The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-09-08 e-packetAGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 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 HEARING 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 August 11, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of September 8, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Resolution approving assignment of owner participation agreement from Hines Development, LLC to Genentech, Inc. CLOSED SESSION 4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 178- 190 Airport Boulevard, 380 Alta Vista Drive, SF-PUC property located on Mission Road (APNs: 093-312-050/060) and 80 Chestnut Avenue (California Water Service); Agency Negotiator: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEET1NG AGENDA SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 PAGE 2 Redevelopment Agency Staff Report RD/I /1GEND/I ITEM #3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 Redevelopment Agency Board Marry Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director ASSIGNMENT OF HINES OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board approve an Agreement assigning the rights and obligations of Hines Oyster Point LLC to Genentech, Inc. under that certain Owner Participation Agreement between the Agency and Hines Oyster Point, LLC. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Agency approved an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with Hines Oyster Point, LLC in November of 2000. Hines now wishes to sell its rights and interests in all parcels, except the hotel parcel, to Genentech, Inc. According to the terms of the OPA, no sale or assignment may occur withom the Agency's prior written consent. The attached Assignment and Assumption and Notice of Transfer satisfies the obligation for written notice and has been reviewed by staff and legal counsel. No other terms of the OPA are affected by this assignment of rights. CONCLUSION Assigning the rights of Hines to Genentech will assist the Agency in moving forward with the approved development on the transferred parcels. Therefore, staff recommends the Agency approve the requested assignment. Assistant ExecutigedDirector x,~ M'. Nagel/ Executive Dire to~ Attachment: Assignment and Assumption and Notice of Transfer Agreement RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Genentech, Inc. 1 DNA Way (MS-49) South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: Meg Fitzgerald, Esq. (Space above this line for Recorder's use) ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AND NOTICE OF TRANSFER (OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT) This Assignment and Assumption and Notice of Transfer (Owner Participation Agreement) (the "Assignment") is entered into as of ,2004, by and between HMS OYSTER POINT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (previously known as "Hines Oyster Point, LLC") ("Assignor"), and GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Assignee"). RECITALS A. This Assignment relates to that certain Owner Participation Agreement between Assignor and the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") dated November 21, 2000, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Owner Participation Agreement dated September 26, 2001 (collectively, the "OPA"), which relates to Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 97-027 as recorded in Volume 70, pages 33-40, Official Records of San Mateo County, California ("Parcel 1"). B. After the exdcution of the OPA Parcel 1 was subdivided into six (6) separate parcels. Assignor, as seller, and Assignee, as buyer, have entered into a purchase and sale agreement by which Assignor will sell and transfer to Assignee five (5) parcels of real property, as more particularly described on Schedule 1 attached hereto (referred to in the OPA as the "Office Parcels"), which were originally included within Parcel 1. Assignor will continue to own the remaining parcel, which is more particularly described in Schedule 2 attached hereto and which is referred to in the OPA as the "Hotel Parcel." C. Sections 5.3 - 5.5 of the OPA allow Assignor to transfer the Office Parcels to Assignee so long as Assignor assigns and conveys all of its right, title, interest and obligations under the OPA relating to the Office Parcels to Assignee and Assignee assumes the payment and performance of all of the covenants, debts, duties, liabilities and obligations of Assignor under the OPA with respect to the Office Parcels. D. Section 5.4 of the OPA requires that any transferee of any part of Parcel 1 "shall be subject to all of the Conditions of Approval, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures, conditions of approval and mitigation and monitoring measures required in connection with SF/334066.3 future approvals for the Project or the development of the Property, covenants, obligations and restrictions of this Agreement which pertain to such portion of the Property and Improvements transferred." E. This Assignment is executed by Assignor and Assignee and delivered to Agency for its written approval required by Section 5.3 of the OPA. AGREEMENT 1. Assignor hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto Assignee without recourse, representation or warranty (except as expressly provided in that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions dated August 2, 2004 (the "Agreement") between Assignor, as seller, and Assignee, as buyer, as such Agreement may be amended from time to time, which representations and warranties are incorporated herein by this reference), all of Assignor's rights, title and interest in and under the OPA applicable to the Office Parcels as described in the OPA, to have and to hold the same unto Assignee, its successors and assigns from and after the date hereof for all of the rest of any term thereof, subject to the covenants, conditions and terms thereof. 2. Assignee, by its acceptance of this Assignment, hereby expressly assumes all of the covenants and obligation of Assignor under the OPA as they pertain to the Office Parcels and agrees to be subject to all of the conditions and restrictions to which Assignor is subject with respect to the Office Parcels as a result of the OPA. This Assignment shall be binding on Assignee and Assignor and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors in interest and assigns. 3. Assignor and Assignee agree that those benefits and obligations of the OPA which are described in Schedule 3 attached hereto are consistent with Section 1 and 2 above, properly allocated between Office Parcel_ Owner and Hotel Parcel Owner (as such terms are defined in the OPA) as set forth in said Schedule 3 hereto. Upon receiving the approval of the Agency to this Assignment and recordation of this Assignment as required by the OPA, Assignor shall have no further benefit for those benefits, or obligation for those obligations, shown on Schedule 3 as allocated to Assignee. [Signature page follows. ] SF/334066.3 -2- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed Assignment as of this __ day of ,2004. ASSIGNOR: HMS OYSTER POINT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Hines Oyster Point Associates Limited Partnership, a Texas limited partnership, its Managing Member By: Hines Interests Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, its General Partner By: Hines Holdings, Inc., a Texas corporation, its General Partner this By: James C. Buie, Jr. Executive Vice President STATE OF ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) On ., 2004, before me, James C. Buie personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State (SEAL) SF/334066.3 [Signatures continue next page. ] [All signatures require notarization.] -3- ASSIGNEE: GENENTECH, INC., Name: Its: Treasurer STATE ~ COUNTY On ~ ~2k-;, ~ -., ~ QO-,._k, '2004~, before ~ ~ ~ k.,~,.---~, ~.-b' ~,,_~-,, personally appeared- ---'~x,-...4 ~- \ -2 'x,.N'-,&~-,.~ , personally known to me (or l~ved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person"('sk,.whose nameB.)..is/a~subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s't'mCt-hey executed the same in his/her-/4keir authorized capacit3K-ie~, and that by his/~eir signature~ on the instrument the person(-s-)..or the entity upon behalf of which the perso~r(s¢ acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and ~d "~ County and State ~ Commission # 130001 Notary Public - California (SEAL) [Signatures continue next page. ] [All signatures require notarization.] SF/334066.3 -4- This Assignment and the transfer of the Office Parcels to Assignee are hereby approved by the Agency. Furthermore, Agency hereby confirms to Assignee that (i) the OPA is in full force and effect, and (ii) Agency is not aware of any default of Agency or Assignor under the OPA. AGENCY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Name: Title: STATE OF ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) On ., 2004, before me, , personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State (SE)m) SF/334066,3 SCHEDULE 1 Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL I: Parcels B, C, D, E and F, as shown on the Map entitled "PARCEL MAP NO. 00-060", filed September 23, 2002, Book 74 of Parcel Maps, Pages 47 through 48, inclusive, San Mateo County Records. PARCEL II: Non-exclusive easements appurtenant to Parcel I above, for the purposes set forth in 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(v) and 4Co)(vi) of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reciprocal Easements for Shearwater Project recorded January 22, 1998, Instrument No. 98-008276, San Mateo County Records. PARCEL 12I: Non-exclusive easements appurtenant to Parcel I above, for the purposes set forth in Section 2 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reciprocal Easements for Shearwater Project recorded September 23, 2002, Instrument No. 2002- 188161, San Mateo County Records. SF/334066.3 SCHEDULE 2 Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL I: Parcel A as shown on the Map entitled "PARCEL MAP NO. 00-060", filed September 23, 2002, Book 74 of Parcel Maps, Pages 47 through 48, inclusive, San Mateo County Records. PARCEL II: Non-exclusive easements appurtenant to Parcel I above, for the purposes set forth in 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(v) and 4(b)(vi) of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reciprocal Easements for Shearwater Project recorded January 22, 1998, Instrument No. 98-008276, San Mateo County Records. PARCEL III: Non-exclusive easements appurtenant to Parcel I above, for the purposes set forth in Section 2 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reciprocal Easements for Shearwater Project recorded September 23, 2002, Instrument No. 2002- 188161, San Mateo County Records. SF/334066.3 SCHEDULE 3 As used herein, "OPA" refers to that certain Owner Participation Agreement between Assignor and the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency dated November 21, 2000 and "Amendment" refers to that certain First Amendment to Owner Participation Agreement dated September 26, 2001. Capitalized terms used in this Schedule 3 without definition should have the meanings given to such terms in the OPA and the Amendment. Item Hotel Parcel Clarification of (Document Office Parcel Owner Owner Obligation/ Timing (if Referenced) Obligation/Benefit Benefit necessary) Oyster Point Fee payable based on Fee payable based Credit is applied Overpass Fees the application of the on the application of dollar-for-dollar (OPA §2.7; formula for Oyster the formula for until credit has Amendment c][12). Point Overpass Fees Oyster Point been exhausted. as of the time such Overpass Fees as of To the extent that fees become due and the time such fees City's payable, become due and application of the [City will apply credit payable, credit results in a in amount of Such amount to be party receiving $1,176,175 offset by the Such amount to be more than its ("Overpass Credit") Overpass Credit on a offset by the share, such party to offset Overpass pro rata basis Overpass Credit on a immediately Fees.] between the parties pro rata basis pays such excess based on the fee between the parties to other party. payable by Assignor based on the fee or Assignee at the payable by Assignor time the Fee is and Assignee at the initially incurred time the Fee is initially incurred Penalties for Failure $768,000 $192,000 to Complete Construction of Improvements (OPA §2.10; Amendment ~15). SF/334066.3 Item Hotel Parcel Clarification of (Document Office Parcel Owner Owner Obligation/ Timing (if Referenced) Obligation/Benefit Benefit necessary) Area-Wide Traffic $923,549, or the $113,050, or the Mitigation Fee (OPA amount owed under amount owed under §3.8; Amendment ~[ the Area-Wide the Area-Wide 21, 22 & 23). Traffic Mitigation fee Traffic Mitigation (to be determined by fee (to be application of determined by formula when application of payable), whichever formula when is lower, payable), whichever is lower. Child Care in-lieu Amount to be Separate obligation fees (OPA §3.9; determined by City applies to Hotel Amendment ~[~[ 24, 25 ordinance (if Office Parcel Owner & 26). Parcel Owner does (pursuant to not develop childcare Conditions of facility) Approval, not OPA) Sewage Fees Amount determined Amount determined (OPA §3.10; by City when fees by City when fees Amendment ~[27). become due and become due and payable, which shall payable, which shall be no earlier than the be no earlier than issuance of a building the issuance of a permit for each building permit for portion of the each portion of the Improvements. Improvements. Wastewater Obligations herein No obligations apply Reduction Program pertaining to to Hotel Parcel (OPA § 3.12). Mitigation Measure Owner. 14.2.9 apply solely to Office Parcel Owner (if applicable). Public Art (OPA Obligations herein No obligations apply §3.13; Amendment ~[ apply solely to Office to Hotel Parcel 28). Parcel Owner. Owner. SF/334066.3 Item Hotel Parcel Clarification of (Document Office Parcel Owner Owner Obligation/ Timing (if Referenced) Obligation/Benefit Benefit necessary) Guaranty to pay fees Office Parcel Owner Hotel Parcel Owner (OPA §6.7). to provide within 3 to provide within 3 months of receipt of months of receipt of the Consent by the the Consent by the Agency to the Agency to the Assignment (as to its Assignment (as to its share of Penalties for share of Penalties Failure to Complete for Failure to Construction of Complete Improvements, see Construction of above). Improvements, see above). Insurance Obligations relate to Obligations relate to Requirements (OPA both parties, both parties. §9.9). Minimum Allocation No obligations apply Obligations herein of Retail to Office Parcel apply solely to Hotel Development: 3,000 Owner. Parcel Owner. sf restaurant (Amendment ~[6, and Addendum to the SEro). Maximum Allocation Office Parcels retail Hotel Parcels retail of Retail allocation: 12,500 sf allocation: 7,500 sf Development: 20,000 (including 3,000 sf sf retail/restaurant for restaurant) (Amended OPA and Addendum to the SEIR). Penalty related to Obligations relate to Obligations relate to TDM Plan both parties, both parties. (Conditions of Approval to SP-97- 027/Mod 1 and OPA, Exhibit M). SF/334066.3 Item Hotel Parcel Clarification of (Document Office Parcel Owner Owner Obligation/ Timing (if Referenced) Obligation/Benefit Benefit necessary) Pump Stations #2 and Amount determined Amount determined #4 (Amendment, ~[27 by City when fees by City when fees and Addendum to the become due and become due and SEIR). payable, which shall payable, which shall be no earlier than the be no earlier than issuance of a building the issuance of a permit for each building permit for portion of the each portion of the Improvements Improvements On-Site Pump Station Office Parcel Owner Hotel Parcel Owner 1. Developer of (HMS/Slough cost- pays proportionate pays proportionate first phase to sharing agreement share (72%) based on share (28%) based connect to pump dated December 21, formula listed in EIR on formula listed in station pays full 2001 ("Cost Sharing and Cost Sharing E]I~ and Cost amount due to Agreement"). Agreement Sharing Agreement Slough, with right to reimbursement from other owner in accordance with Cost Sharing Agreement. SF/334066.3 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 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. RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Mayor RICHARD A GARBARINO, SR. Councilman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager KARYL MATSUMOTO Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk 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 · Day in the Park, September 18, 2004 Update - Committee member Jim Metz · Annual Beautification Committee Awards - Committee Chair Jo Zemke AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of August 11 and 18, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of September 8, 2004 3. Resolution opposing Propositions 68 and 70, Tribal Gaming Compacts 4. Motion to re-adopt Ordinance No. 1344-2004, amending Chapter 20.125, inclusionary housing requirements 5. Resolution accepting grant from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency to fund Community Partnership' s Community Health Initiative in the amount of $23,422 6. Resolution accepting funding for two Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grants in the amount of $13,000 7. Resolution awarding construction contract to Northwest Construction of Burlingame, for the Beacon Street Storm Drain Replacement Project in the amount of $154,240 8. Motion to accept parcel map dedicating public street (McLellan Drive) and public use easements from Fairfield South San Francisco, LLC 9. Resolution approving the installation of stop signs on Magnolia Avenue at Commercial Avenue 10. Resolution awarding construction contract to M. Bumgarner, Inc., for the new metal beam guard railing installation project in an amount not to exceed $50,000 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 PAGE 2 11. Resolution amending list of designated positions that are subject to the conflict of interest code 12. Resolution approving personnel changes, including classification description and placement on the confidential (Teamsters) salary schedule ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 13. 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-l-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 1 (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) Continued from August 11, 2004. Public hearing closed. COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM CLOSED SESSION 14. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 conference with Labor Negotiator Jennifer Bower on negotiations with all labor units ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 PAGE 3 StaffReport AGENDA ITEM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney By: Peter Spoerl, Assistant City Attorney City Position on Gaming and Revenue Act of 2004 (Propositions 68 and 70) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the attached report and summary of the ballot measures and consider whether to adopt a resolution taking a position on the proposed measures. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Summary of Proposition 68 Proposition 68, the Gaming and Revenue Act of 2004, would authorize the Governor to renegotiate tribal-state compacts to require that tribes 1) pay 25% of slot machine/gaming device revenues to a government fund; 2) comply with multiple state laws, and 3) accept state court jurisdiction. Unless all tribes currently subject to existing compacts ratify the terms within 90 days, or if those terms are determined to be unlawful, the measure would instead authorize sixteen specified non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines and gaming devices. 33% of the revenues from these newly authorized non-tribal gaming operations would be devoted to fund public safety, regulatory and social programs. The measure includes a prohibition on any future state or local tax increases, and also contains limitations on the expansion of new tribal gaming operations. According to the impartial analysis written by the State Legislative Analyst and Finance Director, the measure would increase local government revenues over $1 billion annually, to be devoted primarily to additional firefighting, police and child protective services. Summary of Proposition 70 Proposition 70 would require the Governor to offer renewable 99-year gaming compacts to federally-recognized tribes with provisions including exclusive gaming rights on Indian land; no limits on numbers of machines, facilities or types of allowable'games; a contribution to state fund fi'om new revues based on the prevailing state corporate tax rate; preparation of off- reservation environmental impact reports; and a requirement that tribes provide'opportunity for notice and comment before significant expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities. The contributions to the state fund would be in lieu of other fees, taxes or levies, and would terminate should the state allow non-tribal casino-type gaming. According to the impartial analysis written by the State Legislative Analyst and Finance Director, the measure could result in a substantial increase in state revenues. DISCUSSION: If approved, and not ratified by all tribes within 90 days, Proposition 68 would authorize expansion of three existing racetrack and cardroom facilities within San Mateo County- Artichoke Joe's Casino in San Bruno, Lucky Chances Casino in Colma, and the Bay Meadows Racetrack in San Mateo. The measure would authorize up to 30,000 slot machines. A portion of the revenues from these additional operations would be paid first to a Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. After this initial distribution, the remaining monies would be allocated as follows: 50% to County Offices of Education to provide services for abuse~l and neglected children, 35% to local governments on a per capita basis for additional neighborhood sheriffs and police officers, and 15% to local governments on a per capita basis for additional firefighters. Proponents of 68 argue that the measure would require the tribes to pay their "fair share" of costs to the state for the operation of a gaming monopoly. Opponents argue that the requirement that the tribes ratify the measure within 90 days is structured to ensure failure, and allow for the expansion of 16 non-tribal gaming operations. Opponents also point to the loss of local governmental control over land use decision involving gambling operations, and to the social and economic impacts of expanded gambling operations. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County has prepared an analysis of additional collateral impacts of the measure if approved. Recent budget negotiations resulted in the suspension of Proposition 42 funds for budget year 2004-2005. Proposition 42 required the use of fuel sales tax proceeds for transportation projects instead of State General Fund expenses. The Governor has recently negotiated agreements with five Indian gaming Tribes to float a $1.214 billion bond to replace some of this lost funding earmarked for transportation projects. Specifically, the bond issuance would allocate $192 million for local streets, roads and infrastructural improvements. The bond issuance will only proceed if Propositions 68 and '70 are defeated in the November 2004 election. By: Gf~,2OJ[[') "[-, ~/~/[/'g/l{ Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney The City Council of San Mateo has expressed its opposition to both measures, citing the loss of local land use control and the social and economic impacts. ~arry~. Nagel?<Cit~r Enclosure: Resolution Opposing Propositions 68 and '70 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO N()VEMBER 2004. STATE PROPOSITIONS 68 AND 70 WHEREAS, Propositions 68 and 70 has been certified for inclu, sion on the November 2004 ballot; and WHEREAS, the measures if approved could result in a substantial expansion of non-tribal cardroom and racetrack gaming operations within San Mateo county in and in jurisdictions surrounding the City of South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, Proposition 42, passed in March of 2002, requires the use of fuel sales tax proceeds for transportation projects instead of State General Fund expenses; and WHEREAS, Proposition 42 funds are currently suspended pursuant to an agreement reached during 2003 state budget negotiations; and WHEREAS, in June of this year, the Governor and the Legislature approved agreements with five Indian gaming tribes to finance a $1.214 billion dollar bond to be used to repay some of these Proposition 42 funds and support other local transportation projects; and and WHEREAS, the agreements would allocate $192 million for local streets and roads projects; WHEREAS, the bond issuance is expressly conditioned on defeat of Propositions 68 and 70 in the November, 2004 election; and WHEREAS, California Cities are confronted with general fund deficits and have to look to alternative funding and revenue sources in order to address regional transportation and infrastructural projects; and WHEREAS, improvement of conditions for local streets and roads is a critical issue for both San Mateo County and the City of South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, passage of Propositions 68 and 70 would prevent $192 million currently allocated for local streets and roads projects from being used by local jurisdictions; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby expresses its opposition to State Propositions 68 and 70. 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 ,20__ by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Staff Report September 8, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 20.125, Requirements to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. AGENDA ITEM Inclusionary Housing RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 20.125, Inclusionary Housing Requirements to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is now ready for adoption. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.125, INCLUSIONARY HOUSiNG REQUIREMENTS TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE (Introduced 6-9-04 - Vote 5-0) Steven T. Mattas, City Attogey B~/~ ~ (' ~, ~~ a"rry N~gel, City l¥'l-anager Enclosure: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.12,5, INCI2JSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, at a duly noticed public h'earing, the City of South San Francisco adopted an updated General Plan; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing of the City Council on September 26, 2001, the City Council adopted Chapter 20.125, Inclusionary Housing Requirements; and WHEREAS, The City of South San Francisco certified the Housing Element of its General Plan on December 11, 2002. The certified Housing Element provides for the development of affordable, well designed and properly located residential housing for all economic sectors of the community in a manner which fosters and maintains the support of the entire community; and WHEREAS, staff has identified, through implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Requirements, certain areas that require clarification and proposed amendments to address those provisions requiring clarification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 5, 2004, recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20.125. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.125 Chapter 20.125, entitled "Inclusionary Housing Requirements" is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Project applications submitted but not yet approved by the governing body as of the Effective Date of this Ordinance shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.125 in effect at the time the project application was deemed complete. SECTION 2: PURPOSE To ensure that all residential developments provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including households of lower and moderate income. SECTION 3: FINDINGS Based on all evidence in the record, including but not lirnited to the testimony, staff reports and other oral and written material provided to the City Council at the duly noticed public hearing on May 26, 2004, the City Council makes the following findings: A. South San Francisco General Plan and Housing Element Appropriateness and Effectiveness of the Housing Element: In adopting the amendments to Chapter 20.125, the City of South San Francisco finds that the amendments further the Housing Element goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the State's housing goal in that: Housing Element A. Goals and Policies: Goal 1. Encourage a supply of housing units sufficient to assure each resident an attractive, healthful, safe environment within a wide range of designs, types, sizes, and prices. Goal 2. Continue to support the provision of housing by both the private and public sector for all income groups in the community. Policy 2A. Eliminate constrai~zts to c!~brdable housing. Policy 2B. Stimulate the construction of lower cost units by providing incentives and encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, and manufactured housing. Policy 2D. b~volve the City directly in retaining and increasing the supply of affordable housing. Policy 2E. Continue to coopera~e with other governmental agencies and take an active i~terest i~ seeki~g soltt~io~s to area-~'ide housi~g problems. Analysis: The above referenced policies support implementation of the proposed amendments as a means to achieve the goal of providing housing to all income levels and at various prices. The amendments clarify existing requirements as to income criteria, submittal of Affordable Housing Agreements and make other administrative amendments designed to streamline approval of residential development. Based on the foregoing, the amendments to the Inclusionary Ordinance are consistent with and further the goals established in the Housing Element of the City of South San Francis'co's General Plan. B. California Environmental Quality Act: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City Council declares that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following findings: This ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential fol' causing a significant effect on the environment. This ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. This ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure. This ordinance, therefore, h'as no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. For the reasons set forth herein, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore, the ordinance is not subject to CEQA. SECTION 4: SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5: PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days from and after its adoption. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City 0'f South San Francisco, held the __ day of ,2004, by the following vote: Adopted as an Ordinance of tine City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of ,2004. Mayor Chapter 20.125 Inclusionary Housing Requirements Sections: 20.125.010 20.125.020 20.125.030 20.125.035 20.125.040 20.125.050 20.125.070 20.125.080 20.125.090 20.125.100 20.125.110 20.125.120 20.125.130 20.125.140 20.125.150 20.125.155 20.125.160 20.125.165 20.125.170 Purpose and Intent Definitions Inclusionary Housing Requirement New Master Plans Or Specific Plans Affordable Housing Standards Calculating The Required Number Of Inclusionary Units Alternatives To New Inclusionary Units Combined Inclusionary Housing Projects Disposition Of Excess Inclusionary Units Offsets To The Cost Of Affordable Housing Development In-Lieu Fees Collection Of Fees Preliminary Project Application And Review Process Affordable Housing Agreement As A Condition Of Development Agreement Amendments Period of Affordability Pre-Existing Approvals Enforcement Savings Clause 20.125.010: Purpose and Intent The purpose and intent of this chapter is as follows: (a) The City's objective, as established by the housing element of the City's general plan, is to ensure that all residential development, including all master planned and specific planned communities and all residential development provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including households of lower and moderate income. It is the policy of the City to: (1) Require that a minimum of twenty (20%) percent of all ap'proved residential development consisting of four or more units be restricted to and affordable to lower-income households; subject to adjustment based on the granting of certain incentives; and, (2) Require that at least twenty percent (20%) of all new dwelling units be restricted to and affordable to low- or moderate-income households. Not less than forty percent (40%) of the affordable units, or eight percent (8%) of the total units, are to be restricted to and affordable to low-income households; and, (3) Require that all developments consisting of ten units or more shall provide the affordable units on-site, and, (4) Under certain conditions, allow alternatives to c.o. nstructing new affordable units onsite as a means of providing affordable units in the City; and, (5) For housing developments consisting of 4 to 9 units, allow Inclusionary requirements to be satisfied through the payment of an in-lieu fee as an alternative to requiring inclusionary units to be constructed. (b) It is the purpose of this chapter to implement the City's objectives and policies as stated in subsection (a). (c) Nothing in this chapter is intended to create a mandatory duty on the part of the City or its employees under the Government Tort Claims Act and no cause of action against the City or its employees is created by this chapter that would not arise independently of the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1303- 01, 2001) 20.125.020 Definitions. Whenever the following tenThS are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: (a) "Affordable housing" means housing for which the allowable housing expenses paid by a qualifying household shall not exceed thirty (30%) percent of the gross monthly income for Low-Income and Lower-Moderate, adjusted for household size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Income Limits. (b) "Affordable housing agreement" means a legally binding agreement between a developer and the City to ensure that the inclusionary requirements of this chapter are satisfied. The agreement establishes, among other things, the number of required inclusionary units, the unit sizes, location, affordability tenure, terms and conditions of affordability and unit production schedule. (c) "Allowable housing expense" means the total monthly or annual recun'ing expenses required of a household to obtain shelter. (1) For a for-sale unit, allowable housing expenses include loan principal and interest at the time of initial purchase by the homebuyer, allowances for property and mortgage insurance, property taxes, homeowners association dues and a reasonable allowance for utilities as defined by the Federal Regulations for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program. (2) For a rental unit, allowable housing expenses include rent and a utility allowance as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as all monthly payme/its made by the tenant to the lessor in connection with use and occupancy of a housing unit and land and facilities associated therewith, including any separately charged fees, utility charges, or service charges assessed by the lessor and payable by the tenant. (d) "Combined inclusionary housing project" means separate residential development sites which are linked by a contractual relationship such that some or all of the inclusionary units which are associated with one development site are produced and operated at a separate development site or sites. (e) "Conversion" means the change of status of a dwelling unit fi'om a purchased unit to a rental unit or vice versa. (f) "Density .. bonus (new residential construction) For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a density increase of at least twenty (20%) percent, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the developer, over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan as of the date of application by the developer to the City. The density bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of four more dwelling units that meet the requirements for a Density Bonus as established in Chapter 20.130. (g) "Financial assistance" means assistance to include, but not be limited to, the subsidization of fees, infrastructure, land costs, or construction costs, the use of redevelopment set-aside funds, community development block grant (CDBG) funds, or the provision of other direct financial hid in the form of cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation, by the City of South San Francisco. (h) "Incentives" means a reduction in the inclusionary housing requirement granted in Page 6 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC return for the provision of certain desired types of affordable housing or related amenities as determined by the City Council. (i) "Inclusionary housing project" means a new residential development or conversion of existing residential buildings which has at least twenty (20%) percent of the total units reserved and made affordable to lower-income households as required by this chapter. Of the 20%, at least 8% shall be affordable to persons of low-income and no more than 12% affordable to persons of low-to-moderate income as those terms are defined in this Chapter. (j) "Inclusionary unit" means a dwelling unit that will be offered for rent or sale exclusively to and which shall be affordable to lower-income households, as requ!red by this chapter. (k) "Income" means any monetary benefits that qualify as income in accordance with the criteria and procedures used by the City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development department. In addition to the income of a targeted group, limitations on assets may also be used as a factor in determining eligibility for rental or for sale units. (1) "Low-income household" means those households whose gross income is more than fifty percent (50%) but does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the unadjusted area median income for San Mateo County. (m) "Low-to-Moderate-Income household" means households whose gross income is between eighty-one percent (81%) and one hundred and twenty percent (120%) of the unadjusted area median income for San Mateo County. (n) "Median Income" means the median income earned by a household or family, adjusted by size, as published by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Page 7 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9~04.DOC (o) "Market-rate unit" means a dwelling unit where the rental rate or sales price is not restricted either by this chapter or by requirements imposed through other local, state, or federal affordable housing programs. (p) "Offsets" means concessions or assistance to include, but not be limited to, direct financial assistance, density increases, standards modifications or..any other financial, land use, or regulatory concession which would result in an identifiable cost reduction enabling the provision of affordable housing. (q) "Residential development" means any new residential construction of rental or for-sale units; or development revisions, including those with and without a master plan or specific plan, planned unit developments, site development plans, mobilehome developments and conversions of apartments to condominiums, as well as dwelling units for which the cost of shelter is included in a recurring payment for expenses, whether or not an initial lump sum fee is also required. (r) "Target income level" means the unadjusted income standards for extremely low, very low and low-income levels within San Mateo County adjusted for family size. (s) "Total residential units" means the total units approved by the final decision making authority. Total residential units are composed of both market rate units and inclusionary units. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.030 Inclusionary Housing Requirement. The inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter shall apply as follows: (a) This chapter shall apply to all residential market-rate dwelling units resulting from new construction of rental and "for-sale" projects consisting of four or more residential units, as well as the conversion of apartments to condominiums. (b) For any residential development or development revision of four or more units, not less than twenty (20%) percent of the total units approved shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to low-, and lower-moderate income households. (c) This chapter shall not apply to the following: (1) Existing residences which are altered, improved, restored, repaired, expanded or extended, provided that the number of units is not increased, except that this chapter shall pertain to the subdivision of land for the conversion of apartments to condominiums; (2) Conversion of a mobilehome park pursuant to Section 21.37.120 of the code; (3) The construction of a new residential structure which replaces a residential structure that was destroyed or demolished within two years prior to the approval of a building permit for the new residential structure, provided that the number of residential units is not increased from the number of residential units of the previously destroyed or demolished residential structure; (4) Second dwelling units not constructed to fulfill inclusionary housing requirements and developed in accordance with Section 20. of this code; (5) Those residential units which have obtained approval of a Vesting Tentative Map or a Development Agreement prior to the effective date of this ordinance, as set forth in Section 20.125.160 of this chapter. (Ord. 1303- 01, 2001) 20.125.035 New Residential Projects Applications for Planned Unit Development Permits, Tentative Maps, Vesting Tentative Map, and other land use entitlements that seek approval of a residential development project of four or more residential units shall submit an inclusionary housing plan as follows: (a) All applications approved on or after the effective date, or deemed complete on or after the effective date, of the ordinance codified in this chapter are required by this chapter to provide an Affordable Housing Agreement with the application for development. This Affordable Housing Agreement will include appropriate text, maps, tables, or figures to establish the basic framework for implementing the requirements of this chapter. It shall establish, at a minimum, but shall not be limited to, the following: (1) The number of market rate units in the master plan or specific plan; (2) The number of required inclusionary units for lower-income households in the project including the specific levels of affordability; (3) The designated sites for the location of the inclusionary units, including but not limited to any sites for locating offsite inclusionary housing projects or combined inclusionary housing projects; (4) An Affordable Housing Agreement shall be a condition of all future discretionary permits for the development area such as tentative maps, parcel maps, planned unit developments and site development plans. Al.1 relevant terms and conditions of the Affordable Housing Agreement shall be filed and recorded as a restriction on the Page 8 of 16 S:\Current Ord'sXinclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC project as a whole and those individual lots, units or projects which are designated as inclusionary units. The affordable housing agreement shall be consistent with Section 20.125.140 of this chapter. (b) The location and phasing of inclusionary dwelling units may be modified by the body granting final approval of the project as a condition of approval for the project. (c) All existing Planned Unit Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits, master plans or specific plans proposed for major amendment, pursuant to Section 20.87 of this code, shall incorporate into the amended master plan or specific plan document an inclusionary housing plan, consistent with this section of this chapter. (Ord 1303 -01, 2001) 20.125.040 Affordable Housing Standards. The affordable housing standards are as follows: (a) All residential developments are subject to and must satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter, notwithstanding a developer's request to process a residential development under other program requirements, laws or regulations, including but not limited to Chapter 20.130 (Residential Density Bonus) of this code. (b) Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, inclusionary units shall be built on the residential development project site. (c) The required inclusionary units shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units unless both the final decision-making authority of the City and developer agree within the affordable housing agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (d) Inclusionary rental units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for fifty-five (55) years. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary_in this chapter, no inclusionary unit shall be rented for an amount which exceeds ninety (90%) percent of the actual rent charged for a comparable market unit in the same development, if any. (e) The inclusionary for-sale units shall remain affordable for a term of fifty-five (55) years and said affordability term shall be filed and recorded as a restriction on those individual lots, units or projects which are designated as inclusionary units. After the initial sale of the inclusionary for-sale units at a price affordable to the target income level group, inclusionary for- sale units shall remain affordable to subsequent income eligible buyers pursuant to a resale restriction with a term of fifty-five (55) years. For-sale units may be sold at market price under the conditions in (f) through (h) of this section. (f) Base Resale Price: The price at which the Owner purchased the Affordable Unit shall be adiusted by the percentage increase or decrease in the median annual income at 100% of median of a family of four in San Mateo County. The percentage increase or decrease shall be computed for the period that the Affordable Unit is held by Owner. This adjusted price shall be increased by the market value, if any, of any documented, permanent capital real estate or fixed improvements approved by City. No price adiustrhent will be made except upon presentation to the City of written documentation of all expenditures made by Owner for which an adjustment is requested. The adjusted price shall be decreased by the amount necessary to repair any damages and to put the unit into a sellable condition, including items such as paint, cleaning, construction repairs, and to bring said unit into conformity with all applicable provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and the affordable housing guidelines established by the City. The value of price adjustments shall be reasonably determined by Page 9 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC the City. The resulting price shall be the Base Resale Price of the unit. (g) Upon resale of the unit, if the Affordable Unit is sold above the restricted affordable price during the fifty-five (55) year affordability term, the City will receive the difference between the Base Resale Price and the actual market sales price of the unit. (h) Funds recaptured by the City shall be used in assisting other eligible households with home purchases at affordable prices. To the extent possible, projects using for-sale units to satisfy inclusionary requirements shall be designed to be compatible with conventional mortgage financing programs including secondary market requirements. (i) Ideally, off-site inclusionary units should be located on sites that are in proximity to or will provide access to employment opportunities, urban services, or major roads or other transportation and commuter rail facilities and that are compatible with adjacent land uses. (j) The design of the inclusionary units shall be consistent with general plan standards; compatible with the design of the total project development in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality and conform to general plan standards; and, consistent with affordable housing development standards prepared by the Department of Economic and Community Development as adopted by the City Council. (k) Inclusionary projects shall provide a mix of number of bedrooms in the affordable dwelling units in response to affordable housing demand priorities of the City. Inclusionary projects shall provide a distribution of affordable units within the designated affordability range as follows: One third (33.3%) of lower income units shall be affordable to households between 50 and 60 percent of median income; one third (33.3%) of lower income units shall be affordable to households between 60 and 70 percent of median income; one third (33.3%) of lower income units shall be affordable to households between 70 and 80 percent of median income; and ofie third (33.3%) of lower-to- moderate income units shall be affordable to households between 80 and 90 percent of median income; and one third (33.3%) of lower-to- moderate income units shall be affordable to households between 90 and 100 percent of median income; one third (33.3%) of lower-to- moderate income units shall be affordable to households between 100 and 110 percent of median income. (1) No building permit shall be issued, nor any development approval granted for a development which does not meet the requirements of this chapter. No inclusionary unit shall be rented or sold except in accordance with this chapter. (Ord 1303 01 2001) 20.125.050 Calculating The Required Number Of Inclusionary Units. Subject to adjustments for incentives, the required number of lower-income inclusionary units shall be twenty (20%) percent of the total residential units, approved by the final decision- making authority. If the inclusionary units are to be provided within an offsite combined or other project, the required number of affordable inclusionary units shall be twenty (20%) percent of the total residential units to be provided both onsite and/or offsite. Subject to the maximum density permitted in the General Plan or granted by specific authorization of the Planning Commission or City Council. Fractional inclusionary units of .5 will be subject to payment of the in-lieu fee for the proportionate amount of the fractional unit. The in-lieu fee to be paid for each inclusionary dwelling unit shall be equal to the developer's Page 10 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC fractional costs of constructing a market rate unit in the proposed project, including land and improvements. 20.125.070 Alternatives To Constructing New Inclusionary Units. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of this chapter, at the sole discretion of the City Council, the City may determine that an alternative to the construction of new inclusionary units is acceptable. (a) The City Council may approve alternatives to the construction of new inclusionary units where the proposed alternative supports specific housing element policies and goals and assists the City in meeting its state housing requirements. (1) Such determination shall be based on findings that new construction would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship in light of such factors as project size, site constraints, market competition, price and product type disparity, developer capability, and financial subsidies available. Evidence must be submitted to the City Manager or his or her designee and included in the request for any waiver of the construction of new inclusionary units. (2) Alternatives may include, but are not limited to, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units, conversion of existing market units to affordable units, construction of special needs housing projects or programs (shelters, transitional housing, etc.), and the construction of second dwelling units. (b) Second dwelling units constructed to satisfy an inclusionary housing requirement shall be rent restricted to affordable rental rates, and renters shall be income-qualified, as specified in the applicable affordable housing agreement. In no event shall a developer be allowed to construct more than a total of fifteen (15) second dwelling units in any given development to satisfy an inclusionary requirement. (c) Contribution to a special needs housing project or program may also be an acceptable alternative based upon such findings. The requisite contribution shall be calculated in the same manner as an in-lieu fee per Section 20.125.110. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.080 Combined Inclusionary Housing Projects. An affordable 'housing requirement may be satisfied with offsite construction as follows: (a) When it can be demonstrated by a developer that the goals of this chapter and the City's housing element would be better served by allowing some or all of the inclusionary units associated with one residential project site to be produced and operated at an alternative site or sites, the resulting linked inclusionary project site(s) is a combined inclusionary housing project. (b) It is at the sole discretion of the City Council to authorize the residential site(s) which form a combined inclusionary housing project. (1) Such decision shall be based on findings that the combined project represents a more effective and feasible means of implementing this chapter and the goals of the City's housing element. (2) Factors to be weighed in this determination include: (A) the feasibility of the onsite option considering project size, site constraints; (B) competition from other projects; (C) difficulty in integrating due to significant price and product type disparity; and, Page 11 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC (D) lack of capacity of the onsite development entity to deliver affordable housing. Also to be considered are whether the offsite option offers greater feasibility and cost effectiveness, location advantages such as proximity to jobs, schools, transportation, and services, diminished impact on other existing developments, capacity of the development entity to deliver the project, and satisfaction of multiple developer obligations that would be difficult to satisfy with multiple projects. (c) All agreements between parties to form a combined inclusionary housing project shall be made a part of the affordable housing agreement required for the site(s), which affordable housing agreement(s) shall be approved by Council. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.090 Disposition of Excess Inclusionary Units. Inclusionary units created which exceed the final requirement for a project may, subject to City Council approval in the affordable housing agreement, be utilized by the developer to satisfy other inclusionary requirements for which it is obligated or market the units to other developers as a combined project subject to the requirements of Section 20.125.080. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.100 Offsets To The Cost Of Affordable Housing Development. The City shall consider making offsets available to developers when necessary to enable residential projects to provide a preferable product type or affordability in excess of the requirements of this chapter. (a) Offsets will be offered by the City to the extent that resources and programs for this purpose are available to the City and approved for such use by the City Council, and to the extent that the residential development, with the use of offsets, assists in achieving the City's housing goals. To the degree that the City makes available programs to provide offsets, developers may make application for such programs. (b) Evaluation 0~ requests for offsets shall be based on the effectiveness of the offsets in achieving a preferable product type and/or affordability objectives as set forth within the housing element; the capability of the development team; the reasonableness of development costs and justification of subsidy needs; and the extent to which other resources are used to leverage the requested offsets. (c) Nothing in this chapter establishes, directly or through implication, a right to receive any offsets from the City or any other party or agency to enable the developer to meet the obligations established by this chapter. (d) Projects are entitled to density bonuses and/or other incentives in accordance with provisions of state law, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.130.105 of this code. (e) Any offsets approved by the City Council and the housing affordability to be achieved by use of those offsets shall be set out within the affordable housing agreement pursuant to Section 20.130.140 or, at the City's discretion in a subsequent document. (f) Developers are encouraged to utilize local, state or federal assistance, when available, to meet the affordability standards set forth in Sections 20.125.030 and 20.125.040. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.110 In-lieu Fees. Payment of a fee in-lieu of construction of affordable units may be appropriate in the following circumstances: Page 12 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC (a) For any residential development or development revision consisting of four to nine units, the inclusionary requirements may be satisfied through the payment to the City of an in-lieu fee. (b) The in-lieu fee to be paid for each inclusionary dwelling unit shall be equal to the developers costs of constructing a market rate unit in the proposed project, including land and improvements. (c) In lieu-fees shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued for the development. (d) At the discretion of the City Council, where a developer is authorized to pay a fee in- lieu of development, an irrevocable dedication of land or other non-monetary contribution of a value not less than the sum of the otherwise required in-lieu fee may be accepted as an alternative to paying the in-lieu fee if it is determined that the non-monetary contribution will be effectual in furthering the goals and policies of the housing element and this chapter. The valuation of any land offered in-lieu shall be determined by an appraisal made by an agent mutually agreed upon by the City and the developer. Costs associated with the appraisal shall be borne by the developer. (e) Where a developer is authorized to pay a fee in-lieu of development of affordable housing units, any approvals shall be conditioned upon a requirement to pay the in-lieu fee in an amount established by the Chapter in effect at the time of payment. (f) An alternative to paying an in-lieu fee(s), inclusionary housing requirements may be satisfied either through a combined inclusionary housing project, pursuant to Section 20.125.080 of this chapter or new construction of inclusionary units subject to approval of the final decision-making authority. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.120 Collection Of Fees. All in-lieu fees collected hereunder shall be deposited in a housing trust fund. Said fund shall be administered by the City and shall be used only for the purpose of providing funding assistance for the provision of affordable housing and reasonable costs of administration consistent with the policies and programs contained in the housing element of the general plan. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.130 Preliminary Project Application And'Review Process. The preliminary project application/review process shall be as follows: (a) A developer of a residential development, proposing an inclusionary housing project shall have an approved site development plan prior to execution of an affordable housing agreement for the project. The developer may submit a preliminary application to the housing and redevelopment director prior to the submittal of any formal applications for such housing development. The preliminary application shall include the following information if applicable: (1) A brief description of the proposal including the number of inclusionary units proposed; (2) The zoning, general plan designations and assessors parcel number(s) of the project site; (3) A site plan, drawn to scale, which includes: building footprints, driveway and parking layout, building elevations, existing contours and proposed grading; and, (4) A letter identifying what specific offsets and/or adjustments are being requested of the Page 13 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC City. Justification for each request should also be included. (b) Within thirty days of receipt of the preliminary application by the planning director for projects not requesting offsets or incentive adjustments, or ninety days for projects requesting offsets or incentive adjustments the department shall provide to an applicant, a letter which identifies project issues of concern, the offsets and incentive adjustments that the City Manager or his or her designee can support when making a recommendation to the final decision- making authority, and the procedures for compliance with this chapter. The applicant shall also be provided with a copy of this chapter and related policies, the pertinent sections of the California codes to which reference is made in this chapter and all required application forms. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.140 Affordable Housing Agreement As A Condition Of Development. This chapter requires the following: (a) Developers subject to this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with this chapter by executing an affordable housing agreement prepared by the Department of Economic and Community Development Department and submitted to the developer for execution. Agreements which conform to the requirements of this section and which do not involve requests for offsets and/or incentives, other than those permitted by right, if any, shall be reviewed by the City Manager or his or her designee and approved by the City Manager or his or her designee. (b) Agreements which involve requests for offsets and/or incentives, other than those permitted by right, shall require the recommendation of the Department of Economic and Community Development and action by the City Council as the final decision-maker. (c) Following the approval and execution by all parties, the affordable housing agreement with approved site development plan shall be recorded against the entire development, including market-rate lots/units and the relevant terms and cofiditions therefrom filed and subsequently recorded as a separate deed restriction or regulatory agreement on the affordable project individual lots or units of property which are designated for the location of affordable units. (d) The approval and execution of the affordable housing agreement shall take place prior to final map approval and shall be recorded upon final map recordation or, where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for such lots/units. (e) The affordable housing agreement may require that more specific project and/or unit restrictions be recorded at a future time. (f) The affordable housing agreement shall provide that the project applicant pay an administrative fee to reimburse the City for all administrative/processing costs and fees incurred in processing the affordable housing plan and implementing the requirements of this Chapter on a project specific basis. The City may waive the administrative fee as an incentive or off-set for the provision of affordable units. (g) The affordable housing agreement shall bind all future owners and successors in interest for the term of years specified therein. (h) An affordable housing agreement, for which the inclusionary housing requirement will be satisfied through new construction of inclusionary units, either onsite or offsite, shall establish, but not be limited to, the following: (1) The number of inclusionary dwelling units proposed;' with specific calculations Page 14 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC detailing the application of any incentive adjustment credit; (2) The unit square footage, and number of bedrooms; (3) The proposed location of the inclusionary units; (4) Amenities and services provided, such as daycare, after school programs, transportation, job training/employment services and recreation; (5) Level and tenure of affordability for inclusionary units; (6) Schedule for production of dwelling units; (7) Approved offsets provided by the City; (8) Where applicable, requirements for other documents to be approved by the City, such as marketing, leasing and management plans; financial assistance/loan documents; resale agreements; and monitoring and compliance plans; (9) Where applicable, identification of the affordable housing developer and agreements specifying their role and relationship to the project. (10) An affordable housing agreement, for which the inclusionary housing requirement will be satisfied through payment to the City of any in-lieu contributions other than fee monies, such as land dedication, shall include the method of determination, schedule and value of total in- lieu contributions. (11) An affordable housing agreement will not be required for projects which will be satisfying their inclusionary housing requirement through payment to the City of an in-lieu fee unless the applicant requests payment options not provided by this Chapter. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.150 Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to an affordable housing agreement shall be processed in the same manner as an original application for approval, except as authorized in Section 20.125.035 (c). 20.125.155 Period of Affordability The City or its designee shall have a first right of refusal to purchase affordable units offered for sale during the tenure of affordability. The first right of refusal .to purchase the affordable unit shall be submitted in writing to the Director of the Department of Economic and Community Development. Within ninety days of its receipt, the City shall indicate its intent to exercise the first right of refusal for the purpose of providing affordable housing. (Ord 1303 - 01, 2001) 20.125.160 Pre-existing Approvals. The following projects shall not be subject to requirements of the ordinance codified in this chapter. (a) Any residential developments for which an application for a vesting tentative map has been deemed complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance, unless otherwise authorized by law. (b) Any pr0~ject subject to an executed development agreement when the effective date of the agreement is prior to the effective date of this ordinance or the development agreement contains the affordability requirements of this Chapter. (Ord 1303 -01, 2001) 20.125.165 Enforcement. Enforcement provisions are as follows: Page !5 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC (a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all developers and their agents, successors and assigns proposing a residential development governed by this chapter. No building permit or occupancy permit shall be issued, nor any entitlement granted, for a project which is not exempt and does not meet the requirements of this chapter. All inclusionary units shall be rented or owned in accordance with this chapter. (b) The developer and its agents, successors and assigns shall annually certify tenants as to the income eligibility for occupancy of Below Market Rate Rental Units and the annual certification shall be submitted to the Department of Economic and Community Development. If Developer and its agents, successors and assigns fail to perform an annual certification, developer shall be fined ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($ I000.00) for each Below Market Unit whose tenants were not subject to an annual certification. The City shall continue to fine developer an additional ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) for every thirty (30) day period for each Below Market Unit whose tenants have not been subject to an annual certification. City shall take steps to assess these fines as a lien against either the property where the Below Market Units are located or against the Project Property (c) If developer at any time fails to make available or to provide Below Market Rate Rental Unit at the required affordable rent levels, developer is subject to a fine of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500.00) for each Below Market Unit not provided pursuant to the affordable housing agreement. The City shall continue to fine Developer an additional TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500.00) for every thirty (30) day period after the initial fine for each Below Market Unit not provided pursuant to the affordable housing agreement. City shall take steps to assess these fines as a lien Page 16 of 16 S:\Current Ord's\inclusionary.ordinance.6-9-04.DOC against either the property where the Below Market Units are located or against the Project Property. (d) The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter, including but not limited to actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit or development approval. In the event the City must institute legal action to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, the City shall be entitled to recover its administrative costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in addition to any other remedy provided by the court. (e) Any individual who sells or rents a restricted unit in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be required to forfeit all monetary amounts so obtained. Such amounts shall be added to the City's housing trust fund. (Ord 1303 -01 2001) 20.125.170 Savings Clause. All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this chapter are rep.ealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are substantially the same as existing code provisions relating to the same subject matter shall be construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect, however, to violations, rights accrued, liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, under any chapter, ordinance, or pat of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability or appeal. (Ord 1303-01, 2001) Staff Report AGENDA ITEM DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Library Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $23,422 IN GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP'S COMMUNITY HEALTH INITIATIVE AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2004/2005 BUDGET #5 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution accepting a grant in the amount of $23,422 from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency to fund South San Francisco Community Partnership's Community Health Initiative and amending the Library Department's 2004/2005 budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The South San Francisco Community Partnership (SSFCP) is a partnership between the City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo County Health Services Agency and Human Services Agency, community-based agencies and commtmity members, and is administered by the Library. The San Mateo County Health Services Agency has awarded the Partnership $23,422 to continue to work on outcomes related to improving resident health and quality of life and to assist in identifying and applying for grants that meet these goals. This funding will support the Healthy Community Coordinator's salary through December 2004 as well as support grant-writing assistance for grant proposals that will allow us to continue work on the Partnership's Community Health Initiative. FUNDING The funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. $17,422 is to be applied towards staffing and $6,000 towards grant writing assistance. Funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2004/2005 will be carried over into fiscal year 2005/2006. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycle. Valerie Sommer Library Director By: City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,422 FROM THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY TO FUND SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP'S COMMUNITY HEALTH INITIATIVE AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2004/2005 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of a grant in the amount of $23,422 from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency to fund South San Francisco Community Partnership's Community Health Initiative; and WHEREAS, $17,422 is to be applied towards staffing and $6,000 towards grant writing assistance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts a grant in the amount of $23,422 from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency to fund South San Francisco Community Partnership's Community Initiative and amends the Library Department's 2004/2005 Operating Budget to add these funds to the Library Department's budget. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ., 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: S:\Current Reso's\8-11-04Library.community.health.initiative-res.doc City Clerk Staff Report AGENDAITEM DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Library Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF TWO LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY ACT (LSTA) GRANTS 1N THE AMOUNT OF $13,000 AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2004/2005 OPERATING BUDGET. #6 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution accepting funding in the amount of $13,000 for two Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grants and amend the Library Department's 2004/2005 operating budget. BACKGROUND Two LSTA grants have been awarded by the California State Library to fund collections and services at Grand Avenue Library. As part of the California State Library's Global Languages Materials grant program, Grand Avenue Library has been awarded $6,000 to purchase books and audiovisual materials in Spanish to supplement and enhance the Library's collection. Per grant guidelines, "grant funds may be used for the purchase of non-English or bilingual adult and children's materials in any format, provided it serves the informational or recreational needs of the targeted immigrant population" and "successful applicants are required to obtain input from the targeted immigrant community or communities regarding the nature of the materials to be acquired under this grant." In addition, Grand Avenue Library has been awarded $7,000 to participate in the California State Library's Services for Small Businesses in a Box grant program. This program is intended to assist libraries in addressing information needs of local small businesses by providing a "solution in a box." The package consists of business-oriented online database subscriptions for in-library and at- home use, customizable Web pages and promotional materials, speakers for Library programs, training for library staff to conduct a "community scan" of business information needs, as well as funding to purchase materials to develop the business collection. The Grand Avenue Library was selected due to the significant number of small businesses within walking distance of the library, the weak state of the business collection, and current Branch and Community Learning Center outreach efforts to the downtown business community. Staff Report Subject: Acceptance of $13,000 in LSTA grant funding to support the Library Department Page 2 FUNDING: These grant funds will augment the Library Department's budget for fiscal year 2004/2005. Funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2004/2005 will be carried over into fiscal year 2005/2006. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding after the close o/~ grant By: ~I~,, ~/~"x, Approved: Valerie Sommer _L/~'~ Barry M. Nagel Library Director /'~ City Manager Attachments: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,000 FOR TVqO LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY ACT (LSTA) GRANTS AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2004/200,5 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $13,000 to support South San Francisco Public Library programs; and WHEREAS, as part of the California State Library's Global Languages Materials grant program, Grand Avenue Library has been awarded $6,000 to purchase books and audiovisual materials in Spanish to supplement and enhance the Library's collection; and WHEREAS, in addition, Grand Avenue Library has been awarded $7,000 to participate in the California State Library's Services for Small Businesses in a Box grant program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $13,000 to support South San Francisco Public Library programs and amends the 2004/2005 Operating Budget to add these grant funds to the Library Department's budget. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ., 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Current Reso's\8-11-041ibrary. LSTA.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works BEACON STREET STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT ENGINEERING FILE SD-00-1, PROJECT NO. 51 - 13231-0008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract for the Beacon Street Storm Drain Replacement to Northwest Construction of Buflingame, California, in the amount of $154,240.00. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project will replace the existing storm drain on the north portion of Beacon Street in order to reduce local flooding during the wet season. A portion of the existing line has settled over the years and has a severe V-dip in the line between two drain inlets. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was prepared for this project and was advertised. The city received three responses to the RFP. The following proposals were received: CONTRACTOR Northwest Construction Burlingame, CA Casey Construction Emerald Hills, CA D & D Pipelines San Francisco, CA BID AMOUNT $154,240.00 $167,674.00 $195,000.00 Engineer's Estimate $167,000.00 Staff Report TO: RE: DATE: The Honorable Mayor and City Council BEACON STREET STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT September 8, 2004 PAGE: 2 of 2 Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of the Iow bidder and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Northwest Construction in the amount of $154,240.00. The following is a breakdown of the project budget: Construction Contingencies (8%) Construction Inspection/Administration $154,240.00 $ 12,260.00 $ 10,500.00 Total $177,000.00 Construction is expected to start in the middle of October 2004 and be completed by the end of November 2004. FUNDING: This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51-13231-0008) in the amount of $184,000.00. Terry White Director of Public Works Approved Byt~t~. ~ (~'~ kB~y-l~.'Nagel (-- -- City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Location Map RTH/TW G:kPROJECTS\SD-00-1 Beacon ST. Storm\awardstaffreport.doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RES()L[IT1ON AWARDING A CONS 1 R[ C 1 iON CONTRACT TO NOI>,THWEST CONSTRUCTION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEEI) $1,54.,240 FOR THE BEACON STREET STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT PRQ|ECT WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Northwest Construction in an amount not to exceed $154,240 for the Beacon Street Storm Drain Replacement Project; and WHEREAS, the project is included in the City of South San Francisco's Capital Improvement Program budget in the amount of $184,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a construction contract to Northwest Construction in an amount not to exceed $154,240 for the Beacon Street Storm Drain Replacement 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: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\9-8-04beacon.street.rcs.doc \ \ \ AGENDA ITEM Staff Re orr #8 DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP NO. 02-0088, FAIRFIELD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LLC. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the offer of dedications for a public street and public use easements for sidewalk purposes, approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Fairfield South San Francisco, LLC for the improvement of McLellan Drive as shown on Parcel Map 02-0088, and authorize the recordation of the map, the agreement, and any related documents. BACKGROUND/DISSCUSSION: The City Engineer and the city's technical reviewer, with the concurrence of all affected city departments and divisions, have determined that Parcel Map 02-0088, the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, McLellan Drive Public Improvement Plans, and related documents, are in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the city's Subdivision Ordinance and all applicable tentative map conditions of approval for the Fairfield Transit Village. The Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement have been signed by the Subdivider. Parcel Map 02-0088 subdivides the property into three parcels and dedicates McLellan Drive for public street purposes. Parcels 1 and 3 are for the apartment complex and Parcel 2 is for a retail establishment. The public use easement dedications are along E1 Camino Real fronting the parcels. The developer will be constructing street improvements on McLellan Drive between E1 Camino Real and the BART access road. The improvement work is secured by the attached Subdivision Improvement Agreement and a $600,000 bond. Staff Report SLrBJECT: PARCEL MAP NO. 02-0088, FAIRFIELD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LLC. Page 2 CONCLUSSION: The recommended motion will accept the easement dedications, approve the Public Improvement Agreement, and authorize recordation of the Parcel Map. BY:M~ Assistant City Managbr--~ "'~arr~ i'(agel City Manager Attachments: Final Map Location Map Improvement Agreement DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ~ 5HE~ 1 PARCEL MAP NO. 02-0088 FAIRFIELD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LLC PROJECT SITE MAP OWNER'S STATEMENT THE UNDERSIGNED, WHO ACQUIRED TITLE UNDER THE NAME OF FAIRFIELD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LLC. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DOES HEREBY STATE T)HATT] THEY APE THE OWNERS OF OR HAVE SOME RIGHT. TITLE OR INTEREST IN ~ND TO HE REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BOUNDARY SHOWN UPON THE HEREIN EMBODIED MAP ENTITL£D 'PARCEL MAP O2-00~~, BEING A PORTION OF PAPCEL A OF LOT LiNE ADJUSTMENT NO, 19 RECORDED AS 0OCUMENT NO. 2000-067586 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATE0 COUNTY, AND LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FR~CISCO. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA', BY VIRTUE OF THE GRANT OEED RECORDED APRIL 22, 2004, AS RECORDER'S SERIES NO. 2004-078748 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, CONSISTING OF ~ (2) SHEETS. THIS STATEMENT BEING UPON SHEET ONE (1) THEREOF; THAT WE APE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS CLE/AR TITLE TO SAID REAL PRO~JERTY; THAT THIS i~ SHOWS OR NOTES ALL EASEMENTS. EXISTING OR OF RECORD. WITHIN THE BOUNDARY UNES OF THE HEREIN EMBODIED MAP, AND THAT WE ~HE~ CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION A~O FILING OF THIS WP 1 WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CiTY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. THE AREA SHOWN ON THE MAP AS 'MCLELLAN DRIVE", FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 2 W~ ALSO HEREBY DEDICATE TO PUBLIC USE EASEMENTS FOR SIDEWALK PURPOSES AND ~PPURTENANCES THERETO AND THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL. USE, REPAIR, REPLACE AND MAJNTAJN A PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON OR OVER THOSE CEJ~FAIN STRIPS OF L~ND DESIGNATE0 AND DELINEATED AS 'SE' (SIDEWALK EA-~EMENT). THERE APE ALSO SHOWN ON THE HEREIN MAP EASEMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER PURPOSES, DESIGNATED AND DELINEATED AS "PSSE" (pRIVATE SANIT/~ SEWER EASEMENT) AND EASEMENTS FOR PRIVATE UTILITIES DESIGNATED AND DEUNEAT£O AS 'PRUE' (PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT) FOR INSTALlaTiON AND MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE SANITAPY SEWERS AND PRIVATE UTiLITiES, SAID EASEI~ENTS ARE NOT OFFERED NOR AR~ THEY ACCEPTED FOR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCtSCO. iN WITNESS THEREOF WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HAND HEREUNDER WRITTEN. OWNER: FNRFIELD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FF CALIFORNI~ HOUSING FUND LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ITS MANAGER FF PROPERTIES, iNC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS MANAGER TITLE ~L I~c~'J~r~ !~/?~-a~ ~__T_ ...... TRUSTEE: PRL~, iNC. OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF C~ OF P~CE ~ BUSJ~SS: 5~ ...... EXPt~TION ~T~Y'S coa~ss~oN No. LE_~Z~ .... CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I, s~v~ PAYNE, DITY CLERK OF THE Cl~( OF SOUTH SAN FRANDISCO, SAN MATED COUNTY. CAUFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CiTY COUNCIL OF SAID C~TY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BY A MOTION ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF SAID COUNCIL HELD ON THE .... DAY OF ....... 2004 D~D ACCEPT THE OFFERED DEDICATION, NUMBERS 1 AND 2 AS NOTED iN THE OWNER'S STATEMENT, FOR PUBLIC USE. DATED: ....... SYLVIA PAYNE, OTY CLERK CiTY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CML ENGINEER'S STATEMgNT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL LLC ON JULY 2004. I HEREBY STATE THAT THiS PAPCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY; THAT THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN; THAT ALL MONUMENTS APE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED. OR THAT THEY WILL 8E SET IN THOSE POSITIONS ON OR BEFORE JULY 2005; THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE. OR W~LL BE, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RFTRACED. Q CHARLES W. DAVlDSON, CIVIL ENDINEER R.CE, NO. 11960 EXPIRATION DATE; 3-31-07 TRUSTEE'S ACKNOWI.EDGMENT STATE OF ON _~_j_~_o2_/__. 20_O_.JBEFORE ME, THE J.LNDERSIG~'IE0, A NOTARYoPUBL~ IN OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE RE, SONIC) WHOSE NAMEOE THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/RCr~R/TH~R AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IL~). AND THAT BY HIS/HI~/TF~IR SIGNATURE(J) ON tHE I~ST[~IM[NT THE PERSON(~). OR THE NOTARY'S SIGNATURE: COUNTY OF PLAC£ OP BUC~S~ EXPIRATION OF NOTARY'S COMMISSION: SOILS REPORT A GEOTECHNJCAL REPORT FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS PR£PAR£D BY KLEINFELDER. INC DATED OCTOBER 1. 2002. A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN F)L£D WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DERAPTMENT OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. TECHNICAL REVIEWER'S STATEMENT THIS PARCEL MAP HAS BEEN REWIEWED AND FOUND TO BE TECHNICALLY CORRECT AN0 CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES. HUGH TON, L.S. 3g18 PR D SURVEYOR MY UC[NSE EXPIRES: 6/30/0~ DATED: CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND THAT THE SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN HEREON IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAblE AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF, AND THAT ALL THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 2 OF THE CALIFORNIA "SUBDIVISION MAP ACT" AND OF ANY LOCAL ORDINANCES APPLICABLE AT THE TiME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. DATE: ........... ACTING CITY ENGINEER CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA R.C.£. EXPIRATION DATE: COUNTY RECOROF-.R'S STATEMENT FILED THIS .... DAY OF ........... 2004 AT __.M, IN BOOK .... OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PA~;ES ____ THROUGH ..... INCLUSIVE, AT THE REQUEST OF CHARLES W DAViDSON CO. FiLE NO ........... FEE: ............ WARREN SLODUM, COUNTY RECORDER SAN MATED COUNTY. STATE OF CAUFORNIA BY ..................... DEPUTY PARCEL MAP 02-0088 BEINGA PORTION OF PARCEL A OF LOT LINE AOJUSTMENT NO.19 RECORDED AS DOCUMENTNO.2000-067586, SAN MATED COUNTYRECORDS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATED COUNI'Y CALIFORNIA JULY 2004 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 255 W JULIAN STREET, SUITE 200. SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS BASIS OF BEARINGS THE B¢-APJNG NG(T37'04'~ BETWEEN MONUMENTS X-544 AND X-545 AS CALCULATED FROM COORDINATES SHOWN ON THE CALTRAN$ MONUMENT MAP S-235.2 ANDROTATED TO LEGEND .... DISTINCTIVE ~0RDER LINE CURVE TABLE NO. DELTA RADIUS LENGTH c2t ~r~o'17" I *ooo J 49ee C~ ~'m'~' io,~ , c7 ~7'oe" *o.0o ~e.~'~ ~11 t36'49'594.8~ 79.