The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-01-11 e-packet AGE DA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2006 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 Ineetings 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 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. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Vice Chair MARK N. ADDIEGO Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL Executive Director STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS A V AILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of Decelnber 28, 2005 2. Motion to confirm expense c1aiIns of January 11, 2006 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 11,2006 PAGE 2 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2006 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Mayor RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR Vice Mayor MARK N. ADDIE GO Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councihnan KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL Ci ty Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARlNG ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARlNG IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS . Municipal Infonnation Systelns Association of California Award presented by Laura Peabody and accepted by Infonnation Technology Director Doug Hollis · First Citizen's Academy presented by Susan Kennedy, Assistant to the City Manager AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL . Announcelnents . Committee Reports · Review and direction on City of South San Francisco's vote for Cities Selection Committee CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of December 28, 2005 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of January 11, 2006 3. Motion to adopt an ordinance adopting a development agreement with ARE-East Jmnie Court LLC for a two building research and development complex on a 6.13-acre site at the intersection of East Jamie Court and Haskins Way 4. Resolution authorizing submittal of HOME application to San Mateo County for Downtown Affordable Housing Progrmn funding for acquisition and rehabilitation of eight-unit property 5. Resolution authorizing sublnittal of HOME application to the County of San Mateo for funding the Downtown Affordable Housing Program for the renovation of the West Hotel 6. Resolution authorizing execution of a contract with North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center to continue to Inanage the City's House Helpers Minor HOlne Repair Program in the amount of $40,000 7. Motion to accept North Canal Street resurfacing project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 11,2006 PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING 8. Consideration of appeal of the Planning Commission decision to uphold the Chief Planner's determination to require a use pennit for the property located at 344 Victory Avenue. Owner: Adele Gibbs; Applicant: George Corey COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 11,2006 PAGE 3 taff AGENDA ITEM #3 ort DATE: January 11, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney SUBJECT: Adopt an Ordinance to Approve the Development Agreement with ARE-East Jamie Court LLC for a Two-Building Research and Development Complex on a 6. 13-Acre Site at the Intersection of East Jamie Court and Haskins Way RECOMMENDATION: Motion to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance to approve the Development Agreement with ARE-East Jamie Court LLC for a two-building research and development complex on a 6.13-acre site at the intersection of East J mnie Couli and Haskins Way BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is now ready for adoption. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ARE-EAST JAMIE COURT LLC FOR A TWO-BUILDING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX ON A 6.13-ACRE SITE AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAST JAMIE COURT AND HASKINS WAY (Introduced on 12/14/05 Vote 5-0) By: , ;c~ 797804-1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ARE- EAST JAMIE COURT LLC FOR A TWO-BUILDING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX ON A 6.13-ACRE SITE AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAST JAMIE COURT AND HASKINS WAY WHEREAS, on November 21, 2002, the Planning COlnmission approved Use Permit UP02- 0042 to construct a two building office/R and D cOlnplex on a 6.13-acre site at the southeast corner of Haskins Way and East Jmnie Court, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay; and WHEREAS, due to a significant downturn in the economy, the project applicant, ARE-East Jamie Court, LLC has been unable to commence project construction; and WHEREAS, in January of2005, the applicant requested and was granted a one-year extension of permit approvals, and in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.81.090 and 20.82.120, no further extensions are provided for; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a Developlnent Agreement which would extend the life of the entitlements for a period of ten years and would also clarify and obligate several project features and Initigation measures including public art, pump station and sewer main line ilnprovements, Initigation fees for traffic impacts and certain public safety enhancements; and WHEREAS, the two buildings totaling 133,000 square feet, with one building consisting of two stories over a parking level of 57,700 sqaure feet, and a second building of three stories and 75,300 square feet constitutes the present proposed development and is the project subject to the terms of the Development Agreement ("Agreelnent"); and, WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared which analyzes the auticipated environmental iInpacts of the proposed Project, which Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission in November of2002. In accordance with California Enviromnental Quality Act Guidelines section 15162, a new Negative Declaration is not required for the modifications to the Agreement since no changes are proposed that would likely result in additional environmental impacts or alteration of previously adopted lnitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.60.050, the Director of Economic and Community Development reviewed the application for the Agreement and found the proposed Agreement to be in the proper form, determined that the application was complete, and referred the application and Agreement to the Planning Commission for a public hearing; and, 796064-1 WHEREAS, on November 3rd, 2005, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the proposed Agreement for the East Jamie Court Agreelnent and recolnmended that the City Council approve the Agreement; and, WHEREAS, on December 14,2005, pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.060.110 the City Council conducted a property noticed public hearing on the proposed Agreement for the project. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Findings A. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan, as amended and adopted. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of these documents. The Project provides for a two-building office and research and development complex in the Planned Industrial (P-l) Zoning District. The proposed project complies with all zoning, subdivision and building regulations and with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. B. The City Council has independently reviewed the proposed Development Agreement, the certified and adopted Housing Element, the General Plan, Chapters 20.78 and 20.84 of the Zoning Ordinance, Title 15 of the Municipal Code, and applicable state and federal law and has determined that the proposed Development Agreement for the Project complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations and with the General Plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of these documents, oral and written evidence subn1itted at the public hearings on the Project, including advice and recommendations from City staff. C. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project states its specific duration. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 2 of the Agreement states that the Agreement shall expire ten years from the effective date of the Agreement, which shall be concurrent with the adoption of the instant ordinance. D. The proposed Development Agreelnent incorporates the permitted uses, density and intensity of use for the property subject thereto as reflected in the approved Conditional Use Permit UP02-0042 by reference. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination 796064-1 that Section 3 of the Agreement set forth the development standards and the documents constituting the Project. E. The proposed Development Agreement states the maximum permitted height and size of proposed buildings on the property subject thereto. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Developtnent Agreement and its determination that Section 3 of the Agreement sets forth the doculnents which state the maximum permitted height and size of buildings. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the proposed Developlnent Agreement with ARE-East Jamie Court LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Severability. In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be deten11ined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Publication and Effective Date. 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 ofth.is 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. ........mmBmB..B.......u..mumm.m......BB.m..........m......B..BBB..B..B....B....B' 796064-1 Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the day of ,2005. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of , 2005 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 , 2005. Mayor 796064-1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT East Jamie Court Office Research and Development Project This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST JAMIE COURT OFFICE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ("PROJECT") is dated , 2005 ("Agreement"), between ARE- East Jamie Court, LLC, Inc., a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Owner"), and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"). Owner and City are collectively referred to herein as "Parties." RECITALS A. WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreelnents with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property or on behalf of those persons having same; and, B. WHEREAS, ARE- East Jamie Court, LLC, Inc., the Owner, has a legal interest in the real property subj ect to this Agreement; and, C. WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City has adopted rules and regulations, embodied in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, establishing procedures and requirements for adoption and execution of development agreements; and, D. WHEREAS, this Agreement concerns property located on a 6.13-acre site at the comer of Haskins Way and East Jamie Court, as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); and, E. WHEREAS, the Owner's parent company has submitted a development proposal to the City, commonly known as the East Jamie Court Office Research and Development Project, consisting of construction of two office/research and development buildings totaling 133,000 square feet on the vacant 6.13-acre site as depicted on the East Jamie Court Development Plan Set dated November 7, 2002, prepared by Dowler-Gruman Architects ("Plan Set"), which application was approved as a Conditional Use Permit by City's Planning COlnmission in November of2002 attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference (the "Use Permit"), to be located on the Property (the "Project"); and, F. WHEREAS, Owner has requested that the City enter into this Agreement to set forth the rights and obligations of the parties relating to the development of the Project; and, Page 1 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 G. WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution hereof have taken place in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, the California Environmental Quality Act and with Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and, H. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission have found that this Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and progrmns specified in the South San Francisco General Plan as adopted on October 13, 1999 and as mnended from time to time; and, 1. WHEREAS, on _, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. approving and adopting this Agreelnent and the Ordinance thereafter took effect on 2005. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and in consideration of the lnutual covenants and agreelnents contained herein, agree as follows: 1. Effective Date Pursuant to Chapter 19.060.140, notwithstanding the fact that the City Council adopts an ordinance approving this Agreement, the Agreement shall be effective and shall only create obligations for the Pmiies from and after the date that the ordinance approving this Agreement takes effect ("Effective Date"). 2. Duration This Agreement shall expire ten (10) years from the Effective Date of this Agreen1ent, but in no event later than December 31, 2017. In the event that litigation to which the City is a party against the Owner, or any of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, representatives or consultants, should delay implelnentation or construction of the Project on the Property, the expiration date of this Agreement shall be extended for a period equal to the length of time frOln the time the SUlnmons and complaint is served on the . defendant( s) until the judgment entered by the court is final and not subj ect to appeal; provided, however, that the total amount of time for which the expiration date shall be extended as a result of such litigation shall not exceed five (5) years. Page 2 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 3. Project Description~ Developlnent Standards For Proiect The Project shall consist of two (2) Office/Research and Development buildings totaling approximately 133,000 square feet, and related improvements as provided in the Plan Set and as approved by the City Council. (a) The permitted uses, the density and intensity of uses, the maximum heights, locations and total area of the proposed buildings, the development schedule, the provisions for vehicular access and parking, any reservation or dedication of land, any public improvements, facilities and services, and all environmental impact mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions for the Project, shall be exclusively those provided in the Plan Set, Use Permit, Development Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration and this Agreement as approved by the City Council and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date, except as modified in this Agreement, and applicable provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code as in effect on the Effective Date (b) Subject to Owner's fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to Owner a vested right to develop and construct on the Property all the improvelnents for the Project authorized by, and in accordance with the tenns of this Agreement, the Plan Set as approved by the City Council and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date. (c) Upon such grant of right, no future amendments to the City General Plan, the City Zoning Code, the City Municipal Code, or other City ordinances, policies or regulations in effect as of the Effective Date shall apply to the Project, except such future modifications that are not in conflict with and do not prevent the development proposed in the Plan Set and as approved by the City Council; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or preclude the City from adopting any land use regulations or amendments expressly permitted herein or otherwise required by State or Federal Law. (d) The Use Permit granted by City shall not require an extension during the tenn of this Agreement provided Owner is not in material breach of the tenns of this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval for said Use Permit. 4. Permits For Project. If the Project is to be built in phases, Owner shall submit a Development Plan for development of the Project within sixty (60) days of applying for a grading permit for the Project. The Development Plan shall address, at a minimum, the landscaping and common improvements required for the Proj ect. Page 3 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 The City shall issue building permits and certificates of occupancy only after the City has reviewed and approved Owner's applications therefor. City staff review of applications for permits or other entitlements shall be limited to determining whether the following conditions are met: (a) The application is complete; and, (b) Owner has complied with the conditions of the City Council's approval of the Project, all applicable Uniform Codes, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, CEQA requirements, including any required mitigation measures, governing issuance of such permits or certificates and Federal and State Laws; and, ( c) All applicable processing, administrative and legal fees have been paid subject to the provisions of this Agreenlent; and, (d) For Certificates of Occupancy only, City has approved the landscaping and other improvements for the Proj ect. 5. Vesting of Approvals. Upon the City's approval of this Agreement, such approvals shall vest in Owner and its successors and assigns for the term of this Agreement provided that the successors and assigns comply with the terms and conditions of said permit, including, but not limited to, submission of insurance certificates and bonds for the grading of the Property and construction of improvements. 6. Cooperation Between Parties in Implelnentation of This Agreement. The Owner and City shall proceed in a reasonable and timely manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated by applicable agreements, statutes or ordinances, to complete all steps necessary for implementation of this Agreement and development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The City shall proceed in an expeditious manner to complete all actions required for the development of the Project, including but not limited to the following: (a) Scheduling all required public hearings by the City Council and City Planning Commission; and (b) Processing and checking all maps, plans, permits, building plans and specifications and other plans relating to development of the Property filed by Owner or its nominee, successor or assign as necessary for development of the Property, and inspecting and providing acceptance of or comments on work by Owner that requires acceptance or approval by the City. Page 4 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 (c) Owner, in a timely manner, shall provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder and to cause its planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. It is the Parties' express intent to cooperate with one another and diligently work to implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 7. Acquisition of Other Property~ Eminent Domain In order to facilitate and insure development of the Project in accordance with the Plan Set and the City Council's approval, the City may assist Owner, at Owner's request and at Owner's sole cost and expense, in acquiring any easements or properties necessary for the satisfaction and completion of any off-site components of the Project required by the City Council to be constructed or obtained by Owner in the Council' s appr~val of the Project and the Plan Set, in the event Owner is unable to acquire such easelnents or properties or is unable to secure the necessary agreements with the applicable property owners for such easements or properties. Owner expressly acknowledges that the City is under no obligation to use its power of Eminent Domain. 8. Maintenance Obligations on Property All of the Property subject to this Agreement shall be maintained by Owner or its successors in perpetuity. The Property shall be maintained in accordance with City requirements to prevent accumulation of litter and trash, to keep weeds abated, and to provide erosion control, and other requirements set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code, subject to City approval. (a) If Owner subdivides the property or otherwise transfers ownership of a parcel or building in the Project to any person or entity such that the Property is no longer under single ownership, Owner shall first establish an Owner's Association and submit Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney. Said CC&Rs shall satisfy the requirements of Municipal Code section 19.36.040. (b) Any provisions of the conditions, covenants, and restrictions governing the Project relating to the maintenance obligations under this section shall be enforceable by the City. 9. Fees. No future fee requirements, other than those identified herein, imposed by the City or changes to existing fee requirements (other than those currently subject to annual increases as specified in the adopting or implementing Resolutions and Ordinances) that occur on or after the Effective Date of this Agreement, shall apply to the Project. Owner shall not be responsible for any fees imposed by the City in connection with the development and construction of the Project, except as otherwise set forth in this Page 5 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 Agreement and/or the Use Permit and those in existence as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. (a) Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreelnent. 10. New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Property provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 11. Assessments Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from COlnmon benefit assessments levied against it and similarly situated properties by the City pursuant to and in accordance with any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services which benefit the Property. 12. Additional Conditions Owner shall comply with all of the following requirements: (a) City is in the process of constructing a new Swift Sewer Main between the boundary of Slough Estates Britannia East Grand Project and City's pump station at the intersection of Swift A venue and Kimball Way. The current estimated cost for completion of the improvements is Three Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars. ($3,250,000.00). The City Engineer has determined that Owner should contribute 14.2% of this total estimated cost, or Four Hundred and Sixty One Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($461,500.00) as a proportional share reflecting the benefits received by the Sewer Main improvements, calculated according to projected estimated sewer flows within the main. Substantially concurrently with, but not later than, the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the Project, Owner shall pay City the mnount of Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($461,500.00). To ensure that contributions toward construction of the improvements are fair! y apportioned among the parties to whom the sewer main benefits shall redound, City will reimburse Slough, LLC in its capacity as developer of the Britannia East Grand project for the difference between total cost of the improvements and the sum total of Slough and Owner's contributions, currently estimated to be Eleven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars($11,500.00). Construction of the Sewer Main improvements is scheduled to be completed in April of 2006. Following Page 6 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 completion of the improvements, no later than January of 2007, the City Engineer shall present Owner with a final accounting of actual costs incurred in connection with the construction of the Sewer Main improvements. Should this figure exceed Three Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars. ($3,250,000.00), Owner shall pay City a supplemental contribution equal to 14.2% of the difference between Three Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars. ($3,250,000.00) and the actual cost of construction. Should the cost of improvements be less than Three Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars. ($3,250,000.00), City shall reimburse Owner an mnount equal to 14.2% of the difference between Three Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars. ($3,250,000.00) and the actual cost of construction. (b) East of 101 Traffic lInpact Fees: Substantially concurrently with, but no later than, the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the Project, Owner shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee as established by Resolution of the City Council dated Septelnber 26, 2001 and as updated by Resolution dated August 24,2005, or as the fee lnay be updated and revised by the City Council in accordance with section 1 O(b) above. Presently, the fee calculation would reflect the result of multiplying 133,000 square feet of by the current total fee applicable to General Office or Research and Development uses of $2.11 per square foot, or $280,630. As noted above, however, the actual fee paid shall depend on fee schedule as established by the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee in effect at the time of fee payment. (c) Public Art Contribution: Owner shall install and provide artwork for public display in the Project. Said art project shall cost no less than one hundred and fifty hundred thousand dollars ($150,000), which shall be installed on the Project site on the date on which the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Project. The location of the artwork and the artwork to be installed by the Owner shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the City of South San Francisco prior to installation. Artworks installed pursuant to this section shall be maintained by Owner or, in the event Owner's interest in the property is conveyed or subdivided, by Owner's successors, or, if applicable, by the Owner's Association for the Project. If an association of owners is created, said maintenance obligations and a budget related thereto shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Project. The cost of the public art installation subject to this provision shall be adjusted annually on the Effective Date of this Agreement in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost index for the San Francisco Bay Area. (d) Public Safety. Owner shall provide access fqr public safety personnel, including Fire and Police, to a multi-use facility room to be located on the ground floor of one of the two buildings in the Project. At a minimum, this room shall include a Page 7 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 storage closet approximately three (3) by five (5) feet in dimension with double doors, a phone jack, some sort of shelving units, and two (2) standard electrical outlets. Additionally, Owner shall, prior to issuance of a building permit, conduct or arrange to have conducted an emergency radio communications study to determine internal emergency radio communication need based on the individual building types in the Project. Owner shall furnish the Fire Chief with a copy of the results of this study. If the study reveals that the Project's internal radio communications are deficient, Owner shall, at its sole cost and expense, incorporate appropriate mitigation measures into the project design. Such mitigation measures could include, but shall not be limited to, internal communications wiring, signal boosting, and the installation of antennae and other related equiplnent. 