made included: preparing for changes to the permit based on the requirements of recently reissued municipal stormwater permits in other counties; responding to constructive criticism from the regulatory agencies; incorporating new information and approaches based on experience with the previous plan; or revising outdated information. Performance Standards The most significant changes to the performance standards include the following. Municipal Maintenance Added a new performance standard that each of the municipalities that have a corporation yard will develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that describes how the performance standards for corporation yards will be addressed locally. Developed new performance standards for routine maintenance of creeks and channels to help municipalities obtain necessary environmental permits for this type of work. Updated the performance standards for pesticide usage and integrated pest management (IPM) to support the implementation of STOPPP's Pesticide Management Plan. One example is adding a requirement to implement each municipality's new IPM policy or ordinance. Another example is a new requirement to conduct periodic searches of municipal facilities to make sure pesticides that are no longer legal to use or that no longer are allowed based on municipal policy are found and properly disposed. Added previously agreed to performance standards for all lagoon management activities undertaken by the cities of Foster City, Redwood City and San Mateo. Added previously agreed to performance standards for rural public works maintenance activities that are F:\Sm3x\SM33-02\SWMP TAC Adopted Version\02-EXSUM.DOC ES-5 November 4, 2003 Executive Summary A greater emphasis has been placed on evaluating the effectiveness of the General Program's tasks in order to determine where to make future improvements. This process of measuring effectiveness is modeled after U.S. EPA's requirements for small municipal stormwater programs. The approach for conducting watershed assessments has evolved. During the previous plan the emphasis was on delineating 17 watersheds and collecting data on imperviousness and channel modifications. The new Plan specifies preparing a new multi-year monitoring plan. The new monitoring plan is anticipated to take a more comprehensive approach by focusing on fewer watersheds. This would include compiling all existing data on a watershed, collecting biological data from creeks to assess problems, and conducting focused water quality monitoring where needed to help identify how to solve problems. At some point in the process the correction of specific problems would become the responsibility of the local municipality rather than the General Program. The Plan has a greater emphasis on assisting STOPPP's municipalities to implement improved controls on pollutants of concern, such as, PCBs, mercury, pesticides, sediment, dioxins, and copper. STOPPP will continue to assist the Regional Board to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads to reduce the loading for a number of these pollutants through its continued participation in and funding of the Clean Estuary Partnership. The Industrial and Illicit Discharge Controls section of the Plan contains a new task to assist the municipalities to comply with the NPDES permit's requirements for conditionally exempted discharges. This assistance has increased importance because of the State Water Resources Control Board's adoption of a new permit for low threat discharges to land and as previous Regional Board waivers for minor discharges may no longer be applicable. The New Development and Construction Controls section of the Plan has two new tasks to assist the municipalities to implement the additional new and redevelopment related requirements contained in STOPPP's NPDES permit amendment. This permit amendment represents a significant amount of additional work for both the General Program and the municipalities, and the Plan reflects this change. F:\Sm3x\SM33-02\SWMP TAC Adopted Version\02-EXSUM.DOC ES-7 November 4, 2003 Sta:.:. Re- ort DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Recreation and Community Services Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Sculpture Entitled "Obelisk" for the Orange Memorial Park Sculpture Garden RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the purchase of a sculpture entitled "Obelisk" by Bruce Gueswel, represented by the National Sculptors' Guild in Loveland, Colorado, at a cost of $18,500. The sculpture is to be installed in the Orange Memorial Park Sculpture Garden. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Orange Memorial Park Sculpture Garden was dedicated on September 7, 2002, with one central piece of sculpture installed, a bronze sculpture of a mother and child entitled "Safehaven". In keeping with the Cultural Arts Commission's goal of placing additional pieces of sculpture in the garden over time, a combination of outright purchase of pieces, and a "loan art" program have been implemented. As a result, two small bronze pieces have been purchased, and three "loan art" pieces have been installed since the garden was created. The Sculpture Garden sub-committee is comprised of Joy-Ann Wendler, Dennis Crossland, A1 Dimminger, Karen Ochsenhirt, and Elizabeth Nisperos. The sub-committee focused first on the central area of the garden, and suggested following a nurturing, "universal theme" of family and friendship. In other sections of the garden the Commission would like to see different themes, styles, and materials represented. The piece being recommended for purchase in this report is entitled "Obelisk". According to the artist's statement, it was inspired by a trip to Egypt. The piece was submitted for consideration by the Commission during the national competition which was held in 2001, and which resulted in the selection of Safehaven in 2002. "Obelisk" is made oflNX 50 steel (a material which is designed to seal itself with rust); the rusty appearance is intended as a nice contrast to the green of the garden. It features a top pyramid of thick reflective glass, hieroglyphic symbols cut out of the steel, and the work is lit from within. The piece, which is an Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Sculpture for the Orange Memorial Park Sculpture Garden Date: December 10, 2003 Page 2 original, is a completed sculpture which has been installed in the courtyard of the National Sculptors' Guild in Colorado. If approved for purchase by the City of South San Francisco, it will be relocated to the Sculpture Garden. The piece is to be installed on a rectangular pedestal 36 inches offthe ground. The sculpture is 18 feet in height. Placed on the pedestal, the total height will be 21 feet. The sculpture was designed with an internal "resonant clang" or wind chime, which the Commission plans to disable in its current location due to the possibility of disturbing park users and near-by residents. The gong could be enabled at a future date, or if re-located to a different location. The Commission recommends installing the piece at the end of the walk-way between the tennis courts and the bocce courts, as a visual anchor at the triangular apex of the garden. The plan is to extend the walkway of the sculpture garden in matching colored concrete to enhance the site. No logistical problems have been identified by the maintenance staff for installation or maintenance. The piece does not Present any evident safety hazards to the public. Elevated off the ground on a 3 foot pedestal, the sculpture would be difficult to climb. The steel material used is durable and not easily damaged. Staff believes the piece can be installed in-house, with assistance from the artist's representative. Lighting will likewise be done in-house. The cost for the piece is as follows: Purchase Price $16,000 Delivery/Installation 2,500 (includes travel by the artist's representative from the National Sculptors' Guild) Total: $18,500 In addition to the contract amount, staff is estimating $2,500 for materials costs for the lighting and concrete required for the installation. Staff believes the piece can be installed with the city's crane truck, but has allowed for possible crane rental if necessary. At their regular meeting on November 20, 2003, the full Commission voted unanimously in favor of recommending the piece "Obelisk" to the City Council for approval. A color copy of the piece is attached. FUNDING: If approved, this purchase will be expended from the capital funds administered by the Commission through the operating budget. Although the Commission did not receive any Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Sculpture for the Orange Memorial Park Sculpture Garden Date: December 10, 2003 Page 3 allocation during the current year due to efforts to reduce the budget, sufficient funds remain from the Cultural Arts Events Fund that was transferred to the Commission by Resolution 20-98 on February 25, 1998. Expenditure of these funds will come close to depleting the Commission's remaining fund balance of $23,000 for art acquisition. After this expenditure, the Commission would have a total fund balance of approximately $2,000. Sharon Ranals Director of Recreation and Community Services Approved: Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Sculpture Photograph 3. Agreement with National Sculptors' Guild and Bruce Gueswel RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A SCULPTURE ENTITLED "OBELISK" AT A COST OF $18,500 WHEREAS, the Cultural Arts Commission recommends the purchase of a sculpture entitled "Obelisk" by Brace Gueswel, represented by the National Sculptors' Guild in Loveland, Colorado, at a cost of $18,500; and WHEREAS, the sculpture is to be installed in the Orange Memorial Park Sculpture Garden. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the purchase of a sculpture entitled "Obelisk" by Brace Gueswel, represented by the National Sculptors' Guild in Loveland, Colorado, at a cost of $18,500. * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\old. Reso 12_00\12-10sculpture.obelisk,res.doc Bruce Gueswel "Obelisk" 16'H 25"W 25"D Steel CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE NATIONAL SCULPTORS' GUILD AND BRUCE GUESWEL THIS AGREEMENT for personal artistic services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco ("City"), National Sculptors' Guild and Bruce Gueswel (herein' after referred to collectively as "Artist") as of December 11, 2003. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco solicited proposals for a Work of public art (hereinafter called "Work" or "Obelisk Sculpture") to be located in the City's Orange Memorial Park, as more particularly described in Exhibit C, (hereinafter called "Site"); and, WHEREAS, Artist submitted a proposal for Work pursuant to the City's request for proposals; and WHEREAS, Artist was selected by City to sell the finished piece and install Work at the Site; and WHEREAS, City and Artist desire to set forth the terms upon which Artist will produce and install Work for City; NOW, THEREFORE, City and Artist, for the consideration and under the conditions hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Artist shall provide to City the Work described in the Scope of Services attached as Exhibit A at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and any exhibits, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services. Artist shall complete Work it has agreed to perform under this Agreement by the completion date stated in Exhibit A. The time provided to Artist to complete Work required by th/s Agreement shall not affect City's right to terminate the Agreement prior to the date referenced above. 1.2 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Artist. Artist may cancel this Agreement upon five (5) days written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Artist will receive compensation only for actual expenses incurred for installing the Obelisk Sculpture. However, in addition to the terms in subsection 2.5, City may condition payment of such compensation Contractual Services Agreement City of South San Francisco and National Sculptors' Guild/Bruce Gueswel Page 1 of 18 December 2003 their obligations under this Agreement. Delays beyond each party's control shall consist of: 1.7.1.1 Acts of God 1.7.1.2 Death of Artist 1.'/.1.3 Change in federal or state laws affecting the contract 1.'/.1.4 Declaration of a State of Emergency by the Governor/President respectively. Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Artist a sum not to exceed $18,500 notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Artist's proposal, for Work to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Artist's proposal regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Artist for services rendered in delivering and installing Obelisk Sculpture at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified herein shall be the only payments from City to Artist for Work rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Artist shall not be entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing Work under this Agreement. Artist and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Artist under this Agreement is based upon Artist's estimated cost of delivering the unique sculpture, Obelisk as recommended by the Cultural Arts Commission of the City. The parties agree that the compensation provided hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Artist and its employees, agents, and other Artists who may work on the project, may be eli~ble. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. 2.1 Del)osit. City shall pay a deposit of 50% of the total contract amount, ($9,250) to Artist upon execution of this Agreement. 2.2 Final Payment. The second and final payment equal to 50% of the total contract amount ($9,250) shall be due upon final acceptance, as defined in Exhibit A to this Agreement, of the Obelisk Sculpture in Orange Memorial Park. Artist shall submit a final invoice for payment and City shall pay said invoice within 30 days of receipt of same. 2.3 Payment of Taxes. Artist is solely responsible for the payment of ALL taxes incurred under this Agreement. 2.4 Payment ut}on Termination. In the event that Artist terminates this Agreement, Artist shall not be entitled to any compensation for costs incurred or work performed pursuant to this Agreement. If City terminates the Agreement, without cause, City shall compensate the Artist for all outstanding costs incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Artist shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date. If Artist fails to maintain proper documentation for costs and expenses Contractual Services Agreement City of South San Francisco and National Sculptors' Guild/Bruce Gueswel Page 3 of 18 December 2003 Agreement. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate hmit shall'be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles. 4.2.2 Minimum Sco~e of Coveraee. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 (ed. 11/88) or Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (ed. 1/73) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 1 ("any auto"). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. 4.2.2.1 Artist shall maintain appropriate insurance on Work, insuring against potential risk of loss, including but not limited to design, fabrication, transportation and installation, in an amount acceptable and approved by City's Risk Manager. 4.2.3 Additional Reouirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as an endorsement to the policy: City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Artist, including the insured's general supervision of Artist; products and completed operations of Artist; premises owned, occupied, or used by Artist; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Artist. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance with respect to City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. Contractual Services Agreement City of South Sm Francisco and National Sculptors' GuilcVBruce Gueswel Page 5 of 18 December 2003 possible opportunity and in no case later than five days after Artist is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4 Remedies. in addition to an), other remedies City may have if Artist fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or pohcy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Artist's breach: · Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; Order Artist to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment that becomes due to Artist hereunder, until Artist demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. · Terminate this Agreement. Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND ARTIST'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Artist shall indemnify, defend (with Counsel approved by City), and hold harmless City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all liabihty, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or neghgent acts or omissions of Artist or its employees, or agents, or by the quality or character of their work. 5.1 The foregoing obhgation of Artist shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the negligence or willful misconduct of City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Artist to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Artist from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance pohcies shall have been determined to apply. Section 6. ARTIST NO AGENT. Except as City may specify in writing, Artist shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Artist shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REOUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governin~ Law. Agreement. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Contractual Services Agreement City of South San Francisco and National Sculptors' Guild/Brace Gueswel Page 7 of 18 December 2003 and is the professional reputation and competence of Artist. Artist may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the City Council. Artist shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than as noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. 8.3 Death or Serious In|urv/Illness. In the event o£ the serious illness/injury or death of Artist during the construction and/or the installation of the Work, her heirs, family and estate will in no way be responsible for the completion of the unfinished Work nor shall they be entitled to the compensation for uncompleted work due under this contract. 8.4 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Artist' shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. 9.1 Records Created as Part of Artist's Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Artist prepares pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the Artist. 9.2 Artist's Books and Records. Artist shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for Work or expenditures and disbursements charged to City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, fi:om the date of final payment to Artist under this Agreement. 9.3 Inspections and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Artist to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. Section 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in Contractual Services Agreement City of South San Francisco and National Sculptors' Guild/Bruce Oueswel Page 9 of 18 December 2003 10.8 Copyright. This Agreement is for the purchase of the Obelisk Sculpture only. Artist retains Copyright in and to the Work under the Copyright Act of !976, 17 U.S.C., Section 101, et seq., as amended. The sculpture is an original work of art. Artist reserves the fight to produce the Work at any size. Each edition will be clearly marked as a limited edition. If City should desire to place Work in a location that is not shown on Exhibit B, City shall first notify Artist. If Artist objects to the new location, the only remedy available to Artist is to request in writing that City remove the identification plaque referred to in this Agreement and that City not promote Work as that of Artist. Provided however, this provision in no way prohibits City from truthfully responding to inquiries, oral and written, as to the name of Artist. Artist shall not unreasonably object to a change of location or alteration of Site. 10.8.1 Artist hereby retains ownership of the proposal, the drawing(s), models of the sculpture and all property rights related thereto. Artist also retains the fight to claim authorship of Obelisk Sculpture and to reproduce Obelisk Sculpture for promotional purposes so long as a reproduction of the sculpture is not used by any other public entity to create an identical or substantially similar sculpture for use by that entity. 10.8.2 All two-dimensional reproductions by City shall contain a credit to Artist substantially in the following form: "Bryce Gueswel National Sculptors' Guild" 10.9 10.10 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Michael A.Wilson, City Manager ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Adm/nistrator or his designee. Notices. Any written notice to Artist shall be sent to: Mr. Bruce Gueswel C/O National Sculptors' Guild Atto: Nela Huntsinger or John Kinkade 2683 North Taft Avenue Loveland, CO 80538 Ph: 800/606-2015 Fax: 970/667-2018 Contractual Services Agreement City of South San Francisco and National Sculptors' Guild/Brace Gueswel Page 11 of 18 December 2003 Section 12. 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 SUBSEOUENT EVENTS. Maintenance. City and Artist recogrfize that maintenance o£ Work on a regular basis is essential to the integrity of Work. Therefore, City shall assure regular maintenance according to the instructions supphed by Artist as set forth herein in Exhibit A, lmstmctions to City, and may take action reasonably designed to protect Work against vandalism. Reoairs and Restoration. After final acceptance of Work, Artist may inspect Work at his own expense and shall notify City in writing as to the necessity of any repairs. City may in its discretion consult with Artist and make the noted repairs. All such consultations shall be without additional cost to City. .. Alteration of Work. City will modifications, or change to Work. Work to a third party. not consent to intentional alterations, City shall retain the right to sell or donate Alteration of Site. City shall notify Artist of any proposed significant alterations of Site within fifty (50) yards of Work. Artist may at his sole expense request copies of plans detailing proposed alterations to Site. If such alterations cannot be undertaken to the reasonable satisfaction of Artist, he may request the pubhc notice referred to in this Agreement be removed and otherwise proceed in accordance with Section 10.8. Waiver of Rights. Artist understands and agrees that the provisions of this section shall control over the provisions of 17 U.S.C. - 106A (a) and other laws granting Artist any "moral rights" or similar fights as to Work, and shall constitute a waiver by Artist of any rights with the exception of copyright, in Work set out in or otherwise granted by 17 U.S.C. - 106A (a) or in such other laws. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ARTIST Michael A. Wilson, City Manager Brace Gueswel, Artist Attest: John Kinkade, National Sculptors' Guild Sylvia Payne, City Clerk Contractual Services Agreement City of South San Francisco and National Sculptors' Guild/Brace Gueswel Page 13 of 18 December 2003 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES A. General Artist shall complete the installation and fabrication of Work in conformity with the specifications set forth below: Bruce Gueswel has designed and fabricated an edition of Obelisk Sculpture. Work shall be installed by John Kinkade as described herein. The specifications of Work are as. follows: Title: "Obelisk" Dimensions: 18' (h) x 2S"(w) x 2S" (d) Medium [NX 50 Steel/Glass Dome The permanent location for Work at Site shall be in the City's Orange Memorial Park at a location selected by City as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. City shall have the right to review the progress of Work at reasonable times, and with advance notice, during the fabrication thereof. Artist shall submit such reports regarding the progress of Work as City may request. Artist shall complete installation of Work in coordination with the construction of the site, no later than March 15, 2004 (hereinafter called 'Installation Date"). John Kinkade or Bruce Gueswel shall be on site for the installation, and shall incur all travel and expenses with no compensation fi:om City. City is unable to store the piece, and it shall not be dehvered prior to the installation date. 5. Artist shall notify City in writing when Artist is ready to deliver Work and install it at the Site. Artist shall work with City in the development of the plan for Site. Artist shall provide specifications for the pedestal and mounting and documentation that a structural engineer has approved the design. City shall be responsible for all expenses, materials, labor and equipment to prepare Site for the timely installation of Work. Artist shall deliver and install the completed Work at Site. Artist shall pay for cost of delivery and installation, not including the cost of crane rental, if necessary, at Site. Contractual Services A~eement City of South San Francisco and National Sculptors' Guild/Bruce Gueswel Page 15 of 18 December 2003 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE CERTIFICATES Contractual Services Agreement City of South San Francisco and National Sculptors' Guild/Bruce Gueswel Page 17 of 18 December 2003 StaffReport DATE: December 10, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: SUBJECT: Library Director RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,802 FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY AND THE CITIGROUP FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT PROJECT READ SERVICES AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2003/2004 OPERATING BUDGET. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution accepting grants totaling $34,802 from the California State Library and the Citigroup Foundation. Funds from these grants are to be designated to Project Read and should amend the Library Department's 2003/2004 operating budget. BACKGROUND Project Read has been awarded a grant of $26,527 from the California Library and Literacy Services (CLLS) as part of an annual allocation to support Project Read programming including a) one-on-one adult tutoring services, b) the Families for Literacy program, and c) the Learning Wheels project. This award reflects a new CLLS funding formula developed as a result of the changes both in the way literacy services are funded, and on a change in the legislation authorizing literacy services that was enacted during the recent state budget process. Project Read has been awarded a Library Services and Instruction Act (LSTA) grant of $6,275 from the California State Library to broaden the involvement of libraries in Reach Out and Read (ROR), a program that works through healthcare providers to encourage parents to read aloud to their young children. Children are given a "prescription" to read and receive a free book during health visits. Finally, Project Read was awarded an additional $2,000 grant from the Citigroup Foundation to support Project Read's one-on-one tutoring services. These funds will be used to purchase textbooks and support promotional activities. City Council accepted a $2,000 grant from the Citigroup Foundation at the October 22, 2003 meeting. Citigroup staffhas doubled this amount in appreciation of Project Read services. FUNDING: Grant funds received in fiscal year 2003/2004 will be used to amend the Library Department's current budget. Funds not expended by the end of fiscal year 2003/2004 will be carried over into fiscal year 2004/2005. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycles. Valerie Sommer Library Director Approved' City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,802 FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY AND CITIGROUP FOUNDATION AND AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET (NO. 04-9) WHEREAS, staff recommends the City accept grants totaling $34,802 from the Califomia State Library and Citigroup Foundation; and WHEREAS, funds from these grants are to be designated to Project Read. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $43,802 from the California State Library and Citigroup Foundation and amends the Library's 2003- 2004 Operating Budget to add $34,802. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\l 2-10library.res.doc { Staff Xeport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council Library Director RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $181,682 IN GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2003-2004 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution accepting grants in the amounts of $80,000 from the Partnership for the Public's Health, $50,322 from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency, $41,360 from the Peninsula Partnership for Children Youth and Families, and $10,000 from the Peninsula Community Foundation to fund various projects of the South San Francisco Community Partnership and amend the Library Department's 2003- 2004 budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The South San Francisco Community Parmership (SSFCP) is a parmership of the City of South San Francisco, the South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo County Health Services Agency and Human Services Agency, community-based agencies and community members, and is administered by the Library. The SSFCP has been awarded $80,000 for this grant year from the Partnership for the Public's Health and $50,322 from the San Mateo County Health Services agency to work on outcomes related to improving resident health and quality of life. Major projects include enrolling children and families in low and no-cost health insurance programs and connecting residents to job training services. The SSFCP has been working with Peninsula Works to develop a "train the trainers" program where local residents receive specialized job skills training - such as how to research jobs, write a resume and interview - and then teach these skills to the greater community. This year the Partnership has served 140 individuals seeking job-training resources and has enrolled over 200 children in free and low cost health insurance programs. The SSFCP was recently awarded $41,360 from the Peninsula Parmership for Children Youth and Families from the San Mateo County First Five Commission to continue the successful Summer Transitional Kindergarten program in which over 350 students about to enter kindergarten participate in kindergarten-readiness classes at their future elementary school site. Finally, the SSFCP has been awarded $10,000 from the Peninsula Community Foundation to develop an aRer school literacy program for approximately 30 third grade students at Sunshine Gardens Elementary school. Staff Report Subject: Resolution accepting $181,682 in grant funds for the SSFCP Page 2 FUNDING The funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Departmem. Funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2003/2004 will be carded over into fiscal year 2004/2005. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycles. Valerie Sommer Library Director Approved: ~~ Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $181,682 IN GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S OPERATING BUDGET (04~11) WHEREAS, staff desires the acceptance of grants in the amount of $80,000 from the Partnership for the Public's Health, $50,322 from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency, $41,360 from the Peninsula Partnership for Children Youth and Families, and $10,000 from the Peninsula Community Foundation to fund various projects of the South San Francisco Community Parmership; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department; and WHEREAS, funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2003-2004 will be carried over into fiscal year 2004-2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the acceptance of $181,682 in grant funding to support the South San Francisco Community Partnership and amends the Library Department's 2003-2004 Operating Budget (04-11) to add $181,682. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\l 2-101ibraryfunds.res.doc StaffXeport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council Police Department BUDGET AMENDMENT - SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution to amend the Police Department's current budget to include the $100,000.00 the Department will receive from the State under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) Program. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION During 1996, Assembly Bill No. 3229 passed which required that $100 million of the State's 1996-997 Budget be appropriated to create a new subvention to augment local law enforcement efforts. As a result, the City initially received $132,438.20. Although it was reported to be one-time supplemental funding for front line police activities, we have received the funding yearly. Once again, the Department has been made aware that the State will continue the SLESF program for the 2003-2004 fiscal year and that our allotment is $100,000.00. The initial year's SLESF allotment money was used to hire two officers and purchase safety equipment. This year's SLESF funds will continue to be used as in the past. To track expenditures, Fund 39 has been established for the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund. FUNDING No gCeral fi~,obl~'~ns. The entire amount is provided by the State. Approved: /~:~'~/~ Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALWORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2003-2004 OPERATING BUDGET (04-10) TO INCLUDE THE $100,000 THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL RECEIVE FROM THE STATE UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND (SLESF) PROGRAM WHEREAS, Assembly Bill No. 3229 requires that $100 million of the State's 1996-97 budget be appropriated to create a new subvention to augment local law enforcement efforts; and WHEREAS, the initial year's SLESF allotment money was used to hire two officers and purchase safety equipment; and WHEREAS, this year's SLESF funds will continue to be used for the same purpose as in the past. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council approves an amendment to the 2003-2004 Operating budget (04-10) to include the $100,000 the Police Department will receive from the State under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) Program. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\Current Reso's\l 2-10 S LESF.res.doc { Staff Xeport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 10, 2003 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Assistant City Manager Application for HOME Funding to San Mateo County RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing staff to request $500,000 in HOME funds fi.om the San Mateo County HOME Consortium for funds available though the HOME Investment Partnership Act and designating a contact person for the City. BACKGROUND: The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National Affordable Housing Act provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and is therefore eligible to apply for funding fi.om the fiscal year 2004 HOME allocation. For fiscal year 2004, the San Mateo County HOME Consortium has $5,838,400 available for housing projects. Funds will be distributed on a competitive basis through a request for proposals process administered by the County. Housing Development, Acquisition and Rehabilitation The department of Economic and Community Development sponsors affordable housing construction, acquisition and rehabilitation efforts by leveraging State, Federal and local Redevelopment funding sources. Over the last ten years, the City has secured HOME Consortium funds for projects which include Willow Gardens, the Metropolitan Hotel, a Commercial Avenue four-plex, and the Grand Hotel and Apartments. The City applies yearly for HOME dollars, on a competitive basis, and has successfully secured over $1.5 million dollars in the last ten years to undertake affordable housing projects. Funds may be used by the City for direct expenditure or may be issued as low interest loans to a private or not for profit developer to jointly undertake the production of housing units that will be affordable to low-income residents. Eighty percent (80%) of the units purchased with HOME funds will be affordable to households earning less than 60 percent of the area median income, and twenty percent (20%) of the units will be affordable to families earning less than 50 percent of the area median income. Under the program, 30 year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded with the property to ensure future affordability. STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: Application for HOME Funding to San Mateo County DATE: December 10, 2003 Page 2 On the horizon for the next year are several potential housing projects which would benefit from an infusion of additional funds. Typically, the City applies for funding and identifies several projects that are eligible for HOME funds. During the year, the project that moves forward to implementation will receive the allocated funds. The most likely projects for the next fiscal year include: · Habitat for Humanity, could potentially develop four units of new construction, available to very low income first time homeowners. · Downtown Family Housing, could potentially develop forty units of affordable rental housing units in the downtown district, co-sponsored by Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition. · Downtown Multi Family Acquisition and Rehabilitation, program could acquire five to seven units of existing housing units to be rehabilitated and permanently maintained as affordable to low income families. As one of these projects is able to move forward, it would come before City Council for approval and authorization for use of funds. This request to the County's HOME program would set aside the amount of $500,000 to be allocated by the City Council for its selected development at a later date. The City would be obligated to expend the funds within two years or the money goes back to the HOME Consortium. HOME funds could be expended directly by the City or loaned at low interest to a private or not for profit development partner. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to request $500,000 in HOME funds from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and designating Armando Sanchez as the contact person for the City with regard to the application. Since HOME funds are awarded through a through a competitive process open to applicants throughout the County, there is no guarantee that the City's application will be funded. City Manager MAW:MVD: NF Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORING STAFF TO REQUEST $500,000 IN HOME FUNDS FROM THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM FOR FUNDS AVAILABLE THOUGH THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ACT AND DESIGNATING A CONTACT PERSON FOR THE CITY WHEREAS, it is recommend that the City request $500,000 in HOME funds from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium, and designate Armando Sanchez as the contact person for the City with regard to the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes staffto request $500,000 in HOME funds from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium for funds available though the HOME Investment Partnership Act and designates Armando Sanchez as the contact person for the City. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\Current Reso's\l 2-10home.fund .res. doc 14. Motion to cancel regular meeting of December 24, 2003 Staff Report DATE: December 10, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Appeal of: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new dwelling unit and lot split in an existing residential subdivision, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Residential Planned Unit Development Modification allowing a lot split and a new single family dwelling. 3. Tentative Parcel Map allowing an existing 24,225 square foot lot to be split into a 13,335 square foot lot and a 10,890 square foot lot. 4. Design Review of a new 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF. Property Location: 22 Vista Court in the Single Family Residential (R-I- C-P) Zone District. SSFMC: Chapters 20.68 & 20.78 & 20.85 and Title 19. Owner: Nannette and Frank J. Diokno Applicant: Pedro Dimaculangan Case Nos.: PUD 02-0019, SA 02-0019, DR 02-0019 & MND 02-0019 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 4 bedroom single family dwelling unit containing 2,757 SF and a lot split in an existing residential subdivision, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development allowing a lot split and a new single family dwelling; 3) Tentative Parcel Map allowing an existing 24,225 square foot lot to be split into a 13,335 square foot and 10,890 square foot lot; 4) Design Review of a new single family dwelling, subject to making the required findings of approval and adopting conditions of approval. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 2 of 14 BACKGROUND: Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meetings of May 15, July 17, and October 2, 2003. During the course the Planning Commissioners discussed a number of issues, many of which were raised by the community, and concentrated on several issues including, but not limited to, potential loss of views, the architectural compatibility of the proposed dwelling, compatibility of the lot split, the soils report and the CC&Rs. The following section contains a brief summary and analysis of the key issues and appeal issues, and the Planning Commission discussion and conclusions regarding each issue. Thereafter the sections contain a summary of each Commission meeting, detailed project analysis, environmental summary and recommendation. The appeal letter and City staffresponse is contained in Exhibit #A. Key Issues The key issues include architectural compatibility of the proposed dwelling, and lot split, potential loss of views, slope stability and soils report and the limitations of the CC&Rs. Architectural Compatibility The initial reaction of the Planning Commission was that the dwelling was too large, being approximately 3,700 square feet with 5 bedrooms, that the building was too tall, and that the front building elevation was too long. The revised plans approved by the Planning Commission included a reduction of approximately 1,000 SF to a building size of 2,757 SF, a reduction of the number of bedrooms - reduced to 4 bedrooms from the previous proposal of 5 bedrooms, building height along the street frontage reduction to 12 feet (from street grade to roof peak), while overall height remains at 25 feet as measured from average grade (well within the 35 feet maximum allowed by the R-1 Zoning District development standards), street elevation and front entry revised to reduce the real and perceived overall mass, length of the dwelling reduced by 12 feet more closely approximates that of the neighboring buildings and both the roof mass and the rear building massing were reduced and rearticulated. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the relation of the size of the lot in relationship to the dwelling was less than 0.4, below both the neighborhood average of 0.42 and the FAR identified in the General Plan of 0.5. Prior to making its decision, the Planning Commission continued the matter off calendar from the meeting of (July 17, 2003) and requested that the applicant and a small group of representatives of the neighborhood meet and work together to scale down the dwelling and improve the dwelling's To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 3 of 14 architectural compatibility with the neighborhood. Although the applicant reduced the size the dwelling and made other changes, unfortunately no consensus was achieved between the applicant and the neighborhood representatives. Lot Compatibility While the size of the proposed new lot is larger than all of the other neighboring lots, it was originally approved as a separate lot and intended to be developed with a dwelling as part of the W.W. Dean 65 acre 299 unit residential subdivision plans approved in the late 1970's and developed in the late 1970's and early 1980's. During the construction permit process the developer realized that the site would require a custom dwelling. Rather than absorb the cost of developing a special model just for the one lot, the developer merged the adjoining lots. The proposed lot is substantially the same size and design as the originally approved lot. A Tentative Parcel Map was approved to split the 24,225 SF lot into two separate lots with areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF. The approved map complies with the City requirements delineated in Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. An analysis of the key development characteristics of the dwellings fronting on Vista Court including address, lot area, floor area, FAR and bedrooms per dwelling, is contained in Appendix A, and shows that the proposed lots comply with existing pattern of development. The lot areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF comply with the minimum lot area of 8,710 SF required by the R-l- C Zoning District and better match the lot sizes and pattern of development of the surrounding residences. Of the 32 lots that front on Vista Court, the uphill lots [11 thru 21Vista Court and 36 thru 42 Vista Court] are generally less than 5,000 SF. The down slope facing lots [22 thru 35 Vista Court] are slightly larger, averaging over 6,000 SF. The lots on the northerly ends of the DU Ul tile lUte, or yq--/o Ol tile total lots on Vista Court do not meet the minimum Zoning Code requirement of 8,710 SF. Over 44% of the lots [14 lots] exceed the maximum density allowed by the adopted General Plan. The existing subject lot is the largest single lot and more than 3.5 times the average lot size and more than double the size of the second largest lot - 24 Vista Court. The lot split approved by the Planning Commission resulted in lots of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF that are more in keeping with the size of lots in the subdivision, the lots of the down slope side of the street and the lots at the northerly terminus of the cul-de-sac and conform with the Zoning and General plan density requirements. The Planning Commission determined that the lot was compatible with the neighborhood. