Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-11 e-packet SPECIAL 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 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2004 6:30 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 11th day of August 2004, at 6:30 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, Community Room, 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 Cultural Arts Commission Discussion and appointments to' Cultural Arts Commission Adjourmnent City C~erk AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2004 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer MICHAEL A. WILSON Executive Director KARYL MATSUMOTO Chair JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS tlEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of July 28, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of August 11, 2004 3. Motion to cancel regular meeting of August 25, 2004 CLOSED SESSION 4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 178- 190 Airport Boulevard and SF-PUC property located on Mission Road (APNs: 093-312- 050/060); Agency Negotiator: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 11,2004 PAGE 2 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11,2004 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. KARYL MATSUMOTO Mayor RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RICHARD A GARBARINO, SR. Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE 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 · Proclamation: former City employee Kristeen C. Nunziati AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of July 21 and 28, 2004 2. Motion to confinn expense claims of August 11,2004 3. Resolution awarding construction contract to Lucas Concrete, inc. for the annual sidewalk and common greens sidewalk repair project in an amount not to exceed $125,000 4. Motion to cancel regular meeting of August 25, 2004 5. Acknowledgement of proclamation issued: Samoan Flag Day, 8/7/04 PUBLIC HEARING o Consideration of appeals of Planning Commission decision to approve a Use Permit Modification (UP-00-025/Mod 1) of a wireless communication facility situated on the California Water Service Co. storage tank property on Avalon Drive near Canyon Court in a Single Family Residential (R-I-C-P) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC section 20.105; Owner: California Water Service Co.; Applicant: AT&T Wireless a) b) Appeal of approval ofUP-00-025/Mod ! (Appellant: Marge Sieux, et al) Appeal of conditions of approval pertaining to under grounding the equipment and number of antennas (Appellant: AT&T Wireless/Howard Yee) ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ° Consideration of appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve a Planned Unit Development of four single family homes at 440 Commercial Avenue, Tentative Parcel Map to divide the lot into four lots, and an Affordable Housing Agreement; Owner: City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency; Applicant: Peninsula Habitat for Humanity (P04-0034, PCA04-0001, PUD04-0001, PM04-0001 & AHA04-0001) Continued from July 14, 2004; public hearing closed · COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 11,2004 AGENDA PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEM #3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 11,2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Terry White, Director of Public Works Annual Sidewalk & Common Greens Sidewall< Repair Engineering File ST-03-20/21, Project No. 51-13231-0308/0307 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution awarding a construction contract to Lucas Concrete, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $125,000.00 for the Annual Sidewalk & Common Greens Sidewalk Repair Project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project will replace existing deteriorated sidewalks, curb and gutter among numerous areas of the business district, residential districts, and the common greens in the Westborough area. City forces will mark the areas where the contractor will replace the existing sidewalk, curb and gutter. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was prepared for this project and was advertised. The City received two responses to the RFP and has determined, due to the lower unit rates for doing repair work, that Lucas Concrete Inc. is best suited do perform the work. Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Lucas Concrete Inc. and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Lucas Concrete Inc. in the amount not to exceed $125,000.00. Construction is expected to start early September 2004 and will be an on going process to repair and replace sidewalks as marked by City forces using available funding. FUNDING: This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51-13231-0307 & 0308). $25,000 will be drawn fi-om the General Fund, $25,000 from Downtown RDA, and $75,000 from the Common Greens (Funds 32, 33, 34, 35). StaffReport Subject: Annual Sidewalk & Common Greens Sidewall< Repair Page: 2 Terry White : / Director of Pu~ 6j25 Works City Manager Attachment: Resolution RTH/TW G:\PROJECTS\ST-03-20 Sidewalk Repair \awardstaffreport.doc KESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALiFORNiA A RESOLUTION AYVARDING A CONSTRtICTION CONTRACT TO LUCAS CONCRETE, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $12,5,000 FOR THE ANNUAl, SIDEWALK & COMMON GREENS SIDE\¥ALK REPAIR PRQJECT WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding a construction coutract to fine lowest responsible bidder, Lucas Concrete, Inc. ill an amount not to exceed $125,000 for the Annnal Sidewall< & Common Greens Sidewalk Repair Project; and WHEREAS, this project is included in tine City of South San Francisco's 2004/2005 Capital Improvement Program budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by fine City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Lucas Concrete, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $125,000 for the Annual Sidewall< & Common Greens Sidewalk Repair Project. 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 ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: AB STAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: S:\Current Reso's\8- I 1-04Jucas.concrcli~.construclion-contract-res-d°c City Clerk .4 GEND.4 ITEM #6 DATE: August 11, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF: MODIFICATION ALLOWING A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY, CONSISTING OF THE EXTENSION OF GROUND MOUNTED ANTENNA AND REPLACEMENT OF AT-GRADE EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITH AN UNDERGROUND VAULT AND DESIGN REVIEW OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACII,ITY, CONSISTING OF THE EXTENSION OF GROUND MOUNTED ANTENNA AND REPLACEMENT OF AT-GRADE EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITH AN UNDERGROUND VAULT SITUATED AT (APN 091-143-280) THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF AVALON DRIVE AND BEGINNING OF CRESTWOOD DRIVE ADJACENT TO SR 280, IN THE (R-l-C-P) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNIC2AL CODE CHAPTERS 20.105. TWO SEPARATE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED. APPEAL 1, ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL BE OVERTURNED AND REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING FACILITY BE REQUIILED. APPEAL 2, BY THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A DESIGN ALTERNATIVE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS ALTERNATIVE 2 BE OVERTURNED AND INSTEAD REPLACED BY DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 1. Case Nos. UP00-0025/MOD 1 & DR 00-0025/MOD 1: Applicant: AT&T Owner: California Water Service Company Appellants: 1. Marge Sieux 2. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., by Richard Weimer Date: August 11, 2004 Subject: Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility- Appeal Page 2 of 5 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny both appeals and uphold the Planning Commission action to approve UP00-0025/MOD 1 & DR 00-0025/MOD 1. BACKGROUND On June 3, 2004, the Planning Commission approved UP00-0025/MOD 1. The application had been the subject a lengthy process, involving two neighborhood meetings, design modifications, and several Planning Commission hearings. Since AT&T had performed unauthorized work, the process also involved a verbal and written apology by AT&T, along with an explanation of new procedures to minimize any future occurrences of construction without City approvals. The approved plan (known as Alternative #2) included a redesigned monopole, resembling a tree or shrub. The Planning Commission determined that the redesigned monopole with the underground equipment vault would be indistinguishable fi.om the adjacent landscaping, consistent with the telecommunications ordinance, and aesthetically pleasing. The Planning Commission rejected the applicant's proposed project consisting of the redesigned monopole with an above ground equipment cabinet enclosed by a wood fence. The Commission felt that the equipment facility, even with additional landscaping on the slope facing the street, would be more visible and would not be consistent with the design requirements for anterma facilities (SSFMC Chapter 20.105,) and that the applicant had not provided adequate justification that the equipment facility could not be placed in an underground vault. At all of the Planning Commission meetings and at the neighborhood meetings, neighboring residents spoke in opposition to the project and to the existing facility- requesting that it be relocated to another neighborhood. The neighborhood has opposed cellular antennas on the project site since they first became aware of them a couple of years ago. Residents had previously sent letters to the City Council expressing their opposition. Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings and the staff reports are attached to this staff report. PREVIOUS CITY ACTIONS The 0.44 acre site is contains a California Water Service Company water tank and landscaping. Access is fi.om Avalon Drive opposite Canyon Court. On June 15, 2000 Planning Commission approved a wireless communication facility consisting of ground mounted antenna and at grade equipment cabinets. The applicant constructed the facility with an approved Building Permit. Date: August 11, 2004 Subject: Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility - Appeal Page 3 of 5 In spring 2002, the applicant's contractor applied for a building permit to install larger cabinets replacing the existing cabinets. City staff advised the applicant to apply for a Use Permit Modification and denied issuance of the Building Permit. Several months later the contractor installed the cabinets without benefit of approval by the City. On complaints received from nearby residents regarding the construction, City staff immediately contacted the applicant who shortly afterwards applied for a Use Permit. Original Wireless Facility The original wireless facility approved consisted of a 13 foot tall monopole with two 8 foot tall panel antennas mounted directly to the mono-pole near the freeway, several equipment cabinets approximately 6 feet in height, on a concrete pad nearly 9 feet in length and 4 feet in width, and landscaping to screen the facilities. Alternatives #1 and #2 The applicant's preferred design solution is identified as Alternative #1 consisting of a nearly 4 foot extension of the antenna pole resulting in a total height of 16 feet, placing a solid wood 8 foot tall fence around the new taller 7.8 foot cabinets mounted on a larger concrete pad measuring 10.75 feet in length and 5 feet in width. As part of the applicant's appeal, they propose to landscape the slope facing the street. City staff did not support this alternative because it does not achieve the design stealthiness sought by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved Alternative # 2 that includes a slightly larger antenna panel mounted on a pole facing SR 280, and an underground vault housing new larger equipment cabinets. The pole would be designed to appear as a tree or shrub. The equipment vault containing the taller cabinets and larger concrete pad will not be visible from the residences across Avalon Drive because the design will utilize an open metal grid in lieu of a solid roof. Had a solid roof been included, an above-ground access hatchway and HVAC system would have been visible off-site. Both Alternatives #1 and #2 would operate on a 24/7 basis and require servicing one to two times per month. The existing on-site aisleway and parking area will be adequate to meet the needs of the water company and service technicians. A Use Permit Modification was required because the proposed modifications represent significant changes from the approved facility. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City staffhas determined that the proposed project does not have the potential to cause a significant environmental effect and is therefore categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the Date: August 11, 2004 Subject: Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility- Appeal Page 4 of 5 project has been determined to be exempt, the City Council is not required to take action on the environmental document. APPEALS Two appeals have been filed. Appeal 1 was filed by Marge Sieux, a neighborhood resident. The appeal objects to the facility being located in the residential neighborhood and request that the City Council deny the project and require the removal of the existing wireless communication facility. The appeal includes more specific justification, a petition, letter and photographs. The applicant, AT&T, is also appealing the Planning Commission's action. The applicant is requesting that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission approval of Alternative #2 and approve, instead, a revised Alternative #1, which includes above-ground equipment cabinets in a fenced enclosure. Landscaping of the slope between the equipment cabinets and the street would be installed. The plans and photo simulations are attached. (attached) The plans and the landscaping concept were not deemed an adequate design solution by the Planning Commission (although the Commissioners did not have an oppommity to review the landscape photo simulation as the applicant has only made these recently available). The Planning Commission preferred an underground vault as the optimal "stealthy" solution. The slope appearance however, could be greatly improved with landscaping. After the Commission action, the applicant's representative recently conducted a neighborhood meeting to review the proposed plans. The applicant reported that few persons attended and some residents expressed interest in having the slope landscaped. City staff supports the landscaping of the slope but not the above-ground placement of the equipment cabinets. Both appeals area attached to this staff report. CONCLUSION: The project as approved by the Planning Commission (Alternative #2) complies with the City development standards, including the Antenna and Tower design requirements contained in SSFMC Section 20.105.030 (d), and is visually compatible with the adjacent residences in the immediate project vicinity. The existing wireless communication was approved at a duly noticed Planning Commission and is providing a service to the community. The applicant's revised Alternative #1 does not comply with City development standards and is less visually compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council deny both appeals and uphold the Planning Commission approval of the 1). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and Date: August 11, 2004 Subject: Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility- Appeal Page 5 of 5 replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault and, 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault. By: Assistant City Manager Approved: ic ael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments: Appeals: Marge Sieux AT&T by Richard Weimer Findings of Approval Conditions of Approval Public Participation/Neighborhood Meetings Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 2004 April 15, 2004 June 3, 2004 Staff Reports February 19, 2004 April 15, 2004 June 3, 2004 Plans Alternative #2 Approved by Planning Commission Revised Alternative #1 Proposed as part of the Applicant's Appeal CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080* (650) 877-8535 APPLICATION FOR APPEAl, RECEIVED PLANNING Applicants who wish to file an appeal of a decision of the ChiefPlarmer or the Planning Commission, or a Design Review decision, shall submit the following (a letter or adchtiona] sheets may also be submitted): 1 What, specifically, is being appealed? Case No: UP 00-025/MOD1 &.DR/MOD ]. The installation of C'ommercla] Equipment 5n ~ re~JSent~] zon~ over the vehement objections of the residents in the area. 2. Illegally installed equipment, and no fines imposed on large corporations 2 3. Total disregard for the Communitys objections 4. Sac attached Dotal!cd Summary E--~H--!-~IT (1) What is the basis o£your appeal? Include facts to support your appeal and all pertinent information. Refer to attached detailed summary and request for oomplet, ~nv~.~t~g~t~mw mhd disclosure to the residents of the various commerical equipment allowed t~ he instal]ed by the property owner C.~]ifornia wmter Dmpnrtrnmpt 3 If you are the ori~nal applicant, submit thirty-five (35) reduced copies (8 1/2" x 11 ") of ail exhibits (maps, plans, elevations, etc) which were submitted with the original application. Name: Refer to attached list of names and signatures with cover letter addressed to Mayor of SSF . MailineAddress: // d-~7'x./y~ ~ ~c/,~ 6~.~}/~. A~i of the names and signatures on June 1~, EP2HIBIT ~2) ~should be notified. Signature 2OO4 Date Ph one No. *Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083 euo el~ed 'suop, oe s;,ueua~ ~!aq~, JO e~e~eun eq o~ uJeas ilpesoddns Xeq~, ip, uese~d '=ISS u! s~u@p!se~ aq~, jo ~,sa~ aq~, o~, pa!ldde aJe XeLp, se slua~uaJ~nba~ pue sapoo 'S~el aq~, lie o~ aJaqpe oh paJinbaJ aq Plnoqs '_~SS u? J@UMO XlJadoJd' e Se ~,uauJlJedaQ Ja),eM eluJojileO aH_L · s~uep!saj XqJeeu Jo Xlil?nbue4 pue Xoe^lJd uodn a§u!Jju! '~uap!saj :~saJeau aq~, LUOJJ ~aaj 09 ueq~, SSal :saJn~,onj~s lep, uap!saJ oh Xi!u~!xojcl s~,uap!saj oD aoueqJm, s!p pue uo!~nllod eS?ON 's~lon4 pue SalO!qa^ aoueua~u~etu pa~lJed o~, anp 'JCl UOle^¥/pnoo uoiueo~ uop, oasJa~u! snoJaauep ipeaJle a~,eqJao~xe- 'aoueua~u!euJ aJoLu sueacu ~uatud!nba aJOlAI :suo!sueLu!p q~,!M ~lne^ punoJ~Japun ue u~ 'H,0 ~ XN~,0~;x-I,~ az!s pe!J!oadsun jo s~au!qeo ~; s~ue~ lX2_L¥ - ',6'~ x,9'g ~ ]au!qeo auo peq aJojeq - 's~,au!qeo ~,uaLud!nba Xuegu ooj_ 'alod ~,aej 9 ~ jo pea~su! ~,e@j g ~ a^eq ~,ouueo Xq~ uoseej ou - 'lnjssaoonsun 8uluaa~os ~,e s~,duaa~,~e ~,sed - · '~,ql~qq lense^ 8ulz~u~lu~u~ jo ,~oqod s,90 ~'(~; qo q~,~ ~,ua~,slsuooul - 'pooqJoqqalau lequ~p~saJ. . ~u~AJ~e~d'jo. leO8 's,uelcl leJeuaE) Lp,~. ~,ue~,sls~oo. :lotJ ~,aej 9~ o~, ~aej gl. wojj ~,q~iaq alod pesea~OUl '(9 'sJaMo~, auoqd IlaO aJ saoueu!pJo leOOl jo sJolelO]^ aJou~ a6eJnooua ilUO IIF~ saug 6uisod~l iq saoueuipJo leOOl aoJojue lou II!~ '~oe~e u~ puc 'aAoqe pe~e4suomep se (enJ~ ~ou si. qo!q~) ~uueo i~io aq~ 3eq~ uolssl~pe s~Jeds JaUUel~ JaiqO's Jato1 euoqd IleO 6ui~eln6e~ saoueu!pJo leOOl q~i~ aoue]ld~o~ 3opls e pe6eJnooue eAeq PlnO~ cub V 'ielep ul eae6ue o3 paaeJnooue s~ 1~1V 'au!j e 3no q~!M' '~elqoJd aq~ o~ uo!inlos pasodoJd e eJ il!o e~ q3!~ ~Jo~ o1 1~1V Joj s}eei 9'~ ueHe~ seq 3i pue pesod~l se~ auB ou pealSUl 'eu!j aq~ asod~ se~ op o~ peq ~ lie asneoeq a~!l JO asuedxa e~eu!pJou; Jnou! o3 i~io aq~ pesneo eAeq ~ou PlnO~ qonS 'au~ eq] pesod~l eAeq plnoqs 3! 'uoi~elO~ e jo ~eu~ ~ eouO "suo!~elO!A Jo~iuo~ o~ seoJnosaJ ~ua!o!~ns seq ~io eq~ Jeq~eq~ ~ueAele~jl s! ~ eJojeJeql '~el eq3 q~]~ ild~oo o3 1~1V e6eJnooue o~ 6uiq~ou s! eJeq~ aug ou s! aJeq~ j~ 'saoJnoseJ ~o Hoel s,JeUUeld i~iO Je!qo aq~ spJe~o~ pez!li~n aq plnoo ieql 'pesod~l eJe~ sau]j aq~ Jl '(~0/~/~ '6ui~ae~ uo!ss!~oo 6u!uueM)'~lno!~!p s! ~ua~eoJojua apoo 'Pe~l aseo pue saoJnosaJ jo ~Oel jo esneoeq Xes o~ sanu!3uoo s~Jeds JaUUeld ja!qo 'g00g 'Jeq~eoeQ o~ ~oeq 6u!~ep uogoeJjui s!q~ jo e6pel~OU~ JealO si aJeq~ '~0/6 ~/g ' uodeJ ~eiS aq~ u! 'uo!~elo!A aq~ ~o a6pel~OUH Jlaq] ~JIjuoo Jaq~nj oI "lueMod~ ~ou se~ anss~ s!ql ~eq~ pe3eo!pu! s~Jeds JeuueM ja~qo. '~00g"6 ~ ~nJqej uo 8uqee~. uolss~oo. . 6uluuel8. ~q3 W 'auop lou se~ siql 'uo!3elO~A e sa~e~ ~eq~ i~ed iue o~ cub AqlVQ e esod~i ol il?o aq~ S~Olle ~eq~ eoueu~pJo ue s~ eJeq~ ' ~euiqeo JeaJej aqJ JO ash eAeq ol paMolle uaeq seq 191V JeWel sJeeX g' ~ MON 'p~Ao~eJ aq O~ eAeq PlnOM ~auiqeo JaaJel aq~ uaq~ '~ou j! ~eql pas!Ape SaM aq 8u!~ea~ a~es aql W "~elqoJd eq~ eAIOSaj oj ape~ aq plnOM UO!S!oep e ~eaM e uIqJiM ~eqj peuoijue~ 'aaa pJeMOH 'eA!je~ueseJdej 191V qjiM 'g00g 'g qoJe~ uo ~u!~ee~ pooqJoqq~!eu e ~V 'a6ueqo s!qj e~em o~ l!~Jed ou peq 191V ~eq~ peu]~Je~ep ~dep 8u!uueld aql 'auo Ja~Jel qon~ e q~iM ~eu!qeo IlemS aq~ 8uloeldaJ 191V ~o ~ue~edep 8u!uueld pagllou aM 'g00g '0 ~ 'OaQ ~noqe Jo uo 'XlleBall! aJeq~, s! ~,u@wd!nba Xep qoea Joj 191¥ au!j plnoqs X~,!O '( ~ !, C]OIN/S~O-O0 ~10 'g I,C]OIN/SZ;O-O0 dR leaddv Joj seseEi jo/ueuJtuns Summary of Bases for Appeal (continUed) 7). 8). 9). 10). Double standards: One for the voters, taxpayers and residents of SSF and another for Large corporations, such as AT&T, Bechtel and California Water Department. The Westborough Way Homeowner's AsSociation's rules do not allow homeowners to install outside antennas, or make structural changes, without the explicit approval of one's immediate neighbors. In this case 5 homes share the same fence with site. None of their approval was obtained by the owner of the property, the California Water Department. Why are they exempt? Cannot emphasize enough as to the location of this site. It is zone residential! What does the City of SSF gain? Nothing! The profits are gained by AT&T a large corporation outside'of our City and the landlord the California Water Department, based in the East Bay. What do you have left? A group of very unhappy, voters, taxpayers and long time residents of South San Francisco! Page Two EXHIBIT (1) -3- qlMOJ5 leUO!SSaJoJd pue ~,U@LUdola^ap IIPtS 6u!6mno~ua uop, eD!unuJmo3 9^ppnJ3,suo3 pue uado 6U!U!elU!eLU pue fiup, ouJoJd · ag?u@s Jo s'43ads~ lie u!/qsauoq pue /q!l!qe],unog~e pue/q!l!qlsuodsaj 5up, da93V · ~U!^lOS UJalqoJd 6u!]Joddns pue/ql^p, eaJ3 6u!lSmno~uq. a3!/uaS pue a3Uall~3X:Et o], 6u!q!uJmoD · DDJ0~)JJOM pUB ~lUnLULLIOD OLp, ~O suoIuIdo 15UlSeJno:)ui~ pub AllSJi~AIp 15Ul:p&dsD~l pul~ 15UlZlUlSO:)@~t ¥10MLUI2E)I pue uoqem'p~p qSn'oJq], uo134~ZlUl~bjl~ oq::l'pue :o:[ pa:l-l!wmo~ aJe DM uo]:lezluefJO ue s¥ '/q!unwwo~ @ql pue Jaq:loue auo ol a3!AJas §u!p!^oJd u! alOJ Jno ~nleA oDspum4 ue$ q:lno$ jo saaAoldtu~t pue/qD aq_L sanleA a Jo3. Jno · fiu!puelsJgpun pue appd/q!unLUmo3 J@lsoj II!M q3!qM jo lie '/q!unuJLUO3 ssau!snq snoJadsoJd e ule:lE)J pue ~eJ~,e pue uo!legnpa/q!lenb u! J~gU:l.led E)^!~B ue aq 'DD.IOJ~JONt PalIPtS ,{Iqb!q' pue/ @SJgAIp e 5up,!nJa@J Aq/q!unuJLUOD @q~, q~,!M d!qsJgu:ped e aJn$1nu o:J @A!J::JS II!M aM 'pu@ ],eq], O_L 'aJ!l jo/q!lenb s,~!unwtuoD a4~, @guequa II!M ~,e4~, a!4~,a )]JOM e aAe4 O1 pue sweJSoJd JOlJadns pue aa!Mas Jawm, sna ~,UallaaXa qSnoJq~, /q!D PaU!m,u!ew-IlaM pue 9Al:peJ~e 'aJes I~ ap!AOJ~l m, s! uo!ss!w s, oaspueJ-I ues 4~,nos jo/q!D aq_L :sonl~A ;.[oo prm luomolelS uo[ss.qA[ s,oos[otmzd tmS rcnos jo fl[g otp ~[,x u¢oq OAk 'IpunoD Xl[O oqljo s:~qmola[ prm olomnslul~ ~oX:ulAI ~oG 0801~6 VD 'oosptmz4 tmS qlnoS onuoAv ptmz0 001~ [DunoD KIID atp jo s:roquaoF¢ puV zo-g~l~ 'olou. msl~ '1700E q~L[ ~unf Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor And Members of City Council June 17th, 2004 Page two The Core Values are comprised with words such as: "Dedication and Teamwork" Pretty lopsided when Violators of the Codes being large Corporations are let off the hook with "a letter of apology to the residents". Serious concern as to persons' making decision regarding SSF, when they do not reside in SSF and one cannot help but ask "Which TEAM are they on? "Recognizing and Respecting diversity and encouraging opinions of the Community and Work. force" Who are they respecting, and just brushing aside the Community's opinions? "Accepting responsibility and accountability" To quote Mr. Sparks "this matter was not that important" "lack of staff'. "Demonstrating integrity and honesty in all aspects of service". Why no frees? Why are all of the requested enhancements being allowed? "Promoting and maintaining open and constructive communication". Why is it not necessary for the residents not to be provided notification? The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings do not accurately reflect the concerns, requests and statements of the residents, i.e. Repeated requests by residents for a complete inventory of the equipment installed at the California Water Department Site! Attached is the necessary documentation and forms requesting a review from the City Council. Please note our concerns are: a) Double standards being applied to the residents of SSF vs. the blatant favoritism and mining a blind eye to big corporations. No frees assessed for nearly 2 years, against AT&T nor, Cal Water Service Company for illegally installing and enjoying the privileges and profits of the upgrades made by their contractor "Bechtel Corporation". b) This is a residentially zoned area. Why, under any circumstances is AT&T or Anyone else being allowed to modify and use this area for Commercial Business? c) No, a letter of apology from these.big business is not acceptable, to the Residents of the Area, as requested by the Planning Commission and yet, Allowing AT&T, their. EVERY request as noted in the application for an Use Permit? Which was supposedly provided at the Planning Commission meeting on 6/3/04. However, NONE of the residents were noticed regarding this meeting, and as indicated by Steve Carlson, Sr. Planner, nor was it necessary. EXHIBIT (2) -5- -9- (pottoml~ oos) po~.tS · no,( tuo~ 2~.. eott ol pzeauoj >too[ ~aa pue uo[lmop[suoo mo.( ~oj no,( hq, retLL (Z[2JaX[O7 si uo[lsonb m. uo[!]zoo[ o~ imll lmzj Otll lo~:[oj, lou slo[ s[sXi~ue pzuig ~ 'sonpsA o:[oD puc luommizlS uo[ss.tlA[ s, oos.tourezd mss tlmoS jo ~[O mil ,(q prrms ol 'l.mtmoo ~!O ottl jo s~oqtuotu ottl pue ':toK~l, xI oq3 no,( ptm polonpuoo oq UO[1]Z~[lSOAU[. [[nj is 1mil ~m. ls~nboz oze o,v, 'dSS u[ sW[O[l=;O poloo[2 · sopoo po .z[rtbo:~ oil1 u..rtil.rax ~moq lou s~ p~.ruop A2[sno[Ao.ic[ O.IOA4. 3,13142. 'SUO.IltIO[,I.IpoIII rJA.~O S~[ pmruojaod 'oos[otm:~d ires q~noS Jo sate[ puns sluop.[so:[ mil ol uo.u~zop.tsuoo o~:re[ ~ ot sluotuootretluo oSOtll ~m.~o[pz ol ~t.q3oo.fqo ~[~uoas ~ze ~,,a =ure~ oouO · suo[loo[qo :{tm moql.tax '.&redmoo oo.t~oS IUD *ti1 jo sosttuo:~d otll uo ':[oaxol ouottd iioo ~ [imsu.t ol poa~o[ie susa '~oxe otB sluop[so:[ oq3 m ao[l~ot, J.UOU jo >imz[ ~ql .gq ptm '0002C t,q. otiax ',.L~£¥ lmtl s.t uo.tldooxo mLL 'm~B~ zo~o I~ o[~q ottres ot[1 Bm. lt[Bt, j oq ol tuo~s oax '17002C m. umBt, o:toH · omlrtj oti1 m. so.tin, frS.ts [~uo[l[pp~s ~ .mu.rmqo u[ c[.rqspzeti ou o,~mt I[.t~ oax slu.re.r, suoo ou_r[.1 ptre uoCuotj.tlou jo >[o~[ u o1 onp axoj o:m :[ollo[ s.rql, o! pot!.omlu so:[mintS.is [mm_~..uo oq3 o[.tr[at ~mtl pomss~ oq osco[ti 'prsotI o~o~a sluop[so~ ottl ~z~ jO[lOq ottl ut omoos ~o,,a ptm lsonboz s.rt[1 po.ruop uo[ssrmmo~ ~u.mtm[d ot[& 'uo[lu[~lsu[ s.rttl ol {u.tmo[qo ~ pouS.ts sluop.rsoz pue $IO1OA OgC JOAO luottmoop pmtomlu :[od su 'zoaxol ouoqd [IOO ~ [Imsm. ol uo.tss.ranod pmsonbo:~ SDcI o-aOlA[/~tmdmoD ~In[IoD :rOtllotre uottax '10025 uI P002C 'q~L[ ounf [.tounoD Al.tD jo s~aqtualA[ pwv- zoKe~ 'olomns!wAI Signature ~ Na;a~ Address ~i~a~r~ ~ t }~'~ Nme Address Signature Name Address ature ' Name Address Signature Name Address Name Address Signature Signature Signa~mr~/]~'~ ' Name Signature ~ N~e Si~a~Nme Name Address Name Address %/' ~NS~e~/ ~jq ..__Address Address Address Address Address Address -7- ss*.rppv oumN ssoCpv oamN o.tm~a~!S sso-rpPV ~rrmN sso-rppv ,urnN o.mmr~[S ssmppv ~umN o.rmmrS[S ss~.rppv on:mN sso.tpp¥ orrmN ss*rppv omeN om~N si~t~.~/j~ ~am~ Silage Silage ~ Nme ~i~amre ' ~ N~e Address Address ^ N~e Address Ad.ess Address Ad&ess Address Signature Name Address -9- CITY OF SOUTIt SAN FRANCISCO 315 Maple Avenue, So~ S~ ~c~co, CA 94080* APPLICATION FOR APPEAL fi' 0 £.i 1/£D Pt NNIN Applictmts who wish to file mz appeal ofa deoision of the ChiefPla~ner orthe Planning Commissio~ or a Design Review decision, shall submit fire following (a letter or additional sheets may also be submittexl): 1 What, specifically, is being appealed? Case No: (.1 ~- D (~ - ~ 2 ,~.~//P'd. . ¢-) ['-) J- - 2 What is the basis of your appeal? Include facts to sapport your appeal and all pertinent kfformatiom 3 if you are the oricaal applicant, submit thirty-five (35) reduced copies (8 t/2" x 11") o£ ail ex!~. ?0its (maps, plans, elevations, etc) which were submitted with the. .°rig/hal. application.. . . . . . :. 4 Filling fee -See Fee Sehednle , .- Name: Mailing,Address: .