13. Indemnity. Owner agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City subject to the reasonable approval of Owner) and hold hannless City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives :from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property dmnage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Owner, or any actions or inactions of Owner's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Owner shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any public improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). 14. Interests of Other Owners Owner has no knowledge of any reason why Owner, and any other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property as of the date on which title to the Property vests of record in Owner, will not be bound by this Agreement. 15. Assi€ffilnent (a) Right to Assign. Owner may at any time or froln time to time transfer its right, title or interest in or to all or any portion of the Property. In accordance with Government Code Section 65868.5, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to Owner. As a condition precedent to any such transfer, Owner shall require the transferee to acknowledge in writing that transferee has been informed, understands and agrees that the burdens and benefits under this Page 8 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 Agreement relating to such transferred property shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the transferee. (b) Notice of Assignment or Transfer. No transfer, sale or assignment of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without the prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The City Manager shall consider and decide the matter within 10 days after Owner's notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager. (c) Exception for Notice. Notwithstanding Section 15(b), Owner may at any time, upon notice to City but without the necessity of any approval by the City, transfer the Property or any part thereof and all or any pmi of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder to: (i) any subsidiary, affiliate, parent or other .entity which controls, is controlled by or is under COlnmon control with Owner, (ii) any member or partner of Owner or any subsidiary, parent or affiliate of any such member or partner, or (iii) any successor or successors to Owner by merger, consolidation, non-bankruptcy reorganization or government action. As used in this paragraph, "control" shall mean the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management or policies, whether through the ownership of voting securities, partnership interest, contracts (other than those that transfer Owner's interest in the property to a third party not specifically identified in this subsection ( c)) or otherwise. (d) Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Section 15 (a), Section 15(b) and Section 15( c) of this Agreement, Owner shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment or the effective date of such transfer, sale or assignment, whichever occurs later; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes any right, interest or obligation of Owner under this Agreement, Owner shall be released with respect to such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. (e) Owner's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding subparagraphs 15 (a) and (c), Owner may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Owner shall retain, provided that Owner specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to or maintained with this Agreement and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder prior to or Page 9 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 concurrently with the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Owner's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such retained rights, interests and obligations and this Agreelnent shall remain applicable to Owner with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. (f) Time for Notice. Within 10 days of the date escrow closes on any such transfer, Owner shall notify the City in writing of the name and address of the transferee. Said notice shall include a statement as to the obligations, including any mitigation measures, fees, improvements or other conditions of approval, assumed by the transferee. Any transfer which does not comply with the notice requirements of this section and Section 15 (b) shall not release the Owner from its obligations to the City under this Agreement until such tilne as the City is provided notice in accordance with Section 15 (b). 16. Insurance. (a) Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Owner shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) and a deductible of not lnore than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per claim. The policy so Inaintained by Owner shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. (b ) Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement Owner shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Owner for work at the Project site. Owner shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Owner agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Owner's failure to maintain any such required insurance. (c) Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, Owner shall furnish City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections (a) and (b) and evidence that the carrier will provide the City at least ten days prior written notice of any cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy if the reduction results in coverage less than that required by this Agreement. 1. In the event of a reduction (below the limits required in this Agreelnent) or cancellation in coverage, or change in insurance carriers or policies, Owner shall, prior to such reduction, cancellation or change, provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice to City, regardless of any notification by the applicable insurer. If the City discovers that the policies have been cancelled or reduced below the limits required in this Page 10 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 Agreement and no notice has been provided by either insurer or Owner, said failure shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 2. In the event of a reduction (below the limits required by this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, Owner shall have five (5) days in which to provide evidence of the required coverage during which tiIne no persons shall enter the Property to construct improvements thereon, including construction activities related to the landscaping and COlllinon improvements. Additionally, no persons not employed by existing tenants shall enter the Property to perfonn such works until such time as the City receives evidence of substitute coverage. 3. If Owner fails to obtain substitute coverage vvithin five (5) days, City lnay obtain, but is not required to obtain, substitute coverage and charge Owner the cost of such coverage plus an administrative fee equal to ten percent of the premium for said coverage. (d) The insurance shall include the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, elnployees and representatives as additional insureds on the policy. 17. Covenants Run With The Land The terms of this Agreement are legislative in nature, and apply to the Property as regulatory ordinances. During the term of this Agreement, all of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, any lot, parcel or any portion thereof, and any interest therein, whether by sale, operation of law or other Inanner, and they shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors. 18. Conflict with State or Federal Law In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified (in accordance with Section 19 set forth below) or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Owner shall have the right to challenge, at its sole cost, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement and, if the challenge in a court of competent jurisdiction is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. Page 11 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 19. Procedure for Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the effective date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 19.60. 20. Periodic Review During the tenn of this Agreement, the City shall conduct "annual" and/or "special" reviews of Owner's good faith compliance with the telIDS and conditions of this Agreement in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. City may recover reasonable costs incurred in conducting said review, including staff time expended and attorney's fees. 21. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement This Agreement may be further amended or terminated only in writing and in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 65865.1,65867.5,65868,65868.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 22. Agreement is Entire Agreement. This Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein contain the sole and entire Agreement between the parties concerning the Property. The parties acknowledge and agree that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof, except representations set forth herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering this Agreement. The parties further acknowledge that all statements or representations that heretofore may have been made by either of them to the other are void and of no effect, and that neither of theln has relied thereon in its dealings with the other. 23. Events of Default Owner shall be in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events: (a) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to the City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; or Page 12 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 (b) A finding and determination by the City made following an annual or special review under the procedure provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code that, upon the basis of substantial evidence, Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or, (c) Owner fails to fulfill any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement and such failure continues beyond any applicable cure period provided in this Agreement. This provision shall not be interpreted to create a cure period for any event of default where such cure period is not specifically provided for in this Agreement; provided, however, that if such default is not capable of being cured within such 30 day period, Owner shall have such additional time to cure as is reasonably necessary. 24. Procedure upon Default (a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City lnay terminate or lnodify this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Govenunent Code Section 65865.1 and of Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (b) The City shall not be deemed to have waived any claiIn of defect in Owner's performance if, on annual or special review, the City does not propose to terminate this Agreement. (c) No waiver or failure by the City or Owner to enforce arty provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. (d) Any actions for breach of this Agreement shall be decided in accordance with California law. The remedy for breach of this Agreelnent shall be limited to specific performance. (e) The City shall give Owner written notice of any default under this Agreement, and Owner shall have thirty (30) days after the date of the notice to cure the default or to reasonably commence the procedures or actions needed to cure the default. 25. Attornevs fees and costs If legal action by either Party is brought because of breach of this Agreelnent or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. (a) Action by Third Party. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of Page 13 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Owner shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 26. Severability If any material term or condition of this Agreelnent is for any reason held by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, and if the smne constitutes a material change in the consideration for this Agreement, then this entire Agreement shall likewise be invalid, and shall be deemed null and void and of no further force or effect following such judicial deten11ination. 27. No Third Parties Benefited No person other than the City, Owner, or their respective successors is intended to or shall have any right or claim under this Agreement, this Agreement being for the sole benefit and protection of the parties hereto and their respective successors. SiInilarly, no amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall require the consent or acknowledgment of any person not a Party or successor to this Agreement. 28. Binding Effect of Agreement The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties originally named herein and their respective successors and assigns. 29. Relationship of Parties It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that the Owner is not an agent of City. The parties do not intend to create a partnership, joint venture or any other joint business relationship by this Agreement. The City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any fonn of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Owner joint venturers or partners. Neither Owner nor any of Owner's agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of City in connection with the performance of Owner's obligations under this Agreelnent. 30. Bankruptcy The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Page 14 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 31. Mortgagee Protection: Certain Rights of Cure (f) Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date on which this Agreement or a memoranduln of this Agreement is recorded, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against all persons and entities, including all deed of trust beneficiaries or mortgagees ("Mortgagees") who acquire title to the Property or any portion thereofby foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. (g) Mortgagee Not Obligated. No foreclosing Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of any improvements required by this Agreement, or to pay for or guarantee construction or completion thereof. City, upon receipt of a written request therefor from a foreclosing Mortgagee, shall permit the Mortgagee to succeed to the rights and obligations of Owner under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by Owner hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the Mortgagee as soon as is reasonably possible. The foreclosing Mortgagee thereafter shall comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement. (h) Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, City shall deliver to the Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof to Owner, all notices given to Owner describing all claims by the City that Owner has defaulted hereunder. If City determines that Owner is in noncOlnpliance with this Agreement, City also shall serve notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereof on Owner. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Owner to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the condition of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City's notice. 32. Estoppel Certificate. Either party from time to time may deliver written notice to the other party requesting written certification that, to the knowledge of the certifying party (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and constitutes a binding obligation of the parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been mnended or modified either orally or in writing, or, if it has been amended or modified, specifying the nature of the mnendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and monetary amount, if any, of the default. A party receiving a request hereunder shall endeavor to execute and return the certificate within ten (10) days after receipt thereof, and shall in all events execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days after Page 15 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 receipt thereof. However, a failure to return a certificate within 10 days shall not be deemed a default of the party's obligations under this Agreement and no cause of action shall arise based on the failure of a party to execute such certificate within 10 days. The City Manager shall have the right to execute the certificates requested by Owner hereunder provided the certificate is requested within 6 months of the annual or special review. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by permitted transferees and Mortgagees. At the request of Owner, the certificates provided by City establishing the status of this Agreement with respect to any lot or parcel shall be in recordable form, and Owner shall have the right to record the certificate for the affected portion of the Property at its cost. 33. Force Maieure. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, either Party shall be excused for the peliod of any delay in the perfonnance of any of its obligations hereunder, except the paYlnent of money, when prevented or delayed from so doing by certain causes beyond its control, including, and limited to, major weather differences from the normal weather conditions for the South San Francisco area, war, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, explosions, floods, earthquakes, invasions by non-United States armed forces, failure of transportation due to no fault of the Parties, unavailability of equiplnent, supplies, materials or labor when such unavailability occurs despite the applicable Party's good faith efforts to obtain same (good faith includes the present and actual ability to pay market rates for said equiplnent, Inaterials, supplies and labor), strikes of employees other than Owner's, freight embargoes, sabotage, riots, acts of terrorism and acts of the government (other than the City). The Party claiming such extension of time to perform shall send written notice of the claimed extension to the other Party within thiIiy (30) days from the commencement of the cause entitling the Party to the extension. 34. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms (i) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is lnandatory, "may" is permissive. (j) Time is and shall be of the essence in this Agreement. (k) Where a Party consists of lnore than one person, each such person shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of such Party's obligation hereunder. (1) The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement and do not in any way lilnit or amplify the provisions thereof. (m) This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California in effect on the date thereof. Page 16 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 35. Exhibits Exhibit A - Map and Legal Description of Property Exhibit B - Use Permit, including Plan Set and Conditions of Project Approval 36. Notices All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person (to include delivery by courier) or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or by overnight delivery service. Notices to the City shall be addressed as follow: City Clerk P.O. Box 711, 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Notices to Owner shall be addressed as follows: ARE- East Jamie Court, LLC c/o Alexandria Real Estate Equities 385 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 299 Pasadena, CA 91101 Fax: (626) 578-7318 Attn: Corporate Secretary Attention: A party may change its address for notice by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Page 17 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Bany M. Nagel, City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney OWNER ARE- East Jamie Court, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, L.P., a Dealware Limited Partnership, its managing partner By: ARE-QRS, Corp., a Maryland Corporation Name: Title: 798144 Page 18 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14,2005 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION All that certain real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Page 19 of 19 East Jamie Court DA December 14, 2005 taff AGENDA ITEM #4 ort DATE: January 11,2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor m1d City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR HOME FUNDING TO SAN MATEO COUNTY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to request $750,000 from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium for funds available though the HOME Investment Partnership Act to be used for the Downtown Affordable Housing program and designating a contact person for the City. BACKGROUND: The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National Affordable Housing Act provides a source offederal finm1cing for a variety of affordable housing projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the fiscal year 2006-07 HOME allocation. For fiscal year 2006-07, the San Mateo County HOME Consortium has $3,240,000 available for housing projects. Funds will be distributed on a competitive basis through a request for proposals process administered by the County. Housing Development, Acquisition and Rehabilitation The EconOlnic and Community Development Department sponsors affordable housing construction, acquisition and rehabilitation efforts by leveraging State, Federal and local Redevelopment funding sources. Over the last twelve years, the City has secured over $1.5 million dollars in HOME Consortium funds for projects which include Willow Gardens, the Metropolitan Hotel, the Bronstein Building, a COilllnercial Avenue four-plex, and the Grand Hotel and Apartments. HorvIE funds may be used by the City for direct expenditure or may be issued as low-interest loans to a private or not-for-profit developer to jointly undertake the production of housing units that will be affordable to low- income residents. Eighty percent (80%) of the units purchased or rehabilitated with HOME funds will be affordable to households earning less than 60 percent (60%) of the area median income, and twenty percent (20%) of the units will be affordable to fmnilies earning less than 50 percent (50%) of the area median income. Under the program, 30-year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded with the property to ensure future affordability . Staff Report Subject: Application for HOME Funding to San Mateo County Page 2 DISCUSSION: City Staff is preparing a HOME application requesting funding for the Downtown Affordable Housing Program. As a part of this program, the City and the Redevelopment Agency have purchased and rehabilitated five buildings with a total of eighteen units. All of these units are avaUable to very-low income households. Through this Progrmn, the City provides an essential service to the most vulnerable residents of South San Francisco. Several potential properties have been identified, one of which is an eight-unit complex on Linden Avenue. Staff is currently negotiating with the property owner, finalizing appraisals, conducting architectural analysis and identifying matching funding sources. Securing HOME funding at this point in the process will help ensure the success of the project. Prior to acquisition, a proposal would come before City Council for final approval and authorization for use of funds. The $750,000 requested by the City from the County's HOME progrmn could be used in its entirety to purchase the Linden Ave property or be split with a second property. Staff anticipates the Linden Ave property could close escrow within this fiscal year. If funds are not expended by the end of fiscal year 2007-08 the money Inust be returned to the HOME ConsortiUln, CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to request $750,000 in HOME funds from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium for the Downtown Affordable Housing Progrmn and designating Seana 0' Shaughnessy as the contact person for the City with regard to the application. Since HOME funds are awarded through a cOlnpetitive process open to applicants throughout the County, there is no guarantee that the City's application will be funded. ~............