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 4 of 14 Potential Loss Of Views The development of the site has the potential to affect views of SSF and adjoining communities from Vista Court and 4 to 5 dwellings on the westerly end of the Court. The Planning Commission advised the opponents that the City does not have a view protection ordinance, that the Commission could not deny an application due to real or perceived view loss, and noted that the applicant had significantly revised to plans to preserve views from the adjacent dwelling. The Planning Commission acknowledged that views from the sidewalk would be obscured by the new dwelling, but that the majority of the views across the site would remain open and that view loss from the existing dwellings would be minimal. The neighbors were concerned that the loss of views would diminish their property values. No factual information pertaining to effect on property value was presented at the heatings. However, it was noted by the Planning Commission and City staff that the new dwelling, representing an improvement, could increase and reinforce the property values. Slope Stability/Soils Reports As required of most development on sloping sites in the City, city staff required the applicant to prepare a soils report for the site, design a foundation system for the building and conduct a peer review by the City' s soils expert as prerequisites to review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission and City stafftook the matter of slope stability as an important and serious matter. The applicant was required to have a soils report prepared and the building foundation designed, based on the soils report data, as part of the submittal. The soils report was prepared by the same firm that conducted the soils report for the original W.W. Dean subdivision to insure accuracy and high level of site expertise. The report was required to be reviewed by the City's own soils and geotechnical expert, at the applicant's expense. The City has utilized our soils expert for over 20 years and has a high level of trust and confidence in the thoroughness and quality of the peer review. The City has employed this practice on virtually all sloping sites. The peer review concluded that the soils report was adequate and the foundation system would meet state and local standards. At the Planning Commission in May 2003, the neighbors expressed concern regarding development of the site and questioned the validity of the soils report. In response the Planning Commission directed staff to review the various soils reports and the original subdivision files for information relevant to any conditions of approval restricting the lot split. City staff completed this task and reported to the Commission at their July 17, 2003, meeting. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 5 of 14 The site consists of a man-made cut slope and it is by definition not in a natural state. City staff reviewed the previous subdivision file and all soils studies prepared for the subdivision and reported that the subdivision does not contain any conditions of approval that restrict the lot split. The 2003 soils report is an update of the 1988 report. The 2003 report is substantively consistent with the previous report. The City's peer review report id substantively consistent with both the 1988 and 2003 reports. A minor inconsistency between the 2003 report and the peer review report does exist in the stated distance to the San Andreas Fault line or zone, with one report stating a distance of.5 mile and the other stating .75 mile. This is a minor issue and does not make a substantial difference as to the performance of the site during a seismic event. The development site as all of the other surrounding properties have weathered all the seismic events since 1977 including the most significant event - the 1989 earthquake without any damage to the slope. The Planning Commission determined that the site is stable and is developable. WHOA Actions/CC&Rs The appeal letter states that the Planning Commission's decision was based on the Westborough Homeowners Association approval which totally disregarded existing homeowner's by-law and past practices. The appeal letter asserts that it has been the practice of the Westborough Homeowners Association (WHOA) to require the applicant to seek the neighbor's approval for the prospective project. Only when there is positive response from the neighbors is the project reviewed and The letter continues that in this case, the WHOA not only ignored the sentiments of the 178 objecting homeowners but practiced selective and discriminatory implementation of the CC&Rs by disregarding one of its rules, CC&R article VI section 6.09, prohibiting the obstruction of view during its approval process. The appeal letter contends that during the last public heating, the representative of the WHOA board had misrepresented the neighborhood by indicating that the applicants followed procedures. The appellants contend that the applicants did not follow procedures; they instead went ahead and submitted the project to the Planning Commission still without the neighborhood's approval. The -WHOA board approved the plan without due process and without proper notice to the neighboring homes which were directly affected by the plan. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 6 of 14 During the public heating process the Assistant City Attorney advised the Planning Commission not to rely on the WHOA decisions nor the CC&Rs. Whether the WHOA acted properly or not is not relevant to the Planning Commission's action and is a civil matter between the property owners and the WHOA Board. The Planning Commission's Findings of Approval are based on neither the WHOA decisions nor the CC&Rs but instead are based on the requirements of the SSFMC Title 20. May 15th Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commissioners took testimony in opposition to the new dwelling and lot split and discussed several issues including, but not limited to, potential loss of views, the architectural compatibility of the proposed dwelling, compatibility of the lot split, the adequacy of the soils report and the HOA review and the CC&R requirements related to the lot split and design review. The Commissioners expressed concern that the new dwelling was too large and was not compatible with the adjacent existing dwellings. The Commissioners directed the applicant to obtain elevation reference points for the surrounding properties so that they could better understand the sectional view diagrams relating to the view issue, revise the perspective drawings to include the new elevation data, revise the plans to improve the architectural compatibility of the new dwelling by reducing the size, making the front building elevation more similar to the existing dwellings, reducing the building height and terracing the building. The Planning Commission directed staff to review the various soils reports and the original subdivision files for information relevant to any conditions of approval restricting the lot split. At the meeting a number of persons, including many from the previous Commission meeting, spoke in opposition repeating the previous key concerns - slope stability, adequacy of the soils report, loss of views, and the architectural compatibility of the proposed dwelling. The Planning Commissioners discussed the applicant's revised plans the issues re-identified by the persons speaking in opposition. The applicant's revised plans included the elevation data of the surrounding properties, and an alternative plan that included a smaller dwelling. City staff reviewed the previous subdivision file and all soils studies prepared for the subdivision and reported that the subdivision does not contain any conditions of approval that restrict the lot To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 7 of 14 split. Staffnoted that the original subdivision approved by the Planning Commission allowed 299 lots including the proposed lot. At the time the approval was appealed by several neighbors. The applicant met with the residents and reduced the number of lots to 288. Subsequently, the Planning Commission approved the revised plans [that still included the proposed lot]. City records indicate that the developer chose to revise the final map prior to recordation to eliminate the proposed lot apparently because of the expense of designing and constructing a separate model for the one lot. The approved subdivision map and landscape plan for Vista Court are attached. Staff noted that the 2003 soils report is an update of the 1988 report. The 2003 report does not appear to contain any substantive inconsistencies nor contradict the previous report. The City's peer review report is substantively consistent with both the 1988 and the 2003 reports. A minor inconsistency between the 2003 report and the peer review report does exist in the stated distance to the San Andreas Fault line or zone, with one report stating a distance of .5 mile and the other stating .75 mile. This is a minor issue and does not make a substantial difference as to the performance of the site during a seismic event. The development site as all of the other surrounding properties have weathered all the seismic events since 1977 including the most significant event - the 1989 earthquake without any damage to the slope. The City Attorney reviewed the CC&Rs minutes of the Homeowners Association and determined that the Association is empowered to review the design of the new dwelling. The Attorney advised the Commission not to consider the actions of the Association, but to make its own independent determination. The applicant's legal representative provided a written response to several of the concerns raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. The applicant's reviewed the chronology and summarized neighborhood meetings. A copy of the summary is attached to this staff report. At the conclusion of the meeting the Planning Commission continued the matter off calendar and directed that the applicant and a small group of representatives of the neighborhood meet and work together to scale down the dwelling and improve the dwelling's architectural compatibility with the neighborhood. October 2na Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission again took public testimony and reviewed the revised plans. The applicant reported that they met with several neighbors and with the Homeowners Association. In preparation for the meeting, the applicant reported that they had revised plans reducing the size To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 8 of 14 of the proposed dwelling, dropping the building height, reducing the building length, and increasing the views from neighboring properties. At the meetings the neighbors apparently did not make a decision regarding the dwelling and the Homeowners Association supported the revised plans. The applicant's brief chronology and summary of the meeting outcomes is attached to this staff report. After lengthy discussion the Commissioners approved the development. The Commissioners noted that the applicant had diligently worked with the HOA, the neighbors, and City staff. They noted that the applicants had gone through a rigourous development review including both numerous neighborhood meetings and public meetings, and that they had met the City's development standards and Design Review Guidelines. They found that the Soils Report was adequate and the lot and new dwelling would be state of the art and exceed the development standards required of the existing dwellings approved as part of the original W.W. Dean subdivision. They noted that the plans had been substantially revised from the original plans reviewed by the Commission and that the new dwelling and lot split would be compatible with the neighborhood, would not cause any significant adverse effects to the neighborhood, that the revised plans preserved a large percentage of views, and that new dwelling would be required to make improvements to prevent storm water runoff onto downhill properties. Appeal The appeal reiterates the concerns raised by the opponents at each of the Planning Commission meetings. Attachments to the appeal request contain many of the prepared statements read into the record at the Planning Commission meetings. The appeal letter is attached to the staff report. The appeal identifies seven primary concerns: 1. Selective and Discriminatory implementation of the HOA's and CC&R's. 2. Safety. 3. Deception. 4. Parking. 5. Loss of Views and Adverse Impacts on Existing Property Value 6. Outdated Soils Repons. 7. Others. The Planning Commission took great efforts to involve the public by conducting several meetings, to patiently listen and respond to all of the speakers issues, carefully deliberated and weighed the evidence, and determined that the revised plans were appropriate for the To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 9 of 14 development site, as documented in the Commission record and in the Findings of Approval. The Planning Commission noted that applicant followed all of the Commission's directions and requests and went out of their way to involve the community and that applicant had significantly revised the plans in response to the input from the community. A point-by-point response to the letter is contained in Exhibit #A. DISCUSSION: The ~/2 acre site is now comprised of single parcel. The application includes splitting the existing lot into two lots and the construction of a single family dwelling. The project site's General Plan land use designation, Low Density Residential, allows single family dwellings up to a density of 8.0 units per net acre. The proposed development density of 3.64 units per net acre complies with the density limits established by the General Plan. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. A key policy pertinent to the development is Policy 2-1-17 [page 63] as follows: "Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum." The proposed development complies with Policy 2-1-17. None of the existing Vista Court slopes is natural. The existing slopes, including the project site, are the result of grading operations associated with the original subdivision development in 1980. The development of the new g fo!! ' ' dwe!!in ows the contours of the ~l~,p~ ~,,,~ o,-~,q~,,o i~ ,, ...... ,q ,,, ~,~ v,~,,, ,,, , ............ The present zoning is Low Density Residential (R-1-C-P) allows the proposed density and the single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development to allow a lot split creating a lot with an area of 13,335 SF and a lot with an area of 10,890 SF. The new lots with comply with the City's standard development standards as displayed in the following tables: To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 10 of 14 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Total Site Area: 0.56 acres [24,225 SF] Proposed New Lot & Dwelling Minimum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Density: Maximum: Height Maximum: Automobile Parking Single Family Minimum: 3 Floor area: 5.0 Du/Ac. 35 FT Proposed Change to Lot Coverage: Maximum: Setbacks: 50% Minimum Front 15 FT Side 5 FT Rear 20 FT Existing Lot & Dwelling Minimum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Density: Maximum: T-T~i c~ht Maximum: Automobile Parking: Single Family Minimum: 2 Floor area: 5.0 Du/Ac. 35 FT Lot Coverage: Maximum: 50% Setbacks: Minimum Front 15FT Side 5 FT Rear 20 FT Proposed Lot Area: 10,890 SF Proposed: 3.64 Du/Ac Proposed: 25FT Proposed: 3+ Driveway Proposed: 2,757 SF [4 Bedrooms] Proposed: 20.6% Proposed 16 FT 8 FT - 58 FT 20 FT - 22 FT Proposed Lot Area: 13,335 SF Proposed: 3.64 Du/Ac Existing: 25FT Existing: 2+ Driveway Existing: 2,208 SF [4 Bedrooms] Proposed: 17% Existing 15 FT 5 FT - 100 FT 18 FT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 11 of 14 The dwelling approved by the Planning Commission was reduced by nearly 1,000 square feet to a floor area of 2,757 SF, and the number of bedrooms was reduced to 4 bedrooms from the previous proposal of 5 bedrooms. Building height along the street frontage was reduced to 12 feet (from street grade to roof peak), while overall height remains at 25 feet as measured from average grade (well within the 35 feet maximum allowed by the R-1 Zoning District development standards). The street elevation and front entry was revised to reduce the real and perceived overall mass. The length of the dwelling was reduced by 12 feet and now more closely approximates that of the neighboring building. The roof mass was reduced and the rear building massing was reduced and articulation enhanced. The approved project also includes parking for three vehicles in a two car garage and a parallel open parking area. None of the required parking is in any required setback. The driveway apron provides additional parking spaces. A Tentative Parcel Map was approved to split the 24,225 SF lot into two separate lots with areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF. The approved map complies with the City requirements delineated in Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. An analysis of the key development characteristics of the dwellings fronting on Vista Court including address, lot area, floor area, FAR and bedrooms per dwelling, contained in Appendix A, show that the proposed lots better comply with existing pattern of development. The lot areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF comply with the minimum lot area of 8,710 SF required by the R-l- C Zoning District and better match the lot sizes and pattern of development of the surrounding residences. Of the 32 lots that front on Vista Court the uphill lots [11 thru 21Vista Court and 36 thru 42 Vista Court] are generally less than 5,000 SF. The down slope facing lots [22 thru 35 cul-de-sac [20 thru 22 Vista Court] are larger in size. Approximately 30 of the lots, or 94% of the total lots on Vista Court do not meet the minimum Zoning Code requirement of 8,710 SF. Over 44% of the lots [ 14 lots] exceed the maximum density allowed by the adopted General Plan. The existing subject lot is the largest single lot and more than 3.5 times the average lot size and more than double the size of the second largest tot - 24 Vista Court. The lot split approved by the Planning Commission resulted in lots of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF that are more in keeping with the size of lots in the subdivision, the lots of the down slope side of the street and the lots at the northerly terminus of the cul-de-sac and conform with the Zoning and General plan density requirements. The size of the new dwelling while larger than the other dwellings is proportionate to the area. The proposed and reduced Floor Area Ratio [FAR] of 0.21 is in keeping with the area average of To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 12 of 14 0.42. The proposed 4 bedroom dwelling now matches the neighborhood average of 4 bedrooms per dwelling. The new development, while increasing the demand for on-street parking will result in the loss of at most only one parking space. It is consistent with the single family neighborhood design of one driveway per dwelling. On-street parking amounts to approximately to one or two spaces per dwelling. The new dwelling will result in the loss of approximately only one on-street space and will provide a total of 6 on-site spaces [a ratio of more than 1 space per bedroom]. The development site frontage currently provides public parking for a total of about 8 vehicle spaces, more than any other single lot along Vista Court. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The revised project was reviewed by the Design Review Board members at their meetings of March 19, 2002, October 15, 2002 and September 16, 2003. At the first meeting the Board offered the following suggestions: 1. Change the front entry to a less grandiose, single-story design more in harmony with the other homes on the street. 2. Raise the view terrace behind the house to be flush with the lower floor of the house to help reduce the overall height of the rear elevation. 3. Change the roof end on the right side of the front elevation from a gable end to a hip. 4. Plant trees and ground cover suitable for erosion control on the slope below the house. Consult landscape architect or horticulturist to determine which species would be most suitable and effective. 5. Reduce the overall size of the house so that it is closer in size to the other homes in th~ n~ crhl~r~rhc~r~rl The applicant revised the plans to incorporate the Board's comments. At the second meeting the Board approved the proposed plans and suggested that the applicant revise the plans to accomplish the following: 1. Fruit trees should be planted at a minimum of 28' on center. 2. Plants around the house should be upgraded from 1-gallon size to 5-gallon size. At the meeting in September 2003 the Board informally reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval. The applicant will incorporate the comments as part of the construction plans. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 13 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The document was circulated for 20 days commencing on April 4, 2003 and ending on April 23, 2003. The document focused on a dew key concerns including slope stability, storm water runoff and construction impacts. A Geologic and Geotechnical Report was prepared by dated for the proposed development. The report was peer reviewed by the City's consultant Cotton Shires & Associates. The report and review determined that the proposed single family dwelling was suitable for the site subject to the implementation of the recommendations of the report and the peer review. The development could increase storm water runoff onto neighboring down slope properties. As part of the required Mitigation Measures, the development will be required to collect and divert all runoff from the site into the City's storm drainage system as indicated on the proposed plans. Construction of the new single family dwelling will result in short term impacts potentially including noise, storm water runoff and fugitive dust. As required Mitigation Measures the applicant will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance [SSFMC Chapter 8.32], implement an approved Storm Water Prevention Plan, and frequently water the site to suppress dust. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that the Mitigation Measures are implemented. With implementation of the mitigation measures the impacts will be reduced to a level less than significant. A form letter from PG&E was received regarding the environmental review. City staff discussed the letter with Mr. Pooh, a representative of PG&E. Mr. Pooh indicated that the letter was intended to merely advise the City of PG&E's broad development concerns, was not intended to indicate that P.G.&E. would not be able to provide service to a new dwelling in a long response. A follow-up letter from Mr. Poon was received on June 30 that supported the application. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: The lot split creating a 13,335 SF lot and 10,890 SF and construction ora new 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF are consistent with the City's General Plan and with all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning (SSFMC Title 20) and Subdivision Ordinances SSFMC (Title 19). The City Council should uphold the Planning Commission decision by denying the appeal and approving 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 4 bedroom single family dwelling unit containing 2,757 SF and a lot split in an existing residential subdivision, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development allowing a lot split and a new single To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: 22 Vista Court Date: December 10, 2003 Page 14 of 14 family dwelling; 3) Tentative Parcel Map allowing an existing 24,225 square foot lot to be split into a 13,335 square foot and 10,890 square foot lot; and 4) Design Review ora new single family dwelling. M~~ity Manager ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A: Vista Court Development Data Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map Findings of Approval PUD Findings of Approval Exhibit A: City Responses to the Appeal Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2003 July 17, 2003 October 2, 2003 DRB Minutes March 19, 2002 October 15, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report May 15, 2003 July 17, 2003 Appeal Letter Applicant's Meeting Summary Plans APPENDIX: A VISTA COURT DEVELOPMENT DATA FLOOR ADDRESS LOT AREA AREA FAR 11 4505 1670 0.49 12 4617 1670 0.48 13 4472 1900 0.54 14 5005 1670 0.44 15 5120 1670 0.43 16 4500 1900 0.53 17 4277 1900 0.56 18 4416 1670 0.5 19 6100 1670 0.36 20 8320 2200 0.32 21 7580 2830 0.44 22 24225 2200 0.11 23 7254 1950 0.32 24 10620 1950 0.22 25 6195 1990 0.39 26 5650 1990 0.42 27 5664 1960 0.42 28 5796 1990 0.41 29 5888 1960 0.41 30 6118 1960 0.39 31 6394 1990 0.37 32 6768 1960 0.35 ~ 6050 1990 ~ A 34 7970 1960 0.3 35 4644 2100 0.55 36 4590 2200 0.58 37 8270 1670 0.27 38 5660 1900 0.42 39 5360 1900 0.45 40 5150 1670 0.43 41 4416 1670 0.5 42 4750 1900 0.51 Lot Area Average: 6,448 SF Floor Area Average: 1,925 SF [Living Area Only] FAR Average: 0.42 Bedroom/DU Average: 4 Notes: Lot Area and Floor Area in Square Feet BEDROOMS 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 22 VISTA COURT MND, PM, PUD & DR 02-0019 (:ts approved by the Planning Commission on October 2, 2003) PLANNING DIVISION requirements shall be as follow: The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Depannuents as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the revised plans prepared by Twelve Star Builders and Cistran Engineers Inc., submitted in association with P02-0019. The landscape plan shall be revised to include spacing the fruit trees a minimum of 28 feet on center, more mature shrubs with a minimum size of 5 gallon, trees shall have a minimum size of 24 inch box and 15% of the total number of proposed trees shall have a minimum size of 36 inch box. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's ChiefPlarmer. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the Final Parcel Map shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration 02-0019. (Planning Contact Person: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) ENGINEERING DIVISION requirements shall be as follows: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONDITIONS The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Tentative Parcel Maps" section of the "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet dated January 1998. The applicant shall pay the City's actual plan check costs to retain a land surveyor to plan check the preliminary map and to sign the parcel map as the City's technical reviewer. Proposed Conditions of Approval P02-0019 Page 2 of 2 NEW HOME PUD CONDITIONS The "recommended actions" outlined in the three-page September 5, 2002 letter report, prepared by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., shall be fully addressed in the design and construction of the new home and shall be incorporated, as appropriate, in the new home construction plans, prior to their submittal to the Building Division for plan checking. o The recommendations contained in the above referenced Geotechnical Review shall be fully incorporated into the project design and construction plans. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve the site development, slope landscaping and foundation plans for the new home. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for a Single Family Home Constructed on an Existing "In- Fill" Lot", section of the "Standard Conddtions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet dated January 1998. A copy of this booklet is available from the Engineering Division at no charge to the applicant. The applicant's house building permit plans shall include the information listed in the Engineering Division's two page "Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals" checklist. o The applicant may need to obtain a grading permit for the prqject, as required by Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code and City Ordinance. Co (Engineering Contact Person: Richard Harmon, 650/829-6652) POLICE DEPARTMENT requirements shall be as follows: Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The applicant can obtain this information free of charge by contacting the South San Francisco Police Department. -3- FINDINGS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP P 02-0019 22 VISTA COURT (As approved by Planning Commission on October 2, 2003) As required by the Tentative Parcel Map Procedures [SSFMC Title 19], the following findings are made in approval of P02-0019, approve a Tentative Parcel Map allowing a lot split of an existing 24,255 SF lot into a 13,335 SF lot and a 10,890 SF lot, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Architectural Plans prepared by Twelve Star Builders, dated June 7, 2002; Civil Engineering Plans prepared by Cistran Engineers, Inc., dated November 15, 2002; Update Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Systems Consultants, dated July 31, 2002; Geotechnical Report peer review conducted by Cotton Shires & Associates dated September 5, 2002; Planning Commission staff report, dated May 15, 2003; Planning Commission staff report of July 17, 2003; Planning Commission staff report of October 2, 2003; Planning Commission meeting of May 15, 2003; Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 2003; and Planning Commission meeting of October 2, 2003: The proposed lot split creating a 13,335 SF and a 10,890 SF lot conforms with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and w/th the requirements of the City of South San Francisco Title 19 Subdivision Code. The map conforms to City standards with regards to design, drainage, utilities, and road improvements. No offers of dedication are required. The lots will generally exceed the sizes of the adjacent lots and exceed the City's minimum lot size requirements. Conditions of approval will ensure that the development complies with City development standards. The proposed lot split creating a 13,335 SF and a 10,890 SF lot complies with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Low Density Residential and the minimum lot size requirements delineated in SSFMC Title 20 Zorfing Regnlations. -6- FINDINGS OF APPROVAL PUD P 02-0019 22 VISTA COURT (/is approved by the Planning Commission on October 2, 2003) As required by the Planned Unit Development Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.84], the following findings are made in approval of a Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development 02-0019, approve Modification of a residential Planned unit development allowing a new 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF and a lot split creating a lot with an area of 13,335 SF and a lot with an area of 10,890 SF, subject to making the findings o£ approval and, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning CommissiOn which include, but are not limited to: Plans prepared by Twelve Star Builders; Design Review Board meeting of March 19, 2002; Design Review Board meeting of October 15, 2002; Design Review Board comments September 2003; Planning Commission staff report, dated May 15, 2003; Planning Commission staff report of July 17, 2003; Planning Commission Staff Report o£ October 2, 2003; Planning Commission meeting of May 15, 2003; Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 2003; and Planning Commission meeting of October 2, 2003: The subject site is physically suitable for a 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF and a lot split creating a lot with an area of 13,335 SF and a lot with an area of 10,890 SF. The new dwelling is similar in style to existing adjacent dwellings and shares a similar floor area ratio. The new lot while larger than many of the adjacent lots is in greater conformity to the area in that the new lot area more closely mimics the lot area o£the surrounding dwellings. A Geologic and Geotechnical Report has been prepared by the applicant's consultant and independently reviewed and approved by the City's consultant. The report has determined that the site is suitable for development if the report recommendations are implemented. The City's Design Review Board and the Westborough Home Owner's Association recommended approval of the proposed single family dwelling and lot split. Conditions of approval require that the development of the site follow the recom~mendatiopz contained in the reports ~d conform to the City's development standards. The 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF and a lot split creating a lot with and area of 13,335 SF and a lot with an area of 10,890 SF has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the City's Design Review Board to be in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Design Guidelines and to provide a high quality of fit with the existing neighborhood. The new dwelling shares a similar floor area ratio as the existing adjacent dwellings and the lot size is in greater conformity with the adjacent residential lots. The new lots will reinforce a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability by matching the development quality and design. The 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF and a lot split creating a 13,335 SF lot and a 10,890 SF lot with a resulting density of 3.64 units per net acre will result in a land use intensity no higher than that permitted by the General -5- Proposed Findings of Approval P02-0019 Page 2 of 2 Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Low Density Residential with a maximum density of 8.0 units per net acre and the maximum density of 5.0 units per net acre allowed by the site's Zoning of Single Family Dwelling Zone District IR-l-C-PI. The project complies with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for a minimum of 20 days. Mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to a level less than significant. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Low Density Residential and the Housing Element that encourages the development of housing to meet the City's fair share housing need. The proposed 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF and a lot split creating a 13,335 SF lot and a 10,890 SF lot will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The development is designed to comply with the City design guidelines and the architectural theme of the surrounding residential enclave. Conditions of approval are attached which will ensure that the development complies with local development standards and requirements. Payment of childcare impact fees will help to improve childcare services. The proposed 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF and a lot split creating a 13,335 SF lot and a 10,890 SF lot comply with the City's adopted design guidelines. The development was reviewed by the City's Design Review Board for conformance with the City's Design Guidelines and the quality of fit with the existing neighborhood and was recommended for approval. EXHIBIT # A CITY RESPONSES TO THE APPE.a~L OF 22 VISTA COURT The appeal contains seven categories of concerns as follows: 1. Selective and Discriminatory implementation of the HOA's and CC&R's. 2. Safety. 3. Deception. 4. Parking. 5. Loss of Views and Adverse Impacts on Existing Property Value 6. Outdated Soils Reports. 7. Others. City staffhas reviewed the appeal and provides the following response: Appeal Issue 1. Selective and Discriminatory implementation of the HOA's and CC&R's The Planning Commission's decision was based on the Westborough Homeowners Association approval which totally disregarded existing homeowner's by-law and past practices. It has been the practice of the Westborough Homeowners Association (WHOA) to require the applicant to seek the neighbor's approval for the prospective project. Only when there is positive response from the neighbors is the project reviewed and approved after it complies with the WHOA CC&R and by-laws. In this case, the WHOA not only ignored the sentiments of the 178 objecting homeowners but practiced selective and discriminatory implementation of the CC&Rs by disregarding one of its rules, CC&R article VI section 6.09, prohibiting the obstruction of view during its approval process. During the last public hearing, the WHOA board had misrepresented the neighborhood by indicating that the applicants followed procedures. The applicants did not follow procedures. They instead went ahead and submitted the project to the Planning Commission still without the neighborhood's approval. The WHOA board approved the plan without due process and without proper notice to the neighboring homes which were directly affected by the plan. City Staff Response The conclusion is inaccurate. During the public hearing process the Assistant CiO; Attorney advised the Planning Commission that the CC&Rs, unlike more recent CC&Rs -7- Exhibit A City Responses to the Appeal of 22 Vista Court on recent projects, do not contain a provision permitting the City to enforce the terms of the CC&Rs. As such, enforcement must be by way of private action initiated by the homeowners against the HOA decisions nor the CC&Rs. Also, the Planning Commission's findings must relate to the City's ordinances and General Plan. The Planning Commission's Findings of Approval are not based on the either WHOA decisions nor the CC&Rs and are instead on based on the requirements of the SSFMC Title 20. Whether the F?ItOA acted properly or not is a matter in which the City has authority to render a binding, enforceable opinion. Appeal Issue 2. Safety The Planning Commission based their approval of tiffs project on land use. Although we respect their opinion, we however believe that the "security and safety" of the neighborhood should take precedence over land use anytime. Safety issues of constructing a dwelling on such a treacherous slope have never been adequately addressed. In 1978, when the Planning Commission approved the houses on the slopes of not only Vista Court, but also along Appian Way and Valleyview Way, not one of the houses exceeded 1,990 square feet. Why are we approving a house with a square footage of 2,750 to be built on the steepest slope in this area? City Staff Response The Planning Commission and City' staff took the matter of slope stability as an important and serious mattel'. The applicant was required to have a soils report prepared and the building foundation designed, based on the soils report data, as part of the submittal. The soils report was prepared by the same firm that conducted the soils report for the original W. W. Dean subdivision to insure accuracy and high level of site expertise. The report was required to be reviewed by the City's own soils and geotechnical expert, at the applicant's expense. The City has utilized our soils expert for over 20 years and has a high level of trust and confidence in the thoroughness and quality of the peer review. The /-?*(- - 7~,~ 7_ ../ ~77 _7___2 .... 2a ............... 2 ...... 7 .7 empzoye, this practice on virtually uu that the soils report was adequate and the foundation system would meet state and local standards. The Planning Commission devoted considerable time to this issue during the public hearings and the following discussions and deliberations. The Planning Commission's decision is not based exclusively on land use as the appeal claims. SSFMC Section 20. 81.050 specifically requires the Planning Commission first find that "The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements ". The Planning Commission noted that the site will be designed to the current en~neering standards that are far more rigourous than the abutting dwelling constructed on the same slope and that the site will endanger the area. -8- Exhibit A City Responses to the Appeal of 22 Vista Court The last two sentence of the paragraph identify a new issue relating to the size of the houses originally constructed and the size of the new dwelling. The original subdivision involved 288 lots. The appeal raises a rhetorical question that the Planning Commission specifically addressed namely that the size and design of the new dwelling is both appropriate for the 13,335 square foot lot and is compatible with the existing dwellings. Appeal Issue 3. Deception The Planning Commission in an effort to settle this dilemma, recommended to the applicants to meet with a few of the homeowners, who were directly affected by this development scheme. The neighborhood representatives met with the applicant and exercised good faith in an effort to arrive at an agreement. The pr/mary applicant, Mrs. Diokno, assured us that she would incorporate the neighborhood concerns in the new plan to be submitted to the Planning Commission. Despite her promise, Mrs. Diokno totally disregarded the neighbor's input and proceed to the Planning Commission for approval. The applicant distorted and omitted facts to get approval for her development scheme. She did not follow procedures, and yet reported to the Commission she had done so. City Staff Response The Planning Commission directed the applicant and neighbors meet so that the two parties had an additional opportuniO; to work with one another to develop a reasonable sized dwelling given the parcel size. The Commission also stated that the neighbors could not simply say that the only acceptable dwelling would be the same size as the adjoining 1,900 square foot dwellings - that it was reasonable that the site could accommodate a larger dwelling given the site area in excess of]3,335 square feet (approximately double the size of adjoining lots). The Planning Commission acknowledged that the applicant followed both formal and informal review procedures and took great efforts to meet with the neighbors. Appeal Issue 4. Paring The proposed project is a 2,750 square footage house, and as required by the City, it must have 3 parldng spaces. However, the WHOA has historically prevented home owners form paving the site of the house to discourage using it as a parking space. The WHOA approved this project with a 3 on-site parking space (two in the garage and one on the paved strip by the site of the house), again in violation to the WHOA past practice. Daily life will be tortured from erosion of already limited space along the curb further reduced by this construction m~d the increased demands of more vehicles additional residents will create. -9- Exhibit A City Responses to the Appeal of 22 Vista Court CiO: Staff Response All dwellings over 2, 500 square feet or more than 4 bedrooms are required by SSFMC Section 20. 