- S~gnature. . / : t Date *Mailing Address: P.O. Box 71I, South San Fraiieisco, CA 94083 -12- June 1~, 2004 RE: Use Permit Application UP-00-025/MOD1 Modifications to AT&T Wireless antenna site Intersection of Crestwood Df.and Avalon Dr. BASIS FOR APPEAL Applicant wishes to appeal the condition of approval requiring Applicant to build Alternative 2, which places the approved facilities underground. Use of Alternative 2 goes beyond what is necessary to protect the general public l~om visual intrusions. Applicant asks the Council to consider Alternative 1 because it is completely consistent with the City's design guidelines. It provides visual mitigations through use of wooden fencing and landscaping elements added to the already-dense cover of greenery. AT&T Wireless believes that it can provide a win-win solution for both parties by working with the City and neighbors to develop more extensive landscape provisions than proposed in Alternative 1, with the intent of reducing the visual impacts of the communications facility and of the water tanks as well. Underground placement of communications facilities has been shown to lead to increased likelihood of equipment failure due to moisture inundation, a very common occurrence with vaulted facilities, Equipment failure results in endangerment of the public through inability to place E-911 calls and other urgent communications while the site is off-air. Also, undcrgrounding occasions much greater numbers of site visits than with above-ground sites to maintain equipment or rectify problems, hence more activity occurs at the underground ske than at normal facilities. -13- AVALON TANK S~TE = Photosim Viewpoints Location Hap (No Sca~e) This symbol represents the locations where viewpoir~ts were photographed, ~r}dicates location of AT&T antennas arid equipmer~t, Calif. 95620 (707) 678-3015 <~gueroa@dav~s.com> fx. 707.878,4856 Site Name: AVALON WATER TANK Site No. 882 5/7/O3 WEW 1 ABOVE- Looking east from corner of Avalon Dr, and Canyon Ct, (A~ternative ¢I simulation) (Arrow points to new screen fence,) ABOVE - Same view of "existing" site, (Arrow points to she~ten) Box 805 D~xon, Calif~ 95820 (707} 878-3015 <f~gueroa@davis,c~¢'n> f~ 707.878.4858 Site Name: AVALON WATER TANK Site No, 882 5/7/3 wEw 2 Wire/ess ABOVE - Looking no~h across Avalon Drive (Alternative #1 simulation). (Arrow points to new screen fen~) ABOVE - Same view of existing site (Arrow points to sheiten) P,O Box 805 Bixor~, Catif 95820 (707) 878-3015 ..... <fi~ueroa@davis,com> f~, 7078784858 l? 18 ILl ./ 2") FINDINGS OF APPROVAL UP 00-0025/MOD 1 (Recommended by City Staff June 3, 2004) As required by the Use Permit Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.81.050), the following findings are made in approval of Use Permit LIP 00-025/MOD 1 allowing modification of a wireless communication facility, consisting of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault, situated on a 0.44 acre parcel at the terminus of Avalon Drive and beginning of Crestwood Drive (APN 091-143-280) adjacent to SR 280, in the Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-I-C-P) in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.105, 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 J. E. Schuricht and Associates in association with UP 00-025/MOD 1; Design Review Board minutes of June 17, 2003; Design Review Board minutes of September 16, 2003;'Design Review Board meeting of June 17, 2003; Design Review Board meeting of September 16, 2003; Planning Commission staff report dated February 19, 2004; Planning Commission staff report dated April 15, 2004; Planning Commission staffreport of June 3, 2004; Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2004; and Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 2004; and Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004: The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub and underground vault accommodating equipment cabinets with is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element that designates this site for low density residential uses. The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub and underground vault accommodating equipment cabinets is consistent with the requirements of SSFMC Title 20, which requires an approved Use Permit in the Single Family Residential (R- 1-C-P) Zone District. The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub and underground vault accommodating equipment cabinets will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The facility has been designed to comply with Federal, State and local health and safety requirements. Conditions of approval have been required which will ensure that limits views of the facility from surrounding areas and will improve views of the site. -23- (~$g-/.,£g/0$9 'UOSlJgD onolS :uos.~od l~gluoD gm. uUgld) '8 · uo[smzdxo posodo~[d org ~mpomu. roomz tmo 'JL:~.l,¥ prm ~[o~3A MO "~t~'O'd §rap. nlou[ 'soD.r[.~1n oq3 l~zr¢ ~ouop.rAO op~o~[d [pzr[s ~rmoRdd~ ~rg '3.[ruaocl Xrm jo oommss[ ~ql ol .[o.uc[ '£ '9 · J. oUrmld$O.rqo s,A[O oq%~o MAo~[ddg prm ~AO.[AOZ ortl O~ loo.Cqns oq Ilm[S Srmld uo.[3orulsuoo ~rrrj orLL 's~orr[.qgo ~uomd.mbo [~ prm '~uuolrm 'o[odouom o~ gu-[p, niou[ soB[i!mzJ puno~ o.~oq~z oq3 jo s.~orA ozmmmm m rtuoj qn.u:[s/oo.rl g mz o[odouora oq3 lo[dop [l~r[s Srmld uo~oru~suoo p3ucj oql ':[.m~od ftm jo oomznss[ oq3 o~ ~o~d .$ · rro.tss.an'ruoO ~ .upm~IcI oq3 Xq pzAo.tdchz :OUr[ om-nboz llmr[s ~.r[.]o~j oql rr[. o~rrL, r[o ~2rrv- 'I GoIAI/~2[0-00 dfl ql.h~ po?[~z.Yoossm UZAO.lddlZ Jo SllOI. l.IplIo0 oql -gq popuoumZ S~ ~smzld poAozdd~z uo[ssTmraoO ~ .aiutm[d o~ uo u~oqs mz ~l[mzA pano~z~pun oq3 m. slom. q~zo luomd.mb~ ~ pm op~z~ ruo.rj looj ~1 jo l~[or[ mnrm-x~ra ~z ql.r~ o[od-ouora ~z uo po:[unora smraolrm IOrmd 2I o~ o~ poLrtrqI, oq [lmIs '2~# ~A~muol[V '~.r[[mzj suo[~o.runmmooo[o~ SSOlO .z[~ oq~L ':rorrmzld Jo.rqo [I~qS srmid od~osprmI i~urj or[Z -oA.uG IlO[lZAV o!m. pomu:r[ *q3 rr[. sqruqs o.ml~m prm soo.r[ oz[s uormoods [p3 §rr[.o~z[do.~ oPnlOu!. [l~r[s srm[d oq& 'so.rl.rodozd luomz.Cly~ $o sA~o~ uoozos ol srmid od~zosprmI oql os~o.[ ipzr[s 3rmo.r[dd~z · ~Ao~rdd~ jo sao.[1.rpuoo o¢ .gq popuoucm s~ ldooxo 'suo.~.rpuoo poqmzl_l~z org u-[. pom?luoo mz sluoml~doG prm suo[.s.~[G Al.ID polooJJ~ [I* jo sluoruo .z[nbm o¢ 1I~ rg[.~ pm suog.rpuoD p~zprmlS s,il.[O ~¢ ql.r~ X[dmoo [I~qS lrmo.r[dd~z oud~ 'I :~OllOJ sg oq llgqs sluomo.qnboJ uo!s.o4(I ~]m. UUgld (#00~ '~ aun£ uo uo!sst, ututol) ~u!uutqj atll ,lq paao. tddv sv) I IIOIAY$~0-00 biOIJTVIDNDI4II~OD S S 2VI~II3A TVAOI~dd¥ ~IO SI~OIJ.ItJ_NOD 'V PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Two neighborhood meetings were conducted; the first meeting was conducted in March 2003 and the second in November 2003. In preparation for each meeting over 100 notices were sent to the surrounding area including residents of San Bruno and Homeowner Associations. Each neighborhood meeting was advertised by a notice utilizing the same list of property owners. The list was updated with each notice to assure it accurately reflected the current property owners as possible. Notices were sent to the same property owners for the Planning Commission meetings. Neighborhood Meetings The applicant conducted two neighborhood meetings the first on March 5, 2003 and the second meeting on November 24, 2003. More than a dozen persons, including Council member Garbarino and Steve Carlson of the Planning Division staff, attended the first meeting in March. At the meeting, the applicant reviewed the background, design of and Radio Frequency Study prepared for the proposed project. The neighbors in attendance spoke in opposition and with concern regarding the adverse views of the facility and potential adverse health effects associated with the operation of the facility. The neighbors expressed their preference that the facility be dismantled and relocated to a location away from their neighborhood. After a considerable amount of time, the applicant chose to redesign the proposed project to increase the height of the antennas, retain the above ground equipment cabinets and an 8 foot tall fence to enclose the equipment cabinets. The applicant conducted a second neighborhood meeting on November 24, 2003. The meeting would have been conducted earlier, but some of the neighbors were not ava/lable until November. Approximately 5 persons attended as well as the applicant and Steve Carlson. The applicant reviewed the revised design of the proposed project, including both Alternatives #1 and #2. The neighbors (most or all of whom attended the previous meeting) spoke in opposition reiterating concerns expressed at the previous meeting including adverse views and potential health effects. -25- Z jo S @6ed - 9 ~ - 3op'od~l t~O-61:-~O\~OOZ:\sm, nu!N PgZlleul-m\sm, nu!N\:S '~lneA punoJbJ@pun ue re, u! ~,uauJdinba punoJ5 9AoqE alp, 5up, e~olaJ pue '~aaj 91: o~, ~,q6!aq Ji~MO], ~tl.J:J 5U!$EgJ3U! 'alodouoLu Ile~ ~,ooj ,~ 5u!ls!xa ue m, pmunow 'sJaWidLue MaU 8 'seuumue laued ~ m, lmm mis aq~, 5u!bupq seuumue laued ~: jo uop,!ppe aq~, jo 5up, s!suog/q!lPeJ uop, e~!unuJLUO3 SSalaJ!M e JO uop, egg!poN ~,!uJJact aSN ~anuRuo3 T(]OId/S~:0-00-dl~ qO uoXue3 ~ aA!J(] UOleAV JauJoo/)luel Je~eM uoleAV aau~o-'o::) a~!~S Ja~eM ~ue=!lddv-a~x p~e~OH/SSal;~!M 1 ~8 1 V '~uasclv 1: 'a~o^ a3!o^ ~po.[euJ/,q pa^oJdd¥ 'uosuqo[ X~wo~,¥/o,!3 ~,UL:qS!SS'~/Xq papuawe se suo!l!puo3 @q~, q~,!M E:I00-~:0dN pue/E:I0-E:0d @Ao~dde m, a)lm~Z puo:)eS / Rsn!9 uoRohl papua~uv 'auop s-J, a5 ~,! ~,eq~, aJnsua o3, M@!^9J q~,UOW-9 e aJ!nbaJ ue~ uo!ss!uJuJO3 aq~, ~eq~, ~,no pmu!od OSle aqs 'Sulpl!nq aq~, ~,u!ed m, JaU~O &lJado~d aq.} Lp,!M ~pOM O~, ~,ue2!ldde aq~, ~,eq~, aSeJno2ua ue2 le^oJdd¥ jo uop,!puoD aqj. 'Jau~o/ccadoJd aq~, jo ~,uesuo2 ~,noq~,!~ 5u!Pl!nq aq~, 5up, uied uo uo!~e mle~ :~ouue::) ~ueue~, @q:~ ~,eLI::I ~no pm, u!od uosuqoc XeuJo~¥/qD ~,ue'4s!ss¥ '6u!Pllnq aq~, ~,u!ed ~,uealldde eq~, ~,eq~, uop,!puo2 aq~, q~l~ £I00-g0clN pue £g'I0-£0cl aAo~dde o:1 Rsn!9 uoRoH · lea jo se 5u!Pllnq eq~, ~,u!ed ol peeJ§e ~,ou seq J~UMO/qJadoJd aq~, ~,eq~, pmou uewel6U!~l 'sAd 'Su!Pl!nq aq~, ;,u!ed m, ~,ue2!ldde aq~, 5up!nbaJ leAoJdd¥ jo uop,!puoD e 6u!ppe pa~sa6§ns ,~eqj. "6u!seeld Xlleap, aq~,sae aq o~, spaau 6u!pl!nq aq~, jo ap!s~no aqj. :suJe3uo2 %~auo!ss!wwoD 'pasop SeM 6upeeq a!lqnd ~q~, 'SJmleeds ou 6u!aq aJaq_L 'pauado 6upeeN allqnd · ~5moo¢ aJenbs 5u!pJeBaJ pe6ueq2 ~,ou seq 6u!Pl!nq aq~, ~,eq], pm, ou 'JauB!sa(] 'eJJeqI Ue)l 'le^oJdd¥ ~o suop,!puoD aq~, q:l!~ Aldwo2 11!~ Xaq~, pa],ou aqS '/qD eLI], u!q~,!~ a^ow q~no¢ J!aq], s! s!q~, ),eq~ pmou 'se~!cuas a2~o/~e(] elqno(] 'ueuual6U!~l I/uaqS '~ode~t J-JLm, S aq~, pmuese~d uospe3 Jauuelcl Jo!ues '(q) 0~,0'0f?0Z: pue (e) 0~0'01?0~: DIN=tSS q:l!M e2uep~o22e u! ~2!J],s!(] 5u!uoz (I-N) leP~snpuI a4~ u! NV ~ o~ NV 9 wo~j uo!~eJado ~0 s~noq papumxa pue s~2nJ~ jo aOe~ms ~oop~no ~Olle m ~!WJad aSN saR!l!:~e:l liuRs!x;i I0;S; uo!;aS ~: SSel3 uoRdm;x'~ ie'~!,oBe~e::) pue 9~:00-E;0dR/&E:~:0-E:0d 'Pti ~etls 0t~l; ~ueo!lddv/'ou! 'seo!~ues ;=L4JO Xe(] elqnoQ p~AoJddv ,eu~to/~u~Jel:) · ~,uasqv I 'e:],OA a2!O^/q!Jo.[ew ~q paAoJdd¥ o, uawaJ!nbaJ uo!~2moJd 5u!pooy aq], pue '~,aaJ~,s aq], uo 5u~Jed 5UIMOIle :~OU 'Ma!AaJ .le9~ ~ e 'Ma!AaJ q::luow 9 e Joe leAoJddv ¢o uo!]~!puoD aq], q],!M 6100-£0aN pue III0-1~0a aAoJdde ol ~u!$ puo~a$ J ~!l§~.l. uo!loN ./ t~00~: '61: AJenJqa=l jo §up, eeN uo!ss!wwOD 5u!uueld Planning Commission Meeting of February ::[9, 2004 situated at a California Water Service Company storage tank on Avalon Drive near Canyon Court in a Single Family Residential (R-l-C-P) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.:[05. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report and noted that the City prefers Alternative 2 and does not replace them with larger antennas. Harold Yee, AT&T representative, noted that they propose to temove the two existing antennas and 4 antennas. He added that the antennas will be mounted 2 feet above the 14-foot pole, and ask that Condition of Approval #4 be modified to allow the antenna to project above the existing pole. He added that at the Community meetings they were not able to reach a solution that was acceptable to the neighbors. He felt that both alternatives are consistent with City policies. Public Hearing opened. Those spealdn9 in opposition were. Romonie Rahjboy .lohn Chan Weito .]aime 63 Waverly Ct 64 Waverly Ct 59 Wavefly Ct Edwina Wong Harge Sieux 60 Waverly Ct ::[:[ Canyon Ct The/r comments were: · The neighborhood has opposed cellular antennas on site since they first became aware of them a couple of years ago. · In December 2002, a large cabinet was installed without City permits; · They noted that AT&T is responsible for an illegal addition to the site and they should be fined and denied per previously denied permits. :If someone installs an illegal room, they are required by the City to either bring it up to code or tear down the illegal addition. AT&T should be fined for each day they have violated City requirements. AT&T should not be rewarded with enhancements. There may be health hazards for the elderly and others in the area being exposed to GMF emission on a daily basis. AT&T violated City requirements and if the Commission approves the Use Permit, they will set a precedent and other wireless companies may install antennas illegally. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner's concerns: · The Commission cannot discuss health effects because it is pre-empted by federal law. · Alternative 2 is entirely consistent with the telecommunications ordinance and is aesthetically pleasing. · They were offended that the best in stealthing has not been adhered to. · How many cell sites are in the City? Senior Planner Carlson stated 20-30 sites. · The above ground equipment cabinets in Alternative 1 does not add anything to the environment and a redesign of the antenna's needed. · This application is not only to correct unauthorized installation of the cabinets, but to get additional panels. · The applicant is asking for more than what the Use Permit and the Conditions of Approval authorize. The Commission recommended that the proposal be worked on with staff and expedited to return to the Commission with a resolution or removal of the tank. Chief Planner Sparks stated that the Commission can start the Use Permit revocation process. He suggested continuing the item to April 15, 2004 to allow AT&T to work with staff. Commissioner Sim asked for a list of cell sites in the City. Senior Planner Carlson asked if the Commission would like to have another community meeting. They felt that a neighborhood meeting was not needed. l~lotion Teglia ! Second Romero to refer the proposal to staff and have them work on option 2 with the applicant. They recommended a redesign of the antenna in keeping with telecommunicate ordinance. The item was continued to April ~5, 2004. Approved by majority voice vote. :[ Absent. S:\Minutes\Finalized Minutes\2004\02-19-04 RPC.doc - 2 7 - Page 6 of 7 m :~Ino~!p s! ~! seq ~tl~UaJJn~ ~uauJaoJoju~ apco ~,eq~ PeOl@SeO aq~ pue saoJnosaJ jo >Pel e s! aJaq~ asneoaq ~,eq~ pmou aH 'uo!~elo!^ aq~ 5u!ssgJppe pue sQ!LuJgd :~nOq:~!M :~uguJd!nba 5U!ll~SU! J.'~J_¥ uo s@nss! aq:~ o~ papuodsaJ s"~Jeds JgUUelcl Jg!qD :iD Ap~AeM 09 ~.::) AIJaABM i;,9 ~-D uOAUL%'j 1:1: ~ AI.IeAeM ¢Z9 §UOM eU!Mp::l ueq3 uqoc xna!s a6.1elAI Aoq.['qeN a!uouJo~ '.arum uo.q?oddo W ~u.~ezds asOq. L 'p~ugdo 6u!Je~N g!lqncl 'uoll!puoo a~ u! ~qb!aq pagpads aql JaAO euua~ue aql jo ~qS!aq aq~ aseaou! ol paMOlle aq aq leql pa:~se aN '~, JaqLunu uo!l!puoo ~daoxa leAoJdd¥ jo suo!~!pUOD aql lie ql!M paaJ~e aq ~eq~ palou '~ue2!ldde 'aaa pJeMON '~Joda~t J-ireS aq~ pmuasaJd UOSlJeO JaUUeld Jo!uas 'SOI'0~ JmdeqD DN4SS qllM a2uepJoa3e u! DP~sK] 6u!uoz (d-g-I-~) le.quap!sa~j AllUJeJ al6u!s e u! ~Jnoo uo,~ue3 Jeau aAp(] UOleA¥ UO ~UE~ a6eJms AueduJoD agFuaS JaleM e!uJoJ!leO ~ ~e pa~en~!s '~lne^ punoJ§Japun ue mu! luauJd!nba punoJ¢ aAoqe aq~ 8u!leoolaJ pue '~aaj 9I ol ~qb!aq JaMO¢ aq~ ~u!seaJgu! 