~' C~2 ~S~'O0'2SO.00 i~l~ PARCEL 2 ~ I ~.2~ :~c. -- [--15' (SEE DETNL NO. BEARING )ISTANC~- L3 N 52'10'55' W i~.84 --~5S 56'09'27" E 13.3~., L9 S 8~20'54' W ~.O7 ~il 5 ~'20' W 50,29 LINE TABLE d,' / BART PARCEL D-3370-2 PARCEL 1 5.543 ±AC. LANDS OF CIT~ AND COUN~f OF SAN FRANCISCO LANDS OF SAN MATEO CouNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 487.12 N50'59' 9'W 487.09 R2) (_N52'10'5~'W)(~1)_ PARCEL 3 2.445 ~AC. m~ ~ X , ~ $83'20'34'W 49.68 NB4*29'28"E ¢g.Gg)(R2) =1'37'26" R=1266.50 L=3590 '20'34'W 6.62 '29'28"E 6 62)(R2) ~ / PER ~ ~2~-07a7~7 ~C. ~-~86 / PER 7912-0R-92~ ~ m0 2 1/4' ~ ~ ~ / 0~O~-'5~ %~ / iR2) JUDGMENT: ~N ~TEO COUN~ ~'" ~"~"~ ~ - ~ :~'~ ~ ~.s,~ omsm,ci vs. COSTCO . . . D~. ~ ~ iR3)~T~NS MONUMENT MAP 5-2332 DE'FAIL D O~TAIL A PARCEL MAP 02-0088 BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL A OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. lg RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 2000-067586. SAN MATED COUN1~f RECORDS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATED COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE:1" = 60' JULY 2004 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 255 W, JULIAN STREET, SUITE 200, SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND FAIRFIELD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, LLC FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF MCLELLAN DRIVE AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 02-0088 This AGREEMENT dated ., 2004, by and between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation, hereinafter designated "City," and Fairfield South San Francisco, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, hereinafter designated "Subdivider." RECITALS WHEREAS, Subdivider has presented to City for approval a parcel map, hereinafter designated "map," entitled Parcel Map 02-0008, which map dedicates McLellan Drive to the City for public street purposes; and WHEREAS, Subdivider has requested approval of the map prior to the construction and completion of improvements, including all streets, highways and public ways and public utility facilities which are a part of, or appurtenant to, the Subdivision designated in the map, all in accordance with, and as required by, the plans and specifications for all or any of the improvements in, appurtenant to, or outside the limits of the Subdivision, which plans and specifications are described in Exhibit "A" attached to and incorporated herein, hereinafter "plans" and are now on file in the Office of the City Engineer of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco on ,2004, adopted Resolution No. approving the map and accepting the dedications therein offered for street and highway purposes and public facility and utility easements, except for those dedicated to other agencies, persons, partnerships, associations or corporations, on the condition that Subdivider first enter into and execute this Agreement with City and meet the requirements of the Resolution; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is executed pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the approval of the maps and of the acceptance of the dedications and easements for street and highway purposes and public facility and utility easements therein offered, excepting those dedicated to other agencies, and in order to ensure satisfactory performance by Subdivider and Subdivider's obligations under the Subdivision Map Act and Title 19 of the Municipal Code the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Performance of Work Subdivider shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish or cause to be furnished, all labor supplies, equipment and materials, and do or cause to be done, in a good and workmanlike manner all of the improvements within and/or without and subdivision work described in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated. The cost of such improvements and required items of work is estimated to be Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 600,000.00). Subdivider shall also do all the work and shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all materials necessary in the opinion of the City Engineer to complete the improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications on file, or with any changes required or ordered by the City Engineer. 2. Places and Grades to be Fixed by City Engineer All of the work is to be done at the places, and with the necessary materials, in the manner and at the grades shown on the plans and specifications previously approved by the City Engineer and now on file in his office. All work shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. Time for Commencement and Performance City hereby fixes the time for the commencement of the work to be done on or before September 1, 2004, and for its completion to be within one (1) year thereafter. At least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the commencement of work hereunder, Subdivider shall notify the City Engineer in writing of the date fixed for commencement thereof, so that the City Engineer shall be able to provide inspection services. 4. Time of Essence - Extension Time is of the essence in this Agreement, provided that in the event good cause is shown, the City Engineer may extend the time for completion of the improvements hereunder. Any such extension may be granted without notice to Subdivider's sureties, and extensions so granted without notice to the Subdivider's sureties shall not relieve the sureties' liability on the bonds to secure the faithful performance of this Agreement and to assure payment of all persons performing labor and materials in connection with this Agreement. The City Engineer shall be the sole and final judge as to whether or not good cause has been shown to entitle Subdivider to an extension. 5. Repairs and Replacements Subdivider shall replace or have replaced, or repair or have repaired, all pipes and monuments which are destroyed or damaged, and Subdivider shall replace or have replaced, repair or have repaired, or pay to the owner the entire cost of replacement or repairs, of any and all property damaged or destroyed by reason of any work done hereunder, whether such property be owned by the United States or any agency thereof; by the State of California, or any agency or political subdivision thereof, or by any combination of such owners. Any such repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction, and subject to the approval of, the City Engineer or the corporation, person or agency. 6. Utility Deposits - Statement Subdivider shall file with the City Clerk, on or before October, 1,2004, a written statement signed by Subdivider and each public utility corporation involved, to the effect that Subdivider has made all deposits legally required by such public utility corporation for the connection of any and all public utilities to be supplied by such public utility corporation within the Subdivision. 7. Permits, Compliance with Law Subdivider shall, at Subdivider's sole cost and expense, obtain all necessary permits and licenses for the construction of improvements, give all necessary notices and pay all fees and taxes required by law. 8. Superintendence by Subdivider Subdivider shall personally supervise the work on the improvements, or have a construction contractor, competent foreman or superintendent on the work site at all times during construction, with authority to act for Subdivider. Subdivider shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer before using a construction contractor, competent foreman or superintendent to supervise work on the improvements. Prior to granting approval, the City Engineer shall determine that said construction contractor, competent foreman or superintendent to supervise is qualified to perform such duties. 9. Inspection by City Subdivider shall at all times maintain proper facilities, and shall provide safe access, for inspection by City, to all parts of the work and to the shops wherein the work is in preparation. 10. Contract Security (a) Concurrently with the execution hereof, Subdivider shall furnish: (1) a surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the construction and completion of the works and improvements described in Exhibit "A," as security for the faithful performance of this Agreement; and (2) a separate surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the construction and completion of the work and improvements described in Exhibit "A" as security for the payment of all persons performing labor and providing materials in connection with this Agreement. Subdivider shall require all subcontractors to file a labor and materials corporate surety bond as security for payment of all persons furnishing labor and materials in connection with this Agreement (b) The Subdivider may fulfill the requirements of subsection (a) of this section by providing a Standby Irrevocable Letter of Credit in favor of the City and in a form approved by the City Attorney. (c) Subdivider may also file a cash deposit with the City. 11. Hold Harmless Agreement (a) Subdivider shall hold harmless, indemnify and, at the City's request, defend City (with Counsel selected by City), its officers, employees, agents, boards and commissions, whether elected or appointed, from and against all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees or obligations, for or in connection with personal injury (including, but not limited to, death) or damage to property (both real and personal) which arises out of or is in any way connected with the negligent act, error or omission of Subdivider, its agents, contractors, subcontractors, or employees in connection with the performance of this Agreement. (b) In order to make certain that Subdivider has adequate resources to fully carry out its responsibilities pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, Subdivider shall file with the City proof that Subdivider's professional consultants (including any soils engineer or civil engineer) employed by Subdivider in connection with the work described herein, maintain professional liability (e.g. errors and omissions) insurance during the life of this Agreement. If the work is accomplished by contractors or subcontractors, Subdivider shall assure that the contractors and/or subcontractors carry such insurance. The insurance shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be reduced or canceled except upon thirty (30) days written notice to City and shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form, amount and carder. (c) The foregoing hold harmless statement of Subdivider shall apply to all damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the construction operations undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, regardless of whether or not City has approved the plans or specifications for the improvements, and regardless of whether or not such insurance policies have been determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages. 12. Subdivider's Insurance Subdivider shall not commence work under this Agreement until Subdivider has obtained all insurance required under this paragraph, and such insurance has been approved by the City Attorney as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall Subdivider allow any contractor or subcontractor to commence work until all similar insurance required of the contractor or subcontractor has been so obtained and approved. All requirements shall appear either in the body of the insurance policy or in endorsements and shall specifically bind the insurance carder. Subdivider shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement the following policies of insurance: (a) Worker's Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance in the statutory coverage. In signing this Agreement, Subdivider makes the following certification: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement." (b) Commercial General Liability Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for injuries including, but not limited to, death to any one person and subject to the same limit for each person; in an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. (c) Automobile Liability (Code 1 ~ Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (d) Contractual LiabiliW Insurance: Subdivider shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement an insurance policy in the amount of at least TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000), insuring Subdivider against damages sustained as a result of any action or actions at law or in equity, any claims or demands brought as a result of any breach or alleged breach of any contract, or provisions thereof, and/or as a result of any contractual liability, or alleged contractual liability arising out of any contract entered into by Subdivider and/or any of its agents or employees in order to perform the work defined herein. (e) It is agreed that the insurance required by Subsections (b), (c) and (d) shall be in an aggregate amount of not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) and shall be extended to include as additional insureds the City of South San Francisco, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers, with respect to operations performed by the Subdivider as described herein. Evidence of the insurance described above shall be provided to City upon execution of this Agreement and shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney as to tbrm, amount and carder. The policy of insurance shall also contain a provision indicating that such insurance shall not be reduced or canceled except upon thirty (30) days written notice to City. In addition, the following endorsement shall be made on the policy of insurance: "Notwithstanding any other provisions in this policy, the insurance afforded hereunder to the City of South San Francisco shall be primary as to any other insurance or reinsurance covering or available to the City of South San Francisco, and such other insurance or reinsurance shall not be required to contribute to any liability or loss until and unless the approximate limit of liability afforded hereunder is exhausted." 13. Evidence of Insurance Subdivider shall furnish City concurrently with the execution hereof, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required and evidence that each carder is required to give City at least thirty (30) days prior notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of any policy during the effective period of this Agreement. 14. Title to Improvements Title to, and ownership of, all improvements constructed hereunder by Subdivider shall vest absolutely in City, or to such other public agencies, persons, parmerships, associations or corporations to which dedications of easements were made or reserved upon the completion and acceptance of such improvements by City or the agency, person, partnership, association or co¢oration. 15. Repair or Reconstruction of Defective Work If, within a period of one year after final acceptance of the work performed under this Agreement, any structure or part of any structure furnished and/or installed or constructed, or caused to be installed or constructed by Subdivider, or any of the work done under this Agreement, fails to fulfill any of the requirements of this Agreement or the specifications referred to herein, or proves to be defective or become damaged because of differential settlement, action of the elements, or ordinary usage, except for catastrophic events, Subdivider shall without delay and without any cost'to City repair or replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the work or structure. Should Subdivider fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement, or should the exigencies of the case require repairs or replacements to be made before Subdivider can be notified, City may, at its option, make the necessary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work, and Subdivider shall pay to City the actual cost of such repair plus fifteen (15%) percent. Subdivider shall at the time of acceptance of the improvements by City or other public agency, provide the City with a corporate surety bond in the principal sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($ 60,000.00) to secure the undertaking and obligations set forth in this provision. 16. Subdivider not Agent of City Neither Subdivider nor any of Subdivider's agents or contractors shall be considered agents of City in connection with the performance of Subdivider's obligations under this Agreement. 17. Cost of Engineering and Inspection Subdivider shall pay City the actual cost to City for all inspections and other services furnished by City in connection with the construction of the above-required improvements, plus twenty-two percent thereof for administrative overhead. City shall furnish periodic statements of all charges for services performed by City, and Subdivider shall complete payment of such charges within ten (1 O) days after receipt thereof. 18. Notice of Breach and Default If Subdivider refuses or fails to obtain prosecution of the work, or any severable part thereof, with such diligence as will insure its completion within the time specified, or any extensions thereof, or fails to obtain completion of the work within such time, or if the Subdivider should be adjudged as bankrupt, or if Subdivider should make a general assignment for the benefit of Subdivider's creditors, or if a receiver should be appointed in the event of Subdivider's insolvency, or if Subdivider or any of Subdivider's contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees should violate any of the provisions of the Agreement, the City Engineer or City Manager may serve written notice upon Subdivider and Subdivider's sureties of breach of this Agreement, or of any portion thereof, and default of Subdivider. 19. Breach of Agreement; Performance by Sureties or City In the event of such notice, Subdivider's sureties shall have the duty to take over the work and complete the work and the improvement herein specified; provided, however, that if the sureties, within five (5) days after being served notice of such breach, do not give City written notice of their intention to take over the performance of the Agreement, and do not commence performance thereof within five (5) days after notice to the City of such election, City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract or by any other method City may deem advisable, for the account and at the expense of Subdivider, and Subdivider's sureties shall be liable to City for any excess cost or damages occasioned by City; and, in such event, City, without liability for so doing, may take possession of, and use in completing the work, such materials, appliances, plant and other property belonging to Subdivider as may be on site of the work and necessary therefor. 20. Erosion Control If applicable, Subdivider shall furnish landscape plans and adequately provide for erosion control. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City's Landscape Architect. 21. Trenching and Backfilling Subdivider shall require that all trenching and backfilling within and outside the property lines for utility lines, including sanitary, storm, water and any other purposes, shall be done under the inspection of a soils engineer who shall test the trenching and backfilling with a sufficient number of soil tests to secure the proper compaction. Subdivider shall further require that a certificate be filed with the City stating that said trenching and backfilling has been performed in accordance with the soils engineer's recommendations. 22. Water Lines Subdivider shall dedicate to the California Water Service Company the easements required for the water lines, facilities and appurtenant works, unless the lines, facilities and appurtenant works are to be installed within rights-of-way dedicated to the City. Subdivider shall construct and install, at its sole cost and expense, the improvements in the easements as set forth on the "Plans" shown in Exhibit "A," subject to the approval of the Company. 23. Notices All notices herein required shall be in writing, and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City Clerk City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Notices required to be given to Subdivider shall be addressed as follows: Fairfield South San Francisco, LLC 5510 Morehouse Dr., Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92121 Attn: Shon Finch Notices required to be given to sureties of Subdivider shall be addressed as follows: Insurance Company of the West 11455 E1 Camino Real San Diego, CA 92186 Attn: Mike Hall Any party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 24. As-Built Drawings Subdivider shall furnish City reproducible plastic film as-built drawings of the public improvements of a quality acceptable to the City Engineer together with a certification by Subdivider's engineer that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Subdivider shall furnish City with the as-built drawings concurrently with Subdivider's request for acceptance of the improvements by the City. 25. Parties Obligated Subdivider agrees that this Agreement shall bind Subdivider and Subdivider's successors in interest, heirs and assigns. 26. Attorneys' Fees If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 27. Governing Law The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. 28. Severabilit¥ If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation By: City Manager ATTEST: SUBDIVIDERS: FAIRFIELD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LLC, a California limited liability company By: FF California Housing Fund LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Manager By: FF Properties, Inc., a Delaware ~oration, its M anag~er'' By: ,~5'~,~Ed City Clerk G:\Parce~ M aps~arcelM aps2002\§UBIMPAGREE.RCH-DOC 10 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO On June 30, 2004, before me M. M. Rhinesmith, Notary Public Niun¢ rout Title of Ibc Officer- e ,g "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUB LIC' personally appeared Ed McCoy Name(~) of Signer01') ~ personally known to me - OR ?, ...... ~ , ..... ~ ,.~o;~ ^r o~,;~r~, ...... ;~ .... to be the person(~ whose name(~ is/aL subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s~i)e/thC~y executed the same in his/lt~/tfigir authorized capacity(i~), and that by his/l~r/tf4ieir signature(~) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the persons(~ acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY -OPTIONAL SECTION- CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER Though statute does not require the Nolac~ to fill in the date below, doing so may prove invaluable to persons relying on thc document [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER(s) TITLE(s) [] PARTNER$(S [] LIMITED [] GENERAL [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) OPTIONAL SECTION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Title or Type of Document: Subdivision Improvement Agreement- Fairfield South San Francisco LLC Number of Pages: thirteen Date of Document: undated Though the data requested here is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachrnent of this form Signer(s) Other Than Named Above EXHIBIT "A" IMPROVEMENTS AND REQUIRED ITEMS OF WORK FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF MCLELLAN DRIVE IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEDICATION OF MCLELLAN DRIVE AS A PUBLIC STREET, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 02-0088 Agreement dated The Subdivider shall construct, furnish and install all public improvements located within McLellan Drive, as shown on Parcel Map 02-0088, in accordance with the following plans, dated June 18, 2004, prepared by Charles W. Davidson Co., signed by Ray R. Bold (R.C.E. #14218) and all approved revisions thereof, and in accordance with the City of South San Francisco's Standard Plans and Specifications: "Public Improvements Plan, McLellan Drive, BART Transit Village", Sheet C 1 "Public Improvements Plan, McLellan Drive, Surface Improvements Plan", Sheet C2 "Public Improvements Plan, McLellan Drive, Street Light Circuitry Plan, Sheet C3 "Public Improvements Plan, McLellan Drive, Plan and Profile, Sheet C4 "Public Improvements Plan, McLellan Drive, Details, Sheet C5 The Subdivider shall construct, furnish and install all public landscape improvements located within McLellan Drive in accordance with the following plans, dated January 26, 2004, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2004, prepared by ima+design, signed by James M. Keenan (LLA #3899), and all approved revisions thereof, and in accordance with the City of South San Francisco's Standard Plans and Specifications: "Public Improvement Plans, McLellan Drive, "Public Improvement Plans, McLellan Drive, "Public ImProvement Plans, McLellan Drive, "Public Improvement Plans, McLellan Drive, "Public Improvement Plans, McLellan Drive, "Public Improvement Plans, McLellan Drive, "Public Improvement Plans, McLellan Drive, "Public Improvement Plans, McLellan Drive, Hardscape Construction Plan", Sheet L1 Construction Details, Sheet L2 Construction Details, Sheet L3 Irrigation Plan & Detail, Sheet L4 Irrigation Details, Sheet L5 Tree Planting Plan, Sheet L6 Shrub Planting Plan & Detail, Sheet L7 Tree Planting Plan, Sheet L8 3. The Subdivider shall construct, furnish and install all public traffic signal work located at 11 the McLellan Drive/Bart Access Road intersection, in accordance with the following plans, dated June 23, 2004, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., signed by Richard E. Ivy (RCE #21570) and all approved revisions thereof, and in accordance with the City of South San Francisco's Standard Plans and Specifications: "Traffic Signal Modification, McLellan Drive and BART Access Road", Sheet E-2 "Traffic Signal Modification, McLellan Drive and BART Access Road", Sheet E-3 "Pavement Delineation and Signing, McLellan Drive and BART Access Road", Sheet PD- 1 The Subdivider shall file complete "as-built", or "record", drawings of the plans listed above, and any other documents, plans or details, approved by the City Engineer, which supplement the approved plans, prior to final acceptance by the City Council of the work performed under this agreement. Said plans shall consist of the original tracings, or permanent plastic film transparencies of a quality which complies with the standards of the City of South San Francisco, as administered by the City Engineer and two paper prints. Approved: City Engineer Date: 12 Bond Number: 2126140 Premium: $5,400.00 Faithful Performance Bond Whereas, The City Council of the City of South San Francisco, State of California, and Fairfield South San Francisco LLC (hereinafter designated as "principal") have entered into an agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements, which said agreement, dated June 28, 2004, and identified as project IMPROVEMENT OF MCLELLAN DRIVE AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 02-0088, is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and Whereas, Said principal is required under the terms of said agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful perforn~ance of said agreement. Now, therefore, we, the principal and Insurance Company of the Wesgas surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of South San Francisco (hereinafter called "City"), in the penal sum of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indmnnify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the tcnus of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its ^~-':~~: .... ~:~ bond, and it does u,~,~. ......; ....,;,.,~ ,,r .... s,,ch ,-h~,,o,~ ,~¥t~-~i,~n UUIl~d. tl~llb 0~"1 tJlib of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agre.ement or to the work or to the specifications. In witness whereof, this instrument has been duly executed by the principal and surety above named, on June 28th Owner: Fairfield South San Francisco LLC, a California limited liability company By: FF California Housing Fund LLC} a Delaware limited liability company, its Manager By: FF Properties, In~, a Delaware corpo~fi'$n~,-.~s Manager Nmne: Ed McCoy~/~. ,2004. Surety: Insurance Company of the West 11455 E1 Camino Real San Diego,_~A ~2!86-5563 THomas .~ James Attorney-in-Fact No. 0001404 ICW GROUP Power of Attorney Insurance Company of the West The Explorer Insurance Company Independence Casualty and Surety Company KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Insurance Company of the West, a Corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California, The Explorer Insnrance Company, a Corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Arizoua, and Independence Casualty and Surety Company, a Corporation dnly organized under the laws of the State of Texas, (collectively referred to as the "Companies"), do hereby appoint THOMAS A. JAMES, MICHAEL H. PRADELS, DENNIS BORSENBERGER, GARY T. PETERSON their true and lawfifl Attorney(s)-iu-Fact with authority to date, execute, sign, seal, mad deliver on behalf of the Compauies, fidelity aud surety bonds, nndertakings, and other similar contracts of suretyship, and any related documents. In witness wheveol; the Companies have caused these presents to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 16th day of Jantlary, 2001. Jo~ H. Craig, Assistant Secretary INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST THE EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY INDEPENDENCE CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY John L. Hannnm, Executive Vice President State of California '~ SS. County of San Diego On December 5, 2003, before me, Mary Cobb, Notary Public, personally appeared Jotm L. Harmum and John H. Craig, personally lmown to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instnlment, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same ha their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instn~ment, the entity upon behalf of wtfich the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Mary Cobb, Notary Public RESOLUTIONS This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed, sealed and notarized with facsimile signatures and seals reader authority of the following resolutions adopted by the respective Boards of Directors of each of the Companies: "RESOLVED: That the President, an Executive or Senior Vice President of the Company, together with the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary, are hereby authorized to execute Powers of Attorney appointing the person(s) named as Attomey(s)-in-Fact to date, execute, sign, seal, and deliver on behalf of the Company, fidelity and surety bonds, undertakings, and other similar contracts of suretyship, and any related documents. RESOLVED FURTHER: Tbat the signatures of the officers making the appointment, and the signature of any officer certifying the validity and current status of the appointment, may be facsimile representations of those signatures; and the signature and seal of any notary, and the seal of the Company, may be facsimile representations of those signatures and seals, and such facsimile representations shall have the same force and effect as if manually affixed. The facsimile representations referred to herein may be affixed by stamping, printing, typing, or photocopying." CERTIFICATE 1, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary of Insurance Company of the West, The Explorer Insurance Company, and Independence Casualty and Surety Company, do hereby certify that the foregoing Power of Attorney is in full force and effect, and has not been revoked, and that the above resolutions were duly adopted by the respective Boards of Directors of the Companies, and are now in full force. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this 28 th day of June 200/4- John H. Craig, Assistant Secretary To verify the authenticity of this Power of Anomey you may call 1-800-877-t 111 and ask for the Surety Division. Please refer to the Power of Attorney Number, the above named individual(s) and details of the bond to which the power is attached. For information or filing claims, please contact Surety Claims, ICW Group, 11455 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130-2045 or call (858) 350-2400. I.C.W. GROUP Insurance Company of The West The Explorer Insurance Company Independence Casualty and Surety Company 11455 El Camino Real, San Diego. CA 92130-2045 P.O. BOX 85563, San Diego, CA 92186-5563 (858) 350-2400 FAX (858) 350-2707 www. icwgroup.com ? Bond Number: 2126140 Terrorism Risk Rider This rider addresses the requirements of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. In accordance with the above Act, we are providing this disclosure notice for all bonds on which one or more of the above identified companies is a surety. Coverage for certified acts of terrorism is included in the attached bond and will be partially reimbursed by the United States under a formula established by the Act. The United States will pay 90% of covered terrorism losses in excess of a statutory established deductible to the insurance company issuing the bond. In no way will the payment for loss on this bond exceed the limit of liability under this bond. ,"m-ds rider does not provide coverage for any 10ss that would otherwise be excluded by the terms of this bond. The portion of the premium~ for this bond, attributable ~to coverage for certified acts &terrorism under the Act is One Dollar ($!.00). Important Notice: The cost-of terrorism coverage is subject to change on any bond that premium is charged annually. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of San Diego On June 29, 2004 before me, Barbara Watson. NotaD, Public. appeared Thomas A. James, [] personally known to me -OR- [] proved to me on lhe basis of satisfaclory evidence lo be lhe person whose nalne is snbscribed to the wilhin instrument and acknowledged Io me that he executed the same in lfis authorized capacity and Ihat by his signature on the inslmmen! the person, or the enlily upon behalf of which the person acted, execnled the instrument. Signatu re of Notary l'hough the data below is not reqnired by law, it may prove valnable to persons relying on the docnment and could preven! fraudulent reattachment of tlfis form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER [] PARTNER (S) [] LIMITED [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE (S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER: SIGNER 1S REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) Thmnas A. James Perfornmnce/Payment Bond Timothy Mills Insurance Sen,. CA-ICW 24 (?/~¥1) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA -OPTIONAL SECTION- CAPACITY CLAIMED BY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SIGNER Though statute does not require the Notary to fill in the date below, doing so may prove invaluable to persons relying on the document On June 30, 2004, before me M. M. Rhinesmith, Notary Public Nm~e and Ti0e orfl,e OI/iccr- e.g "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" [] INDIVIDUAL personally appeared Ed McCoy [] CORPORATE OFFICER(s) Name(~) of Siomter(~ [~ personally known to me - OR ~ ...... n * ..... *'-~ *-~;~ of S~,;~rn~* ...... ;,~ .... to be the person(kO' whose name~) is/a~ TITLE(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that D P~TNeRS(S he/skeYtl~y executed the same in his/lker/thCeir authorized capacity(i~s), [] and that by his/h~/th~ir signaturd('s) on the instrument the person(~), or rn ATTOP~E¥-IN-FAC~r the entity upon behalf of which the persons(~) acted, executed the [] TRUSTEE(S) instrument. [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR WITNESS my hand and official seal. [] OTHER: REPRESENTING NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) SIGNATURE OF NOTARY ik~,~.~ ~ s~o~ocou~t THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Title or Type of Document: Faithful Performance Bond - Fairfield South San Francisco LLC Number of Pages: six Date of Document: June 28, 2004 Though the data requested here is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form Signer(s) Other Than Named Above ACORD. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE oP o D*TE,. 0D ) FAZe-4 / 06/16/04 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION )REDUCER ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR The Brants Company ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. =1600 West Seventh Street Fort Worth TX 76102-2505 Phone: 817-336-3030 Fax: 817-336-8257 iNSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# iNSURED INSURER A American Home Assu/ance Co. iNSURER B: National union Fize InSUrance INSURER C Fairfield Residential LLC 5510 Morehouse Drive Ste #200 INSURERD San Diego CA 92121 INSURERE COVERAGES THE POLiCiES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTVVITHSTANOING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WiTH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICAT~ MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAiD CLAIMS ~OLICY EFFECTIVEPOLICY EXPIRAIIbNLIMITS NS3~%OU'U POLICY NUMBER DATE (MM/DD/YY) DATE (MM/DD/¥Y) LTR NSRD TYPE OF INSURANCE EACH OCCURRENCE ~ 910 0 0 0 0 0 GENEP~L LIABILITY ~ U REN I ~--U -- PREMISES (Ea occurence) A X X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY GL4571658 10/01/03 12/01/04 u~u~ 950000 [] MED EXP (~ny one person) J CLAIMS MADE OCCUR PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1000000 X SIR $25000 -- GENERAL AGGREGATE ; 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 PRODUCTS- COMP/OP AGG $ 2000000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: I POLICY ~'--~PRO- ~---~ LOC JECT %UTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 10 0 0 0 0 0 A X ANYAU~O CA1468539/OS 10/01/03 12/01/04 (Eaaccident) -- BODILY INJURY $ ALL OWNED AUTOS (Per person) SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY 9 X ! HIRED AUTOS (Per accident) i XNON-OWNED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) AUTO ONLY ~ EA ACCIDENT$ GARAGE LIABILITY EA ACC $ ~_~ OTHER THAN ANy AUTO AUTO ONLY: AGO $ EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY B Z 'J OCCUR [] CLAIMSMADE BE3205228 10/01/03 12/01/04 %6GRECATE $ 25000000 X~ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION 910000 wc SlAlU- TORY LIMITS I ER I WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY E L EACH ACCIDENT ANy pROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? II yes, describe under EL. DISEASE - POLICY,]MIT $ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS Re: Solaire/South City, NW corner of E1 Camino Real & McClellan Dr South San Francisco, CA Named Insured is continued to read: Fairfield South San Francisco LLC See attachment for additional certificate holder information CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION CITYSA~ City of San Francisco DATE THEREOF, THEISSUINGINSURERYVILLENDEAVORTOMAIL 30 DAYSWRrrrEN S SF City Hall NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, Bt/r FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL Attn: Richard Harmon IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR P.O. Box 711 REPRESENTATIVES. South San Francisco CA 94083 AUTHOPJZE[~EP RES ENTATNE v ,. Ve""~ ~1 ~ ' ~5 ACORD CO$~DO$~ATION 4 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. Certificate holder is continued to read: The City and County of South San Francisco, and its Public Utilities Commission and its elective and appointed officers ,boards, commissions, agents, employees and volunteers with respect to operation performed by the permittees and is n~med as additional insured. In addition, the following endorsement shall be made on the policy of insurance: Notwithstanding any other provisions in this policy, the insurance afforded hereunder to the City and County of South San Francisco and it's Public Utilities Commission shall be primary as to any other insurance or reinsurance covering or available to the City and County of South San Francisco and its Public Utilities Commission and such other insurance or reinsurance shall not be required to contribute to any liability or loss, until and unless, the approximate limit of liability afforded hereunder is exhausted. I.C.W. GROUP [] INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST [] THE EX]PLORER INSURANCE COMPANY [] INDEPENDENCE CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY 11455 EL CAMINO REAL, SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 P.O. BOX 85563 SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5563 (858) 350-2400 FAX (858) 350-2707 ~vww.icwgroup. com LABOR AND MATERIAL PAYMENT BOND Subdivision Bond (California) Bond No.: 2126140 Premium: INCLUDED Whereas, The City of Sonth San Francisco, Slam of California (hereinafter designated as "Obligee"), and Fairfield Sonth San Francisco LLC (hereinafter designated as "Principal") have entered into an agreement whereby Principal agrees to install and complete cerlain designated pnblic improvemems, which said agreement, dated June 281h, 2004, and idenlified as project hnprovement of McLellan Drive as shown on Parcel Map 02-0088 is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and Whereas, under the terms of said agreement, Phncipal is reqnired, before enlering npon the performance of the work, to file a good and sufficient Payment Bond with the Obligee to secure the claims to which reference is made m Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the Slate of California. Now, therefore, said Principal and Insurance Company of the West (hereinafter designated as -Snrety") are held and firmly bound unto the Obligee and all contractors, snbcontmctors, laborers, nmtehahnen and other persons employed in the performance of tl~e aforesaid agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procednre in the snm of Six Hnndred Thousand dollars ($ 600,000.00 ), for materials fiirnished or labor the,'eon of any kind, or for amounts due nnder Ihe Unemployment lnsnmnce Act with respect to such work or labor, that said Surety will pay the'same in an arnotmt not exceeding lhe amonnt hemi,mbove set forth, and also in case suit is bronght npon this bond, xx;ill pay, in addition to the face amounl thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable atlorney's fees. incnrred by Obligee in successfidly elfforcing such obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the conrt, m~d to be taxed as costs and to be inclnded in the judgment therein rendered. It is hereby expressly sfipnlated and agreed that this bond shall inm'e to the benefit of any and all persons, compmfies and corporations entitled to file claims trader Title 15 (commencing witli Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns iii any suit brought upon this bond. Should the condition of this bond by fi~lly performed, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in fi~ll force ,'u~d effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, exlension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said agreement or the specifications accompm~ying die same shall in any maturer ,'fi'feet its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such chm~ge, extension, alteration or addition. In witness whereof, lhis instnnnent has been duly execnted by the Principal and Snrety above named, on Jnne 28th, 2004. Attest or Wimess: By: '~:; - '~-"~N (Seal) FAIRFIELD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LLC Tho 7' Attorney In cact CA-ICW 47 No. 0001404 1CW GROUP Power of Attorney Insurance Company of the West The Explorer Insurance Company Independence Casualty and Surety Company KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Insurance Company of the West, a Corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California, The Explorer Insurance Company, a Corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Arizona, and Independence Casualty and Surety Company, a Corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Texas, (collectively referred to as the "Companies"), do hereby appoint THOMAS A. JAMES, MICHAEL H. PRADELS~ DENNIS BORSENBERGER, GARY T. PETERSON their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact with anthority to date, execute, sign, seal, and deliver on behal fofthe Coinpauies, fidelity and surety bonds, undertakings, and other similar contracts of suretyship, and any related documents. In wimess whereof, the Cc, mpanies have cansed these presents to be executed by its duly Jo~ H. Craig, Assistant Secretary authorized officers this 16th day of January, 2001. INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST THE EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY INDEPENDENCE CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY Jotm L. Hannum, Executive Vice President State of Califomia '1, ss. County of San Diego On December 5, 2003, before me, Mary Cobb, Notary Public, personally appeared Jolm L. Hannum and John H. Craig, personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acka~owledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument, the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Mary Cobb Notary Public RESOLUTIONS This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed, sealed and notarized with facsimile signatures and seals under authority of the following resolutions adopted by the respective Boards of Directors of each of the Companies: "RESOLVED: That the President, an Executive or Senior Vice President of the Company, together with the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary, are hereby authorized to execute Powers of Attorney appointing the person(s) named as Attorney(s)-in-Fact to date, execute, sign, seal, and deliver on behalf of the Company, fidelity and surety bonds, undertakings, m~d other similar contracts of suretyship, and any related documents. RESOLVED FURTHER: That the signatures of the officers making the appointment, and the signature of any officer certifying the validity and current status of the appointment, may be facsimile representations of those signatures; and the signature and seal of any notary, and the seal of the Company, may be facsimile representations of those signatures and seals, and such facsimile representations shall have the same force and effect as if manually affixed. The facsimile representations referred to herein may be affixed by stamping, printing, typing, or photocopying." CERTIFICATE 1, the tmdersigned, Assistant Secretary of Insurance Company of the West, The Explorer Insurance Company, and Independence Casualty and Sttrety Company, do hereby certify that the foregoing Power of Attorney is in full rome and effect, and has not been revoked, and that the above resolutions were duly adopted by the respective Boards of Directors of the Companies, and are now in full force. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set ]ny hand this 28 th day of June 2004 John H. Craig, Assistant Secretary To verify the authenticity of this Power of Attorney you may call 1-800-877-] 111 and ask for the Surety Division. Please refer to the Power of Attomey Number, the above named individual(s) and details of the bond to which the power is attached. For information or filing claims, please contact Surety Claims, ICW Group, 11455 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130-2045 or call (858) 350-2400. I.C.W. GROUP Insurance Company of The West The Explorer Insurance Company Independence Casualty and Surety Company 11455 E1 Camino Real: San Diego. CA 92130-2045 P.O. BOX 8'~563, San Diego; CA 92186-5563 (858) 350-2400 FAX (858) 350-2707 ~'.icwgroup.com Bond Number: 2126140 Terrorism Risk Rider This rider addresses the requirements of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. In accordance with the above Act, we are providing this disclosure notice for all bonds on which one or more of the above identified companies is a surety. Coverage for certified acts of terrorism is included in the attached bond and will be partially reimbursed by the United States under a formula established by the Act. The United States will pay 90% of covered terrorism losses in excess of a statutory established deductible to the insurance company issuing the bond. In no way will the payment for loss on this bond exceed the limit of liability under this bond. This rider does not provide coverage for -,my Ioss that would otherwise be excluded by the terms of this bond. The portion of the premium, for this bond, attributable Io coverage for certified acts of terrorism under the Act is One Dollar ($1.00l -' Important Notice: The cost-of terrorism coverage is subject to change on any bond that premium is charged annually. : CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of San Diego On Jnne 29, 2004 before me, Barbara Watson, Notary Public, )ersonally appeared Tbomas A. James, personally known to me -OR- [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactmy evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged Io me that he executed the same in his aulhorized capacity and lbat by his signature on the ins~nm~enl the person, or the entity upon behalf of xvhich the person acted, execmed the instrument. ~'k~ ~,Di~oCoum,/ __ [. WlTN[.S.3,!!:ty_hA~d and official seal. Signature of Notary Fhough the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudtflent reattachment of tltis form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER [] PARTNER (S) [] LIMITED [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE (S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) Thomas A. James Performance/Payment Bond Timothy Mills Insurance Serv. CA-ICW 24 (7/00) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA -OPTIONAL SECTION- CAPACITY CLAIMED BY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SIGNER in the date Ix:low, doing so may prove invaluable to persons relying on the document On June 30, 2004, before me M. M. Rhinesmith, Nota~ Public ~/aa,c~dTidcorU~cOnlcer-cg "JANE DOE, NOTARY P~L1C" ~ ~DWlDUAL personally appeared Ed McCoy a CO~O~TE OFFiCER(s) Name~ of Sip~er~ ~personally ~own to me OR ~ ...... ~ , ..... ,~ ~:~ ~r = / /a~ TITLE(s) ~,;oC~.* ...... :a ..... to be the person¢) whose name~ is e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that =p~z~s(s aUM~Tm he/~/~y executed the same in his/~r/~eir authorized capacity(i~s), and that by his/~/t~ir si~ature~ on the instrument the person(~, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons(~) acted, executed the instrument. ~ GUA~I~/CONSERVATOR WIT~SS my hand ~d official seal. ~ OTHER: ~P~SENTING NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) 31GNATU~ OF NOT~Y ~ OPTIONAL SECTION THIS CERT~ICATE MUST BE A~ACHED TO THE DOCUMENT D~C~ED AT ~GHT: Title or T~e of D~ument: ~bor and Material Pa~ent Bond - Fairfield South San Francisco LLC Number of Pages: five Date of Document: June 28, 2004 Though the ~ta requested h~e is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattach~nt ofth~ fo~ Sider(s) Other ~an Named Above Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #9 DATE: September 8, 2004 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON MAGNOLIA AVENUE AT COMMERCIAL AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the installation of two-way stop signs on Magnolia Avenue at Commercial Avenue. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Staff received a request to review the intersection of Commercial Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. Currently, there are existing stop signs on Commercial Avenue and none on Magnolia Avenue. Our Traffic Consultant, RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, evaluated the intersection and determined that an all-way stop was warranted at this location. The Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed this request at its July and August meetings and determined that a two-way stop sign should be installed on Magnolia Avenue at Commercial Avenue. The existing red curbs along Magnolia Avenue would be reduced to allow additional parking for the area. Please refer to Exhibit 1 for the vicinity of the intersection and Exhibit 2 as it displays the existing condition and the proposed recommendation for the installation of a stop sign. FUNDING: No additional funding would be necessary to install the stop signs at this location. The stop signs and poles are in stock with the Street Maintenance Division and the time used to install the signs and pavement markings would be charged to general street maintenance. By: [/~~ ~ Approved By: 'Malty Van DuyTn- Assistant City Mark~er Attachments: Resolution Vicinity Map - Exhibit 1 Location Map - Exhibit 2 City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO-WAY STOP SIGNS ON MAGNOLIA AVENUE AT COMMERCIAL AVENUE WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of the installation of two-way stop signs on Magnolia Avenue at Commercial Avenue; and WHEREAS, no additional funding would be necessary to install the stop signs at this location; and WHEREAS, the stop signs and poles are in stock with the Maintenance Division and the time used to install the signs and pavement markings would be changed to general street maintenance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the installation of two-way stop signs on Magnolia Avenue at Commercial Avenue. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\9-8-04stop.signs.res.doc EXHIBIT I EXISTING NEW STOP SIGN INSTALLATION COM M ~ f::~ C IAL STOP < r~r-~v,u~'E RED CURB PAINT PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AVE. AT MAGNOLIA AVE. ....... :RED CURB PAINT t R1 : STANDARD 36" STOP SIGN MOUNTED ON A 2" DIA. POLE EXHIBIT 2 StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #10 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works NEW METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING INSTALLATION PROJECT NO. 51-13231-0502 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract to M. Bumgamer, Inc. of Livermore, California in the amount not to exceed $50,000.00 for the New Metal Beam Guard Railing Installation Project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project will install new metal beam guard railing along segments on the east side of Junipero Serra Boulevard from King Drive to Hickey Boulevard and small a segment on south side of Hickey Boulevard from Junipero Serra Boulevard toward Hilton Avenue. City forces will mark the areas where the contractor will install the new guard railing. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was prepared for this project and was advertised. City received only 1 response to the RFP and the City decided to accept the RFP response since unit rate quoted of $21.40 per linear foot was much lower than expected unit rate of approximately $32.00. Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of M. Bumgamer, Inc. and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to M. Bumgamer, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $50,000.00. Construction is expected to start by the middle of September 2004 and will be completed by the end of October. FUNDING: This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51-13231-0502) in the amount of $50,000.00. To~ Re: Date: Page: Staff Report The Honorable Mayor and City Council New Metal Beam Guard Railing Installation September 8, 2004 2 of 2 'Terry White (-~ Director of Public Works Approve~t /C(' ~-B~.~'Nagel City Manager' ATTACHMENT: Resolution RTH/TW G:LPROJECTmetal beam guardrail~awardstaffreport.doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RES()L[ !TI() N A\¥ARDING A CONSTRU CTI ON CONTRACT TO M. BtiMGARNER, INC. IN AN A~4OIINT NOT TO EXCEED $.50,000 F()R THE NE\¥ METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING INSTALI.ATION PRQIECT WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, M. Bumgarner, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the New Metal Beam Guard Railing Installation Project; and WHEREAS, this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a construction contract to M. Bumgamer, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the New Metal Beam Guard Railing Installation 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: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: S:\Current Reso's\9-8-04new.mctal.bcam guard.railing.res.doc City Clerk AGENDA ITEM NO. Staff Report 11 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Clerk RESOLUTION AMENDING LIST OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution amending the City's conflict of interest code. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Fair Political Practices Commission requires a biennial review of the City's conflict of interest code to ascertain compliance. City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 1319-03, 1322-03, 1326-03 and 1343-04, amending SSFMC section 3.12.010, to add, delete, and amend specified City employee positions. As a result, the list of designated positions subject to the conflict of interest code must be amended to reflect these changes. The City Attorney determined the applicable disclosure categories. The following changes are recommended: New positions being added: · 7.2 Human Resources Analyst II · 12.1 Director of Recreation and Community Services · 12.3 Recreation and Community Services Manager Existing positions being amended: · 6.10 Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official to City Building Official · 8.7 Engineering Project Coordinator t_9_o Construction Manager · 10.4 Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official t_0_o Fire Marshal · 10.11 Code Enforcement Officer to Safety Inspector I, II, III Upon approval of the resolution, statements of economic interest will be forwarded to persons holding designated positions, as required by the conflict of interest code, and to be filed thereafter with the City Clerk, the designated filing officer. Sylvifi M. Payne City Clerk Attachment: Resolution City Manager Exhibit A - Applicable Disclosure Categories 2004 Local Biennial Notice RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNNFED POSITIONS SIJBJECT TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 82-2002, the City Council previously adopted a list of designated positions subject to the City's Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 1319-03, 1322-03, 1326-03 and 1343-04, amending SSFMC section 3.12.010, to add, deleted, and amend specified City employee positions; and WHEREAS, it is now necessary to amend the list of designated positions to reflect the changes made to Municipal Code section 3.12.010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves the changes to the list of designated positions and also approves the revised Exhibit A, which includes the changes identified herein. The following positions are new positions being added to the list: · 7.2 Human Resources Analyst II · 12.1 Director of Recreation and Community Services · 12.3 Recreation and Community Services Manager The following are existing positions being amended: · 6.10 Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official to City Building Official · 8.7 Engineering Project Coordinator to Construction Manager · 10.4 Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official to Fire Marshal · 10.11 Code Enforcement Officer to Safety Inspector I, II, III City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: meeting held on the AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Current Reso's\9-8-04conflict.of. interest.code.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk Resolution No. Exhibit A DESIGNATION OF POSTIONS AND APPLICABLE DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Disclosure Designated Positions Category Members of the following Boards and Commissions 1.1 City Council Form 700 1.2 Design Review Board 1, 2, 3, 4 1.3 Historic Preservation Commission 1 1.4 Housing Authority 1 1.5 Library Board 6 1.6 Parking Place Commission 3, 4, 6 1.7 Planning Commission Form 700 1.8 Parks & Recreation Commission 1, 2, 4, 6 1.9 Conference Center Board 6 1.10 Cultural Arts Commission 1, 2 1.11 Public Facilities Corporation 1, 2, 4 1.12 Board of Appeals 1, 2, 4 2. CiW Manager 2.1 City Manager Form 700 2.2 Assistant City Manager 1, 2, 4 3. City. Clerk 3.1 City Clerk 5 3.2 Deputy City Clerk 6 4. CiW Attorney 4.1 City Attorney Form 700 4.2 Assistant City Attorney 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 5. CiW Treasurer 5.1 City Treasurer Form 700 5.2 Deputy City Treasurer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 6. Department of Economic & Community. Development 6.1 Director of Economic & Community Dev. 1, 2, 4 6.2 City Planner 1, 2, 4 6.3 Principal Planner 1, 2, 4 6.4 Senior Planner 1, 2, 4 6.5 Associate Planner 1, 2, 4 6.6 Assistant Planner 1, 2, 4 6.7 Housing and Commercial Rehab Specialist 1, 2, 4 6.8 Economic Dev./Redev. Project Manager 1, 2, 4 6.9 Manager of Housing and Redevelopment 1, 2, 4, 6 6.10 City Building Inspector 1, 2, 4, 6 6.11 Assistant Building Official 1, 2, 4 6.12 Senior Building Inspector 1, 2, 4 6.13 Permit Technician 1, 2, 4 6.14 City Engineer 1, 2, 4, 6 6.15 Senior Civil Engineer 1, 2, 4, 6 6.16 Development Review Coordinator 1, 2, 4, 6 7. Human Resources Department 7.1 Director of Human Resources 6 7.2 Human Resources Analyst II 6 8. Department of Public Works 8.1 Director of Public Works 1, 2, 4, 6 8.3 Superintendent of Water Quality Control Plant 1, 2, 4, 6 8.4 Assistant Plant Superintendent 1, 2, 4, 6 8.7 Construction Manager 1, 2, 4, 6 8.9 Environmental Compliance Coordinator 1, 2, 4, 6 8.10 Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector 1,2, 4, 6 8.11 Environmental Compliance Inspector 1, 2, 4, 6 9. Finance Department 9.1 Director of Finance 1, 3, 4, 5 9.2 Assistant Finance Director 1, 3, 4, 5 10. Fire Department 10.1 Fire Chief 6 10.2 Deputy Fire Chief 6 10.3 Battalion Chief 6 10.4 Fire Marshal 1, 2, 4, 6 O A~ 10.5 Assistant Fire Marshal 6 10.9 Fire Inspector 5 10.10 Senior Code Enforcement Officer 1, 2, 4 10.11 Safety Inspector I, II, and III 1,2, 4 10.11 Code Enforcement Officer 1, 2, 4 2 11. Library Department 11.1 Library Director 6 11.2 Assistant Library Director 5 11.3 Project Read Director 6 11.4 Library Program Manager 6 11.5 Supervising Librarian 6 12. Parks, Recreation & Community. Services Dept 12.1 Director of Recreation & Community Services 1, 2, 4, 6 12.2 Director of Parks, Recreation & Maintenance Services 1, 2, 4, 6 12.3 Recreation & Community Services Manager 2, 4, 5, 6 12.2 Superintendent of Recreation & Community Services 2, 4, 5, 6 12.4 Deputy Director of Maintenance Services 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 13. Police Department 13.1 Chief of Police 6 13.2 Police Captain 6 13.3 Police Lieutenant 6 14. Consultants Form 700 15. Housing Authority. 