\ C I /\ By: (Mr;;~~~7JL-----~ A Assistant City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO REQUEST $750,000 FROM THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM FOR FUNDS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ACT FOR THE DOWNTOWN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM AND DESIGNATING A CONTACT PERSON FOR THE CITY WHEREAS, it is reconullended that the City request $750,000 froln the Sml Mateo County HOME Consortiuln for the Downtown Affordable Housing Program, and designate Semla O'Shaughnessy as the contact person for the City with regard to the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Frmlcisco that the City Council hereby authorizes staff to request $750,000 from the San Mateo County HOME Consoliiunl for funds available through the HOME Investnlent Pminership Act for the Downtown Affordable Housing PrograIn and designates Semla O'Shauglulessy as the contact person for the City. * * * * * I hereby celiify that the foregoing Resolution vv'as regularly introduced aIld adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular Ineeting held on the 11 t11 day of January, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 799482-1 taff ort AGENDA ITEM #5 DATE: January 11,2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR HOME FUNDING TO SAN MATEO COUNTY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to request $200,000 from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium for funds available though the HOME Investment Partnership Act to renovate the West Hotel and designating a contact person for the City. BACKGROUND: The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National Affordable Housing Act provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing proj ects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the fiscal year 2006-07 HOME allocation. For fiscal year 2006-07, the San Mateo County HOlvIE Consortium has $3,240,000 available for housing projects. Funds will be distributed on a competitive basis through a request for proposals process administered by the County. Housing Development, Acquisition and Rehabilitation The Economic and Community Developlnent Department sponsors affordable housing construction, acquisition and rehabilitation efforts by leveraging state, federal and local redevelopment funding sources. Over the last twelve years, the City has secured over $1.5 million dollars in HOME Consortium funds for projects which include Willow Gardens, the Metropolitan Hotel, the Bronstein Building, a Commercial Avenue four-plex, and the Grand Hotel and Apartments. HOME funds may be used by the City for direct expenditure or may be issued as low-interest loans to a private or not-for-profit developer to jointly undertake the production of housing units that will be affordable to low- income residents. Eighty percent (80%) of the units purchased or rehabilitated with HOME funds will be affordable to households earning less than 60 percent (60%) of the area median income, and twenty percent (20%) of the units will be affordable to families earning less than 50 percent (50%) of the area median income. Under the progrmn, 30-year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded with the property to ensure future affordability . Staff Report Subject: Application for HOME Funding to San Mateo County Page 2 DISCUSSION: City Staff is preparing a HOME application requesting funding for rehabilitation of the West Hotel on Grand Ave. The West Hotel comprises two buildings owned by the Giffra Trust. Each building contains twenty (20) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units that have remained vacant for several decades. Staff has recommended to the owners that the buildings be converted into one and two-bedroom mixed-income apartments. With this conversion there would be a slight reduction in the total number of units. Given the number of years the units have remained unoccupied, the rehabilitation of these units would be considered new housing production per California Redevelopment law. All cities have an obligation, set by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), to produce a set nUlnber of new moderate-, low-, and very low-income housing units. Rehabilitation of the West Hotel would help the City of South San Francisco meet its production goals. Although this project is currently in the early conceptual stage, securing HOME funding for the project will help ensure the success of the development. As this project moves forward, it would COlne before City Council for approval and authorization for use of funds. This request to the County's HOME progrmn would set aside the amount of$200,000 to be allocated by the City Council to the West Hotel. The City would be obligated to expend the funds by the end of fiscal year 2007-08 or the money goes back to the HOME Consortium. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to request $200,000 in HOME funds from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium to renovate the West Hotel and designating Seana 0' Shaughnessy. as the contact person for the City with regard to the application. Since HOME funds are awarded through a cOlnpetitive process open to applicants throughout the County, there is no guarantee that the City's application will be funded. //......-..}.\t /" \ ... ~/~rt.A-l ~V/LL-.__.~._._~ By: Marty VanDuyn 0 Assistant City Manager ~A( ~ f8? r ed: Barry . City ger Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO REQUEST $200,000 FROM THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM FOR FUNDS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERHIPS ACT TO RENOVATE THE WEST HOTEL AND DESIGNATING A CONTACT PERSON FOR THE CITY WHEREAS, it is recolnmended that the City request $200,000 from the San Mateo County HOME Consortiuln to renovate the West Hotel, m1d designate Sem1a O'Shauglu1essy as the contact person for the City with regard to the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes staff to request $200,000 froln the San Mateo County HOME Consoliium for funds available through the HOME Investment Partnership Act to renovate the West Hotel and designates Seana 0' Shaughnessy as the contact person for the City. * * * * * I hereby celiify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and ad~ted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 11 1 day of January, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 799476-1 taff ort AGENDA ITEM #6 DATE: January 11,2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR IY[INOR HOME REPAIR SERVICES WITH NORTH PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES CENTER RECOMMENDA TION: That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to: 1. Execute a Minor Home Repair Services Agreement with North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center in the amount of $40,000. 2. Renew the contract for one year based on satisfactory performance by the contractor and future City Council allocation of CDBG funds for Minor Home Repair Services. BACKGROUND: The City of South San Francisco receives federal Community Development Block Grant Progrmn (CDBG) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). For many years the City has used a portion of its CD BG grant to fund a free minor home repair progrmn for low-income residents through North Peninsula l'-Jeighborhood Services Center's (NPNSC) House Helper Program. The progrmn has been very successful and every year NPNSC helps as many as 50 low-income residents with home repairs. Minor home repairs have traditionally gone to seniors and other low-income residents that cannot afford to make repairs to their homes. DISCUSSION: The 2005-06 CDBG Budget approved by City Council included a $40,000 allocation for minor home repair services from the Housing Rehabilitation Progrmn. On Novelnber 11, 2005 the Housing and Community Development Division (HCD) issued a RFP for the Minor Home Repair Program. HCD published the RFP in the newspaper and mailed the RFP to several nonprofit agencies providing home repairs including the Center for Independence of the Disabled, Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and Peninsula Community Services. The RPF was also mailed to the Peninsula Builders Exchange for distribution. The RFP stated the purpose of the Minor Home Repair Progrmn is to provide decent, safe, and affordable housing to low-income residents by providing free minor home repairs. Examples of minor home repairs made through the program include door and window repairs, plumbing fixture repairs or replacements, porch steps reinforced or repaired, small roof repairs, minor electrical work and other minor damage repairs that would constitute a safety hazard or nuisance for the resident. The cost for a typical minor home repair is about $1,500. Staff Report Subj ect: Agreement for Minor Home Repair Services with North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center Page 2 The scope of services for the program listed in the RFP included: G Marketing the Program - Market the program to low-income homeowners in the City of South San Francisco. Effectively market the prograITI to minority residents. GI Eligibility Screening - Screen applicants for progrmn eligibility and Inaintain documentation verifYing the low-income status of all program beneficiaries. This prograITI is limited to households whose income is at or below 80 percent of area median income by household size. e Perform Minor Home Repair - Perfornl necessary minor home repairs to ensure decent and safe housing for low-income residents in South San Frmlcisco. GI Provide Quarterly and Annual Reports Provide reports to the Housing mld Conmlunity Development Office documenting the income, race, disability, age, and head of household status of all participants served. e Submit Monthly Invoices - Provide clear invoices each month doculnenting costs incurred implementing the program. At a minimum, the contractor must itemize costs for salary, materials, mld administrative overhead expenses. NPNSC submitted the only bid to provide minor home repair services (see Exhibit 1). NPN"SC proposes to make home repairs for up to 32 households in South San Francisco for an aITIount not to exceed $40,000. The proposal satisfies the criteria stated in the RFP, and meets the Department of Housing and Urban Development's CDBG requirements. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to Execute a Minor Home Repair Services Agreement with North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center in the mnount of $40,000. In addition, authorize the City Manager to renew the contract for one year, based on funding availability and satisfactory performance, eliminating the need to issue an RFP each fiscal year. /"""'\ C f\-U~l-v4-JU--- By: Marty VanDuyn f Assistant City Manager Attachment: Resolution NPNSC's Proposal for Minor Home Repairs RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BET\VEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND NORTH PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE CENTER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000 FOR THE MINOR HOME REPAIR PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING A RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR CONTINGENT UPON SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE BY THE CONTRACTOR AND FUTURE CITY ALLOCATION OF CDBG FUNDS FOR MINOR HOME REP AIR SERVICES WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into m1 agreement with North Peninsula Neighborhood Service Center for Minor HOlne Repair Services; m1d, WHEREAS, the City of South San Frm1cisco receives federal COlnmunity Development Block Grant Progrmn funds froln the Departn1ent of Housing m1d Urban Developn1ent that will provide the funds for the Minor Home Repair Progrmn. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Frm1cisco that the City Council hereby authorizes m1 agreement between the City of South San Francisco and NOlih Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center in an mnount not to exceed $40,000 for the Minor Home Repair Prograrn and authorizes a renewal of the contract for one additional year contingent upon satisfactory perfonnance by the contractor m1d future City Council allocation of CDBG funds for Minor Home Repair Services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. * * * * * 799483-1 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 11 t1 day of January, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 799483 -1 nun:n peninsula Neighborhood Services Center, Inc. 600 linden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Voice: (650) 583-3373 Fax:(650) 583-4178 E-mail: nei hbo oodservicesuor Proposal to Provide Minor Home Repairs for Low....Income Residents of South San Francisco Proposal summary North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center respectfully submits a request to the City of South San Francisco for a total grant in the amount of $40,000. With vital funds from the City of South San Francisco's Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), NPNSC will be able to continue to support the City in its goal of providing a suitable living environment to low- income residents in the City of South San Francisco. Description of the organization Since September of 1973, North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center has been the primary provider of emergency services to low-income families and individuals in South San Francisco, San Bruno and Brisbane. NPNSC's lnission is to help families when they are at their most vulnerable and to work with them to itnprove their overall quality of life by finding long-term solutions to their challenges. In the past twelve months, NPNSC has served approximately 3,000 individuals through the following three programs: · Social Services - Through individualized case management, NPNSC ensures that community members gain access to the appropriate resources including elnergency food and shelter, rental and utility assistance, and free/ low-cost health insurance programs for children. · Community Outreach and Education - NPNSC offers cOlllinunity Inembers culturally competent information related to education, immigration, employment, health, childcare, tax preparation and legal assistance among other topics. · Housing! Minor Home Repair and Painting - NPNSC provides free minor home repairs to low-income residents in San Mateo County. NPNSC also currently manages City of South San Francisco's low-income housing units. NPNSC's dedication to meeting the needs of the community has also gained the trust of other organizations that recognize the agency as the first place cOlnmunity approaches when seeking services. NPNSC, through collaborative relationships with the City of South San Francisco, the South San Francisco Unified School District, and both San Mateo County Health Services and Human Services Agencies, has become more aligned with community needs and expanded its services beyond basic social services. When a community needs assessment completed by the South San Francisco Community Partnership in 2001 indicated a need for free and low-cost health insurance for families, NPNSC responded by becoming an enrollment site for Healthy Kids, Healthy Families and Medi-cal. With the recent loss of Families On Track, the only school-based family resource center in South San Francisco,NPNSC will work to expand its services to school-sites and fill the gap left by Families On Track. NPNSC Minor Home Repair Program For twenty-eight years, North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center has helped thousands of low-income homeowners obtain repairs that create the safe living environment to which all community members are entitled. A large majority ofNPNSC MHR program clients are senior and! or disabled San Mateo County residents who without this valuable resource may not be able to continue living independently in their homes. We are licensed, experienced, reliable, and bi- lingual. Here's what a few of our customers say about our services: 11/8/2005, Patricia Ricketts, South San Francisco - "They worked diligently to ensure the safety of myself (a single parent) and my son, as we were living in an unhealthy and hazardous environment. " 09/26/2005, Chris Ramos, South San Francisco - "The workers were very courteous and also very intent on providing quality work. " 09/08/2005, Esther Ludemann - "A railing was also put outside my back door to give me something to hold on to. Just perfect. " Construction Experience, Qualifications and Clients North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (California General Contractors License Nmnber 629360) is dedicated to making living conditions safe and cOlnfortable for residents of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. NPNSC offers free programs assisting low-income homeowners throughout San Mateo County with funding from all CDBG entitlement cities within the county (City of South San Francisco, City of Daly City and City of San Mateo) as well as the County of San Mateo. NPNSC has also over the last few years perfonned fee-based projects for the City of South San Francisco, Bocci Realty and private homeowners. NPNSC has over twenty-eight years experience in helping thousands of low-incolne homeowners in San Mateo County with repairs that they were physically or fmancially unable to complete. NPNSC staff is bilingual, courteous, knowledgeable and experienced. NPNSC works closely with city staff, assisting in cases identified by community clean-up campaigns and code enforcement. Marketing Experience and Clients NPSNC specializes in outreach to hard-to-reach populations and has proven ability in completing contract goals. Social Services, Information and Referral, Weatherization, Minor Home Repair and Education programs have established a proven client base to which we have successfully delivered a variety of education and home repair programs throughout San Mateo County including the City of South San Francisco. Most NPNSC contracts require clients to qualify based on income, city of residence, or proof of other specific conditions. However, eligibility is detennined on a case by case basis. In addition, NPNSC staff strives to exhaust every possibility before denying assistance to our clients. NPNSC has a history and experience of over 30 years in providing countywide cOlllinunity education and information and referral and over 28 years of experience in marketing and administering minor home repair programs. Since 1983, our Energy Partners Program which was sponsored by Pacific Gas and Electric, provided weatherization measures for 40,000 participants. Since July of 1996, we exceeded all contract goals by educating 15,000 clients with a former project - PlugIn! California, a utility restructuring program, 7,000 clients with the Caller ill program sponsored by Pacific Bell, and 2,000 with the Disaster Ready program sponsored by United Way. We exceeded our contract of educating 1,200 clients with the Stay Healthy program sponsored by the Health Plan of San Mateo and Medi-Cal. NPNSC consistently completes Minor Home Repair contracts in South San Francisco and throughout San Mateo County. NPNSC has a local and trusted presence with its office at the comer of California and Linden in Old Town South San Francisco, an area that houses many homeowners who qualify for the city's free Ininor home repair prograln. Marketing Plan and Outreach to Minority Residents NPNSC will use proven outreach methods to attract, encourage and engage qualifying South San Francisco residents. Prospective clients will be pursued, screened and interviewed and the required documentation will be obtained prior to commencement of work. NPNSC will: II target minorities, seniors, people with disabilities and single-parent households in Old Town and surrounding areas of South San Francisco; II use a contact list of City of South San Francisco homeowners within the income guidelines living in the target area of the program to mail brochures and flyers and contact by phone; · ensure staff and volunteers hand out flyers at community events; · offer presentations to local community groups describing services and the application process. A few of the sites for presentations last year included the Magnolia Senior Center, South San Francisco Health Clinic, Community Learning Center, Grand Avenue Public Library, Pre-to-Three meetings, and All Sollis Church senior group; · work through it's network of non-profits and community based organizations; Iij distribute press releases and place program information in non-profit agency newsletters such as "The Resource Bulletin" by the COlTIlnunity Information Progrmn; · update web site regularly (wvvw.neighborhoodservices.org) and encourage inquiries from those visiting the site. Principals, Employees, Agents and Sub-Contractors Staff KARLA MOLINA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 2005 - present Originally contracted as interim Executive Director with the task of conducting an in-depth assessment of NPNSC programs, staffmg, leadership, finances and overall organizational structure, Ms. Molina has recently been appointed the Executive Director for the agency. Ms. Molina has nine years experience in community outreach to hard-to-reach populations and five years experience in collaborative projects with North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center. Ms. Molina oversees all contracts and approves or disallows nlinor home repair progrmn expenditures. LISA SEABOURNE, PROJECT COORDINATOR 1995 - present Ms. Seabourne performs initial phone screening for service requests, processes applications and verifies eligibility. Ms. Seabourne handles communication with clients and subcontractors, reviewing all documentation of repairs and sublnitting invoices for billing as well as required quarterly and annual reports. ENRICO REYES, PROJECT MANAGER 1991 - present Mr. Reyes manages the day to day operations and supervision of four (4) Ininor home repair contracts including South San Francisco, Daly City, City of San Mateo and San Mateo County. Mr. Reyes also manages the City of San Mateo Free Paint contract. Mr. Reyes is a skilled craftsman and has extensive experience and knowledge in the home repair/ rehab field. He performs the more challenging minor home repairs. LlORENTE ACLAN, HOME REPAIR SPECIALIST AND PAINTER 1999 - present Mr. Aclan has five years experience with NPNSC and over twenty years experience in the home repair business. NPt.JSC staff is bilingual/ bicultural (EnglisrJ Spanish and English! Tagalog) and is equipped with the technical skills required to perform all of the services the center offers to clients. NPNSC staff has excellent rapport with community and partner agency representatives. Subcontractors In the event that a subcontractor is engaged in a minor home repair project which derives frOln this proposal, NPNSC will carefully select appropriate subcontractors that are licensed and insured. A decision to engage a subcontractor may be based on reasonable pricing and past references of subcontractor's work. The following subcontractors have performed work for NPNSC in the past and will likely be considered to be used on the proposed project as the need is determined by onsite asseSSlnents: Subcontractors B.V. Fence Southwood Plumbing Sierra Pacific MHS PM Electric Art's Martin Doors Contact Barry J. Vines Dennis Q'Halloran Tom Fargo Paul Mangan Arthur Nolasco License# 685274 390434 399504 679635 436114 Performance and Cost Schedule Complete home repairs for a minimum of 32 hOlnes as follow: 26% project completion (8 hOlnes) by October 31, 2005 52% project completion (16 homes) by January 31,2006 74% project cOlnpletion (24 hOlnes) by April 30, 2006 100% project completion (32 homes) by June 30, 2006 Perform appropriate Minor Home Repair .work. Said 'work may include, but is not limited to: . Installation of grab bars and Ininor modifications for handicap accessibility; . Install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors; . Install security devices including dead bolts, door locks, peepholes, and window locks; . Door repair and replacelnent, including screen doors; . Window repair or replacement, including screen windows; . Replace window panes and glazing; . Repair / replace porch railings, steps, fences and gates (match existing material and form); . Floor and wall repair; . Roof/ gutter repair; . Upgrade / replace plumbing fixtures . Minor electrical and carpentry work; . Yard and debris clean-up; . Water heater replacement; . other minor damage repairs that would constitute a safety hazard or nuisance for the resident. 