'alodououJ lira ~ooj ~,~ §u!ls!xa ue o~ pa~unouJ 's~aglldUJe MaU 8 'seuua~ue laued ~, m al!s aq~ 5u!bu!,q seuua~ue laued ~ jo uo!l!ppe aq~ jo 6u!~slsuoo K~!lPeJ UO!~L~!UmUUJO2 SSalaJ!M e jo uo!le2g!poH ~!uJJad asr (~,OOZ' ~GT X/eruqa:l u/o/j panuFluo3) 1~00~ ~; aunc o~ penu!~,uo~) TaOlel/c;zo-oo-dn '~,D uoAue::) ~ aA?JQ UOleAV ~au-oo/)luel ~eM UOleAy JaUatO-'O:~ ao!adaS J;qeJ led 3ueo!!dd~-aaA p, eMoH/SSalaJ!M 1 M 1 ~ ~00~: 'SI I!JdV .4o §u!:laaN UO!SS!LULUO3 6U!UUeld Planning Commission Meeting of April 15, 2004 monitor the illegal aspects of this application. He added that the applicant and staff do acknowledge that AT&T should not have done any modification without permits and are trying to correct it. Public Hearing closed. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that the site has a long history. Noticing has improved since the first application. He added that he preferred alternative number 2 and leaving condition number 4 as is without the height increase. He questioned if there is a way to restrict access to the site to certain times Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Commission could add a condition of approval to achieve this. He added that during construction there would be large vehicles there, but after that is complete a technician come out once a month in a passenger size vehicle. Mr. Yee added that the technicians would arrive at the site with their own vehicle. Commissioner Honan asked that AT&T apologize to the City Council, neighbors and the Planning Commission for allowing this illegal modification to the current cell site. She asked what the City could do to require this apology. Mr. Yee noted that'the he had expressed AT&T's regrets to the Commission and neighbors, He stated that AT&T contracts out to several agencies, which then subcontract other companies, and this particular subcontractor did not request the proper permits. Assistant City Attorney .Johnson noted that the Commission could require an AT&T employee address the Commission on this issue. Commissioner Zemke noted that AT&T should inform the City what procedures and measures are being taken to prevent another incident such as this one. Chief Planner Sparks suggested that the Commission require as part of the Conditions of Approval that AT&T submit the apology letter prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The Commission agreed that regardless of the subcontractors involved in this issue the responsible party is AT&T because it is their antenna and further agreed to invite them to a PLanning Commission meeting in order to receive the information requested directly from the AT&T Corporation. MoUon Teglia / Second Zemke to continue the item to .]une 3, 2004. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Suheil Shatara Architecture/applicant St. George Orthodox Church of/owner 116 Beacon St. P02-0047, UP02-0009, RZ02-0003 & Negative Declaration ND02-0001 Resolution 263:L Mitigated Negative Declaration'assessing environmental impacts of the conversion of a 23,062 square foot building into a religious assembly with on-site parking of 85 vehicles and landscaping, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. Reclassification of 116 Beacon Way (APN 0:[5- from Planned ]industrial (P-I) Zone District to Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone. District. Use Permit allowing the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial building into a religious assembly use with on-site parking for 85 vehicles and landscaping. Design Review of the conversion of a vacant 23,062 square foot industrial building into a church with an on-site parking lot and landscaping. In accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.32.030 (b), 020.32.070 & 20.08.050 and Chapters 20.8:[, 20.85 & 20.87 Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. AnJck Shamiyeh, St. George Orthodox Church of ,Jerusalem, requested that the Commission make less restrictive Special Condition number 5 because all other conditions will be met prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The recordation is not a benefit because it will preclude the applicant from refinancing the property. He requested that condition #5 be removed. Public Hearing opened. aJe ~a43, 3,e43, pa3ou aaa 'JN '~a.[oJd aq3, jo uo!3aldwoo Joj s! alnpaq~s aq3, 3,eq~ pa~tse ueuoH Jauo!ssiwwos) 'pe~,!uJqns 9Je ,~aq], aeuo uo!ss!uJuJo::) eql o~, pepJe~uoj eq PlnO~ suo.qe2gpads alp, ~,eq3 peppe UOSpL:~J JaUUeld JO!UeS 'paJ!nb@J aq II!M 3! suetd eq], uo uMoqs ~,OU s! ~,! q6noq],le peJn]2ejnuem @q o3 speeu ],eq~, qnJqs aa J], e 6u!sodmd s! ],ue2!ldde eq], ],eq~, pm, ou uospeD JaUUeld Jo!uas '6u!q~,lee],s ~ue ],noq~,!M pasodoJd bu!eq slaued ~ @q], q~,!M pauJa2uo2 seM oJau]o~l Jauo!ssFumo3 · paJ!nb@J ],ou seM 5upp, ou mep 2gpads e o2, LUAU! aq], panup, uo2 uo!ssFuuJo3 eq], @2u!s ~nq 5upeeq S~: ]pd¥ aq], aoj 5Up,@eLU eq~, JO peg.qOU SeM sn!pea ~,ooj 00q e ~,eq], pmou pue ~umuaJ!nbaJ. 5up!~ou eq~ pau!eldxa uospeD J@UUeld Jo!ues 'sse2o~d 5up!¢ou @q],/gpep jJm, s ],eq], pe)lse a)ltuaZ aauo!ss!uJmo3 :sCuouJuJO3 uo!ss!uJuJOO 'pasop 6upeeH ~!lqnd 'sqnJqs jo 5upm!uotu pue 5u!q~,lem, s qBnoua 6u!aq ],ou eJ@q], H~,!M peuJe2UO2 SeM eLIS '3,! JO :),UOJJ U! pe)ped sep!qea q],lM m,!S eq~, JO pJo2eJ alii, olu! smn]2!d peJe],ue eqs 'u!e6e/tlle6ell! seuum, ue jo uo.qellmSU! eq~, 6up, eedea uJJoj .L~g_l_¥ 6upJelep q],!M op O3, 6U!~OU seq ~6otode ur ~,eq~, pappe eqs '~,ueseJd sJequJeuJ/q!unuJLuO2 eq], JO &Ue 6U!^eq ~,OU U! pmlnSeJ seq LpILIM 'saoqq6!eu eq], m, ~,no ],uas eDp, ou 2!lqnd e ~,ou SeM eJeql ],eq3 pmou/q!unuJLUO2 eq~, JO aeqLuem e xneis e6JeN 'peuedo 6upeeH 2!lqnd 'eFuOJ!le3 pue epe^eN '!!eMeH uaaq seq ],! ~,eq~, pm, ms aH 'qo.[ e~ uo 6u!puedep se!Jea eDJe 95e.leao:3 siq ],eq~, pm, ou puepeq],ns 'JN 'puepeq]ns 'aN o3, peu§!sse seM ear ebeJe^o2 ],eqM p@)tse ueuoH Jauo!ssFuuJco · senss! jo ed/q s!q3, p!oae o3 lOJ3UO~ Jepun ~,de)l 6u!eq s! lie ~,eq~, ems eq seM/qD eq], u! peJJn~o peq ],eqM ],eq], uo!ssFuuJoo eq], peJnsse aH 'el, IS eq~, PI!hq pue ~!Luaed lind sao]2eJ3uo3 leJeue6 peq pue/q!A!:lDe 'peg!pouJ eq '¢# leAoJdde ~O UOp,!puo3 aOJ ~tSe PiP ~,nq leAoJdde .,to suop,!puo2 ell3 Lp, IM suaeDuo2/~ue 3,ou eJe eJeLp, 3,eq3, pmou O, ue2!ldd¥ 'aaa pJeMOH '~ jo pemsu! seuumue ~ MOIle O], ~# leaoJdde =to uopdpuog ~!pom m, mill PlnOM ],uealldde eq], ],eq], peppe aH 'Sup, eeu~ ],Sel eq], jo se ppe m, §u!q],ou seq j.jm, s ],eq3, pm, ou UOSlJeD JeUUeld ao!ues 'S01:'Ol; a@lde4:3 3N=ISS LI~IM e2uepacrg::)e .u! :PP],s!(] 5u!uoz (d-D-]:-~l) le.quep!se~l XI!UJe4 el6u!s e u! ]JnoD uo~ueg Jeeu aN.ICI UOlea¥ UO )lUe3, e6eJo~s ,~ueduJo3 e2!A~aS '],lne^ punoJ6Jepun ur o],u! ],ueLud!nbe punoJ5 e^oq~ eq), 6U.qL~OleJ pue '3eeJ 9'1:o3 ],q§!eq aeMO1 'elodouom lira ~,ooj H: 5u!~s!x@ ur o], pmunouJ 'sJeg!lduJe MeU 8 'seuum, u~ leued '¢ o], Imm mis eq], 5u!§upq seuum, ue leued Z: ,Jo uop,!ppe eq~, jo 8up, s!suo2/q!lPe¢ uOp, L:O!unuJuJo3 SSeleJ!M e JO UO!3e~g!PON ~,!LUJed aSR (1;,00,~ ".;l' ~I-'dy luo.~t penu§uo3) paAo~ddv TClObl/S~:0-00-dn ':L~ uo~ue::) ~ aAlJO uoleRV ~au,oo/)lUel ~;qeM uoleRV 4auato-'o3 a3puas ~aaeM le3 ~ueo!lddy. aaA ~eMoH/SSalaqM 1 ]~ 1 Y 9N~UVgH 3i-land 'e~Oa,e2!Oa snogu!ueun Aq pe^oaddv 'JePUele:3 ~uesuo3 aq~, eaoddde m, p, sn!9 puooas / mis uop, olN '~00Z: 'eT IPd¥ uo uo!ssiwwo:3 6u!uueld eq], ,~q pe~,dope Alsno!^e~d SeM ~g0-I0-ClN uo!leJepe(] e^p, e6eN pm, e6p,!N ¥ ~,OOE 'S eunc jo 6up, eaN uolss!wwoD 6u!uueld Planning Commission Meeting of 3une 3, 2004 anxious to add more antennas and immediately after the approval and appeal period they can start the manufacturing of the tree and submit plans to the city. The entire process should be complete in 3-6 months. Commissioner Honan felt that the improvements needed a time frame to adhere to. Senior Planner Carlson suggested a 6-month review. Commissioner Romero noted that the underground cabinet needs to be installed as soon as possible. He noted that he did not want to see any additional panels installed until the stealthing has been completely worked out with staff and approved. Motion Honan / Second Zemke to approve UP00-025/MOD1 and amending the conditions of approval to include a 3 month and 6 month review and not allowing any additional panels until the shrub/tree plans are submitted and approved by the City. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Project 101/Huntsman Architectural Group-Applicant Elbert Bressie/David Bressie-Owner 600-790 Dubuque Ave. (APN 015-021-090 and SBE 135-41-14 PAR 1) UP, VAP~ TDMP, DR-00-024 and MND-00-024 Continued to 3uly 1, 2004 (Continued from Nay 6, 2004,) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, in accordance CEQA. Use Permitallowing a mUlti-tenant mixed-use commercial center comprised principally of office and RSd:) with commercial uses generating in excess of :100 average daily vehicle trips, with 24 hour operation and off-site parking, in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.24.060, 20.74.120 and Chapter 20.8:[. Variance allowing a reduction in parking from the required parking rate of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet to a rate of 2.64 spaces per :[,000 square feet in conjunction with a TDM Plan in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.82 and 20.:[20. Transportation Demand Management Plan reducing traffic impacts, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.:[20. Design Review of a conversion of an existing commercial development from a multi-tenant mixed-use facility comprised primarily of warehouse, distribution, office and retail to a multi-tenant mixed-use facility comprised primarily of office and R&D with commercial, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85 in the Zone District: Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District. The Commission waived the reading of the staff report. Tim Tosta, Attorney representing Project 101, noted that the market for which the project was originally targeted evaporated very quickly. The proposal before the Commission is for modifications to the site, which will bdng revenue to the City in an interim period. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the current plan with a modification, because of a long-standing agreement with Fitness West. He asked that the building improvements be deferred for 120 days because they will submit a new redevelopment plan within the deferred period. He added that this allows Fitness West to operate their business with an approval on their current application. Mr. Tosta asked for a deferral on the building improvements because it will not be cost effective to do the improvements and then have an alternative plan submitted for a retail center on the 10-acre parcel. He added that the Commission is being asked to abate the implementation of the conditions for an interim period to allow for a redevelopment plan to be submitted. He showed the Commission the current proposal. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the applicant needs to specify which conditions of approval they need to defer and if it is the exterior only including landscaping because there are other types of conditions tied to the approval of the permit. Mr. Tosta noted that they are asking for all the Conditions of Approval to be deferred. Assistant City Attorney 3ohnson apologized to the Commission for not being able to evaluate the parameters of a Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: TO: sUBJECT: February 19, 2004 Planning Commission 1. Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facihty, conSisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at- grade equipment cabinets with au underground vault. 2. Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault. Address: (APN 091-143-280) the easterly terminus o£Avalon Drive and beginning of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SR 280. General Plan Land Use: Low Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-l-C-P) Code References: SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Owner: California Water Service Company Applicant: AT&T by Howard Yee Case Nos. UP 00-025/MOD l& DP, 00-025/MOD 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve 1). Use Permit 00-025/MOD 1 allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault, and 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault, situated on a 0.44 acre at the terminus of Avalon Drive and beginning of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SR 280, subject to making the findings and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The 0.44 acre site is improved with a water tank and landscaping with access from Avalon Drive opposite Canyon Court. On June 15, 2000 Planning Commission approved a wireless communication facility consisting of ground mounted antenna and at grade equipment cabinets. The applicant constructed the facility, with au approved Bu/lding Permit. -32- Staff Report To: Plauning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 February 19, 2004 Page 2 In spring 2002, the applicant's contractor applied for a building permit to install larger cabinets replacing the existing cabinets. City staff advised the applicant to apply for a Use Permit Modification and denied issuance of the Building Permit. Several months later the contractor installed the cabinets without benefit of approval by the City. On complaints received from nearby residents regarding the construction, City staff immediately contacted the applicant who shortly afterwards applied for a Use Permit. DISCUSSION: The original wireless facility was approved to be comprised of a 13 foot tall mono-pole with two 8 foot tall panel antennas mounted directly to the mono-pole near the freeway, several equipment cabinets approximately 6 feet in height, on a concrete pad nearly 9 feet in length and 4 feet in width, and landscaping to screen the facilities. Alternatives #~ and #2 The applicant's preferred design solution is identified as Alternative #1 consisting of a nearly 4 foot extension of the antenna pole resulting in a total height of 16 feet, placing a solid wood 8 foot tall fence around the new taller 7.8 foot cabinets mounted on a larger concrete pad measuring 10.75 feet in length and 5 feet in width. City staffdoes not support this alternative because it does not achieve the design stealthiness sought by the Planning Commission. The proposed project supported by City staff, identified by the applicant as Alternative # 2 includes no extension of the existing antenna pole facing SR 280, and underground vault housing new larger equipment cabinets. The equipment vault containing the taller cabinets and larger concrete pad will not be visible from the residences across Avalon Drive because the design will utilize an open metal grid in lieu ora solid roof. Had a solid roof been included then an above ground access hatchway and I-IVAC system would have been visible off-site. Both Alternatives #1 and #2 would Operate on a 24/7 basis and require st/il require servicing one to two times per month. The existing on-site aisleway and parking area will be adequate to meet the needs of the water company and service technicians. A Use Permit Modification is required because the proposed modifications represent significant changes from the approved facility. DESIGN RE¥IEW BOARD The project, including both Alternatives #1 and #2, was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meetings of June 17, 2003 and September 16, 2003. -33- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD February 19, 2004 Page 3 At the June meeting the Board had the following comments: 1. Alternative #1 should feature heavy landscaping and a solid redwood fence around the cabinets. 