15.1 Executive Director 1, 2, 4 16. Conference Center 16.1 Executive Director 1 17. Information Technology Department 17.1 Director of Information Technology 1, 2, 4, 6 17.2 Information Technology Manager 6 3 2004 Local Biennial Notice Name of Agency: City Mailing Address: P, 0, Contact Person: .~yl vi ~ P~yne E-mail: sylvia, payne@s s ~. net of South San Francisco BOX 711 Office Phone No: 877-8518 Fax No: (650) 829-6641 This agency has reviewed its conflict-of-interest code and has determined that: [] An amendment is required. The following amendments are necessary: (Check al! that apply) EX Include new positions (including consultants) that must be designated O Delete positions that manage public investments from the list of designated positions O Revise disclosure categories OT~ Revise the titles of existing positions O Delete titles of positions that have been abolished O Other (describe) No amendment is required. The agency's code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions; the disclosure categories assigned to those positions accurately require the disclosure of all investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income which may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by those holding the designated positions; and the code includes all other provisions required by Government Code Section 87302. ,,/'-'/~c~'~C: ',, // , Michael A. Wilson ~-"~"~-' /Z', Signatur~ of Chief Executive Officer " ,/ Date Complete this notice regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this notice no later than October 1, 2004 to: (Placereturn address ofagencysending notification here) City of South San Francisco -4-00 ~rand iAvenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Fair Political Practices Commission (866) AS K- FPPC/www.fppc.ca.gov Biennial Notice Locals - June 2004 AGENDAITEM #12 [ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Human Resources Resolution Approving Personnel Changes, including Classification Description and Placement on the Confidential (Teamsters) Salary Schedule RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the job specification and salary placement for the newly developed Administrative Aide classification. BACKGROUND In the mid 1990s, the City Council designated the Administrative Assistant II classification in the City Manager's Office as unclassified (non-competitive). This means that the position is not part of the municipal code and employee's in this position serve at the will of the City Manager. However, within the City there are other Administrative Assistant II positions that are part of the competitive service. To eliminate confusion, the position's duties have been structured to meet the specific needs of the City Manager's office, and it has been re-titled. Salary is proposed to remain the same. Attached is the salary schedule (Exhibit A) for the classification and the new job specification (Exhibit B). New Classification: Administrative Aide ................. Reason New classification as a result of an organizational change. By: Cig~/lanager Attachments Salary Range (Exhibit A) and Class Description (Exhibits B) for Administrative Aide JAB-08/31/04 SSI-IR StaftMeamifer\Correspondmc¢\City CouncilXAA CM Personnel Cha~ges.doc City of South San Francisco Exhibit A Below is the salary range for the classification listed in the staff report to which this is attached, which was effective the payperiod including July 1, 2004. Mid-management Salary Schedule Title Monthly Salary Range Administrative Aide ................................................................. $3,953 to $4,806 JAB-08/31/04 S:LHP. StaflMermifer\Correspondence\City CouncilWlisc Staff ReportskExhibit A f~r AA.doc Exhibit B Attachments Class Description for: 1. Administrative Aide JAB-08/31/04 10:06 AM S:kI-IR StaffUennifer\Correspondence\City CouncilhMisc StaffReportskExhibit B for AA.doc City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department Administrative Aide Class Description Definition Under general supervision, provides varied, complex, and confidential office administrative and secretarial support to the staff of the Office of the City Manager; and does related work as required. Distinguishing Characteristics This is a high-level secretarial classification, personally performing multiple administrative and secretarial duties to ensure efficient service of the Office of the City Manager. The scope and level of assigned responsibilities and the interaction with elected and appointed officials occurs on a regular and ongoing basis. Responsibilities require the frequent use of tact, discretion, and independent judgement as well as knowledge of City activities. This class is distinguished from other office administrative classes in that the nature, scope, and diversity of responsibilities require a broader understanding of City functions and the capability of relieving City management staff of day-to-day office administrative and coordinative duties. Typical and Important Duties 1. Ensures that administrative office functions are effectively carried out. 2. Maintains a calendar and coordinates the schedule of the Office of the City Manager, including those of staff, elected officials, and members of Boards and Commissions; coordinates activities with other City management staff, representatives of other organizations, and the public; makes travel arrangements as required. 3. Arranges meetings by scheduling rooms, notifying participants, arranging for refreshments as appropriate, and preparing agendas; ensures information is compiled and duplicated; takes and prepares summary or action minutes of such meetings. 4. Attends to a variety of office administrative details, such as keeping informed of Citywide and Office of the City Manager activities, transmitting information, ordering and coordinating supply orders, preparing contracts and agreements, arranging for equipment purchase and maintenance, attending meetings, and serving on various task forces and committees. 5. Drafts memos, letters, other correspondence, and other detailed confidential and/or sensitive correspondence, reports, forms, invitations, graphic materials, and specialized documents from drafts, notes, brief instructions, or corrected copy. 6. Proofreads a variety of simple to complex written materials City staff for accuracy, completeness, compliance with City policies, correct formatting, and correct English usage, including grammar, punctuation, and spelling for correspondence to City Council, and other such related documents; proofreads a variety of written materials generated by the Office of City of South San Francisco Administrative Aide Class Description Page 2 the City Manager. 7. Processes bills and invoices for payment ensuring its coded to the correct line item budget; prepares and transmits a variety of fmancial documents, including payroll; assists in budget preparation and maintains records of purchase orders, payroll, expense statements, and other fiscal transactions. 8. Receives and screens visitors and telephone calls; provides information to City staff, other organizations, and the public; interprets a variety of policies, rules, and procedures. 9. Prepares and updates a variety of periodic and special narrative, accounting, database, and reports. 10. Operates standard office equipment, including job-related computer hardware and software applications, facsimile equipment, and multi-line telephones; may operate a two-radio or other department-specific equipment. 11. Organizes and maintains various administrative, confidential, reference, and follow-up files; purges files as required. 12. Obtains supplies and materials, reconciles monies for bank deposits, and delivers or obtains materials from various City offices or locations. 13. Performs related duties and responsibilities as assigned. Job-related Qualifications Knowledge of: Basic organization and function of public agencies, including the role of an elected City Council and appointed boards and commissions. Codes, regulations, policies, and procedures related to the department to which assigned. · Standard office administrative and secretarial practices and procedures, including the use of standard office equipment. · Business letter writing and the standard format for reports and correspondence. · Computer applications related to the work, including word processing, presentation, database, and spreadsheet applications. · Records management principles and practices. · Business arithmetic and basic statistical techniques. · Techniques for dealing effectively with elected officials, the public, and City staff, in person and over the telephone. Ability to: · Provide varied, responsible, and often confidential secretarial and office administrative work requiring the use of independent judgement, tact, and discretion. · Interpret and implement policies, procedures, and computer applications. · Analyze and resolve office administrative and procedural problems. · Compose correspondence and reports independently or from brief instructions on a daily basis using correct English grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and syntax. · Establish and maintain a records management system for the assigned organizational unit. City of South San Francisco Administrative Aide Class Description Page 3 · Communicate effectively in writing, orally, and with others to assimilate, understand, and convey information, in a manner consistent with the office. · Make accurate arithmetic and statistical calculations. · Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing. · Use initiative and independent judgment within established policy and procedural guidelines. · Organize own work, set priorities, meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assi~ments with a minimum of direction. · Represent the City effectively in contacts with the Council, representatives of other agencies, City departments, and the public. · Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in the course of the work. · Take a proactive approach to customer service issues. · Make process improvement changes to streamline procedures. · Work in a safe manner, following City safety practices and procedures. · Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. Skill in: · Word processing and working with a variety of computer applications with sufficient speed and accuracy. · Entering and retrieving data from a computer with sufficient speed and accuracy sufficient to perform assigned work. · Rapid note taking and accurate transcription of own notes. Experience and Training Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills, and abilities would be: Experience: Five years of progressively more responsible office administrative, secretarial, and/or general clerical experience along with experience in dealing with elected or appointed officials and the public, and working in a public agency setting. Training: Equivalent to graduation from high school with supplemental business school or applicable college-level course work. An Associates degree from a business or community college in secretarial skills, business, language arts, or administration is desirable. Licenses and Certificates All licenses and certificates must be maintained as a condition of employment. · Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid, appropriate California driver's license and a satisfactory driving record, which must be maintained as a condition of employment. · Ability to obtain and maintain certification as a Notary Public. City of South San Francisco Administrative Aide Class Description Page 4 Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment: Physical Skills: Able to use standard office equipment, including a computer; mobility to work in a typical office setting to use standard office equipment; sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, stoop, squat, twist, and maintain sustained posture in a seated position for prolonged periods of time; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone; lift and carry 35 pound boxes, files, and materials. Work environment: Work in a standard office setting. Specified positions may require extended hours, off-shifts, or weekends; attend evening or weekend meetings or participate in specific projects or programs on evenings and weekends. Ability to: Travel to different sites and locations. Approved: Revised Date: Former Titles: Abolished: Bargaining Unit: ADA Review: DOT: Physical: Status: EEOC Categoryx. Job Code: Secretary II, Administrative Assistant II Confidential 2004/05 No Class 3 Unclassified/non-exempt EF15, EJ6 ADA Documentation of Essential Duties 1. SDE 2. SDE 3. SDE 4. SDE 5. SDE 6. SDE 7. SDE 8. SDE 9. SDE 10. SDE 11. SDE 12. SDE S:kAdmin\Class Descriptions\City Manage*\working title-drafLdoc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCiL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOB SPECIFICATION AND SALARY PLACEMENT FOR THE NEWLY DEVELOPED ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE CLASSIFICATION WHEREAS, staff desires approval of the job specification and salary placement for the newly developed Administrative Aide classification as shown in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco approves the job specification and salary placement for the newly developed Administrative Aide classification as shown as Exhibit A. 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: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\CutTent Rcso's\9-8-04persolmel.cha nge. DOC AGENDA ITEM NO. 13 REVISED Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF: MOD~ICATION 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 REVEEW 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 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 MUNICIPAL 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 REQUIRED. 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: CALIFORNrlA WATER SERVICE COMPANY APPELLANTS: 1. MARGE SIEUX 2. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., BY RICHARD WEIMER Staff Report Subject: Page 2 of 4 Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility - Appeal 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 or take other action. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At the City Council meeting of August 11, 2004, the Council conducted a public hearing, took public testimony and discussed the applicant's alternative of a landscaped above ground equipment enclosure. The Council asked the AT&T representative to consult with his client to determine ifAT&T would be willing to help mitigate the visual effects of the above ground cabinets. The applicant's representative, Howard Yee, reports that an AT&T representative will attend the September 8th City Council meeting. 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 ora solid roof. Had a solid roof been included, an above-ground access hatchway and HVAC system would have been visible off-site. Both Akernatives #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. Staff Report Subject: Page 3 of 4 Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facihty - Appeal 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 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. Marge Sieux, a neighborhood resident, filed appeal number 1. 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. 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. Both appeals are 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 with substantial landscaping and public art is visually compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council take one of the following actions: Deny both appeals and uphold the Planning Commission approval of the 1). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the Staff Report Subject: Page 4 of 4 Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility - Appeal Bo 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. Approve the applicant's appeal allowing 1). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna, replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets and extensive new landscaping, and 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna, replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets and extensive new landscaping, subject to making the Findings of Approval and adoption of the Conditions of Approval. By: AMs sa~mlV~c~t~M~ager ---Barv-Y ivi. ~_,~ g City Manager Attachments: Appeals Marge Sieux AT&T by Richard Weimer City Council Draft Findings of Approval Planning Commission Findings of Approval Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Public Participation/Neighborhood Meetings Planning Commission Minutes February 19,2004, April 15,.2004 & June 3, 2004 Planning Commission StaffReports February 19, 2004, April 15, 2004, June 3, 2004 & August 11, 2004 Plans Alternative #2 Approved by Planning Commission Revised Alternative #1 Proposed as part of the Applicant's Appeal REVISED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL UP 00-0025/MOD 1 (Recommended by City Staff September 8, 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, extensive new landscaping and irrigation of the new an existing landscaping and 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-1-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 staff report of June 3, 2004; Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2004; and Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 2004; Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004;; City Council staff report dated August 11, 2004; City Council staff report of September 8, 2004; City Council meeting of August 11, 2004; and City Council meeting of September 8, 2004: The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub, replacement of equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and irrigation to support such landscaping will more than adequately shield the equipment facilities and antennas and as such is consistent with the General Plan policies that encourage applicants to reduce visual impacts to surrounding properties when siting facilities in or near residential zones. Based on the foregoing, the project as approved is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element that designates this site for low density residential uses and associated utilities and communication facilities. The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub replacement of equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and extensive irrigation of new and existing landscaping is consistent with the requirements of SSFMC Title 20, Chapter 20.105 which requires maximizing the use of landscaping and technology to shield telecommunication facilities from neighboring properties and using the best "stealthy" technology to obscure the antennas. o The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub replacement of equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and irrigation of the new and existing landscaping 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 and blend in with the existing surroundings, including the landscape, consistent with the goals, policies and design criteria established in Chapter 20.105. 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AT&T WIRELESS COMMUNCIATION UP 00-025/MOD 1 (/is recommended by City staff on September 8, 2004) Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. The construction drawings of Altemative #2 shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the site plans, dated March 27, 2000, prepared by J. E. Schuricht and Associates, the revised photo-simulations showing the monopole constructed in a tree/shrub form, and the landscape plan submitted to the City Council in association with the applicant's appeal of UP00-025/MOD 1. Alternative #2 is approved. o Landscape plans to screen views of the telecommunication facilities from the adjacent properties shall be included in the construction plans. The plans shall substantially comply with the plans approved by the City council in association with the applicant's appeal of UP00-025.MOD 1. The plans shall include replacing all dead landscape material and planting new specimen size trees and mature shrubs in the immediate vicinity of the facility and along the slope adjacent to Avalon Drive. A minimum of 15% of all new trees shall be 36 inch box size the remainder of the new trees shall be a minimum of 24 inch size. All new shrubs shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size. The final landscape plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. The wireless telecommunications facility, Altemative #2, shall be limited to the 4 panel antennas mounted on a mono-pole with a maximum height of 14 feet from grade and 5 equipment cabinets in the above ground vault, as shown on the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval associated with UP 00-025/MOD 1. Any change in the facility shall require prior approval by the Planning Commission. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the final construction plans shall depict the monopole as a tree/shrub form to minimize views of the above ground facilities including the monopole, antenna, and all equipment cabinets. The final construction plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall place a warning sign at or near each of the antennas identifying potential health and safety hazards of working within close proximity to the antennas for extended periods of time and providing an informational phone number. 6. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that the utilities, including P.G.&E., Cal Water and AT&T, can accommodate the proposed expansion. 7. The property owner and applicant shall be jointly and severally responsible for removing all antennas and appurtenant facilities and shall bear all related expense based on a determination by the City Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing that the facility is no longer in use, is obsolete and/or is declared to be a public nuisance. (Planning Contact Person: Steve Carlson, 650/877-8535) AGENDA ITEM #13 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City COuncil Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager 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 FACILITY, 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 MUNICIPAL 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 REQUIRED. APPEAL 2, BY THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL O F 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 Staff Report Subject: Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility - Appeal Page 2 of 4 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 or take other action. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At the City Council meeting of August 11, 2004, the Council conducted a public hearing, took public testimony and discussed the applicant's alternative of a landscaped above ground equipment enclosure. The Council asked the AT&T representative to consult with his client to determine if AT&T would be willing to help mitigate the visual effects of the above ground cabinets by making a financial contribution to the City's art fund. The applicant's representative, Howard Yee, reports that AT&T will make a voluntary financial contribution as suggested by the City Council. An AT&T representative will attend the September 8th City Council meeting to offer a contribution. Alternatives gl and #2 The applicant's preferred design solution is identified as Alternative gl 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 gl 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. Staff Report Subject: Page 3 of 4 Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility - Appeal 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 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. Marge Sieux, a neighborhood resident, filed appeal number 1. The appeal objects to the facility being located in the residential neighborhood and requests 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. 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. Both appeals are 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 with substantial landscaping and public art is visually compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council take one of the following actions: Deny both appeals and uphold the Planning Commission approval of the 1). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the Staff Report Subject: Page 4 of 4 Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility - Appeal Bo 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. Approve the applicant's appeal allowing 1). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna, replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and public art contribution and, 2). Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna, replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and public art contribution, subject to making the Findings of Approval and adoption of the Conditions of Approval. By: Marry Van Duyn ~ Assistant City Manager k~3~ ~agel City Manager Attachments: Appeals Marge Sieux AT&T by Richard Weimer City Council Draft Findings of Approval Planning Commission Findings of Approval Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Public Participation/Neighborhood Meetings Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 2004, April 15, 2004 & June 3, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Reports February 19, 2004, April 15, 2004, June 3, 2004 & August 11, 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) 87%8535 APPLICATION FOR APPEAl, RECEIVED PLANNING Applicants who wish to file an appeal cfa decision of the Chief Planner or the Plan~ing Commission, or a Design Review decision, she/1 submit the' fo/lowing (a letter or additional sheets may also be submitted)' WhZ, specifically, is bemg appealed? Case No: UP 00-025/MOD1 &. DR/MOD 1 ]. The in~tal]atlon o~ Gommercla] Equipment in ~ residential ~nn~, over the vehement objections of the residents in the area. 2. Illegally instailed equipment, and no fines imposed on large corporations 2 3. Total disregard for the Communitys obj ection~ ~at is ~e b~is o~yo~ appel? ~clude facts t0 suppo~ yo~ appe~ ~d Refer to attached detailed ~umary and request for d~sclosure to the residents of the various aomerica] eqnSpment If you are the original applicant, submit thirty-five (35) reduced copies (8 1/2" x i 1") ofa/l exhibits (maps, plans, elevations, etc) which were submitted with the cng-mai apphcafion. 4 Filmg fcc- See Fcc ~efer t.o attached list of names and signatures with cover letter addressed to Mayor of SSF . All of the names and signatures On June 1~, EXltIBIT '(!~).should be notified. Signature 2OO4 Date Ph one. No. *Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083 -1- J Summary of Bases for Appeal UP 00-025/MOD1 & DR 00-02S/MOD I 1). City should fine AT&T for each day equipment is there illegally. On or about Dec. 10, 2002, we notified planning department of AT&T replacing the small cabinet with a much larger one. The Planning dept determined that AT&T had no permit to make this change. At a neighborhood meeting on March 3, 2003, with AT&T representative, Howard Yee, mentioned that within a week a decision would be made to resolve the problem,. At the same meeting he was advised that if not, then the larger cabinet would have to be removed. Now 1.5 years later AT&T has been allowed to have use of the larger cabinet. There is an ordinance that allows the citY to impose a-DAILY fine to any party that makes a violation.' This was not done. At the Planning Commission Meeting on February 19, 2004, Chief Planner Sparks indicated that this issue was not important.. To further confirm their knowledge of the violation, in the Staff report, 2/19/04,. there is clear knowledge of this infraction-dating'. back to December, 2002. Chief Planner Sparks continues to say because of lack of resources and case Icad, code enforcement is difficult.(Pianning Commission Meeting, 4/15/04). If the fines were imposed, they Could be utilized towards' the Chief City Planner's lack of resources. If there is no fine there is nothing to encourage AT&T to comply with the law. Therefore it is irrelevant whether the city has sufficient resources to monitor violations.. Once. it knew of a violation, it should have imposed the fine. Such would not have caused the city to incur inordinate expense or time because all it had to do was impose the fine. Instead no fine was imposed and it has taken 1.5 years for AT&T to work with the city re a proposed solution to the problem..With out a fine, AT&T is encouraged to engage in delay. A fine would have encouraged a strict compliance with local ordinances regulating cell phone towers. Chief Planner Sparks admission that the city cannot (.which is not true) as demonstrated above, and in effect, will not enfome local ordinances by imposing fines will only encourage more violators of local ordinances re cell phone towers. 2). Increased pole height from 13 feet to 16 feet - not consistent with General Plan's goal of preserving residential neighborhood. - inconsistent' with Ch 20.105's policy of minimizing visua! blight. - past attempts at screening unsuccessful. - no reason why cannot have 13 feet instead of 16 feet pole. 3). Too many equipment cabinets. - before had one cabinet 12.6'x 4.9'. - AT&T wants 5 cabinets of unspecified size in an underground vault with dimensions: 14'Lx20'Wx 10'H.' 4). More equipment means more maintenance. -exacerbate already dangerous intersection @Canyon Court/Avalon Dr. due to parked maintenance vehicles and trucks. Noise pollution and disturbance to residents 5). Proximity to residential structures; less than 50 feet from .the nearest resident, infringe upon privacy, and tranquility of nearby residents. 6). The California Water Department as a Property owner in SSF, should be required to adhere to all the laws, codes and requirements as they are applied to the rest of the residents in SSF. Presently they supposedly seem to be unaware of their tenant's actions. Page One -2- 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- 'June 17th, 2004 Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor And Members of the City Council 400 Crrand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 A T &T Wireless/Howard Yee - Applicant Cai Water Service Co.