74.040 to provide three on-site parking spaces (a minimum of two covered parking spaces and one open parking space). The site is sufficiently large to accommodate a three+ car garage. However; during the meetings the Planning Commission expressed a desire to reduce the building street massing. Eliminating a garage space reduced the dwelling by JO feet in length and 200 square feet in area and thereby in the Planning Commission 'S, Design Review Board's and City Staff's estimation improved the design and compatibility of the dwelling. The new curb cut will result in the loss of approximately ] or 2parking spaces at the end of the cul-de-sac. The Vista Court development as in other similar standard subdivisions provides a minimum of 2 garage spaces per dwelling, dwellingplus two parking spaces on the driveway apron and 1 on-street parking space per lot. Parking in the evening hours has been observed by CiO; staff to be tight in part due to the fact that several garages were observed to be filled with storage items. The loss of one to two spaces will be offset by the provision of 3 required spaces plus 3 driveway apron spaces. The Planning Commission is not bound by the past practices of the WHOA. Appeal Issue 5. Loss of Views and Adverse Impacts on Existing Property Value The erection of this proposed project will greatly diminish the property value of the adjoining houses due to the loss of view. This project will block the view of five houses, which currently have sweeping views of the valley resulting in an adverse impact on its marketability. There will be damage to all of the adjacent property value by virtue of the compromise of the scenic panorama we have all cherished since we bouo~ht our homes. City Staff Response The Planning Commission advised the opponents that the City does not have a view protection ordinance, that the Commission couid not deny an appiication due to real or perceived view loss, and noted that the applicant had significantly revised to plans to preserve views from the adjacent dwelling. The Planning Commission acknowledged that views from the sidewalk would be obscured by the new dwelling, but that the majority of the site view plane to the north would remain open and that vien4, loss to the dwellings would be minimal. No factual information pertaining to effect on property value was presented at the hearings. Appeal Issue 6. Outdated Soils Reports Both the Planning Commission and the neighbors had shox~m concern and had requested for an updated copy o£the soil reports since the land, over the years, has been restored to -10- Exhibit A City Responses to the Appeal o1'22 Vista Court its natural state. The current soil reports on file are dated 1988. However, this request was ignored by the staff report and by the applicant, conveniently stipulating that these outdated soil reports are sufficient. City Staff Response The appeal misstates the direction of the Planning Commission and response by City staff The Planning Commission directed staff to review the various soils reports and the original subdivision files for information relevant to any conditions of approval restricting the lot split. The Planning Commission directed staff to review the soils reports and previous reports referenced therein, determine the adequacy of the reports, and report to the Commission. City staff completed this task and report to the Commission at their next meeting of duly 2003. The site consists ora man-made cut slope and it is by definition not in a natural state. City staff reviewed the previous subdivision file and all soils studies prepared for the subdivision and reported that the subdivision does not contain any conditions of approval that restrict the lot split. The 2003 soils report is an update of the ]988 report. The 2003 report does not appear to contain any substantive inconsistencies nor contradict the previous report nor is neither the City's peer review report substantively inconsistent with either the1988 nor the 2003 reports. A minor inconsistency between the 2003 report and the peer review report does exist in the stated distance to the San Andreas Fault line or zone, with one report stating a distance of.5 mile and the other stating. 75 mile. This is a minor issue and does not make a substantial difference as to the performance of the site during a seismic event. The development site as all of the other surrounding properties have weathered all the seismic events since 1977 including the most significant event - the ]989 earthquake without any damage to the slope. previous borings. Staff researched the matter..4 total of 2 borings were completed on the site that compares with the 12-]6 borings taken for the entire 65 acre W. W. Dean subdivision. More is kmown about the project site than of most lots in the tract. Additional borings would not reveal any new information regarding the site given its relatively small size and the laborato~T analysis of the previous soils samples is still accurate and valid. Soil boring is not an effective method of detecting springs. Appeal Issue 7. Others Enclosed for your review are some of the opposing neighborhood's concerns presented in the past 3 public hea~angs with the PlarmLng Con~m~ission. -11- Exhibit A City Responses to the Appeal of 22 Vista Court City Staff Response City staff has not responded to the individual statements since the3, are intended to provide the City Council a feel for the depth of concern and breadth of the issues. The neighbor's statements and viewpoints are varied and diverse. Many of the comments share the same concerns summarized in the appeal itself. -12- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: May 15, 2003 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new dwelling un.it and lot spht in an existing residential subchxfision~ in accordance ~ith California Em~onmental Quality Act. 2. Residential Planned Unit Development Modification allowing a lot split and a new single family dwelling. Tentative Parcel Map allowing an existing 24.225 square foot lot to be split into a 13,335 square foot lot and a 10,890 square foot lot. Design Review of a new 5 bedroom single family dwelling containing 3,755 SF. Property Location: 22 Vista Court in the Single Family ResidenIiai (R-I- C-P) Zone District. SSFMC: Chapters 20.68 & 20.78 & 20.85 and Title 19. Owner: Nannette and Frank J. Diokno Applicant: Pedro Dimaculangan Case Nos.: PUD 02-0019, SA 02-0019, DP-, 02-0019 & lvLND 02-0019 RECO~NDATION: That the Planning Commission approve I) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 5 bedroom single family dwelling unit containing 3,755 SF and a lot split in an existing residential subdivision, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development allowing a lot split and a new single family dwelling; 3) Tentative PareeI Map allowing an existing 24,225 square foot lot to be split into a 13,335 square foot and 10,890 square foot lot; 4) Design Review of a new single family dwelling, subject to m ~aking the required findings of approval and adopting conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SI ON: The !A acre site is comprised of single parcel. The project includes splitting the existing lot into zwo lots and the consu'uction of a single family dwelling. -28- Date: May 15, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 2 of 7 Parking for three vehicles will be provided on-site in a two car garage and a parallel open parking area. The driveway apron provides additional part-~ng spaces. The size is adjacent to other single family dwellings. The project has been submitted on two occasions over the course of the last year. The first submittal was returned because thc application was incomplete and needed to be revised to comply with Design Review Board comments. The re~dsed plans respond to the staffs concerns and incorporate the Board's comments. Because the project site was on a slope the applicant was required to submit a Oeotechnical Srady and a foundation plan for the new dwelling. The repor~ and plans were peer reviewed and approved by the City's Oeotechnical Consultant Cotton Shires & Associmes. The project she's General Plan land usc designation, Low Density Residential, allows single family dwellings up to a density of 8.0 units per net acre. The proposed development density of 3.64 units per net acres complies with the density limits established by the General Plan. The proj eot generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The key policy pertinent to the development is Policy 2-1-17 [page 63] as follows: "Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside shes slioutd follow existing contours to the g-reatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minenum." The proposed development complies with Policy 2-1-17. None of the existing Vista Court slopes are natural. The existing slopes, including the project site, are the resuh of grading operations associated with the or/gq_hal subdivision development in 1980. The development of the new dwelling follows the contours of the slope and grading is proposed to be kept to a nninimum. The present zoning is Low Densit-y Residential (R-l-C-P) allows the proposed density and the single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development to allow a lot split creating a lot with an area of 13,335 SF and a lot with an area of 10,890 SF. The new lots with comply with the CiV's standard developmen~ standards as displayed in the following tables: -29- Date: May 15, 2003 To: Plann/ng Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 3 of 7 DE~ELOPM]ENT STANDARDS Total Site Area: 0.56 acres [24,225 SF1 Proposed New Lot & Dwelling Minimum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Density: Maximum: Height Maximum: Automobile Parking Single Family M/n/mum: 3 Floor area: 5.0 Dw'Ac. 35 FT Lot Coverage: 21% Setbacks: Front 15 FT Side 5 FT Rear 20 FT Proposed Lot A_rea: 10,890 SF Proposed: 3.64 Dw'Ac Proposed: 25FT Proposed: 3-' Driveway Proposed: 3,755 SF [5 Bedrooms] Proposed 15 FT 14.5 FT - 58 FT 20 FT - 21 FT Proposed Change to Existing Lot & Dwelling Minimum Lot A.rea: 8,710 SF De~iB~: Maximum: 5.0 DuLa. c. Height Maximum: 35 FT Automobile Parking: Single Family Minimum: ~ Floor area: Lot Coverage: Maximum: 50% Setbacks: Minimum From 15FT Proposed Lot Area: 13,335 SF Proposed: 3.64 Du/Ac Existing: 25FT Existing: 2+ Driveway Existing:,.,_o 008 SF [4 Bedrooms] Proposed: 11.4% Existing !5 FT -30- Date: May 15, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 4 of 7 Side 5 FT 5 FT Rear 20 FT 18 FT - 100 FT A Tentative Parcel Map is proposed to split the 24,225 SF lot into m~o separate lots with areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed map and determined that it complies with the City requirements delineated in Title 19 of the South San l:rancisco Municipal Code. Because the project involves a Tentative Parcel Map the project is final with the Planning Commission. .Am analysis of the key development characteristics of the dwellings fronting on Vista Court including address, lot area, floor area, FAR and bedrooms per dwelling, contained in Appendix A, show that the proposed lots better comply with ex/sting pattern of development. The proposed lot areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF comply with the ruin/mum lot area of 8,710 SF required by the R-1-C Zoning District and better match the lot sizes and pattern of development of the surrounding residences. Of the 32 lots that front on Vista Court the uphill lots [11 thru 21Vista Court and 36 thru 42 Vista Court] are generally less than 5,000 SF. The down slope facing lots [22 th_va 35 Vista Court] are shf2tly larger avera~z[ng over 6,000+ SF. The lots on the northerly ends of the cul-de-sac [20 thru 22 V/sta Court]are larger in size. Approximately 30 of the lots, or 94% of the total lots on Vista Cour~ do not meet the rnqnimurn Zoning Code requirement of 8,710 SF. Over 44% of the lots [14 lots] exceed the max/mm density allowed by the adopted General Plan. The existing subject lot is the largest single lot and more than 3.5 times the average lot size and more than doable the size of the second largest lot - 24 Vista Court. The proposed lot split resulting in lots of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF are more in keeping with the size of lots in the subdivision, the lots of the down slope side of the street and the lots as the northerly terminus of the cut-de-sac and conform with the Zoning and General plan density requirements. The size of the proposed new dwelling ~x;nile larger than the other dwellings is proportionate to the area. Its proposed Floor Area Ratio [FAR] of 0.35 is in keeping with the area average of 0.42. The proposed 5 bedroom dwelling is close to the average of 4 bedrooms per dwelling for the existing dwellings. The new development, while increasing the demand for on-street parking will resuk in the loss of at most only one parking space. It is consistent w/th the single family neighborhood desi=on of one driveway per dwelling. On-street parking amounts to approximately to one or two spaces per dwelling. However, street parking is available along nearby Gellert Boulevard. The proposed dwelling will result in the loss of appro:drna~ety ordy one on-street space and will provide a total of 6 on-site spaces [more than 1 space per bedroom]. The deveiopmenr she front~e currently provides pubhc parking for a total of about 8 vehicle spaces, more than any other single lot along Vista court. -31- Date: May 15, 2003 To:Planning Commission Subj oct: 22 Vista Court Page $ of ? DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board m their meetings of March 19, 2002, and October 15, 2002. At the first meeting the Board suggested that the apphcant re,dsc the plans to accomplish the following: 1. Change the front en~, to a less grancliose, single-story design more in harmony w/th the other homes on the street, 2. Raise the view terrace behind the house to be flush with the lower floor of the. house to help reduce the overall height of the rear elevation. 3. Change the roof end on the rigUat side of the front elevation from a gable end to a hip. 4. Plant trees and ~ound cover suitable for erosion control on the slope below the house. Consult landscape architect or horticulturist to determine which species would be most suitable and effective. 5. Reduce the overall size of the house so that it is closer in size to the other homes in the neighborhood. The apphcant revised the plans in accordance with the Board's comments. At the second meeting in October the Board found the plans to be generally acceptable, but suggested that he plans be revised to relocate the internal stairs to create more room in the dining room. Copies of the Design Review Board are attached to this staff report. Letters from the DR_B summarizing the Board's comments were not sent to the applic~t, but the applicant was sent copies of the DRB minutes. A neighborhood meeting was conducted on March 4, 2003. The meeling started at 7:30 P.M. and was attended by 21 citizens including residents (mostly from the homeowner's association) the appl/cants, the project team, including an attorney, structural engineer, general contractor, and design manager and a member of the Planning D/vision staff. The project attorney bfief!y reviewed the proposed development. The residents strongly expressed many concerns, including, but not t/m/ted to, the size of the new dwelling, the reduction of pr/racy, reduction in parking, increase in traffic, the proposed drainage, slope stability, and need for retaining walls at the bottom of the slope, and the CC&Rs. -32- Date: May 15, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 6 of 7 All of the issues were discussed at length by the residents and prQ eot team. A significant amount of the time was devoted to the issues of slope stabiliry, drainage and retaining walls. Many residents thought that the dwelling was too large and did not fit the neig_hborhood very well. Several residents were of the opirdon thru the CC&Rs do not allow the lot split, although the project attorney disagreed. No issues were resolved as the m,o groups were of opposite viewpoints. The clear consensus of the residents was that the development was not desirable and would create adverse effects. The meeting ended at 10:00 P.M. Letters in opposition have been received from many of the neighbors and neighborhood meeting attendees. The letters reflect the same or s~rnilar concerns and sentiments expressed by the residents at the neighborhood meeting. The letters are attached to this staff report. A petition in opposition to the proposed development is apparently being circulated througHnout the area and will likely be presented at the Planning Commission hearing. Ehr~qiRONMENT~ REVI]5~ W The City staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The document was circulated for 20 days commencing on April 4, 2003 and ending on April 23, 2003. The document focused on a dew key concerns including slope stability, storm water runoff and construction impacts. A Oeolo~c and Geotechnical Report was prepared by dated for the proposed development. The report was peer rexfiewed by the City.' s consultant Cotton Shires & Associates. The report and rexfiew determined that the proposed single family dwelling was suhable for the site subject to the implementation of the recommendations of the report mad the peer review. The development could increase storm water runoff onto nei~fnboring down slope properties. As part of the req ,~ed Mdtigafion Measures, the development wi~ be req,~,.fired to collect and divert al! runoff Consn'nction of the new single family dwelling will result in short term impacts potentially including noise, storm wmer runoff and furtive dust. As required Mitigation Measures the applicant will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance [SSFMC Chapter 8.32], implemem an approved Storm Water Prevention Plan, and frequently water the site to suppress dust. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be required as a condition of approval to ensure thru the Mitigation Measures are implemented. With implementation of the rrfifigation measures the impacts will be reduced to a level less than significant A form letter 5om PG&E was received regarding the emdronmental review. C~D, staff discussed the letter with _Mr. Pooh a represemarive of PG&E Mr. Pooh indicated thru the le~er was imended to merely advise the CiD~ of PG&E's broad developmen~ concerns, was nor i_n~-ended ~o -33- Date: May 15, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page ? of 7 indicate that P.G.&E. would not be able to provide service to a new dwelling in a long established residential area and that as an informational letter PG&E did not request a formal response. CONCLUSION/RECO~NI)ATION: The lot split creating a 13,335 SF lot and 10,890 SF and construction ora new 5 bedroom single family dwelling containing 3, 755 SF are consistent with the City's General Plan and ~fith all applicable requirements of the Cin/'s Zoning (SSFMC Title 20) and Subdivision Ordinances SSFMC (Title 19). The Planning Commission should approve 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 5 bedroom single family dwelling unit containing 3,755 SP and a lot split in an existing residential subdivision, in accordance with California Emironmental Quali~ Act; 2) Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development a/lowing a lot split and a new single family dwelling; 3) Tentative Parcel Map a/lowing an existing 24,225 square foot tot to be split into a 13,335 square foot and t0,890 square foot lot; and 4) Design Review of a new single family dwelling. 5ar m se ;r a mer ATT'AC_PSVlEN~I'S: _Appendix A: Vista Court Development Data Draft Conditions of Approval Draft Temative Pm-eel Map Findings of Approval Draft Pio'D Findings of Approval DRB Minutes March 19, 2002 October 15, 2002 Westboroug_fl~ Way Homeowners Association Meeting Minutes of Augnst 6, 2002 Letters in Opposition Mitigated Negative Declaration [The Initial Study Supplement is available on request. Copies of both documents were prexdousty distributed to the Planning Commissioners] Plans -34- Data: July 17, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 2 of 17 limited on-street parking, conflict with the CC&R.s and the architectural compatibility of the proposed dwelling. The Planning Commissioners cliscussed several issues including, but not lirrfited to, potential loss of views, the architectural compatibili%~ of the proposed dwelling, compatibility of the lot split, CC&Rs, and the soils report. The Commissioners directed the applicant to obtain elevation reference points for the surrounding properties, revise the perspective drawings to include the new elevation data, review the archkecrural comparibiiity of the proposed dwelling. The Planning Comn~fission directed staff to review the various soils reports and the ori=~nal subdivision files for information relevant to any conditions of approval restricting the lot split. The applicant has re~dsed the plans to include elevation data of the surrounding properties, and has provided an akernat/ve plan that reduces the size o£the proposed dwelling. City staff has reviewed the previous subdJxdsion file and all soils studies prepared for the subdivision. The subdivision does not contain any' conditions of approval that restrict the lot splk, and the 5lc did not contain a copy of the CC&Rs. The origqnal subdivision approved by the Plann/ng Commission allowed 299 lots including the proposed lot. The approval was appealed by several neighbors. The applicant met with the residents and reduced the number of lots to 288. The Planning Commission approved the revised plans [thm still included the proposed lot]. City records indicate that the developer chose to revise the B__ual map pr/or to recordation to eliminate the proposed lot apparently because of the expense of desi~tming and constructing a separate model for the one lot. The approved subdivision map and landscape plan for Vista Court are attached. The entire approved subdivision map and landscape plan will be available at the P!~mJng Core__mission hem~._ng. All of the soils studies were prepared by the same firm. The first study was prepared in 1977 and was followed by supplemental and final reports prepared later in the same year and in 1978, respectively. These first reports were general in nature in that they covered a 65+ acre subdivision and served as a =on/de for land planning and mass site grading. The soil investigation includes orR5, one boring for the Vista Court area. The soil report prepared in 1988 was specific to the subject lot and the investigation included several borings and tab analysis. The report was prepared as pan of a lot split proposal that was never complete to be reviewed by the City m a public hearing. 'The 2003 report is an update of the 1988 report. The 2003 report does not appear to contain any substantive inconsistencies nor contradict the previous report nor is neither the Ci?s peer review repor~ substantively inconsistent with either the!g88 nor the 2003 repo~s, i~.finor h,~consisrency bem~een the 2003 repo~ and the peer review -35- Date: July 17, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 3 of 17 report does exist in the stated distance to the San Andreas Fault line or zone, with one report staring a d/stance of .5 mile and the other stating .75 mile. This is a minor issue and does not make a substantial difference as to the performance of the site during a seismic event. The site as the other surrounding properties have weathered all the seismic events since 1977 including the most significant event - the 1989 earthquake without any damage to the slope. The City Attorney has reviewed the CC&Rs minutes of the homeo~ners Association and will be malting an oral presentation of her ~matysis. The applicant's legal representative has proxfided a response to several of the concerns raised the last Plmming Commission meeting that is attached to this staff report. DISCUSSION: The ½ acre site is comprised of single parcel. The project includes splitring the existing lot into two lots and the construction of a single family dwelling. Parking for three vehicles will be provided on-site in a two car garage and a parallel open parking area. The driveway apron provides additional parkfing spaces. The site is adjacent to other single fam/ly dwellings. The project has been submitted on two occasions over the course of the last year. The first submittal was returned because the application was incomplete and needed to be revised to comply with Design Review Board comments. The revised plans respond to the staffs concerns and incorporate the Board's comments. Because the project site was on a slope the applicant was required to submit a Geotechnical Study and a foundation plan for the new dwelling. The report and plans were peer reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant Cotton Shires & Associates. The project site's General Plan land use designation, Low Density Residential, allows single family dwellings up to a density of 8.0 units per net acre. The proposed development density of 3.64 units per net acres complies with the density limits established by the General Plan. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The key policy pertinent to the development is Policy 2-1-t7 [page 63] as follows: "Steep hillside areas in excess cfa 30 percent ~ade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the ~eates~ extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum." The proposed development complies with Policy 2-i-i 7. None of the existing Vista Coru~ slopes -36- Date: July 17, _002 To: Planning Commission Subject:~_'~o Vista Court Page 4 of 17 are natural. The existing slopes, including the proj eot site, are the resuh of Fading operations associated with the orig-h~al subdivision development in 1980. The development oft he new dwelling follows the contours of the slope and grading is proposed lo be kept to a minimum. The present zoning is Low Densi~ Residential (R-l-C-P) a/lows the proposed density and the single £amily dwel ;ling. The applicant is requesting a Modification o£the Residential Planned Un_it Development to allow a lot split creating a lot Mth an area of 13,335 SF and a lot with an area of 10,890 SF. The new lots with comply with the City's standard development standards as d/splayed in the following tables: DEVELOPMENT STA_ND~Zd~DS Total Site Area: 0.56 acres [24,225 SF] Proposed New Lot & Dwelling Mira'mum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Density: Maximum: Heig/at Maximum: Automobile Parking Single Family Minimum: 3 Floor area: 5.0 Du/Ac. 35 FT Lo~ Coverage: 21% Setbacks: Front 15 FT Side 5 FT Rear 20 FT Proposed Lot Area: 10,890 SF Proposed: 3.64 Du/Ac Proposed: 25FT Proposed: 3+ Driveway Proposed: 3,755 SF [5 Bedrooms] Proposed 15 FT 14.5 FT - 58 FT 20 FT - 21 FT Proposed Change to Existing Lot & Dwelling Minimum Lot ,4.rea: 8,710 SF Density: Maximum: 5.0 D~r/Ac. Height Maximum: 35 PT Automobile P m-ldng: Proposed Lot Area: l.~,~, SF Proposed: 3.64 Du/Ac Existing: 25FT -37- Date: July 17, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 5 of 17 Single Family Minimum: Floor area: 2 Lot Coverage: Maximum: 50% Setb acks: Existing: 2+ Driveway Existing: 2,208 SF [4 Bedrooms] Proposed: 11.4% Minimum Existing Front 15 FT 15 FT Side 5 FT 5 FT - 100 FT Rear 20FT 18FT A Tentative Parcel Map is proposed to split the 24,225 SF lot into two separate lots with areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF. The Cit7 En~neer has reviewed the proposed map and determined that it complies w/th the City requirements delineated in Title 19 of the South San Francisco Mun/cipal Code. Because the project involves a Tentative Parcel Map the project is final with the Planning Commission. A~ analysis of the key development characteristics of the dwellings fronting on Vista Court including address, lot area, floor area, FA_R and bedrooms per dwelling, contained in Appendix A, show that the proposed lots better comply with existing pattern of development The proposed lot areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF comply with the ~inimurn lot area of 8,710 SF required by the R-1-C Zoning District and better match the lot sizes and pattern o£ developm~t of the surrounding residences. Of the 32 lots that front on Vista Court the uphill loss [11 thru 21Vista Court and 36 thru 42 Vista Court] are generally less than 5,000 SF. The do~m slope facing lots [22 thru 35 Vista Court] are shghtly larger averaging over 6,000+ SF. The lots on the northerly ends of the cul-de-sac [20 thru 22 Vista Court] are larger in size. Approximately 30 of the lots, or 94% of the total lots on Vista Court do nor meet the mirfimum Zoning Code requirement of 8,7 ! 0 SF. Over 44¢'3 of~e lots [i4 lots] exceed the maximum densitY allowed by the adopted General Plan. The existing subject lot is the largest single lot and more than 3.5 times the average lot size and more than double the size of the second largest lot - 24 Vista Court. The proposed lot split resulting in lots of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF are more in keeping with the size of lots in the subdivision, the lots of the do~m slope side of the street and the lots at the northerly Terminus of the cut-de-sac and conform w/th the Zoning and General plan density requirements. The size of the proposed new dwelling while larger than the other dwellings is proporfionme to the area. Its proposed Floor ,Area Ratio [FA_R] 0£0.35 is in keeping with the area average of 0.42. The proposed 5 bedroom dwelling is close to the averse of 4 bedrooms per dwelling for the existing dwellings. -38- Date: July 17, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 6 of 1 ? The new development, wkfle increasing the demand for on-street parking will resuh in the loss of at most only one partdng space. It is consistent with the single family neighborhood design of one driveway per dwelling. On-street parking amounts to approximately to one or two spaces per dwelling. However, street parking is available along nearby Gellert Boulevard. The proposed dwelling will result in the loss of approximately only one on-street space and Mil provide a total of 6 on-site spaces [more than 1 space per bedrooml. The development site frontage currently provides public parking for a total of about 8 vekicle spaces, more than any other single lot along Vista court. DESIGN REVfEW BO.~R.D The project was reviewed by the Desig-n Rexfiew Board at their meetings of March 19, 2002, and October 15, 2002. At the first meeting the Board suggested that the appl/cant revise the plans accomplish the following: 1. Change the front entry to a less ~andiose, single-story design more in harmony with the other homes on the street, 2. Ra/se the view terrace behind the house to be flush w/th the lower floor of the house to help reduce the overall height of the rear elevation. 3. Change the roof end on the right side of the front elevation fi.om a gable end to a hip. 4. Plant trees and ground cover suitable for erosion control on the slope below the house. Consult landscape arch/tect or horticulturist to determ/ne wkich species would be most suitable and effective. 5. Reduce the overall size of the house so that it is closer in size. to the other homes in the neighborhood. The appl/cant revised the plans qm accord~c.e with the Board's commems. At the second meeting in October the Board found the plans to be generally acceptable, but suggested that he plans be revised [o relocate the internal stairs to create more room in the dining room. Copies of the Design Review Board are attached to this staff report. Letters from the DB summarizing the Board's comments were not sent to the applicant, but the applicant was sent copies of the DRB minmes. AqglGRBORHOOD IVIEE TLNG A neighborhood meeting was conducted on March 4, 2003. The meeting started at 7:30 P.M. and was articled by 2! citizens including residents (most!¥ from. the homso~mer's association) the -39- Date: July 17, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 7 of 17 applicants, the project team, including an attorney, structural engineer, general contractor, and design manager and a member of the Planning Division staff. The proj eot attorney briefly reviewed the proposed development. The residents strongly expressed many concerns, including, but not limited to, the size of the new dwelling, the reduction of privacy, reduction in par ~king, increase in traffic, the proposed drainage, slope stability, and need for retaining wails at the bottom of the slope, and the CC&Rs. All of the issues were discussed at len~ch by the res/dents and project team. A si~m~ificant amount of the time was devoted to the issues of slope stability, drainage and retaining wails. Many residents thought that the dwelling was too large and did not fit the neighborhood very well. Several residents were of the op/_rfion that the CC&Rs do not allow the lot split, although the project attorney disagreed. No issues were resolved as the two groups were of opposite viewpoints. The clear consensus of the residents was that the development was not desirable and would create adverse effects. The meeting ended at 10:00 P.M. Letters ha opposition have been received fi.om many of the neighbors and neighborhood meeting attendees. The letters reflect the same or similar concerns and sentiments expressed by the residents at the neighborhood meeting. The letters were attached to the previous staff report and will be available at the meeting. On July 9, 2003 Mar~e Zamora, a WWHA Board Member who spoke at the May 15th meeting submitted material requested by the Planning Commission including a cover letter, a copy o£ the CC&R' s, and explanation of the word approved used by the W'WHA Board, copy of the August 6, 2002, WWHA meeting minutes, and response to the Commission's question regarding the CC&R's restriction o£tot splits. The maTer/al is attached to the staff report. The City staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development in accordance with the California Environmental Quat/ty Act. The document was circulated for 20 days commencing on April 4, 2003 and ending on Apr/1 23, 2003. The document focused on a dew key concerns including slope srabihty, storm water runoff and construction impacts. A Geolo~c and Geotechnical Report was prepared by dated for the proposed development. The report was peer reviewed by the Ciw's consultant Cotton Shires & Associates. The report and review determined that the proposed single family dwelling was suitable for the site subject to the implementation of the recommendations of the report and the peer review. The development could increase storm water runoff~ onto neighboring down slope properties. As part of the required Mitigation Measures, the development wilt be required to collect and divert all runoff fi.om the site into the City's storm drainage system as indicmed on the proposed plans. -40- Date: July 17, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 8 of 17 Construction of the new single family dwelling will result in short term impacts potentially including noise, storm water runoff and furtive dust. As required Mitigation Measures the applicant ~dll be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance [SSFMC Chapter 8.32], implement an approved Storm Water Prevention Plan, and frequently water the site to suppress dust. A Mitigation Morfitoring Plan will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that the Mitigation Measures are implemented. With implementation oft he mitigation measures the impacts will be reduced to a level less than sigrfificant. A form letter from PG&E was received regarding the emdronmental review. City staff discussed the letter with Mr. Pooh a representative of PG&E Mr. Poon indicated that the letter was intended to merely advise the City of PG&B's broad development concerns, was not intended to indicate that P.G.&E. would not be able to provide senTice to a new dwelling in a long established residential area, and that as an informational letter PG&E did not request a formal response. A follow-up letter from Mr. Pooh was received on June 30 that supported the application. CONCLUSI ON/RECOMM-ENDATION: The lot split creating a 13,3.35 SF lot and 10,890 SF and construction of anew 5 bedroom single fam/ly dwelling containing 3,755 SF are consistent with the City's Genera/Plan and w/th all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning (SSFMC Title 20) and Subdivision Ordinances SSFMC (Title 19). The Planning Commission should approve 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 5 bedroom single family dwelling unit containing 3,755 SF and a lot split in an ex/sting resident/al subdivision, in accordance with Califorrfia Environmental Quali~ Act; 2) Modification of a Residential Planned Urfit Development allowing a lot spht and a new single £am/ly dwelling; 3) Tentative Parcel Map allowing an existing 24.225 square foot lot to be split/nto a 13.335 square foot and 10,890 square £om lot; and 4) Design, Review cfa new single f~..J!y dwe!!;.ng. Steve Carlson, Sen/or Planner ATTACH/vIENTS: Appendix A: Vista Court Developmem Data Draft Conditions of Approval Dra~ Tentative Parcel Map Findings of Approval Draft PUD Findings of Approval -41- Dine: July l 7, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 9 of 17 Draft Planning Commission May 15, 2003 Meeting Minutes DRB Minutes March 19, 2002 October 15, 2002 .~r~plicant's Legal Representative's Response Material submitted on July 9, 2003 by Margie Zamora WWHA Board Member Planning Commission Staff Report of May 15, 2003 Plans -42- Pianning Cornmission Staff Report DATE: TO: SUBJECT: October 2, 2003 Planning Commission 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new dwelling unit and lot split in an existing residential subdivision, in accordance with California Environmental Quahty Act. 2. Residential Planned Unit Development Modification allowing a lot split and a new single family dwelling. 3. Tentative Parcel Map allowing an existing 24,225 square foot lot to be split into a 13,335 square foot lot and a 10,890 square foot lot. 4. Design Review of a new 4 bedroom single family dwell/rig containing 2,757 SF. Property Location: 22 Vista Court in the Single Family Residential (R-l- C-P) Zone D/strict. SSFMC: Chapters 20.68 & 20.78 & 20.85 and Title 19. O,~mer: Nannette and Frank J. Diokno Applicant: Pedro Dimaeulangan Case Nos.: PUD 02-0019, SA 02-0019, DR 02-0019 & MN-D 02-0019 RECOMMENDATION: environmental impacts of a new 4 bedroom single family dwelling unit containing 2,757 SF and a lot split in an existing residential subdivision, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development allowing a lot split and a new single family dwelling; 3) Tentative Parcel Map allowing an existing 24,225 square foot lot to be split into a 13,335 square foot and 10,890 square foot lot; 4) Design Review of a new single family dwelling, subject to making the required f'mdings of approval and adopting conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The Plamzing Commission reviewed the matter at the Commission meeting of July 17 and continued it off calendar so that a small group of neighbors could meet with the applicm~t to revise the plans for a smaller dwelling. -43- Date: October 2, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 2 of 15 At the meeting a number of persons spoke in opposition with the key concerns being slope stability, loss of views, and the architectural compatibility of the proposed dwelling. The Planning Commissioners discussed several issues including, but not limited to, potential loss of views, the architectural compatibility o£the proposed dwelling, compatibihty of the lot spht, CC&Rs, and the soils report. The Commissioners directed the applicant and a small group of neighbors representing the neighborhood, to work together to rev/se the plans to scale down the dwelling and improve the dwelling's arckitectural compatibility with the neighborhood. Over the course of the last two months, the apphcant has met with the nei_mhbors and the Homeowners Association. The applicant has revised to plans reducing the size of the proposed dwelling. The applicant reports that the neighbors insist that they cannot make a decision without the entire neighborhood and that the Homeowners Association representatives are not taldng a position. The applicant's brief chronolog-y and summary of the meeting outcomes is attached to this staff report. DISCUSSION: The ½ acre site is comprised of single parcel. The project includes splitting the existing lot into two lots and the construction of a single family dwelling. The project site's General Plan land use designation, Low Density Residential, allows single family dwellings up to a density of 8.0 units per net acre. The proposed development density of ~.,,-, umrs per net acres ~ ~' ~ ~,o~u~s wm~ me density ihmits estabhshed by ~e Oenerai Plan. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The key policy pertinent to the development is Pohcy 2-1-17 [page 63] as follows: "Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum." The proposed development complies xv/th Policy 2-1-17. None of the existing Vista Court slopes are natural. The existing slopes, including the project site, are the result of ~ading operations associated with the original subdiv/sion development in 1980. The development of the new dwelling follows the contours of the slope and grading is proposed to be kept to a minimum. -44- Date: October 9 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Coati Page 3 of 15 The present zoning is Low Density Residential (R-l-C-P) allows the proposed density and the single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development to allow a lot split creating a lot with an area of 13,335 SF and a tot with an area of 10,890 SF. The new lots with comply with the City's standard development standards as displayed in the following tables: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Total Site Aa'ea: 0.56 acres [24,225 SF] Proposed New Lot & Dwelling Minimum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Density: Maximum: Height Maximum: Automobile Parking Single Family Minimum: 3 Floor area: 5.0 Du/Ac. 35 FT Lot Coverage: 20.6% Setbacks: Minimum Front 15 FT Side 5 FT Proposed Lot Area: 10,890 SF Proposed: 3.64 Du/Ac Proposed: 25FT Proposed: 3+ Driveway Proposed: 2,757 SF [4 Bedrooms] Proposed 16 FT 8 FT - 58 FT Proposed Change to Existing Lot & Dwelling Minimum Lot Area: 8,710 SF Density: Maximum: Heigj2i Maximum: Automobile Parking: Single Family Iv[in/mum: 2 Floor area: 5.0 Du/Ac. 35 FT Proposed Lot Area: 13,335 SF Proposed: 3.64 Du/Ac Existing: 25FT Existhag: 2+ Driveway Existing: 2,208 SF [4 Bedrooms] -45- Date: October 2, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 4 of 15 Lot Coverage: Maximum: 50% Setbacks: Minimum Front 15FT Side 5 FT Rear 20 FT Proposed: 11.4% Existing 15 FT 5 FT - 100FT 18 FT The dwelling has been reduced by 1,000 square feet and is now proposed with a floor area of 2,757 SF, The number of bedrooms has been reduced to 4 bedrooms from the prev/ous proposal of 5 bedrooms. Building height along the street frontage is proposed top be 12 feet, while overall height remains at 25 feet. The street elevation mad front entry have been revised to reduce the real and perceived overall mass. The len~h of the dwelling has been reduced by 12 feet and now more closely approximates that of the neighboring building. The roof mass has been reduced and the rear building massing has been reduced and rearticulated. Parking for three vehicles will be proxdded on-site in a two car garage and a parallel open parking area. The driveway apron provides additional parking spaces. The site is adjacent to other single family dwellings. A Tentative Parcel Map is proposed to split the 24,225 SF lot into two separate lots with areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed map and determined that it complies with the City requirements delineated in Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Because the project involves a Tentative Parcel Map, but not a subdivision map, the project is final with the Planning Commission, unless appealed. An analysis of the key development characteristics of the dwellings fronting on Vista Court " -~-'~--~ 1~'~ ~+~;~ta,4 ' ' l~Clbtkl,.IJ~address, area, floor m-ea, FAR ~H A, show that the proposed lots better comply with existing pattern of development. The proposed lot areas of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF comply with the minimum lot area of 8,710 SF required by the R-1-C Zoning District and better match the lot sizes and pattern of development of the surrounding residences. Of the 32 lots that front on Vista Court the uphill lots [11 thru 21Vista Court and 36 thru 42 Vista Court] are generally less than 5,000 SF. The down slope facing lots [22 thru 35 Vista Court] are sli~jatly larger averaging over 6,000+ SF. The lots on the northerly ends of the cul-de-sac [20 thru 22 Vista Court] are larger in size. Approximately 30 of the lots, or 94% of the total lots on Vista Court do not meet the m/n/mum Zoning Code requirement of 8,710 SF. Over 44% of the lots [14 lots] exceed the maximum density allowed by the adopted General Plan. The existing subject lot is the largest single lot and more than 3.5 times the average lot size and more than double the size of the second largest lot - 24 Vista Court. The proposed lot spht -46 - Date: October 2, 2003 To: Plmming Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 5 of 15 resulting in lots of 13,335 SF and 10,890 SF are more in keeping with the size of lots in the subdivision, the lots of the down slope side of the street and the lots at the northerly termJnns of the cul-de-sac and conform with the Zoning and General plan density requirements. The size of the proposed new- dwelling while larger than the other dwellings is proportionate to the area. The proposed and reduced Floor Area Ratio [FAR] of 0.25 is in keeping wdth the area average of 0.42. The proposed 4 bedroom dwelling now matches the neighborhood average of 4 bedrooms per dwelling. The new development, while increasing the demand for on-street parking will result in the loss of at most only one parking space. It is consistent with the single family neighborhood design of one driveway per dwelling. On-street parking mounts to approximately to one or two spaces per dwelling. The proposed dwelling will result in the loss of approximately only one on-street space and will provide a total of 6 on-site spaces [a ratio of more than 1 space per bedroom]. The development site frontage cm-rently provides public parking for a total of about 8 vehicle spaces, more than any other single lot along Vista Court. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The revised project was reviewed by the Design Review Board members at their meeting of September 16, 2003. The Board suggested that the applicant revise the plans to accomplish the following: 1. Fruit trees should be planted at a minimum of 28' on center. 