1~ um ber oi Residents Served At least 32 City of South San Francisco Homeowners Cost Breakdown Labor Proj ect Coordinator Project Manager/ Installers $33.05 $56.50 Materials Subcontractors Administrative Overhead at cost at cost none (included in labor rate) Procedures Used to Screen Applicants NPNSC is experienced in screening clients for need and eligibility in all ofNPNSC programs. NPNSC takes great care in ensuring that all who qualify for the free minor home repair prograln have the opportunity to apply. Program Coordinator: " provides overview and information on eligibility during initial phone call; . mails progrmn information and application; . collects (follow up call may be necessary) completed application and supporting documents from clients; . reviews application and supporting documents for completeness; . determines eligibility; . verifies home ownership; . verifies income eligibility for the entire household; (NPNSC Inaintains documentation in a client file for three years) . contacts applicant on any information that is missing or is unclear; . collaborates with Project Manager to schedule an assessment if client is eligible; o Installer detennines scope of work and eligibility of work, cOlnpleting a work order if the repairs are within the scope of the contract; . verifies the project does not exceed the unexpended contract funds; . periodically reviews projects' progress with Executive Director. In addition, if a project cost is over 3,000, the Executive Director consults with city staff to discuss the work order; . ensures that NPNSC Project Manager schedules work. Total Cost of Services Not to Exceed Amount: $40,000 Attachments . State Contractor's License . Proof of License Bond for the State of California . Proof of General Liability Insurance with City of South San Francisco as Additional Insured . Proof of Worker's Compensation Insurance .. Proof of Automobile Insurance On behalf of the Board of Directors, staff and clients of North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center, I thank you for your consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 583-3373 xI5. Sincer~ly, rxi0c f2~loG~vfJJ Karla R. Molina Executive Director ./ State Of California €i' . " ~r:'::" CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD ;il9'...... '. ""......,to" ACTIVE LICENSE ! as;" : C~~:r ~. "ll'D~'" L"ense~mbo, 629360 Entity CORP 8usinessN.me NORTH PENINSULA NE1GHBORHOOD SERVICES CENTER ClasriHoalion{s} B ["pI"tion D". 09/30/2007 F. David Cra~n Insurance Services ~ UD.<l ---... Ul _~ ....1 :I lX17 ~,~ 205 East Third A '/enuer Suite 314, San Mateor CA 94401 hI'!l .~"_....... -~ Decerr~er 13. 2005 TO: ATTN: FAX: NO.Peninsula Neighborhood Services Cntr. Karla (650) 583-4J.78 RE: License Bond No. 12345 Per our converSi;:ltion, following is the current California Contractors State License Board listing for your license #629360, which gives your bending information (see arrow) . Please let me know if YOll have questions or need more details. Thanks! Yl Telephone (650) 375-8538 Facsimile (650) 375u8533 License Nt]. 0611422 License Detail .r ~Cl;' J. VJ. .., License Detail Contractor license # 629360 AALI EO.RNiLLc_QNrRACTQRS_SJ'}~TE. ,l..I.C.E.f!J~J5.J3_0AB.D --- -:-.... -~ ~ ----""-- ~". DISCLAIMER A license status check provides information taken. from the CSL8 license data base. Before relying on this information, you should be aware of the following limitations: tIi CSLB complaint disclosure is restricted by law (B&~7J 24.~). If this entity is sUbject 10 public , conlplaint disclosure, a link for complaint disclosure will appear below. Click on the link or button to obtain complaint and/or legal action information. III Per 8&1::_70]'1.17, only construction related civil judgments reported to the CSLB are I disclosed, @ Arbitrations are not listed unless the contractor fails to comply with the term~ of the arbitration. i ~ Due to workload, there Inay be relevant information that has not yet been entered onto the L~ B~ license d~ bas~. .- Extract Date: 12113/2005 * * !It Business Information '* -It * NORTH PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES CENTER 600 LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 Business Phone Number: (650) 583-3373 Entity: Corporation Issue Date: 09/20/1991 Expire Date: 09130/2007 w * 'It License Status * * *' This license is current and active. All information below should be reviewed. ;I: * * Classifications 'if ~ 1; Ie lasslC ~. . Descript,on -~~ J1 ~~NERAL BU(LDING CONTRACTORI. * * * Bonding Information * VI * CONTRAGTOR'S BOND: This license filed Contractor's Bond number 12345 in the amount of $101000 with the bonding company 8JY-teBJQAJ~t..c_Q.NIBAC_T_QB~ INDEMNITY COMPANY~ Effective Date: 0"1-i01Tioo-4.-'-..-.....-.".-....-.-.... c 0 ntra~to.~~~J:~.p.r.tdJ.IJ.9J:U~Jp.1:Y. http://wvt.vv2.cslb.ca. goy/CSLB _LIBRAR.Y /License+ DetaiLasp?LicNum.~6293 60. 12/13/05 ACORDTM CERTIFICA TE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DATE (MMlDDIYY) 11/01/2002 'RODUCER Serial # 81207 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANIES ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 2300 CLAYTON ROAD, SUITE 1495 AL TER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. CONCORD, CA 94520 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NSURED NORTH PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD INSURER A: PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANIES SERVICES CENTER, INC. INSURER B: 600 LINDEN AVENUE INSURER C: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94043 INSURER 0: I INSURER E: :OVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR .OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. IISR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE Pg~l$: EXPIRATION LIMITS TR IIA GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 - A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PHPK033005 10/7/02 10/7/03 FIRE DAMAGE (Anyone fire) $ 100.000 - ~ CLAIMS MADE []] OCCUR - MED EXP (Anyone person) $ 5,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 -----i GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 - GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS-COMP~PAGG $ 2,000,000 I nPRO- n POLICY JECT LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT - (Ea accident) $ ANY AUTO - ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY - $ SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) - HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY - $ NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per accident) - - PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ ==J ANY AUTO OTHER THAN EA ACC $ AUTO ONLY: AGG $ EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ ~ OCCUR D CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ ==J DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I WC STATU- I TOTH- TORY LIMITS ER EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS CERTIFICATE HOLDER IS NAMED ADDITIONAL INSURED BUT ONLY AS INTERESTS MAY APPEAR WITH OPERATION OF INSURED PER THE ATTACHED CG2005 ENDORSEMENT CERTIFICA TE HOLDER I X 1 ADDITIONAL INSURED; INSURER LETTER: A CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WIL~ MAIL ~ DAYS WRITTEN ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT ~~ 400 GRAND AVENUE ~~~~~~~~~R< SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 ~~XX AI ITl-lnk>17l=n k>I=Pk>l=sr=I\JT A. TIVE IA TIN: NORMA FRAGOSO ~k'~. ACORD 25-S (7/97) @ACORD CORPORATION 1988 POLICY NUMBER: PHPK033005 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - CONTROLLING INTEREST This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART. SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (If no entry appears above, the information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) 1. WHO IS INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule but only with respect to liability arising out of: a. Their financial control of you; or b. Premises they own, maintain or control while you lease or occupy these premises. 2. This insurance does not apply to structural alterations, new construction and demolition operations performed by or for that person or organ ization. CG 20 05 11 85 Copyright, Insurance 9.ervices Office, Inc., 1984 D ~U~L~YMU~UCK ~U~Y NA P.O. BOX 420807, SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94142-0807 COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE ISSUE DATE: 10-24-2005 GROUP: POLICY NUMBER: 0607596-2005 CERTIFICATE ID: 51 CERTIFICATE EXPIRES: 10-24-2006 10-24-2005/10-24-2006 CITY OF SO. S. F., ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEV. ATTN: NORMA FRAGOSO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 This is to certify that we have issued a valid Workers' Compensation insurance policy in a form approved by the California Insurance Commissioner to the employer named below for the policy period indicated. This policy is not subject to cancellation by the Fund except upon 10 days advance written notice to the employer. We will also give you 10 days advance notice should this policy be cancelled prior to its normal expiration. This certificate- of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policy listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate of insurance may be issued or to which it may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policy described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions, and conditions, of such policy. ~ J1~ {!. ~ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRESIDENT EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY LIMIT INCLUDING DEFENSE COSTS: $1,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE. EMPLOYER NORTH PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES CENTER, INC. (A NON-PROFIT CORP.) 600 LINDEN AVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 M0409 REV.2-05l PRINTED 09-17-2005 MUTL VOL // ~IFICATION C ANCE COMPANIES ~,."""""':"':ffl~~;.I!I'!<Ol'K=1'la","":;~"""","-"""'<l~",""~""")';,>01l",-",,,ml'~"I!'S*_~"''1-lTIt!..,,..,..:t'>:ffim=''~''''~''''lr...,.,.,=~...lM''l><ll'''': ARDS :l- I State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 6400 State Farm Drive Rohnert Park CA 94926 INSURED NORTH PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES CENTER INC. POLICY NUMBER C156123-E07-05J EFFECTIVE YR 2000 MAKE TOYOTA NOV 072005 TO MAY 07 2006 MODEL TUNDRA VIN 5TBJN321XYS078137 AGENT LARRY KRIEGER PHONE (408)292-0411 NAIC # 25178 COVERAGE PI10VIDED BY THE POLICY MEETS THE MINIMUM LIABILITY PRESCRIBED BY LAW. COVERAGES A C 0500 G500 U U1 SEE THE REVERSE SIDE FOR AN EXPLANATION, 3-R SYS PENDS SUB.MIT TillS CARD, OR A PHOTOCOPY OF THIS CARD, WITH YOUR VEillCLE REGISTRATION RENEWAL. taff AGENDA ITEM #7 eport DATE: January 11, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van DuYll, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: NORTH CANAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13235-0601, PROJECT NO. ST-05-3, BID NO. 2387 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the North Canal Street Resurfacing Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The project is located on North Canal Street from South Linden Avenue to South Spruce Avenue. The construction project involved milling the existing pavement, installation of new asphalt concrete surfacing, replacing and installing new curb, gutter and sidewalk sections, new pavement striping and markings, new traffic loops, installation of accessible ramps to conform to the current ADA standards, and raising the utility manhole and monument covers to grade. On October 6, 2005 and October 13, 2005, staff advertised the notice to invite sealed bids for the project. Staff opened bids on October 20,2005 and five (5) bids were received. Below is the summary of the bids: Engineers Estimate: Bids: G. Bortolotto and Co., Inc. of San Carlos Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. of South San Francisco O'Grady Paving, Inc. of Mountain View Pavex Construction Co. of San Jose Ghilotti Bros., Inc. of San Rafael $270,000.00 $279,475.39 $281,999.00 $291,648.70 $314,604.00 $528,254.50 On October 26,2005, the City Council awarded the construction contract to G. Bortolotto & Co., h1C. in the amount of $279,475.39. The Engineer's estimate for the project was $270,000.00. Staff Repoli Subj ect: NORTH CANAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13235-0601, PROJECT NO. ST-05-2, BID NO. 2387 Page 2 of2 FUNDING Shown below is the cost breakdown for the proj ect budget: Construction Constnlction Contingency (10%) Total Project Budget $279,475.39 $ 27,950.00 $307,425.39 This project was included in the City of South San Francisco's 2005 -2006 Capital Improvement Program. Gas tax and Measure A funds in the amount of $307,425.00 were budgeted to cover costs. The actual construction cost for the project was $253,143.91 and the summary is attached. CONCLUSION The proj ect installed new asphalt pavement to improve the surface resulting in smoother driving, less vehicle emission due to continuous flow of traffic, reduced the impact ofvehic1e damage due to uneven pavement surface and potholes, increased the service life of the street, and reduced major street maintenance for an extended period of time. The project came in under the engineers estimate and under the bid mnount by Contractor. The proj ect was inspected by staff and completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The project has a one-year warranty period, which takes effect upon acceptance by the City Council. Staff will file a Notice of Completion and release the payment performance bond and retention at the end of the thirty-day lien period. B Marty Van Duyn Assistant City Manage ----, Approved bY~ -t P B. M. Nagel City Manager Attachments: Construction Cost Summary Spreadsheet Bid Summary Spreadsheet CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO NORTH CANAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT FILE NO. 51-13231-0501 PROJECT NO. ST -05-3, BID NO. 2387 CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY: To-Date Total 9,443.00 16,537.59 9,567.00 4,425.00 95,950.00 1 02,737.80 3,000.00 6,800.00 10,270,00 2,475,00 ~,913.00 1,407.00 $ - 4,000.00 3,500,00 1,500.00 300.00 300.00 250.00 400.00 ! ! ! $ ! ! ! ! ! ! $ $ Tota Quantity _ 1 3,467 6,378 1,475 1,250.00 1,340,00 1 200 130 30 13 7 Bid Price Total $9,443.00 $16,537,59 $9,567.00 $4,425,00 $95,950.00 $102,737.80 $3,913.00 $1,407.00 $Q.;.OO $3,000,00 $6,800,00 $10,270.00 $2,475.00 Unit Price $9,443.00 $4.77 $1.50 $3.00 $76.76 $76,67 $3,000.00 $34.00 $79.00 $82.50 $301.00 $201.00 $Q.;.OO Esti'!lated Quantity 1 ! ! ! $ ! $ $ 8 1,750 300 1 1 1 2 $4,000,00 $3,500.00 $1,500.00 $300.00 $300,00 $250.00 $400.00 $500.00 $2.00 $5.00 $300.00 $300.00 $250.00 $200,00 $ 500.00 1,600.00 600,00 279,475.39 $ ! $ $ 2 4 150 $0.00 $500.00 $1,600,00 $600.00 $0.00 $250,00 $400.00 $4.00 LS SY Sy LF TON TON EA LF LF LF EA EA y:;: EA LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LF 3,467 6,378 1475 250 340 I 200 l30 30 13 Item Description Traffic Control & Mobilization Milling & Grinding Install Reinfrocing Fabric Wedge Grind & Conform Grind Full Depth Asphalt Concrete Base 2-inch AC Overlay PCC ADA Ramps PCC Sidewalk Only (3.5') PCC Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk PCC Driveway Approach Adjust SSMH to Grade ~djust Monument Covers to Grade n. :i Por .^.ddondum No.1 Traffic Loop Detectors 7 W 8 750 300 1 1 2 :::J. 2 4 150 Instal Detai Limi 21 Striping Line & Crosswalk "KEEP CLEAR' "FIRE LANE' Bid Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 "STOP' "30' l..JlOl\;;L\;;U 1 101 R26F and Pos FIRE Station Special Sign Paint Red Curb Subtotal Base Bid 1 " 24 22 23 24 3,500.00 13,885.47 1,053.44) (23,231.01) (9,567.00) (4,425.00) 680,00 1,580.00 1,897,50 402.00 (26,331.48) $ $ s s s s ! ! ! ! $ 2,91 44.00) (303.00) (6,378) (1.475) 20 20 23 2 LS SY TON TON SY LF LF LF LF EA 29 Change Order No.1 Apply Tack Coat (AC Binder) Additional Surface Millimg & Grinding due to AC Thickness Adjust Full depth AC Base Actual Qty. Adjust 2-inch AC Overlay Actual Qty. CCO-1-0 CCO-1-2 44.00) (303.63) (6,378) (1,475) 20 20 23 2 Item NO.3 Item No, 4 PCC Sidewalk Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk PCC Driveway Approach Delete Bid Delete Bid Additional Additional Additional CCO-1-5 CCO-1-6 CCO-1-3 CCO-1-4 CCO-1-8 CCO-1-9 Adjust Additional Monument to Grade Subtotal Total Contract Change Order CCO-1-10 CCO-1-12 $253,143.91 $279,475.39 TOTAL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO NORTH CANAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT FILE NO. 51-13231-0501 PROJECT NO. ST-05-3. BID NO 2387 NTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING INC. Total $13,537.50 $22,53550 $12,756.00 $14,750.00 $100,000.00 $79,060.00 $2,300.00 $9,000,00 $7,670,00 $1,770.00 $5,200.00 $1,750.00 $0,00 $4,400.00 $3,500.00 $900,00 $250.00 $250.00 $100.00 $170.00 $G-;OO $400.00 $1,400,00 $300.00 Unit Price $13,537,50 $6.50 $2.00 $10.00 $80.00 $59.00 $2,300.00 $45.00 $59.00 $59.00 $400.00 $250,00 $G-;OO INC. $4,425.00 $95,950.00 $102,737.80 G. BaRTOLOTTa & CO. Total $9,443.00 $16,537.59 $9,567.00 $550.00 $2.00 $3.00 $250.00 $250.00 $100.00 $85.00 $G-;OO $3,000.00 $6,800.00 $10,270.00 $2,475.00 $3,913,00 $1 ,407.00 $G-;OO $4,000.00 $3,500,00 $1,500.00 $300.00 $300.00 $250.00 $400.00 $G-;OO Unit Price $9,443.00 $4.77 $1.50 $3,00 $76.76 $76.67 $3,000.00 $34.00 $79.00 $82.50 $301.00 $201.00 $G-;OO ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Unit Price Total $15,000.00 $17,335.00 $12,756,00 $2,950.00 $15,000.00 $5.00 $2.00 $500.00 $2.00 $5.00 $300.00 $300.00 $250.00 $200.00 $G-;OO $200,00 $350.00 $2.00 $500.00 $1,600.00 $600.00 $250.00 $400.00 $4.00 $91,250.00 $93,800.00 $3,300.00 $6,000,00 $8,450.00 $2,250.00 $3,900.00 $1,750.00 $0.00 $3,200.00 $3,500.00 $1,200.00 $250,00 $250.00 $200.00 $400.00 $G-;OO $400.00 $1,200.00 $750.00 $2.00 $73.00 $70.00 $3,300.00 $30.00 $65.00 $75.00 $300.00 $250,00 $G-;OO $400.00 $2.00 $4.00 $250.00 $250.00 $200.00 $200.00 $G-;OO $200.00 $300.00 $5.00 EstiTated Quantity 1 LS SY Sy LF TON TON EA LF LF LF EA EA bF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA BA EA EA LF 3,467 6,378 1475 1250 1340 1 200 130 30 13 7 eo 8 1750 300 1 1 1 2 ::;- 2 4 150 Item Description Traffic Control & Mobilization Milling & Grinding Install Reinfrocing Fabric Wedge Grind & Conform Grind Full Depth Asphalt Concrete Base 2-inch AC Overlay PCC ADA Ramps PCC Sidewalk Only (3.5') PCC Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk BID SUMMARY: PCC Driveway Approach Adjust SSMH to Grade Adjust Monument Covers to Grade 1\~L :l Per .^.ddendum No.1 Traffic Loop Detectors 21 Striping Line & Crosswalk "KEEP CLEAR' "FIRE LANE' "STOP' "30" 1\~1, 1\. T" 1 Sign Instal Detai Limit :i-P€ R26F and Post FIRE Station Special Paint Red Curb Subtotal J. ^ ,,1. Bid Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~ 22 23 24 of2 Page $281,999.00 $279,475.39 $270,091.00 Base Bid TOTAL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO NORTH CANAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT FILE NO. 51-13231-0501 PROJECT NO. ST -05-3, BID NO. 2387 GHILOTTI BROS., INC. Unit Price Total $66,290.00 $66,290.00 PA VEX CONSTRUCTION CO. Unit Price Total $74,000.00 $74,000.00 $36,403.50 $12,756.00 $7,375.00 $231,250.00 $117,920.00 $2,900,00 $8,400.00 $12,350,00 $6,000,00 $9,100,00 $4,200.00 $G,-OO $10,50 $2.00 $5.00 $185.00 $88.00 $2,900.00 $42.00 $95.00 $200,00 $700.00 $600.00 ~ $4,360.00 $3,500.00 $1,500,00 $300,00 $300,00 $250.00 $400.00 ~ $545.00 $2.00 $5.00 $300.00 $300.00 $250.00 $200.00 ~ $500,00 $1,600.00 $600,00 $250.00 $400.00 $4.00 $38,137.00 $9,567,00 $4,425,00 $62,500.00 $67,000.00 $2,200,00 $11,000.00 $13,000.00 $3,750,00 $8,450.00 $3,150.00 $0.00 $6,000.00 $5,250.00 $1,800.00 $325.00 $325,00 $275.00 $450.00 $0,00 $550.00 $1,700.00 $750,00 $11.00 $1.50 $3.00 $50.00 $50.00 $2,200.00 $55.00 $100.00 $125.00 $650.00 $450,00 ~ O'GRADY PAVING, INC. Unit Price Total $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $29,469.50 $8,929.20 $7,375.00 $91,250.00 $92,460.00 $750.00 $3.00 $6.00 $325,00 $325.00 $275.00 $225.00 ~ $275.00 $425.00 $5.00 $1,700,00 $6,600.00 $9,100.00 $1,350.00 $6,500,00 $1,400,00 $0,00 $4,800,00 $4,375.00 $1,800,00 $330.00 $330.00 $330.00 $440.00 ~ $8.50 $1.40 $5.00 $73.00 $69.00 $1,700.00 $33.00 $70.00 $45.00 $500.00 $200.00 ~ $600.00 $2.50 $6.00 $330.00 $330.00 $330.00 $220.00 ~ $600.00 $1,760.00 $750.00 $300.00 $440.00 $5.00 EstiTated Quantity 1 LS SY SY LF TON TON EA LF LF LF EA EA :bF EA LF LF EA EA EA EA BA EA EA LF BID SUMMARY: 3,467 6,378 1475 1250 1340 1 200 130 30 13 Item Description Traffic Control & Mobilization Milling & Grinding Install Reinfrocing Fabric Wedge Grind & Conform Grind Full Depth Asphalt Concrete Base 2-inch AC Overlay PCC ADA Ramps PCC Sidewalk Only (3.5') PCC Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk PCC Driveway Approach Adjust SSMH to Grade Adjust ~ Instal Bid Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7 eo 8 1750 300 1 1 1 2 + 2 4 150 "STOP' "30" Deleted Per .\ R26F and Post FIRE Station Special Sign Paint Red Curb Subtotal Base Bid Covers to Grade dum No.1 Traffic Loop Detectors Detail 21 Striping Limit Line & Crosswalk "KEEP CLEAR' "FIRE LANE' 1 12 .:t-3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2-:t- Monument D=~ ^ .LL 1 1I-T, 22 23 24 $528,254.50 Page 2 of2 $314,604.00 $291,648.70 TOTAL DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: taff AGENDA ITEM #8 eport January 11, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager APPEAL OF CHIEF PLANNER'S DECISION REQUIRING A USE PERMIT, CULTURAL ARTS CONTRIBUTION, TYPE B SIGN PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW ALLOWING USES GENERATING IN EXCESS OF 100 AVERAGE DAIL Y VEHICLE TRIPS, OUTSIDE STORAGE, UP TO 24 HOURS OF OPERATION, PARKING DETERMINATION ALLOWING LESS PARKING THAN REQUIRED BY THE SSFMC CHAPTER 20.74, ALLOWING A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CULTURAL ARTS FUND IN LIEU OF PROVIDING A LANDSCAPE AREA EQUAL TO TEN PERCENT (lOoA,) OF THE TOTAL SITE AREA, SIGN PERMIT ALLOWING THE LEGALIZATION OF AN EXISTING NEON SIGN, AND DESIGN REVIEW OF EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS. Project Location: 0.46 acre site situated at 344 Victory Avenue (APN 014-092-080) in the Industrial (M-l) Zone District. SSFMC Chapters: 20.30,20.74,20.81,20.85,20.86,20.90 and 20.101 Owner: Adele Gibbs Applicant: George R. Corey Case No.: P05-0142 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission denial of the Appeal of the Chief Planner's decision requiring a Use Permit, Cultural Arts Contribution, Type B Sign Permit and Design Review allowing uses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, outside storage, up to 24 hours of operation, parking determination allowing less parking than required by the SSFMC Chapter 20.74, allowing a contribution to the Cultural Arts Fund in lieu of providing a landscape area equal to ten percent (lOoA,) of the total site area, sign permit allowing the legalization of an existing neon sign and design review of exterior improvements. BACKGROUND/DISCDSSION The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Chief Planner's determination that the proposed use of the site for auto repair, warehouse and a shop requires the following entitlements: Staff Report Subject: 344 Victory - Appeal of Chief Planner's Decision Page 2 · Use Permit allowing uses generating in excess of 1 00 average daily vehicle trips, outside storage, up to 24 hours of operation, and parking determination allowing less parking than required by the SSFMC Chapter 20.74 · Cultural Arts Contribution allowing a contribution to the Cultural Arts Fund in lieu of a landscape area equal to 10% of the total site area. · Type B Sign Permit allowing legalization of the existing neon sign with an area greater than 25 square feet. · Design Review allowing the proposed exterior site improvements consisting of the parking and landscaping. The appeal to Council is attached to this staff report. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the matter of the appeal at their meeting of November 17, 2005. The staff report was presented. Mr. George Corey presented the appellant's position. Public testimony was offered by Mr. Paul Poletti, who expressed concerns regarding the City's development review protocols. The Commission discussed the matter at length and asked a series of questions of Mr. Corey and City staff. The Planning Commission concluded they could not support the appeal. However, the Commissioners indicated sympathy with the appellant's issues and suggested that they could view a Use Permit application to resolve the issues positively. Consequently they suggested that the applicant file the necessary documents (i.e. Use Permit, Design Review, Cultural Arts Contribution and Type B Sign Permit applications) to bring the item before the Conunission. The Planning Commission minutes and the appellant's Planning Commission appeal are attached to this staff report. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY & ZONING COMPLIANCE The General Plml designation of Mixed Industrial on the site allows industrial and commercial uses including auto repair. The site is in the M -1 Zoning District , which is consistent with the General Plan Mixed Industrial designation. The M-l zone also allows the proposed auto repair warehouse and machine shop. A Use Permit is required by the City's Zoning Code for uses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips (SSFMC Section 20.30.040(i)), outside storage (SSFMC Section 20.30AO(a)), up to 24 hours of operation (SSFMC Section 20.30.040(a)), and parking determinations allowing less parking than the minimum City requirements (SSFMC Section 20.74.100). The proposed auto repair, warehouse and machine shop uses combined will generate an estimated 100+ average daily trips (Source: ITE Trip Generation 6th Edition). Staff Report Subject: 344 Victory - Appeal of Chief Planner's Decision Page 3 While the nature of the use is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning designation, the building generally fails to comply with current City development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Notes: 1. 2. Site Area: Total: 0.46 acres [20,000 SF] Floor Area: Total: 13,666 SF Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: 0.4 to 0.6 Existing: 0.68 Proposed: 0.68 Lot Coverage Maximum: 60% Existing: 68% Proposed: 68% Landscaping Minimum: 10% Existing: 0% Proposed: 6.1 % Automobile Parking Minimum: 27+ Existing: Unk Proposed: 18 Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed Front 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT Maple 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT Side 0 FT 0 FT 0 FT Rear 5 PT 0 FT 0 FT Six (6) foot landscaped setback required of parking lots along property lines. Parking based on a rate of Office: 1/300 SF; Warehouse and Machine Shop: 1/1,500 SF; Auto Repair: 4/Work Bay and 1/250 SF for the associated office area. Parking The proposed parldng does not meet the minimum on-site parking requirements set forth in SSFMC Chapter 20.74. The building interior and the open area in front of the building are insufficient to accOlnmodate the minimum required parking spaces. The parking requirements for the 13,666 square foot building are as follows: T enantfU se Area Proposed Required 1 Auto Repair 6,744 SF 18 22 2 Warehouse 1,738 SF Unk 2 3 Machine Shop 3,446 SF Unk 3 4 Warehouse 1,738 SF Unk 2 Total 18 27 Note: The applicant did not provide parking calculations for Units #2, #3, &#4. Staff Report Subject: 344 Victory - Appeal of Chief Planner's Decision Page 4 Only 18 parking spaces meet minimum City dimensional and locational standards (SSFMC Chapters 20.71, 20.73, and 20.74). The proposed plan provides 13 indoor and 13 outdoor parking spaces for a combined total of26 parking spaces. However, 6 of the parking spaces [#7 and #8, all unmarked adjacent stall and three indoor spaces (one in each of Units #2, #3 and #4)J do not meet City standards and cannot be counted because they are proposed to back out onto the adj acent streets. Stalls #7, #8 and the adj acent unmarked stall also intrude into the required minimum 10 foot setback. The unmarked stall also intrudes into a minimum required 6 foot deep landscaped area (adj acent to the property line) and the unmarked stalls adj acent to Unit #4 also intrude into the minimum required 6 foot deep landscape area. The proposed parking plan does not meet the City's minimum requirement of27 on-site parking spaces. The minimum parking requirements may even be higher, should any office area exist within Units #2, #3 or #4. U sing a lower parldng requirement as suggested by the applicant for the uses in Units #2, #3 and #4, requires a recommendation by the City's Chief Planner and approval by the Planning COlnmission (SSFMC Section 20.74.100). The few reductions that have been approved by the Planning Commission are typically associated with a Use Permit. The reason for this is so that conditions of approval can be imposed to restrict the use of the property in keeping with the parking. In order to proceed with this option, the applicant was advised to provide clear documentation that the uses on the site are unique and therefore warrant a separate and lesser requirement than required (SSFMC Chapter 20.74). Landscaping The proposed plans indicate an area equal to 6.1 % of the site area is to be provided in landscaping. The minimum landscaping requirement is 10% of the total site area (SSFMC Chapter 20.73 .050( c)). A landscape reduction can be allowed subject to approval by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). The reduction would require a financial contribution by the owner to the City's Cultural Arts Fund by the established contribution formula (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). Sign The exterior sign was apparently installed without benefit of City approval. Neither Design Review nor a Building Permit was sought. Because the sign is greater than 25 square feet in area a Type B Sign Permit is required. CONCLUSION The owner was advised of the City's parking, landscaping and sign requirements prior to the purchase of the building. At that time City staff expressed concern that the site was not going to be able to accommodate parking for all the units and that all or a portion of Units #2, #3 and #4 would need to be converted to parking to meet City parking requirements. City staff has diligently worked with the applicant over the course of two years. During this time, the applicant has submitted at least three different sets of plans, none of which comes closer to meeting the Staff Report Subject: 344 Victory - Appeal of Chief Planner's Decision Page 5 minimum City requirements than the original set submitted. It is clear that the open area of the site is insufficient to accommodate the minimum required parking spaces or landscaping. The Planning Commission unanimously upheld the decision of the Chief Planner, denied the appeal and suggested that the appellant file for the necessary entitlements. Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal. \ '1)/\ . B ()!~ y: :; I Marty VanDuyn. I Assistant City Manager .. ") Approve Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report November 3, 2005 Minutes November 3, 2005 Applicant's Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision lanning Commission tall Report DATE: November 3, 2005 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Appeal of Chief Planner's Decision requiring a Use Permit, Cultural Arts Contribution, Type B Sign Permit and Design Review allowing uses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, outside storage, up to 24 hours of operation, parking determinations allowing less parking than required by the SSFMC Chapter 20.74, allowing a contribution to the cultural arts fund in lieu of a landscape area equal to less than 10% of the total site area, sign permit allowing the legalization of an existing neon sign and design review of exterior improvements. Project Location: 0.46 acre site situated at 344 Victory Avenue (APN 014-092-080) in the Industrial (M -1) Zone District. SSFMC Chapters: 20.30,20.74,20.81,20.85, 20.86,20.90 and 20.101 Owner: Adele Gibbs Applicant: George R. Corey Case No.: P05-0142 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Chief Planner's Decision BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At the applicant's request the Planning Commission continued the matter to the meeting of November 3, 2005. The applicant is appealing the Chief Planner's determ.iD.ation that the proposed use of the site for auto repair, warehouse and a shop requires the following entitlements: · Use Permit allowing uses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, outside storage, up to 24 hours of operation, and parking determinations allowing less parking than required by the SSFMC Chapter 20.74 - 1- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P05-0142 344 Victory Avenue _ November 3, 2005 Page 2 of5 . Cultural Arts Contribution allowing a contribution to the Cultural Arts Fund in lieu of a landscape area equal to less than 10% of the total site area . Type B Sign Permit allowing legalization of the existing neon sign with an area greater than 25 square feet. . Design Review allowing the proposed exterior site improvements consisting of the parking and landscaping. The applicant's appeal is attached to tbis staff report. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY & ZONING COMPLIANCE The project site's General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Industrial, allows industrial and commercial uses including auto repair. The site is situated in the Industrial (M -1) Zone District, which allows the proposed auto repair warehouse and machine shop. A Use Permit is required by the City's Planning Commission for uses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips (SSFMC Section 20.30.040(i)), outside storage (SSFMC Section 20.30.40(a)), up to 24 hours of operation (SSFMC Section 20.30.040(a)), and parking determinations allowing less parking than the minimum City requirements (SSFMC Section 20.74.100). The proposed auto repair, warehouse and machine shop uses combined will generate an estimated 100+ ADT (Source: ITE Trip Generation 6th Edition). The building generally complies with current City development st~dards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: Total 0.46 acres [20,000 SF] Floor Area: TOTAL 13,666 SF Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: 0.4 to 0.6 Existing: 0.68 Proposed: 0.68 Lot Coverage Maximum: 60% . Existing: 68% Proposed: 68% Landscaping Minimum: 10% Existing: 0% Proposed: 6.1% Automobile Parking Minimum: 27+ Existing: Unk Proposed: 18 -2- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P05-0142 344 Victory Avenue November 3, 2005 Page 3 of5 Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed Front 10 PT 10 PT 10 PT Maple 10 PT 10 PT 10 PT Side 0 PT 0 PT 0 PT Rear 15 PT 0 PT 0 PT Notes: 1. 6 foot landscaped setback required of parking lots along property lines. 2. Parking based on a rate of Office: 1/300 SF; Warehouse and Machine Shop: 1/1,500 SF; Auto Repair: 4/W ark Bay and 1/250 SF for the associated office area. P ARKlNG The proposed parking does not meet the minimum on-site parking requirements set forth in SSFMC Chapter 20.74. The building interior and the open area in front of the building are insufficient to accommodate the minimum required parking spaces. The parking requirements for the 13,666 square foot building are as follows: Tennant/Use Area Proposed Required 1 Auto Repair 6,744 SF 18 22 2 Warehouse 1,738 SF Unk 2 3 Machine Shop 3,446 SF Unk 3 4 Warehouse 1,738 SF Unk 2 Total 18 27 Note: The applicant did not provide parking calculations for Units #2, #3, & #4. Only 18 parking spaces meet minimum City dimensional and locational standards (SSFMC Chapters 20. 71,20.73, and 20.74). The proposed plan provides 13 indoor and 13 outdoor parking spaces for a combined total of26 parking spaces. However, 6 of the parking spaces [#7 and # 8, an unmarked adjacent stall and three indoor spaces (one in each of Units #2, #3 and #4)J do not meet City standards and cannot be counted because they are proposed to back out onto the adj acent streets. Stalls #7, #8 and the adj acent unmarked stall also intrude into the required minimum 10 foot setback. The unmarked stall also intrudes into a minimum required 6 foot deep landscaped area (adj acent to the property line) and the unmarked stalls adj acent to Unit #4 also intrude into the minimum required 6 foot deep landscape area. The proposed parking plan does not meet the City minimum requirement of 27 on-site parking spaces. The minimum parking requirements may even be higher should any office area exist within Units #2, #3 or #4. - 3- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subj ect: P05-0 142 344 Victory Avenue November 3, 2005 Page 4 of5 Using a lower parking requirement as suggested by the applicant for the uses in Units #2, #3 and #4, requires a recommendation by the City's Chief Planner and approval by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Section 20.74.100). The few reductions that have been approved by the Planning Commission are typically associated with f! Use Permit. The reason for this is so that conditions of approval can be imposed to restrict the use of the property in keeping with the parking. In order to proceed with this option, the applicant was advised to provide clear documentation that the uses on the site are so unique that they warrant a separate and lesser requirement than that required (SSFMC Chapter 20.74). LANDSCAPING The proposed plans indicate that an area of equal to 6.1 % of the site area is to be provided in landscaping. The minimum landscaping requirement is 10% of the total site area (SSFMC Chapter 20.73.05 O( c)). A landscape reduction can be allowed subj ect to the approval by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). The reduction will require a financial contribution by the owner to the City's Cultural Arts by the contribution formula (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). SIGN The exterior sign was apparently installed the sign without benefit of City approval including neither Design Review not a Building Permit. Because the sign is greater than 25 square feet in area a Type B Sign Permit is required. CONCLUSION/RECOMJ.\.1ENDATION: The owner has been advised of the City's parking, landscaping and sign requirements prior to the purchase of the building. At that time City staff expressed concern that the site was not going to be able to accommodate parking for all the units and that all or a portion of Units #2, #3 and #4 would need to be converted to parking garage to meet City parking requirements. City staffhas patiently worked with the applicant over the course of two years. The applicant has submitted 3 to 4 different sets of plans that are no closer to meeting the minimum City requirements than the first set. It is clear that the open area of the site is insufficient to accommodate the minimum required parking spaces or landscaping. Therefore, the Planning Commission should uphold the decision of the CbiefPlanner, deny the appeal and direct the applicant to file for the necessary entitlements. -4- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P05-0142 344 Victory Avenue November 3, 2005 Page 5 of5 ~~~ A TT ACFII\1ENTS: City Staff Letters April 6, 2005 September 20, 2005 Applicant's Appeal -5- DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) 877-8535 FAX (650) 829..6639 April 6, 2005 Corey Luzaich Pliska deGhetaldi & N astari, LLP Attn: George R. Corey 700 El Camino Real Millbrae, CA 94030 Re: Taylor Made Automotive 344 Victory Avenue' Dear Mr. Corey, City staffhas completed our' review of the r~-revised site plan for ~44 Victory A venu'e prepared by J. Langston Ewell Design S~dios. The parking requirements for the 13,666 sqillp."e foot building are as f~llows: TennantlUse Area Proposed Required I Auto Repair ' 6,744 SF . 18 . 22 2 Warehouse 1,738SF Unk 2 3 Machine Shop 3,446BF Unk 3 4 Warehouse 1,738 SF Unk 2 Total 18 27 Note: '0e applicant did not provide parking c;alculations for Units #2, #3, &. #4. Only 18 parking spaces meet minimum City dimensional and Iocational standards (SSFMC Chapters 20. 71, 20.73, and 20.74). The proposed plan provides 13 indoor and 13 outdoor parking spaces for a combined total of26 parking spaces. However, 6 of the parking spaces, #7 and # 8, an unmarked adjacent stall and three indoor spaces (one in each of Units #2, #3 and #4) do not meet City standards and cannot be counted because th~y are proposed to back out onto the streets. Stalls #7, #8 and the adjacent unmarked stall also intrude into the required minimum 10 foot setback. The unmarked stall also -6- _ _~_.._.. __._. _....., ....t-\AI'I.I,..,.,I,....~~ ,....^ I"'\AnO~ intrudes into the mi"imum required 6 foot deep landscaped area and unmarked stalls adjacent to, Unit #4 also intrude into the minimum required 6 foot deep landscape area. The proposed parki:rig ,plan does not meet the City minimum. reqUirement of 27, on-site parking spaces. The minimum parking requirements may even be higher should any office area exist within Units #2, #3 or #4. Using a lower parking 'requirement as you have previously suggested for the uses in Units #2, #3 and #4, requires a recommendation by the City's Chief Planner and approval by 'the Planning Commission (SSFMC Section 20.74.100). The few re,ductions that have been approved by the Planning Commission are typically associated with a Use Permit. The reason fot this is so that conditions of approval can be Unposed to restrict the use of the property in keeping with the parking. In order to proceed with this option, you would need to provide clear documentation that the uses on the site are so unique that they warrant a separate and lesser requirement than that required (SSFMC Chapter 20.74). The proposed plans indicate that an area of equal to 6.1 % of the site area is to be provided in landscaping. The minimum landscaping requirement is 10% of the total' site area (SSFMC Chapter 20.73). A landscape reduction can be allowed subject to the approval by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). The reduction,will. require a financial contribution by the owner to the City's Cultural Arts by the contribution fonnula (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). ' This is the third or fourth set of plans we, have reviewed over the course of a couple of years and the parking plans are no closer to meeting the mi"imum City requireme1?.ts than when we started. The owner was advised of the City's parking, landscaping and sign requirements prior to the purchase of the building. At that time City staff expressed' concern that the site, was not going to be able to accommodate parking for all the units and that all or a portion of Units #2,' #3 and #4 would need to be converted to parking garage to meet City parkii1g requirements. City staff also advised the oWner of the requirements and proced1ll'es to ~ollow regardi.:q.g the existing signs. City staifhas been patiently worked to develop a site plan that complies "With City s"4mdards. None of the plans has ever come close to meeting City standards ,and it is clear that the open area of the site is insufficient to accommodate the required parking. In our opinion there is, a need to either secure off-site parking -within a reasonable distance from the site (requiring a Use Permit) or convert at least two of the units into a parking garage. Regarding the exterior sign, to date the o~er has not file4 a planning application and installed the sign without benefit of City approval. The ovvner needs to file a planning application and then secure a Building Permit. Please contact me as soon as possible, and advise me of your course of action. -7- Regards, . ~~ ~eniorp1anner Cc: Thomas Sparks .......;; - 8- Peter Spoerl Attorney at Law 510.808.2000 S~ptember 20 I 2005 George R. Corey 700 EI Camino Real P.O. Box 669 Mil/brae, CA 94030 RE: 344 Victory Dear Mr. Corey: On August 10, 2005, you wrote to the,City Council and Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco (the "City") regarding the plans submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Christopher Gibbs (the 1l0wners") for an automotive repair shop at 344 Victory Avenue (the "Propertl'). In your letter, you (1) alleged that the City discriminated against Owners by requiring more of Owners than other property owners; and (2) requested an appeal to the Planning Commission regarding the Ildenialll of the Owners' applications. The purpose of this letter is to .cl~rify the City's position with respect to the Owners' application, and to set forth the City's reasons for requiring a Conditional Use Permit C'CUP") in'connection 'with the application. The City could not approve the plans as received because the projecfs hours of operation, the vehicle trips generated, the parking, the landscaping, and the signage all require a CUP absent more complete application information before the City can make a decision. Additionally, this letter is intended to acknowledge receipt of your request for a Planning Commission llappeal" of the Plan~ing Department's determination regarding the requirement of a CUP for this project, and to inform you that the Planning Department has added this matter to the Planning Commission's agenda for October 6th, 2005. I. The presence of unknown business owners requires either a CUP or more complete information. Section 20.30.020 provides the permitted uses in the M-1 district, including: auto repair services; administrative and business offices covering less than 50% of floor space; light manufacturing; wholesaling, storage, and distribution; and light industriaL::8ection 20.30.030 sets forth uses that require a CUP, including: public parking; commercial parking; administrative and business offices over 50% of the fioor area; storage of vehicles; inoperable vehicle storage; and quick lube services. Further, the City Planning Department's policy is to require plans to' show that the entire site (not just one particular use) meets Zoning Code requirements'. . While the Ilauto repair s.ervicell proposed for Unit 1 is a permitted use pursuant to Section 20.30.020, the Owners' plans never comprehensively showed that Units 2, 3, and 4 contain permitted uses such that the entire building plans should be approved by the City. The plans propose general business uses of two - 9- September 20,2005 Page 2 warehouses and a machine shop, but do not conclusively show which specific businesses (actual companies, not mere business types) would use Units 2,3, and 4. Because the City cannot be certain that all the Units on the Property would be permitted uses, the City was correct to require a CUP and additional information for this application. II. The hours of operation require either a CUP or more complete application information Section 20.30.040(a) provides that a use permit is required for hours of operation from midnight to 6:00 a.m. Further, the City Planning Department's policy is to show that the entire site (not just one particular use) meets Zoning Code requirements. Because the Owners, in a letter dated March 4, 2004, provided that the hours of operation for the Unit 4 Auto Repair Shop will be 7:00 a.m. unti/6:00 p.m. M-F and 9:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. Saturday, the Unit 4 hours of operation do not require a use permit. However, because the Owners failed to provide the hours of operation for Units 2, 3, and 4, the City was correct to require a CUP absent more detailed information in the application. III. The vehicle trios may require a CUP. Section 20.30.040(i) provides that a use permit is required for any nonresidential user that generates 100+ vehicle trips per day. The number of vehicle trips is determined according to the standard ADT (average daily trips) per one thousand gross square feet for the proposed use using the method established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation which is current at the time of the application for the use permit. Further, the City Planning Department's policy is to require plans to show that the entire site (not just one particular use) meets Zoning Code requirements. , While the Owners, in letter dated March 4,2004, provided that the Auto Repair Shop will only generate 46 vehicle trips per day, the Owners' assertions are not the proper method of determining vehicle trips. Because the City does not know which type of businesses will occupy Units 2, 3, and 4, the City was correct to require a CUP absent more detailed information in the application. IV. The parkinq may require a CUP. Section 20.7 4.070m provides that automotive repair business must provide the following: (1) Either 4 spaces for each hoist, rack, or area primarily designed for servicing or minor repair of one motor vehicle or 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of repair area (excluding fuel pump service areas) if individual vehicle repair areas are not identified; and (2) 1 space for every 250 gross sq.ft. of floor area devoted to retail sales or office use. In no case shall.fewerthan 5 parking spaces be provided. Section 20.74.060(a) provides that retail uses must include 1 space for each 200 sq.ft of gross floor area, plus 1 for each delivery vehicle. Section 20.7 4.070(a) provides that general industrial uses must provide 1 space for each 1500 sq.ft gross fioor area, plus Hor each 300 sq.ft of office area. The parking spaces may not be placed just anywhere on the Property, however. Section 20.73.050(a) requires that commercial and industrial lots must contain a 6' wide landscaped buffer strip from abutting lots -10- 782922-1 September 20,2005 Page 3 and stre~ts. Additionally, Section 20.71.030 provides that the M-1 zone requires 10' front and street-side setbacks. While the 6' buffer may be included within the 10', the property requires a 10' setback. Most imparlantly, Section 20.74.090 requires that property owners of multi-tenant uses must provide the required spaces for each separate lessee, and the City Planning Department's policy is to require plans to show that the entire site (not just one particular use) meets Zoning Code requirements. The Owners propose to provide 20 numbered spaces (presumably for the Auto Repair Shop) and 5 unnumbered spaces (presumably for Units 2,3, and 4). The 20 spaces proposed for the Auto Repair Shop are probably sufficient. The plans