2. Paint tower-mounted amplifiers to match the existing antennas. The applicant revised the plans to incorporate the Design Review Board comments and resubmitted the plans. At the second meeting in September the Board recommended approval of the project with the following comments: 1. Protect the root systems of the existing trees during construction. 2. Replace trees to be removed at the vault site with new 5-gallon trees. The applicant's preferred Alternative #1 includes new antennas that will be visible from SR 280 and nearby residences. The visibility of the antennas can be reduced somewhat by adding more screening along the slope between the antennas and Avalon Drive, painting the pole and antennas to blend in with the trees and landscaping, and/or relocating them behind the water tank. For both alternatives the landscape screen along the slope adjacent to Avalon Drive needs to be intensified so that the proposed facilities are adequately screened. City staff recommends that the landscaping be comprised of specimen size trees and shrubs planted at a sufficient density to screen views o£the facility from the residences across Avalon Drive. The applicant's letter identifies how they believe the preferred design achieves the City's wireless communication facility design objectives contained in SSFMC 20.105.030 (d). PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Two neighborhood meetings were conducted; the first meeting was conducted in March 2003 and the second in November 2003. In preparation for each meeting over 100 notices were sent to the surrounding area including residents of Sau Bruno and Homeowner Associations. Each neighborhood meeting was advertised by a notice utilizing the same list of property owners. 'The list was updated with each notice to assure it accurately reflected the current property owners as possible. Notices were sent to the same property owners for the February 5, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Neighborhood Meetings -34- Staff l~eport To: Planning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 February 19, 2004 Pa~e 4 The applicant conducted two neighborhood meetings the first on March 5, 2003 and the second meeting on November 24, 2003. More than a dozen persons, including Council member Garbarino and a myself, attended the first meeting in March. At the meeting, the applicant reviewed the background, design of and Radio Frequency Study prepared for the proposed project. The neighbors in attendance spoke in opposition and with concern regarding the adverse views o£the facility aud potential adverse health effects associated with the operation of the facility. The neighbors expressed their preference that the facility be dismantled and relocated to a location away from their neighborhood. After a considerable amount of time, the applicant chose to redesign the proposed project to increase the'height of the antennas, retain the above ground equipment cabinets and an 8 foot tall fence to enclose the equipment cabinets. The applicant conducted a second neighborhood meeting on November 24, 2003. The meeting would have been conducted earlier, but some of the neighbors were not available until November. Approximately 5 persons attended as well as the applicant and myself. The applicant reviewed the revised design of the proposed project, including both Alternatives #1 and #2. The neighbors (most or all of whom attended the previous meeting) spoke in opposition reiterating concerns expressed at the previous meeting including adverse views and potential health effects. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City staff has determined that the proposed project does not have the potential to cause a significant environmental effect and is therefore categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061 Co)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the project has been determiued to be exempt, the Planning Commission is not required to taken any action on the environmental document. RECOMMENDATION: The Alternative #2 complies with City development standards, including the Antenna and Tower design requirements contained in SSFMC Section 20.105.030 (d), and is compatible with the adjacent residences in the immeddate project vicinity. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve 1). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault and, 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cab/nets with an underground vault. -35- StaffReport To: Plaumug Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD February 19, 2004 Page 5 -'"-$(eve--Carlson, senio~'Planner ATTACI-IM~NTS: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Minutes June 17, 2003 September 16, 2003. Ci.ty Staff Summary of'Neighborhood Meetings 'March 5, 2003 November 24, 2003 Applicant's Project Narrative Plans -36- Pianning Commission ,Staff Report DATE: April 15, 2004 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 1. Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at- grade equipment cabinets w/th an underground vault. 2. Design Review ora wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna, and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with au underground vault. Address: (APN 091-143-280) the easterly terminus of Avalon Drive and beginrfing of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SR 280. · 'General Plan Land Use: Low Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-I-C-P) · Code References: SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Owner: California Water Sendce Company Applicant: AT&T by Howard Yee Case Nos. UP 00-025/MOD l& DR 00-025/MOD 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commi.~sion approve 1). Use Permit 00-025/MOD 1 allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna pole and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault, and 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault, situated on a 0.44 acre at the terminus o£Avalon Drive and beginning of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SR 280, subject to making the findings and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2004 MEETING The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed wireless communication facility at their meeting o£February 19, 2004. The Commissioners expressed concern with the design of the existing facility, and the monopole and supported Alternative 2 as being consistent with the telecommunications ordinance and aesthetically pleasing. -37- StaffReport To: Planning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 April 15, 2004 Page 2 The Commissioners directed that the applicant redesign the structure to resemble a tree/shrub so that the structure would be indistinguishable from the sm-rounding area. Several neighboring residents spoke in opposition to the proposed modifications and to the existing facility- prefen'ing that it be relocated to another neighborhood. The neighborhood has opposed cellular antennas on site since they first became aware o£them a couple of years ago. The applicant has redesigned the monopole per the Commissioners direction, as shown in the attached photo-simulations. PREVIOUS CITY ACTIONS The 0.44 acre site is improved w/th a water tank and landscaping with access from Avalon Drive opposite Canyon Court. On June 15, 2000 Planning Commission approved a wi.reless communication facility consisting of ground mounted antenna and at grade equipment cabinets. The applicant constructed the facility with an approved Building Permit. In spring 2002, the applicant's contractor applied for a building permit to install larger cabinets replacing the existing cabinets. City staff advised the applicant to apply for a Use Permit Modification and denied issuance of the Building Permit. Several months later the contractor installed the cabinets without benefit of approval by the City. On complaints received from nearby residents regarding the construction, City staff immediately contacted the applicant who shordy afterwards applied for a Use Permit. DISCUSSION: The original wireless facility was approved to be comprised of a 13 foot tall mono-pole with two 8 foot tall panel antennas mounted directly to the mono-pole near the freeway, several equipment cabinets approximately 6 feet in height, on a concrete pad nearly 9 feet in length and 4 feet in width, and landscaping to screen the facilities. Alternatives #1 and #2 The applicant's preferred design solution is -identified as Alternative #~_ consisting of a nearly 4 foot extension of the antenna pole resulting in a total height of 16 feet, placing a solid wood 8 foot tall fence around the new taller 7.8 foot cabinets mounted on a larger concrete pad measuring 10.75 feet in length and 5 feet in width. City staffdoes not support this alternative because it .does not achieve the design stealthiness sought by the Planning Commission. The proposed project supported by City staff, identified by the applicant as Alternative # 2 includes no extension of the existing antenna pole facing SR 280, and underground vault housing new larger equipment cabinets. The equipment vault containing the taller cabinets and larger -38- StaffR. eport To: Planning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 April 15, 2004 Page 3 concrete pad will not be visible from the residences across Avalon Drive because the design will utilize an open metal grid in heu of a sohd roof. Had a solid roof been included then an above ground access hatchway and PIVAC system would have been visible off-site. Both Altematives #1 and #2 would operate on a 24/7 basis and require still require servicing one to two times per month. The existing on-site aisleway and parking area will be adequate to meet the needs of the water company and service technicians. A Use Permit Modification is required because the proposed modifications represent sig'nificant changes from the approved facility. The redesigned monopole in a tree/shrub form will better blend in with the area trees. . DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project, including both Alternatives #1 and #2, was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meetings of June 17, 2003 and September 16, 2003. At the June meeting the Board had the following comments: 1. Alternative #1 should feature heavy landscaping and a solid redwood fence around the cabinets. 2. Paint tower-mounted amplifiers to match the existing antennas. The applicant revised the plans to incorporate the Design Review Board comments and resubmitted .the plans. At the second meeting in September the Board recommended approval of the project with the following comments: 1. Protect the root systems of the existing trees during construction. 2. Replace trees to be removed at the vault site with new 5-gallon trees. The applicant's preferred Alternative #1 includes new antennas that will be visible from SR 280 and nearby residences. The visibility of the antennas can be reduced somewhat by adding more screening along the slope between the antennas and Avalon Drive, painting the pole and antennas to blend in with the trees and landscaping, and/or relocating them behind the water tank. For both alternatives the landscape screen along the slope adjacent to Avalon Drive needs to be intensified so that the proposed facilities are adequately screened. City staff recommends that the landscaping be comprised of specimen size trees and shrubs planted at a sufficient density to screen views of the facility from the residences across Avalon Drive. -39- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 April 15, 2004 Page 4 The applicant's letter identifies how they believe the preferred design achieves the City's wireless communication facility design obi ectives contained in SSFMC 20.105.030 (d). PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Two neighborhood meetings were conducted; the first meeting was conducted in March 2003 and the second in November 2003. In preparation for each meeting over 100 notices were sent to the surrounding area including residents of San Bruno and Homeowner Associations. Each neighborhood meeting was advertised by a notice utilizing the same list of property owners. The list was updated with each notice to assure it accurately reflected the current property ~)wners as possible. Notices were sent to the same property owners for the February 5, 2004 ?lann~ng Commission meeting. Neighborhood Meetings The applicant conducted two neighborhood meetings the first on March 5, 2003 and the second meeting on November 24, 2003. More than a dozen persons, including Council member Garbarino and myself, attended the first meeting in March. At the meeting, the applicant reviewed the background, design and Radio Frequency Study prepared for the proposed project. The neighbors in attendance spoke in opposition and with concern regarding the adverse views of the facility and potential adverse health effects associated with the operation of the facility. The neighbors expressed their preference that the facility be dismantled and relocated to a location away from their neighborhood. After a considerable amount of time, the applicant chose to redesign the proposed project to increase the height of the antennas, retain the above ground equipment cabinets and an 8 foot tall fence to enclose the equipment cabinets. The applicant conducted a second neighborhood meeting on November 24, 2003. The meeting would have been conducted earlier, but some of the neighbors were not available until November. Approximately 5 persons attended as well as the applicant, and myself. The applicant reviewed the revised design of the proposed project, including both Alternatives #1 and #2. The neighbors (most or all of whom attended the previous meeting) spoke in opposition reiterating concerns expressed at the previous meeting including adverse views and potential health effects. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City staffhas determi,ed that the proposed project does not have the potential to cause a si~.