2. Plants around the house should be upgraded fi:om 1-gallon size to 5-gallon size. The applicant will incorporate the comments as part of the construction plans. Copies of the Design Review Board are attached to this staff report. Letters f~om the DRB summarizing the Board's comments were not sent to the applicant, but the applicant was sent copies of the DRB minutes. EN~rlRONMENTAL REVIEW The CiD, staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The document was circulated for 20 days commencing on April 4, 2003 and ending on April 23, 2003. The document focused on a dew key concerns including slope stability, storm water runoff and construction impacts. A Geolo~c and Geotechrdcal Report was prepared by dated for the proposed development. The report was peer reviewed by the City's consultant Cotton Shires & Associates. The report and review determined that the proposed single family dweiiing was suitable for the site subject to Date: October 2, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Court Page 6 of 15 the implementation of the recommendations of the report and the peer review. The development could increase storm water runoff onto neioj:tboring down slope properties. As part of the required Mitigation Measures, the development will be required to collect and divert all runoff from the site into the City's storm drainage system as indicated on the proposed plans. Construction of the new single family dwelling will result in short term impacts potentially including noise, storm water runoff and furtive dust. As required Mitigation Measures the apphcant will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance [SSFMC Chapter 8.32], implement an approved Storm Water Prevention Plan, and frequently water the site to suppress dust. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that the Mitigation Measures are implemented. With implementation of the mitigation measures the impacts will be reduced to a level less than significant. A form letter from PG&E was received regarding the environmental review. City staff discussed the letter with ,Mr. Pooh, a representative of PG&E. Mr. Pooh indicated that the letter was intended to merely advise the City of PG&E's broad development concerns, was not intended to indicate that P.G.&E. would not be able to provide serxfice to a new dwelling in a long established residential area, and that as an informational letter PG&E did not request a formal response. A follow-up letter from Mr. Pooh was received on June 30 that supported the application. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: The lot split creating a 13,335 SF lot and 10,890 SF and construction of a new 4 bedroom single family dwelling containing 2,757 SF are consistent with the City's General Plan and with all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning (SSFMC Title 20) and Subdivision Ordinances SSFMC (Title 19). The Planning Commission should approve 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing en~-orauenta~ impacts of a new' 4 bedroom single family dwelling unit comaining 2,757 SF and a lot split in an existing residential subdivision, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development allowing a lot split and a new single family dwelling; 3) Tentative Parcel Map allowing an existing 24,225 square foot lot to be split into a 13,335 square foot and 10,890 square foot lot; and 4) Design Review of a new single family dwelling. St, e~e Carlso~rf, Sen/or Planner -48- Date: October 2, 2003 To: Planning Commission Subject: 22 Vista Oourt Page 7 of 15 ATTACHMENwI'S: Appendix A: Vista Court Development Data Draft Conditions of Approval Draft Tentative Parcel Map Findings of Approval Draft PUD Findings of Approval Planning Commission May 15, 2003 Meeting Minutes July 17, 2003 Meeting Minutes DRB Minutes March 19, 2002 October 15, 2002 Applicant's Meeting Summary Planning Commission Staff Report May 15, 2003 July 17, 2003 Plans -49- CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080* (650) g77-853~ APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Applicants who wish to file an appeal of a decision of the Chief Planner or the Planning Commission, or a Design Review decision, shall submit the following (a letmr or additional sheets may also be submitted): What, specifically, is being appealed? Case No: PO2-0019, M2NI)-02-0019, PUD-02-0001 & PM-02-0001 - 22 Vista Court 2. What is the basis of your appeal? Include qacts to support your appeal and all pertinent information. There is virtually unanimous opposition to this development scheme from all of the affected homeowners in this community because of: a. Selective and Discriminatory implementation of the HOA's CC&Rs: The planning commission's decision was based on the Westborough Homeowners Association's approval which totally disregarded existing homeowner's by-laws and past practices. It has been the practice of the Westborough Homeowners Association OArHOA) to require the applicant to seek the neighbor's approval for the prospective project. Only when there is positive response from the neighbor~ is the project reviewed and approved after it complies with the WHOA CC&R and by-laws. la this case, the WHOA not only ignored the sentiments of the 178 objecting homeowners but practiced selective and discriminatory implementation of the CC&Rs by disregarding one of its rules, CC&R article VI section 6.09, prohibiting the obstruction of view during its approval process. During the last public hearing, the WHOA board had misrepresented the neighborhood by indicating that the applicants followed procedures. The applicants did not follow procedures. They instead went ahead and submitted the project to the planning commission still without the neighborhood's approval. The WHOA board approved the plan without due process and without proper notice to the neighboring homes which were directly affected by the plan. Safety issues: The planning commission based their approval of this project on land use. Although we respect their opinion, we however believe that the "security and safety" of the neighborhood should take precedence over land use anytime. Safety issues of constructing a dwelling on such a treacherous slope have never been adequately addressed. In 1978, when the planning commission approved the houses on the slopes of not only Vista Court but also along Appian Way and Valleyview Way, not one of the houses exceeded 1990 square feet. Why are we approving a house with a square footage of 2750 to be built on the steepest slope in this area? -50- f. Deception: The planning commission in an effort to settle this dilemma, recommended to the applicants to meet with atew of the homeowners, who were directly affected by this development scheme. The neighborhood representatives met with the applicants and exercised good faith in an effort to arrive at an agreement. The primary. applicant, Mrs. Diokno, assured us that she would incorporate the neighborhood concerns in the new plan to be submitted to the planning commission. Despite her promise, Mrs. Diokno totally disregarded the neighbor's input and proceeded to the planning commission for approval. The applicant distorted and omitted facts to get approval for her development scheme. She did not follow procedures, and yet reported to the commission that she had done so. Parking: The proposed project is a 2750 square footage house, and as required by the city, it must have 3 parking spaces. However, the WHOA has historically prevented homeowners from paving the side of the house to discourage using it as a parking space. The WHOA approved this project with a 3 on-site parking space (two in the garage and one on the paved strip by the side of the house), again in violation to the WHOA past practice. Daily life will be tortured from erosion of already limited space along the curb further reduced by this construction and the increased demands of more vehicles additional residents will create. Loss of View and Adverse Impact on existing property values: The erection of this proposed project will greatly diminish the property value of the adjoining houses due to the loss of view. This project will block the view of five houses which currently have sweeping views of the valley resulting in aa adverse impact on its marketability. There will be damage to all of the adjacent property value by virtue of the compromise of the scenic panorama we have all cherished since we bought our homes. Outdated Soil Reports: Both the planning commission and the neighbors had shown concern and had requested for au updated copy of the soil reports since the land, over the years, has been restored to its natural state. The current soil reports on f'de are dated 1988. However, this request was ignored by the staff report and by the applicant, conveniently stipulating that these outdated soil reports are sufficient. Others: Enclosed for your review are some of the opposing neighborhood's concerns .......... pi ( ...... +o~ ... ,k ..... 3 ..... lng commission see t- ........... ~ p~o, puva~c t~canug~ with the ann attachments A, B and C). If you are the original applicant, submit thirty-five (35) reduced copies (8½" x 11") of all exhibks (maps, plans, elevations, etc.) which were submitted with the original application. 4. Filing fee - See Fee Schedule Name: On behalf of the directly impacted Neighborhood, A.MRI,IA ABA_LOS (signature) (t~te) ' Mailing Address: 106 Valleyview Way South San Francisco, CA 94080 PhoneNo. (650) 794-1t51 *Mailing Address: P.O. Box 71 i, South San Francisco, CA 94080 -51- Attachment A Nine (9) Speeches from May 15, 2003 Public Hearing with the Planning Commission -52- Good Evening. My name is Amelia Abalos of 106 Valleyview Way, which is directly below the proposed construction. My family and 1 are frustrated and angered by the frightening prospect of having an enormous building directly above our home. It would literally dangle over our heads, endangering our very' lives with a threat of collapse due to landslide and earthquake. It would surely deprive us of our restful sleep with very knowledge of being buried alive. I am also mindful of the destruction of the quality of our lives. We have cherished the security and comfort of our privacy. This project will put my entire home exposed to unwanted surveillance directly from windows and balconies. Sunlight will be denied and replaced by darkness. Do our lives have any meaning ?... are we entitled to the full and quiet enjoyment of our home ? Why should our rights be violated ? Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission, please try to put yourselves in our place; ..... imagine a building measuring 3,700 sq ft. with 5 bedrooms, 61/2 baths, 3 car garage, sitting room, family room, formal dining room, formal living room, office library, study guest room, breakfast room, two utility rooms and two balconies, directly facing the our own bedrooms. Would you feel safe and secure opening your back door and windows with thought that people just above us with full view of our pdvacy. How would you enjoy your homes without any sunlight reaching into your living spaces. The quality of our lives and our dignity will abused and these must not be permitted to go on. The Diokno Team is simply ignoring the resentment of-their neighbors, it seems that they do not care that they will shattered the peace and harmony of the community. But we do believe that the Planning Commission will not ignore our suffering and let this project go on. I therefore strongly ask the members of the Planning Commission to give the FIRM REJECTION, and to allow the community, to continue to pursue their happiness as we now enjoy it. Thank you veFy much for your time. -53- Good Evening. My name is Mynna Dakin of 18 Vista Court .... and I am here to state my objection to this project. As a Real Estate Broker I am deeply concern on the potential destruction of the existing Scenic and Panoramic View and the desecration of Open Space in Vista Court We all agree with the common knowledge, that Location, Location and Location plus the View alt add up to the value of a home. Many of the affected Homeowners have paid extra thousands of dollars when they bought their view homes. I honestly believe, it is morally wrong to rob them off of their life time investment. We cannot allow a single homeowner, who will isolate this magnificent View for their own personal gain, at the expense of several homeowners. A letter from the Diokno's dated June 6, 2001; and I quote ~ We are aware of your concern relating to obstructing your view as well as the stab/liVy of the land and erosion", ... in this letter alone, they have acknowledgect that the project will create a tremendous concern on neighborhood views and landslides. YET, in their application to the City of SSF, they answered and signed ... Questionnaire item # 38 ...... with UNO" change in scenic v/e~s or vJs~as from the ex/st/nd res/dent/a/areas..." In addition, Attachment A, item #39 they stated .. "the residence itse/f... leaving 00~, of the expanse of She/o; open to neighboring properties and public for uninterrupted view ~ Yes, ...and I repeat, "no change in scenic view and 90% of lot open for uninterrupted Yiexe ~ .... the Diokno Team challenges your 20/20 vision and your basic Arithmetic skills. Do you think they intentionally try to confuse the City Planning Committee or mislead the public? Do you think they would go to this extent in their application and reports to gain City's approval ? It is truly alarming how the Westborough Way Homeowners Association approved this project .. our Covenant, Condition & Restriction, Article VI Section 6.09 ..... "any planting ~ha~ obstructs She I/iew of Neighboring Homes mus~ be trimmed down .... " How do one trim down a concrete building that obstructs someone's view ?7 Common sense and plain logic, or we do need to be technical? It is very clear, that this project, delicate and controversial in nature will have the biggest impact in obstructing the neighborhood view and landslide. We, the citizens, residents and taxpayers are raging mad from frustration and helplessness.. Please reject this proposal, and in doing so, you are keeping us whole, safe and secured. THANK YOU and GOOD NIGHT ! -54- May t5, 2003 P.e: Proposed Home mad Splitting of 22 Vista Court lot Hello Distinguished Council Members, My name is Michael Char,, a business owner, medical professional, Aa-my Veteran, .... an active and caring member in this community. I am not here just because I am against this proposed project, but also present to you why this project will be detrimental to all of us here in Westborough Way, to our nearby neighbors, and to South San Francisco. We all understand that you will have the daunting task of reviewing this proposal and are ~ateful for your service and dedication. We just ask you to listen carefully to each of your peers, your nMghbors, your constituency...and weigh the consequences your ruling will have on all of us. The proponents would have you beheve that the proposed house is intended to solve housing/n the bay area and keep vandals away. They say it Mil add to our community. WE dispute their claim, and would like to clarify what affects it would really have on you andI. Added Noise Pollution 5:om workers, heaW trucks.and loud machinew. The yelling, rumbling, digging, pounding, and drilling will be a ~eat nuisance to many of us that work at home or care for our family at home during the work week. Added worries of construction accidents and increased weakening of the ground of adjacent properties. The wei~t of trucks and equipment, construction vibration, pounding, drilling, etc...is bound to negatively impact the fra~le integrity of Vista Court. Even if unintentional, accidents and weakening will cause devastation of our property, maybe loss of Iife, during construction or in future incidences caused by acts of nature or by man. For example, our streets and sidewalks have man5, cracking, showing that our streets are already showing signs of a lot of stress. very step incline will topple or slide during hea~9, rains or earthquakes. Draggdng us down, hurting people, destroying homes, condemning our entire neighborhood! Added parking disputes in our akeady crowded cul-de-sac, which extends even up the street to our furthest Vista Court neighbors. Many that you see here tonight will attest to this. Also, during construction there wilt bound to be loss of spaces due to trucks and equipment. Added Congestion in and out of Westborough Way during, and even after, construction. There is only one entrance/exit into and out of our neighborhood. We would be inconvenienced as trucks and equipment btock and bottleneck our narrow street. The tm-n-a-bout of the cul-de-sac would then be dangerous and a fire hazard. -55- Added loss of views, privacy and sunl/ght of homes around this towering goliath. Five or more homes will lose their panoramic view of the bay just for one structure. This 96 foot wide home will be almost double the width of the homes below. And because it will sit lower than adjacent hillside homes and yet will be multi-level and stand just as kigh offVista Court, the homes below will suffer much greater loss of privacy and loss of sunlight. Added degradation of our community, due to wild, flagrant violations of our association by-laws. We are proud of the unifonnity and protection our Homeowner's Association adds to our neighborhood. It adds value to our homes and conformity and beauty to the community. The building of this mansion would set a dangerous precedence for association members to thwart our C.C.&R ( the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Westborough Way) As you can see, this proposal just doesn't add up! It will not benefit this community, but will add stress and dangers to the homes, which you and I count on as havens for peace, harmony, serenity and relaxation in th_is busy Bay Area. Will you allow this extremely large, unsuitable, non-conforming structure to pose a threat to our safety., our peace, our community? I am here to ask each of you to protect us from this outrageous proposal, and maintain our fight-knit, peaceful neighborhood. My family and fellow' neighbors urge you to not allow this devastating structure to go forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Residence of 17 Vista Court -56- March 9, 2003 From: Michael Chan 17 Vista Court, So. San Francisce, 94080 (65o) 588-o229 To: Mr. Thomas Spar'ks, Chief Planner South San Francisco Planning Commission Dear City Planner, We are writing you concerning the proposed plans by our neighbor, Nanette and Frank Diokno at 22 Vista Court, in building another house on their lot. You will be meeting your committee concerning this proposal, therefore, we would like to voice our objection to the planned structure for several reasons listed: Accordin¢ to our Westborouch Way Subdivision's CC&R's ..... 1. Section 6.0t. "Each tot shall be used as a residence for a single family and for no other purpose." A second home on this one lot constitute a breach in this restriction. 2. Section 6.09 states that no structure may be built on sloped areas which "may damage or interfere with established slope ratios, create erosion or sliding problems...'~Because of the steepness, necessary excavation and driving in pier supports, and sensitivity of the proposed site (ie. cracks are already forming in our street), we feel that is not in accordance to our CC&R and poses a great risk to our community. 3. The 3700+ sq.fr proposed home does not conform to the average 2000 St. fr. homes in the communi~ and with already strained parking, this will lower the quality of life for all. 4. Our main objection esthetically, is that om- view of the bay and San Bruno Mounta~s and city scape will be blocked. This ~511 also decrease the added value we have paid for in our home. This will not affect just one or two homes, but up to 6 home owners will be greatly affected. 5. The passage of this plan by the Board of Directors of our association is in question. Although we had submitted in writing, as well as our adjoining neighbors, our objection to the proposed plan, we feel that Mike Hall and the other board members passed the plan regardless. According to the declaration of the C.C. &R, Section C, the directors and the C.C&K's purpose in for "protecting the value and desirability of Westborough Un/ts 4B and 4C." Because of our points listed, and our battle to have our association revisit this issue, we ask for your agreement in postponing further hearings or approvals on the proposed site for 90 days, until we meet and revote on this issue. Thank you for your cooperation and empathy. Sincerel_¥, tv~fichael Cha~. -- -57- My name is Brenda ....... i live at 157 Appian Way, and I'm here to protest against the Diokno building project whose purpose is for building speculation. There can be no doubt about the motive which drives the Diokno's to force this development scheme upon our community, for this is undeniable real estate speculation with a hope for enormous profit. They want to make money, and they view this opportunity as a potential winning lottery ticket. But lottery winners do not victimize their neighbors, and there can also be no doubt that any profit the Diokno's derive will enrich them out of our pockets the homeowners who will be left to suffer the threat of inevitable disaster while they scoop up their unjust riches and abandon us to our uncertain fate. Their construction will reduce the value of our homes by destroying the scenic vista which has been a part of our attraction to this area. It will crowd another family onto our street and make the already strained parking dilemma much worse by reducing curb space while increasing the numbers of cars that have to compete for what is left. Who will want to pay for a house where your view is now your new neighbor's house and you can't be certain that you will have a place to park when you come home from work? Who will want to purchase your home when an enormous house on the street seems to be defying gravity and promises to slide down the embankment during a storm or an earthquake causing the street and the surrounding homes to be condemned? The Diokno's dream of easy wealth is inherently tlawed. Once their monstrosity is erected, there will be no rational buyer willing to pay an enormous sum for a house that looks completely unstable! You would have to be crazy to want a house perched on a cliff] They will never be able to sell it, as they plan, for a fat profit, and all of the rest of our homes will be devalued by this curse they will have created. Every day we will have to wonder if this will be the end of our dream homes and, for most of us, our life's savings. We will struggle daily with the torture of wondering what will become of us! This cruel injustice cannot be tolerated and I plead with you, our government officers, to protect us from this threat. I am here this evening to STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed construction site. I have two Geo Technical Reports. In my left hand, Cotton, Shires & Associates (dated ptember 2002). In my right hand, Earth Systems Consultants (dated November 1988). lound three DISCREPANCIES in my left hand. These discrepancies include: Cotton, Shires & Associates claims to have used current information from Earth Systems INITIAL 1998 report. This is INCORRECT. The date of Earth Systems is 1988 AND the date of the INITIAL geotechnical report (the first geoteehnical report done for this construction site) is July 1977 prepared for the developer, WW Dean and Associates. In addition, Cotton, Shires & Associates has stated they have completed a geotechnical review of the proposed site .usin~ the report prepared by Earth Systems, dated July 31, 2002. Where do they get this date? The date I have in my RIGHT ~ by Earth Systems is November 1988. As professionals in their field, they should 'know NOT to use outdated material as the basis for their report. From my understanding, a new study should be done every three years because conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, natural or man made. The information in the report completed by Cotton, Shires & Associates are MISLEADING. MISLEADING to the city of South San Francisco and to the community. The report is DECEPTIVE and ATTEMPTS TO STATE THE REPORT MORE RECENT THAN IT REALLY IS. Cotton, Shires & Associates claim the proposed construction site to be approximately 0.75 miles from the active San Andreas Fault. I have contacted the U.S. Geological Survey and was informed the distance to be .5 miles away. The proposed construction site has NOT moved and WIrY is there a difference in the distance? Could this be another contribution to the deception? Cotton, Shires & Associates have stated in the beginning of their report that they have completed a recent SITE INSPECTION at the date of issuing the report; however, in the end of the report, they have stated that their services to have been limited a VISUAL review of the property. This reflects eontradiction...Did they or Didn't they? Was there considerable care taken in the planning and design of the proposed construction site? Was there diIigent inspection of ground conditions, slope stability and erosion protection? With these questions in mind, I question the validity of the completeness, goodwill and due diligence of this report by Cotton, Shires & Associates. The report completed by Cotton, Shires & Associates is INCONSISTENT. INCONSISTENCY comprises of weak planning and does not justify a solid foundation. Members of the Committee. Thank you for your time and I ask for your vote to object the proposed construction site. -59- DENNISON V. RAVAL 108 Valleyview Way South San Francisco, Ca. 94080 (650) 583-4362 July i 3, 2003 Mr. Thomas Sparks Chief Planners South San Francisco Planning Commission 415 Maple St. South San Francisco. Ca. 94080 Re: Building A New House On Vacant Lot Next To 22 Vista Court, So. S. F. Ca. My name is Dennison Raval. I live at 108 Valleyview Way, and a member of Westborough Way Homeowner's association since 1987. in behalf of my family and neighbors, I would like to express my opposition regarding "building a house on a severe sloped vacant lot", next to 22 Vista Court and happens to be right next to my backyard. My complaints concerning this matter are as follows: 1) First of all, there is a reason why this lot was left vacant by the Developer of Westborough Way. 2) The proposed project barely has a flat area where a stable solid foundation can be built comfortably to fortiff a multi-level houses here. -60- 3) Most of the concrete foundations, structural supports, and the load of the whole house will be built on a narrow unstable area and a severe steep slope which will most likely damage or interfere the established slope ratios, will create erosion and land sliding problems, obstruct and change the flow direction of drainage channel, or retard and dive~ the flow of water from the drainage channels, which my neighbors and I have been already experiencing every rainy season. It has been frightening and frustrating that caused a big problem and made me spent a lot of time and money dealing with this mess ever since I moved here. I hope and pray everyday that such disaster will be avoided. Like the incident that occurred here in Westborough area, when a house that was built on a flat area caved in and left the lot vacant until now. And also the incident that occurred in Pacifica, when those houses that were buik on flat bed rock on top of the cliff gradually subsided and fell off because of slide and erosion. What more if a 3755 square foot house be built on a steep slope, like clinging on the side of the cliffby itself. I'd like to share some of the worst incidents that I had experienced in my baclqrard. During winter time and the rain started to pour, the continuous water flow with dirt and mud sliding from top west and south side of the hill, down to the bottom of the hill and overflowing the tilted three foot high retaining wall due to the pressure had to bear from the hill and the movement of the earth, created aPile of mud all over the pavement. There were few times that the mud gushed ail the way down the side stairs of the house and into the garage during the night time. I had to go out under the rain to f~x and divert the flow of the water and mud. There were times I feel helpless, sick and tired dealing with this problem day after day, year after year until I had a chance, four years ago, to -61- have the money and decided to build two new three foot high retaining wails instead of one. They were designed like one on top of another and have four feet horizontal distance apart. The inside walls are covered with thick black plastic, and underneath them are built-in four inch perforated drain pipes and roe'ks around them to filter the mud, drain the water flow and direct them to its designated existing floor drains. After all the agony, I thought, I have fixed the problem, but only to mitigate the overflowing of the water and mud. One thing I have learned was no matter what I do, there Mil always be dirt and mud running from the hilltop every time it rains. What more if a building carrying a humong0us load is built on that unstable steep slope, the more pressure at the bottom of the hill has to bear and most likely, not only mud slide, but inevitably land slide will occur. I rather shovel a pile of dirt and mud anytime, but not a pile of human bodies in my backyard. In conclusion, I hope that the City of So. S. F. Planning Commission should consider to look over every individual homeowner's complaints and point of views regarding this serious matter. The approval for this project would be detrimental to the neighborhood, can jeopardize people's lives, and degrade the integrity, and the real estate value of the whole communi~.... Thank you very much and hope for your sincere consideration and support. -62- SPEECH FOR MA Y 15, 2003 MEETING SOll J CONDITION AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE Good Evening, Honorable Commissioners, Ladies and Gentlemen ...... My name is FRANK ACOB and I live at 19 Vista Court which is just across the site of the proposed project. I've live in this address since 1984. I am a Professional Civil Engineer with 3 States Registrations. I've worked for Major Private Construction Companies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Navy Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarter at San Bruno as Senior Project Manager, and currently work in the Public Works Dept., Project Administration Section in one of the City at the Silicon Valley. I am here to express my opposition to the proposed project due to the sensitive soil condition of the site which is on a very steep slope and the potential damage that the proposed project will create to the surrounding area durin~ and after construction. As stated on Page 2 of 7 of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 15, 2003 ..... "None of the existing Vista Court slopes are natural. The existing slopes, including the project site, are the results of grading operations associated with the original subdivision development in 1980." What if a magnitude of more than 6.7 earthquake occur in San Francisco Bay Area with an epicenter 1 mile from Vista Court? ..... Whether it is 1 mile or 5 miles from the epicenter, the effect and damage will be the same since Vista Court is less than 1 mile from the San Andrea Fault. Being very close to the San Andrea Fault, the proposed project site is within a Zone that is expected to experience major damao~e in the event of an earthquake. 1 -63- Remember that NONE of the existing slopes at Vista Court, including the proposed project site are natural slopes .... The slopes are built with fill materials. This condition is similar to an Avalanche that is about to happen, it will only need a minor disturbance on the slope to create a major disaster. Will the Planning Commissioners be willing to approve and sign your name on this project that is a potential safety hazard to the residents of Vista Court and Valleyiew Way, including the people who will be living on the proposed project?... Who will be responsible in case of any damage to property or lost of life? .... Will it be the City, the Contractor, the Consultants who design the project, the Owner of the proposed project, the Homeowners Association, or the Taxpayers?... What if, the Owner sells the new house or the property after construction, who will be responsible for the damages cause by the subject project?... Honorable Commissioners, please think 10 times about the welfare and safety of the residents that will be impacted by the proposed project, and put yourselves in their position .... Will you not be concerned if this project will be built in the proximity of your home?... PLEASE SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT IT ........... Thank you very much. 2 -64- Ladies and Gentlemen of thC 3ommission ...... Good Even-~g. My name is Zita Rey, I live in 23 Vista court,, I am a registered voter and a long-time :. 'dent of South SF. I own the property immediately next to the proposed project at 22 Vista court. I'm here before you tonight to show you my opposition to this development. When the houses that slid down the hill in Millbrae were built, they were approved by the City of Millbrae. When the mansion at Vista Del Mar was built years ago, it was also approved by the City of SF. The houses in Broadmoor Village in Daly City, it was approved by its City. And the most recent one in Pacifica, it was likewise approved by its CiO. However, the power of nature is something we can never accurately gauge. The builders will come up to you and tell you how safe this house will be, how it will be designed to withstand earthquakes and landslides. How it's mppose to make the slope stronger and prevent soil movement, etc. etc. But despite their assurances, will we 'be willing to gamble with human lives just to satisfy somebodies quest for financial gain??? I'm sure the builders of the houses in Milibrae, SF, Daly City and Pa¢ifica aiso assured the City that it was safe to build in that area. Yet we all know what happened. Ft,e house that the Diokno's are planning to build is almost twice the square footage >f my house, which means it is twice as heavy ..... I don't think the slope will be able o handle this additional load when an earthquake or landslide occurs. The constant >ounding and drilling during construction is bound to ukimately weaken the 7oundation upon which my house and those houses around me are built on. T~is neans that human lives and the safety of the neighborhood will be at risk. These are ~11 hardworking people as well. if nothing else, we have submitted more than 170 signatures representing more than 170 households opposed to this project. These are individuals and their families who are registered voters and resident of South SF. Individuals and their families who are iirectty affected by this project, individuals and their families who are concerned of evhat is happening around them, and individuals and their families who just want to ~njoy life in an environment that is safe, they dese~e and paid for. Please consider all these concerns that are presented before you. Please listen to these people who have given their trust in you. ?!e~e don't !et us down. Th~_n& yOC.65- Honorable Commission Chair William Romero, Honorable Asst. Chair Rick Oehsenhirt, Honorable Commissioners, Good evening. My name is Chito Desuasido, of 26 Vista Court, So. San Francisco. I have lived and worked in our eommunit3, for over 25 years, have voted for Public officials and issues affecting our eiB' on a number of times; have learned to care and be concerned for its well-being. My neighbors have brought up compelling and well-grounded reasons why we are against this project. And I would like to add one more reason: character, yes the urban/residential character of our neighborhood. Our street of 32 homes was part of one the last major residential developments in the city. And this site, on which the proposed project is supposed to be built, is the only open space left in our area. I-Ienee, we consider this project to be in dear conflict & violation of and would negatively impact the area's visual character and the quality of our neighborhood. In a letter to the cit3~, the owners wanted us to believe that this open space and this beautiful scenic resource were the major reasons for this project. Let me quote what they said: "The seenic"view and the open space have allowed visits from the public which are negative to the neighborhood because of the several instances of vandalism and thefts." This reasoning is preposterous and self-serving, to say the least. It is a "non-sequitor"; it doesn't follow. Let me try to understand what they are saying. When we have an open space and it has such a scenic view, the public visits it and they become vandals and thieves. To prevent this, let us get rid of this open space and this scenic view by building on it. By doing this, we eliminate vandalism and thefts in the eiB'. If you'believe this, let us all then build homes on all open spaces and scenic areas in our city. Another reason that the owners have used in order to justify this proposal was that they owned the lot and they can do anything they want with it. If we do not let them build, then we are depriving them of their rights as owners. Our neighbors do not contest their ownership; what we question is whether they have the right to build another house, which is twice as big as most of the houses in the neighborhood. When they bought this property, Hence, how can they say that they are deprived of something they never had in the first place. One does not lose something one does not have. Dr. Gar3~ Belaga earlier mentioned our HOA, which supposedly approved this project on August 6, 2002. A few days later, I had the opportunit3~ to speak with our HOA Mgr., Mr. Yee and I asked what happened. I-Ie said that the Board had no choice but to approve, since we did not have the resources to defend ourselves in case of a lawsuit. I was deeply troubled when I heard this. No neighborhood or communi~ in our fine Ci~ should be subjugated or bullied in to submitting to the personal interest of one individual or family. So we come here tonight to ask your help. We have presented to you t60 families who object to this project. Also, have you noticed - Not one family from our neighborhood has come here tonight to speak in favor of this project. -66- Some of these families who vigorously oppose this project, are represented here tonight. And for many, this is the first time, that they have come to do public business with you; the first time they have ever set foot in this public facili~. With due respect to the Commission and without any intent to disrupt our proceedings, ! would like them to stand up quietly so that you would recognize your constituents and also as our sign that we acknowledge and appreciate the work you do for our community. So, honorable commissioners, on behalf of these constituents and other hundreds of families in our community, we request that you reject this proposal. It does not add any value to our eommuniB~; it does not present any compelling reason, why this monstrosity should be built. We thank you for listening and we applaud you for the service and the work you do for your community. -67- Attachment B Six (6) Speeches from July 17, 2003 Public Hearing with the Planning Commission -68- Good i'~ Commissioner Romero and members of the planning commission. I am Amelia Abalos fi.om 106 Valleyview Way. .~ff'October i, 2001, letter by Jerry Yee, manager of our association, to the Diokmos, Mr. Yee advised the Dioknos that the board could not possibly grant approval and the board of directors felt that they required unanimity from the members of the association in order to gran~sociation's approval. There has been an implied agreement since the Boards inception in 1978 between the board and the homeowners that we secure the immediate neighbors who are affected by the proposed project. I'd like to present and share my own personal case and experience when I added a five hundred seventy-five square/~xtension to our home on Valleyview Way. I have the chronology of what transpiredoincluding the original signed approval from the homeowners directly affected. Please allow me to go through this with you this evening. March 7, 1990 - Board aclmowledged the submission of our plan on 106 Valleyview Way and approved continzent upon approval of neizhbors. March 12, 1990 - Proposed extension was reviewed and ar)proved in writinz by homeowners on Valleyview Way. March 13, 1990- Proposed extension was reviewed and approved in writing by homeowners on Vista COurt. April 4, i 990 - Association's Board of Directors met and approved our plans. Advised us to get our plans approved by the city. October 1, 1990 - City of South San Francisco revised plan and the ,~,,~,~,,,~ s board h-~orir, ed us that it wm again be subject to the association's approval. October 2, 1990 - Board of Directors reviewed the altered plans and approved it contingent upon getting a new letter of approval from neimhbor at 108 Vallevview Way who will most be affected by alteration. October 2, 1990 - Submitted approval letter of my neighbor on 108 Valleyview Way. Board required us to take this letter to the city to indicate that we have met reouirements of the asSOCiation. At the June 4, 2002 Board meeting, the board advised the objecting homeowr~ers that the Bom-d's usual procedure of acquiring neighborhood -69- concurrence prior to giving approval to homeowners' request does not always happen. To our knowledge, this is the first time the Board did not consider the neighborhoods' cry of disapproval on a project that will seriously and severely affect the surrounding neighbors. Why did they do this? We can only sense a double standard practice by the Board or an intimidation of a possible litigation from the Dioknos as evidenced by Mr. Valencia's letter of April 10, 2002 to Kevin D. Frederick, the Westborough · Homeowners' Association lawyer. On page 3 of Mr. Valencia's letter to Commissioner Romero dated June 30, it stated that the Board advised the Dioknos that they would review the revised drawings pursuant to the Architectural Authority they have under CC&Rs. Article X of the Bylaws states that the Association Shall appoint an Architectural Control' committee as provided in declaration 5.01. We the homeowners have no knowledge of any such Committee being appointed or formally introduced to the homeowners. This is clearly in violation of our CC&Rs. The Board had full authority to approve this project. The abuse of power is evident and the board had violated the homeowners' rights as members of the Westborough Homeowners Association. Therefore their decision to approve this project should be considered null and void. Commissioner Romero and members of the planning commission, please hear the voices of the homeowners and give your fmu rejection to this iii conceived project. Thank you very much for your time. -70- SPEECH FOR JUL Y 17. 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VISTA COURT SLOPES SOIL CONDITION AND SUSCEPTIBU.ITY TO EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE AND EROSION Good Evening, Honorable Commissioners, Ladies and Gentlemen ...... My name is FRANK ACOB and I live at 19 Vista Court which is just across the site of the proposed project. I've live in this address since early 1984. I am a Professional Civil Engineer with 3 States Registrations. I've worked for Major Private Construction Companies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Navy Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarter at San Bruno as Senior Project Manager, and currently work in the Public Works Dept., Project Administration Section in one of the City at the Silicon Valley. I am here again to express my opposition to the proposed project and to emphasize the majority of the homeowners' concerns on the sensitivity of the existing slopes and soil conditions to earthquake and erosion. Page 3 of 17 First Paragraph, Last Sentence of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated 7/17/03, states that: "The site as the other surrounding properties have weathered all the seismic events since 1977 including the most significant event - the 1989 earthquake w-ithout any damage to the siope.'