for the Auto Repair Shop show 4 hoists, the administrative offices appear to be approximately 750 sq.ft., and the City finds that the Shop is 6,744 sq.ft. Section 20.74.070(~ therefore requires that the Shop provide at least 16 spaces for the hoists and 3 spaces for the administrative office, for a total of 19 spaces. Some of the spaces (3A,6,B, and 20) appear to touch the 10' setback line, but do not encroach upon it. Therefore all of the 20 spaces are fine and the Shop's parking meets the 19-space requirement. Regardless of the Shop's parking sufficiency, however, the parking for the entire Property is insufficient. The plans submitted on March 4,2004 show 5 unmarked spaces, presumably for the two planned warehouses and one machine shop in Units 2, 3, and 4. The 5 spaces are insufficient, however. First, the current plans .do not show the definite uses and businesses, which makes it impossible for the City to reach a final parking determination. Second, even assuming the uses are provided, the two warehouses total 3400 sq.ft (unknown how much is floor and how much is office) and therefore, as industrial uses under' Section 20.74.070(a) , require at least 3 spaces combined. The machine shop has around 3500 sq.ft; as a retail use under Section 20.74.060(a) it would require at least 17 spots, and as an industrial use under Section 20.74.070(a) it would require 3 spaces. The total spaces required are at least 6, which exceeds the 5 spaces provided in the plans. . In summary, while the Auto Repair Shop appears to have sufficient parking, the City was correct to deny the plans or withhold approval absent the issuance of a CUP or more complete application information: Not only do the plans not specify exactly which busin~sses will be in Units 2, 3, and 4, but even if those Units do contain planned warehouses and a machine shop, the plans show insufficient parking. V. The landscapina requires approval bv the Plannina Commission. Section 20.73.050(a) provides for 6' landscaped buffers along lots and streets in commercial and industrial districts such as M-1. Additionally, Section 20.73.050(c) requires that 10% of each building site must be landscaped. The letter from the City dated August 6,2005 provides that the plans only include 6.1 % landscaping. Because this is less than 10%, the Owners would need a variance or approval by the Planning Commission to exchange landscaping for credit s in the cultural arts fund (Section 20.101.130). The City Planning Department cannot approve the current plans. VI. The siqnaqe requires a sian permit and perhaps a buildinq permit. -11- September 20, 2005 Page 4 The City, in its letter dated April 6, 2005, required the Owners to obtain a sign permit and building permit for an exterior sign on the Property. Section 20.76.030 requires that all signs require a sign permit, a building permit, and the payment of fees unless exempted by Section 20.76.090. Because the City knows that the Property has an exterior sign but the plans did not provide sign details, the Owners must provide more information in order for the City to determine what type of sign permit is required and whether the sign needs a building permit, .as well. City staff routinely requests applicants to provide complete site information (especially parking), Most commonly this occurs with regard to Business License applications of multi-tenant complexes. Section 20.74.020 requires that all of a site's uses comply with parking requirements. The Planning Department requires submission of a complete Parking Data that provides information as to all project tenants. The same is true of Plannlng Applications involving multi-tenant applications, By requiring this information in the application, the Planning Department is able to inform the Planning Commission and the Chief Planner of the parking demand and supply. As you are undoubtedly aware, parking demand is a challenging issue confronting the City, and the Planning Commission is always careful to make certain that parking will be adequate for any site. Contrary to the allegations contained in your recent letter, these standards are applied uniformly to all multi- tenant project applications. The same requirement for submission of complete site parking information has been applied to a number of recent applications, including project applications for 1400 Huntington Avenue (Commercial Condominiums), 229 Littlefield Avenue (Nissan Freight Forwarding Terminal), 600-700 Dubuque Avenue (Project 101),800 Dubuque Avenue (Commercial Multi-tenant), 434 South Canal Street (Industrial Condominiums), 375-389 Oyster Point Boulevard (Commercial Multi-tenant), 233 South Maple Avenue (Industrial Multi-tenant, also requiring a recent CUP), 1373 Lowrie Avenue (Multi-tenant, also requiring a recent CUP), and 360 Shaw Road (Multi-tenant also requiring a recent CUP). In summary, the City required plan changes and a CUP from the Owners because of the following: the landscaping and signage does not meet Zoning Code requirements and the City cannot analyze the uses, hours of operation, vehicle trips, and parking because the other business owners on the property are unknown. Nonetheless, per your request, I have coordinated with Chief Planner Tom Sparks to request that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for a full public hearing on Thursday, October 6th at 7:30 PM. Section 1.28;020 provides that any person shall have a right to appeal any determination on a permit applied for of held by such person pursuant to any provision of the Code. For purposes of this section, the Planning Commission will review the Planning Department determination to require a CUP for the application. ' Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Very truly yours, MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON -12- '"70 t") n.., '"'l 1 September 201 2005 Page 5 Peter Spoerl -13- 7R')O""_ 1 .~ COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHET ALDI & NASTARI LLP Attorneys at Law George R. Corey Stevan N. Luzaich Dario de Ghetaldi Jerry E. Nastari Amanda L. Riddle Edward A. Daniels Janet M. Li 700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669 MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 (650) 871-5666 III FAX (650) 871-4144 Hon. Edward W. Pliska (Ret.) Xenophon Tragoutsis (Ret.) August 10, 2005' RECEIVED AUG 1 22J PLANNING :Mr. Marc C. Teglia - Chaimlan, Planning Commission :Mr. WilliamE. Zemke - Vice Chainnan & Members of the Planning Commission: Ms. Mary L. Giusti Ms. Judith M. Honan :Mr. JOlnl Prouty :Mr. William R. Romero :Mr. Eugene H. Sim City of So. San Francisco City Hall 400 Grand Avenue So. San Francisco, CA 94080 Mayor Ray Green Mr. Joe Femekes - Vice Mayor Mr. R. Garbarino - COlillcilmember Ms. K.. Matsumoto - Councilmember Mr. P. Gonzalez - Councilmember City of So. San Francisco City Hall P.O. Box 711 So. San Francisco,CA 94083 Re: Auto 'Use - 344 Victory Avenue Dear City Council & Plainung Con1111issioners: TIns letter is jointly addressed to obtain a ruling from the Plamling Conmrission and/or the City Council regarding the specifics of the 344 Victory Avenue Use. FACTS - RE. USE AT 344 VICTORY AVENUE 1. The propeliy at 344 Victory Avenue is a nlulti-use building divided into four different tenant spaces. It was formerly a cement (ornanlental) manufactuling conlpany and a warehouse. It is presently owned by Mr. & Mrs. Christopher Gibbs who have nlaintained an auto repair facility in So. San Francisco since August, 1996 at 1361 San Mateo Avenue. -14- August 10, 2005 Page 2 2. The property is zoned M-l and the Gibbs purchased it in 2001. 3. Your pemntted Uses (without Use pennits) in that district includes autolTIotive repair (see EXHIBIT 1). .Mr. Gibbs nlade application for a business license in the new location and was sent a letter from your Planning Department which said he needed a Use pennit (no reason given), see EXHIBIT 2. 4. In March of 2004, I sent a letter to the Planning Department enclosing floor plans and a letter of explanation for the property use (see EXHIBIT 3 with plan attached). It turned out that was only the first of five different plans sublnitted to the City because each tUlle we would SUblnit a different plan based upon their critique of a single item, they would use the most amazing method to invent a reason why certain plans were not satisfactory. Each time we would retUrn to work on that itenl believing that once we cru-ed it, the license would be approved. In fact, Mr. Gibbs paid for and presented five different sets of plans to the Planning DepartIl1ent who made up excuses, including: a) You are 6 inches short of the 25 feet back-up space required for parking of two cars. b) You may not back on to the su-eet without Planning COlmnission approval (even though there is no prohibition in the code). c) You are seeking lower then required parking.requirements for the other runts (we have never done so). d) You lTIUst accorult for the entire building, not just your space. 5. Finally, tbis W1iter went to the Planning Director and requested a comprehensive letter of the reasons for denial so that we could address them all at one tinle. We received a Planning Depar1J.nent letter on April 6, 2005 (see EXHIBIT 4). Within two days of receiving EXHIBIT 4, we learned the following facts: (i) In November of 2004 (while we were struQ:Q:linQ: to' get approval of the Gibbs' plan). the site at 108 Linden .A...venue. -15- August 10, 2005 Page 3 fonnerly used as a plunlbing repair facility was given a South San Francisco City license for auto repair. The o"V\'ner was required to present a parking plan under which he was required to park according to that plan (see EXIDBIT 5). A single look at that plan shows a violation of eveIV single reason Mr. Gibbs. was given for not granting hinl a business license. Not only is landscaping non-existent, but the applicant was given permission to park in the nlost remarkable ways, including 8 feet to 10 feet back-ups, backing on to the street with multiple vehicles and the nlost reInarlcable pongested interior one could conceIve. (ii) Sonletilnes after Mr. Gibbs applied for his business license, your staff granted another different one to UPTOWN AUTO REPAIR at 131 Maple Avenue, Suite 3, a building ahnost exactly like the Gibbs property with several tenants. It had formerly been Uptown Luno which had one limo and five employees (see EXHIBIT 6 - City business license for Uptown Limo). In other words, tins business was converted from a different Use to auto repair exactly as United Performance: and Mr. Gibbs' pr.operty. In tile Uptown Auto Repair matter, the City did not even request a parking plan. Your personal review of the prenllses will reflect there is no way compliance can be Inade inaslnuch as there are no rules to follow in that case. (iii) A third auto repair facility opened at 116 Linden Avenue got its business license and never submitted a parking plan or any other information to the City. That u1foIDlation came to us one day when I was at City Hall trying to get approval for Mr. Gibbs' plan. Once again, no oversight was required for that facility Ul spite of the discriminatory requirements on Mr. Gibbs. 6. 011 May 20.2005, I nlade an appointlnent with your Pla.rm.IDg Director, lvfr. Tom. Sparks. I drove to City Hall, picked up Mr. Sparks and drove him aroruld to each of the four facilities in question. I.pointed out the remarkable failure of any kind of consistency in the granting oftbree other auto repair facilities, alnlost exactly like that of :Mr. Gibbs and asked his reasons for denial of the Gibbs applic~tiol1, especially with the absurdities like backlllg on to street, -16- August 10, 2005 Page 4 parking ratios, etc. Mr. Sparks said he could not give me an answer, but would get back to nle the following week. He did get back to Ine the following week to say he was not yet ready to decide the issue and would let me lmow very soon. To this date, I have not yet received a response to that "field trip" and instead of granting the application or denying it so I could conle to this Commission, Mr. Sparks tried to have us lmderstand the policy on these nlatters as spoken through the mouth of a different senior planner. I infol111ed.Mr. Sparks I considered their action a denial of our application, and hence nlake tills appeal.to the Plamling COlnmission, and then the City Council for determination based on the dis~rinrinatory practice of the City Plalmer. 7. You are requested to approve the application of Mr. Gibbs as per the ' site plan set forth in EXHIBIT 7. ill preparing for this vote, you are requested to nlake the Salne short field trip to the other facilities and determine the extent of this,;discrinlination for yourselves. GRC:rk encls. cc: Mr. Thonlas Sparks - Planning Director Mr. Barry Nagel- City Manager Steve Mattas, Esq. - City Attol11ey Phyllis Pavao, Esq. - City Attorney -17- "'7'~ 'F', ~O (Permitted uses. ~. II ' http://www.ord.lint m/codes/sosanfranl _DATA/TITL... 'l.,: _...4,:. Title 20 Zoninq .' Chapter 20.30 M:.1' INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT USE REGULA Tl0NS 20.3,0.020 Permitted 'uses. II The following use types. shall be permitted in M-1 d,istricts: (a) Civic Use Types. Administrative Services. Com~unity, Education , Cultural and Library Services 'Essential'Services, Safety Serv~c~s (b) Co.mD1.ercial Use Types., . "' Administrativ~ and BUSiness Offices (which do not exce$d fifty percent of total ~oar area) , " Automotjve and Eq uipment: '. ::~!1.t9l1iotive ,Repairs ," ' , Cleaning , ~Cfuipment ~epair/Sales ' "Building Maintenance Services' . , . , Business. and' Professional Services Construction Sales and SerVices . . '. Eating and Drinking Estab.lishments: " Convenience , . Financial Services Medical Services Personal ,Services Repair ~ervices Research, and Development "l . ' , :i. t:- (c) Industri'al Use Types. -18- IT 1" . II DePARTMENT OF CONOMIC AND OOMMUNITY 0 EI,.QPM!:NT PLANNING VISION (6,50) en . 5 FAX (850) 82 .6639 Cbristop er Gibbs 344 Viet 11' A venue : South S Francisco} CA 94080 I . Subject Business License' 344 Victory Avenue Mr. Grbb : ! I. Thaiik yo for providing the requested information regarding yo~ pr ased auto repair business' at 344 Vi tory Avenue. The proPQsed business will require that you h ve a Use Permit approved by the PI ming Commission. Prior to the issuance of the business lie' se or starting your business. have enclosed the necessary application fomls, filing sche e, fees and development standards ~s process takes approximately 2 to 3 months. have any questions~ I can be reached at 650/877-8535. . Ene!. 315 MAPLE AVENUE. 4< P.O. BOX 711 - 1 9 -rl SAN FRANc,Jo, CA ~40S3 E:II~,lT 2. I,; GEORGE R. COREY STEV AN N. LUZAICH BDW ARD W. PUSKA Judge (Retired) DARIO DE GHETALD! ' JERRY E. NASTARI AMANDA L. RIDDLE COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTARI LLP Attonzeys at Law 700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669 MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 (650) 871-5666 · FAX (650) 871-4144 OF COUNSEL XENOPHON TRAGOUTSrS March 4, 2004 Steve Carlson Senior Planner Planning Division City of So. San Francisco, CA 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: 344 Victory Avenue Dear J\.1r. Carlson: TIns letter follows a meeting you had earlier with Mr. Poletti regarding the above ,property. The tenants of the property are Mr. & Jv.rrs. Christopher Gibbs who own Taylor Made Automotive and who want to clear up any questions between themselves and the Planning Department regarqmg the Auto Repair Shop they maintain at the above address. En~losed with this letter you "Will find a detailed floor plan with parking in excess of City standards. You will also note the drawing provides for landscaping in the front and one part of the side of the building. That landscaping is a voluntary provision by the company who Wallts a more attractive entry and is not required by the City'under these 'circumstances. . The business will operate as an Automotive Repair Garage with the five Bays as reflected on the draWing. Tl..1e hours of operation will he from 7:00. a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday . through Friday and on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. There are five full time employees and a part time bookkeeper (4 hours per day, 4 days a week). This application vvill take advantage of 100 trips allowed by code. We will never exceed 100 trips per day and our initial trip load will be as follows: 1) Employees - 6 total employees at 2 trips per day each = 12 2) 15 cars completed each day with 15 cars arriving to replace the repaired. ones = 30 cars per day - 20-. HiT 3 l . March 4, 2004 Page 2 . 3) Owner and product delivelY - two per day = 4 trips TOTAL: 46 Trips The company fully intends to grow but its limitations will neve:!;' allow it to exceed the . .1 00 trips per day. The only thirig we expect are additional employees and additional cars to ,reparr. lviI. Gibbs signs this letter as confirmation of his employee's company hours and number of trips per day. Please direct any comments or requests for any information to the undersigned. Sincerely, ~tL~_ George R.. Corey ... if . GR~.Ilc ' enclosure , ..'""/,,;;" ,// 0Z;'Al ,"r'.""... ~,:iI .J" :.:7 j' . . ~~ ",-. . .' .. ......,J'.:7 ~1/ ~,....I" .r"..J~. __ v Christ.0pher Gibbs , -21- ..-. ClQ h r-:::::-------,;--1 I -~ ~~ I ~I -:><=: ! a;..'- .........1 --------'" .......... .......;.;.1 I ................... ..-"-,-' I :. '"......~~- : I ..,...,....... -,_ I ~2.::_______=:::~J I"-:::::---------~ J ............ _- I ~. ..................:;:<:-- : 111-/-- ........... 1 1<,:::-----;.>1 I '... ~~ 1 I ............ -- I 1 -:><~ 1 I ...-- , --.... 1 11J./ ....... 1 1..'__ _-'_____ __~... ,...::::::---------;;-1 1 '.... ~~ I I -..., -- I I '-,,<..... , :1~_,---- .............. 'I ~:: ------ >f I ........... .....- I : ...................::::c:::........- ~J::~=~~__-:~::- I 1"'-::;::------- "1 : . ............-...- ----: I ......::=<..... I 115/--- -"-- 1 I<:~---- ~ t .......-........ I ; --:::<~ 'I I -- -... I I~~- - _... 1 ~ t - ... ,,- ...................... ----" : )!C I ....-............. I ~~/ --"':?I ................. ",,--"'; ....~c~ I --......- , ~~~~ '......._41 ,.~ r- -1 I , , I '--J ;\l'f'- , - ~ ') .. , . . / ... ,. ..", fSJ~J>,\ " '\ -( ,) \ ~ \ V ~_..... r~ \ \ \ \. --" \.. ~ " ~:::~:_- --==~: .....;:<- I 17_---~ -'-...... I <: ----~>/ .......-.......- --~-: ":::c::- 1 Ij!----" -'-'..... : A...... too.GO" ; ~ .IMU JlofU IitlII6 ~ e.~~ :;r.... ... rr .~ ... .... fill .... .::------":' r:-----.., I('"----~ , 1\ '1 h 'I h 'I I \ , I , \ , I 1 \ .f 1 N I \ ~, I \ , I , \ , I I \ , I I >. I I I '\ ,. I N I \ , I I '.. " I I >. ,. I I .\" I I .V , 1 'I I , 1 X I 1 "- I , ,x.. .1 I I \ I I r >. I I I r , I , , , 1 I , \ I I ~ >. I I " \ I I , >. I , I \ I I , , I I r , I , I \ I I r >. I -1" >. I IF \1 I' \1 . . . I{---~ L____.lo t.._____J /\ -~ 19 - ~o .--........-.........,..-.-.- ~dL IhnI. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) Sn-8535 FAX (650) 829~6639 April 6~ 2005 Corey Luzaich Pliska deGhetaldi & N astari~ LLP Attn: George R. Corey 700 El Camino Real Millbrae~ CA 94030 Re: Taylor Made Automotive 344 Victory Avenue Dear Mr. Corey~ City staff has completed our'review of the re-revised site plan for 344 Victory Avenue prepared by J. Langston Ewell Design St:udios. The parking requirements for the 13,666 square foot building are as follows: TennantlUse Area Proposed Required 1 Auto Repair 6~744 SF 18 . 22 2 Warehouse 1~738 SF Unk 2 3 Machine Shop 3~446SF Unk 3 4 Warehouse 1~ 738 SF Unk 2 Total 18 27 Note: The applicant did not provide parldng calculations for Units #2, #3, & #4. Only 18 parking spaces meet minimum City dimensional and Iocational standards (SSFMC Chapters 20. 71~ 20.73~ and 20.74). The proposed plan provides 13 indoor and 13 outdoor parking spaces for a combined total of26 parking spaces. However~ 6 of the parking spaces~ #7 and # 8~ an unmarked adjacent stall and three indoor spaces (one in each of Units #2~ #3 and #4) do not meet City standards and cannot be counted because they are proposed to back out onto the streets. Stalls #7, #8 and the adjacent unmarked stall also intrude into the required minimum 10 foot setback. The unmarked stall also -23- EX.HIT 4 intrudes into the minimum required 6.foot deep landscaped area and unmarked stalls adj acent to, Unit #4 also intrude into the minimum required 6 foot deep landscape area. The proposed parking plan does not meet the City minimum requirement of27 on-site parking spaces. The minimum parking requirements may even be higher should any office area exist within Units #2, #3 or #4. Using a lower parking requirement as you have previously suggested for the uses in Units #2, #3 and #4, requires a recommendation by the City's Chief Planner and approval by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Section 20.74.100). The few reductions that have been approved by the Planning Commission are typically associated with a Use Permit. The reason for this is so that conditions of approval can be iinposed to restrict the use of the property in keeping with the parking. In order to proceed with this option, you would need to provide clear documentation that the uses on the site are so unique that they warrant a separate and lesser requirement than that required (SSFMC Chapter 20.74). The proposed plans indicate that an area of equal to 6.1 % of the site area is to be provided in landsc~ping. The minimum. landscaping requirement is 10% of the total site area (SSFMC Chapter 20.73). A landscape reduction can be allowed subject to the approval by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). The reduction will require a financial contribution by the owner to the City' s ~tura1 Arts by the contribution formula (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). ' This is the third or fourth set of plans we have reviewed over the course of a couple of years and the parking plans are no closer to meeting the minimum City requirements than when we started. The owner was advised of the. City's parking, landscaping and sIgn requirements prior to the purchase of the building. At that time City staff expressed concern that ~e site was not going to be able to accommodate parking for all the units and that all or a portion of Units #2, #3 and #4 would need to be converted to parking garage to meet City parkib.g requirements. City staff also advised the O"W11er of the requirements and procedures to follow regarding the existing signs. City staff has been patiently worked to develop a site plan that complies with City st~dards. None of the plans has ever come close to meeting City standards ,and it is clear that the open area of the site is insufficient to accommodate the required parking. In our opinion there is, a need to either secure off-site parking within a reasonable distance from the site (requiring a Use Permit) or convert at least two of the units into a parking garage. Regarding the exterior sign, to date the owner has not filed a planning application and installed the sign vrithout benefit of City approval. The owner needs to file a planning application and then secure a Building Permit. Please contact me as soon as possible and advise me of your course of action. -24- Regards, Cc: Thomas Sparks -25- .... .\.. j.:<<~;:).,. ..' ,:i:: "> ." " ...: 'ji J?..J' :.UNITEpAUTO REPAIR CORPORATION '. ....~.~Q .COL:.U'I:'IS AV:E~UE . -:.'::COL.MA,C~'. ...,..' ,To'SOlltp. ,city Planr,ili:ig Dep~eht: . '. '. . I, BeterKwo~g cornD:rittomai:1agingtheparkmg and serVice afmy cars inside the'bUil~g at '~08 ~.outh ~mq.en'. No 'vehicles bemg '. se~ceQ.' will be p~~ed. ~ut~id~... _.- ''', . , " . '". ' . .'.: . . 8 . . . , '- '. . .:.~. . ~. ~. '. . - ..,:::. ;. . '.... '. " . , '. , l~~wffl- {}I-;~~-~~~~~!S.k(1:zPkV~~ ~d~s .cJ&;z;6~~ mJ '.~.'Jf( f,~~>'r ~~.. . u" jl$ s~?i. O'P'--tt: it.,:1f--ekd:5ih./fI~I'!~d,,-4c1 /t/c7oi. . ~ ". .'.::.' . ..... ..' . ~ ::~ .~, ..:.....)7 ~:.-'_'-.~ . , 7~/~ "- '. .'.. .' . /'~/"'/L~-- ........ ~ . PftON.E: .6.5"O~756-222 FA~r: 650~.7-56~125.2 , . -26-' EX IT {l') . Q.... ,', ~!"'~~.;..::.:.." ~. '-. ...~.,. .. '''-, ?t;:~~-%; ~ ! '1 ..- ~~::::~~~~~::~} I -~ -~ 1 la-~- -'... 1 1<:::--- ..-------:::~ I -... ,-" I ! -:><:- : 11fl-,-- ......... 1 ~l:=':!==:=ot::= = =- =~~ I '... ",,'" I I -....... ,~~ t I ,..;><:... I 1n ---~ " ..... I t~ - - - - --... --::;."l( ~ ..."'-......""" --,r"""'~ i I ::'o-C f . ".-....."'- f I~""" ......~ I f~~~:":"'=~;~:;~1 I ....,,,,.. I I ><:.. I :is ".-",,"- '....."..... I r~~~:---_. =:~1 r =~:s<:= I Ll2:.:-=-'. r:;~~:: 1 It!.....-.. r~:::=: I ~..../ .- :~. ... .. -i' . I I I _ J /~" { ~ T -~ l ...../ !St......\\ -- '- \ > \.. ~..... ("-'" \ \ . - \ J \- ;:~?:~~J """"'............ ...---~..-: .,.....><-..... I ........,,- .........,J fi~ I\=e~ I \, I · I J....,k . , ~II' I .n 1 1 ' ~ i I ' , · I! ,l ./ ..;' II ... . ~~--~ I , . If , "\ 1"1 I\./ I . \ T .. I II [ I r. I' I T \ I 1/ \ I l.r "\ . .,1 ...: l!____~~ ~,Ojjl 1i8..J ::r._ QIr ~JIi t'" --- --'1- 11' .It I , 'r . '- I r f \ , I l \ { I I \ { I 1 J\ : i t 'l. l . { I I I .. \ I I r \ I Ii \1 f--- . '--1 '" .tl J \ , I ~ .. ;/ I r... I I I .. .... I I . 'l.U' . I /\ I I , '- I I f I I I 1 'I. I 1 r I I II ... t-----j t.. r 1 ,-.. I 1 I 'l. J' 1 I '- r 1 I \, 1 J ;{ 1 I I .. . ~ 1 r , , I, ... l I/', I l/ \~ -1:.___ ___, IM..A .,____.,. ~~ 1\ /1 ~- I' I' -~: '. f 1 r 'I. I I I V I ~. 1 f\ ~ ' : { \ I I f I , I'. \ I .' II {~._---% ., " , \ ... t " ( I I' , I 1 \ I 1 : \I l f /\ I [ , .. I I , \ I I ... \ 1 J \ I i'____.