~nificant environmental effect and is therefore categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the -40- StaffReport To: Planning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 April 15, 2004 Page 5 project has been determined to be exempt, the Planning Commission is not required to taken any action on the environmental document. RECOMMENDATION: 'The Alternative/42 complies with City development standards, including the Antenna and Tower design requirements contained in SSFMC Section 20.105.030 (d), and is compatible with the adjacent residences in the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve 1). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault and, 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Minutes June 17, 2003 September 16, 2003. City Staff Summary of Neighborhood Meetings March 5, 2003 November 24, 2003 P]snuing Commission Minutes February 19, 2004 Applicant's Project Narrative Plans -41 - Planning Commission Staff RePort DATE: June 3, 2004 TO: Planning Commissi°n SUBJECT: 1. Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting oft. he extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at- grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault. 2. Design Review of a wireless comm~llication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault. Address: (APN 091-143-280) the easterly termiuus of Avalon Drive and beg/nni~g of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SR 280. General Plan Land Use: Low Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-I-C-P) Code References: SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Owner: California Water Service Company Applicant: AT&T by Howard Yee Case Nos. UP 00-025/MOD l& DR 00-025/MOD 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commi.~sion approve 1). Use Permit 00-025/MOD 1 allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna pole and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an undergronnd vault, and 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with an underground 'vault, situated on a 0.44 acre at the terminus of Avalon Drive and beginning of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SR 280, subject to making the findings and adopting the conditions of apProval. BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2004 MEETING The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed wireless communication facility at theft meeting of April 15, 2004. The Commissioners supported the redesigned monopole aud determined that the redesigned monopole with the underground vault would be indistinguishable from the adjacent landscaping, consistent with the telecommunications ordinance and Staff Report To: Plamsug Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 June 3, 2004 Page 2 aesthetically pleasing. Several neighboring residents spoke in opposition to the project and to the existing facility- preferring that it be relocated to another neighborhood. The neighborhood has opposed cellular antennas on the project site since they first became aware of them a couple of years ago. The Commissioners directed the matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004, that the applicant obtain a letter of apology lYom the wireless communication vendor and send a company representative to the meeting. The letter is attached to the staff report and a company representative will attend the meeting to offer and apology and explain the company's procedures to minimize any future occurrences of construction without necessary City approvals. PREVIOUS CITY ACTIONS The 0.44 acre site is improved with a water tank and landscaping with access fi:om Avalon Drive opposite Canyon Court. On June 15, 2000 Planning Commi.~sion approved a wireless communication facility consisting of ground mounted antenna and at grade equipment cabinets. The applicant constructed the facility with an approved Building Permit. In spring 2002, the applicant's contractor applied for a building permit to install larger cabinets replacing the existing cabinets. City staff advised the applicant to apply for a Use Permit Modification and denied issuance of the Building Permit. Several months later the contractor installed the cabinets without benefit of approval by the City. On complaints received fi:om nearby residents regarding the construction, City staffimmediateiy contacted the applicant who shortly afterwards applied for a Use Permit. DISCUSSION: The original wireless .facihty was approved to be comprised of a 13 foot tall mono-pole with two 8 foot tall panel antennas mounted directly to the mono-pole near the fi:eeway, several equipment cabinets approximately 6 feet in height, on a concrete pad nearly 9 feet in length and 4 feet in width, and landscaping to screen the facilities. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Notices were sent to the surrounding area including residents of San Bruno and Homeowner Associations utilizing the previous though updated list of property owners. The list was updated with each notice to assure it accurately reflected the current property owners as possible. Notices were sent to the same property owners for the previous Planning Commission meetings. -43 - Staff Report To: Plauning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 June 3, 2004 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL RE .VIEW City staffhas determined that the proposed project does not have the potential to cause a si~iflcant environmental effect and is therefore categorically exempt pursuaut to the provisions of Section 15061(b)(3) of the'California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the project has been determined to be exempt, the Planning Commission is not required to taken any action on the environmental document. RECOMMENDATION: The revised Alternative #2 complies with City development standards, including the Antenna and Tower design requirements contained in SSFMC Section 20.105.030 (d), aud is compatible with the adjacent residences in thc immediate project vicinity. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve 1). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless commxmication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of m-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault and, 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with au underground vault. ' ' ~t~v~-Carl~'~n, Senior Planner ATTACttMENTS: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Minutes June 17, 2003 September 16, 2003. City Staff Summary of Neighborhood Meetings March 5, 2003 November 24, 2003 Plauning Commission Minutes February 19, 2004 April 15, 2004 Applicant's Project Narrative Plans -44- ~ ji~iOV~I~CO ~UBJECT TO THE AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES '~ '~"~'~° ~~-~" SITE NUMBER' 882 ~~[ r~ '~'--~~ ~ SITE NAME: AVALON WATER TANK DRAWING IND~ REV. DIRECTIONS PROJECT INFORMATION T~E H~ 4 ~ ~W~D RICHMOND. ~RN RIG~ 0~0 ~P ~W~DS I-~ ~D/ ~C~. T~E ~P ~ClSCO. M~GE O~ US--lO1. K~ RIG~ O~ 1-280 ~W~S 1280/ ~Y C~. ~RN RI~ O~ ~P ~W~DS ~i~OROUGH BL~. K~ ~ ~OPE OF WORK: ~IS PRO~ IS FOR ~E MODIR~ON OF ~MMUNI~ONS 882- Z01 TIT~ SHE~ 5 S~ BL~. 882 - Z02 SITE P~N & D~AILS 5 s~ ~OR~: CORN~ OF AV~ON DR~ ~ ~ON COU~ 8~-Z03 ELEVATION VI~S S VIC~NI~ MAP P~P~ OWNS: ~FORN~ WA~ S~CE ~MP~ ~A~ P~SON: H~D . (916) 798-61~ : N ~: AT~T MP~ ~C~, INC. 2729 PRO~E~ P~K D~ ~CHO CORD~ ~ 95670 ~ ~NG~D~ 1 ~26'26.02' ~T/~NG ~A~ON: 258.2'~, ~SL AT ~N~ ~ON JURISDI~ON: C~ OF SO. ~ ~C~CO II CON~U~ON - ~ ~ P.N.: 091 - 145-280 ~ CURR~ USE ~COMMUNI~ONS FACI~ - ~ ~ ~ SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS . ., ~~./_ ~. , ~ .~ ......... ~/ ,~ ~ ~ PORTION OF ~OMAS BROS. MAPS CON~. - ........ ~ MAP ~25 GRID ~E1 ~DLORD ~FORN~ WA~ S~CE CO. - ..... AVALON WATER T~K ¢/~z SUR~NG 2500 CO~ CO~A BLVD., ~220 PL~ Hl~, CA 9452'3 CORH~ OF AV~ON DR~ · ~N COU~ ATS~S~CES,~NC. PHONE:. (9~5) 674-1151 SO. ~ ~ClSCO, zo~ I F~: (925) 674-1514 ,.. / -, x X '// ~ / ~" ~ I ~ ~ ~ at ~ ~ ~ ~ __.__ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ERGRO~ ~' ~qU~NT ' '' ' c=~) J~ '~ JJJ JU JU ~JJ ~ ~J~ ................. ~T~~~~T~ ~. ~ .... ~?...' .... ~..~, ,'..,,.. . , ..~.~. ~. ,... ~, ~ ~ ~ r~u~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J~ ~E ~ ~ ~. 11. ~S ~ A ~ ~ ~Y, N~ A ~ ~. NO ~ ~ 1/4" - 1'~ ~ 1" - 4'~' ( ~ ~ ) 2300 CO~ CO~A BLVD., ~220 SITE NO, 882 SITE P~N & DETAILS PHONE:. (995) 674-1151 so. ~ ~clsco, ~ F~: (925) 674-1314 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~--, /-- PROPOSED EL-2~':{:, AM~.. \ / A w:r'~'rh~W3"W.T A k_ EXISTING WATER TANK = 288'+, AMSL / _~:::~ ~,~%f~, / (,) ~A~ .,z..r~s -- 'i!ii....:.: ........... '"'~"~':'~:i:i~:i~:i:ii¢:' .... '"':::':':':' ?"' ~ i ~ (~ ='""'"'-''''''~ I{ ,~ l l'"~=: ~',~~I~ .~ ~ ...... .o sue .................... ~.. .~ ,.,, .:~:~:~:~:~ · '-'-'-'-'~'~~:~:~:~:~:~: :~:~~ ':':':':':':':'~~X ¢ SO~TERLY E~ATION G~C SC~ " ~ ' " ' E~E~ ~E~ PO~ E~A~ON G~C SC~ , ~S~G WATER T~ ~~a ~ ~~ PROPOSED I LOCATION IIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll{mJm"m$ ~A k ~- .- .f.-. ~~-., .- ~r~.~~-~.-. -~<~. ' .'.-...-.-. , ~ S0~S~RLY E~VA~ON ~J~GRO~ ~ ~ ~' - ,o' L~ ~mT LOCATION I~ 1Z~'~0' V~T ~ ~ ~ , ,/~/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ALTERNATIVE ~2 2300¢/WZ ~/~F~/~CON~ COSTA g ~BLVD.,S~F~F~ AVALON WATER TANK ~ AT&T ~ "'"" ~~ S~E NO. ~2 = ./,./~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EL~ATION VI~S & DETAILS ~220 ~ a/a/~ ~ PL~ HI~, CA 94523 CORN~ OF AV~ON DR~ · ~N COU~ AT&T~R~ S~C~, INC. ~. ~ PHONE:. (995) 674-1151 so. ~ ~cls~. ~ F~: (925) 674-1314 ~~ ~ ~ 5 I AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES SITE NUMBER: 882 SITE NAME: AVALON WATER TANK DIRECTIONS PROJECT INFORMATION DRAWING INDEX REV. TAKE H~ 4 W~ TOWED RICHMOND, ~RN RIG~ 0~0 ~UP TOW~DS 1-80 O~D/ ~C~E~O. TAKE ~P ~ 0~0 1-80 TOW~DS 1-80/O~D. T~E ~P RIG~ 0~0 1-80 TOWARDS 1-80 ~ ~CISCO. MERGE 0~0 US-lO1. K~ RIG~ ONTO ~P TOW~DS 1-280/ D~Y C~. T~E ~P ~ 0~0 1-280 TOW~DS 1280/ D~Y C~. TURN RIG~ 0~0 ~P TOW~DS ~OROUGH BL~. K~P ~ SCOPE OF WORK: ~IS PROPO~ iS FOR ~E UODIR~ON OF ~COMMUNI~ONS 882- Z01 TITLE SHEET 5 TO ~AY ON ~P TOW~DS AV~ON DR. B~ ~ ON 0~0 ~OROUGH BL~, ~RN RIG~ 0~0 JUNIP~O EQUIPME~ SER~ BL~. ~RN RIG~ 0~0 AV~ON DR~ AVALON DRNE BECOM~ CRE~OOD DR~ 882 - Z02 SITE P~N & D~AILS 5 s~ ~DR~S: CORN~ OF AV~ON DElE · ~ON COURT 882- Z03 ELEVATION VIEWS 5 VICINI~ MAP ~ ~o cou~ PROPE~ OWNS: C~IFORNIA WA~R SER~CE COMPLY CO.ACT PERSON: HOW~D N ~PU~: AT~T WIRE~S SE~CES, INC. 2729 PROSPECT P~K DR~ ~CHO COR~VA, ~ 95670 ~ D~Y O~ ~ LONG.DE: 1 ~26'26.02' ~T/LONG ~E ~ 83 ADJACENT 'PROPER~ MAP ~. LOOAT,O,~ ~ JURISDI~ON: C~ OF SO. ~ ~CISCO OCCUP~CY: B (~L EQUIP.) 1-280 ~ CONDUCTION ~E: ~ ~*~ SAN FRANCISCO CURRE~ USE: ~COMMUNI~TIONS FACI~ ~ PROPOSED US~ ~COMMUNI~TIONS FACI~ WAVERLY ~ ~ ~--/ ~¢V~' 9 ~~ ~i> G ~ SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS ms ~ 0 4 A/E J.E. SCHURIC~ J.E. SCHURIC~ · ~SOC~TES ~ PORTION OF THOMAS BROS. MAPS  ~ / MAP ~25 GRID ~E1 ~DLORD ~FORN~ WA~R S/~CE CO. - ..... I ~ S~~ ~ ~~S ~I ALTERNATIVE ' ' AVALON WATER TANK ~ : ~ ~/~/os ~ ~ 2500 CONTRA COSTA BLVD., ~220 SITE NO. 882 PL~SANT HILL, CA 94525 CORNER OF AVALON DR~ · C~ON COURT AT&T~RE~SSSERVICES, INC. reno, ~ ~a~ I ~ PA¢ BE]J. VAULT \ / / / / AVm*~ =EE .T LOCATION - 35' TO 'xa'=k ON 6' X 12' CONC~E1E + 1 ENI.~RGED NOT TO mALE ANTENNA [}ETA[L NOG RE:PLA(:[ ANY ~$ AO~:RSLY AFTECl~D BY THE INSTALLATION OF ND FE~IC~ '0SED ANTENNA & THA LOCATION 2 PA~L AT~I~S ~N CE) ~ / / / / / / PROJECT SC, ALE: 1" - 10' GENERAL NOTES AREA SITE PLAN GRAPI~C SCALE 7. 1.NrOIBIATION ~ ON ~ ORAI~ING'S WAS (~TA~I[D ~ ~E ~ ~SIT BY ~C ~T · ~A~ DA~ 3/17/03. ~B~ ~ ~ AT~T ~ ~ ~ ~ P~ TO ~NO ~ ~ ~G ~ ~C~. ~ E~PM~T ~ 9. ~PRO~Y 2 ~ P~ M~ BY AT&T ~M~ 4.NO N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~LT ~ ~S ~ 5.~ ~A~ ~D ~O WA~ C~S ~ NOT PR~. 6,A~ UA~{~ ~ BE ~{~ ~D ~ ~ ~ P~FORM~ ~ AC~ ~ ~E ~PUC~ ~C~S ~ ~E~CA~ CONSTRUClION SUBCON'IRA~ SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTNI'aNG AU. P~RMITS AND ~SI:~"C~ON$ REGU[R~D FOR CONS'IRUC11ON. CONTIRUCTION DJBCONTRACTOR SHN.L BE RE~3~ONSIBLE FOR REPNI~Nr: ANY ON, AGE CNJc~'n BY 'DIE CONSTRUCTION ORE]~.ATION. CONSTRUCTION SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL RE,JOVE ALL TRASH AND D~RIS FROU TR£ ~ ON A ONLY BA~S. THE LOCA11OR OF EXISTING UNn~OROUND UllU'I1F~ IS UNKNO~L 'n-I£ CONTRACTOR tS CAUTIONED THAT ONLY EXCAVATION MLL BE~r. AL THE: 'Tt'PES, EX'I~.IT. SlZ[~, ,AND DE~TRS OF UNDE~OROUND Ullu'nEs. J.E:. SCHURICHT & A..~:~3QA'rEs CAN ASSUUE NO RESPORSIBIUTY FOR TH£ COMPLE"rEHES$ ACCURACY OR OET_INF..ATION OF' ANY UNDER~ROUND U'~UllES. NOR FOR THE E~ST~Im'' OF OTHER BURED O~JECTS ~rlICH ARE NOT SHOt%N ON 'tHiS PLAN. 1HE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ~E:C'rl~ UTiU"~ COMPANY TO OBTAIN INFORMA'I1ON RE:GARDING EXACT D~PTH OF EIURML ~ HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF UIIUTY UNES. P~OR TO PE~=ORM~~- UNDERgrOUND C~NSTRUCT~ON, 'rilE: CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE IHE NECESSARY PRO~ES TO IDENTIFY AREAS OF POS~BLE ERICSSON TOWER MOUNTED AMPLIFIER (TMA) DETglL~rm (~ 11. I.E. SCHUPJCHT & ASSOC[A S 2300 CONTRA COSTA BLVD., #220 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 PHONE:. (92.5) 674.-1151 FAX: (925) 674-1514 'I~9 IS A SITE PLAN ONLY, NOT A BOUNDARY 5URV"~'Y, NO E. AS~II~ITS HAW BEE~q IN'VESTIGA'I~D OR SHOWN. EQUIPMENT ELEVATION VIEW SCN.~ 1/4' - I'-0' ENLARGED EQUIPMENT AREA GRAPHIC SCALE (m~) ALTERNATIVE #1 AT&T AT&T WlRELESS SERVICES, INC. AVALON WATER TANK SITE NO. 882 CORNER OF AVALON DRIVE ~ CANYON COURT SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. SITE PLAN & DETAILS O0-60ATT 882 -= g m m~ -~ /--- PROPOSED Irl.296'::1: AMSL \ / ~ ~~ PR~ (2) KA~N P~ ~ EXISTING WATER TANK = 288 i, AMSL /LOCA~ON ("~14~7-~'$/~5/~$"--~ ~S~ 14' T~ .........,............................... ..... -.,........, .... ~, .~ ..... ....................~:~... ................. { ........ :.7.5.:, ,:,:,: ...... :, ............................................................~ · "' ' ' ................................~:~::: ~2-:.":'..,~:.:.;~ ...... ~ ~ ~.:.k~::.:<.:.:. ".:.:-:.:{.>:.:.}:.L ":.?.:.77:.':L,....:.'".::: ............. '.. ~:-: ..... ','.'.'..-.}-G:.:-:-}:.}:.::v:.'.. -..:.:.:.:.:.? ...v.:.....:~ : ~ ~::: .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . , ~:~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. :.:. -..>:.:..._.......-.-....~. ..~ . . ::,: ~ ~ .. ',: 4 ~ ~22:2'.'7~"'"'/:2{":*/'2'}}:*. *'*:J::"2[~*' :[~,~*'~ ...... . "*.v.v,-.' '-'~ .:: .: : ~_. ~ m R~ ~NO ~ 7920 ~A$ '. ~NG~ ~NAS ~ -- ~ ....., ............ : ~.'.'.'. . . .'-:.'.'.",~"~.'-'-'-:~:+:.:.:.:~::.:...7-.-.'.'.'.-.-.'.'.-.-.-.-~/ ...-.-.-~?,~ ?~~~~~.'.'.'-'.' .cm~:. :. '-:-:::( ::::~ .................-.- ...-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.'.-.-.-.-.~qH~. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. ................ ...........-.-.....-.~{~ ~ .............. ~ g~GgD (g) POgg g~VAT~O~ S~ ~/2' - 1'-0' G~C SC~ G~C SC~ ~88' · AMSL ~<~'>:':'* EXISTING WATER .TANK = , C~::::::~;l ~ '"-'""*:::::..:~ ~ ....... ~ ...... <~.. ~... ~:~ :~~_ ~ ========================================== .... ['~[j '~'~:~¥~ "::};. ~ ............... ~; :~*F': ~?