~' ....... Of course .... The Westborough area survived the 1977 and 1989 earthquakes because we are far from the epicenter of those earthquakes. Why is it that the Planning Commission Staff Report did not address what will happen to Westborough Area, if an earthquake of Intensity 6 and more with an epicenter close to the San Andreas Fault which is just less than 1 mile to Vista Court? Again on Page 3 of 17, Last Paragraph, Last Sentence of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated 7/17/03 states that: "None of the existing Vista Court slopes are natural. The existing slopes, including the project site, are *.he result of the grading operations associated with 1 -71- the original subdivision development in 1980'. This simply means means that the slopes at Vista Court particularly the proposed site at 22 Vista Court is on "Fill". Slopes that are on fill are susceptible to erosion and landslide during major earthquake. Whatever amount of compaction you apply on a slope that is on fall, will not be as good as natural slopes. Page 3 of 17, Under the Second to the Last Paragraph of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated 7/17/03 states that: "Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum." .... We all know that the proposed site at 22 Vista Court is way over 30% grade. We would like to know the definition of "minimum grading". The meaning of minimum grading for the homeowners directly impacted by the proposed project will not be same meaning for those people who live outside the Westborough Way Development. What is really considered as "minimum grading"? Let's not forget the landslide that happened in Millbrae, Pacifica and Daly City. All these developments or housing projects were designed by Professionals, reviewed and approved by the respective City Planning Department, Building Department and Planning Commission. This is to remind us that for Mother Nature there is no such thing as "professionalLy design project.' I hope that our Honorable Planning Commissioners will not commit the same mistake that the Planning Commission of Millbrae, Pacifica and Daly City committed. For the protection of life and property of the Homeowners present here tonight including the Homeowners who signed the petition, we respectfully request the Planning Commission to disalolorove the proposed project at 22 Vista Court. Thank You All and Good Night ..... FRAJWKIE M. ACOB 19 Vista Court 2 -72- ! am here this evening to STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed ;onstruction site. In May this year, I questioned the validity of the completeness, goodwill and due diligence of this report; most specifically, inconsistencies and misleading information. Misleading information AND Inconsistencies are still present in the current staff report. 1. MISLEADING INFORMATION: "However, street parking is available along nearby Gellert Blvd." (Page 6 of 16) of Planning Commission Staff Report. 2. INCONSISTENT STATEMENT: "Gellert Blvd DOES NOT allow parking along the street". Contrasts to Page 6 of Staff Report. (Page 4 of Draft). Measurements have been attempted to ensure safety but...HOW do you measure how much it will take to guarantee safety of another human being? There are no laws, regulations or codes for this. Lives are at stake here. They say that money can buy anything but it won't bring back a life. There is no guarantee that the pillars will hold up the house, there is no guarantee the soil and land is stable enough. For example, the house in '~ilibrae had no backyard neighbors so they built it at their own risk without jeopardizing another. When the house fell back, it did not involve anyone else. This project...has the POTENTIAL to do harm to another human being. Members of the Committee. Thank you for your time and I ask for your vote to object the proposed construction site. -73- Ladies and Gentlemen of' the Commission ...... Good Evening. My name is Zita Rey, I live in 23 Vista court. I'm here to air my concern about the letter of Mr. Valencia to the commission dated June 30, 2003. Mr. Valencia has constantly insisted in his letter that the Westborough Way Homeowners Association has no jurisdiction nor right over the subdivision of the said property. He is right, only the planning commission has the authority to approve or reject any and all applibation for subdivision of a lot. But that is beside the point, our point of contention is not the subdivision of the lot but the erection 9f a 3700 sq. ft. house which is twice the average square footage of the houses in that area, the blockage of the view which is against the CC&R, section 6.09 of article VI, and the threat to the life ofhomeoumers surrounding the said project. As per Mr. Steve Carlson's statement, the planning commission request that members of a homeowners associations be allowed the opportunity to give their input relative to a proposed project and that the commission ordinarily would no___! entertain a subdivision permit of this sort without solicitation of the neighbors opinion. Mr. Valencia claims a copy of the form letter prepared by the Dioknos was sent to all the co-members as reflected to attachment C of his letter. Of the 288 members of the homeowners association, only 5 were sent the said letter and all 5 opposed the project. We in turn have secured 170 signatures of homeowners who are one with us in opposing the project. What more can the commission ask for in terms of input or opinion from 'the homeo,~._mers. They have spoken and overwhelming opposed said project. policy of following unanimity or the majority opinion in approving projects, such that >n the 2 other times that this project was submitted for approval, it was denied because of a negative feedback from the homeowners. In 2001, when the Diolmos presented this for approval, they again denied it for the same reason, and because it ~511 be intrusive in the sense that it would block the view of at least 6 houses. What made them change their mind?. In October 2, 2001, the Dio ~knos wrote the board a fetter informing them among others that their response was turned over to their legal :guf?__!! who will explore ALL POSS~!L!T!ES to have the project approved'.' ~n ghom they will sue. Shortly, the board reversed their decision and approved the wh~vn is against the r,r-~ ,~ :~ ~~ ..... ~ ..... project" :~ ' ' ~,~c~-,, ,~,e,~ policies mhd *~'~" ;mew that what they were doing was unacceptable and wrong, and they feared that :hey would be sued by the other homeow~._~-4-_opposed to the project. So what did :hey do? Dn August 12, 2002 (see attachment K of Mr. Valencia's letter), Mr. Frederick wrote :he Dioknos through their counsel, Mr. Valencia, that the board was approving their :e _ Jest for architectural approval on the condition that the Dioknos was to indemnify and defend the association and its directors from all claims including attorney fees in zase of a law suit. I ask you members of the commission, can you smell something ~ishy here? .X/Ir. Valencia continues to say that the people who object to this project only wish to ~cquire personal gains that is why they are doing this. Members of the commission, :ce have nothing to gain but everything to loose from all these. What we are fighting Yor we already have, what we are fighting for is not to loose it. While the Dioknos xave nothing to loose and everything to gain, for how can they loose something that :hey never ever had to start with. They did not pay extra money for that parcel of and. We are appalled and humiliated by the insinuation of Mr. Valencia that the neighbors zre demanding that they receive benefits at the Dioknos expense. We will never ;ompromise our lives and our loved ones for any monetary compensation or benefits. VV don't want anything from them except to be left alone to enjoy what our hard- ~arned money brought us. vlembers of the commission, I respectfully request that the planning commission lisapprove this project considering the questionable manner by which this project has · eached the planning commission. We should not even have reached this stage. We · equest that the commission listen to the voice of the majority as it has done so in the Thank you. -75- -77- GARY A. BELAGA, M.D. I)i/g./.tttt' itt ,~c'/trtdt~.[:r o.['the ..lmericttn Board qf P,~3,cltiatr.1, & Neuro]o~l: 3838 California Street, Suile 114 San Franciscu. Califm'nia 94118-1504 Telcph{mc: (415) 751-7753 July 17, 2003 My name is Gary 'Belaga, and I reside at 21 Vista Court. Last May I spoke to this Commission in opposition to the proposed development scheme of Nanette Diokno and her husband Frank. I am grateful that your summary of the testimony from my neighbors and from myself succinctly describes all of the points we made. The issues I raised remain unresolved, namely: (1) Parking space continues to be inadequate and the addition of yet another home can do nothing but aggravate an already troublesome problem, (2) Nannette and her family have shown not the slightest softening of their contempt for their neighbors or of their indifference to community harmony. They steadfastly refuse to utilize their own driveway in order to ease the crowded parking, (3) The underhanded and deceitful arrangements for a backroom deal that suborned the Homeowners' Board into complicity for this project remains a flagrant breach of integrity1 and (4) The erosion of property values of at least eight surrounding homes whose scenic views are threatened has not diminished. Additional submissions have been present to the Commission which argue that no improprieties ever existed in the conspiracy to gain Homeowner Board endorsement of this project. I would call your particular attention to the letter of Kevin Frederick dated August 12, 2002 in which he demands that Nannette and her husband "indemnify and defend the Association and the Directors from all claims" regarding the development scheme. This is a patent admission of wrongdoing at all of the levels we described. That community opposition was and continues to be vehement is obvious. Board minutes stating that during its deliberations no opposition to the project was voiced is nothing but an insulting lie. I would also direct your attention to the deceptive communication from Michael J. Hall dated March 23, 2003 in his response to my written challenge to the Board's conduct. Majority community opinions were ignored and dismissed as irrelevant. We are all here again to say that our opinions are relevant and that our safety and security cannot be ignored. If Nannette's scheme were fair and reasonable, it should have been organized in a legitimate way. Everyone knows what they have done is wrong and improper. People don't demand protection against litigation in such matters unless they know that they are guilty of wrongdoing. We protest this abuse and ask our duly elected government and its agencies to protect us from such maltreatment by greedy and unscrupulous people and their hired agents. There has been no compelling argument put forth as to why this project should be permitted, why the majority of people should be made to suffer for the benefit of one selfish family, or why the Diokno's should be allowed to stick their hands into our homesteads in order to enrich themselves at our expense. We, the majority of homeowners in this community, ask that you do the right thing by us and reject this detested scheme. The shockingly underhanded tactics of the Diokno's are an affront to common decency and they discredit this project. Such an offense against common decency must be rejected. -78- Attachment C Seven (7) Speeches from October 2, 2003 Public Hearing with the Planning Commission -79- Honorable Commission Chair William Romero, Honorable Asst. Chair Rick Oehsenhirt, Honorable Commissioners, Good evening. My name is Alexander Desuasido. I am here on behalf of my father, Chito Desuasido and our family, of 26 Vista Court. My father can not join .us as he has to preside over their Association monthly Board meeting. So he asked me to deliver this message to this august body. 4 years ago, I went to the HomeOwners Association for permission to build a 12 x 24feet sunroom. They told me that before I could build and get the permit from the Ci~,, I needed the consent of my immediate neighbors. It was only after I obtained the signatures of my neighbors did they approve my plan. Now, you have before you, a much bigger plan. Not a deck, not an extension, but a humongous house, bigger than most of the homes on Vista Court. Not a single neighbor signed off or approved of this plan. Please do not over ride the wishes of the neighborhood - you must reject this plan. The concerned Westborough neighbors made every effort to work with the applicants. Many among us gave up our evenings with our families to come when they called for a meeting. We exercised good faith and listened to them. We were civil and RESPECTFUL. But not only did they fail to answer many of our concerns and questions, but they have never provided meaningful revision in size and design to make the project COMPATIBLE with the rest of the neighborhood. To this date we still wait to hear a compelling reason why this house should be built at all. Honorable commissioners, we ask you to make your decision now - reject this project. At the end of the day, I request that one question be a guide to your decision: what is the cost/benefit equation of this project to your constituents, to the neighborhood and to the City at large. Economic benefit and personal gain no doubt to the applicants; and to the city and county - benefits in the form of property tax revenues. But, at what cost? At whose expense? Pis. Consider the other side of the equation: loss of view and value of neighboring homes, health and safety issues, loss of open space, disharmony, and disruption of the peace and quiet of the whole neighborhood. Finally, I hope some of the commissioners will not minimize or arbitrarily dismiss the ~ffo~. of the concerned n~;~ohbor~ b~ labelin.o ~,~,-~ ~t ~h~ ~o~,~ w~ ho~,~ p,,~ fo,'~'a-,~, being "emotional". Our issues are not about emotions. It is about harmony; it is about maintaining compatibility in our community. And harmony and compatibility are only possible if we respect one another, we respect our rules and the Homeowners' by-laws, we respect the land and environment we live in. Chairperson Romero, during the Jul}' 17, 2003 Planning commission meeting made a very insightful observation and I quote: "When I look at this site and look at it, in its current condition, this might have been a cut and fffi project; but over the years - 25 to 30 years ago - the site has been returned to its natural state. This is no longer cut and fill - the elements have taken care of that - this is now a site that is in its natural state. And as such, I thin.lq it needs to be~,~r~t'n'~r~'~.... ~,~-, it should comply with the General Plan and there should be minimal grading on the site in order to preserve the natural condition, which this site is now in." (end of ,,,,,,*,~ -80- Honorable Commissioners, please reject this project. By doing so, you have voted for harmony and compatibility, you have voted for respect to our precious land and environment, and that you have listened and duly represented the wishes of the more than 170 of your constituents in the Westborough area. And on their behalf, I acknowledge and thank all of you for the hard work and the dedication you ail show for our community. Thank you ..... October 2, 2003 Good evening commissioner Romero and members of the planning commission, I'm Amelia Abalos from 106 Valleyview way. When Dean and associates built 22 Vista Court that house was smaller than a postage stamp in proportion to their lot. Then why does this issue of a postage stamp sized house keep coming up when the neighborhood did not agree to the 2700 square foot house presented by the Dioknos at the two neighborhood meetings and board meeting? Why are they so persistent on building a huge house because of the lot size and not because of conformity, and safety? When Dean and Associates originally designed a 1950 square foot house on the proposed site, why did he not increase the square footage to make it economically feasible, if this was the reason for not pursuing the project? The most lo~cal answer is conformity in size and safety. If, after 23 years it is still not economically feasible to build a 1950 square foot conforming house on that lot and it would take a 2700 square foot non conforming structure to justify the Diokno's expense, then I don't think they can ever build an economically feasible conforming house in our lifetime that will blend in the neighborhood. General Provision of Zoning Title 20 says: The purpose of this title shall be to secure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to achieve the following objectives. Some of them are: - To provide open spaces for light and air. - To secure safety from fire and other dangers - To conserve and stabilize the value of property - To conserve the city's natural beauty Again, the required findings under Permit Procedure on Title 20 Zoning states that prior to the approval of a permit the approving body shall make the following findings in the affirmative. For residential projects, it should create a residential emdronment of sustained desirability and stability. Again the proposed project will not be adverse to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to the surrounding properties. By building this 2'700 square foot house with a total of 13 rooms and 6 ¥2 bathrooms, it will be the biggest and heaviest house on the most lreacherous and ste~est lot on that side of Vista Court. Where the biggest existing home is only 1990 square feet. I don't think the Dioknos and their team have achieved any of the objectives I have just read. Honorable Commissioner Romero and members of the planning commission, please listen to the neighborhood's concern for the last time on this very dangerous and controversial project before you ~ve your final decision tonight. Thank you for your consideration and valuable time. ~82- DENNISON V. RAVA~L 108 'v'allevview Way Sour5 San Francisco, Ca. 94080 (650) 583-4362 October 2, ,.00~ South San Francisco Planning Commission 415 Maple St. South San.Francisco. Ca. 94080 Re: Building A House On A Vacant Lot Next To 22 Vista Court, SO. S. F. Ca. My name is Dennison Raval. I'm a homeowner of 108 Valleyview Way since 1987. My- house is located directly at the bottom of the hill of the proposed project. On behalf of my family and neighbors, I would like to express my opposition regarding the oversize building project on a steeped slope. After meeting a couple of times with the/~owner, Mr.. and Mrs. Dinlcr~o, Westborough Homeowners' Board of directors and some homeowners, I'm positive that building a 2757 sq. ft. house on a 52 - 58% slope, which is steeper, barely has a fiat land and one and a half times bigger than the houses adjacent to it, will just worsen and surely damage the slope to further create a severe slide and erosion. Again, as I have mentioned here in the previous meetings, my neighbors and I have been already experiencing this serious problem every time it rains. -83- The real concern here is the safety of the community especially to the neighboring houses around the proposed site ttml:i~irectly affected by it. ~3/¢ ~ As per Government Code Section 65302. (g) and The US Global Change Research Information Office, the following statements are to be considered and critical regarding slope failure: 1.) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rapture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dsm failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of the Public Resources Code and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wild land and urban fires. And 2.) Slope failure is a natural process which can be induced, accelerated or retarded by human actions. Many causes are involved including: a) Adding weight naturally to slopes by rain, hail, snow an___d wmer from springs, by human actions such as landfills, stockpiles of ore or rock, waste piles, construction of heavy building and other structures, and water leaking from pipelines, sewers, canals, and reservoirs. b) Earthquakes, thunder, vibrations from nearby slope failures, and human activities such as vibrations from explosions, machinery, road and air traffic. And -84- c) Lateral pressure from water in cracks and caverns, freezing of water in cracks, hydration of minerals, and mobilization of residual stress, Landslides are most common on moderate to steep slopes worldwide, but even gentle and flat-lying slopes may fail adjacent to steep slopes. Honorable commissioners, please take another look at this project ve~ carefully. As I have no doubt that this project will cause property damage and potentially lives of families living in the area. Your consideration and decision/s'very critical not only in our neighborhood but in the whole community. I hope for your support and thank you very much. -85- SPEECH Planning Commission Meeting Oct. 2, 2003, 7:30 PM Good evening Honorable Commissioners, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Frank Acob of 19 Vista Court. I am here again with my fellow Homeowners to express our opposition to the proposed project at 22 Vista Court for the 3r° time. On Aug. 2, 2003, the Applicant meet with the 5 Homeowners they have selected and invited. At that meeting, the Applicant presented to the invited Homeowners this drawing (which I labeled as Exhibit "A"). This 1 page drawing is very schematic without any dimensions. But, one thing that is very clear on this drawing is the Front Perspective which shows the Architectural inconsistency of the proposed project with respect to the existing houses at Vista Court and the entire Westborough Way Development. Then, the 2nd drawings provided by the Applicant via the Manager of the Westborough Way HOA after the Aug. 27, 2003 BOD meeting, are drawings Sheet A-i through A-4 (which I labeled as Exhibit "B"). These drawings are missing a lot of critical dimensions, elevations, topographical survey, site contour, grading plan, landscape plan, foundation and retaining wall plans, to mention a few. Please note that the Graphic Section on Sheet A-4 does NOT reflect the actual site slope which is more than 50%. 1 -86- How can the Homeowners provide our comments when there is a lot of missing vital information on the drawings and a lot of unanswered questions from the Homeowners and the Homeowners Asso. B.O.D.? I am also very much concerned about the loss of views, if this project will be built. In simple terms, loss of views means devaluation of our properties in Westborough Way particularly, the properties at Vista Court. The Homeowners who are here tonight, including those 170(+) Homeowners who signed the petition which was previously submitted to the Commission, respectfully request your kind consideration and support to disapproved this proposed project, due to various reasons we have presented to you tonight and also during the last 2 Planning Commission's Meetings on May 5, and July 7, 2003. Thank you very much ........ FRANK ACOB 19 Vista Court File: Oct. Speech (22 Vista Court Project) 2 -87- I would like to take this oppormuity to clarify on what was said by the applicant at the last meeting. In a last effort to gain sympathy, Nanette indicated that we have no logical reason to deny them wanting to build and that many "just said No". She also claims to have had done everything possible to consider our feelings and gain our approval and that she went as far as "personally" spending an hour or more with every one of us. I personally know she did NOT spend even a few minutes with me. I know many of my neighbors feel the same way. Those that agree w/th me can stand up to reflect this false statement made by Nanette [Ask audience to stand]. My neighbors and I have done eveuthing to work with the applicant. We have done so in "good faith". We have been reasonable with them but they have not been able to provide us with any answers to our questions nor have they addressed any of our concerns. The applicant continues to this day to alienate their neighbors. We are still waiting for the documents, which they have agreed to provide us. The Diokno's believe that since it's their land, they can do what ever they want. Do they know that public safety, the commurfity and the neighborhood are affected by what they want? The "people factor" has not been considered by the applicant and does not seem to want to embrace it. In conclusion, many questions are left unanswered and many of our concerns have not been addressed. This project still needs work. Thank you. -88- Twice before and once again, I stand here to express my concern on public safety. This is a unique project that requires answers. There are many unanswered questions we have as a community and my concern is the outdated report on slope stability and soil reports. On 9/24/03, I called and asked Steve Carlson if any studies or reports have been done recently. Mr. Carlson stated there is NO NEED for any additional testing and the analysis have not changed since 1988. 1988 was 15 years ago. This is outdated information and conditions change. The applicant also informed me that these reports are NOT their responsibility. Both the city and the applicants shrugged me off. No one wants to take responsibility. Are they afraid of something? I am very disappointed for their lack of attention in something so important. Questions asked since May 15, 2003 are still left unanswered: · New Soil Report (as Commissioner Melon suggested on 7/t7/03). · Environmental Impact Report (as Commissioner Romero stated over time, the site has returned to its natural state) 7/17/03. · What is the Grading Plan? How much ~ading will there be? · Topog-raphic survey w/spot elevations on the adjacent homes, 2"d Fi, Roof Lines & Peaks. · Elevation Plan/Building Elevation. We as a community have NOT been provided with enough information to feel comfortable in supporting such a project and have NOT been assured nor convinced on public safety. Members of the Committee, Thank you for your time and I ask for your vote to object the proposed construction site based on the lack of supporting docmments. 10/3/2003 - 8 9 - October 2, 2003 Members of the planning commission, good evening. My name is Zita Rey and reside at 23 Vista Court. Before anything else I would like to apprise the commission on what has transpired since the last time we've met. This way everybody will have a better understanding as to how things were handled or mishandled leading to tonight's meeting. During the last meeting, I recalled the commission have asked the applicants to see if the), could go back to the neighborhood and get the neighbors into their fold "to come up with a design and square footage that would be acceptable to both the applicant and the neighbors." They also asked the applicants and the neighbors to come -ap with something that would address the loss of view, slope stabiiity, limited parking and conflict with the CC&R that would arise if a house was built in that property,. When the Dioknos asked for a meeting in August 20, 2003, we thought going into the meeting that we will start with a clean slate, going through the agenda in question, point by point until we reach a preliminary plan that is acceptable to both parties. However, what they did was present us with a totally different plan that we have not seen before and asked for our comments. None o£ us present has any background on architecture nor en=-fineering so there was not much we could comment on. However, we raised the issue of loss of view. Their architect said they could lower the height of the house. We raised the issue of soil stability and they said that they would be solved by a retaining wall that they will erect at the bottom o£ the hill We raised the issue of parking which they really didn't have any answer except that they have provided three onsite parking spaces. Before we ended that meeting we were assured by Nanette Diotmo herself that our concerns will be incorporated into the plan to be presented to the board. On August 27, 2003 during the Westborough Way Homeowners board meeting, we were surprised when the Dioknos presented the board with a plan that was slightly altered but was essentially the same as what was presented to us. Most notable alteration was the disappearance of the rctah~ing wall at the bottom of the hie which they originally concented to build. The height of the house wasn't change at all. During that meeting, the Westborough way homeowners association decided that we would meet again on September 9, 2003 to see if we could settle our difference in a meeting organized by the board. On September 9, 2003, we were again presented with the same plan that was presented to us on August 27, 2003. They claim that they have reduced the square footage of the house. However when we asked about the issues that we've raised such as the height of the house, parking etc. Nanette Diokno vehemently stated that they do not have to change anything that they don't want to, which means that whatever suggestions/issues we '-.--~, ."~;~ ,:,~."~ never .... ~: ..... ' :::-'-+'--. '~ .......... pl ' ' pi .................. ~,,u ...... ~[a,~ ,~,,~. inc. v also smd mar me ams were au-eaoy sent to the arming commission for their approval at the meeting on September 18, 2003. So whatever issues brought up in that meeting as with the past meetings were immaterial as they have already submitted the plan for your approval as early as September 9, 2003. Members of the planning commission, as per your suggestion we have tried to cooperate with the Diolmos in their quest to develop their property. When we were invited to their meeting, we were there willingly to discuss with them ways and means to lessen the impact of their project to the community. We have respected their right to develop their property and in good faith attended each and every meeting they and the homeowners association had called. However, we doubt very much if they are at all interested with what we have to say. Nothing has been done to address our concern. And even as they called a meeting with us, the homeowners, they have already made arrangement for a presentation with you, the planning commission. They are pla.mag games and m ~aldng fools out of us. I think it has come to a point where we are engaged in is an exercise in futility. Member of the commission, we humbly asked that you deny the Diokno's application toni~t and end this charade once and for all. Thank you. - 9 0 - APPLICANT'S SUMMARY LETTER Frank and Nannette Diokno took the plsnning Commission's commems as directives. As a result, following is the chronology of events. August 6, 2003 Requested Mr. Jerry Yee, Manager of Westborough Way Homeowners' Association to coordinate a meeting for August 13, 2003 involving at least four homeowners and the board of directors to review and discuss proposed home redesign and obtain concurrence. Neighbors turned down the invitation stating that "the Planning Commission merely made a recommendation and that they (the neighbors'> don't have to comply with it." August 13, 2003 Frank and Nannette Diokno marled out individual invitations m five neighbors, who are directly impacted by the project, ro go over the modified, scaled down plan on August 20, 2003. August 20, 2003 Seven neighbors attended (including one uninvited neighbor). Two of the board of directors attended and observed. Nannerte Diokno presented the modified, scaled down plan. Neighbors' inputs were considered. ,August 27, 2003 Nannerte Diokno presented modified plan to the Westborough Way Homeowners' Association's Board o£ Directors. The Board suggested another meeting on September 9, 2003 with the 5 directly impacted neighbors to discuss the modified plan and get the neighbors' input. September 9, 2003 9 neighbors, 4 Board members, the apphcants, apphcants' legal counsel and project designer attended the meeting. Consensus was not reached. -91- .LEGEND: ~-----', DENOTES UPPER FLOOR ~-' FOOTPRINT ' %r~w--~ 2" WATERIINE ~---se----q 4" STO~ D~ L~E ~ ~DERGRO~ ELEC~C~ ' TO ELE~CAL BOX ~ ~ W~M~ ' ~ ~ PG&E METER ~TCH BAS~ Remove Ex N30'~8'57' ! 138.~' w / ~ ~ proposed ~idence 41 ~oT ~33 SPUT,~Xo :~,~,~c~, LOT 2~ ~ ~OT LOT A~A : LOT 233 24~25 SF (.556 AC) ~T 233A 13~34 SF (.3~ AC) ~T233B = 10,8~.74 SF { .2~AC) STATION BEARING N,S ANGLE E,W C D E F G A L 0 T 233B LENGTHLATITUDEDEPARTUREDMD DMD'LATITUDE X N ~O.8158 W 60.58 52.02723 -31,033905 -31,03391 -1514.1~525~ N 5.3408W 43,0117 42.92497 -4,0035t24 -66.07132 -2829.502538 N t7.1236 W 60540157,85647 -17825063 -87.8999-5055.5776 N 59.1~42 E 60.3158 30,89~56 5t.8003347 -53.92483 -1565.193353 S 22,5508 E 118.418 -109.364 45.4135894 43.289297 -4734.279868 S 30.6136 E 41.[}4-35319020.899444 109.00233 -3871.142597 S 59.1842 W 75.99 -~.9281-85.25163 65.240145 -2539.67719 -000454-0,0107427 AREA= -22M0.98~ SQFT 't l'tT0.41~t SQFT Al= 140.811 A2= -421 NET AREA= 10~0.264 SOFT i PROJECT UTILITY PROVIDER 1) CABLE TV ~ AT&T BROADBAND 146 SO. SPRUCE AVE. SO. SF, CAHFOEN[A 940~3 2) PGaE, ~ 275 INDUS'TRIAL ROAD SAN CARLOS, CAL~ORNIA ~4070 3) GARBAGE = SSF SCAVENGER CO. 500 EAST JAM1E CT. SO. $F, CALIFORNIA · 94083 4) WATER WESTBOKOUG~ DISTKICT 2263 WESTBOROUOI'I BLVD. SO. SF, CALIFORNIA 94083-2747 5) SEWER WESTBOROUGH D[STR1CT 2263 WESt'BOROUGH BLVD. SO. SE, CALIFORNIA 94083-2'747 EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE ZONtNG CONSTRUCTION TYPE PROJECT ANALYSIS: 22 VISTA COURT WESTBOROUGH, SOUTH SF CA APN # 091-623-420 LOT 233 RES/DENTIAL SPLIT EXISTING .5 ACRE LOTINTO 2 PARCELS AND CONSTRUCT NEW CUSTOM RESIDENCE ON DIE CREATED PARCEL. R-I VN LOT 233 LOT 233A LOT 23311 REMARKS Provided Required LOT ARgA FLOOR AREA: MAIN LEVEL : UPPER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL: FI~qT FLOOR 1,125 SF REQ. ~ OK < 50% . /[/~CISTRAN ENGINEERS INC. /__~lV/- _~-~ .......... ,:,.,., .._ S,SANFRANCISCO LEGENDS DWY CONC. ¢'.;'.;: ?.{.:..::j co.c~rc EL. ELEVATION Ep"~-C) STREET ELECTRIC POLE F/L FLOW LINE PROPERTY LINE MAP PROJECT PROPOSAL Sidewalk VEEW POINT d i VIEW POINT Upper Floor ~ ~ Upper Floor ,,.. ~ Sidewalk PROJECT ANALYSIS: 22 VISTA COURT WESTBOROUGH, SOUI'lt SF CA APN # 091-623-420 LOT233 EXISTING USE RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED USE SPLIT EXISTING .5 ACRE LOT INTO 2 PARCELS AND CONSTRUCT NEW CUSTOM RESIDENCE ON THE CREATED PARCEL. ZONING R-1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE VN LOT 233 LOT 233A LOT 233B REMARKS Provided Required ExistingExisting New LOT AREA 2.1,225 SF 13,334.74 SF 10,890.254 SF$,00O SF FLOOR AREA: 2,208. SF 2,208 SF ,757.00 SF MAYN LEVEL UPPER LEVEL i,811oo SF LOWER LEVEL: 946.00 FIRSt FLOOR 1,125 SF1,125 SF SECOND FLOOR 621 SF 621 GARAGE 462 SF 462 SF 441.00 SF IOTLIVABLE AREA~ 2.208 SF 2,208gF 2,257.0O gF 35 FI <35 FT i 29-32 FT 25 FTmax BLI) G HE1GHT LOT COVERAGE [ 50% BLDG FOOTPRfflT 1,587 SF 1,587SV ~2,252 SF LOT COVERAGE I 1.4 % [ 20.68 % Sidewalk 23 VISTA CT. g Remove Ex. Fence EnCrOachment E:t. Wood Fence V~SXA co ulut I VIEW CORRIDOR El. Ret. Wall EglST,3qG KES1DEIq GE SITE IMPROVEMENT SHT. A-1 SHT. A-2 SHT. A~ SHT. A-4 'SHT. C-1 SHT., C-2 SHT. L-1 INDEX SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT ANALYSIS PROJECT PROPOSAL STREET LEVEL & UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN FRONT ELEVATION ( COMPARABLE ) LINE OF SIGHT ILLUSTRATION BUILDING ELEVATIONS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREL GRADING PLAN PREL LANDSCAPE PLAN _ ._ · Top.?f.Dbl Plate Top of Fir.: Jst. Upper Level · Top off st., Lower Level' Fin. Grade Line -- SCHEDULE OF EXTERIOR FINISHES: F.3. FRENCH DOOR F.4.EXIT DOORS e 0 0 0 ®, e 1-/B'= 1'-0" e o o o Top Of Garage Slab Top of Garage Slab' ~/~ ~ Top of Fir. Jst. ~ '~ 1/~"= 1'-0" ~ Top of Dbl Plate Top of Fir. Jst. Upper Level Top of Fir. Jst.~ LoWer Lt*el Top of Fir. Jst. Lower Level i-- Title PROJECT ~2 VISTA C0 _UR.~T VIIEWECtt @ 'VISTA ~CO.IJI:I,T_ !' 17B'=1",O ........... LINE OF SIQNT TO VIEW '- -- ") I ~ I ~l~ L ] Top of FIr. IJs~ ' ' ' ~ Upper L~el DENOTES L~E OF PROPERTY SE~ON AS SHO~ ] ' LINE OI= SIGHT PATH TO VIEW : 1/El'= 1 '-O" ~ Setback Bldg Dimension MONUMENT CITY FOUND 60,58~ DWY E/L SNO W RE WALL LEGENDS ORiVEWAY CONCRETE ELEVATION STREET ELECTRIC POLE FLOW UNE PROPERTY LINE SIGN SPOT ELEVATION TOP OF CURB TREE WOODEN EENCE A§FHALT CONCRETE WATER ELECETRONI[ BOX RETAINING WALL CATCH BASIN SURVEYOR'S STATEHEN7 Thi~ Hap re~¢e~ent~ a survey made by me or under ~BASIS OF BEARINGS The bearing of ~0°48'59'' shown on fhe WESTBOROUOR t ?,CISTI~AN ENGINEERS .INC. 22 V~STA CT S,SANFRANCISCO CA 94080. ~nA~ ~xm TOPOGRAPHY S U RVBY MAP 10F1 fi ICONSTRt~CT 6" CONCRETE.D~YE?A¥. }. 14o .sraucr 5;' coNc=r lqSTALL CATCH BASIN, SEE DET. ,I~'S_TALL ~" pvc STORM DRAIN PIPE IC'T 2 . .~: SWALE .~.LF TOTAL N30'48'57'W 3' CONCRETE SWALE 1%- El 390.00 Fad El 388.00 LD~,R~,LED PIERS FOR SHORING AND FOUNDATION PER SOIL iENGINEER RECOMMENDATION. ........... 8 ~ CQ.N_STRUCT CONCRETE R~__TAINZNG CONCRETE .; LF TOTAL CD. NSTRUCT, 4' CONCRETE SWALE __ 264 LF TOTAL j, m~at:L S~.~W ~s 2~ Lv Fo~/ J~OS~0N CONTROL · ILLUSTRATED DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL DESIGN FEATURES 1/16"=1'~0' .. .'. .,: I I 'd i LEGENDS D~y DRIVEWAY CONC. [".~.:;: ~";;'<':} Co,C~ETE EL. ELEVATION EP~-C) SlREET ELECTRIC POLE F/L FLOW L{NE PROPERTY SNO ~ SPOT ELEVATION T/C TOP OF CURE {~ TREE ~ WOOOEfl FENCE ~ CHAINLINK FENCE A,C ASPHALT CONCRETE W WATER E,B ELEEETRONIC BOX RE WALL RETAINING WALL CB CATCH BASIN /-~~ClSTRAN ENGINEERS INC. ~ 7/- ;3'~"~'.-_.~.~ ~,,~',~ S,SANFRANCISCO · ~= BDII~ING WALL 6" PLAC~ TOPSOI~ ~ TOPSOIL CROWING & FIN. G~E ~ BLDG.' DETAIL ~ IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS I. SCOPE/Tbeirrigafiodplansareaschematicgaldsfortheconvenienee of the Contractor and it is the intention o/the Drawings to provide fall coverag~ and adequate water to all planting areas, The Contractor shall adjust the location o£all beads a~dJ or add additional beads as declared necessary. 2. ELECTRICAL POWER HOOK UP: The Ownor shall provide the necessary power supply to the control panel. The Landscage Conlractor shall locate and install the conlrol panel in the specified location· 3. MATERIALS: The Landscape Conkactor shall insto[I pipe, sprialdem, automatic controller, electric valves, m~ti-slphon device, quick coupler valves and all ~[ee~ed materials as indicated on the plans and her,,in specified. 4. YACUUqvl BREAIGER: The Landsmpe Cantmc~o~ shall install the vacuum breaker assembly where specified. The vacuum breaker shall be 6 inches higher than the highest sprinkler head to be served by this system. 5. PRESSURE MAIN SUPPLY PIPE: Pressure supply lines shall be PVC I220 Class 315, Type [, Grade II, NSF approved as per ASTM - D 1765 and ASTM D 224.. All pipe shall be continuously marked by the mamffacmrer as to class, grade and size· Non - pressure lateral lines below walkx~ays at paved. wa]kways or traffic lanes shall he of same specifications as Ihs pressure mare supply lines· Pre,ante pipe and non pressure lateral lines below paved areas sliall be buried to min. depth of eighteen { 1 g ) inches. 6. NON PRESSURE LATERAL PIPE. All non p~Ssure lateral lives in planter~ shall be PVC Class 200. Type l, Grade Il, NSF approved. Pipe shall be continuously marked by the manufacturer as to class, type, grade ~d size, All non pressuze lateral pipe shall be buried to a mhi. depth of eight ( * ) inches. 7. SOLVENT: Solvent shall be approved by the n~nufanturer of pipe and finings. g. FI3q'INGS: Fittings shall be pVC Type II, IPS Schedule 40 flip fillings and Schedule 80 threaded filtJngs, NSF approved aa per ASTM - D 2464, ASTM - D 2466 and ASTM - D 2467 on all PVC pipe requiring solvent weld jolms. 9] CONTROL WIRE: Central wire sball be direct burial wi~ AMO -lYF ~ sized in accordance with the valve manufacturer wire charl and specifications. Ground wb* shall be whito and pilot wire s~}l be of different color· All splices shall be soldered and coated ~vith ger~aal bakelite cement and wrappexl with electrical tape. Provide an expa~ion curl at every wire connection and al least evers 100 foot· But*die and tope ;vim to pipe every 12 feet. 10. REMOTE CONTROL VALVES: Install all electrical control valves in an "AMA. lEX" valve marked RCV with a min. of 4" of gravel under tho valves · Paint a numb~ on the valve to correspond with control a~tion. 11. AU/OMATICCONTROLLER: The automaha controller shall be mounted where ~pe¢ified. All control equipment shall be gmund~ through a separate grounding cimuil. 12. RISERS TO SPRRqKLER HEADS: Riser shall be Schedule 80 PVC thzeaded at both ends, manufactmed for use ~ sprinkler risers. 13. TRENCHES AND BACKFILL: Ail non presage lateral line trenche~ shall be a minimum of eight ( 8 ) inche~ and shall be backfillad to a minimum compaction of 80*/0 and all pressure main lines and nol~ pressure lateral lines -.~_ "PLANT LIST ITEM SYMBOL B. O HYBRID TEA ROSE ' NANDINA C. ~ DOMEST[CA CULTIYARS HEAVENLy 1 GAL BAMBOO  GRASS : I3. I [AWN E. /X~ ASSORTED FRUIT TREES 15 GAL F, .~tl~).j~t~ JASMIMUM pINK 2 GAL SEE DETAIL POLYANTHUM JASMINE below paved areas shall be set in.a treuch liaving a minimam depth of eighteen ( 18 ) inches and shall be backfilled to a mlnimum compaction of 90 %. I 4. TESTING: Test all pressure lines umler a hydrostatic pressure of 125 psi and hold for 2 hours, . reserves the right to have all non pressure lateral lines tested at static pressure if deemed necessao' due to installation 15. GUARANTEE: The Landscape Conh'aetor shall gaarantee the installed irrigation system to be free of ali defects ia materials and workmanship and that the work has been completed in aceurdance wilh the drawings and spoeificafions materials or workmanship which may develop during a period of one ( 1 ) yaza ~rom t~,e date of acceptance. The repairs shall be accomplished within a reasonable time as determined by the Owner. All repair coals shall be home by the Conttado~. LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS 1. RENOVATION AIqD REMOVAL ~ The Landscape Contractor shall remove all shrubs, growadcovers, tr~es, ornamental gmval, roots and other landscap~ lierat unless otheswise noted on Drawings. All items noted shall be removed from the site by u~ of track o~ re,mi trash dumpster. 2,FINE GRADING: All landscape areas shall Ix: filled o! reminded as ncfed on drawings. Imported lii1 materials shiril be sandy loam and shall be free of weeds rocks, trash and foreign debris. All mounds and berm shall be thoroughly wetted and compagted prior £o planting. 3.SO1LPREPARATION: Pdpurs~arifyallp{antingateaatoadepthoff" and moisten. Apply uniformly to all planting ~'eas per every 1000 SF ,3 cubic yards of redwood shavings and 150 pou~ls of GRO- POWER. Rotofil amendments into top 6 inebes ?f soil. d. PLANT INSPECTION: Noti~ of plant material souxce. All plants will be inspected at growing grounds prior to shipment to project site. No plant mmeilal will be accepted if mot bound o~ of poor q~alily. Alt material plFmed without prior notice being given the Lands~;ape Atehltoct, the ConU'antor mayl~ requh'ed lo remove and replac~ a~ his o'm~ ~xpense. 5. TREE & SHRUIg PLANTING: l~ae phinling plans am g schamnti¢ guida to plar, t locations and dun to actual field conditions, Ihe plants maybe required to I~ relocated, therefore conta~ fo~ phinling uplUX)va! 24 houri5 in advance. Dig all plants pit twice the dluraeter and equal to the depth of the plant container. Flood plum pit and allow water to lhoranshly per~ohte into sub adjacent mil ~ior to planling. Back:fill using 75% site soil and 25% redwood shavings. Add GRO-POWER as directed by the manufacturer's reeommendatinns. Construct a 3" high basin m'annd e~h plant and wate~ thoroughly several tim~ prior to removal of benin. 6. TREE STAKINO AND GUYING: All 5 and 15 g~lion treua shall be staled using LODOE POLE Iree stakes and all boxed or field grown specimens shall be gnyea using 3 g~N~nized 10 gauge ~ire. St~k~ shall be huslec124" below grad~. 7. GROUND COVER PLANTING: Water areas thoroughly to 6" ponetrafion the day before the plmifing. Plant well rooted phags from tala in a Iriangular and water immMiatoly following planting of each rial. Top dress with 25 lbs. of $. CLEAIq UP SITE: Clean up shall consist of aleanlng dally e~h a~a by · removingl~gs, piantcmx~?rs and d~efiria 9. MAZiffTENA~CE ~ Dudngtlaelandacapeprocess, all arens shall bo malntalned continuously tmtfi tha'l~ajeet Ires been eompetod and upl~oved by 10. GUARANTEE: The Landscape Contractor shall guarantee all comainer g~wn material up to 15 gallon size for a period of 90 days following final aeeppmnce to be liv~ ired healthy· Container 17own material 1.5 g~on shz.~ or ginger shall be guaranteed to be live and beallhy for 1 year beyond date of final acceptance. NOTES: I J T~flan ox Ep~.m pre emerg~ence herbicide is to be applied to ~1[ plan, tar Per manufacturer's q~eificatioua. 2. All planter beds to receive 2 ~ of redwood or fir b~k. 3, No slopes to exc.~ 30% excet~ where specified. 4.. All alope~ eaceeding 25% to teeelve jato netth~ except ~ sodded area~. EQ UAL.~TRIANOULAR SPACING REQ. n~Lm, rr~-'-__~ (RE~ERTO r-~_ PLANTINg' PLAN FOR DISTANCES) TH~ mST.~CE mOM ~OE or rt.~a~rmr, s To cmwrm~ oF rL&wr BASE OF PLKNTER TYPICAL GROUND COV'F,R S'ACING DETAIL DETAIL!