-owner Avalon Water Tank/comer Avalon Drive and Canyon Ct UP - 00-025/MOD 1 Dear Mayor Matsumot0 and Members of the City Council, We begin with the City of South San Francisco's Mission Statement and Core Values: The City 'of South San Francisco's mission is to provide a safe, attractive and well-maintained City through excellent customer service and superior programs and to have a work ethic that will enhance the Community's quality of life. To that end, we will strive to nurture a partnership with the Community by recruiting a diverse and:~.highly skilled workforce, be an active partner in quality education and attract and retain a prosperous business community, all of which will foster community pride and understanding. OurCore Values The City and Employees of South San Francisco value our role in providing service to one another and the community. As an organization we are committed to: · Strengthening each other and the organization through dedicaUon and teamwork · Recognizing and Respecting diversity and encouraging opinionsof the community and workforce · Committing to EXcellence and Service · Encouraging creativity and supporting problem solving · Accepting responsibility and accountability · Demonstrating integrity and honesty in all aspects of service · Promoting and maintaining open and constructive communication · Encouraging skill development and professional growth Because we strongly believe that the City's Mission Statement and Core Values have been compromised, by a total lack of consideration to the residents and thus the Community. We are hereby objecting to and requesting that the City Council, deny the application for the modk~cafions as requested in the above-mentioned Use Permit. As registered voters, taxpayers and residents averaging over 20 years of residence in this City, we are appalled at the lack of consideration provided to us, by the City Planners and the Planning Commission, which is contrary to the Mission Statement, "to provide a safe, attractive and welt-maintained City". EXHIBIT (2) -4- Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor And Members of City Council June 17t~, 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 Workforce" 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 integrit3~ and honesty in all aspects of service". Why no fines? 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 equ/pment installed at the California Water Department Site! Altached 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 turning a blind eye to big corporations. No fines 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 fi:om 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- KaryI Matsumoto, Mayor And Members of City. Council June 17th, 2004 Page three In 2001, when another Cellular Company/Metro PCS requested Permission to install a ceil phone tower, as per attached document over 250 voters and residents signed a petition objecting to this installation. The planning commission denied this request and we were secure in the belief that the residents were heard. Please be assured that while the original signatures attached to this letter are few due to a lack of notification and time c0nstraints we will have no hardship in obtaining additional signatures in the' future. Here again in 2004, we seem to be fighting the same battle all over again. The only exception is that AT&T, who in 2000, and by the lack of notification to the residents in the area, was allowed to install a cell phone tower, on the premises of the Cai Water Service Company, without any objections. Once again, we are strongly objecting to allowing these enhancements to a large corporation, who illegal/y, high handedly and without any Consideration to the residents a~d laws of South San Francisco, performed its own modifications, that were previously denied as not being within the required codes. A~s'Elected Officials in SSF, we are requesting that a full investigation be conducted and holding you the Mayor, and the-members of the City Council, to stand by the City of South San Francisco's Mission Statement and Core Values. in the final analysis lets not forget the fact that the location in question is ZONED ' RESIDENTIAL~ Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Signed (see attached) Enclosures CC: Members of City Council Planning Commission Planning Division San Marco Times Seven Your Side Contact 4 EXHmIT (2) Signature ~ lq~ ' Address ZS~a~V~ q e [ ~ Nme Ad.ess. Si~e N~e Ad.ess /4i~a~e ~ Nme -- Ad&ess ./~~~/~ ~ ~.~ss ' Si~e. 0 ~ Ad.ess . S~a~e Nme Ad&ess Si , Si amre ,,,7 Name Signa~~''~Name . ~/4o8 Address Address Address Address Address ,Signature Name Address Sign~e -'"/-x Name Address Address ame 'k3 Address Signature' " - /0 · ~,~.gnature Name Address Name ~ature Name Address 'S~gnature Name Address Address Signature Name Address Sig'nature Name Address Signature Name Address Signature Name Address Signature Name Address Signature Name Address Signature f) Name _.) Address ~ignamre ' ,d' Name Address J~,gnatt~ b/ . ":'Address Signature Name Address ........... ' ' :.p}~mnin~ l)iv~ion 315 !¥mple Avenue, South S~ ~c~, ~ 94~80' (650) 877~s~S CTrY or souTJt SAM FRANC~CO g£O£.Iy£D ~?" -- ' ' " 'gU ~/ I "- Apptic. m2s who ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of a ~o~ of~ ~PI~ or ~c p!~n~n~ Commis~ basis of your appeal? Inc, lu~ facts ~ suppor~ yo~ appeal and all pm-i~ent info~afion- [')a_E~_~g__ SE~ ~-fZf,,C_~-P'vL~/',J'7'" *M~iling A~ldress: P.O. Box 71I, Sou~ Sa~ l~raaCiSc~, CA 94083 ]- . .- ;. , .. ~. '.. : -., ... . ..,.. .'- ,.,j -15- June 18, 2004 RE: Use l%rmit Application UP-00-025/MOD1 Modifications to AT&T Wireless antenna site Intersection of Crestwood Df.mad Avalon Dr. BASIS FOR APPEAL Applicant wishes to appeal the condition of approval requiring Applicam to build Alternative 2, which places the approved facilities underground. Use of Alternative 2 goes beyond what is necessary to protect the general public from 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 bnclscape provisions than proposed in Alternative 1, with the intent of reducing the visual impacts of the commnnications facility and of the water tank~ as well. Underground placement of communications facilities has been shown te lead to increased likelihood of equipment failure due to moisture inundation, a very common occurrence with vaulted facilities. Equipment fifilure results in endangerment of the pUblic through imb'flity to place E-911 calls and other urgent communications while the site is off-air. Also, undergrotmaing occasions much greater nnmbers of site visits than with above-ground sites to maintain equipment or rectify problems, hence more activity occurs at the underground site than at normal facilities. -16- AT&T Wireless AVALON TANK SiTE - Photosim Viewpoints Location Map (No Sca~e) Francisco -'~... Golden Qate . NeUona; Cemetery This symbol represents the locations where viewpoints were photographed. Indicates location of AT&T antennas and equipment. l~ay 7, 2003 Photosi1118 by: P.O Box 805 Dixon, Calif. 95620 (707) 678-3015 <figueroa~}davis.com> fx. 707.678.4856 -17- Site Name: AVALON WATER TANK Site No. 882 5/7/03 VIEW AT&T Wireless ABOVE - Looking east from comer of Avalon Dr. and Canyon Ct. (Alternative #1 simulation) (Arrow points to new screen fence.) ABOVE - Same view of "existing" site. (Arrow points to shelter.) P.O Box 805 Dixon, Calif. 95620 (707) 678-3015 <t';ueroa@davis.com> fx. 707.678.4856 - ]_ 8 = Site Name: AVALON WATER TANK Site No. 882 5/7/3 VIEW 2 --'- AT&T Wireless ABOVE - LoOking north across Avalon Drive (Altemafive #1simulation). (Arrow points to new screen fence.) ABOVE - Same view of existing site (Arrow points to shelter.) P.O Box 805 Dixon, Calif. 95620 (707) 678-3015 <figuema~davis.com> fx. 707.678.4856 -Icj- - AT&T AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES SITE NUMBER: 882 ~7~z~T/V-C ~_ SITE NAME: AVALON WATER TANK "~ooo C~'¢~ n DRAWING INDEX REV. DIREC~ONS PROJECT INFORMATION T~ ~ 4 ~ ~o ~, ~ ~ o~o ~ ~o~ I~ ~/~. 882 - 201 TITLE SHEET 5 TO ~AY ON ~ ~ AV~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~0 ~0 EO~P~ ~. 882 - Z02 ~ITE P~N & DETAILS g ~ AOrtas: CO~ OF AV~ 0~ a ~o~ CO~ 882 - Z03 EL~ATION VIEWS 5 VlCINI~ MAP (g16) 796-6148 ADJACENT PROPER~ MAP ~T/LONO mE N~ 8~ 1-280 ~ c~u~oN ~= ~ ~s =. ~ -- N FRANCISCO cu~ ~[: ~c~ F~c~ WA~RL . - >~ SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS ~ ~o~// PORTION OF THOMAS BROS. MAPS ~ ~ MAP ~25 GRID ~E1 ~ORD C~OR~ WA~R ~[ ~. -- ..... ~ & ~ ~ AT&T , , , ,/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ALTERNATIVE ~L ~ · ~D SU~ AVALON WATER TANK =~ ~ ~ s;~; NO. se; ~ 'x'~ ~ ~ ~ = TITLE SHE~ 23~ CONT~ COSTA BLVD., ~220 FAX: (925) 674--1314 ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..' -:/ ~ / · %. ,, , ,, , · ~ , ~ ,~ -.~ ~ ~. F~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EOUIPMENT E~VATION ~EW , , C~ ~I~NG · ~Np ~ AVALON WATER TANK SITE NO. 882 '~'"~~ 'm ~ ~ SITE P~N & DETAILS 2500 CONT~ COSTA BL~., ~220 PL~S~T HI~ CA 94525 CO~H~ OF A~ DR~ · ~ON COURT PHONE: (g25~ 674-1151 F~: (g25) 674-131~ ~o. s~ ~c,sco, ~ ,~ ,,,.~ ~ -,. /--- PROPOS"ED . { ~ 80UT~STERLY EL~ATION EN~GED {E] POLE E~VATION ,~'~ ,~ ' ' " ' '~~.: i m ~ ~ ~o~ e' ' * ~ .... ~SOUT~STERLY E~VATION ~CA~ON ~ ~ AVALON WATER TANK ~ 43 ~ ~ ~ SITE NO. 882~ = ~/'~ ~ ~ ~ = EL~ATION VIEWS PL~T HILL, CA 94523 CORNIER OF AVALON DR~ · C~ON COURT FAX: (925) 674-1514 ~ ~ ~ I~ {~ ~{ { ~ I~ 5 - AT&T ~ - '11 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES SITE NUMBER: 882 ,~LTe'P-k~7~V~ ~. SITE NAME: AVALON WATER TANK '~ ¥~,ctc~" DRAWING INDEX REV. DIRECTIONS PROJECT INFORMATION 882 - Z02 SITE PLAN & D~AILS 5 882-Z03 ELEVATION VIEWS S VICINI~ MAP so. ~ ~s~. ~ N ADJACENT PROPER~ MAP ~ ~, ~ =~ ~os,~ ,~ ~ ' ~ MAP ~25 GRID ~E1 ~[ORD ~N~ WA~R ;E~C; CO. - ..... 2300 CO~ COSTA BLVD., ~220 SITE NO. eS2 ' ~'~ ~ ~ ~ TITLE SHEET .~';~'~".'.~ I V ! . ' " ~ ~ ~ ~::.. .:-] ,. ,, ,,, ~: :1 " " ' X. ..~/ ql~ ........... " ~ ~ ~ ""' "". ~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~. · ' ~ ' " ~A · ~ ~ , ~ ~. ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ · - ~ t~~ ~ - - - ~ -,~-- -- ~ ~* ~r ~ ~z c~c~ ~zanc*~ ~. EQUIPMENT SECTION A-A ~ ~Dn~n ~OI~ID[~DMm ~O~A b ~ ~ ~ I C~ EmlN~ & ~ $E~.. AVALON WATER TANK ~ AT&T : ~'~ ~ .... ~ ALTERNATIVE ~2 2300 co~ COSTA BLVD, ~220 SITE NO, 882 PLaNt HILL CA g4~23 , ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ SITE PLAN & DETAILS ........ '~*~-"'"" " ' ~'"' "~'~ ~ / ' ~ VA~T ~ i ~ - ~ ~ ,~,. ~ ,/~-. ,._~- ' ~ ~~:~PROPO~ED ~~J::::::~ ~CA~ON ~SOUT~STERLy ELEVATION UNDERGROU~ E~G ~ "- '"' VAULT ~m ~ ~CA~ON ~ AT&T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w~oN wn~n znN~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ = ALTERNATIVE ~2 23~0 CO~T~ COST~ mE~., ~20 S~TE NO. SS=~ ' ~ ~ ~ = ELEVA~ON VIEWS & DETAILS PHONE: (g25) 674-1151 so. s~ ~ClSCO, ~. ~z~z~.~. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL UP 00-0025/MOD 1 (Recommended by City Staff September 8, 2004) As required by the Use Permit Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.81.050), the following findings are made in approval of Use Permit UP 00-025/MOD 1 allowing modification of a wireless communication facility, consisting of ground mounted antenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and public art contribution and 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 staff report of June 3, 2004; Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2004; and Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 2004; Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004;; City Council staff report dated August 11, 2004; City Council staffreport of September 8, 2004; City Council meeting of August 11, 2004; and City Council meeting of September 8, 2004: The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub, replacement of equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and pubhc art contribution is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element that designates this site for low density residential uses and associated utilities and commurfication facilitiesl The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub replacement of equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and public art contribution is consistent with the requirements of SSFMC Title 20, which requires an approved Use Permit in the Single Family Residential (R-l-C-P) Zone District. The telecommunication facility consisting of a monopole designed as a tree/shrub replacement of equipment cabinets, extensive new landscaping and public art contribution with is 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 fi:om surrounding areas and will improve views of the site. -26A- F/NDINGS OF APPROVAL UP 00-0025fMOD 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 o£Use Permit UP 00-025/MOD I 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 staff report 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 facihty 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-I-C-P) Zone District. o 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. -26B- APPROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AT&T WIRELESS COMMUNCIATION UP 00-025/MOD 1 Approved by the Planning Commission on June 3, 2004) Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: Se o The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. The construction ckawings of Alternative #2 shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the site plans, dated March 27, 2000, prepared by J. E. Schuricht and Associates, the revised photo-simulations showing the monopole constructed in a tree/shrub form, and the landscape plan submitted in association with UP00-025/MOD 1. Alternative #1 is not approved. (Planning Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall revise the landscape plans to screen views of the telecommunication facilities from the adjacent properties. The plans shall include replacing all dead landscape material and planting new specimen size trees and mature shrubs in the immediate vicinity of the facility and along the slope adjacent to Avalon Drive. The final landscape plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. The wireless telecommunications facility, Alternative #2, shall be limited to the 2 panel antennas mounted on a mono-pole with a maximum height of 14 feet from grade and 5 equipment cabinets in the underground vault, as shown on the Planning Coramission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval associated with UP 00-025/MOD1. Any change in the facility shall require prior approval by the Planning Commission. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the final construction plans shall depict the monopole as a tree/shrub form to minimize views of the above ground facilities including the monopole, antenna, and all equipment cabinets. The final construction plans shall be subject .to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall place a warning sign at or near each of the antennas identifying potential health and safety hazards of working within close proximity to the antennas for extended periods of time and providing an informational phone number. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that the utilities, including P.G.&E., Cai Water and AT&T, can accommodate the proposed expansion. The property owner and applicant shall be jointly and severally responsible for removing all antennas and appurtenant facilities and shall bear all related expense based on a determination by the City Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing that the facility is no longer in use, is obsolete and/or is declared to be a public nuisance. Contact Person: Steve Carlson, 650/877-8535) -26C- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AT&T WIRELESS COMMUNCIATION UP 00-025/MOD 1 (.ds recommended by City staff on September 8, 2004) Planning Division requirements shah be' as follow: The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. The construction drawings of Alternative #2 shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the site plans, dated March 27, 2000, prepared by J. E. Schuricht and Associates, the revised photo-simulations showing the monopole constructed in a tree/shrub form, and the landscape plan submitted to the City Council in association with the applicant's appeal of UP00-025/MOD 1. Alternative #2 is approved. Landscape plans to screen views of the telecommunication facilities from the adjacent properties shall be included in the construction plans. The plans shall substantially comply with the plans approved by the City council in association with the applicant's appeal of UP00-025.MOD 1. The plans shall include replacing all dead landscape material and planting new specimen size trees and mature shrubs in the immediate vicinity of the facility and along the slope adjacent to Avalon Drive. A minimum of 15% of all new trees shall be 36 inch box size the remainder of the new trees shall be a minimum of 24 inch size. All new shrubs shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size. The final landscape plans shall be subject to the review and approval o£the City's Chief Planner. The wireless telecommunications facility, Alternative #2, shall be limited to the 2 panel antennas mounted on a mono-pole with a maximum height of 14 feet from grade and 5 equipment cabinets in the above ground vault, as shown on the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval associated with UP 00-025/MOD1. Any change in the facility shall require prior approval by the Planning Commission. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the final construction plans shall depict the monopole as a tree/shrub form to minimize views of the above ground facilities including the monopole, antenna, and all equipment cabinets. The final construction plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall place a warning sign at or near each of the antennas identifying potential health and safety hazards of working within close proximity to the antennas for extended periods of time and Providing an informational phone number. 6. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that the utilities, including P.G.&E., Cai Water and AT&T, can accommodate the proposed expansion. 7. The property owner and applicant shall be jointly and severally responsible for removing all antennas and appurtenant facilities and shall bear all related expense based on a determination by the City -26D- Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing that the facility is no longer in use, is obsolete and/or is declared to be a pUblic nuisance. (Planning Contact Person: Steve Carlson, 650/877-8535) -26E- 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 Bmo 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 Garbariuo 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 attencl~ce 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 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. -29- Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2004 Phase II has not started in 2 years the Use Permit may be revoked. Senior Planner Carlson noted that a 2-year review is reasonable. Assistant City Attorney Johnson added that the condition needs to specify a possible revocation if the Commission wishes to do so, otherwise, it is just a 2 year review. · Why are there two driveways along Canal? Senior Planner Carlson stated that the two driveways facilitate the access into the future buildings. It is being required with Phase I because it is part of an elevation pad improvements and not having to put in another driveway with Phase II. · What is the future sign on the comer? Senior Planner Carlson noted that the applicant needs to return with a sign program. · The Commission felt that there needs to be a 6 month review, including a review of the final landscaping plan and a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to park the vehicles on-site and not on the street. Motion Teglia ! Second Sim to approve P03-01:[:[ and UP03-00:[9 with the Condition of Approval for a 6 month review, a 2 year review, not allowing parking on the street, and the flooding protection requirement. Approved by majority voice vote. ::[ Absent. Krieger, Clarence/Owner Approved Double Day Office Services, [nc./Applicant 340 Shaw Rd. P03-0137/UP03-0026 and Categorical Exemption Class I Section 15301 Existing Facilities Use Permit to allow outdoor storage of trucks and extended hours of operation from 6 AM to 2 AM in the industrial (M-:[) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.30.040 (a) and 20.30.040 (bi. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Sheryl Ringleman, Double Day office services, noted that this is their fourth move within the City. She noted that they will comply with the Conditions of Approval. Ken Ibarra, Designer, noted that the building has not changed regarding square footage. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers, the public hearing was dosed. Commissioner's concerns: The outside of the building needs to be aesthetically pleasing. They suggested adding a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to paint the building. Mrs. Ringleman noted that the property owner has not agreed to paint the building as of yet. Notion Giusti to approve P03-0:[37 and UP03-0013 with the condition that the applicant paint the building. Assistant City Attorney .lohnson pointed out that the tenant cannot take action on painting the building without the consent of the property owner. The Condition of Approval can encourage that the applicant to work with the property owner to paint the building. She also pointed out that the Commission can require a 6-month review to ensure that it gets done. Amended Motion Giusti / Second Zemke to approve P03-0:[37 and UP03-00:[3 with the conditions as amended by Assistant City Attorney 3ohnson. Approved by majority voice vote. :[ Absent. A T & T Wireless/Howard Yee-Applicant Cai Water Service Co.-owner Avalon Water Tank/corner Avalon Drive & Canyon Ct UP-00-025/FlOD1 · Continuec Use Permit Modification of a wireless communication facility consisting of the addition of 2 panel antennas bringing the site total to 4 panel antennas, 8 new amplifiers, mounted to an existing :14 foot tall monopole, increasing the tower height to :16 feet, and relocating the above ground equipment into an underground vault, S:\Minutes\Finali'zed Minutes\2004\02-lg-04 P, PC.doc - 3 3 - Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 200~ 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'remove the two existing antennas and 4 antennas. He added that the antennas will be mounted 2 feet above the l~-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 Headng opened. Those spea/dng in oppos/tion were. Romonie Rahjboy 3ohn Chan Weito 3aime 63 Wavedy Ct 64 Waverly Ct 59 Wavedy Ct Edwina Wong IVlarge Sieux 60 Waverly Ct 11 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; · ,l'hey 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 ~o 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 dally basis. A'I'&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 Headng closed. Cornrn/ss/oner's concerns: · The Commission cannot discuss health effects because it is pre-empted by federal law. · Alternative 2 is entirety 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 :[ 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 altow 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. Motion 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 15, 2004. Approved by majodty voice vote. :[ Absent. S:\Minutes\Finalized Minutes\2004\02-19-04 RPC.doc - 3 4 - Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Meeting of April 15, 200q Use permit allowing wholesale, storage and distribution uses and freight forwarding uses to operate on a 24 hour daily basis generating in excess of :[00 vehicle trips and outdoor truck storage in an existing Z26,9~ square foot warehouse and freight forwarding facility, situated at 345 East Grand Avenue in the Planned Industrial Zoning District (p-T) in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.32.060, 20.32.070(a) and 20.32.070 (b). Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-0Z-034 previously adopted Apdl 2002. Senior Planner Carlson noted that there were no changes to the Staff Report and will ask Assistant Qb/Attorney .lohnson to answer any of the Commission's questions Public Hearing opened. There being no speaker the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission noted that in light of the information given to them this is a conforming use. Notion Giusti ! E~=oncl Zemke to approve P04-0030 & UP04-0010. Approved by unanimous voice vote. J A T & T Wireless/Howard Yee-Applicant Cai Water Service Co,-owner Avalon Water Tank/corner Avalon Drive & Canyon Ct. UP-00-025/MOD1 -Continued to 3une ~ 2004 (ConlJnued from February lJ~z 2004) Use Permit Modification of a wireless communication fadlib/consisting of the addition of 2 panel antennas bringing the site total to 4 panel antennas, 8 new amplifiers, mounted to an existing :[4 foot tall monopole, increasing the tower height to :[6 feet, and relocating the above ground equipment into an underground vault, situated at a California Water Service Company storage tank on Avalon Drive near Canyon Court in a Single Family Residential (R-Z-C-P) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Senior Planner Cadson presented the Staff Report. Howard Yee, applicant, noted that he agreed with all the Conditions of Approval except condition number 4. He asked that he be allowed to increase the height of the antenna over the spedfied height in the condition. Public Hearing opened. Those speaking in opposib'on were. Romonie Rahjboy Marge Sieux 3ohn Chan Edwina Wong 63 Waverly Ct lZ Canyon Ct 64 Waverly Ct 80 Wavedy Ct Their comments were: · One speaker asked why the violation that AT&T has committed at the site has not been addressed by the City. · They noted that AT&T is responsible for an illegal addition to the site and they should be fined and denied this modification. If a resident installs an illegal room, they are required by the City to either bring it up to code or tear down the illegal addition. · They were concerned that the site would become an antenna farm. · There currently is not any stealthing technology at the site. · Pictures of Avalon Drive and Canyon Court were submitted into the record because the neighbors were concerned that large trucks would be accessing the site would create traffic congestion. Chief Planner Sparks responded to the issues on AT&T installing equipment without permits and addressing the violation. He noted that because there is a lack of resources and the caseload that Code Enforcement currently has it is difficult to -35- 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 3ohnson 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. Motion Teglia ] Second Zemke to continue the item to 3une 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:[ 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 1:[6 Beacon Way (APN 0:[5- from Planned industrial (P-T) 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 $SFMC Sections 20.32.030 (b), 020.32.070 & 20.08.050 and Chapters 20.8:[, 20.85 & 20.87 Senior Planner Cadson presented the staff report. Anick Shamiyeh, St. George Orthodox Church of 3erusalem, requested that the Commission make less restrictive Special Condition number 5 because all other conditions will be met prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The recordation is not a benefit because it will preclude the applicant from refinancing the property. He requested that condition #5 be removed. Public Hearing opened, Planning Commission Meeting of 3une 3, 2004 A Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-0:[-034 was previously adopted by the Planning Commission on Apdl :[8, 2002. Notion Sim / Second Giusti to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice'vote. PUBLTC HEAR/NG A T & T Wireless/Howard Yee-Applicant Cai Water Service Co.-owner Avalon Water Tank/corner Avalon Drive & Canyon Cc. UP-00-02$/MOD:L Approved (Continued from April .ZE, 2004) Use Permit Modification of a wireless communication fadlity consisting of the addition of 2 panel antennas bringing the site total to 4 panel antennas, 8 new amplifiers, mounted to an existing :[4 foot tall monopole, increasing the tower height to :[6 feet, and relocating the above ground equipment into an underground vault, situated at a California Water Service Company storage tank on Avalon Ddve near Canyon Court in a Single Family Residential (R-:I-C-P) Zoning District in' accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.105. Senior Planner Cadson noted that staff has nothing to add as of the last meeting. He added that the applicant would like to modify condition of approval #4 to allow 4 antennas instead of 2. Howard Yee, Applicant, noted that there are not any concems with the conditions of approval but did ask for .condition of approval #4 be modified. .'Scott Sutherland, AT&T representative, noted that the company created a wave of activity and had general contractors pull permits and build the site. He assured the Commission that what had occurred in the City was ~'not a method of operation for AT&T. He noted that AT&T now has employees have weekly meetings to be sure 'that all is being kept under control to avoid this type of issues. Commissioner Honan asked what coverage are was assigned to Mr. Suthedand. Mr. Suthedand noted that his coverage area varies depending on the job. He stated that it has been Hawaii, Nevada and California. Public Hearing opened. Marge Sieux a member of the community noted that there was not a public notice sent out to the neighbors, which has resulted in not having any of the community members present. She added that an apology has nothing to do with deterring AT&T form repeating the installation of antennas illegally again. She entered pictures into the record of the site with vehicles parked in front of it. She was concemed with there not being enough stealthing and monitoring of shrubs. Public Headng closed. Commission comments: Commissioner Zemke asked that staff clarify the noticing process. Senior Planner Carlson explained the noticing · requirements and noted that a 500 foot radius was notified of the meeting for the April :[5 hearing but since the Commission continued the item to a spedfic date noticing was not required. Commissioner'Romem was concemed with the 4 panels being proposed without any stealthing. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the applicant is proposing a tree shrub that needs to be manufactured although it is not shown on the plans it will be required. Senior Planner Carlson added that the specifications could be forwarded to the Commission once they are submitted. Commissioner Honan asked what the schedule is for completion of the project. Mr, Yee noted that they are -37- 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, VAR, TDHP, DR-00-024 and HND-00-024 Continued to 3uly 1, 2004 (Continued fra.~m May 6/2004) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, in accordance CEQA. Use Permit allowing a mUlti-tenant mixed-use commercial center comprised principally of office and RED with commercial uses generating in excess of :t00 average daily vehicle trips, with 24 hour operation and off-site parking, in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.24.060, 20.74.:~20 and Chapter 20.8:L 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 :L,000 square feet in conjunction with a TDM Plan in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.82 and 20.:[20. Transportation Demand Management Plan redudng 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 pdmadly of warehouse, distribution, office and retail to a multi-tenant mixed-use facility comprised primarily of office and RED 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 bring 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 :[20 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 :[O-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 .~0hnson 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 P ann ng Commission Stctff Repo rt DATE: TO: sUBJECT: February 19, 2004 Planning Commission 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 au underground vault. 2. Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and r~lacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with au underground vault. Address: (APN 091-143-280) the easterly terminus of Avalon Drive and beginning of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SR 280. General Plan Land Use: Low DensiTM Residential Zo, i-g: 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 RECOMMENDg2TION: 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 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 aiijacent 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 tsnk and landscaping with access from Avalon Drive opposite Canyon Court. On June t5, 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. -41 - Staff'Report To: plaguing Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 February 19, 2004 Page 2 In spring 2002, the applicant's contractor applied for a building permit to in~tall 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 #1 and #2 The applicant's preferred design solution is identified as Alternative #J consisting of a nearly 4 foot extension of the antc'nna 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 staff does 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 ~ilternatire # 2 includes no extension of the existing antenna pole facing SR 280, and underground vault housing new larger equipment cabinets. The equipment vault conta/ning the taller cabinets and larger concrete pad will not be visible from the residences across Avalon Drive because the design will utilize au open metal grid in lieu cfa solid roof. l-lad a solid roof been included then au 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 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 P~mit Modification is required because the proposed modifications represent significant changes from the approved facility. DESIGN RESrlEW BOARD The project, including both Alternatives #1 and #2, was reviewed by the Design R. eview Board their meetings o£June 17, 2003 and September 16, 2003. -42- StaffKeport To: Plauning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 February 19, 2004 Page 3 At the June meetin~ 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 fonowing 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 antenm,q that will be visible from SI[ 280 and nearby residences. The visibility of the antennas can be reduced somewhat by adcling 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 laudscaping be comprised of specimen size trees and shrubs planted at a sufficient density to screen views of the facility fzom 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 neigttborhood 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 surrouurling 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 propergr owners as possible. Notices were sent to the same prop~y owners for the February 5, 2004 Piarmmg Commission meeting. NeighbOrhood Meetings -43- Staffl~eport To: Planning Commission Subject: UP00-02$/NiOD l February 19, 2004 Page 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 apphcant 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 mount 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 o£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 si~iScant 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 project has been determined to be exempt, the Planning Commission is not required to taken any action on the environmental dom~ment. 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 compaU'ble 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. -44- StaffR~ort To: Plauning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 February 19, 2004 Page 5 ATTACH1VfENrrs: Draft Findings o£Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Minutes June 17, 2003 September 16, 2003. City Stlt2~f Sl~mmary of Neighborhood Meetings '-March 5, 2003 :November 24, 2003 Applicaut' s Project Narrative ?ia. us. PI:arming Co Staff Rep° rt mmfssion 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 with au underground vault. 2. Design Review of a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenm and replacement of at-grade, equipment cabinets with au underground vault. Address: (APN 091-143-280) the easterly terminus of Avalon Drive and be~nning of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SK 280. :General Plan Land.Use: Low Density Residential · Zoning: Single Family Residential Zoning District CR-1-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 RECO MENDATION: 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 pole and replacement of m-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault, and 2). Design Review of a wireless communieatioa 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 FEBRUARY 19, 2004 MEETING The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed wireless communication facility at their meeting of February 19, 2004. The Commissioners expressed concern with the design of the ex/sting facility, and the monopote and supported Alteraative 2 as being consistent with the telecommunications ordimmce and aesthetically pleasing. -46- StaffKeport To: Planning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 April 15, 2004 ?age 2 The Commi.~sioners directed that the applicant redesign the structure to resemble a tree/shrub so that the structure would be.indistinguishable from the sumounding area. Several neighboring residents spoke in opposition to the proposed modifications and to the existing facility- preferring that it be relocated to another neighborhood. The neighborhood has opposed cellular antennas on site since they first became aware of 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 with a water t~n~ 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 an approved Building Permit. '-In spring 2002, the aPplicant', s contractor applied for a buildlug 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 direcfly 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 #J 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 len=-~dx and 5 feet in width. City sta.ff does not support this alternative because it .does not achieve the.design .stealthiness sought by the Planrfin~. Commission. The proposed project supported by City staff, identified by the applicant as Alternative # 2 includes no extension of the existing antenn~ pole facing SK 280, and underground vault housing new larger equipment cab/nets. Tae equipment vault eontainiug the taller cabinets and iarger -47- Staff Report - To: Plauning Commission Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 April 15, 2004 Page 3 concrete pad ~ 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 roofbeen included then an above ground access hatchway and PIVAC system would have been visible off-site. Both Alternatives #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 o£the water company and service techu~cians. A Use Permit Modification is required because the proposed modifications represent si~cant changes from the approved facility. The redesigned monopol¢ in a U'ee/shrnb form will better blend in with the area trees. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The prOject, including both Alternatives #1 and #2, was reviewed bythe Design Review Board at their meetings of June 17, 2003 and September 16, 2003. At the Jnne 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 corem fiats: 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. /~or both alternatives the landscape screen along the slope adjacent to Avalon Drive needs to be intensified so that the proposed facilities are adequately screened. Ci~ staffrecommends that the landscaping be comprised of specimen s/ze trees and shrubs planted at a sufficient density to screen views of the facility, from the residences acro,~ ~,,oIon Drive. -48- 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 commlmication facility design objectives contained in SSFMC 20.105.030 (d). PUBLIC PAP~TICIPATION 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 incluriing residents of San Bruno and Homeowner Associations. Bach neighborhood meeting was advertised by a notice utilizil~g the same list o£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 Plan~h~g 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 gl and #2. The neighbors (most or all o£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 determined that the proposed project does not have the potential to cause a si,%mificant environmental effect and is therefore categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061Co)(3) of the California Enviroumental Ouality Act (CEQA). Because the -49- 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. RECOlVI~IENDATION: 'The Alternative #2 complies with City development standards, including the Antenna and Tower design requirements contaiued in SSFMC Section 20.105.030 (d), and is compatible w/th the adjacent residences in the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, it is recommended that the Plaun/ng Commi.qsion approve 1). Use Permit Modification a/lowing 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 comm~uication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and replacement of m-grade equipment cabinets with an underground vault. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Findings of Approval ~ Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Miuutes June 17, 2003 September 16, 2003. City Staff Summary of Neighborhood Meetings March 5, 2003 November 24, 2003 Plam~iug Commission Minutes February 19, 2004 Applicant' s Project Narrative Plans -50- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: June 3, 2004 TO: Pl~nnlng Corem]ssiOn SUBJECT: 1. Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless communication facility, :consisting of the extension of ground mounted anteana 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 mad replacement.of at.grade equipment cabinets with au underground vault, Address: (APN 091-143-280) the easterly terminus of Avalon Drive and 'be~nning of Crestwood Drive adjacent to SP,. 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/lvlOD l& DK.00,025/MOD 1 RECOlVIMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve 1). Use Permit 00-025/MOD 1 allowing a wireless commnnicafioll.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 om 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 COMMLqSION APRIL 15, 2004 MEETING The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed wireless comm,mication facility at their meeting of April 15, 2004. The Commissioners supported the redesigned monopole and deten~fined that the redesigned mon0pole with the underground vault would be indistingu/shable from the adjacent landscaping, consistent with the telecommunications ordinance and StaffKeport To: Planning Corarn~sion 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 antenlan~ on the project site since they first became aware of them a couple of years ago. The Comr~ssioners directed the matter be continued to the Planuing Commission meeting of June 3, 2004, that the applicant obtain a letter of apology from 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 m~n~rni~,.e 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 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 Building Pea-mit. 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 Mod{fication 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 oonstrucfion, City staff'irnr~¢diatc!y contacted the applicant who~ shortly afterwards applied for a Use Permit. " DISCUSSION: The original wireless facility was approved to be comprised cfa 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. PUBLIC PARTICIPA~TION Notices were sent to the surrounding area including residents of San Bruno and Homeowner Associations u~li~ng the previous though updated ~ o£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 Comm~esion meetings. StaffReport To: Planning Cornmlssion Subject: UP00-025/MOD 1 June 3, 2004 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL RE.VIEW City staff has determined that the proposed project does not have the potential to cause a si~i~cant environmental effect mad is therefore categorically exempt pursuant 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 Pimaning Commission is not required to taken may action on the environmental document. RECOiV/MEND~TIO1N: The revised Alternative #2 complies with City development standards, including the Antenna mad Tower design requirements contained in SSFMC Section 20.105.030 '(d), and is compaffble with the adjacent residences in the irn~nediate project vicinity. Therefore, it is recovnvnended that the P]a~n~ug Cornm~ssion approve I). Use Permit Moth, cation allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna mad replacement of m-grade equipment Cabinets with an underground vault and, 2). Design Review of a wireless communication faoility, consisting of the extension of ground mountedmatenna and replacement of at-grade equipment cabinets with au underground vault. S;6vg-Carls"6n, Senior Planner ATTACt:IMENTS: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Minutes June 17, 2003 September 16, 2003. City Stuff S~m~vy of Neighborhood Memings March 5, 2003 November 24, 2003 Planning Commi.~sion Minutes February 19, 2004 April 15, 2004 Applicant's Project Narrative Plans -53- DATE: August 11, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: APPEALS OF PLANNING COM/vffSSION APPROVAL OF: MODIlZlCATION 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 FACILITY, · CONSISTING OF THE EXTENSION OF GROUND MOUNTED ANTENNA AND REPLACEMENT OF AT-GR_AJDE EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITH AN UNDERGROUND VAULT SITUATED AT (APN 091-143-280) THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF AVALON DRIVE ANDBEG~G OF CRESTWOOD DRIVE ADJACENT TO SR 280, IN THE (R-I-C-P) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 20.105. TWO SEPARATE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED. · APPEAL 1, ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTS THAT THE PLA2qNING coMlVlISsION APPROVAL BE OVERTURNED .REMOVAL OF TI-ZE EXISTING FACILITY BE REQUIRED. APPEAL 2, BY TIKE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT THE PLANN/NG 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 California Water Service Company Appellants: 1. Marge Sieux 2. AT&T Wir~]~ %trices, Inc., by Richard Weimer -54- Date: August 11, 2004 Subject: Avalon AT&T Wireless CommunicationFacility- Appeal Page 2 of 5 RECO~NDATION 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 UP00-0025fMOD 1. The application had been the subject of two neighborhood meetings, a few design modifications, a verbal and written apology and explanation of new procedures to minimize any future occurrences of construction without necessary City approvals by an AT&T representative, and several Planning Commission hearings, from January 2003 to June 2004. The approved plan (known as Alternative #2) included a redesigned monopole, resembling a tree or shrub. The Planuing Commission determined that the redesigned monopole with the underground equipment vault would be indistinguishable from the adjacent landscaping, consistent with the telecommunications ordinance, and aestheticallypleasing. 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 antenna facilities (SSFMC Chapter 20.1050 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 contain,~ a California Water Service Company water tank and landscaping. Access is 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 Building Permit. -55- 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 staffimmediately contacted the applicant who shortly afterwards applied for a Use Permit. OriQnal Wireless Facili _ty 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 Planni3g Commission. The Planning Commi~qsion approved Alternative # 2 that includes a slightly larger antenna panel mounted on a pole facing SR 280, and au underground vault housing new larger equipment cabinets. The pole would be designed to appeal 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 au open metal grid in lieu of a solid roo£ Had a solid roof been included, an aboverground 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 servicing one to two times per month. The existing on-site aisleway and parkiug 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 RE¥[EW 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 15061Co)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the -56- Date: August 11, 2004 Subject: Avalon AT&T Wireless Communication Facility- Appeal Page 4 of 5 project has been determined to be exempt, the Planning Commission is not required to taken any 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 commuuication facility. The appeal includes more specific justification, a petition, letter and photographs. The applicant, AT&T, is also appealing the Planniug 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 gl, which includes above-ground equipment cabinets in a fenced enclosure. Landscaping of the slope between the equipment cabinets and the street would be installert The plans and photo simulations are attached. The plan,q and the landscaping concept were not deemed an adequate design solution by the Planning Commission (although the Commissioners did not have an opportunity to review the landscape photo simulation as the applicant has only made these recently available). The Planning Commission preferred then 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 review of the proposed plan,q. 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 Plauuing Commission (Alternative #2) complies with the City development standards, inclucliug 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 Planuing 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 Plann/ng Commission approval of the I). Use Permit Modification allowing a wireless commul/ication facility, consisting of the extension of ground mounted antenna and -57- 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: Approved: Many Van Duyn Assistant City Manager Michael 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 -58- ...... AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES · ,, ~~_~~~ SI'TE NUMB.ER: 882 ~---'~~~-~' ?'~'~' "' SITE NAM.E: AVALON WATER TANK DRAWING IND~ REV. DIRECTIONS PROJECT INFORMATION T~E H~ 4 ~ ~D RICHMOND, ~RN RIG~ O~ ~P ~W~DS I~0 ~D/ ~C~, T~E ~CISCO. M~GE O~ US-lO1. K~ RIG~. O~ I-~0 ~W~ 1280/ ~Y C~. ~RN RI~: O~ ~P ~DS ~OR~GH BL~. K~ ~ S~PE OF WORK: ~lS 'PROP~ IS FOR ~E MODIR~ON OF ~OM~NI~ONS 882- Z01 T~ SHE~ 5 == 882 ' Z02 S~E P~N & D~AI~ 5 8~ ' Z03 E~A~ON VI~S 5 ~ ~o ~u~ .. PROP~ O~: C~ P~N: H~D :Y~ ~PU~: AT~T ~ ~C~ INC. 2729 PRO~E~ ADJACENT PROPER~ MAP JU~I~: C~ 0F S0. ~ ~C~0 WAVERLY~~~~~ ~'~ '' ' --'~*~~ ~~7~--~ ;,.~.~~.. '. · PROP~ USE ~COMMUNI~ONS F~I~ ~¢q~ ~,. ~,?~ ,.~, ~~ SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS ~ ~ ~m I'~ ~ ~ J.E SCHUEC~ J.E ~u~cm ~ ~0~ (9~) 67~1151 ' ~ MAP ~25 GRID ~E1 ~DmRD ~mRN~ WA~ S~CE CO ...... · ,~/~~ ~ ~ ALTERNATIVE ~2 2300 CO~ CO~A BLVD., ~220 SI~ NO. SS2~ = '/~'/~ ~ ~ ~ ~==-- TITLE SHE~ P~ HI~, CA 9452'3 CORN~ OF AVON DR~ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ ! \ \ \ L. PROJECT AREA SIT]~ PLAN GENERAL NOTES ~ ~ BY ~ ~ & ~SS~CIAll~. DATE J.SC CltT & ASSOCIA S CI~L £/V~I/VF_EEIN~ ~ Z4NO PLEASANT HILL, CA 9452'3 PHONE:. (92.5) 674-1151 FAX: (925) 674-1314 GRAPE[C $CAT~ ~IIPLE1;~ A~URACY (3R DEZJNEA11~ {~F' ANy ~DERG~UND 'fi'E: RESPECTI~ UlaJTY COIdPANY TO oB'r,~l iNFOi~iA1113N liE~ji~iG EXACT DE~DI ~F' BIJ~AL N~ ~AL LOCAIlGI¢ 0F U11LrTY LITES. $HAU- I/N(E 11~ N~O~..~:~RI' PROBE$ TO IDEH11FY AREAS 0F ~ CONFUCT ~ ~ CONS1t~IC1101~ I1. '1'1'15 I$ A ~FE PI. N4 ONLY, NOT A BQUNDN~I' ~1~/~'. NO ~ HA%E: ~ NI~"nE, A1TD OR SHOt~lL 12'x22'X10' VAULT AVALON WATER TANK SITE NO. 882 CORNER OF AVALON DRNE & CANYON COURT SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. ENLARGED NOT TO S~ALE LOCATION ON $' X 12' COId(::l~-l~ TO BE RI~3~A'I~D ANTENNA & 'mIA LOCATION I I I - :.: I;%: .'. i::'>',v...'", i'.~" ..... : '"~'"' ';'2 ..... · ~l ~ " ? · ' -'~ · ', ' ' ~.¢ '", '~. *] ' 22'-¢ ', EOUmm NT SECT[ON SCAIZ: 1./4' . 1'--0' AT&T AT&T Wl~[m ~S SERVICES, INC. ANTENNA DETArr, FRONT ERICSSON TOWER I~OUNTED AMPLIFIW..R (T'JLk) DETAIL~n~ Q~ ENLARGED EQUIP]~ENT AREA SCALE: 1" - 4:-.0' 3SED UNDERGROUND~ VAULT INSIOE 12'x22'x10' VAULT LOCATION PROPOSED--x .~NTENNA & TM_AX · LOCATION \ GRAPHIC SC~lJ.~ (m~) ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN & DETAILS ~.~ ~-k /-- PROPOSED TO I~ RELOCATED V.,~U [ ..L : ~- I Pl~~ON,AL ..... . ENLARGED (E) POLE ELE~ATION :_ LOCATION ~w~ ,' - ,~ VAULT EQUIPMENT ,a~A~m ~ LOCATION IN~IZ)~ 12'X22'~10' VALJLT TI) BE RET,,OCATE]) 2300 CONTRA COSTA BLVD., ~220 SITE NO. 882 ~ ,~ ,/,,/o, ~ .m eo.~.~ ~ ELEVATION VIEWS & DETAILS PLEASANT HILL, CA 9452.'.3 CORNER OF AVALON DRIVE & CANYON COURT AT&TWlRELESSSERVICES, INC. 1 a/8/o3 RBqSa) ~q~ M~ (*Z~ CaaNm3 PHONE:. (92.5) 674-1151 so. S~l FRANCISCO, C.~ ~N~ DA~ ,raaONS ~ CH~pPP,e II AT&T AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES SITE NUMBER: 882 SITE NAME: AVALON WATER TANK 1 DRAWING INDEX REV. 882-Z01 882-Z02 882-Z03 TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN &_DETAILS ELEVATION VIEWS 5 5 5 ADJACENT 'PROPERTY MAP J.E. $CHUPJ & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING Z~ LAND SURVEYING 2300 CONTRA COSTA BLVD., #220 PLEASANT HILL CA 94525 PHONE:. (92.5'~ 674-1151 FAX: (.925) 674-1,314 AVALON WATER TANK SITE NO. 882 CORNER OF AVALON DRIVE &: CANYON COURT SO. SAN FRANCISCO, ~i DIRECTIONS TAKE HWY 4 WE. ST TOWARD RICHMOND. TURN RIGHT ONTO RAMP TOWARDS I-SO OAKLAND/ SACRAMENTO. TAKE RAMP LEFT ONTO t-80 TOWARDS I-BO/OAKLAND. TAKE RAMP RIGHT ONTO I--PO TOWARDS 1-80 SAN FRANCISCO. MERGE ONTO US-lO1. KEEP RIGHT ONTO RAMP TOWARDS 1-280/ DALY CITY. TAKE RAMP LEFT ONTO 1-280 TOWARDS 1280/ DALY crrY. TURN RIGHT ONTO RAMP TOWARDS WESq'BOROUGH BLVD. KEEP LEFT TO STAY ON RN~IP TOWARDS AVALON OR. BEAR LEFT ON ONTO WES'q~OROUGH BLVD. TURN RIGHT ONTO JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD. TURN RIGHT ONTO AVALON DRIVE. AV.~LON DRIVE BECOMES CRES3WOOD DRNE. IVICINITY MAP TO DALY CITY SAN FRANCISCO TD SAN BRUNO PORTION OF THOMAS BROS. MAPS MAP #25 GRID #El AT&T AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC, PROJECT INFORMATION SCOPE OF WORK: SFi'E ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: CONTACT PERSON: APPUCANT: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE.: I.AT/LONG TYPE ELEVATION: JURISDIC"RON: OCCUPANCY: CONSTRUCTION 'IYPE: A.P.N.: CURRENT USE: PROPOSED USE.: THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT SEE. CORNER OF AVALON DRNE & CANYON COURT SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY HOWARD YEE (916) 798-6148 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. 2729 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 57'38'12.57' 12Z'26'26.02" 258.2'4'', AMSL AT ANTENNAS LOCATION CI'iY OF SO. SAN FRANCISCO B (TEL EQUIP.) Og1-145-280 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FAClI..rlY TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILI3Y SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS NAME COMPANY A/E J.E. SCHURICHT J.E. SCHURICHT &: ASSOCIATES SAC HOWARD YEE LYLE RF ...... CONST. -- ..... LANDLORD CALIFORNIA WATER SEE'VICE CO. --- NUMBER (925) 674-1151 (91e) 79s-61,,m DRAWN ALTERNATIVE #1 TITLE SHEET JEnA NO. O0-60ATr Z01 882 ~ ? . > ~' ~~' /'..'.".'.',.'~. \. ,.¢.-~ ~..-,,,~,~ ~ ~ ' ' / / ~ ~ ' KA~R ~ .." /' ~ ~ :: WATER TANK ::: I ~'~ ~ ~' ~ I -~ " -/ /"~- ' ~ T~P=~Q'+ A~f :.. I ~ ~ /~ ~ . ~o ~ I~ / ·.~/' '% k, [ :: ' ~: - ~ = =,' ~'~'''- I ~ ~'& ~ ~ ; . ,,i ~% .' .'.,..,,,, . ,..,'.":,"" ''~~~*%~'. ' '" ' ~~J ~/-'~1~ "~~:~% ~ LOCATION ~ ~ -' ' F' ~ ."' 2~~ · %. . -, .,. ' ~o~. ~ ~ ~ '- ' '-'""~ ~ ~- ~" ' ' · ~ .' ~ · -, . / .. -. ~ ~ .~ ~ · ~x .. / · .... : · , . ~P~CY ~ ~ ~ p~c M~N~ ~D ~. O~ ~ -- -- -- ! -- (m ~-) ,.~ ~ ~ ~D ~D WA~ C~ ~ NOT PR~. U~ N~ ~ ~; ~ ~ 0~ ~R~ ~J~ ~l~ ...... ~... ~ NOT ~0~ ~ ~m ~. ~E ~m ~ ~TA~ ~'~U~'I' VIeW "U""~ ~'--~d~Z--~', ~ ~0"~"~ F~ ~ TO ~ U~"" ~U~, ~ ~ EQ~PMENT ELEVATION ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~uc~ ~o~s ~ s~ ,/~' - ,'~' Cl~L ~N¢INE~ING ~ ~dO SUR~N¢ AVALON WATER TANK ~ 2300 CONT~ COSTA BLVD., ~220 SITE NO. 882 ~ ~,"/'"/"'./,/o,ll"~ .-"" ~"~u. (~ ~~,~, SITE P~N & DETAILS PEASANT HILL, CA 94523 CORNER OF AV~ON DR~ · C~ON COURT AT&T~RE~SSSER~CES,~C. PHONE:. (9~5> 674-1151 so. ~ ~clsco, ~ ~__.____ J J ~ ~ ~ ~o ID~ ~-6~ Z02 ~2 5 F~: (925) 674-1314 ~L ~.~)~ -~ /--- PROPOSED ' ' ' ' MSL ANTENNA ~ EXISTING WATER TANK = 288 +, A /LOCATION' ~'b'":'. t- ~...-.... ..~ ~:.:::f.:::..::.:.:-:~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.'.v,'.v.v:.'.':.'.v: ....... .":.'' h: '- ~ :'N" ,/:.".'v:.v.'.'.v.'.v.. ~ ~:'~ ...... : ......... ..~.. ..... :.:.:.:.x.:.:.x.:.:.:.:.:.............. ...... ..., ....,........... .... :':' ':i:!:::., ...... ~:':::::':::.:. ". ::~. .:. .. .:. . ."'.:.:-:.:.',:.'N~-:.:.:,:,:.:,v'.':.:':-:':':':'::::::::::::: '.. ~-' .i,:.~ .v:,'... .:+ E~+X.:-:.:.:-:-:.:.:.' '"-X.:':~{.:" :..:-..v .... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :..:.:.. .... :,. ========================= v.'.: ....... :':':':-:'. 'V':v.v":,v" :;V. ' " ':v'., '. ~ ~ ", ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.v ...-.~.-~ ~5~~ .-.-.' .~ .....-.-.......-...- ,..-.-.-.,.-.-.-.~.-.-.'.-.-.'. .~~. -.-.-.-.-.-.- --.-.'.'.'--- ...-...- ..... ~-'-'-'-'-'"'"'" ...... SOHT~E~ST~RLY GRAPHIC SCALE pROPOSED (2) ~A1Wa~m pA.'u. E3. m~ 4/~ ?-~0/~0/~/~'~,'~. PR~O~:D ./ ~4/17-~/~5/~T~ ~ R~ ~NG ~ 7920 ~NAS ~N~ 14' T~ P~ (8) ~UA~, 2 PER ~]TENNA _i ENLARGED SCN~ !/2" - 1'-0' (E) POLE ELEVATION VIEW G P.d~Pi'~C SCALE J,.[ SCHU & O ATES CM~ fN~INEERIN~ · LAND SURVEYING 2300 CONTRA COSTA BLVD., #220 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 PHONE:. (92.5) 674-1151 FAX: (g25) 674--1314 ~BB'~ A~S~ ~.'~-'-'=-':' EXISTING WATER TANK = ~,~::::::k ........................ ;.,~.. .......... .-.,-........:-.-m.;:-:-:.-.-..~-.',*:,:*;:v~,'-.'~ ;::..,q .:.:.:fi F ~:.:':.:.'..:.:-:.:-:-:-:~ t~:,:;~ :(' · ~ .=~ ~ ~ ~. : ~ ~t~ ;.~s[ ,: ~.....v.. '-..'.'-.:...:v: '"v", '.w.'.':." v.v.v.v.v.':.v.v.' .'...v.w:.'.v' [~ ? .~ .... q~. ~..~ ~ ~'.~ ~ : m~ ? := ~?~:t~ ~.~ ~.,c.:,v.v...:...:.:..e:.:.:e:~~ .... :...: ..=..:....:..=.. .......... v.v.v.v.-.v.-=.-:.:.v......:.:....:. ~OC~ON 117.~i ~I j ~i ,; :~ .~i{: ~u..~:.~" ,~ ~ ~ ~- ~,v~v.v::,{,......v.v:.v+..~.:.:.:+~ ~:{.:+:-:+.'.',-.w,':.'~~5:-:-:.:~ ~-~O~/~I~T~P~ ~ hh~:~ i~ P*"' ~:?".'.'::::. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:...::::f.~ ~:'::'::::~:::::::.. "...:::::::::~ WOOD ~N~ ~SOUT~STE~Y E~VATION ~S~~-~ ~ ~ ~- - ,r EQ~~ LOCA~ON (~ ~) CORNER OF AVALON DR~ · C~ON COURT AT&T~RE~SSSER~CES, INC.' ' ' SO. ~N ~CISCO, ~ ALTERNATIVE #1 ELEVATION VIEWS OO-60A'rf Z03 882. 5 Existing Conditions Plan Avalon Tank Site July 21, 2004 04.036 10' 20' 40' PLANT LIST SYMBOL ! LEGEND BOTANICAL NAME METROSIDEROS EXGELSUS ESCALLONIA EXONIENSIS 'FRADESII' CEANOTHUS GRISEUS 'HORIZONTALIS' ARCTOSTAPHYLOSUVA-URSI COMMON NAME NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE ESCALLONIA CARMEL CREEPER MANZANffA SIZE 24' BOX 15 GAL / 5GAL 5 GAL I GAL SPACING AS SHOWN 5'-0' O.C. 5'-0' O.C. 3'-0' O.C. NOTES EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXIST, FENCE, 6'-0' HIGH CHNNLINK WITH BARBED WIRE TOP EXIST, FENCE, WITH NEW BLACK VINYL-CLAD FABRIC HOUSE NUMBER ELEVATION ~EW SECTION NUMBER AND LOCA~ON NOTE NUMBER [FRONTAGE TREATMENT ~' ~ M---"~TEN--N-~ D-~UGHT-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 - UPSIZED 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 WlLDFLOWER SEED MIX OF CALIFORNIA POPPY, LUPINE, AND MONKEY FLOWER Site Plan Avalon Tank Site duly 21, 2004 04. 036 SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES ANTENNAE EQUIPMENT CABINET ADJACENT PROPERTIES SITE FRONTAGE FENCE Site Photos Avalon Tank Site duly 21, 2004 ANTENNAE CABINET (~ EXISTING 2' 41 TREE ... .~~~PEN VIEW OF EQUIPMENT -"---"~--__-- -- _/ ~RASS SLOPE FENCE RUB PLANTING ;IDEWALK ISUAL SCREEN FOR EQUIPMENT (~ PROPOSED 0 2' 4J -- ¢/ILDFLOWER OVERSEEDING OF EXIST. GRASS SLOPE VIEW OF EQUIPMENT IS SCREENED OF ACCENT SHRUBS INTED FENCE )NTINUOUS EVERGREEN GROUNDCOVER ALONG *~._ STREET FRONTAGE Sections Avalon ~'ank Site duly 21, 2004 04. 036 EXISTING PROPOSED Elevation View Avalon Tank Site duly 21, 2004 =_W ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE ESCALLONIA IANZANITA CARMEL CREEPER WILDFLOWER SEED MIX Plant Materials Avalon Tank Site July 21, 2004 tl4_ fl_~ t~