~ (l) o ..... T .. Q) In ('f) .. o In (0 M ~ Q.f 9 W- e o 4.1' tI1 t1;l!r J: '" .J 5 '6 3 2 4 ~ir~::;'~(:':.:~ :,;;:~~? :ff:~~:;: ~~';:y~~~.~ ""'-'-'~'I ..~....._. .. . ~ . '1{trt~~~..~:g~J!~~'E~~~;.~;~ __.._~... SDutl Mq1e It.... 200.00.' -~ ~1~_ til f~f~~\~~f~ -0-1 ft 1.1 IIJ l"") f t1 '2~ I J Q.l_ ~___... ...-f ('Ij ". ''It- a I.Ji o [:'-- N I IV "-J I ~ r-i ::s ~ CITY OF sotnH SAN FRANCISCO 4:00 GR).ND A'V:~ P.O. BOX 71, ~ so'O'li sAN FB~IWC!ISCOt CA 94080 (650) 877-S5CJ5 ~anKer Hmaral rH^ NUl ~~bO~q~~~j '[T "...' I I 1 + - · * w w · * w · * * ~ \It * I '1. '* 0/( I ~ I I \It ' * , . I i, W ,1 R " ~ rl Ul/Ul "'...., , ". .' -:.rtrt\-Ut::-t::UUO tJHl UOij(j rn Lioldwell SUSINESS R.ElNEWAL I ~ FOR MAT ION * N D.T ICE ~ * * '* * W W * * W W * * .". * '* '* . BUSINESS NO. 10049 I . t ;I~I CSIFICATION ;21:: , .._._ .~.,1l'!L. · ,,~.,' · .... · ~, TO: t1?l'C: frm LIMO SERVICE I 11~IICElNSE:eX:l?XRES 1:3-31,,01 13:1. 190 MAPLE AW #3 I. LOC. t ~131 MAPLE AVE SOUTH #:3 S ~ III ~C:tSCO. CA 94080 r.r I rl; SAN FR1INCISCO, CA 94080 UNDER STA'I1I :tLAW ALL BU~:tNESS' LICENSE ~mPRRDS MOSt !NCLTJDE THE FoLLOWING IJJl !fORM"A'tION. . P~E PI.LL Ot ~ FORM' COM'PLE~Y AND REMIT. AJL ONG WITH PAYMENT TO Otm. () FFFlll. I OWHERSlrIl1 'l"b 1?E (CBECK ORE) . ! II ":. /. SOLE PR.OPRI:r::'I'OR _ 1?~TNERSHI:P _ . IlrORPOAA'.r~()N ~ LLC_ FED TAX II> BY .. 3\3 2q l/6 ~9~ SEC NQ ,1, . SALES TAX "'illlMI'I'# ; ;;~ ; ll\llnl m-1 \ J\lJfrSS mtpi<E (05 0 · <':l~8'; 1/3 9.3 OWHERS N1IMEII (Sl ~~vtillllt,- OR COxaPORA~: i: OFFICER #<,: ~. 0:--.' _ THE BUS.INES' I~ .LICENSE!. REJl.1EWA'W....FCR. ..~ ~JTJ>,.TI~ !p 1l..:eERSON;S. .Ii.. GOODS: 'rRUCKrNG; T' I~ICAB 'I'RANSPOR!I'ATION r ]f~ GE?1' FOR.i: XNG SERVICES i AMB~CE S tmVICE; MOVING VAN; CHAR'.!' 'f BUS COMP [ms: IS $7$.00 PER VEHICLE 1?LCIIJ $S. 00 PER EMPLOYE:a:. CO '.ANr[ES WI'JJ IUT WRICLES IS $75.00 PLUS $5. 00 ~D EMPLOYEE. PLEASi COM .rrE AMOUN'I' : ICE. MINIMCJ['J! PEE $80. 00. : 0 . NO. OF WBJ:::I.I!IS ()N~ _. X $75. 00. · - .... $ '~l.'l NO. OF EMPLtjYEE~ X $ 5.00. p. ',...$ . ." OFFICES WI'J:1i:tOur Wa:ICLES . '. . $7.$.00', .. '"... $ AMOONT DUE. . . . . ~ . . . . , . . . . . , .. . .. · . . . .. . I . . $ ~w~*~~~w***~*w**.*~****~w*****.**~*. ** *~****~:~*****~~*****~~w****~w*** '* TO AVOIt) ~ lOt PENALrrY, PLEASE RE'lI~l~ WI'I'H !'I'1'ANCE:BY FDR.'IlARY 1ST * * A'F'I'~, FS1I1IaUARY 2Snt, TEE PSNALTY :I c:~:a:S '00 !:15\' I; *****~**.*j~***.*****w****.~*******~ ~.1**w****:~*~********~***.*~.***w** IF :NO, LONGlnR IN BUSIlN~SS IN SO S~ J' ANrSCO, 11 i:~ OI!ECK_' RE'l'llRN. NON-REC!EIP~I OF RENEWAL NOTICE DOES ('t' WAIVE Ll' :NSm FEE AND PENALTY. DOES YOO1l. l;as !NESS HAVE \ rEB BI'l'Iil? I, PlJjlASE l! THE AIltlRESS :BElLOW. X!!!I 0 -: : . I, L I , , . l: tlBCLJUU: :J ,R ~lllNALTY I' pERJtIRY 'Tl:!AT '1'0 ~ KNOWI.J>tlGE ALL :mFORMA'l'T IN r '1'IUS I ''l'~IJH;'' · COlmE~. Sp~N I( , E I ,. PATE \ - 28-1 L Project Locatfcn: TiylorMade AutoMotive S44 VJctoty AVf;:nUe South 51n Prandscb, Ca A.~.Nt 01S4- 092 .. oe.o Lot Data: Lot A~= Building footprint let CO\1hge: - Area tfonI: TillyforMadt AutoMoti\"c Lower LeVe& . WQt)cthop F10Gt 5;400 ~ ft. . Offl~ BOO sq. It. Sub-Totith I 6/200 ~ ,t C Uppm- lev" . c C W.,~. ,. ~) 120 sq. It.. C $d.),Total: no sq. it -- Taytct~ fwtoMoUVB 6,920 sq. it, 26/??oo sq. k 13,,400 sq. ft. 61~ T enIInt ParIdna RequIred T-eW'J.1UIr', ~ Watebouse 1 SPace per 2,000 sq h . Onft .2. 1.,800 . sq. ft lJnit '3 3,600 1$4 It.. Obit '4 1,800 sq,. ft. . SUb- TotaJ; ~ ~ sq. it. Totaf Partiftg bquJred 3Ji TaylorMade ParIdna ReqWed Ta\4otMade AutoMotive .. W(Jd($bop: 4- fixed i,:Ilys/S,.400 sf 4 spaa= pm- bay 16..0 OfIleU: too sq It . 1. J~ce per 300 .sg It V WarehOut<< 120 sq ft 1'~~8 par Z,oOO sq ft OA Tara Made Parkilg Required 1i Total ParkIns ~ ' Exterior Find Parkins 12 Jnterfor Parktl& 10 Total. ParkIrag Provided 22 R_ament: TaylorMade AutoMotive Within Prop~ Uh 2013 sq. ft within City PriJpwty l~ Lot Coverase w/ln TajiroMade rropenYl to:Nf; -29- ~ @) 1$2 ()G.~ 19 5('CJC&.) -~ ':~ ~~ I,il: '~"1 r ~rb : ~~ ~.~ I fEl'lD ;;':J~ i j;'j~ --~-- . ---f.--- , 'I fio~'. ~7"7" I ~f!KI~ ~ iIB':~ .....:...~ E I ....I~C' ;i ~ ~ !! .. i ~ ~ ~ !@) '" . I I~ ~~: ~ ~! ~.~ @~ ""'" ..:". "'j .. ~ib ~J eJ~ ~, i1l.I' ii:I!D .:. ~ :;; ~-! ~~ ;'7~' .~ ~g'-It~._~, II!'-r' .' FLOOR PLAN 7"" PARKING :LAYOUT' :-:;:-;= ., SCI#i yw = 1'~...,~. .:',:'?~.>'; ...:..... p:"i :"'. " . . -,..' . ";. ..;" .' 81 .f .J .. w m ~ogf~ di;;~lh ~~~l: . m~~~ 15rAe::; ~~~~ :~ ~ - ~r.-, /' ro-tal ()\-c:A or An u J: B2~ .s'i' t+- (2. ?CD 1fJ / ~l SpDCeS re.,u i rt!. d I .2ll'-1 W w 0 Ii I i'5~ .~ UJ ui ~'I..___ (~)DRlVE.WAY Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: October 6, 2005 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Appeal of Chief Planner's Decision requiring a Use Permit, Cultural Arts Contribution, Type C Sign Permit and Design Review allowing uses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, outside storage, up to 24 hours of operation, and parking determinations allowing less parking than required by the SSFMC Chapter 20.74, allowing a contribution to the cultural arts fund in lieu of a landscape area equal to less than 10% of the total site area, sign permit allowing the legalization of an existing neon sign and design review of exterior improvements. Project Location: 0.46 acre site situated at 344 Victory Avenue (APN 014-092-080) in the Industrial (M-l) Zone District. SSFMC Chapters:20.~0, 20.74, 20.81, 20.85, 20.86, 20.90 and 20.101 Owner: Adele L.Gibbs Applicant: George R. Corey Case No.: P05-0142 RECOMJ\1ENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the matter to their meeting of November 3, 2005. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant's representative will be away from the area and not able to attend the October meetings, but will be available for the November 3rd Planning Commission meeting. -31- Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 2005 not encourage the developer to pursue a shared parking agreement with BART and BART may not hqve entered into such an agreement. He added that the parking requirements are the same as the Camino Court development and it has worked for them for several years. Vice Chairperson Zemke was concerned with only 5 parking guest parking spaces for a 99-unit project. Commissioner Prouty echoed Vice Chairperson Zemke's concerns with regard to the guest parking. Commissioner Honan noted that parking may be an issue but noted that the project is a Transit Oriented Development and it is meant to allow residents to take public transportation to and from work. She questioned what the price range for the units would be. Ms. Breeze noted that the below market rate homes would be selling for 100-300 thousand; 1 bedroom units 400-500 thousand and the 2 bedroom units from 500-600 thousand dollars. She added that these amounts include the parking stalls. She also pointed out that BARTjSamTrans went through a public hearing process and adopted resolutions to allow Summerhill to purchase the. 74 acres. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the project would be constructed in phases or in one phase. Ms. Breeze noted that the project is scheduled to be constructed all at once without multiple phases. Chairperson Teglia stated that the out of the two parcels, one will remain open space because it cannot be built on and the other is going to be built on. He pointed that parking is unacceptable on EI Camino Real and suggested that the applicant look at the topography and consider moving the setback 3-5 feet back from EI Camino Real. Motion Prouty j Second Honan to continue the Public Hearing to November 17, 2005. Moved before item #5 under Agenda Review. 7. Appeal of Chief Planner Determination Gibbs, Adele L/Owner George Corey I Applicant 344 Victory Ave POS-0142:APOS-OOOl ( Continued from October 6, 2005) Appeal of the Chief Planner1s Determination to require a use permit for 344 Victory Avenue in accordance with SSFMC 20.90.020. Public Hearing opened. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that he has been actively working as an advocate between staff and the appellant and cannot act as the advisor to the Commission. He suggested that the Commission conduct the hearing and if the Commission has questions, they be stated for the record and replied by another Attorney. Chairperson Teglia noted that the Commission should have adequate legal counsel at the meeting and in the future arrangements should be made to have someone else present. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. George Corey representing Mr. & Mrs. Gibbs of Taylor Made. He noted that the owners of Taylor Made have been in the City for many years. He noted that they have never sought to do anything less than the City requirements. He noted that the issues on the project have been with regards to the parking. He noted that although the City requires 27 spaces they are providing 29 and City staff felt that the dimensions of the parking stalls were not provided. He pointed out that the dimensions were within the City's code. He noted that City staff noted that the Planning Division's policy is that no-one can back onto the street; therefore stalls 21, 22, 6 and 7 are not valid parking spaces. Mr. Corey noted that this does exist as a policy. He noted that some of the properties around the area have spaces that make it impossible to make a turnaround on the property without backing out onto the street and felt that there was discrimination on not allowing this on their property. He questioned why they could S:\M~I/\,l.{tes'\i1-03-05 R"PC M~l/\,lA.tes'.do(:, -32- "PC1ge 3 of to Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 2005 not get an approval like other businesses in the area. He felt that the plans were unfairly presented to the Commission. He noted that staff felt the landscaping was not met. Paul Polletti noted that his father used to own 108 South Linden. His father sold the property because he was told automotive would not be allowed at the site because it did not meet the parking, and a year later an automotive use was in that location. He noted that he has had to comply with a gauntlet of requirements to convert a warehouse to an automotive use even though his building is surrounded by automotive uses. He also felt that he this is retaliation against them because of the current litigation with the City. Public Hearing closed. Senior Planner Carlson noted that a number of stall spaces that meet standards and there are a number of those that do not meet standards. He also noted that the applicant's representative noted that there is nothing in the code that prevents backing out onto the street. He added that the Commission has not had a commercial parking lot that involved cars backing out onto a heavily traveled street like Victory Avenue and staff has not made this recommendation to the Planning Commission before. He noted that they applicant needs to ask the Commission through a Use permit to reduce the parking requirements to the 18 spaces they can provide rather than the 27 spaces. He pointed out that the applicant has had the option of being before the Commission via the Use Permit process and have chosen another option. Senior Planner Carlson continued that they need to comply with City Standards. He noted that the examples given of other sites may have not required more parking spaces or the prior use was the same use as the one going into the building at the time the business license was filed and some may have slipped through which is not what the Commission wants to follow. Chief Planner Sparks pointed out that the Polletti family is very active in the community and although Mr. Polletti has a lawsuit involving the wet weather program and Planning is not involved in this. He noted that Planning staff strives diligently to treat all applicants equally and there is no retaliation against anyone. Commissioner Giusti asked if the newly purchased property has to meet code requirements. Senior Planner Carlson noted that there is no requirement that the proposed new owner has to bring the building up to code. When occupancy is changed or a Tenant Improvement is done there are requirements that the building has to meet in terms of Building Codes and Fire Codes. He pointed out that this use is generating more than 100 average daily vehicle trips and this triggers the Use Permit process and parking exceptions. Chairperson Teglia noted that the issues with the application if it triggers the Use Permit or not. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the applicant has not made this case. The code is clear, which is not in dispute but they think the parking requirement should be less. He further noted that if the parking would be met and not generating more than 100 daily vehicle trips, they would not need a Use Permit. Mr. Corey replied noted that they have complied with the code and that staff's objection is not in the code but a policy. He noted that staff should admit that they have not followed the code and should admit it to the Commission. He noted that they met all the standards and asked that requirements not be imposed on them that the City does not impose on others. Commissioner Prouty empathized with the applicant. He noted that the Police Department looks at what the potential for accidents are and are advised to reduce parking because of these issues. He asked why the applicant was not willing to file a Use Permit. He noted that the Commission does not want to set precedence and allowing reduced parking without the benefit of a Use Permit. Mr. Corey noted that they complied and reiterated that staff has stated their own views. Chairperson Teglia noticed if there was sufficient space on the property that the applicant could add more spaces inside and change the direction of spaces 7, 8. 21 & 22. Senior Planner Carlson noted that 7 and 8 would not work because there is inadequate back up and they would have to put more spaces inside units. He pointed out that the most recent plan filed with the appeal shows more tandem spaces inside the unit, but would not encourage that spaces back out onto Victory or South Maple. He noted that there are few issues that are left to s:\MLVv(..{tes\ii-03-05 RPC. MLVvutes.cloc -33- "PClge 4 of b Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 2005 the discretion of staff. Chairperson Teglia questioned the landscaping issues at hand. Senior Planner Carlson noted that it is an issue when if they apply for the Use Permit because they will be required to bring the landscaping up to code. The Cultural Arts Fund was put in place for those that could not comply would be able to offset the requirement by contributing to this fund. He added that the applicant had counted the landscaping in the public right-of-way but cannot be credited towards their obligation because it is only what is on their property. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Commission may grant a Variance to reduce the setbacks and alleviate the landscaping in order to allow them to provide additional parking parallel to stalls 22, 4 and 6. Chairperson Teglia asked Mr. Corey what he was asking of the Commission. Mr. Corey asked that the Commission grant the right to get their Business License. They will apply for Sign Permit and include landscaping to the Design Review Board. He also asked that the Commission can reduce the parking by 3-4 spaces. Chairperson Teglia asked if the Commission does not have the legal mechanism to decrease the parking. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Commission does not have that mechanism at this time, but can do it under the Use Permit or Variance process. He added that the excess of 100 daily vehicle trips is also triggering the Use Permit and the applicant is not disputing that. Mr. Corey noted that provided information of all the companies and their trips. Staff has not required this of anyone else. This standard has not been applied to any business. Senior Planner Carlson noted that traffic studies show that businesses are triggering the excess of 100 ADT and that is why Use Permits go before the Commission for review. Commissioner Romero noted that based on the testimony he felt that the Commission cannot overturn the Chief Planners determination. Chairperson Teglia encouraged the applicant to work with staff and return with the Use Permit application. Motion Romero / Second Zemke to deny the appeal and uphold the Chief Planners determination. They directed the applicant to apply for the Use Permit to reduce the parking. 5. Alexandria Real Estate Equitiesl applicant Alexandria Real Estate Equities/owner East Jamie Court P02-0042: DA05-0001 (Continued from October 20, 2005) Development Agreement for East Jamie Court. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Rob Kayne, Alexandria Real Estate, noted that they operate 5 R & D facilities in South San Francisco. He pointed out that they are committed to high quality development in the City. Commissioner Prouty questioned why the development agreement was done for 10 years. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that the developer intends to develop the site as soon as they find a tenant. She pointed out that development agreements are for a minimum of 10 years. Vice Chairperson Zemke noted that he would not like to see the bay trail completion in 10 years. Chairperson Teglia questioned if the Commission can add a requirement that they do the Bay Trail improvements by a specific date. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that there would not be an issue on doing this. Mr. Kayne asked if they can work with staff to put together a schedule. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that this language will be taken to the Council as a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Chairperson Teglia recommended that the Commission adopt resolution with the additional recommendation that s:\MLVl-utes\ii-03-0S RPC MLvoutes.doc -34- PClge 5 of to George R. Corey Stevan N. Luzaich Daria de Ghetaldi Jerry E. N astari Amanda L. Riddle Edward A. Daniels Janet M. Li COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTARI LLP Attorneys at Law 700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669. MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 (650) 871-5666 CD FAX (650) 871-4144 Hon. Edward W. Pliska (Ret.) Xenophol1 Tragoutsis (Ret.) November 18, 2005 Raymond L. Green, Mayor Joseph A..-Fenlekes, Mayor Pro Tem Richard A. qarbarino, Councihnan." ^" Pedro Gonzalez, Councilman lCary! Matsumoto, Councilwoman BarryM. Nagel, City Manager City Hall City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Appeal- 344 VictorvAvenue Dear Mel11bers of th~ Councii: This letter accompanies the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Christopher Gibbs who's original documents were given to you on or about August 10th this year. That same document appears in our appeal packet along with two subsequent submittals. The first went to the Plmming Con1IDission on the bases of discrimination, and the second was filed immediately subsequent based upon your PlamIing DepartInents indication of what they constituted to be an acceptable application. We look forward to presenting this matter before you when it is set. Sincerely, ~~~ GRC:ap Encls. -35- CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080* (650) 877-8535 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Applicants who wish to file an appeal of a decision of the CbiefPlarmer or the Pla.nnirJ:g Commission, or a Design Review decision, shall submit the following (a letter or additional sheets may also be submitted): 1 YVhat, specifically, is being appealed? Case No: AP05-0001 DEN~AL OF ORDER TO PLANNING DIRECTOR TO PERMIT BUS. LICENSE AT 344 VICTORY WITHOUT A USE PERMIT. 2 What is the basis of your appeal? Include fa~ts to support your appeal.and all pertinent information. THE APPEAL IS BASED UPON THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLOWING OTHER APPLICANTS IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THIS ONE TO RECEIVE BUSINESS LICENSES. THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS SENT TO THR~,CTTV COITNCTT. ON 3 If you are the original applicant, submit thirty-five (35) reduced copies (8 1/2" x 11") of all exhibits (maps, plans, elevations, etc) which were submitted with the original application. 4 Filing fee - See Fee Schedule Mallin!! Address: 700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. BOX 669 n (U p-e-LMJ /1-" Lc,~ \~ignature I 11-18-2005 Name: GEORGE R. COREY MTTJ.R"RAR, CA Q40iO Date Phone No. (650) 871-5666 *Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083' - 36 - . COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHET ALDI & NASTARI LLP Atto17Leys at Law George R. Corey Stevan N. Luzaich Dario de Ghetaldi Jerry E. Nastari Amanda L. Riddle Edward A. Daniels JanetM. Li 700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669 MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 (650) 871-5666 · FAX (650) 871-4144 Hon. Edward W. Pliska (Ret.) Xenophon Tragoutsis (Ret.) November 16, 2005 Planning Departnlent. Attention: Tonl Sparks, CbiefP1armer Steve Carlson, Senior Plamler 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, .CA 94080 RE: - Application for Business License Gent1enlen: . I 3111 including with this-letter my own ofNovenlber 15th reflecting the trip count along with a new parldng plan. I have. reviewed the tape of the Planning Commission meeting and talked witll Steve Carlson very briefly thereafter. We believe this new plan meets the objections set out in your case to the Pla11n;n g Conmlissioll and request your nmnediate attention. Sincerely, George Corey GRC:ap EncIs. -37- George R. Corey Stevan N. Luzaich Daria de Ghetaldi Jerry E. N astari Amanda L. Riddle Edward A. Daniels Janet M. Li COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTARI LLP Attorneys at Law 700EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669 MlLLBRAE, CALIFORNIA. 94030 (650) 871-5666 · FAX (650) 871-4144 Hon. Edward W. Pliska (Ret.) Xenophon Tragoutsis (REI:.) November 15, 2005 ..Planning Departnlent Attention: Tonl Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 711 South San Ftancisco, CA 94080 RE: Trip COlmt 344 VictOlY Ave Gentlenlen: This letter confll1lls the trip count at 344 Victory Avenue. For tbTee consecutive days nl November (Tuesday, 'Wednesday and Thursday, Novell1ber 1 S\ 2nd and 3rd). Attached to this letter you will find a conlputer readout of the custonlers at Taylor Made for each of the thre~ days. Please note there were eight custoluers on Tuesday and Thursday and five customers on Wednesday. The trip count is as fo Hows: Tuesday: 8 Total trips for office staff (4 persons) 8 Total trips for repair men (4 total persons) 16 Trips for custolners 8 Tlips for parts delivelY 8 Trips for .custolner retunl for pick-up Total: 48 Trips -38- Tom Sparks November 15,2005 Page 2 Wednesday: 8 Tlips for office staff 8 Tlips for repair nlen .10 Tlips for custolners 6 Trips for parts ,I Customer had special pick-up/4 trips 2 Error - Came to wrong shop Total: 38 Trips Thursday: 8 Tlips for office staff 8 Trips for repair men 16 Trips for customers 8 Tlips for parts 10 Custonler pick-up trips Total: 50 Trips ' All enlployees have llmch on the site. The units #2, #3 and #4 were queried personally by Mr. Gibbs for their trip count for each of the three days. Unit #2 made' no uips between the hours of 7 :OOa.m. and 5 :OOp.m. but came twice after 6:00p.nl. (Tuesday and Wednesday). Unit #3 had two trips on Tuesday, six nips 011 Wednesday and two 'trips 011 Thursday~ Unit #4 had zero trips for any of the days alld has not been at its location since the 1st of October 2005. All of the trip count was determined between 7:00a.m. and 5:30p.ln. You are invited to nlake your own trip count on a daily basis, and itwill not vary 1110re than four to six nips depending on the number of customers who go to Taylor Made. . TIns letter is also signed by Ivll~. Gibbs \vho made the actual count. GRC:ap Ellels. . /..., George ~. )/. ~7'L/' ,,/ //..-' J / -" / aJ"2/ ~./ ,_ . (-::::;;. // ,v/C.-. I . This Gibbs ~ -39- ('t') > o z o Z <C 'N > o z So.. bl 0 >r..c ,g ~ Q...e E <'r 80 - "I:"':'" > o z ~ o 0::: IJ.. m 0::: w ~ o ?- m ::> () w o <C ~ 0::: o .....I >- .<( I- .....I .....I <C IJ.. o z ::> 0::: 0:::. w I- ::> 0.. ~ o () .t1 E ra z ..... CJ E o ..... At) = r.; ( . 1. \ _ . m 'r"'J'" Ma OJ 4lI!!"'" N ~ N N N ff"f.I (f',2. N ~ ~ ..f- Q' N ~ 0 .tf1'.... II. ".. . a", .-t . .. .. .... ... .. ~MN~NC~'C~~r~Q~NP~~QCQ > > , > > > > > > > > ~ > ~. > > > > > > > o 0 0 Q 0. 0 0 Q 0 "0 0 0 0 .... Q coo 0 0 0 ~ :z z ~ z' Z Z ~ :z 2 Z ',2 Z :z :2 Z Z "2 Z ~ Z "'T , ., I.. . "'T _ . I a 1<< t. .... l'" I ~r~~~p~~N~~NNM~nM~M~~ o It: o~~=~~~o~~~~c~~~o~~~~ n~~=~~~c ~~mmg~~~~~m~ 0.01 0 0 0 0 Ci c.o &:1 0 Q Q C O.IC 0'0 C 0 OocaOOOQOCOOo OOQcoao ~~~~~~~~"MM~~ ~~M~""~ .0 ..:( U..J W ....J C . W w in 0 ", ~. ~ .. Z >- ~ lCt . UJ Z j ...z: ~ CUUO ~OCQO~W~ C~OW ffi ZiZ WZU$~oQ>~d-~Z'O<~> ~ -~~O~~~ ~<W%S~-~~O~ ~ ~~OUW~~8Jq~~'<0~C~Q ~:iffi O~.... ~ 3: Ifi ~ = er w O.'~ ffi. -.~ -i= ~ 0 e ... ~ f5 < U] ra (.) X W: ....J. COt:) ~ < tIJ ::J- ~~~~2g~ffi9~~ffi~m~~~~g~o ~QW!~ ~~W~O~O ~~~Sm~~ ~ - Q<~ ~U ~ ~. ~ ~(J U -1 rn ..J ZU :;:) a:: 10 .<:; % c.o -40- PmkfnB CnmpD:mCll I Use Pennll TaylorMade AutoMotive \:;--~~ ~9/,' : :!iJ' ! z,R, I R~\ : ~rb \: ,n. \, <-- ----' PARKING STALL 8'-6" x 19'-0" ~ARKING STA:L l 8'-6" X 19'-0" . 