~. SHP,.UB ~" BASIN -- GRADE BACKFILL MD( REPER TO SPECS - FAMPED SOIL REFER TO SPECIi:ICATIONS . TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL DETAIL~ ~TO ~ November 24, 2003 Honorable Karyl Matsumoto Mayor of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mayor Matsumoto: South San Francisco is a great place to live in. Frank and I have made up our minds to stay in the City of San Francisco as long as we live. It is for this reason why we have initiated a project to subdivide our piece of property on Vista Court and build our dream house. You have more than likely heard about our three-year old project. Frank and I are providing, for your consideration and review, the project detailed information prior to the December 10, 2003 City Council meeting. We have included in this binder a project overview, a chronology of events and historical background of the project. In April 1992, we bought our house on 22 Vista Court. We paid the premium for the view as well as the additional parcel. Anne Jacobs, the previous owner, told us that the lot has potential. She provided us with information about the work she had done (i.e., feasibility study, soil test, the positive results and recommendations made by the City of SSF consultant). Due to marital problems, she did not pursue the project. She, however, gave us some insights on the neighbors' behavior toward this project. The subject lot is vacant and causes problems. Teenagers use this area as a place to hangout. They frequently disrupt the neighbors by playing loud music especially after midnight, doing drugs, having sex, and drinking alcohol, vandalizing, and leaving their trash all around the area including dumping it in the drainage and down the hill. Teenagers also drive at high speed in this area, which poses a danger to the children who play in this secluded neighborhood. Empty beer/wine bottles, soda cans/cups, MacDonald/Taco Bell bags/wrappers, cigarette butts, and birth control contraceptives are common items found dumped down the hill and on the curb. We constantly have to pick up the trash left behind by the people who hang out in the area. We frequently cut the grass to prevent dangerous brushfire. (TAB 1-pictures of the site) These problems got worse. I sought the assistance of the Westborough Homeowners' Association's (WHOA) Board of Directors as well as the neighbors but I was unsuccessful. The members of the board suggested calling the police department whenever such situations occur. (TAB 2-copy of the incidents report called in from my residence). Desperate for help, I wrote a letter to SSF Chief of Police Mark Rafaelli. He responded positively and sent Lieutenant Tealdi to assist us. The SSF Police Department has been very responsive and cooperative. We continue to work with them in eliminating/preventing these problems and I believe we made tremendous progress. With all this in mind, in September 2002, Frank and I made a decision to start the project with the hope to completely eliminate all the annoyances mentioned above. We conducted our own feasibility study, sought the experts' advise and gathered all the necessary data prior to formally submitting our plan to the WHOA's Board of Directors for approval. On September 29, 2000, we submitted our official request for approval of our project to the WHOA (TAB 3). We complied with the provisions of the association's CCNR and provided advance notice (TAB 4) about the project to the surrounding homeowners. We met with them in person and offered to spend as much time as they wished to discuss the details of the project. From the very beginning, certain neighbors have opposed our project and continue to encourage others to oppose it as well (TAB 5). We attended several homeowners' meetings where we presented detailed information about the project. Homeowners also attended all these meetings. (TAB 6 - copies of minutes of the meetings) The project consultants/experts affirmatively addressed and mitigated the homeowners' concerns/issues such as: Erosion, Grading and Drainage. This project will actually stabilize the land and stop erosion. The civil drawings have an erosion control plan which showed provisions for hay bales and erosion control boxes. Drilled piers will be installed to control erosion. Page I of 3 Diokno's Project The building foundations and retaining walls will follow the design criteria of the soil report. The design used drilled piers and grade beams to depths given to prevent sliding. In addition, for the protection of the rear neighboring property, the rear of the building is lined with soldier piers for shoring. Protection from debris provision will also be addressed. There would be minor cut and fill grading of the present cut slope terrain. Concrete swales that would collect storm water nmoff, storm drain pipe, catch basin will be installed. This should eliminate off-site runoff and take care of the drainage issue. These issues have been addressed in all the homeowners' meetings. Unfortunately, the opposing neighbors refuse to hear and understand the experts' explanations. Obstruction of View. The WHOA's CCNR does not recognize view easement. This project will definitely not destroy the panoramic view of the area and only a relatively small portion of the view will be impacted. To minimize the impact, the roofline was lowered by approximately 5 feet resulting in a roofline lower than 23 Vista and lower than the second floor line of 17 and 18 Vista, the adjacent houses In our first meeting with the Design Review Board (DRB) on March 12, 2002, we willingly concurred with the DRB's recommendations to make several modifications as documented in Steve Carlson's letter of March 22, 2002 (TAB 7). The DRB reviewed the modified plan, provided positive feedback and approved the plan on October 15, 2002. Effect of Catastrophic Events such as earthquake and heavy rains. Catastrophic events are acts of God that cannot be prevented by man. We can only take precautionary measures and that's exactly what we will do. We are equally concerned with the safety of our family. Our experts will comply with the building codes and will not jeopardize their reputations by falsely authorizing this project. Devaluation of Property. We have never heard nor seen any development that causes properties to devalue. This project will: · Add value to the properties in Vista Court. · Enhance the area by stopping teenagers from using this area as a place to hangout. · Benefit the SSF community through City property tax. · Discourage burglaries by eliminating this vacant lot through the construction of a residential house. Thus, easy access to the properties of Vista Court will not longer be available. In March 2001, we became one of burglary victims. The burglars used the vacant lot to access our property and to flee without being noticed/caught. Insufficient Parking Space. We currently have ample parking spaces, In order for the opposing neighbors to support their opposition and raise parking as one of the issues, they started parking their cars on the street. Car garages are inappropriately utilized as storage areas. Each household owns 4-5 cars on an average. They park on their driveway and on the curb. TAB 8 is a survey that we conducted indicating each bousehold's demographics. Disruption of Community's Peace and Harmony. This project has provided positive result to the neighbors. Prior to the introduction of this project, the neighbors hardly knew each other and most of them never even talked to each other. Fortunately or unforttmately, whichever the case maybe, the residents of Vista Court, Appian and Valleyview now know and talk to each other. Our intentions are good. It is never our intention to hurt anybody. We want the neighbors to live in peace and harmony. In fact, in 1999, I (Nannette) initiated a neighbor awareness newsletter that provided updates to issues concerning the homeowners (TAB 9). It was through my effort that convinced the WHOA board members to approve the homeowners' request to retain the Westborough sign at the entrance of Vista Court. I received verbal and written commendations from Vista residents. I continued to updated the Vista Court residents of any developments as deemed appropriate until we decided to pursue our project. Page 2 of 3 Diokno's Project After extensive review of our project, the WHOA Board of Directors approved our project in August 6, 2002 (TAB 10). The opposing neighbors were outraged by this decision. We have been verbally abused as wimessed by the neighbors as well as SSF Planning Division staff members. In spite of all the verbal abuse, false accusations and harassment from these people, we maintained and will continue to maintain our composure and professionalism. We will stay focus in affLrmatively addressing their concerns. In October 2002, after complying with their recommendations, the DRB provided favorable reviews and approved our plan. In addition, the consultants, Cotton, Shires & Associated, Inc., retained by the SSF Office of the Engineer, performed their own evaluations and test and provided favorable results (TAB 11). As indicated in the Chronology of Events, we had numerous meetings with the neighbors. We addressed their concerns and how they would be mitigated. In September 2003, the modified, scaled down plan was submitted and approved by the DRB and WHOA. As you may know, we met with the Planning commission three times. We positively addressed their issues and fully complied with their recommendations. Finally, on October 2, 2003, after presenting our modified, scaled down plan (TAB 12), the Planning Commission unanimously approved our project. I've also included copies off · footprint comparison shows the size reduction. · faqade comparison shows how we tried to stay consistent with the existing homes. · line of sight path to view shows the minimal view impact as a result oft he lowered roofline. · elevation shows the length reduction of the house by 12 feet to closely match existing homes. · Rear comparison shows the redesigned plan to break the mass of a long monotonous rear wall. · Area view with a picture of the proposed house. · WHOA's approval letter of September 20, 2003. Our story does not end here. Unfortunately, certain neighbors appear to be committed to defeating the construction of our home at the site and appealed the Planning Commission's decision. Honorable Mayor Matsumoto, Frank and I including our children trust that you and your members of the City Council will review and evaluate our project based on the experts' reports and not based on the neighbors' emotions. It's sad to say that these people have had their minds set from the very beginning. They have been unwilling to listen to the experts. In addition, they continue to give false information in their campaign to oppose this project as evidence by the written objections/comments sent to the City Planning Division and the City Council. We believe that you will give credit where credit is due. This is a free country and as long as we comply with the laws and city codes, we believe that there is no reason to disapprove our project. Why would you prevent us from fulfilling our dreams? We are just ordinary people who worked hard to get to where we are now. We know you have a very busy schedule but please, spare us some of your time and review all the documentations of both sides. We are available to meet with you if you feel necessary to answer any questions you may have. We can be reached on (415) 514-4909 (work) or (650) 872-0531 (home). God bless you and your family. 22 Vista Court So. San Francisco, CA 94080 cc: Council members Joe Femekes, Rich Garbarino, Pedro Gonzalez, and Ray Green-Vice Mayor Chief Planner Thomas C. Sparks Page 3 of 3 Diokno's Project 22 Vista Court Project Overview Project: Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development allowing a lot split and construction of a single-family dwelling. Overview: In more than three years, several meetings and discussions about our project transpired with the neighbors as well as at the Westborough Homeowners Association's meetings. The plan design was modified a number of times. Finally, on October 2, 2003, the members of the Planning Commission unanimously approved our project. My husband and I truly believe that we acted in good faith and followed the Westborough Homeowners' Association's guidelines. We bent over backward to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. Unfortunately, certain of my neighbors appear to be committed to defeat the construction of any size home at the site. On October 2, 2003, I presented our modified scaled down plan as follows: · Reduced size from 3,754 to 2757 square feet · Lowered the roofline by a total of approximately 5 fl resulting in a roofline lower than 23 Vista and lower than the second floor line of 17 & 18 Vista. · Redesigned the second level to break the mass of a long monotonous rear wall. · Reduced the number of bedrooms from 5 to 4. Installation of a retaining wall at the rear of the house. Additional issues were addressed as follows: ,,Safety The members of the Planning Commission addressed the safety issue at the October 2nd meeting. Building codes have changed dramatically over the years due to earthquakes and seismic design has changed considerably. Based on one of the members of the Planning Commission's experience with engineers, most licensed engineers designed houses with a safety factor that far exceeds the building codes. The members of the Planning Commission also commented that nobody could guarantee safety. We just need to have faith and trust in the codes that are in place as well as the educated opinion provided by the experts/professional people. Earthquakes are acts of God that cannot be prevented by man. Page I of 2 Diokno's Prroject parking · Our plan design allows a side parking. The existing houses were not designed to allow side parking. Based on the staff report, there's plenty of parking in the cul- de-sac and if at all~ there'll be a reduction of one parking space as a result of this project. Having an additional on-site parking would mitigate the insufficient parking concern of the neighbors. Loss of View and adverse impact on existing property value The construction of our home will not destroy the panoramic view and only a relatively small portion of the view will be impacted. To minimize the view obstruction, the roofline was lowered. Based on the SSF Legal Counsel comment, the negative declaration from SSF did not indicate that there is a view impact. In addition, the neighbors' opposition to increase marketability in a single residence is not sufficient enough to justify a disapproval of the project. Outdated Soil Reports Earth Systems Consultants performed an updated geologic and geotechnical engineering study of the proposed project. An updated report was submitted to SSF Planning Division in July 31, 2002. In addition, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. conducted their geotechnical review that was documented in its letter to the SSF on September 5, 2002. Specific recommendations addressing the safety factor were provided in the updated reports. There had been 16 borings made in the whole development, two of which were in this piece of property. The methodology of analyzing soil condition has not changed. Therefore, the experts found it unnecessary to perform additional boring. Lastly, the members of the Planning Commission advised the community to the open minded to new ideas and concept in order to create more character in the community. The community needs to allow refreshing, new aspiration. Otherwise, our community will never prosper. Page 2 of 2 Dioimo's Prroject CHRONOLOGY OFEVENTS · April 1992 Dioknos bought the property at 22 Vista Court. The previous owner disclosed to us that the lot has potential. She provided information on work she had done such as the feasibility study, soil test, and recommendations made by the SSF City's consultant. · Due to personal problems, she did not pursue the project. Our lot is vacant and teenagers oftentimes use this area as a place to hangout. · They frequently disrupt the neighbors by playing loud music, especially at midnight, doing drags, having sex, drinking alcohol, vandalism and leaving their trash around the area including dumping them in the drainage and down the hill. · People drive at high speed in this area which poses a danger to the children who play in this secluded area. · Maintaining the vacant property is bothersome. · We frequently cut the grass to prevent dangerous brushfire. · Beer bottles, empty soda cans/cups, MacDonald/Taco Bell bags/wrappers, cigarette butts, birth control contraceptives are common items found on this area. · We constantly have to pick up the trash left behind by the people who hang out in the area. These problems got worse. · Desperate for help, I went to the Westborough Homeowners Association (WHOA) but was told to call the police. I even asked our neighbors' cooperation but no one cares. · I wrote a letter to Chief Police Mark Rafaelli. · Received positive response. SSF Police Dept has been very responsive and cooperative. We continue to work with them in eliminating/preventing these problems and I believe we made tremendous progress. September 29, 2000 Officially submitted our request for approval to subdivide our lot and construct a single-family home to the Board of Directors of the Westborough Way Homeowners' Association. · Provided our reasons for pursuing the project. · Provided detailed information. · October 6, 2000 The WHOA's Board of Directors responded. The WHOA advised us that it does not have jurisdiction on the property subdivision. Rather that was the jurisdiction of the SSF Planning Commission. The Board, however, agreed to review the construction part of the project. The Board said they would need to look at blue prints and permission from neighbors should be solicited. · June 6, 2001 Notified surrounding neighbors of the project. Page I of 4 Diokno's Project August 7, 2001 October 2, 2001 · March 1, 2002 · March 12, 2002 June 4, 2002 August 6, 2002 October 15, 2002 March 4, 2003 April2,2003 May15,2003 June 3, 2003 WHOA's meeting attended by several homeowners. · We submitted our plans to the Board. Addressed and mitigated concerns, such as: · Obstruction of View - no view easement. I CCNR Violation - will be addressed in this presentation il Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control · Insufficient parking - three on-site parking. WHOA's meeting. Board again indicated no jurisdiction on the subdivision. However, they would review the project's architectural design. · addressed and mitigated concerns. Dioknos filed application to SSF Planning Division. Met with Design Review Board on proposed project. · DRB members reviewed plan and asked questions. · Made recommendations. WHOA's meeting. · Reevaluated of the Architectural design. · - Addressed and mitigated concems. · The President and Board's legal counsel, Kevin Frederick, who was at the meeting, advised dissatisfied homeowners that according to the CCNRs, the Board does not have any authority to deny the plans based on their objections. Even so, at the Board's request, the site plans were copied at our own expense and provided to all homeowners originally canvassed for approval. The board approved our modified plan. This meeting was attended by the Board's counsel and several homeowners. Met with Design Review Board on the modified plan. The plan was modified based on all the recommendations made by the DRB. The modified plan was approved. Neighborhood Meeting. We once again addressed and mitigated the homeowners' concems. WHOA meeting. Diokno's project was discussed. The same concerns were raised by the neighbors and mitigated by the Dioknos. Planning Commission Meeting. Presented to the members of the Planning Commission the project background, chronology of events and how the neighbors' concerns would be mitigated. WHOA's meeting. The neighbors raised the same issues. Page 2 of 4 Diokno's Project July 17, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting (continuation). Presented evidence that the developer planned to build a house on this piece of lot. Presented proposed modified, scaled down plan (reduction of approximately 260 square feet). Frank and I took the Planning Commission's input as directives. As a result, following is the chronology of events. August 6, 2003 Sent a request to Mr. Jerry Yee, Manager of Westborough Way Homeowners' Association to coordinate a meeting for August 13, 2003 involving at least four homeowners and the board of directors to review and discuss proposed home redesign and obtain concurrence. Mr. Yee, contacted Amelia Abalos of 106 Valleyview via telephone, and extended the invitation but was mined down. According to Mr. Yee, A. Abalos stated that the Planning Commission merely.made a reeo, mmendation and that.they (the neighbors) don't have to comply with it. August 13, 2003 Frank and I sent individual invitations to five neighbors, who are directly impacted by the project, to go over the modified, sealed down plan on August 20, 2003. Seven neighbors attended (one of them was not invited but attended, the other homeowner was with the spouse). Two of the board of directors attended and observed. Reiterated the concerns raised by neighbors and how they would be mitigated. Highlighted the following modifications: Reducing size from 3,754 to 2,990 square feet. Lowering the roofline by a total of approximately 6° resulting from a roofline lower than 23 Vista and lower than the second floor line of 17 & 18 Vista. Redesigning the second level pushing it back against the slope of the lot or stepped down even more to break the mass. · Reducing the number of bedrooms from 5 to 4. · Installing a retaining wall at the rear of the house. Discussion focused on the height of the house. neighbors were: Comments from "Even if the proposed house is 5 feet high, it'll still block my view." "The size of the house is still too high." The proposed house must be smaller than 23 Vista. 23 Vista is 1,900 sq. ft.; therefore, the proposed house must be 1,700 sq. ft.; Issues outside of the applicants' jurisdiction were repeatedly brought up. The approval of the project needs to come from all the neighbors who signed the petition and not just 5 neighbors. Short notice of the meeting enabled other neighbors to attend. Neighbors were not give sufficient time to review the modified plan. Page 3 of 4 Diokno's Project August 27, 2003 September 9, 2003 September 20, 2003 October 2, 2003 Westborough Way Homeowners' Association's monthly meeting. The modified plan was presented to the Board taken into consideration the comments made at the August 13th meeting. · The size of the project was further reduced to 2,757. · The neighbors raised the same concerns as stated above and expressed disapproval of the project. The Board suggested to meet with the 5 neighbors again to try and get a consellsUs. 9 neighbors, 4 Board members, the applicants, applicant's legal counsel and project designer attended the meeting. Reiterated the issues and how they would be mitigated. Consensus was not reached. The Board of Directors of the Westborough Homeowners' Association approved the modified plan. After presenting the modified, scaled down plan, the members of the Planning Commission unanimously approved our project. Page 4 of 4 Diokno's Project Graffiti made on the fence. Trash thrown down the hill. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE INCIDENT REPORT I3EEEPHONE MIDDLE SSI= OTHER OL # (OPTIONAL) DISPOSITION RE~R~ ~: AGE TELEPHONE oTHER [] COMM~ITY RELATIONS BODY sTYLE CoLOR/COLOR LI~. NO. [] BPCA BooY SWLE COLO~COLO~ L,~. NO. II RaATEO NO INCIOEm NUMBER [] V.V.C. BY: ~~I responded to 22 Vista Court on the report of a suspicious vehicle. The black Mitsubishi Montero was gone prior to my arrival. I contacted Diokno who told me she saw the vehicle drive off of the road and onto an open lot On Vista Court. Dioflko said the vehicle parked on the open lot, near the edge of the hill. Dionko expressed concern because the vehicle was on private property and was causing damage to the land. Dionko wrote the license plate nmnber of the vehicle and gave it to me. I checked the license plate number with the DMV computer system and it was not a valid license plate. The license plate given was DIGRATT. Dionko was hesitant to report the incident because of the many problems she has reported in the past regarding suspicious vehicles. Diokno said vehicles constantly park in front of her house and the occupants drink alcohol and throw trash on the ground. I advised Diokno to continue to notify the police department should she see any more suspicious vehicles. I requested that other Beat 2 and Float units conduct passing checks in the area. S K E T c H / O T P REP ARE[;)-~Y: $.$.F.P.D. 0.D.-01-912 [gtoa) I R~ NAMS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE INCIDENT. REPORT u ~(~. j I 'PfP~[vINCIDENT/CODE LOCal:iON 7~ 1 , lC NAM~,~U LAST SSI: ID # OTHER DL # (OPTK)~AL) DISPOSITION [] TRANSPORTED TO: [] DE-J'OX. [] MAIN ,JAIL [] WOMEN$ JAIL [] NCJ [] [] REFERRED TO: [] v.v.o. BY: [] D.V. [] NOTICE ~ ID # [] STREET DEPT. [] PARK DEPT. PROPERLY m, ~ OT.ER [] C~'.U.~[]C'S []SOO~O RELATIONS [] OE~TROYED [] [] [] SCHOOL LIAISON [] RETURNED V YEAR 'MAKE MODF-L BODY STYLI= COLOR/COLOR LIC. NO. p/J ~..~. [] SPCA [] ,~IL=EKEEPING V YEAR MAKE MODEL BODY sTYLE COLoRKX)LOR LIC. NO. E H [] NO MERIT I NARRATIVE: 4 AI,,JC.> ~;~E.J~, ~oV~,PC-- _~Or--,'1- '7-'A~ I,C~/d~, A~.L..~'~c-,k.rT'"~i,,,J 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 S K E T C H / O T S.S.F.P.D.O.D.-O1-042 LOCS PAGE %DR~22 VISTA 4AP: / NO.0001 H5573 PR05 04~07.-2003 12~03 ~** LOCATION INQUIRY-RESPONSE *-* MLI~ CT CI~: SO S~{ FR!AN RD~IgBF FD, 19 *** INCIDENT 03-02-2003 DIST OTHER 01-09-2003 TRAFFIC LAW VEH 12-04-2002 ALARM FALSE '09-16-2002 SUSP PERSON 09-02-2002 SUSP VEHICLE 09-01-2002 SUSP CIRC 06-28-2002 TRAFFIC LAW VEH 04-10-2002 SUSP VEHICLE 01-26-2002 DIST OT~ER 09--09-2001 SUSP CIRC 07-05-2001 DIST JUVENILES 06-24-2001 SUSP CIRC 06-09-2001 SUSP PERSON 05-30-2001 SUSP CIRC 04-28-2001 SUSP CIRC 04-08--2001 SUSP CIRC 03-14-2001 SUSP CIRC 03-01-2001 BURG RESIDENCE 12-27-2000 DIST JUVENILES 12-24-2000 SUSP CIRC 12-24-2000 SUSP CIRC 11-01-2000 SUSP VEHICLE )' ~2-2000 DIST DOMESTIC ( ~5-2000 TRAFFIC LAW VEH 0~-10-2000 TRAFFIC LAW VEH 04-20-2000 SUSP VEHICLE 04'-17-2000 SUSP CIRC 04-04-2000 MISSING PER JL~V 04-04-2000 MISSING PER JUV 02-06-2000 SUSP CIRC 11-15-1999 SUSP CIRC 11-04-1999 DIST OTHER 10-21-1999 SS 10-01-1999 SUSP PERSON 09-03-1999 7?~AFFIC LAW VEH 0'8-18-1999 SUSP CIRC 08-06-1999 TRAFFIC LAW VEK 06-21-1999 DIST OTHER 06--20-1999 SUSP VEHICLE 06~06-1999 SUSP CIRC 06-04-1999 DIST jLr~NILES 05-21-1999 SUSP CIRC 04-14--1999 DIST JUVENILES 02-23-1999 SUSP CIRC 01-21-1999 SUSP VEHICLE 01-09-1999 SUSP CIRC 13-27-I~98 TRAFFIC LAW VEH ' .5-i998 SUSP PERSON SUMMARIES *** o30302002 030109063 021204061 020916082 020902078 020901076 020628074 020410076 020126074 010909069 010705108 010624014 010609036 010530107 010428021 010408018 010314092 010301043 001227054 001224010 001224010 001101004 001002045 000925096 000810081 000420002 000417085 000404081 000404081 000206071 991115079 991104068 991021071 991001013 990903019 990818080 990806081 990621096 990620076 990606006 990604067 990521075 990414074 990223063 LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC,' LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC SU$ LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC SUS LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC LOC 99012100.3 LOC 990109003 LOC 981127001 LOC 981115020 LOC 13473 LOCS PAGE N0.0002 ~DR:22 VISTA CT ~ h16_1998 lu-10-1998 10-04-1998 10-03-1998 09-22-1998 SUSP 09-19-1998 SUSP 09-19-1998 SUS9 09-12-1998 SUSP 09-09-1998 SUSP 09-01-i998 SUSP 08-24-1998 DIST 08-22-1998 08-11-1998 08-10-1998 07-27-1998 DIST 07-13-1998 SUSP 07-06-1998 SUSP 06-28-1998 DIST 05-14-1998 SS 05-07-1998 SS 04-04-1998 DIST 04-04-1998 DIST 03.-17-1998 SUSP 02-03-1998 SUSP  - "12-i997 DIST }07-1997 DIST 0.-03-1997 SUSP 09-26-1996 DIST 09-26-1996 DIST 09-26-1996 DIST 03-22-1996 32 04-13-1994 04-06-1993 H5573 pR05 LOCATION INQUIRY RD:19BF SUSP CIRC SUSP CIRC TRAFFIC I~W V]~H SUSP CIRC CIRC CIRC PERSON CIRC VEHICLE CIRC JUVENILES TRAFFIC LAW VEH SUSP CIRC SUSP CIRC OTHER CIRC CIRC O~4ER JU~NILE$ JUVENILES PERSON CI~C OTHER NOISE VEHICLE JUVENILES JUVENILES JUVENILES 04-0~-2003 12,03 RESPONSE *** ", MLI · CITY: $O £{AN FRAN TRAFFIC LAW VEM MUTUAL AID FD: 19 981016001 ~ LOC 981010086 LOC 981004003 ~,LOC 981003071 LOC 980922077 LOC 980919094 LOC 980919022 ~OC 980912077 LOC 980909057 LOC 980901001 LOC 98082~070 LOC 980822010 LOC 980811007 LOC 980810012 LOC 980727080 LOC 980713079 LOC 980706077 LOC 980628071 LOC 980514001 LOC 980507074 LOC 980404070 LOC 980404077 LOC 980317093 LOC 980203013 LOC 971112056 LOC 970807075 LOC 970203066 LOC 960926065 SUS 960926065 SUS 960926065 LOC 96001013 940413008 LOC 930406066 LOC 13473 May 12, 1998 Mark P. ofaelli Chief of Police 33 Arroyo South .Son Francisco, CA 94080 bear Chief Rafaelli: Thank you for your quick response to the problems on Vista Cour,. Lt. Leo Tealdi came to my house last week and presented the actions that he and his team will take to help solve the problems. Lt. Tealdi and his team are willing to help. They also talked to my neighbors and encouraged them to report any activities on Vista Court without fear of reprisal. As I've mentioned to Lt. Tealdi, the police officers of South San Francisco are dedicated and always provide an excellent service to the community. Many thanks to all of you. Sincerely yours, 22 Vista Court South San Francisco, CA 94080 cc: Lt. Leo Tealdi September 29, 2000 AAr. ,Terry Yea t~anager - Westborough Way Homeowners Association 115 Appian South San Francisco, CA~ 94080 . We are requesting your-approVal t°.subdivi'cle and construct, a single-family residence on Lot 233, Unit' 4C, Vista Court, South San Francisco. In April 30, 1992, we became the legal owners of Lot 233, Westborough units 4B and 4C, unit'4B being our primary residence - 22 Vista Court. The subject property is located in thesOuthern portion, of Lot 233. This project will add value to aur p~operties and enhance the area by stopping teenagers from using this area:as a place to hangout. The lot is vacant and causes problems. Teenagers use this are~ as a place to hangout.. They f~xluently diS~t the neigl~bors by playing loud mu~sic especially after midnight, doing drugs and sex, drinking alcohol, vandalizing the place and leaving their trash all around the area including dumping it in the drbinage and doWn the hill. Teenagers also drive at high speed in this area,, which po~es'a danger.to the children who play in this secluded ' neighborhood, t~dntdning this vacant property is bothersome. We.constantly have to pick up the trash and cut the gr~ss to prevent dangerous brushfire. We ask that you c~refully review our project and grantapproval to subdivide and construct a single-family residence on Lot 233, Unit 4¢, South San Francisco. We have retained a consultant to handle this p~oject; therefore, we would greatly j ' . appreciate.your mmedmte response., please call us on (6§0) 872-0532 if you haw. any questions or need additional' information. We will also make ourselves available for a special meeting Should you wish to have one. Yours truly, Frank Oiokno 22 Vista Court; 5outh.san Juac 6, 2001 · As neighbors for approximately 10 years, Frank and I want to give you the respect you deserve. We're writing to obtain your concurrence to'Subdivide and C°nstruct a slngle-family residence on Lot 233, Westborough 4C, Vista Court. As you know, this lot is vacant and causes problems in our neighborhood, It continues to attract many people especially teenagers fi:om USing this area as a place.to hangout, They fi~quently disrupt the neighbors by playing loud music especially after midnight, doing drags and sex, drinking alcohol, and leaving their trash all around the.area including dumping it in the drainage and down the hill. Teenagers also throw their cigarette butts down the hill, which is a fire hazard. It's been hard on our part to keep this area clean and we believe that constructing a single-fignily residence would resolve these problems. We are aware of your concerns relating to obstructing your view as well as the stability of the land and erosion. To address your concerns, we hired eXPerts to conduct several feas~ility studies. Ail studies were completed and are Supported and certified by the eXPerts and available for review upon request. Please keep in mind that this proposal would add value to the properties .in Vista Court; enlum'~ce the area by stopping teenagers fi:om using this area as a place to hangout; stabili:,e the laud and stop erosion; and definitely not obstruct the n.eighbors' view, We recently had burglary in our area and the vacant lot, which provided easy access to the properties of Vista Court, de6nltely attracted this activity. Frank and I ask for your support and that you carefully review our request keeping in mind the positive aspects of our proposal. We will be happy to meet with you to answer any questions or concerns you may have. Please call us On (650) 872,0531 to set up a meeting at your convenience. Should you feel that a meeting is not necessary, please concur by signing on the spaces provided on the second page and return one coPY to us using the seW-addressed, stamped envelop. If you wish, you can also drop it in our mailbox. You can keep one copy for your file. Please return signed copy on or before June 12, 2001. If we do not receive your signed concurrence by the 12th, this would mean that you have no objection and this will allow us to move forward with our plan. We are counting on your support. Sincerely yours, Frank and Nannette Diokno 22 Vista Court, South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 PLEASE RETURN SIGNED COPY BY JUNE 12, 2001. 22 Vista Court's Proposal Concurrence: Date: Copies sent to: Cecille Ferrer - 21 Vista Court NoeHe Chan- 20 Vista Court Frank & Lira Acob - 19 Vista Court Willy & Mina Darvin - 18 Vista Court Jamil & Zita Rey- 23 Vista Court June 8, 2001 Westwie Homes & Investments 18 Vista Court, SOuth San Francisco, CA 94(~80-US~, Tel: (650) 873-7218 Fax: (650),873-8932 TO: Our Neighbors and Homeowners of.Vista Court RE: Subdivision Plan and construction on Lot 233 As requested by Frank & Nanette Diokno of 22 Vista Court Since 1985, we have been enjoying our magnificent panoramic view..We feel frUstrated to be in this position, where we are pressured to end our love affair with the beauty of nature. Our .view has given us a feeling of peace and tranquility that relaxes.our spirit from the drudgery of the WOrkplace. Our friends, relatives and clients never leave without a "wow" or "aaahh" when they 'see our neighborhood scenery. "Fantastic sweeping bay views" is how realtors describe our area. We are so honored and proud to be in Vista Court. Being one of the homeowners who-will be greatly .affected .by..ar)y .deci$1or~. you may support, we felt compelled to provide you some knowledge from a'Real Estate Broker's.perspective. Your Home's Property Value has a.tremendous .appreciation Wh;n it'commands a VIEVV. According to appraisers, a view alone adds value ranging from $30,000 to' $50,000 for a certain angle, scenery and location. Vista Court's famous "million dollar view' homes have' been well.. Sought for many years. Because of its free open space, the fantastic, UNOBSTRUCTED, breathtaking' View, the Ios.s of this experience can be very devastating. It is an irony that "Vista" was named to our street. Have you ever wondered why the developer, WW Dean, did not subdivide or build, another home on Lot 233 ? Obviously, they could have considered liability factors for any slippage. The developer sold each home wi. ih a higher price for a VIEW LOT. Many of us homeowners have paid extra thousands for that view lot that we now own. If we lose that extra or added value of these properties.:., whp dowe sue? Ar~nie Jacob, a previous owner of LOT 233, approached us in the past with a similar request. No matter w~at her intentions were for that construction, .we rejected her' request because having another home in this cul-de-sac will even create more traffic, parking and 'congestion problems. Any new construction built in our area might also stick-out like a 'sore thumb' in our.neighborhood. This again, wi!l surely depreciate the value of your homes. The Westborough Way CC&R's emphasizes CONFORMITY, which protect the value of your home. Frank & Nanette Diokno's problem with strangers, lovers, and Other undesirables who "hangout"' is not their problem alone, we can easily resolve this through neighborly community support. Each homeowner has an average of four vehicles parked curbside, which discourages potential "unwanted guests" to park. In result, we sense the problem has diminished considerably. In fact, we haveWt seen any unfamiliar vehicles. We dLsagree with Mr. & Mrs. Diokno's statement.that by. building-another home will stop tl~ese problems. These activities are incidentals and-are manageable, while their. "concrete" solution will forever stay with us. The "end" does not justify the "mear',s" or vice versa. We, as neighbors should live in harmony, for our Welfare, well being and security that we must all enjoy to share with our children and our grandchildren. Please feel free to contact Mynna at 650.873-7218, 650-400-96210r email at mynnahbird~aol.com. We thank you for your time. Sincerely, Meeting Minutes of Westbr -ggh Way Homeowners Association 0 ~_,e 3, 2003 Members Present: Jerry Yee, Margie Zamora, Kevin Mok, Haro' Gidwani, Robert Chin, Kevin Frederick(legal) Absent: Mike HalI,~;~, John Leone Call to Order:. 7:40 pm-gpra Topic L) ~/~2/03 Mtg Discussion Meeting minutes from 4/03 were reviewed. Discussion ensued re the posting of meetings in general. Homeowners upset how the notice was done for mtg of 6/03/03. Homeowners did not like where the notice was posted. Etiquette Discussion items not on the agenda started to get out of control(posting of meetings, length and time of this present mtg, homeownership of one Board member) 2.) 21 Vista CT basketball netting 3.) 19 Seville.. tiered gardening 4.) 119 Valleyview, Mr. Cezar New Business Ms. Maria Ferrer not present. Homeowners not present 121 Vaileyview has concerns that pre- approved fence height limit of 6ft. has not been followed. The Itong family supplied · Board with pictures. M. Zamora explained how this part of mtg would be run- Sign cards with topics; each Action Mr. Frederick's informed the homeowners, per Civil Code 1363.05, that posting of meetings is a 4-day notice. Mr Frederick also corrected M. Zamora that only Board members approve mtg minutes. M. Zamora had to "time out" the group and ask for general consensus that we would go through the proposed agenda items first, then go on to New Business. M.Zamora had to ask Mr. Belaga to stop his negative comments and please use some "respect" in this mtg. Meeting "etiquette" was explained and the group agreed. Pictures and info left by delegate. Board approved Board will review and follow- up with homeowner of 119. May not be answers to all questions tonight but will Follow-up Typos to be corrected(pg. 5-21 Vista CT to 22 Vista CT) M. Zamora will review Board f/u WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 MEETING OF JUNE 3RD , 2003 SO.S.I:. RECREATION CENTER 2380 GALWAY DRIVE- SSF. CA. 94080 AGENDA: 1. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM APRIL 2,2003 MEETING AT WESTBOROUGH RECREATION CENTER, SO. S.F. CA. 2.21 VISTA COURT &. 22 VISTA COURT REGARDING BASKETBALL NETTING ABOUT BLOCKING OF VIEW & NOISES. LETTER WAS SENT TO OWNER OF 21 VISTA COURT , MS. MARIA FERRER, REGARDING THIS ISSUE.THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VISITED THE HOME OWNERS INVOLVED AND TOOK PICTURES OF THE VIEW & NETTING. 3. BOARD OF DIRECTORS VISITED 19 SEVILLE WAY ENHANCEMENT OF TIERED GARDENING PROJECT AND IT WAS APPROVED. 4.1 'i9 VALLEYVIEW WAY, MR. FRANKLIN CEZAR CONCRETE BLOCK FENCE FOR SECURITY AND CEMENT PROJECT IN PLACE OF LAWN AREA- RECEIVED LETTER FROM MR. FRANKLIN CEZAR THAT ENCLOSURE OF FENCED AREA WILL NOT BE A DOG RUN AND ALSO TI-lB CONCRETED AREA IN FRONT WILL NOT BE AN AREA FOR 3RD AUTOMOBILE PARKING..NEIGHBOR AT 121 VALLEYVIEW REPORTED THAT THE CONCRETE FENCE IS OVER THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF SIX FEET, THE BOARD WILL ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IF MR. CEZAR IS IN ATTENDANCE TO-NITE. CITY CODE FOR ANY FENCE IS 72 INCHES IN HEIGHT(6 FT) THE BOARD HAD APPROVED THIS PROJECT BUT NOT KNOWING IT WAS OVER THE 6FT LIMIT! ' NEW BUSINESS: WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 MINUTES FROM MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12,2003 HELD @WESTBOROUGH RECREATION CENTER, SSF. CA. 1. THERE WERE ENOUGH PROXY CARDS RECEIVED AND RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE TO WARRANT AN ELECTION- THE INCUMBENTS ELECTED TO THE BOARD ARE: MARGE ZAMORA, MICHAEL HALL, KEVIN MOK, JOHN LEONE, AND ROBERT CHIN - Harry Gillwani= alternate board director 2. Residents of 21 Vista Court complained about erection of the basketi)all netting and making noises at 22 Vista Ct. Marge Zamora suggested that the board members visit 21 VLsta Ct- (and possibly 22 Vista Ct.) at a future date to see what Impairment of view the basketball netting has created! 3. Upscale garden project of 19 Seville Way (N. HANHAN) will be finalized at at a future date when he presents more information. 4. Marge Sieux of 11 Canyon Ct. chain link fence was erected and She replied by saying there were vandalism onto her property and it was put up for sec. rity reasons. 5. F. Caezar off19 VALLEYVIEW painting has been approved but the fence Is to be decided In the future when he prmnts what type of matedais Is to be used. The cementing of the grass area will be approved if he gives the board In writing that no third automobile will be parked In front of the house. Meeting adjourned at 8:50pm by Marge Zamora & seconded by HARRY GIDWANI. WE S OROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF AUGUST 6,2002 WESTBOROUGH RECREATION CENTER- 22 VISTA COURT WAS DISCUSSED FIRST ON THE AGENDA. The president presided over the meeting and made several statements regarding the project of building a home on vacant lot next to 22 VISTA COURT.. There was a motion to pass and approve the project and their was no reply from the audience or floor, therefore, the motion was approved and passed!. 549 AVALON DRIVE- Mrs.G. GARCIA PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH PLANS TO MOVE HER FENCE LINE. The Board will review the plans and her request and the manager will get back to Mrs. Garcia if her project will be approved. o 118 VALLEYVIEW WAY. ADDITIONS TO THE HOME OF MR. AND MRS. T. DOUGLAS- PROJECT WAS DENIED AT THIS TIME. Mr. & Mrs. Douglas was absent during the meeting, therefore unable to have a discussion of their renovations and additions. They did show up ax°0er the meeting was over and the manager did informally advised them to revise the blueprints and they cordially agreed and will present revisions in the future. OVERGROWN AND CLEARANCE OF PLANTS OVER COMMON AREA OF CEMENTED CULVERTS. Manager had asked several landscaping companies for prices in cleating weeds, overgrown plants which stops drainage of the cemented culverts. The manager was unable to get a firm quotation of prices because the lot sizes differ and unable to get access to many of the back yards covering the culverts. There was a short discussion amongst the Board Members to raise the ANNUAL DUES. The Members of the Board denied the request of Annual dues being raised, therefore, it will remain at $15.00 per annum for the year 2002 & 2003. Motion to adjourn the meeting by board member Harry Gidwani and seconded by Marge Zamora at 8:40pm WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 AGENDA FOR MEETING OF AUGUST 6TM, 2002 SO.S/F/ RECREATION CENTER, 2380 GALWAY DRIVE AGENDA: 1. 549 AVALON- PROPOSE CHANGES TO FRONT FENCE LINE WITH GATED LOCK- Will ~iv¢ an account why! 2. 118 VALLEYVIEW WAY- ADDITION- BLUEPRINTS SUBMITTED NEEDED MORE INFORMATION FOR BOARD MEMBERS 3. 22 VISTA COURT- VACANT LOT - PROPOSAL OF BUILDING A NEW HOME 4. ANY OTHER NEW BUSINESS WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 MEETING OF OCTOBER 3~d ,2000- 'AT 33 ARROYO DRIVE, SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. MUNICIPAL BUILDING - community room @ 7:30pm AGENDA: A 1. INTRODUCTION OF CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS 2. NOMINATIONS FOR YR. 2000/01 BOARD. 3. VOTING PROCESS 4. COUNTING OF BALLOTS B OLD BUSINESS- (current PRESIDENT TO PRESIDE) 1. PROJECTAT 139 APPIAN WAY _(landscaping & painting of house) CHANDRA'S RESIDENT-- APPROVED BY BOARD 2. LANDSCAPING AT 14 Vista Court - approved by the BOARD. 3. PROJECT OF 19 SUMMIT COURT - resident of MR. TRAN THANG- TO GET APPROVAL FROM NEIGHBOR AT 17 SUMMIT CT. FOR NEW PROJECT - CURRENT PROJECT BLOCKING VIEW OF 17 SUMMIT CT.- C NEW BUSINESS- NANETTE DIOKNO · PERMISSION TO BUILD DETACHED HOME ON CURRENT VACANT LOT NEXT TO HER CURRENT RESIDENT OF 22 VISTA CT. SSF. WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AUGUST 7, 2001 MINUTES 7:30 PM-9:00PM AGENDA DISCUSSED 1. DIOKNO PLANS FOR NEW HOME Mr and Mrs Diokno presented plans to build new home on the vacant lot near their home. Their lawyer was also present. Many of the neighbors on Vista Court ,as well as the surrounding neighbors who border the new plan, were present in order to oppose the Diokno's plans, specifically the Darvin family and the Acob ,, family. Concerns from both sides were heard. The Board will get back to the Diokno's before the next mtg on 10/02/01 on their decision. 2. MR JUALO PLANS FOR SUNDECK Mr Jualo presented plans for sunroom addition to his yard on Avalon Drive. The board requests neighboring signatures for approval. When requirements have been met, the Board will get back to Mr Jualo before the next mtg on 10/02/01 on their decision. Respectfully submitted, Margie Zamora WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Oetober 2, 2001 " 7:30 pm-9:00pm AGENDA DISCUSSED: 1.) Introduction of the present Board members-Gerry yee 2.) Instructions for the voting for new Board members, and explanation how to do proxies-Gerry Yee 3.) Assoeiation members from Waverly Ct. gave information to the group re: htest info on placing eell phone towers in our development at the.. C. alifornia Water Reservoir. Informative. and knowledgeable discussion took plaee. There will be 2 mtgs: one on 10/03 at the water tower(across from Canyon Ct.) at 6:30pm and a second mtg on 10/18/01 at 7:30pm at the Munieipal Bldg. on Arroyo. · 4.) Diokno response(Vista Ct. eonstruction)- Letter from Board given to the Diokno Family. They expressed their disappointment in the Board not accepting their proposal, and in turn gave the Board a rebuttal letter. They also wanted it on record that they were seeking legal counsel in response to the letter they reeeived from the Board dated 10]01]01. Both letters on file. 5.) Mr Louie: 116 Valleyview turned in proposal for some additional eonstruetion on existing site. Board will discuss later and give Mr. Louie answer before next mtg 12/11/01. 6.) General diseussion re: speed bumps and other alternatives to redueing speeding in our neighborhood.