~: ~.~r~. ~ ~ ;:~:~¢? ??'~{ ';~ ~ ~. ¢~}?/, ~ :~L? ~}~?"' ?'~ :~?:~ ~s'~,'.~" ~._.-~::'":':':'?' ......... ...~...............~: ._.. ~~...............:_."::::7:.........v: .........-..:. ......... ~ ~}?~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..q....:~~~============================" . ~ , s: ,. ~ ~ ..................................... ... ........ ..;., ..... ~;~ ~:~ ? 2:: J~/'. ?~% ~ '~.:.:. :-:-:.:- ~~......:.~q ~:::::::::.....~, ~ ~]:~'.~,'i:~?' ~:~ ~ ~.'-' ....... .' ..'.}:-i.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:" .v:.:.}:,}.'".',:.:v..,v:.v...:.i.... '.'--.-.'..? ~ ~ (~) ~' ~ WOOD ~N~ (~ DIRECT- ~'~. ' · ~ ~ ~' ; ~ ~ ~SOUT~STERLY E~VATION ~S~~-~ ~ 6' X 12' ~ ~ ~ 59/5/03 R~ P~ ~MM~ W~ ~ 8~~ ~ ~~S ~ ,,,,,~ ~ .. ~.~ ~ ALTERNATIVE '~,~' , ~ ~~ ATIT ~N~INEEFIN~ AVALON WATER TANK ~ ~ 8/=6/o~~ ~ w~ ~ = ./,~/~ ~ .= ~..~ ~ ELEVATION VIEWS SITE NO. 882 I ~/6/0~ ~ PER ~P (~ 2300 CONT~ COSTA BLVD., ~220 PLIANT HILL CA 94525 CORNER OF AVALON DR~ · CA~ON COURT AT&T ~RE~SS SER~CES. INC. NO. ~, ~O~ ~ C~ ,P'D PHONE:. (9~5~ 674-1151 so. ~N ~ClSCO, ~ ~~~"~I I ~-6~~ ~ ~Z03 ~ FAX: (925) 67~-131~ s~ ~ ~"~= lo~ · · · · 25' 50' lOft - Avalon Tank Site ~.,,~,,,,~ July 21, 2004 s~w~c~4m 04.036 PLANT LIST SYMBOL I FGEND BOTANICAL_ _ NAME METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS ESCALLONIA EXONIENSIS 'FRADESII' CEANOTHUS GRISEUS 'HORIZONTALIS' ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI COMMON NAM__.____ E NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE ESCALLONIA CARMEL CREEPER SIZE SPACING 24' BOX AS SHOWN 15 GAL / 5'-0" O.C. 5 GAL 5 GAL 5'-0- O.C. MANZANITA I GAL 3'-0' O.C. EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXIST. FENCE, 6'-0' HIGH CHAINENK WITH BARBED WIRE TOP EXIST. FENCE, WITH NEW BLACK VINYL-CLAD FABRIC HOUSE NUMBER ELEVATION VIEW SECTION NUMBER AND LOCATION [NOTE NUMBER NOTES FRONTAGE TREATMENT - LOW MAINTENANCE, DROUGHT-TOLERANT, EVERGREEN GROUNDCOVER - RENOVATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM - ACCENT DRIFTS OF DROUGHT-TOLERANT, FLOWERING SHRUB - FERTILIZATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FRONTAGE PLANTS [~ EQUIPMENT TREATMENT - VISUAL SCREEN OF LARGE EVERGREEN, FLOWERING, DROUGHT-TOLERANT SHRUBS - UPSlZED SHRUBS IN IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF EQUIPMENT CABINET AND ANTENNAE - RETAINMENT OF EXISTING PINE TREES - BUBBLER-IRRIGATED SHRUBS FOR WATER CONSERVATION ENTRY TREATMENT - DRIVEWAY FLANKED BY EVERGREEN, FLOWERING, MULTI-TRUNK ACCENT TREES FENCE TREATMENT - PAINTING OF POSTS WITH BLACK PAINT FINISH' - REPLACEMENT OF GALVANIZED CHAINLINK WITH BLACK VINYL-CLAD FABRIC [~ SLOPE TREATMENT - REMOVAL OF EXISTING INVASIVE PAMPAS GRASS - MOWING OF EXISTING GRASS - OVERSEEDING WITH CALIFORNIA NATIVE WILDFLOWER SEED MIX OF CALIFORNIA POPPY, LUPINE, AND MONKEY FLOWER Site Plan Avalon Tank Site July 21, 2004 04. 03 6 SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES ANTENNAE EQUIPMENT CABINET SITE FRONTAGE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FENCE Site Photos Avalon Tank Site July 21, 2004 04. 036 ANTENNAE UIF CABINET ___ (~ EXISTING TREE '-'-----_ .~~OPEN VIEW OF EQUIPMENT '---- ---- ../,/ ~RASS SLOPE FENCE ;HRUB PLANTING ;IDEWALK (~ PROPOSED 41 IAL SCREEN FOR EQUIPMENT -- ¢/ILDFLOWER OVERSEEDING OF EXIST. GRASS SLOPE ----_ ,.VIEW OF EQUIPMENT ------" ~ ._// SCREENED RIFTS OF ACCENT SHRUBS AINTED FENCE ;ONTINUOUS EVERGREEN GROUNDCOVER ALONG '"- ~ _._ STREET FRONTAGE S~ Idaho, CA g4401 Sections Avalon Tank Site duly 21, 2004 04.036 EXISTING PROPOSED Elevation View Avalon Tank Site July 21, 2004 04.036 NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE 'ESCALLONIA MANZANITA 311 S~ M.~ CA 944~1 T 650.375.1313 CARMEL CREEPER WlLDFLOWER SEED MIX Plant Materials Avalon Tank Site duly 21, 2004 04.036 2t GENDA ITEM #7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 11, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager PENINSULA HABITAT FOR I-IUMANITY APPEAL - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF: A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION TO DIVIDE A 50 FT. BY 140 FT. LOT INTO FOUR (4) 25 FT. BY 70 FT. LOTS, WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON EACH, WITH REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS TO THE STANDARD LOT SIZE (AREA, LENGTH AND WIDTH) AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT RESTRICTING AFFORDABILITY ON ALL UNITS ON A SITE LOCATED AT 440 COMMERCIAL AVENUE, IN THE R-3-L MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 20.20, 20.84, 20.125 AND TITLE 19 (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE); AND. A GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING FOR A PROSPECTIVE SALE BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO OF A 7,000 SQ. FT. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 COMMERCIAL AVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE PLANNING LAW (GOVT. CODE SECT. 65402) Case Nos. Applicant: Owner: PROJECT NO. P04-0034: Planned Unit Development PUD04-0001 Tentative Parcel Map PM04-0001 Draft Affordable Housing Agreement AHA04-0001 Planning Commission Action PCA04-0001 Peninsula Habitat for Humanity South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Appellant: Frank Greco Staff Report Subject: Peninsula Habitat for Humanity- Appeal Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission action to approve P04-0034, PUD04-0001, PM04-0001, AHA04-0001 and PCA04-0001, and deny the Appeal. BACKGROUND The City Council conducted a public hearing on this item on July 14, 2004, closed the hearing and continued the matter to August 11, requesting that staff provide information regarding financing implications of various project options. DISCUSSION As outlined in the attached City Council minutes, the neighborhood's primary request was to have the size and number of units reduced. Because a reduced project would require additional City subsidy Council requested financial information be provided before making a final decision. Funding - As shown below, and in more detail on the attached spreadsheets, the city subsidy needed for the various iterations of the proposed Habitat project range from a low of $133,445 per unit for the proposed project (four 3-bedroom units), to a high of $207,383 per unit for three 2-bedroom units. CiW % Increase Construction Ci_ty Land Total Ci_ty CiW Per Unit over Proposed No. Units Unit Size Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy Proiect 4 3BR-2BA $ (33,781) $(500,000) $(533,781) $ (133,445) NA 4 2BR*-IBA $ (89,295) $(500,000) $(589,295) $ (147,324) 10.4% 3 3BR-2BA $ (56,060) $(500,000) $(556,060) $ (185,353) 38.9% 3 2BR*-iBA $ (122,148) $(500,000) $(622,148) $ (207,383) 55.4% * Assumes 2BR Units w/Il cause County to reject all CDBG funding. Site Plan Implications - Reducing the number of units from four to three would leave a remainder 25' by 70' lot that could possibly provide an additional 3 private parking spaces for the Habitat project with the balance provided as common landscaped area, owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. CONCLUSION The proposed project is consistent with the City's Housing Element goals and furthers the Council's commitment to provide the very low income units allocated to the City by the State as its "fair share" to Staff Report Subject: Peninsula Habitat for Humanity - Appeal Page 3 meet regional housing needs. Opportunities to provide for sale homes for very low-income families are very rare and staff continues to support the four unit project since: 1) four units are allowed by both the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for any property of this size located in this Zone District; 2) the Planning Commission and Design Review Board both found the proposed project to be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and 3) it will allow home ownership oppommities for four very-low income families who likely would never be able to otherwise purchase a home in the Bay Area. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action to approve Planned Unit Development permit PUD04-0001 to allow construction of four detached single family homes with a reduction in standard lot sizes and side yard setback requirements, Tentative Parcel Map PM04-0001 to allow the existing parcel to be divided into four (4) 25 ft. by 70 ft. lots, Draft Affordable Housing Agreement AHA04-0001 to ensure affordability of all of the units, and Planning Commission Action PCA04-0001 finding the prospective sale of the property by the Redevelopment Agency to be in compliance with the General Plan. By: Marty Van Duyn ~J Assistant City Manager Appr°ved~ fl~~~ City Manager Attachment: July 14, 2004 City Council Minutes City Subsidy Info MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2004 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION: 7:39 p.m. Present: Absent: (Cassette Tape No. 1) Councilmembers Femekes, Garbarino and Gonzalez Vice Mayor Green and Mayor Matsumoto None Led by Parks & Recreation Commissioner Pmdencia Nelson Pastor John Cantley, Grace Covenant Church PRESENTATIONS Proclamation - Recreation and Parks Month, July 2004 - Councilman Garbarino read and presented proclamation to Parks & Recreation Commission Chair Salvador Rodriquez Mayor Matsumoto announced the 90t~ birthday celebration for resident Laura Baldesseroni and a certificate of recognition will be presented to her at a later date. Colma Creek Channelization Project Update (San Mateo County Flood Control District) - Director of Public Works Terry White gave a visual presentation and explained that the current phase of construction, between South Spruce Avenue to San Mateo Avenue, is being done by Northwest Construction at a cost of $12 million and is due to be completed in October, 2004. The second phase of the project, fi:om South Linden Avenue to San Mateo Avenue, will commence in 2005. Mayor Matsumoto announced that the meeting will adjourn in memory of Carlo Giusti and to those who have lost their lives in the war against terrorism. AGENDA REVIEW No changes*. * At the conclusion of the City Council Special Meeting, Council agreed to add Agenda Item No. 22, Resolution approving an agreement with Barry Nagel to serve as City Manager. Public hearing opened. Staffreport and visual presentation given by Assistant Finance Director David Woo. Mr. Stanley Radtke, resident, speaking against the proposal, stated that the capacity constraint on the treatment plant should be taken from the plant's operating budget. He urged that the matter be put to a vote. Mr. Stephen Giuhani, resident, speaking against the proposal, stated that the increase was excessive, that the public was not given enough information, and questioned the process being utilized to increase the rate. City Attorney Mattas provided information on the Proposition 218 process, approved by the voters in 1996, and explained that the law provides greater public notification to property owners of rate increases and a process for protesting. Public hearing closed. Council discussed with staff the treatment plant's enterprise fund, the cease and desist order from the State Water Quality Control Board, and noted that all cities are facing this issue. Consultant and former Public Works Director John Gibbs responded to questions regarding the health and safety issues at the treatment plant, fines that are imposed for overflows, and stated that the City is addressing the problems early, whereas other communities are not. Mayor Matsumoto read a letter from the Environmental Advocates agency that wrote in favor of the rate increase. City Clerk Payne reported 54 protests were received. City Attorney Mattas stated the 54 protests are less than majority. Motion-Fernekes/Second-Gonzalez: To approve Resolution No 67-2004, approving a 25% increase for sewer rates effective fiscal year 2004-2005, and increases of up to 9% annually through 2008-09, mending the master fee schedule to include the rates, and adopting a report of annual sewer rentals or charges for 2004-2005 pursuant to Chapter 14.12 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Unanimously approved by voice vote. (Recess: 8:54 p.m. - 9:07 p.m.) Consideration of appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve a Plarmed Unit Development at 440 Commercial Avenue and Tentative Parcel Map and an Affordable Housing Agreement; Owner: City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency; Applicant: Peninsula Habkat for Humanity; P04-0034, PCA04-0001, PUD04-0001, PM04-0001 & AHA04-0001 Staff report presented by ChiefPlarmer Sparks. Mr. George Knight, Peninsula Habitat for Humanity (PHfH), presented an overview of the program to help needy families, projects that were bu/lt in other local commanities, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Z'/~-~YULY 14, 2004 MINUTES 2 ( PAGE4 and the design of the current project. He stated that the conditions of approval address neighborhood concerns and that the design fits well with the neighborhood as it is today. He urged Council to deny the appeal. Mr. Frank Greco, appellant, submitted information to Council summarizing the neighborhood concerns. The neighborhood would like to see a compromise regarding the size of the project. He asked that it be reduced from four units to three and some assurances regarding the parking, day/hours for construction, and incorporating tandem carports rather than garages. Mr. Greco asked that a meeting be held with PI-Ifil so that the compromises can be discussed. Ms. Jessica Stanfill, representing the office of Assemblyman Gene Mullin, read a prepared statement from the Assemblyman endorsing the project and urging Council to approve the project. Mr. John Lemke stated support for the project and discussed the PHfH projects he has worked since he retired. Ms. Karen Stanfill, resident, speaking in favor of the project, addressed today's housing issues and stated that this project will provide much needed affordable housing for teachers so that they can live and work locally. Ms. Mary Boughton, executive director for PHfH, discussed the apphcation process for buying a PHff-I home and that a "housing interest hst" of 170 people has already started for this project. She stated that there is an amazing need for housing in South San Francisco. Ms. Dorothy Robbins, representing the North San Mateo County League of Women Voters, stated that the League endorses affordable housing and supports the City's efforts. Mr. Rick Gomez, resident, speaking with concern, informed Council that the parking shortage in the area is more evident at night. He urged Council to hsten to the residents. (Photographs illustrating parking problems at night were submitted to Council.) Ms. Caitlyn Wailer, representing Bay Bio-Science, speaking in favor of the project, stated that the project will address a work-force housing shortage and thanked the City for ks commitment for improving the affordable housing crisis. Ms. Teresa Carey, resident, speaking against the project, discussed her personal hardships and urged Council to listen to the neighborhood rather than outside voices. She stated that the issue at hand is the number of dwellings being proposed and the impact it will have on her neighborhood. Public hearing closed. Councilmembers discussed with staff the local regulations governing construction that is regulated by the noise ordinance. REGULAR. CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 14, 2004 MINUTES - 3 - PAGE 5 16. Mr. Greco reiterated the neighborhood's request to have the number of units be reduced and to provide an oppornmity for the neighborhood to sit down and talk with PHffI representatives about the proposed compromises. Council further discussed with staff the construction management plan, funding for the project, parking regulations, the CC&R's, the ramifications of reducing the numbers of units, property entitlements, and the use of temporary greenspots in the City. (Cassette Tape No. 2) In response to Council's question regarding the feasibility of reducing the number of units to three, Mr. Knight stated that PH:G-I was not in the position to negotiate the funding process. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn explained that the funding difference would have to be made up by the Redevelopment Agency, but other funding sources that are committed to the project would also need to be confirmed by PHfH. He estimated the gap funding would be an additional $200,000. Mayor Matsumoto requested Council be provided with a list of greenspots, their current status and to have the information posted on the City's website. Councilmembers agreed that they were not ready to take action on the apphcation until the funding information is presented. Mayor Matsumoto informed the apphcant and appellant that the public hearing is closed, but if they have information to provide to Council it can be sent through the City Manager's office. Motion-Femekes/Second-Garbarino: To continue consideration of appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve a planned unit development at 440 Commercial Avenue to August 11, 2004. Unanimously approved by voice vote. (Recess: 10:52 p.m. - 11:07 p.m.) Consideration of resolution approving 16-unit planned unit development at Hillside Boulevard and Stonegate Drive, including Mitigated Negative Declarati0n,?-erfiative Design Review, and Affordable Housing Agreem.e_nt~"Owner: LLC; Applicant: Paul E. Davis; PUD01-012, DR01-012, Public hearing Staff report presented b3 Mr. Dave Garland, description Sparks. Hillside project architect, Mr. spoke briefly about the project Davis. Mr. Davis _pm~ided a visual presentation of the project, planss,,la~fStated that the term "flex space" referred to open lic hearing closed. site and floors areas. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 14, 2004 MINUTES - 4 - PAGE 6 Single Family Homes at Commercial Avenue City Subsidies Required To Achieve 30-year Mortgage Payoff @ 30% MAI City Construction City Land Total City No. Units Unit Size Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy City Per Unit Subsidy 4 3BR-2BA$ (33,781) $(500,000) $(533,781) 4 2BR*-IBA $ (89,295) $(500,000) $(589,295) 3 3BR-2BA$ (56,060) $(500,000) $(556,060) 3 2BR*-IBA $ (122,148) $(500,000) $(622,148) (133,445) (147,324) (185,353) (207,383) * Assumes 2BR Units will cause County to reject all CDBG funding. 440 Commercial Avenue 4 Units Per Unit 4 Units Per Unit 3 Units Per Unit ~ 3 Units Per Unit 3-bedroom :!', 2-bedroom ::' : ' 3-bedroom i ::,.:,, 2-bedroom EXPENSES Land Soft Costs Hard Costs Developer Admin Total Cost $ $ $ 924,589 $ 231,147 $ 63,o00 $ 15,750 $ 1,678,589 $ 419,647 505,000 $ 126,250 $ 505,000 $ 126,250 186,000 $ 46,500 ~,:':~i,': $ 153,500 $ 38,375 FUNDING SOURCES CityLand Donation $ 500,000 $ 125,000 SHOP Grants $ 20,000 $ 5,000 AHP Grants $ 48,000 $ 12,000 CountyGrant $ 250,000 $ 62,500 Additional City $ 33,781 $ 8,445 $ 500,000 $ 125,000 $ 20,000 $ 5,000 $ $ $ 165,000 $ 41,250 $ $ 505,000 $ 168,333'. $ 505,000 $ 168,333 $ 153,224 $ 51,075 $ 153,500 $ 51,167 $ 807,479 $ 201,870 $ 693,442 $ 231,147 i"'~ i $ 607,571 $ 202,524 $ 59,000 $ 14,750 $ 63,000 $ 21,000 $ 59,000 $ 19,667 $ 1,524,979 $ 381,245 ~-;~::': $1,414,666$ 471,555 $1,325,071 $ 441,690 :;:'$ 500,000 $ 166,667 $ 500,000 $ 166,667 $ 15,000 $ 5,000 ':;:!;i:! $ 15,000 $ 5,000 $ 36,000 $ 12,000 $ $ $ 187,500 $ 62,500 $ 125,000 $ 41,667 89,295 $ 22,324 ~,.:,:;:~;:~ $ 56,060 $ 18,687 ;~ $ 122,148 $ 40,716 Total Funds $ 851,781 $ 212,945 Estimated Sale Price (30% MFI) $ 206,702 Total Per Unit $ 187,671 $ 206,702 i:~:::i~ii $ 187,641 Total Per Unit Total Per Unit Total Per Unit Total City Subsidy $ 533,781 $ 133,445 :,,::: 589,295 $ 147,324 $ 556,060 $ 185,353 [~!~:i $ 622,148 $ 207,383 ...... $ 55,514 $ 13,879 ~:?, $ 22,279 $ 51,908 Increased City Subsidy (from base) "~ ~ ': ~!.!.L; $ 88,367 $ 73,938 Percent Increased City Subsidy i'?i! :: 10.4% 10.4% 4.2% 38 9% i. ?! .'-~ 16.6% 55.4% 1625 Project: DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Location: 440 Commercial Street South San Francisco Owner: PENINSULA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Architect: David Crabbe Estimate Date: 14-Jun-04 Estimator: Ed Hayes DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION BUDGET LAND ACQUISITION SOFT COSTS CONSTRUCTION HARD COSTS DEVELOPER ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET GRANT FUNDING BUDGET CITY LAND DONATION SHOP GRANT ESTIMATE AHP GRANTS ESTIMATE CDBG FUNDING ESTIMATE ADDITIONAL CITY CONTRIBUTION GRANT FUNDING ( NO Pay Back) PROJECTED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL SITE SF: 7,000 NUMBER OF UNITS: 3 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SF: 4,875 EST. MONTHS OF CONSTRUCTION: 12 Description: 2 Story / 2BR-1BA Town Houses with 2 car garage FULL I FUNDING COST BUDGET & DONATIONS PRICE S/Unit $/sf AMT 505,000 168,333 103.59 153,500 51,107 25.16 607,571 202,524 124.63 59,000 19,667 12.10 1,325,071 441,690 265.48 PHFH NET COST BUDGET PRICE S/Unit 505,000 168,333 153,500 51,167 607,571 202,524 59,000 19,667 ,325,071 441,690 (500,000) (500,000) (166,657) (15,000) (15,000) (5,000) 0 0 (125,000) (125,000) (41,657) (122,148) (122,148) (40,716) (762,148)' (762,148) (254,049) 1,325,071 441,690 271.81 (762,148) 562,923 187,641 AVERAGE NET PRICE PER HOUSE AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS USING THE PHFH HOME OWNERSHIP MODEL PHFH PARTNER FAMILIES PARTICIPATE IN 500 HOURS OF SWEAT EQUITY WORK ON THE PROJECT PHFH AFFORDABILITY DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLY FOR 55 YEARS FROM CLOSE OF ESCROW. PHFH SERVES ONLY FAMILIES WITH LOW OR VERY LOW INCOMES AS DEFINED BY HUD FOR SAN MATED couNTY PHFH FUND FOR HUMANITY PROVIDES 0% INTEREST LOAN PHfH POLICY: 30 YEAR MAXIMUM PAYMENT PERIOD POSSIBLE HABITAT SALES PRICE / UNIT 3 BED ROOM UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNIT H C 2 BED ROOM UNIT # of Unit Sales Units Project Price Price 0 3 562,923 0 3 562,923 2 BEDROOM UNIT ASSUMEFAMILY OF4EARNING AT % of AMI -> ALLOCATED HOUSING PAYMENT --> LESS HOA DUES & TAXES & HOMEOVVNERS'INSURANCE AVAILABLEINCOMETO PAY MORTGAGE(PRINCIPLE ONLY) LOAN PERIOD IN YEARS (PHfH POLICY: 30 YEAR MAXIMUM PAYMENT PERIOD ) 3O% OFINCOME 50% 40% 30% 56,550 45,250 33,950 16,965 13,575 10, t85 (3,295) (3,295) (3,295) 2BR-IBA Single Family Homes at Commercial Ave, Page 1 of 2 7130/20D4 South San Francisco 1625 Pro~ect: DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Location: 440 Commercial Street South San Francisco Owner: PENINSULA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Architect: David Crabbe Estimate Date: 14~Jun-04 Estimator: Ed Hayes DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION BUDGET LAND ACQUISITION SOFT COSTS CONSTRUCTION HARD COSTS DEVELOPER ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET GRANT FUNDING BUDGET CITY LAND DONATION SHOP GRANT ESTIMATE AHP GRANTS ESTIMATE CDBG FUNDING ESTIMATE ADDITIONAL CITY CONTRIBUTION GRANT FUNDING ( No Pay Back) PROJECTED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL SITE SF: 7,000 NUMBER OF UNITS! 4 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SF: 6,500 EST. MONTHS OF CONSTRUCTION: 12 Description: 2 Story / 2BR-1BA Town Houses with 2 car garage FULL I FUNDING COST BUDGET & DONATIONS PRICE S/Unit $/sf AMT 505,000 126,250 77.69 153.500 38,375 23.62 807,479 201,870 124.23 59,000 14,750 9.08 1,524,979 381,245 234.61 PHFH NET COST BUDGET PRICE S/Unit 505,000 126,250 153,500 38,375 807,479 201,870 59,00O 14,750 1,524,979 381,245 (500,000) (500,000) (125,000) (20,000) (20,000) (5,000) 0 0 (165,000) (155,000) (41,260) (89,295) (89,295) (22,324) (774,295) (774,295) (193,574) 1,524,979 381,245 234.61 (774,295) 750,684 187,671 AVERAGE NET PRICE PER HOUSE 2BR-1BA Single Family Homes at Commercial Ave, Page 2 of 2 7/30/2004 SoUth San Francisco AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS USING THE PHFH HOME OWNERSHIP MODEL PHFH PARTNER FAMILIES PARTICIPATE IN 500 HOURS OF SWEAT EQUITY WORK ON THE PROJECT PHFH AFFORDABILITY DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLY FOR 55 YEARS FROM CLOSE OF ESCROW. PHFH SERVES ONLY FAMILIES WITH LOW OR VERY LOW INCOMES AS DEFINED BY HUD FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY PHFH FUND FOR HUMANITY PROVIDES 0% INTEREST LOAN PHfH POLICY: 30 YEAR MAXIMUM PAYMENT PERIOD POSSIBLE HABITAT SALES PRICE / UNIT 3 BED ROOM UHITS 2 BEDROOM UNIT H C 2 BED ROOM UNIT # of Unit Sales Units Project Price Price 40 750,684 i ' ' ~.~ 0 4 750,684 2 BEDROOM UNIT ASSUME FAMILY OF 4 EARNING AT % of AMI -> ALLOCATED HOUSING PAYMENT -> LESS HOA DUES & TAXES & HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE AVAILABLE INCOME TO PAY MORTGAGE (PRINCIPLE ONLY) LOAN PERIOD IN YEARS (PHfH POLICY: 30 YEAR MAXIMUM PA YMEIVT PERIOD ) 30% OFINCOME 50% 40% 30% 56,550 45,250 33,950 16,g65 13,575 10,185 (3,295) (3,295} (3,295) 13,67'0 J 10,280 l 6,890 2,030 4875 Project: DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Location: 440 Commercial Street TOTAL SITE SF: 7,000 South San Francisco NUMBER OF UNITS: 3 Owner: PENINSULA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SF: 6,090 Architect: David Crabbe EST. MONTHS OF CONSTRUCTION: 12 Estimate Date: 14-Jun~04 Estimator: Ed Hayes FULL COST BUDGET DESCRIPTION PRICE S/Unit $/sf DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION BUDGET LAND ACQUISITION SOFT COSTS CONSTRUCTION HARD COSTS DEVELOPER ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 505,000 168,333 82.92 153,224 51,075 25.16 693,442 231,147 113.87 63,000 21,000 10.34 1,414,666 471,555 232.29 GRANT FUNDING BUDGET CiTY LAND DONATION SHOP GRANT ESTIMATE AHP GRANTS ESTIMATE CDBG FUNDING ESTIMATE ADDITIONAL CITY CONTRIBUTION GRANT FUNDING ( No Pay Back) PROJECTED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET Description: 3 Story / 3BR-2BA Town Houses with 2 car garage & DONATIONS COST BUDGET AMT PRICE S/Unit 505,000 168,333 153,224 51,075 693.442 231,147 63,000 21,000 1,414,666 471,555 (500,000) (500,000) (166,667) (15,000) (15.000) (5,000) (36,000) (36,000) (12,000) (187,5oo) (lO7,5oo) (62,500) (56,060) (50,060) (18,667) (794,560) (794,560) (264,853) 1,414,666 471,555 232.29 (794,560) 620,106 206,702 AVERAGE NET PRICE PER HOUSE AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS USING THE PHFH HOME OWNERSHIP MODEL PHFH PARTNER FAMILIES PARTICIPATE IN 500 HOURS OF SWEAT EQUITY WORK ON THE PROJECT PHFH AFFORDABILITY DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLY FOR 55 YEARS FROM CLOSE OF ESCROW. PHFH SERVES ONLY FAMILIES WITH LOW OR VERY LOW INCOMES AS DEFINED BY HUD FOR SAN MATED COUNTY PHFH FUND FOR HUMANITY PROVIDES 0% INTEREST LOAN PHfl-I POLICY: 30 YEAR MAXIMUM PAYMENT PERIOD POSSIBLE HABITAT SALES PRICE / UNIT 3 BED ROOM UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNIT H C 2 BED ROOM UNIT # of Unit Sales Units Project Price Price 003 620,'106 3 620.106 3 BEDROOM UNIT ASSUME FAMILY OF 4 EARNING AT % of AMI --> ALLOCATED HOUSING PAYMENT -> LESS HOA DUES & TAXES & HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE AVAILABLE INCOME TO PAY MORTGAGE (PRINCIPLE ONLY) LOAN PERIOD IN YEARS (PH£H POLICY: 30 YEAR MAXIMUM PA YMEIVT PERIOD ) 30% OFINCOME 50% 40% 30% 56,550 45,250 33,950 16,965 13,575 10,185 (3,295) (3,295) (3,295) 3BR-2BA Single Family Homes at Commercial Ave, Page 1 of 2 713012004 South San Francisco 2.030 Project: DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Location: 440 Commercial Street South San Francisco Owner: PENINSULA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Architect: David Crabbe Estimate Date: 14-Jun-O4 Estimator: Ed Hayes DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION BUDGET LAND ACQUISITION SOFT COSTS CONSTRUCTION HARD COSTS DEVELOPER ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET GRANT FUNDING BUDGET CITY LAND DONATION SHOP GRANT ESTIMATE AHP GRANTS ESTIMATE CDBG FUNDING ESTIMATE ADDITIONAL CITY CONTRIBUTION GRANT FUNDING ( No Pay Back) PROJECTED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL SITE SF: 7,000 NUMBER OF UNITS: 4 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SF: 8,1.20 EST. MONTHS OF CONSTRUCTION: 12 FULL I COST BUDGET PRICE S/Unit $1sf 505,000 126,250 62.19 186,000 46,500 22.91 924,589 231,147 113.87 63,000 15,750 7.76 1,678,589 419,647 206.72 Description: 3 Story / 3BR-2BA Town Houses with 2 car garage FUNDING I PHFH NET & DONATIONS COST BUDGET AMT PRICE S/Unit 505,000 126,250 186,000 46,560 924,589 231,147 63,000 15,750 1,678,589 419,647 (5oo,ooo) (5oo,ooo) (t25,ooo) (20,000} (20.000) (5,000) (48.000) (48,000) (12.000) (250,000) (250.000) (62,500) (33,781) (33,781) (8,445) (851,781) (851,781) (212,945) 1,678,589 419,647 206.72 (851,781) 826,808 206,702 AVERAGE NET PRICE PER HOUSE 3BR-2BA Single Family Homes at Commercial Ave, Page 2 of 2 713012004 Souih San ~raricis(~o AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS USING THE PHFH HOME OWNERSHIP MODEL PHFH PARTNER FAMILIES PARTICIPATE IN 500 HOURS OF SWEAT EQUITY WORK ON THE PROJECT PHFH AFFORDABIUTY DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLY FOR 55 YEARS FROM CLOSE OF ESCROW. PHFH SERVES ONLY FAMILIES WITH LOW OR VERY LOW INCOMES AS DEFINED BY HUD FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY PHFH FUND FOR HUMANITY PROVIDES 0% INTEREST LOAN PHfH POLICY: 30 YEAR MAXIMUM PAYMENT PERIOD POSSIBLE HABITAT SALES PRICE I UNIT 3 BED ROOM UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNIT H C 2 BED ROOM UNIT # of Unit Sales Units Project Price Price i~-~-~ 4 826,808 · ~' ~ 0 0 4 826,808 3 BEDROOM UNIT ASSUME FAMILY OF 4 EARNING AT % of AMI -> ALLOCATED HOUSING PAYMENT LESS HOA DUES & TAXES & HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE AVAILABLE INCOME TO PAY MORTGAGE (PRINCIPLE ONLY) LOAN PERIOD IN YEARS (PHfH POLICY: 30 YEAR MAXIMUM PAYMENT PERIOD ) 30% OFINCOME 50% 40% 30% 56,550 45,250 33.g50 16.965 13.575 10,185 (3,295) (3,295) (3,295) I 13,670 I 10,280 I 6,890