-Itarry will discuss with the City. 7.) Recent daytime burglaries-just wanted to inform our members to be ~.',~.?i~,~..-ca--and report any l suspicious people or vehicles to the SSF Police. Private .Session: Results from votes for new Board .Members for year 2002 are as follows: Mike.Hall, Daniel Hong, Kevin Mok, Harry Gidwani, Robert Chin. John Leone and Margie Zamora are alternates. "2 WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA. 94080 MAY 4th, 2002 TO ALL RESIDENTS OF WESTBOROUGH WAY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION. The BOARD OF DIRECTORS invites you to attend their bi-monthly meeting on JUNE 4'~', 2002, ~ 2380 GALWAY DRIVE, (cot. of Westborough BLVD.) S.S.F. WESTBOROUGH RECREATION CENTER BUILDING.. The meeting will start at 7:30pm and there is a few topics that needs to be addressed: THE AGENDA WILL BE: :L Culverts at the bottom of the sloped hills( common area) 2. Vi°lations of the C.C.& Rs 3. VACANT LOT on property of 22 VISTA COURT 4. OTHER TOPICS OR NEW BUSINESS: time limited to 5minutes per subJecL) Please come and attend a_-_d meet your BOARD OF I}IRE~I'ORS who volUnteering their time and efforts to make this a better community for your living in a safe and happy environment. See you on June 4th.2002. FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 MINUTES OF MEETING I~ SO. SF WESTBOROUGH RECREATION CENTER ON JUNE 41It, 2002 PRESENT: MIKE HALL, KEVIN MOK, JOHN LEONE, and HARRY GIDWANI GUEST: K. FREDERICK- (LEGAL DEPT.) ABSENT: MARGE ZAMORA, ROBERT CHIN, and DAN HONG 19 OTHER HOUSE OWNERS WERE ALSO PRESENT DELINQUENT ANNUAL DUES. 141 VALLEYVIEW- 2000,2001, 2002 Manager had sent several notices (registered letters) and owners still does not reply. Manager may file lien by NEXT BOARD MEETING of AUG. 6~, 2002 Culverts and Landscaping. Several homeowners present wanted to know about who is responsible for maintaining the slopes and the drainage culverts. One homeowner suggested that the Association purchase a commercial weed cutter;, the Board and our legal council advised the member that we could not take on the liability if we were to approve the request. The president advised the Homeowner that what we would look into, what would the cost be to all homeowners to have the weeds cut and the drainage culverts cleaned out by a licensed landscaping contractor. The manager Jerry Yee was requested to look into to this issue, get bids from at least 3 contractors. The Board would review the proposal at our next meeting. If the fees seemed reasonable we would submit it to all members of the WWHOA for their approval and concurrence to pay their portion of the overall bill. The Homeowners present at the meeting were advised that it is the responsibility of all residence to maintain their slopes and the cemented drainage culverts on their property. 22 Vista Court - Vacant lot - Proposed Building of a House between 22 and 23 Vista Court. Several issues were presented by Homeowners, which reside on Vista Coart and the area just below where the new home would be built. The most recurring objection was; ,my view will be blocked; it 'will reduce the' value of my home and the concern over slope degradation'. The President and the Homeowners legal council advised the dissenting homeowners that although we hear their concerns and have empathy, for them, however that per the CC&R's and the By Laws of the WWHOA, the Board does not have any authority to deny the plans based on their objections. The Board only has authority over the architectural look of the structure. The Board also advised the dissenting neighbors that although our procedure has been to acquire their concurrence prior to giving approval to the homeowner requesting approval, that we have not always disapproved a homeowner to move forward based on a denial. The Association has overruled the objections for 3 previous building plans during the past 20 years when the Board has judged that the objections were either without substance or in conflict with the responsibilities of the Board. The Diokno's, owner of the vacant properly, which has requested the approval from the Board, presented the revised architectural plans. The Building Permit Department of the city of South San Francisco requested changes in. the original building plan, they were: · Reduction in the size from 4200 square feet to 3700 square feet, · Plus a redesign of the roof line to affect a 6-foot reduction in the overall elevation. Homeowners present at the meeting asked several questions. To address these questions, the President advised the Diokno's to have copies of the site plan printed and delivered to all the homeowners that were originally canvassed for approval. The President further advised that the Board would review the revised drawings and would inform the Diokno's of the Boards decision with WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 in two weekz upon receipt and review of the drawings. The revised drawing package was to include a complete site plan showing the boundaries of the adjacent properties. NO DECISION OF ANY KIND CAN BE GIVEN UNTIL ALL PROPOSED CHANGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FINALIZED! New Business List of Hous~ in the Association that are in violation of the CC&R's. Art Woff an owner presented a list of hours within the Association that were in violation of the CC&R's. The majority of the violations were for landscaping or lack of maintenance. The Board advised the Manager (Jerry Yee) to follow up on all the issues listed and to advise all owners to correct the discrepancies. Meeting adjourned al 9:10 p.m. by Board director John Leone and second by Board Member Hah3' Gidwani. Dated this day, June 12, 2002 by Jerry Yee ~ Manager, WWHOA. Manager will be on vacation late Jun'fraud will not return until early July 2002. For emergency Issues, you muy write to the above address, as a Board Member will have a key to our P.O. Box while the manager is away. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) 877-8535 FAX (650) 829-6639 March 22, 2002 Frank J. Diokno 22 Vista Court South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re.' 22 Vista Court Project Number: P01-0006 Tentative Parcel Map, Modification of a PUD and Design Review allowing a lot split and new single-family dwelling unit in the Single Family Residential Zoning District. Dear Mr. Diokno: City staff has reviewed your planning application and has determined it to be incomplete. We have closed the file and will make available your application materials to you. To complete your application you will need to submit the following: Revise the building plans to incorporate the following Design Review Board comments: A. Change the front entry to a less grandiose, single-story design more in harmony with the other homes on the street. B. Raise the view terrace behind the house to be flush with the lower floor of the house to help reduce the overall height of the rear elevation. C. Change the roof end on the right side of the front elevation from a gable end to a hip. Plant trees and ground cover suitable for erosion control on the slope below the houSe. Consult landscape architect or horticulturist to determine which species would be most suitable and effective. 315 MAPLE AVENUE · P.O. BOX711 · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94083 Date: March 22, 2002 Re: 22 Vista Court Page 2 of 3 E. Reduce the overall size of the house so that it is closer in size to the other homes in the neighborhood. Revise the plans and associated documents to incorporate the following Engineering Division comments: A. Tentative Map The map states that the City of South San Francisco provides sewer and water services to the site. This information is incorrect. Water and sewer service is provided by the Westborough Water District. A statement regarding the existing zoning should also be added. 2. The area's cable TV providers are not listed. o The survey information does not extend 200' into the adjacent properties (or at least to Valleyview Way), as is required by the Municipal Code. In particular, the location of the homes and other structures need to be shown, along with the grading, retaining walls, fences and any drainage facilities and the location of the nearest fire hydrant. The plan shows a thin line with large circles along the East boundary of the site. This may be a wooden fence, however the circles match the legend for a sign, not for a wooden fence. o The survey shows fence encroachments into this site from the properties to the East. How will these encroachments be resolved? By relocating the fences or by a lot-line adjustment to conform the applicant's property to accommodate the fence locations? Bo Other Documents 1. The title report is 18 months out-of-date. An updated title report needs to be submitted. Letters from each utility servicing the Westborough area need to be submitted verifying that they can provide utility service to the proposed new lot. In particular, the Westborough Water District needs to be notified about this proposed lot split and new home. 3. The soils report for the property will need to be submitted to the City's geotechnical consultants, Cotton, Shires & Associates, for a peer review Date: March 22, 2002 Re: 22 Vista Court Page 3 of 3 and for their development recommendations. I recommend that the applicant submit a $3,000 deposit to fund this review. Because the geotechnical peer review will may affect the design of the project, the application will not be considered complete until the peer review is complete. Therefore, prior to the next submittal, you should submit for a preliminary review by City staff. We will review the material to make certain that it complies with City standards and then arrange for the peer review of the geotechnical report and plans. Once the peer review is complete then you may submit a planning application. You may arrange to pick-up your incOmplete plans and other planning application documents by contacting our office prior to April 5, 2002. If we do not hear from you by that date we will recycle the planning application materials. Should you wish to review these comments with City staff, do not hesitate to cal me at (650) 877-8535. Sincerely, Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Cc File Thomas C. Sparks r~te: March 12, 2003 Total # of Card Address at # of Parked in Vista Court Cars Garage 23 2 1 22 6 2 21 5 0 PARKING SURVEY ON VISTA COURT Time: 9:00 p.m. # of available parking space: 0 # of Cars # of Cars # of Cars Parked on parked on parked by Driveway their curb vacant lot 1 0 0 3 1 2 3* 0 20 1 1 0 0 0 19 5 1 2 2 0 18 3 3 2 1 0 17 3 16 3 2*' 1 0 0 1' 0 1 1 Comments *Parked by 22. Garage is being used as storage area. One side of the garage is being used as a storage area. Garage is being used as a storage al'ea. * 1 not working. *not working. Owner does not park working cars in the garage but on the curb and/or by vacant lot. Date: March 13, 2003 ) nddress at Vista Court 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 Time: 6:00 p.m. Total # of Card # of Cars # of Cars # of Cars # of Parked in Parked on parked on parked by Cars Garage Driveway their curb vacant lot 2 0 1 1 0 6 0 2 0 2 5 0 2 3* 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 1 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 2* 1 0 0 3' 1' 0 1 1 # of available parking space: 3 Comments *Parked by 22. Garage is being used as a storage area. One side of the garage is being used as a storage area. Garage is being used as a storage ar~a. * 1 not working *Not working. Owner does not park working cars in the garage but on the curb and/or by the vacant lot. The breakdown of the number of cars parked reflects the number at the time of survey. In spite of several requests, the residents of 21 Vista Court have been very inconsiderate and continue to take the parking spot technically allocated for us. Please refer to the December letter sent to the residents requesting for their cooperation. PARKING SURVEY ON VISTA COURT ~te: March 14 , 2003 Time: 6:15 p.m. Total # of Card # of Cars Address at # of Parked in Parked on Vb~ COU~ Ca~ ........ Garage Driveway 23 2 1 0 22 6' 2 0 21 5 0 2 # of available parking space: 2 # of cars # of Cars parked on parked~by their curb vacant lot 1 0 2 2 3* 0 20 1 1 0 0 0 19 5 1 2 2 0 18 3 0 2 1 0 17 3 1' 1 0 0 16 3 1' 0 1 1 Comments *Parked by 22. Garage is being used as a storage area. One side of the garage is being used as a storage area. Garage is being used as a storage *Not working. *Not working. Owner does not park working cars in the garage or driveway but on the curb and/or by the vacant lot. '-'3te: March 16, 2003 Time: 10:15 p.m. # of available parking space: 1 Total 0 of Card # of Cars # of Cars Address at # of ptu~ked in ' Parked on parked on Vista Court Cars Garage Driveway their curb, 23 2 I 0 1 22 6 2 1 1 21 5 0 2 3* # of Cars parked by vacant lot 0 1 0 20 1 0 2 0 0 19 5 1 1 I 0 18 3 0 1 1 0 17 3 1' 1 0 0 16 3 1' 1 1 0 Comments *Parked by 22. Garage is being used as a storage area.., One side of the garage is being used as a storage area. Garage is being used as a storage area. *Not worldn_ g. *Not working. The breakdown of the number of cars parked reflects the number at the time of survey. In spite of several requests, the residents of 21 Vista Court have becn very inconsidermc and continue to take the parking spot technically allocated for us. Please refer to the December letter sent to the residents requesting for their cooperation. PARKING SURVEY ON VISTA COURT itc: March l9, 2003 Time: ll:45p.m. #ofavailableparkingspace: 6 Total # of Card ~'of Cars #of Cars # of C~r~ Address at # of Parked in Parked on parked on parke~-by V~.C~' urt ' Cars Garaae ~ D ~r~veway their curb vacant lot 23 2 1 0 1 0 22 6 2 0 3 1 21 5 0 2 2 0 20 1 0 1 0 0 19 5 1 1 2 18 3 0 2 1 0 17 3 2 0 0 0 16 3 1 0 1 1 Comments parked by 22 Vista. Garage is .~ing. used as a storage area. One side of the garage is being used as a storage area. Garage is being used as a storage Owner does not park car in the garage but on the curb and/or by the vacant lot. The breakdown of the number of cars parked reflects the number at the time of survey. In spite of several requests, thc residents of 21 Vista Court have been very inconsiderate and continue to take thc V,a~kh~g :~pot t~.~chnically allocated for u.s. Pica.sc refer to the December letter sent to the residents requesting for their cooperation. There are enough parking spaces if residents do not use their garage as storage areas. 21 Vista Court's garage is being used as a storage area. 18 Vista Court's garage is being used as a storage area. April 26, 1999 Attention: Jack Red Manager - Westborough Homeowners Association Dear Jack, As we had discussed on Friday, April 9, 1999, I'm recommending that the Association fund the replacement of the Westborough Way sign for the following reasons: 1) The Westborough Way sign is the only sign that recognizes the Homeowners' Association. 2) The association has kept a low prOfile for years. It has not had any projects that benefit the homeowners. This project wOUld definitely benefit the homeowners and it would be very visible. This would eliminate some of the misconceptions that the association's funds are not only being utilized for leg~ fees but 'also for maintenance. 3) Non-Vista Court residents obviously disapproved the replacement of the sign because this is the only sign that exists. In order to recognize all the residents (i.e., Valleyview, Appian, Avalon, etc.), I suggest putting up similar signs at the entrance of Valleyview and Appian Way and Avalon. 4) Rather than removing the sign because of its poor condition, the association should do something to fix it. If non-Vista Court residents and the Board are opposed to funding the replacement of the sign, the expense should be deducted from the Vista residents' accounts versus the residents' out-of-pocket expenses.. Vista residents would most likely vote for the repair of the sign since the Association will shoulder the cost. I would appreciate the Board Members' evaluation of my suggestions. I can be reached at (415) 995-4055 should you or the Board members have any questions. Yours truly, ~qannette Diokno 2"2 Vista Court So. San Francisco WE STBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 August 11, 1999 Dear Members of the Board: Reference is made to ~he discussion about signs that transpired at our last meeting. I wrote to the City of SSF and got a call from them yesterday. To highlight my conversation with a Mr. Carlson: -We'd need to apply for a permit to install signs (even if on private property), -If the sign is less than 25 sq. ft. in size (Type A) the permit fee is $100'per sign. If the total square footage of ALL the signs we propose is over 100 sq. ft. we must go through a more stringent approval process (instead of it being approved by a staff person), -The sign we removed from Vista court should have been removed by the developer at the time the homes were sOld, -We cannot put a sign on the ~right of way" at Waverly/Avalon (where Marge thought we once had a sign). I've made tentative plans for a sign maker to attend our October meeting and am meeting with another sign maker on Friday to see what he proposes (he's already looked at the sites). Needless to say, this is turning into a real boondoggle. I have had a call from several Vista Ct. owners who suggest that if Diokno wants a sign so-badly why doesn't she pay for it? If you have any questions, feel free to call me. ,Sincerely Jack M. Red Property Manager (650) 583-6893 FAX (650) 583-0688 C.C. Diokno Apfil13,1999 Jack Red Westborough Way Homeowner's Association P. O. Box 5355 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Jack, As we had discussed on Friday, April 9, 1999, I'm recommending that the Association fund the replacement of the Westborough Way sign for the following reasons: 1) The Westborough Way sign is the only sign that recognizes the Homeowners' Association. 2) The association has kept a low profile for years. It has not had any projects that benefit the homeowners. This project would definitely benefit the homeowners and it would be very visible. This would eliminate some of the misconceptions that the association's funds are not only being utilized for legal fees but also for maintenance. 3) Non-Vista Court residents obviously disapproved the replacement of the sign because this is the only sign that exists. In order to recognize all the residents (i.e., Valleyview, Appian, Avalon, etc.), I suggest putting up similar signs at the entrance of Valleyview and Appian Way and Avalon. 4) Rather than removing the sign because of its poor condition, the association should do something to fix it. If non-Vista Court residents and the Board are opposed to funding the replacement of the sign, the expense should be deducted from the Vista residents' accounts versus the residents' out-of-pocket expenses. Vista residents would most likely vote for the repair of the sign since the Association will shoulder the cost. I would appreciate the Board Members' evaluation of my suggestions. I can be reached at (415) 995-4055 should you or the Board members have any questions. Yours truly, South San Francisco TO:-~ FROM: ALL MY NEIGHBORS IN VISTA COURT NANNETTE DIOKNO 22 VISTA COURT ISSUE: PROPOSAL: WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU? WHAT HAS THE ASSOCIATION DONE FOR YOU? WHAT DO YOU DO NOW? APPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION TO REVERSE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS' DECISION AND RESTORE THE WESTBOROUGH WAY SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE OF VISTA COURT. At the expense of the Westborough Way Homeowners Association, replace the sign with durable material such as concrete. Westborough Way Homeowners Association to pay for the replacement cost through the Association's funds obtained from the residents' yearly membership fees. The sign provides good impression to our homes. It projects an image of an exclusive residential area; thus, increasing the value of our homes. It gives recognition and identity to Westborough Way Homeowners Association. The Association has kept a Iow profile for years. It has sufficient funds for this project. This project is an appropriate expenditure of the Association's funds. It utilizes funds mostly for legal expenses. It has not allocated funds for maintenance such as this project. If you, agree to appeal this issue: Please sign your name below and provide the information requested. (Remember, we need a 100% vote.) I will drop by your house within the next few weeks to introduce myself, answer any questions you may have, and collect your signed form. WE, THE HOMEOWNERS, NEED TO BE UNITED AND SUPPORTIVE OF EACH OTHER. GET INVOLVED. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD. Homeowner's Signature: Print Name: Address: 5/17/99 TO: FROM: ALL MY NEIGHBORS AT VISTA COURT NANNETTE DIOKNO 22 VISTA COURT ISSUE: UPDATES: APPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION TO REVERSE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS' DECISION AND RESTORE THE WESTBOROUGH WAY SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE OF VISTA COURT. I attended the Board of Directors' quarterly meeting on Tuesday, June 1, 1999, to present our proposal. Unfortunately, the meeting was cancelled because a quOrum was not present. Out of 32 homeowners at Vista Court, 26 showed their support and signed the proposal. For the 6 homeowners, I'm attaching another copy of our proposal for your consideration. Remember, we need 100% vote to succeed. Should you decide to sign the form, I would I will be attending the next Board of Directors' meeting in August to present our proposal. I will provide yo,u information as it becomes available. WE, THE HOMEOWNERS, NEED TO BE UNITED AND SUPPORTIVE OF EACH OTHER. GET INVOLVED. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD. 5/17/99 TO: FROM: .SSUE: UPDATES: ALL MY NEIGHBORS AT VISTA COURT NANNETTE DIOKNO 22 VISTA COURT APPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION TO REVERSE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS' DECISION AND RESTORE THE WESTBOROUGH WAY SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE OF VISTA COURT. On August 3, 1999, I attended the Board of Directors' quarterly meeting. I presented our proposal to restore the sign on the entrance of Vista Court. Jack Red, Property Manager, argued with me on the following issues. It was not a pleasant discussion. ~ Closed Issue Argument Jack Red repeatedly stated that this issue is closed since majority of the Vista homeowners failed to respond to his letter. To refresh your memory, Jack, on behalf of the Board of Directors, sent a letter to all of us on April 7, 1999. The letter was about the poor condition of the sign. Vista homeowners were given 30 days to east their votes on the following: remove the sign, repair and repaint, or replace it entirely. Prior to the expiration of the 30-day response time, I spoke with and wrote Jack a letter offering some suggestions. My suggestions were not taken into consideration. According to Jack, only 11 out of 32 homeowners cast their votes. 6 homeowners voted for the removal of the sign; 5 homeowners voted for the repair and repaint. As a result, the sign was removed. In spite of Jack's argument about the issue being closed, I continued to explain the homeowners' right to appeal the Board of Directors' decision. Updates to Homeowners Some of you expressed your interest in receiving copies of the minutes of the Board of Directors' quarterly meetings. The minutes would at least keep you informed of the different issues and activities discussed at the meetings. Jack was adamant that homeowners do not read the minutes or any letter sent to the homeowners. For this reason, he decided not to send copies of the minutes. I disagreed with Jack. He does not have any proof that this is happening. A year ago, I suggested sending copies of the minutes to the homeowners. My suggestion was ignored. The Board members made no comment. Sufficient Fund I reiterated at the meeting that the association has sufficient funds for this project. The Board members kept quiet during the discussion. No comment was made. Jack Red's Statements Some statements made by Jack at the meeting were: a) The association exists because of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR). Homeowners do not read the CCR. Homeowners who disagree with the CCR should move out. b) Homeowners who disagree with the management of the association should move out. These statements were inappropriate. No one has the right to say these. Overall, Jack reacted in an unprofessional manner. Throughout the discussions, the board members made no comment. At the end of the discussions, the· board members asked to discuss the issues amongst themselves. The board members committed to providing their decision sometime next week. I will continue to keep you posted. I hope that you will continue to support this initiative. All of us will benefit from this. Once again, thank you very much to the 29 homeowners who signed the proposal. 8/5/99 WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 August 9, 1999 N. Diokno 22 Vista Ct. South S.F. Ca 94080 Dear Nanette: Pursuant to our meeting of the other night, be advised that the Board is willing to investigate the possibility of SEVERAL signs for the complex, NOT just Vista Court. That way the remaining residents of the complex will not feel ~left out" by favoritism shown to the Vista Ct. residents who did not read the letter authorized by the Board. We will get bids from sign makers and we'll need to get the authorization from residents in the complex to have signs emplaced on their properties (including Vista Ct) since there is no common area in the complex. We'll also need to see if we need City approval and, if so, acquire it. That in itself will take a lot of time since bureaucrats are not known for efficiency or haste when serving their constituents. If you have any questions, feel free to call any Board member. Jack M. Red Property Manager For the Board of Directors TO: FROM: ALL MY NEIGHBORS AT VISTA COURT NANNETTE DIOKNO 22 VISTA COURT ISSUE: APPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION TO REVERSE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS' DECISION AND RESTORE THE WESTBOROUGH WAY SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE OF VISTA COURT. UPDATES: Attached is a copy of the response to our proposal. We made some progress. I encourage you to read and respond, when requested, to the letters sent by the Association. They're mostly information that would benefit us, the homeowners. Also, this would be an effective vehicle to hear your voice (i.e., opinion, concerns, suggestions, etc.). I Will pursue our request of getting copies of the quarterly meeting minutes. I'll keep you posted as information becomes available. Please feel free to drop by my place to discuss any issues/concerns. Michael Chan, one of our neighbors, has offered to create an email list and forward your thoughts, concerns, and activities. This is a good idea. If you're interested, please send an cmail to Michael at mikelchan@juno.com. I'd like to thank those who dropped me a "thank you" note or personally thanked me for my effort. But, of course, without the support of the majority of you, we will not be successful in this endeavor. Let's continue to support each other. ! also hope to gain the support of the three homeowners, who did not sign the proposal, on future projects. Thank you very much. /?9? August 16, 1999 To the Board Members Westborough Way Homeowner's Association Dear Board Members: I would like to thank you for listening to the petition I presented, on behalf of the Vista'residents, on August 3, 1999. To get a better understanding of the issue, here's a chronology of events. Upon my receipt of Jack Red's letter of April 7, 1999 advising Vista residents to decide the future of the sign, I called Jack and offered several recommendations and requested for the Board members' consideration. He suggested that I send a letter to that effect. I sent my letter dated, April 13, 1999, (Attachment 1) to Jack. On May 14, 1999, I was surprised to find out that the sign was removed. On May !7, 1999, I called Jack to find out the status of the sign as well as my recommendations. He stated that due to inadequate response from homeowners, the sign was removed. Jack received 1'1 votes, 6 voted to repair the sign, 5 to remove. Even with the 11 responses, a majority of them voted for repair. I was very disappointed with Jack's response. I informed him that I would talk to my neighbors, explain the situation, give them another chance to rethink and give their opinion. As usual, he was very unprofessional, rode, and inconsiderate in his response and insisted that the Board's decision was final. I reminded him that the homeowners have the right to petition the Board's decision. On May 17, 1999, I wrote a letter to my neighbors (Attachment 2), explained the situation, and requested their response by signing the petition if they agree to restore the sign. I talked to majority of them and received their signed petition with the exception of three homeowners. No one was forced to sign the petition. On August 3, 1999, I met with the Board members and presented the signed petition. You witnessed Jack Red's reaction and attitude that night. We all know that the Association has not had any project for the homeowners except the usual monitoring and reminders sent to homeowners (i.e., ensuring that homeowners abide by the CC&R on the house paint color, maintenance of the lawn/yard, etc.). Although Jack stated that the Association does not do any maintenance, I believe that it does by the ex .afnples I just cited. This is such a simple request that has taken a lot of our time and effort. Please provide us answers to the following questions which may help the majority of the Vista residents and me understand the problem. 1) Why is Jack Red very much opposed to this project and other requests? In his latest letter of August 11, 1999 (Attachment 3), he once again made inappropriate comment by stating that this issue has turned into a "real boondoggle". I also do not believe that he had received calls from several Vista residents suggesting that I should pay for the sign if I want it so badly. Once again, with the exception of three Vista residents, no one Page I of 2 was forced to sign the petition. By signing the petition, they agreed and authorized me to pUrsUe the issue not just for my own satisfaction but.for theirs as well. But if there are Vista residents who feel that this is just a waste, I would like to know that so I don't have to waste my time and energy. But definitely, no one has the right to tell any homeowners or me to move out if we disagree with the CC&R and/or the management of the Association. Also, please keep in mind that it was one of my recommendations to put up a sign on Valley View and Avalon in order for all the homeowners (not just Vista residents) to benefit from this project. He's opposed to sending out copies of the quarterly Board meeting minutes because he claims that homeowners do not read them and that it would just be an added cost to the Association. Whether the homeowners read the minutes or not is their problem. This is one way the Board can show homeowners they care. 2) What are Jack's role, responsibilities, and authority as the manager of Westborough Way Homeowners' Association? I thought that as the manager of the Association, he would help facilitate rather than oppose or argue issues. He would also act as the liaison in sending the homeowners' requests (i.e., repavement of the streets, security issues, etc.) to the City or proper authority whatever the case maybe. 3) Does the Association's funds really exist? Some of the original homeowners suggested requesting a certified-auditor conduct an official audit. According to these homeowners, an audit has never been conducted to their knowledge. 4) What is the objective of the Association? Why does it exist? According to Jack, the Association exists because of the CC&R. I believe that the CC&R should be used as a guideline, The Association exists to unite, support, and assist the homeowners with their concerns. I apologize for this lengthy letter. I hope this provides you a better understanding of the issue. I would greatly appreciate your response to the above questions. I have kept Vista residents informed of the developments and I won't mind communicating your response to them as well. Your support to the homeowners would be very much appreciated. I want to personally thank each of you for volunteering your precious time as Board members. Yours truly, (~ Vista Court Attachments cc: Vista residents Page 2 of 2 October 20, 1999. Hi Frank, Willie, and David, Attached is a draf~ copy of the newsletter I created. Please review and feel free to make any changes, including additions and deletions. Please return your corrected copy to me or simply drop it in my mailbox. I have David as one of the contact people. (David, do you mind7) If you want your name added, please let me know. As you already know, Jack Red gave his letter of resignation effective 11/30/99. Do we want to let the Vista homeowners know (via the newsletter) or shall we just leave it to the Board? Thank you. Nannette WESTBOROUGH WAY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 5355 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 MINUTES FROM TIlE MEETING OF AUGUST 6,2002 WESTBOROUGH RECREATION CENTER- 22 VISTA COURT WAS DISCUSSED FIRST ON THE AGENDA. The president presided over the meeting and made several statements regarding the project of building a home on vacant lot next to 22 VISTA COURT.. There was a motion to pass and approve the project and their was no reply from the audience or floor, therefore, the motion was approved and passed!. 549 AVALON DRIVE- Mfs.Gl GARCIA PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH PLANS TO MOVE HER FENCE LINE. The Board will review the plans and her request and the manager will get back to Mrs. Garcia if her project will be approved. o o 118 VALLEYVIEW WAY. ADDITIONS TO THE HOME OF MR. AND MRS. T. DOUGLAS- PROJECT WAS DEN1FD AT THIS TIME. Mr. & Mrs. Douglas was absent during the meeting, therefore unable to have a discussion of their renovations and additions. They did show up after the meeting was over and the manager did informally advised them to revise the blueprints and they cordially agreed and will present revisions in the future. OVERGROWN AND CLEARANCE OF PLANTS OVER COMMON AREA OF CEMENTED CULVERTS. Manager had asked several landscaping companies for prices in clearing weeds, overgrown plants which stops drainage of the cemented culverts. The manager was unable to get a firm quotation of prices because the lot sizes differ and unable to get access to many of the back yards covering the culverts. There was a short discussion amongst the Board Members to raise the ANNUAL DUES. The Members of the Board denied the request of Annual dues being raised, therefore, it will remain at $15.00 per annum for the year 2002 & 2003. Motion to adjourn the meeting by board member Harry Cfidwani and seconded by Marge Zamora at 8:40pm OFFICE OF ~ (~so) 82~-~52 ,. ~ (~) FAX: (650) 829-6689 ^ugust 9, :2002 Mr. Ted Sayre, Senior Engineering Geologist Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 RE: 22 VISTA COURT DEVELOPMENT GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW Dear Mr. Sayre: The .owner of the home at 22 Vista Court (off of Gellert Boulevard, about a half-mile south of Westborough Boulevard) has a large piece of property on which they have a single-family home. They want to subdivide and construct a new home on the southerly portion of their lot, which is mostly a steep slope that the original developer of the subdivision felt was not economically developable. As a prelude to filing an application for a parcel map to divide the property and a building permit for the new home, the applicant has submitted the enclosed "Update Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study" 'and new home improvement plans for our review. Please review these documents and advise us if the report is complete, if the development seems geotechnically feasible and provide us with your recommendations for the development of the proposed project. The applicant has provided the City of South San Francisco with a $3,000 deposit to fund your services. You may contact me at (650) 829-6654 should you have any questions or require additional information regarding this request. Your assistance is appreciated. Sincere]y, Richard Harmon Development Review Coordinator G:~arcel Maps~22VISTACTGEOREV.RCH.doc Enclosure CC: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mr. Frank Diokno 22 Vista Court South San Francisco, CA 94080 ADDRESS: 315 MAPLE AVE~NUE SOtri3-1 ,~AN g:I~ANf';.I~C~C) (~, q-~FlP, Cl OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER (SSO) 82g-Ce52 FAX: (65O) 82g-6689 September 9, 2002 Mr. & Mrs. Frank Diokno 22 Vista Court South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: PROPOSED LOT SPLIT AT 22 VISTA COURT, GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Dear Mr. And Mrs. Diokno: The City's Geotechnical Consultants, Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., have reviewed the preliminary architectural and grading plans, Updated Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study and topographical plans for your proposed new home. Attached is a copy of their September 5, 2002 review letter, containing their Conclusions and Recommendations. Please distribute copies of this letter to your architectural, structural and geotechnical consultants for their review and action. Please request that they address the recommendations during the preparation of the house construction plans and final soils engineering report for the development of the property. We will be adding the recommendations contained in the subject report to the conditions of approval for parcel map and use permit for the development of your new lot. Please contact me at (650) 829-6654 should you have any questions regarding this matter. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincereley, ff ' . Development Review Coordinator G:~Parcel MapsL22VISTACTGEOREV2.RCH.doc Enclosure CC: Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official Planning Division ADDRESS: 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, GA 94080 MAILING: P,O. BOX 711. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO f';.A ~408.3 COTTON, 'SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TO: SUBJECT: RE: Richard Harmon Development Review Coordinator CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94083 Addendum to Geotechnical Review Diokno, 2-lot Subdivision 22 Vista Court September 5, 2002 F0022 At your request, we have completed a geotechniCal review of proposed site development using the following documents: Update Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study (report), prepared by Earth Systems Consultants, dated July 31, 2002; Architectural Plans (6 sheets, 8- and t6-scales), including: Site Improvement, Floor and Landscape Plans, and Elevations, prepared by Twelve Star Builders, dated June 7, 2002; and Topographic and Preliminary Grading Plans (2 sheets, 16-scale), prepared by Cistran Engineers, Inc., dated November 15, 2000. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps from our office files and completed a recent site inspection. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 24,225 square foot property into two lots, and construct a split-level, single-family residence downslope of Vista Court (within proposed Lot 233B). In addition, new retaining walls are proposed to the south and north of the residence. The proposed development is to be accessed by a short driveway extending from Vista Court. The parcel at the end of Vista Court (Lot 233A) contains an existing residence, which will remain. This addendum letter has been prepared to correct an inaccurate distance to the San Andreas fault presented in our previous review (dated September 3, 2002) SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is generally characterized by very steep (52 to 58 percent inclination) northeast-facing hillside topography. The Project Geotechnical Engineer indicates in the initial 1998 geotechnical report that the current topography is the result of grading which dates back to the 1960's. Grading for Vista Court has resulted in a very steep (up to 58 percent inclination) fill slope 2 to 6 feet in thickness located upslope of Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 · Fax (408) 354-1852 Southern California Office 5245 Avenida Encinas · Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008-4374 (760) 931-2700 · Fax: (760) 931-1020 Richard Harmon Page 2 September 5, 2002 F0022 the proposed residence. An existing concrete block retaining wall supports a portion of this fill. Regional Geologic Maps indicate that the site is underlain, at depth, by bedrock materials of the Merced Formation (i.e., interbedded sandstone, siltstone and claystone). A shallow landslide exposing siltstone was observed in the area of the proposed lot split (within proposed Lot 233A). The subject site is located approximately 0.75 mile northeast of a mapped trace of the active San Andreas fault. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed lot split and development are potentially constrained by very steep slopes, the erosion potential of site earth materials, and very strong seismic ground shaking. Our review of the referenced documents indicates that the Project Geotechnical Engineer has performed a geotechnical investigation of site conditions, and provided geotechnical design criteria for the proposed new residence that generally appear satisfactorily for apparent site conditions. We concur with the Project Geotechnical Consultant that the proposed lot split and residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Consequently, we do not have geotechnical objections to the proposed two-lot subdivision, but we recommend that the following conditions be attached to building permit applications for residential development of the proposed Lot 233B: Supplemental Evaluations and Geotechnical Plan Review- The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated and that the proposed design is consistent with standards of good geotechnical practice. In addtion, the consultant shall consider and address the following items. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall consider specification of minimum 16-inch diameter piers for the proposed residence. In our experience, utilization of less than 16-inch diameter piers would not be consistent with prevailing local standards of geotechnical practice for construction of new residences on sites with similar slope conditions. The consultant shall consider utilization of house foundation pier reinforcing consisting of a minimum of four # 5 vertical bars in a cage. Final foundation design plans should be evaluated to verify satisfactory pier embedment considering the reduced lateral coverage of piers provided by the very steep local slopes. The depth and locations of recommended subdrains (item 11, page 7 of the November 1988 geotechnical report) should be clarified. The geOtechnical acceptability of the drainage dissipater, illustrated to discharge on steep slopes adjacent to the residence, should be evaluated and appropriate design modifications recommended as needed to avoid erosion. The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES. INC. Richard Harmon Page 3 September 5, 2002 F0022 Engineer for review along with other documents for building permit plan- check. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT DTS:TS:CF Ted Sayre Supervising Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Senior Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON. SHIRES & ASSOCIATES. INC. Modified, Scaled down Plan Reduced size from 3,754 to 2,?5? square feet. · Lowered the roofline by a total of approximately 5 ft resulting in a roofline lower than 23 Vista and lower than the second floor line of 17 & 18 Vista. · Redesigned the second level to break the mass of a long monotonous rear wall. · Reduced the number of bedrooms from 5 to 4. · Installation of a retaining wall at the rear of the house. Sidewalk 18 VISTA 3 VISTA CT. VISTA CO U.R'T iP~..~'~ L~e ~. Driwovay ''- ~0.55' 'r' " o Ex. Wood Z N 30 ~6 'a9 ~ 19 VISTA CT. I VIEW CORRIDOR MODIFIED PLAN OLD PLAN VIEWBO ~ VIgTA COURT 17B'~ 1'.0' ,'~ I I ...... '--- t.~ ' __ _ _~ ------..~ ; ' , .-. ..... , ..... .-~_._.,__._ ...... ...--.__~ L~-~'--~ ..... r ~~'[ r ~-' ~, I / "~ '/" ' ' ~ / / ~"~ / , LINE OF BleHT PATH TO VIEW 1/B"1"0' StaffReport DATE: December 10, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing Purchase and Sale Agreement for property located at 178-190 Airport Blvd. and amending the Parking District budget to appropriate funds for the acquisition RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the acquisition of property located at 178-190 Airport Blvd. In addition the Council is requested to approve a resolution amending the FY 2003-2004 Parking District Budget to transfer funds for the acquisition. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This site is located within the Downtown Central Redevelopment area and Zoned Planned Commercial. The property is currently vacant for the most part, however a small abandoned restaurant building and a billboard are located on the site. The site area is 21,925 square feet, or 0.503 acres. An appraisal of the property was made on the value of this site only; the sign is not a part of the appraisal and assumes it will remain in place and may be altered. The appraised value of the site and the proposed acquisition price is $702,000 ($32.00/sq.ft.). This site is within an area where the City Redevelopment Agency has been promoting the assemblage of several contiguous properties with the intent to develop an integrated project consistent with the obi ectives of the Redevelopment Plan. The assembled properties are intended to extend north to the Grand Avenue intersection along the Airport Blvd. frontage and would offer the opportunity to create a significant "entry-way" development taking advantage of this key intersection as the entry-way to the Downtown. This site and the proposed development of the properties would also accommodate an improved access and view corridor for the re-located Cai-Train station which will provide for access to the east side of the rail corridor and an extended platform. STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing Purchase and Sale agreement for property located at 178-190 Airport Blvd. and to amend the Parking District budget to appropriate funds for the acquisition DATE: December 10, 2003 Page 2 The owners of the site, Action Signs, Inc., wish to retain the billboard on the property and are currently in application to the Planning Commission to modify the billboard by adding a second face, increasing the height and area of the sign and re-building the structure into a monopole design. The purchase and sale agreement recognizes these proposed modifications and requires the applicant (Action Signs) to secure the proper pen~aits tkrough the City Planning Commission. In addition, the agreement allows the City to direct the relocation of the sign within the property or future properties at the sellers expense should this be necessary to accommodate the ultimate development. The site is suitable for use as a public parking lot during the interim period of development and if purchased, the staffwill prepare plans for a temporary parking lot, unless the site is necessary for construction related activities related to the Cai-Train improvements. FISCAL IMPACT: The project will be purchased with reserves transferred to the Parking District Operating Budget. The Parking Fund has $1.1 million available in reserves, and approval of this land acquisition will reduce reserves to $.4 million. Improvements to the site, if necessary, will be funded from the Downtown Central Redevelopment Area Budget. The Parking Commission has reviewed this requested property purchase and supports the purchase and intended use. CONCLUSION: This site is a key property in the over-all plans for improvement of the Downtown, and a significant site necessary to implement the development of a renovated Cai-Train station. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving the Purchase and Sale agreement to acquire the property located at 178-190 Airport Blvd., and the appropriation of $702,000 from the Parking District Fund to pay for the acquisition. Marry Van Duyn Assistant City Manager Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attaclunents: Resolution Site map Assessor Map Purchase and Sale Agreement RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 178-190 AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND A_MENDING THE PARKING DISTRICT BUDGET (NO. 04-8) TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION WHEREAS, it is recommended that the City approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire the property located at 178-190 Airport Boulevard; and approve the appropriation of $702,000 from the Parking District Fund to pay for the acquisition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council authorizes the Purchase and Sale Agreement for property located at 178-190 Airport Boulevard and amends the Parking District budget (No. 04-8) to appropriate funds in the amount of $702,000 for the acquisition. The City Council also authorizes the City Manager to sign the certificate of acceptance on behalf of the City. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Current Reso's\l 2-10purchase.sale.agr.airport.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk 00001 TAX CODE AREA ®.® 4 PARCE& I Av~ ~ $ ~ VILLACE WAY Assessor's Map PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is emered into effective as of ,2003 (the date upon which this Agreement was approved by Buyer, and hereinafter referred to as the "Effective Date") by and between ~ (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Seller") and the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation ("Buyer"). Seller and Buyer are hereinafter referred to as the "Parties." WHEREAS, Seller is the owner of that certain real property in San Mateo County, California, known as APN ~, located on South Airport Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Land"); WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein, Buyer desires to purchase, and Seller desires to sell, the Land together with all easements, hereditaments, and appurtenances belonging to or inuring to the benefit of Seller and pertaining to the Land (all of the foregoing collectively hereinafter, the "Property"); NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows. 1. A~reement to Sell and Purchase. Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to purchase the Property subj eot to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property shall be Seven Hundred and Two Thousand dollars ($702,000) ("Purchase Price"). 3. Conveyance of Title. At the close of escrow, Seller shall convey by grant deed to Buyer marketable fee simple title to the Property, free and clear of all recorded and unrecorded liens, encumbrances, assessments, leases and taxes except: (a) the provisions and effect of the Redevelopmem Plan; (b) taxes for the fiscal year in which the escrow for this transaction closes, which shall be prorated as of the close of escrow and handled in accordance with Section 4986 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code; (c) such other conditions, liens, encumbrances, restrictions and exceptions as may be approved in writing by Buyer ("Permitted Exceptions"); (d) an easement for sign maintenance to accommodate Seller's requirement of access to a portion of the Property in order to maintain a sign structure at its present or relocated location, as set forth in Exhibit attached hereto. 672384-1 00004 4. Escrow: Escrow Instructions. Within five (5) business days following the Effective Date, the Parties shall open an escrow to consummate the purchase and sale of the Property pursuant to this Agreement at the office of First American Tire Company located in Redwood City, California ("Title Company" or "Escrow Agent") or such other title company as may be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. Upon the opening of escrow, the Parties shall deposit with the Escrow Agent an executed copy of this Agreement, which shall serve as the joint escrow instructions of Buyer and Seller for this transaction, together with such additional instructions as may be executed by the Parties and delivered to the Escrow Agent. 5. Earnest Money Del)osit. Upon the opening of escrow and in no event later than seven (7) business days after the Effective Date, Buyer shall deposit the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) "Earnest Money Deposit") into escrow in an interest bearing account for the benefit of Buyer. The Earnest Money Deposit, and all interest earned thereon, shall be applied to the Purchase Price at the close of escrow. All amounts deposited by the Parties with the Escrow Agent, including the Earnest Money Deposit, shall be held in escrow in an interest-bearing account. 6. Title Documents. Within seven (7) days following the opening of escrow, Seller shall deliver or cause to be delivered to Buyer a preliminary tire report ("Preliminary Report") on the Property issued by the Title Company, setting forth all liens, encumbrances, easements, restrictions, conditions, pending litigation, judgments, administrative proceedings, and other matters o£record affecting Seller's title to the Property, together with copies of all documents relating to exceptions listed in the Preliminary Report ("Tire Exceptions") and complete and legible copies of all instruments referred to therein, as requested by Buyer. Buyer shall approve or disapprove each Title Exception within seven (7) days following Buyer's receipt of the Preliminary Report. Buyer's failure to object within such period shall be deemed to be a disapproval of the Title Exceptions. If Buyer objects or is deemed to have disapproved any Title Exception, Seller shall use its best efforts at Seller's sole expense to remove bom rifle or otherwise satisfy each such exception no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the close of escrow and in a form that is reasonably satisfactory to Buyer. If Seller fails to remove or satisfy any Title Exception to the satisfaction of Buyer, Buyer shall have the option, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement or to accept title subject to such exception. In the event Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement, the Earnest Money Deposit, including interest thereon, and all other funds and documents deposited into escrow by or on behalf of Buyer shall be returned to Buyer, and all rights and obligations hereunder shall terminate. It shall be a condition to the close of escrow that Title Company shall deliver to Buyer, within five (5) days after Buyer has approved the Preliminary Report pursuant to this Section, and in no event later than seven (7) days prior to the close of escrow, a title commitment for an ALTA Owner's Title Insurance Policy ("Title Policy") to be issued by Title Company in the amount of the Purchase Price for the benefit and protection of Buyer, showing title to the Property vested in Buyer, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions, including such endorsements 672384-1 0O0O5, as may reasonably be requested by Buyer, and committing Title Company to issue the Title Policy to Buyer upon the close of escrow. (a) Other Documents. Any other contract, lease, lien or encumbrance pertaining to the use, regulation or maintenance of the existing sign structure shall be disclosed and provided to Buyer within seven days following the opening of escrow. 7. Closin~ Documents and Funds. (a) Seller. (A) Within twenty-five (25) days following the opening of escrow, Seller shall deposit into escrow all of the following: (i) a Grant Deed, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Grant Deed"), duly executed and acknowledged, conveying to Buyer good and marketable fee simple title to the Property, subject only to exceptions approved pursuant to this Agreement, together with a Certificate of Acceptance in the form shown in Exhibit B, as required by California Government Code Section 27281; (ii) Assignment of leases as described in section 12(c); (iii) Bill of Sale as described in 12(d); (iv) Seller's affidavit of non-foreign status and Seller's certification that Seller is a resident of California, each executed by Seller under penalty of perjury as required by state and federal law; and (v) Such additional duly executed instruments and documents as the Escrow Agent may reasonably require to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. 03) Unless Seller elects to have the following charges deducted from the funds to be distributed to Seller at close of escrow, no later than one (1) business day prior to close of escrow, Seller shall deposit into escrow immediately available funds in the mount necessary to pay: (i) all governmental conveyance fees and transfer taxes; (ii) one-half (1/2) of all title insurance and title report costs; and (iii) one-half of ail escrow fees and recording fees. (b) Buyer. 672384-1 OO006 (A) Within twenty-five (25) days following the opening of escrow, Buyer shall deposit into escrow all of the following: (i) a duly executed and acknowledged Certificate of Acceptance substantially in the form attached to Exhibit B; and (ii) such additional dUly executed instruments and documents as the Escrow Agent may reasonably require to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. (B) No less than one (1) business day prior to the close of escrow, Buyer shall deposit into escrow mediately available funds in the amount, which together w/th the Earnest Money Deposit plus interest thereon, if any, is equal to: (i) the Purchase Price as adjusted by any prorations between the Parties; and (ii) one-half (1/2) of all title insurance and title report costs, escrow fees, and recording fees. 8. Close of Escrow. Unless this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms hereof or extended by mutual written consent of the Parties, escrow shall close no later than the date which is forty-five (45) days after escrow is opened. The Escrow Agent shall close escrow by: (i) causing the Grant Deed to be recorded in the official records of San Mateo County, California; (ii) issuing the Title Policy and delivering same to Buyer; (iii) delivering to Seller the monies constituting the Purchase Price less prorated amounts and charges to be paid by or on behalf of Seller; and (iv) delivering to Buyer the original Grant Deed, together with a conformed copy thereof indicating recording information thereon. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer at the close of escrow. 9. Closin~ Costs. Each Party shall pay one-half (1/2) of all title insurance and rifle report costs, escrow fees (including the costs of preparing documents and instruments), and recording fees. Seller shall pay all governmental conveyance fees and all transfer taxes. 10. Prorations. At the close of escrow, the Escrow Agent shall make the following prorations: (i) property taxes shall be prorated as of the close of escrow based upon the most recent tax bill available, including any property taxes which may be assessed after the close of escrow but which pertain to the period prior to the transfer of title to the Property to Buyer, regardless of when or to whom notice thereof is delivered; and (ii) any bond or assessment that constitutes a lien on the Property at the close of escrow shall be assumed by Buyer. 11. Buyer's Conditions to Closing. The close of escrow and Buyer's obligation to purchase the Property are conditioned upon: (i) the performance by Seller of each obligation to be performed by Seller under this Agreement within the applicable time period, or the waiver by Buyer of such obligation; (ii) Seller's representations and warranties contained in this Agreement 672384-1 00007 being tree and correct as of the Effective Date and the close of escrow; (iii) the commitment by Title Company to issue and deliver the Title Policy, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions; and (iv) Buyer's approval oft he condition of the Property pursuant to Section 12. Should any condition to closing fail to occur, excepting any such conditions that have been waived by Buyer, Buyer shall have the right, exercisable by giving written notice to Seller, to cancel the escrow, terminate this Agreement, and recover any and all amounts paid by Buyer to Seller or deposited with the Escrow Agent by or on behalf of Buyer, including the Earnest Money Deposit and interest thereon. The exercise of this right by Buyer shall not constitute a waiver by Buyer of any other rights Buyer may have at law or in equity. 12. Buyer's Additional Conditions to Closing. Buyer's obligation to purchase the Property is also conditioned upon BuYer's review and approval of the condition of the Property pursuant to this Section. (a) Feasibility Studies. During the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the forty-fifth (45th) day after the opening of escrow ("Due Diligence Period") Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, undertake an inspection and review of the Property, including without limitation (i) a review of the physical condition of the Property, including but not limited to, inspection and examination of soils, environmental factors, Hazardous Materials (as defined in Exhibit C attached hereto), including a Phase II Environmental Study, and archeological information relating to the Property; (ii) a review and investigation of the effect of any zoning, maps, permits, reports, engineering data, regulations, ordinances, and laws affecting the Property, and (iii) an evaluation of the Property to determine its feasibility for Buyer's intended use. Buyer may consult with or retain civil engineers, contractors, soils and geologic engineers, architects and other specialists in its investigation, and may consult with or retain other consultants to determine if the Property is suitable for Buyer's intended use. If Buyer's environmental consultants require additional time to determine the existence and extent of any Hazardous Substances on the Property, Buyer shall have the right, exercisable by delivering written notice to Seller prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, to extend the Due Diligence Period for up to fifteen (15) additional days to complete the testing. (b) Other matters. During the Due Diligence Period, Buyer may inspect, examine, survey and review any other matters concerning the Property, including without limitation, any and all studies or reports provided by Seller, all contracts, leases, rental agreements and other obligations relating to the Property, and the Property's conformity with all applicable laws and regulations. During the Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall have the right to perform due diligence regarding the investigation, assessment, and monitoring of the environmental condition of the Property, and upon completion of the Due Diligence Period, unless Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement pursuant to the terms hereof, Buyer will purchase the 672384-1 00008 Property in its "AS IS" condition as such condition exists at the end of the Due Diligence Period. (c) Rent Roll; Tenant Leases. Within ten (10) days following the Effective Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer a current rent roll, certified by Seller listing for each tenant of any part of the Property, all of the following: tenant name, premises occupied, monthly rent, amount of deposit, amount of prepaid rent, and term of lease. Within ten (10) days following the Effective Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer certified copies of all tenant leases, including any amendments and modifications. Within fifteen (15) business days following receipt of all tenant leases, Buyer shall approve or disapprove the tenant leases. On or before the close of escrow, Seller shall assign all of Seller's rights and remedies under the tenant leases, including the fight to any security deposits and prepaid rent, to Buyer pursuant to an assignment of leases and security deposits in form and substance satisfactory to Buyer. (d) Estopuel Certificates. Within ten 00) business days following the Effective Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer an estoppel certificate in the form of attached Exhibit E executed by each tenant of the Property. (e) Disal~t)roval of Prol~ertv Condition. Should Buyer fail to approve the condition of the Property or its feasibility for Buyer's intended use in writing within five (5) days following the end of the Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall have the right, exercisable by giving written notice to Seller, to cancel the escrow, terminate this Agreement, and recover any and all amounts paid by Buyer to Seller or deposited with the Escrow Agent by or on behalf of Buyer, including the Earnest Money Deposit and interest thereon. The exercise of this fight by Buyer shall not constitute a waiver by Buyer of any other rights Buyer may have at law or in equity. 13. Studies, Reports and Investigations. Seller agrees to make available to Buyer within five (5) business days following the Effective Date, any and all information, studies, reports, investigations, contracts, leases, rental agreements and other obligations concerning or relating to the Property which are in Seller's possession or which are reasonably available to Seller, including without limitation surveys, studies, reports and investigations concerning the Property's physical, environmental or geological condition, habitability, or the presence or absence of Hazardous Materials in, on or under the Property and the compliance by the Property with Environmental Laws (as defined in Exhibit C). 14. Right of Entry. During the Due Diligence Period, Buyer and Buyer's agents shall have the right, upon reasonable notice to Seller, to enter upon the Property for the purpose of inspecting, examining, surveying and reviewing the Property in accordance with Section 12. Buyer's inspection, examination, survey and review of the Property shall be at Buyer's sole expense. Buyer shall obtain Seller's advance consent in writing to any proposed physical testing of the Property by Buyer or Buyer's agents, which consent shall not be unreasonably 672384-1 O0009 conditioned, withheld or delayed. Buyer shall repair, restore and remm the Property to its original condition after such physical testing, at Buyer's sole expense. Buyer shall schedule any such physical tests during normal business hours unless otherwise approved by Seller. Buyer agrees to indemnify Seller and hold Seller harmless from and against all liability, loss, cost, damage and expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation) resulting from Buyer's or Buyer's agents entry upon the Property, except to the extent that such liability, loss, cost, damage and expense arises as a result of the negligence or other wrongful conduct of Seller or its agents. 15. Seller's Conditions to Closine. The close of escrow and Seller's obligation to sell the Property pursuant to this Agreement are conditioned upon: (i) the performance by Buyer of each obligation to be performed by Buyer under this Agreement within the applicable time period, or waiver by Seller of such obligation; and (ii) Buyer's representations and warranties contained in this Agreement being true and correct as of the Effective Date and the close of escrow. (a). Siva Relocation Affreement. As part of this agreement, Buyer has conveyed to Seller an easement for sign maintenance purposes. In connection with this easement, the parties further agree as follows: (1) Buyer shall allow Seller to add an additional face to the existing structure located near South Airport Boulevard as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Said additional face shall not exceed square feet in total. Buyer hereby acknowledges that, should Seller receive all required permits for modifications to the sign structure as described above, the sign will be taller by feet; (2) Prior to any demolition, construction or other modifications to the sign structure subject to this Agreement, Seller shall obtain all necessary local, state or federal permits required by law for said construction, demolition or modifications; (3) Prior to erecting the second face on the structure, Seller shall replace the existing structure identified in Exhibit B with a single-pole structure as approved in the conditional use permit issued by the City of South San Francisc, CUP No. ; (4) Upon submittal of building permit applications by Seller for the activities authorized pursuant to this Agreement, Buyer shall process all permit applications for construction and operation of the new sign; (5) Seller's obligation to sell the Property pursuant to the terms of this Agreement is expressly conditioned on Seller's ability to obtain required regulatory Buyer City Council and Planning Commission approvals for modification of the existing sign as described in items 15 (a)(1)-(3) above. In the event that Seller is unable to obtain such approvals, Seller may terminate this agreement prior to the close of escrow; (6) Seller, on behalf of itself and its successors and/or assigns, agrees that they shall, upon request of Buyer, relocate the newly constructed sign structure identified in Exhibit A within the existing Property or to an adjacent property owned or controlled by Buyer at no cost to the Buyer in the event that Buyer requires such relocation in order to facilitate development projects on the Property. Such relocation shall be effected at Buyer's request and all costs associated with the relocation shall be borne by Seller; 672384-1 O0010 (7) The parties intend that this Agreement facilitate the relocation and modification of the existing sign structure as permitted by California Business and Professions Code Section 5443.5, and/or any applicable rules, regulations and ordinances of Buyer, and will permit the issuance by CalTrans of all required State of California permits and approvals necessary to permit the construction and operation of the new sign face pursuant to such laws and ordinances. To the extent required, Buyer shall cooperate w/th Seller in facilitating the issuance of all approvals and permits to be issued by other jurisdictions which are necessary for the construction and relocation of the new Seller face, including amending of this Agreement as necessary to permit compliance with California Business and Professions Code Section 5443.5. 16. Seller's Reoresentations and Warranties. Seller hereby represents and warrants that except as disclosed in writing to Buyer, as of the Effective Date and as of the close of escrow: (i) the Property is free and has always been free of Hazardous Materials and is not and has never been in violation of any Environmental Law; (ii) there are no buried or partially buried storage tanks located on the Property; (iii) Seller has received no notice, warning, notice of violation, administrative complaint, judicial complaint, or other formal or informal notice alleging that conditions on the Property are or have ever been in violation of any Environmental Law or informing Seller that the Property is subject to investigation or inquiry regarding Hazardous Materials on the Property or the potential violation of any Environmental Law; (iv) there is no monitoring program required by the Environmental Protection Agency or any other governmental agency concerning the Property; (v) no toxic or hazardous chemicals, waste, or substances of any kind have ever been spilled, disposed of, or stored on, under or at the Property, whether by accident, burying, drainage, or storage in containers, tanks, holding areas, or any other means; (vi) the Property has never been used as a dump or landfill; (vii) Seller has disclosed to Buyer all information, records, and studies in Seller's possession or reasonably available to Seller relating to the Property concerning Hazardous Materials; (viii) Seller has not received any notice from any governmental authority of any threatened or pending zoning, building, fire, or health code violation or violation of other governmental regulations concerning the Property that have not previously been corrected, and no condition on the Property violates any health, safety, fire, environmental, sewage, building, or other federal, state or local law, ordinance 0r regulation; (ix) there are no threatened or pending actions, suits, or administrative proceedings against or affecting the Property or any portion thereof or the interest of Seller in the Property; (x) there are no threatened or pending condemnation, eminent domain, or similar proceedings affecting the Property or any portion thereof; (xi) Seller has not received any notice from any insurer of defects of the Property which have not been corrected; (xii) there are no natural or artificial conditions upon the Property or any part thereof that could result in a material and adverse change in the condition of the Property; (xiii) all information that Seller has delivered to Buyer, either directly or through Seller's agents, is accurate and complete; (xiv) the rent roll delivered to Buyer is correct as of the date of this Agreement, the tenant leases are in full force and effect and subject to no offsets for the benefit of the tenants, and no rent has been prepaid nor concessions given to tenants other than as specified in the tenant leases or as disclosed to Buyer in writing; and (xv) Seller has disclosed all material facts concerning the Property. 672384-1 00011 Seller further represents and warrants that this Agreement and all other documents delivered or to be delivered in connection herewith prior to or at the close of escrow: (a) have been duly authorized, executed, and delivered by Seller; (b) are binding obligations of Seller; (c) are collectively sufficient to transfer all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to the Property; and (d) do not violate the provisions of any agreement to which Seller is a party or which affects the Property. Seller further represents and warrants that the persons who have executed this Agreement on behalf of Seller are authorized to do, that Seller has the legal right to enter into this Agreement and to perform all of its terms and conditions, and that this Agreement is enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms. Seller shall notify Buyer of any facts that would cause any of the representations contained in this Agreement to be untrue as of the close of escrow. If Buyer reasonably believes that a fact materially and adversely affects the Property, Buyer shall have the option to terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice thereof to Seller. In the event Buyer elects to terminate th_is Agreement, the Earnest Money Deposit, including interest thereon, and all other funds and documents deposited into escrow by or on behalf of Buyer shall be returned to Buyer, and all rights and obligations hereunder shall terminate. Seller shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Buyer from all loss, cost, liability, expense, damage or other injury, including without limitation, attorneys' fees and all other costs and expenses incurred by reason of, or in any manner resulting from the breach of any representation or warranty contained in this Section. 17. Seller's Covenants. Seller covenants that from the Effective Date and through the close of escrow, Seller: (i) shall not permit any liens, encumbrances, or easements to be placed on the Property, other than Permitted Exceptions; (ii) shall not enter into any agreement regarding the sale, rental, management, repair, improvement, or any other.matter affecting the Properb' that would be binding on Buyer or the Property after the close of escrow without the prior written consent of Buyer; (iii) shall not permit any act of waste or act that would tend to diminish the value of the Property for any reason, except that caused by ordinary wear and tear; and (iv) shall maintain the Property in its condition as of the Effective Date, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and shall manage the Property substantially in accordance with Seller's established practices. 18. Buyer's Reoresentations, Warranties and Covenants. Buyer represents, warrants and covenants that this Agreement and all other documents delivered in connection herewith, prior to or at the close of escrow: (i) have been duly authorized, executed, and delivered by Buyer; (ii) are binding obligations of Buyer; and (iii) do not violate the provisions of any agreement to which Buyer is a party. Buyer further represents and warrants that the persons who have executed this Agreement on behalf of Buyer have are duly authorized to do, that Buyer has the legal right to enter into this Agreement and to perform all of its terms and conditions, and that Agreement is enforceable against Buyer in accordance with its terms. 19. Environmental Indemnity. Seller agrees to unconditionally and fully indemnify, reimburse, defend, protect and hold harmless Buyer and the City of South San Francisco, 672384-1 00012' California from and against any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, fines, orders, judgments, actions, injunctive or other relief (whether or not based on personal injury, property damage, contamination of, or adverse effects upon, the environment or natural resources), costs, economic or other loss, expenses (including without limitation attorneys' fees and any expenses associated with the investigation, assessment, monitoring, response, removal, treatment, abatement and/or remediation of Hazardous Materials in, on or under the Property), and/or administrative, enforcement or judicial proceedings, whether known or unknown, and which are directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, caused by, arise out of, or relate to the presence, release or discharge or alleged presence, release or discharge of any Hazardous Materials in, on or under the Property or a violation or alleged violation of an Environmental Law. 20. Damage and Destruction. In the event of any damage or other loss to the Property, or any portion thereof, caused by fire or other casualty prior to the close of escrow in an amount not exceeding $ , Buyer shall not be entitled to terminate this Agreement, but shall be obligated to close the escrow and purchase the Property as provided in this Agreement, without abatement in the Purchase Price, provided that Seller shall: (i) assign and transfer to Buyer all of Seller's tights under any insurance policy covering the damage or loss, and all claims for monies payable from Seller's insurer(s) in connection with the damage or loss, and (ii) pay to Buyer at the close of escrow the mount of Seller's deductible under the insurance policy or policies covering the damage or loss. In the event of damage or destruction of the Property or any portion thereof prior to the close of escrow in an amount in excess of $ , Buyer may elect either to terminate this Agreement upon written notice to Seller, or to consummate the purchase of the Property, in which case Seller shall (i) assign and transfer to Buyer all of Seller's rights under any insurance policy covering the damage or loss, and all claims for monies payable from Seller's insurer(s) in connection with the damage or loss, and (ii) pay to Buyer at the close of escrow the amount of Seller's deductible under the insurance policy or policies covering the damage or loss. In the event Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement, the Earnest Money Deposit, including interest thereon, and all other funds and documents deposited into escrow by or on behalf of Buyer shall be returned to Buyer, and all tights and obligations hereunder shall terminate. 21. Assignment. Buyer shall have the tight to assign all rights and obligations under this Agreement to any party, and no approval by Seller of any such assignment shall be necessary. 22. Notices. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective addresses specified below or to such other address as a Party may designate by written notice delivered to the other parties in accordance with this Section. All such notices shall be sent by: (i) personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery; (ii) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered on receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt; 672384-1 00013 (iii) nationally recognized overnight courier, with charges prepaid or charged .to the sender's account, in which case notice is effective on delivery if delivery is confirmed by the delivery service; (iv) facsimile transmission, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon transmittal, provided that (a) a duplicate copy of the notice is promptly delivered by first- class or certified mail or by overnight delivery, or (b) a transmission report is generated reflecting the accurate transmission thereof. Any notice given by facsimile shall be considered to have been received on the next business day if it is received after 5:00 p.m. recipient's time or on a nonbusiness day. Buyer: City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: City Manager Telephone: 650 877-8500 Facsimile: 650 829-6609 with a copy to: Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94607 Attn: South San Francisco City Attorney Seller: 23. Provisions Surviving the Close of Escrow. The following provisions of this Agreement shall survive the close of escrow: 15, t6, 17, 18, 19, 20 24. Miscellaneous Provisions Litigation Costs. If any legal action or any other proceeding, including arbitration or action for declaratory relief, is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an 672384-1 00014 alleged breach or default in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled. Waivers: Modification. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision hereof, and no waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party. An extension of time for performance of any obligation or act shall not be deemed an extension of the time for performance of any other obligation or act, and no extension shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by the Parties. Successors. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the.benefit of the respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assignees of the Parties.. Provisions Not Merged With Deeds. None of the provisions, terms, representations, warranties and covenants of this Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by the Grant Deed, and neither the Grant Deed nor any other document shall affect or impair the provisions, terms, representations, warranties and covenants contained herein. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Seller's representations, warranties and covenants contained herein shall survive the close of escrow. Construction. The section headings used herein are solely for convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise on the part of both Parties, and the Parties agree, that since both Parties have participated in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties, but rather according to its fair meaning as a whole, as if both Parties had prepared it. Action or Approval. Where action and/or approval by Buyer is required under this Agreement, Buyer's Executive Director may act on and/or approve such matter unless the Executive Director determines in his or her discretion that such action or approval requires referral to Buyer's Board for consideration. The time periods afforded Buyer for any event, inspection, feasibility, due diligence, escrow closing or otherwise shall not be extended by any such referral to Buyer's Board. Entire A~reement. This Agreement, including Exhibits A to E attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written or oral agreements, understandings, representations or statements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter thereto. 672384-1 00015 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Severabilitv. If any term, provision, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been materially altered or abridged thereby. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall confer upon any person, other than the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, any rights or remedies hereunder. Parties Not Co-Venturers. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall establish the Parties as partners, co-venturers, or principal and agent with one another. Non-Liability of Officials, Eml~loyees and Agents. No member, official, employee or agent of Buyer shall be personally liable to Seller or its successors in interest in the event of any default or breach by Buyer or for any amount which may become due to Seller or its successors in interest pursuant to this Agreement. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each condition, term, obligation and provision of this Agreement. .Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Time for Performance. When the time for performance of any obligation under this Agreement is to be measured from another event, such time period shall include the day of the other event. If the day of the time for performance is not a regular business day, then the time for such performance shall be by the regular business day following such day. 672384-1 00016 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. BUYER: ATTEST: By: By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Steven T. Mattas City Attorney SELLER: 672384-1 00017 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY (Attach legal description of Property to be purchased by City and easement to be conveyed to Seller for use of existing billboard) THE PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED HEREIN ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO. THE FINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS WILL BE PREPARED BY THE CITY AND INSERTED HEREIN PR/OR TO CLOSE OF ESCROW BETWEEN THE CITY AND SELLER. 672384-1 00018 EXHIBIT B FORM OF GRANT DEED RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO c/o Michael A. Wilson, City Manager 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383 (SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE) GRANT DEED For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants to the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation :("Grantee") all that real property located in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Grant Deed as of , :20__. GRANTOR By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 672384-1 00019 (Attach legal description,) 672384-1 .00020 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed dated ,20__, from to the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted on behalf of the City by its City Manager pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. , adopted by the City on ,20__, and that the City consents to recordation of the Grant Deed by its duly authorized officer. Dated ,20 By: Print Name: ATTEST: By: Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attomey 660107-1 18 00021 EXHIBIT C Definition of "Environmental Laws" and "Hazardous Materials" Environmental Laws means all federal, state, local, or municipal laws, roles, orders, regulations, statutes, ordinances, codes, decrees, or requirements of any government authority regulating, relating to, or imposing liability or standards of conduct concerning any Hazardous Material (as de£med subsequently in this Exhibit), or pertaining to occupational health or industrial hygiene (and only to the extent that the occupational health or industrial hygiene laws, ordinances, or regulations relate to Hazardous Substances on, under, or about the Property), occupational or environmental conditions on, under, or about the Property, as now in effect, including without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [42 USCA 88 9601 et seq.]; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act [42 USCA 88 6901 et seq.]; the Clean Water Act, also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) [33 USCA 88 1251 et seq.]; the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [15 USCA 88 2601 et seq.]; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) [49 USCA 88 1801 et seq.]; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) [7 USCA 88 136 et seq.]; the Clean Air Act (CAA) [42 USCA 88 7401 et seq.]; the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 USCA 88 300fet seq.]; the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) [30 USCA 8~ 1201 et seq.]; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA or EPCRTKA) [42 USCA 88 11001 et seq.]; the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) [29 USCA §8 655, 657]; the California laws regarding the underground storage of hazardous substances [H & S C 88 25280 et seq.]; the Hazardous Substance Account Act [H & S C 8§ 25300 et seq.]; the California laws regarding hazardous waste control IH & S C 88 25100 et seq.]; the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 [lq & S C 88 25249.5 et seq.]; the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act [Wat C §8 13000 et seq.], and any amendments of or regulations promulgated under the statutes cited above and any other federal, state, or local law, statute, ordinance or regulation now in effect that pertains to occupational health or industrial hygiene, and only to the extent that the occupational health or industrial hygiene laws, ordinances, or regulations relate to Hazardous Substances on, under, or about the Property, or the regulation or protection of the environment, including ambient ak, soil, soil vapor, groundwater, surface water, or land use. Hazardous Materials includes without limitation: (a) Those substances included within the definitions of hazardous substance,hazardous waste,hazardous material, toxic substance, solid waste, or pollutant or contaminant in CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, HMTA, or under any other Environmental Law; (b) Those substances listed in the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) Table [49 CFR 8172.101], or by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or any successor agency, as hazardous substances [40 CFR Part 302]; (c) Other substances, materials, and wastes that are or become regulated or classified as hazardous or toxic under federal, state, or local laws or regulations; and (d) Any material, waste, or substance that is: (i) a petroleum or refined petroleum product, (ii) asbestos, (iii) polychlorinated biphenyl, (iv) designated as a hazardous substance pursuant to 33 USCA 1321 or listed pursuant to 33 USCA 1317, (v) a flammable explosive, or 660107-1 19 00022 (vi) a radioactive material. 660107-1 20 O0023