10 oG~ h! ~~i U, J~~ ! )~ ri: sill! U' ~li -J -J W ~t1) Wo zg Ot:; I-z tl)o LJi.ii z~ <( ....J --:. Q.1 :::I C Q.1 > <( ~ E u :> I I I I I 10 ,CO! I~ :~i~~IN~-s;~=Ll , 8'-6" 1edS'-O" , ~~::~~~~---:~:::=~ : PA"R-KlNG SI.AL1.. : I 81-6" 'JI:,~9'-O" , ~~;;::::=:-:~~~;;J : PARKING SI.AL-L : I 8'-6" 1<:dS'-O" , ~g::=~~~-::~::~)i T aylorMade-PARKING ~sTAi.tl Automotive 8':~I(~9'-O" : w':~-::~ ~~;;::=====~~;~~ ! : PA"R-KlNG SI.ArL : 3,800 SF , 8'-6" )c~~-O" , l :14~/~ ---_: 1<=------- ---- ~>l : PAAKING s.J-AL-L : , 8'-6" 1edS'-O. I b~:::::~~~__~~:::. I f"------------- : PA"R-KlNG SI.ArC : : 8'-6:Jcdf!':O". : ~~:::::~-----~:::. ~ : PAm;JNG SI./>;[ : , 8'-6" 1e dB'-O" I Jh:::::~~-_ n-:_: ::J ~=';---2-fl :~9/ r Ilf)ml I I .." I : ~,R\ : ~ fl~ \, : ;/~Cc \: E;-- --~lt1 .~= ,': 1-.9, I tfli'n' I ~;Q\ ! : g~\: ;tin 'I ,n. \( l_____-' r-t-. , , , , L._ ....! /~"- ~ ") ........ ........,JI'I !Sj/\ ~ , (\\- ~) :t:., -- \ r \ , , . \._ J ...-------------..., PA"R-KlNG SI.AL-L . 81.6" )",a!l'-O" 2Q.~~~ ---_ ..:::.-----------:::.)0- PAmJNG S.J-AL-L 8'-6: Jc ~!l':0" )~::=~-----~- :~~ Unit 2 Perlonal Slorage One Person 1,BOO SF :,:;--i?: ! ~9/' I i tfli'nl . ~~\ : Qib \ '~;l, ,n.. 200.00' Unit 3 Machine Shop Owner .. Wile Only 3,UO sf ..----25~ :\-! ,': : ~9,' : tflfnl I . "" . : ~~\ : : ~~\\: L~ti:J \: ~----i? 1\ -J I I I~ t I : ~9/ : ; tO~, l . ~,R\ : i:2ib " : ,~;l, \~ l_____ Unit 4 Book Supply Warehouse ND Employees "BO SF o o d 9 ProJecl Local/on: i:r~1,~~~r: A.P.N: 0154- 092 - OOD Lol Dala: .01 An :JO,OOOO tq.. 'L Ouildlnf: Foo'pdnl 13,4DO .q. IL Lol CoY~8e: 67.0% Area Calculallons: T_yJOfMado AUloMollve Lower level:: Workshop floor 5,400 sq. rL OII1cu BDO .q. IL Sub-T"ud, 6,200 .q. IL Uppl!f Level Warehouse..........,. 720 sq. fL Sub- T 0.>1: 7l1l sq. IL Toy""Mod. AUloMoUv. 6,920 sq. IL Tenant Parking Requlred Tr:nnanl'. lusahold WarehoUl!! Im'llof; pOI 2,llDD .q i~DO .q. fL UnlI Il :l,no .q. IL UnI. '4 1,400 sq. IL 5ub~Tolal: 6.400 sq.. It. T olal Par!dn& RolJlll,.d 3..2 TaylorMade Parking Required TaylorMl1de AUloMoUvlI% Workshop: 4 R..d b'ys/S,400 ., 4 IfIllCll per boy 16.0 omces: BDO .q It W~t~~::~:O:q sa .. V 1 spon:!!' per 2,000 II) .. 0.4 Taylor Mode Porting R.quired 19 I If:::.. ~ I OJ > f~ !.: E ~.8 Dl ::::J !Joe:( ~ OJ ~~ ~"'C 0' ::; ctl fillg ~~.JL ~..2fliij >-.- oil ~ rtll~~ o.l-",oil..: PARKING STALL I PARKING STALL 8'-6" X 19'-0" 8'-6" x 19'-0" . '" ....... C"~~_~)_" PARKING STALL 8'-6" X 191-0" f: 7 ,I ~ARKING STALL - 8'-6" X 19'-0" - 8 ": ~ :':" :~.:~t/::;J.{,::~i~:? :~::E.::}~. ".-.,,:,:~:~::::':'::':":'.::::'-: L~~ :....;.<.~\~::.: <'.:';:.._ _ ~.E~ _ __ ;~~'. L~~'" . 10 iii 26 IL n.D2% TOlalParklng Provided exterior Rlllld parldng T alai PUftdll1 f'rovtdad landscaping Requlremenl: T.ylorM3de ^utoMollve wllhln I'toperly LIn. :1,204 .q. w~thln ai, Prop...'Y ~P::S~~~~ ~:;:~, III a.. ni~~ O-gc;c; "'-o~ lw~o.. OOlUOl .....r: 0:: 0.. t1) ..J t1) D ( II.l5.2005) ~ or To"" IJl 51Cclll ~ PLAN NORTH Second level ;:Nz. ~ . r.q sis: Anal Floor Area [[J South Maple A venue 348 & 350 Victorv Avenue Floor and Parkin Site [AJ George R. Corey Stevan N. Luzaich Daria de Ghetaldi Jerry E. Nastari Amanda L. Riddle Edward A. Daniels Janet M. Li COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHET ALDI & NASTARl LLP Attorneys at Law 700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669 MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 (650) 871-5666 · FAX (650) 871-4144 Hon. Edward W. Pliska (Ret.) Xenophon Tragoutsis eRet.) August 10,2005 Iv1r.-Marc'C. Teglia--Chainnan, Planning-Commission MI. William E. Zemke - Vic"e Chainnan & Members of the Plmm:ing Commission: Ms.1d~L. CTiusti Ms. Judith M. Honan Mr. J 000 Prouty MI. William R. Romero Ivfr. Eugene H. Sinl City of So. San Francisco City Hall 400 Grand Avenue So. San Francisco, CA 94080 1',1ayor RayCTreen 11r. Joe Femekes - Vice Mayor Ivlr. R. Garbarino - Councilmember Ms. Ie M.atsumoto - Councilmember Mr. P. CTonzalez - Councilmember City of So. San Francisco City Hall P.O. Box 711 So. San.Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Auto Use - 344 Victory Avenue Dear City Counci1.& Planning ConnTllssioners: This letter is jointly addressed to obtain a rululg from the.Plamling CoI11111issiol1 and/or the City Council regarding the specifics of the 344 VictOlY Avenue Use. FACTS.. RE. USE AT 344 'TICTORY AVENUE 1. The property at 344 Victory Avenue is a multi-use building divided into four different tenant spaces. It was fon.nerly a cement (orn811lental) 111anufacturulg conlpany aild a warehouse. It is presently owned by Mr. & Mrs. Clnistopher ~ibbs who have maintained an auto repair facility in So. San Francisco sUlce August, 1996 at 1361 San Mateo Avenue. -42- August 10,2005 Page 2 2. The property is zoned M -I'and the Gibbs purchased It in 2001. 3. Your pennitted Uses (without Usepennits) III that district includes autolTIotive repair (see E:x::HIBIT 1). Mr. Gibbs nlade application for a business license in the new location and was sent a letter from your Planning Department which said he needed a Use pel1.1TIt (no reason given), see EXHIBIT 2. 4. In March of 2004, I sent a letter to the Planning Departnlent ellcloslllg' floor plans and a letter ofexplanation for the property use (see EXHIBIT 3 with ~,A?lan attached). It turned .out that was only tLJefrrst of five different plans. submitted to the City because each time we would submit a different plan based upon their clitique of a single itelTI, they would use the most amazing ll1ethod to invent a reason why certain plmls were not satisfactory. Each time we would return to V\Tork 011 that item believing that once we cured it, the license would be approved. In fact, Mr. Gibbs paid for and presented five different sets of plans to the Planning Departr.nent who made up excuses, including: a) You are 6 lllches short of the 25 feet back-up 'space required"for par~g of two cars. b) You may not back on to the street without Planning Comnnssion approval (even though there is no prohibition in tIle code). / c) You are seeking lower then required parking requirenlents for the other Uluts (we have never done so). d) You .must account for the entire builning, not just your space. 5. Finally, this Miter went to the Plmn1ing Director and requested a comprehensive letter of the reasons for denial so that we could address them all at one time. We received a Planning Department letter on Apri16, 2005 (see EXHIBIT 4). WitIIDl two days of receiving EXHIBIT 4, we learned tile following facts: (i) In November of2004 (while we were struggling to get approval of the Gibbs ' plan). the site at 108 Linden Avenue. -43- August 10,2005 Page 3 fOTI11erly used as a plulubing repair facility was . !liven a South San Francisco City license for auto repair. The owner was required to present a parking plan under which he was required to park according to that plan (see EXHIBIT 5). Asing-Ie look at that plan shovvs a violation of every sU1gle reason Iv!r. Qibbs was given for not granting hinl a business license. Not only is landscaping non-existent" but the applicant was given pemrission to park in the lTIOst remarkable ways, including 8 feet to 10 feet back-ups, backing onto the street with ll1ultiple vebicles and them.ost .reluarkablecongestedinteriQr one could cancel ve. (ii) Sonletimes after :Mr. Gibhs applied for his business license, your staff granted another different one to UPTOVm AUTO REPAIR at 131 Maple Avenue, Suite 3, a building ahllost exactly like the Gibbs property with several tenants. It had formerly b~en Uptown Linl0 which had one limo and five employees (see EXHIBIT 6 - 'City business license for Uptown Limo). In other words, this business was converted fronl a different Use to auto repair exactly as United Performance and :Mr. Gibbs' property. In the Uptown Auto Repau- matter, the City did not even request a parking plan. Y OUT personal review of the premises will reflect there is no way. compliance can be nlade inasmuch as there are no rules to follow in that case. (iii) A third auto repair facility opened at 116 Linden Ave~ue gat its business license and never subnutted a parking plan qr any other information to the City. That inion.nation came to us one day when I was at City Hall trying to get approval for Mr. Gibbs' plan. Once again, no oversight was required for that facility in spite of the discriminatolY requirements on Mr. Gibbs. 6. On Mav 20. 2005~ I nlade an appoultment with your Planning pirector, Mr. Tonl'Sparks. I drove to City Hall, picked up Mr. Sparks and drove him around to each of the four facilities in question. I pointed out the relnarkable failure of any kind of consistency in the granting of three other auto repair facilities, ahllost exactly like ~at of:rv.rr. Gibbs and asked Ius reasons for denial of the Gibbs applic~tiol1., .especially with the absurdities like backing 011 to street, -44- August 10, 2005 Page 4 parking ratios, etc. Mr. Sparks said he could not give nle an answer, but would get back to nle the following week. He did get back to nle the following V\Teek to say he was not yet ready to decide the issue and would let me Inlow velY soon. To this date, I have not yet received a response to that "field trip" and'instead of granting the application or denying jt so I could COTIle to this Commission, :MI. Sparks tried to have us lUlderstand the policy on these nlatters as spoken through the ITIouth of a different senior plam'ier. I n1folTIled Mr. Sparks I considered then- action a denial. of our application, andJ~el1Cenlake tbis appeal to thePlarn:1ing Conll1Ji~,slqn5.and then the City Council foi- detell.nination based ob the dis~rirl1inatolY practice of the City PlaJ.mer. 7. You are requested to approve the application of Mr. Gibbs as per the site plan set forth nl EXIllBIT 7. In preparing for this vote, you are requested to make the SaIne short field trip to the'other facilities and determine the extent of this discrinrination fo~ yourselves. GRC:rk encls. cc: Mr. Thon1as Sparks - Planning Dn-ector Mr. BaITY Nagel- City MaIlager Steve Matias, Esq. - City Attolney Phyllis Pavao, Esq. - City Attorney -45- :Cl"~0 Per.mitteduses. ~. . . ."! Z!" ~ http://www.ordl.i.n1<;:.~omJcodes/sosanfran/ _ DAT A/TITL... _...~,.. ~.'" .. Title 20 Zoninq ." Chapter 20.30 M:.1' INDUSTRIALDISTRICT USE REGULATIONS ;.. 20.~!O.020 Permitted . uses.. The fonowing' use types shall be permitted' in M-1 districts: (a) Civic' Use Types. Admin'istrative Services Coml)1unity. Education . . Cultural and LibrarY Services 'Essential Services. Safety Serv~c~s . (b) ComlJ1.ercial Use Types.' . '. . Admiriistra:tiv~ and Business Offices (which do not ex:ce~d fifty percent of total ~oQr . ar~a) . .'. Auto~otjve and Equi~inent: '. ;.~~~9I1iotive .Repairs." . . Cleaning . . ~tJuipment ~epairlSales . '8u~lding Ma.intenance Services' . . Bu~iness. and' Professional Services Construction Sales. and SerVices . . . Eatin'g and'Drinking EstabJishments: '. Convenience . . Fin.anciaI Services Medical Services Personal Services Repair ~erYices Res.earch. and Development .'! . (c) Industrfal Use Types. ;J -46- CONOMIC AND COMMUNITY 0 EJ,.OPMENT PLANNING VISION (550) 877 3S FAX' (650) 82 6639 'Q1ristcperGibbs- . 344 Vie ry A venue : South S Francisco,. CA 94080 I , Subject Business License . 344 Victory }\ venu.e Mr. Gibb : rhaiik yo for providing the requested intbrmation regarding your posed auto repair business. at 344 Vi tory Avenue. The ptopqsed business will require that you h ve a Use Pennit approved by the PIc . g Commission. Prior to the issuance' of the business lie " e or starting your business. have enclosed the necessary application fornls, filing seh e) fees aJ.)d development standards T~s process takes approximately 2 to 3 mOJ.?-ths. Should have any questions, I cail"be reached at 650/877-8535. Sincerely Encl. 315 MAPLE AVENUE.. P.O. BOX 71" - 47 -JTH SAN FRANCIS 0, CA g4063 ._-- ,;' GEORGE R. COREY STEVAN N. LUZAICH EDWARD W. PLISKA Judge (Retired) DARIO DE GHET ALDI JERRY E. NASTARI AMANDA L. RIDDLE COREY~ LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTARI LLP Attorneys at Law 700 EL CAMINO REAL, P.O. Box 669 Mrr..LBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 (650) 871-5666 II FAX (650) 871-4144 OF COUNSEL XENOPHON TRAGOUTSIS March 4, 2004 Steve Carlson S ernor Planner Planning Division City of So. San Francisco, CA 400 Grand Avenue . South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: 344 Victorv Avenue Dear Mr. Carlson: TIns letter follows a meeting you had earlier with MI. Poletti regarding the above property. The tenants of the property are Mr. & Mrs. Christopher Gibbs who own Taylor Made Automotive and who want to clear up any questions between themselves and the Planning Department regarpmg the Auto Repair Shop they maintain at the above address. Enclosed with this. letter you will find a detailed floor plan with parking in excess of City standards. You will also note the drawing provides for landscaping in the front and one part of the SIde of the building. "That landscaping is a voluntary provision by the company who Wallts a more attractive entry and is not required by the City'und~r these circumstances. The business will operate as an Automotive Repair Garage with the five Bays as reflected on the drav,dng. The hours of operation will be ii"om 7:00 a.m. lliltil6:00 p.m., Iv10nday through Friday and on Saturday ii"om 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. There are five full time employees and a part time bookkeeper (4 hours per day, 4 days a week). This application Virill take advantage of 100 trips allowed by code. We will never exceed 100 trips. per day and our initial trip load will be as follows: 1) Employees - 6 total employees at 2 trips per day each = 12 2) 15 cars completed each day with 15 cars arriVing to replace the repaired. ones = 30 cars per day -48- March 4, 2004 Page 2 3) Owner and productdelivelY - two per day = 4 trips TOTAL: 46 'Trips The cOlnpany fhlly intends to grow but its limitations will neve~" allow it to exceed the .1 00 trips per day. The only thirig we expect ::'Ie additional employees and additional cars to .rep~. Ivfr.q-ibbs' signs this . letter as'confirn1ation of his 'employee~ s company hotrrsand nlimber of trips per day. Please direct any comments or requests for any information to the .undersigned. GRC:rk . enclosm"e ""') ,.../ ,,/ l .,............;;....>.':../. ~~. .Il~ ,; .7!. . ....:1, L./',:/>f..",<,~ '....., . "". / Cbris>0pher Gibbs Sincerely, ~(L~_ George R. Corey . V . . -49- ~--------------, . . I . . ~ co I . 1- I~ I- I ~ r'-::---~-::;-l ~' ........></ : _- --..., I 11._' "',1 -----~ -, ._-::;;;:;--. t ......,........ .,.,.-""" , I .......,.,....- I , ~ I I ....~..., I 119-"- ......._ , ~:::~ =-=c.-=a.c.-=-=. ==--=.~ I .......... _- , I '" _- , :. -_:~<~''''' : 111_- ..., I 1<: ---~>1 I ......... _- I I ........... ....- . I ....:><- I I. _",.- ..-....._ I "IJ..-' ........ 1 &.:_----------~'" r.:::::;------;::-"I I ........... _- I I ......" -- I I .....><- I I. _-....., ., II~_-- -........, ,,~-----~ I '........... __..... I I ............__ I _--~<:-....._ :..r~::______ -.:::: r-::::;:--------- : . ........................... _....-"- I :::::r:::, : 15r_---- ...-.... J<f:--~~ I .......... _ , ......-...... --- I ::::< I _--..... 'Ij;--- ... - rt;. -., I 1 I ., I I L: . ::.-...J ;~~ . / - ~ ., .... / . .. " ... ,. -.., !SJ-...... .,. ~ ,. - "\ < ) \ - "\ \ " ~""'_1 .r- \ \ \ \ --.... \- . '1.:;::------.;:::') ~""",.......... .,----.: >< 1 11----' -.............._, I c_':::---- ---1 '- .-.- I "'::::0;:::- I IjI----- ....................... : ~ '....... _.......-. .....-.... _J'- , '~~~ ~'-' I ......~<- '~~- I ,.- ......., -- '"..... I ---- ':"J"'- ...........,2' .......... -- --- , '...........~<--- '~~~c,--: _....- ......- -,- '-....... , --' '........ _-- ......--1, ~ ~ !:tILZ ...~ :='.-a... ..... ....... om i ... ..... .~ ... 411IIII fIIf ... II' , h----io I 1.:"'-----"";1 r----., h of' 1\ " U1 , , / , 1 , /1 I \ /1 I .... r I , ... / I I \ / I 0 I'" J' I I ... , I I ... , I I \ / I I \ / I I \ / I I , .\ / 1 1 \ $: 1 1 \ / , \I \J 1 X 1 I 1\ 1 I on 1 I / \ I I / ... I I ,. \ I , / , I 1 / \ 1 I / \ I I r \. I I i' \ I , / \ I I / \. I I / \ I I / \ I , , \ I 1/ ... I 1/ ... , If \1 If \1 Ii' ~ i:..__.,-__.)r L_____-' 'I_t...-- I I I-~- '19 20 ?OO.04:i' - ;. ------~~~~~~~~~-~-----~- c.n.... Ii.. AVlallllllilliIIIIII _J~__P ------............ .. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (6S0) 877-8535 FAX (650) 829-6639 April 6, 2005 Corey Luzaich Pliska deGhetaldi & N astari, LLP Attn: George R. Corey . 700 El Camino Real Millbrae, CA 94030 Re: Taylor Made Automotive 344 Victory Avenue Dear Mr. Corey, City staff has completed our' review of the re-revised site plan for 344 Victory Avenue prepared by J. Langston Ewell Design Si:udios. The parking requirements for the 13,666 squ~e foot building are as follows: TennantlUse Area Proposed Required 1 Auto Repair 6,744 SF 18 22 2 Warehouse 1,738 SF Unk 2 3 Machine Shop 3,446 SF Unk 3 4 Warehouse 1,738 SF Unk 1"\ .L, Total 18 27 Note: The applicant did not provide parking calculations for Units #2, #3, & #4. Only 18 parking spaces meet minimum City dimensional and Iocational standards (SSFMC Chapters 20.71,20.73, and 20.74). The proposed plan provides 13 indoor and 13 outdoor parking spaces fora combined total of 26 parking spaces. However, 6 of the parking sp.aces, #7 and # 8, an unmarked adj acent stall and three indoor spaces (one in each of Units #2, #3 and #4) do not meet City standards and cannot be counted because they are proposed to back out onto the streets. Stalls #7, #8 and the adjacent unmarked stall also intrude into the required minimum 10 foot set~ack. The unmarked stall also - 51- ...~... ..^....,,... M/~""I~ _ ~f"\ Cf"'\V"7-1-1 _ ~r'"Ilri'1-l ~1'1"" ~C.o.I\Ir:Ic::r:n r:l:J. Cl.1.rlR':l. ~ ( f f intrudes into the minimum required 6 foot deep landscaped area and ~arked stalls adj acent to Unit #4 also intrude into the minimum required 6 foot deep landscape area. The proposed parking plan does not meet the City minimum requirement of27 on-site parking spaces. The minimum parking requirements may even be higher. should any office area exist within Units #2, #3 or #4. Using a lower parking requirement as you have previously suggested for the uses in Units #2, #3 and #4, requires a recommendation by the City's' CbiefPlanner and approval by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Section 20.74.100). The few reductions that have been approved by the Planning Commission are typically associated with a Use Permit. The reason for this is so that conditions of approval can be imposed to restrict the use of the property in keeping with the parking. In order t6 proceed with this option, you would needt.o prQyi~e cl~aT..docu.rp.entation that the uses .on the site are so unique that they . warrant a separate and lesser requirement than that required (SSFMC Chapter 20.74). The proposed plans indicate that an area of equal to 6.1 % of the site area is to be provided in land.sc~ping. The minimum landscaping requirement is 10% of the total site 'area (SSFMC Chapter 20.73). A landscape reduction can be allowed subject to the approval by the Planning CommisSIon (SSFMCChapter 20.101). The reduction will require a financial contribution by the owner to the City's Cqltural Arts by the contribution formula (SSFMC Chapter 20.101). . This is the third or fourth set of plans we have reviewed over the course of a couple of years and the parking plans are no closer to meeting the minimum City requirements than when we started. The owner was advised of the City's parking, lai1dscaping and sIgn requirements prior to the purchase of the building. At that time City staff expressed concern that the site was not going to be. able to -accommodate parking for all the units and that all or a portion of Units #2, #3 and #4 would need to be converted to parking garage to meet City parking requirements. City staff also advised the owner of the requirements and procedures to ~ollow regarding the existing signs. City staff has been patiently worked to develop a site plan that complies with City standards..None of the plans bas ever come close to meeting City standards .and it is clear that the open area of the site is insuffiCient to accommodate the required parking. In our opinion there is a need to either secure off-site parking within a reasonable distance from the site (requiring a Use Permit) or convert at least two of the units into a parking garage. Regarding the exterior sign, to date the owner has not filed a planning application and installed the sign without bene~t of City approval. The owner needs to file a planning application and then secure a Building Permit. Please contact me as soon as possible and advise me of your course of action. -52- Regards, Cc: Thomas Sparks -53- : \.\' - ...:r:-.l . ' . 'UNrI;"e;.D Auro REPAIR CORPORATION ....4~q .COLLi.I:-J.s AVE~UE .. ": .:' COLMA~C~: . ',.1 . . - . --".,... ,-, . . . .' . .... . . ': ".To. .:S01-1~ ;C~ty Plarir).iri9 Dep~~erit: '.' . . . .' " " ,,' . ~ , .. . T, Peter K~ong 'coIDIIl.ittomanagirigthe ,parkmgand serii:iceofmy ~cars inside'the~b~cyng '~t.:~O:8. ~.outh ;Lm4en......No..ye~cle.s.b.eing '.. : .s~Mc~c;i..~.~e':p~~~q:?~.~~id~~., '.- ...., . .: .- '..: . . . ...... ., :' , . . . . . . l . 1"..1. '. . '- . . .... . . . - T~~..y6.u;. ,,"". .". ..' .< . '. ,",\ -.. . . . . . ..1..... ...... ,II,' . / j) .d-/':iI. J' :~"'.' :.s P.,' '~S3 C:7D~.": - . ~." 'lS.ka-~CJ2.' ~~. .it......P... T7:-e- ~I 7 . /.;:r'r->'t....~ . ...... ~J ISC'ot-.h~ ~~Y~'J K r~?r.r ~~,. LL,k .~$~ <r7'-id~/"d.si4JR<fV--VCf'/~c!,,-kcl ;0>701. '. '.' ". .'. ...... t. . . ',~ . '.:%,~_'______ '. - . .d::~~~ ~ .'. . ." .' /(~/.. L~~~~.. .... ~ .' . PitqN'E: .~.5.0~756-222 FAX': 65.0-7'56:01252 -54- -. .' ... .~. :-a......: ;. ~.,:..: '. '. '. ~:.:!:~' ~, . . ". :. I .. '" oj' .J .. : . . .. ' . .\~':. ;.. .:-..;r::-....l:;;1;...~.::.~..:.:: ~..:~~:t r 1. ~f. ! .' i' ",.' "".... D. )..-0 :P \ 1, 050 \ ~-vo \ ,,-" .' .... '. FLOOR PLAN -:- RARKINci :LA'YOUr ~. ~ ~~ '1'~" 'ilT'" ... '_..-~ -. '. "".. . r~!> J1g 'l-~~ i:'I\~ (E)DRlVEWA Y 2B'-II'.' I ! @i~~~--------~ \ I I .... I ~ ii.5Q ~ ~)~~~ i u'-!i" i --------+- - -- i -- i -l-~/ i '----t-- f..AfiKllffi 1B'-5"~~ -5. '- UBKltm ! 0'-6"10'-61 .~ 8gl_~.I~'-~ 19 SrUc.c:) - - I \ t Iii ff1 r.-----m . clG H . . j.o .. ~! ~~ ~ib ~~ - 1i!I.-1 !l'- ".. 1i!I" c::1O ''':l. 'f' lQ .7 'M ill':' "" .:. il'I b "" i.\ ...:.' - - ',~'-:-. "r;- ~ ,::~-, .1.-" .".": II ~j ;~~ ~J -'i! ~1Q .~~: @ ;?-l SpLI6:!.~ r~4 u i rei. d :t yiOf.J:J ~ ~ 1:001{1 I 1j2~if]. 6-\-1I1 () t-c=.r"i 0 r Antl ++. rUl\. l,J{... L..lJlJv iwllll VU'oJU III VUIUWl:.'ll Ucilll\t::l- OlUciral 1 .ol.Jt[I' I' ". .,:" . I i roll. nv. 'OC:;JU0~C:Ov.J f. UlIUl -...:.., '."'....,.. CITY OF SOmH SAN F~..NC:r:SCO 4.: 0 0 GR,.'r:.J:ID A V: m P.O. :BOX 71. ~ sovrR S~' FB:,':LNCISCOt c..l!. 94080 (650) 877..SSC15 '. . ..,. w -lit *" '*' * * * 'i' * * -{tt i' * * * B LJSINES S * * RElNEWAL * 'i' I NFORMAT :t 0 N .* 1: N O.T I C E '" '* "* 'Ii' 'If '* * * 'i' i' * 1: 'i' * * -t. . t .~.. :ilL. _ ~c:rflN LIMO SEItVICE . I 11~'ICENSEEl:!?IRES 12-3:1.0001 13l 150 MlU'LE AVE "#3 I. LeC.: ~ 31 ~..PLE AVE SOUTH #3 S Slll~ FRANCISCO, CA940aO I !'I rf~ SAN .P~..NCISCOI CA .94080 . I ' . . 'TJNDER STA'I'E :t,AW At:L Bt!~:tNESS' LICENSE ~l3lffiRDS MOSt INCL'ODE '.L'SE ';:m=~~ ::::N~~=E T~:t~~ ;~ .FOl;M'~MPLE~Y PWIlERSlIIP 'l"h?E (C$ECK ONE) ! II.:. / SOliE P~OPRI:~:'l'OR _ l?AR'l'NERSRIP _ .1 !rORPOAATI()i\f _ LLC ~ TAX In .~.3\3Zql/6 ~~ SEC NO.!. . S=:S 'l'.!\X l>nlllMI~ ;: Juwr~~,~N"!: 000 - 2:l~8. ~3 iJ.3 OWNER.S NIlMEIi[S) _S\l~_. OR CO:aPO:P.A~, i: OFFICER . ~." : I ~Ii _. . . . . I I. . I _u _ THE BUS.!NES' I~ -L1C.ENS.El. RENElwAL....FOR...'l' ~~~TAT:r~ , It...8RSO~ .&:..00008: . "tRUCKING i 'I' lutIC!AB 'rRANSP. ORTATI.ON' Fa.;: G~ FOaq !NG SERVIOES i . AMStTLANCE S pttVICEi MOVING V1\Ni CHAR". BUS cOMPfcms: IS $75.00 PER VEK:tCLE PLt:1 ~ $5.00 Pili. E1MI?LOYE:m, CO "'~Nrr.ES WI'!' "OT VERICI.iBS X,S $75.. 00 PLUS. $ 5 . 0 0 ~m1l EMPLOYEE.. PLEAS1i COM .JTE AMomrr :J,:IOE. MINIMtJ'M FEE $ a 0 . 00 . I 0 . .~_.'t"-c!!. $ 0 NO . OF vmRI ::::r.ES ". . '..:'1:. ... 7 5. 00 . ., .....' . 00 NO. OF EMPLljYEES.:. X $ S. 00. ... . . · $ . .J OFFICES WIl,'fiCUT \.'EHI~S t' . $75.00', .. ".f''' $ ~O~ DIJE. . . . . c'. . . " 4 . . . . . · .. · . · · · " ... ..1.. $ **~*.'i'~****~*~*****~***~***~**+~~.*. ** *~****~:~*****~*w+***~~**~**~.*** * TO ]J._VOID l\ l. 0 % PENAL.'!'Y I PLEASE RE'.t'[W WITH X'I"!'ANCE J31{ FEal"!:IAR.Y l.ST 9r * AFTER FQ EttJARY 2 a T!1, TEE PENALTY J CREJASElS 'to!:: 5 % . w ****.****~*~***.*.********.~~*.****~ **'*~~*.**:~*.*******.*****...****.* I!' 110. LONGlllR IN BUSINES S IN so s;:..w ~r AN1ISCO. l? Tl~ CRECl<_" RE!I'URN. NON-RECEIP.l OF RENEWAL NOTI~ OOES ~J( 'I: WAIVE Ill' ENSB FEE AND PENA,L'I"'f, DOES YOllR ]1 rrS!NESS llAVE At. rim SI'rll? I, PLlpISli1 . '!.'BE ADDRESS BElLOW. " t' - ~ 0 ---:-: :- ~ . I DECLARE ~. ,R ~ENAL'l'Y ALL. IN'FORMA'r :It r 'l'InS sq iN I ( lE I, 'BUSINESS NO. , CLASSIFICATION · I' · I . C · ...,.... . 10049 4291 41..19 TO~ -56- Ject locatfcrc TaylorMade AutoMotive ~ VJctot! Avt$U~ Sot.rth San Frandsco, Ca A.P ~ 01S-4- 092 .. 080 Lot Data: lot AtC~ Building Footprint lot CO\lerage: Area tIGnI: TilyfarMJ.dt ~QMotf'ia lower level: . . Wefic., Floor S,400 ~ ft.. Offices. . BOO ~ (t. . $ub-Tot~ j 6,200 $lJ.. 'tL C Upper l.~v" . C C WVttmuJfi '- ~) 120 sq. ft.. c . ~Totah no sq.. 1t ...- Ti.YfcrMade MtoMQUVEl 6,120 H{.r .ft 2&iDooo ~ it. 13;,400 sq. ft 5r..0% Tenant Paridns RequIred T~nt!3 L_~ WJ.~e I SPace per 2;000 sq It . Unrt .2 l,auo Iq. ft. Unit .a. . . 3,.&00 ~ It. Unit 14 1,800 sq. It. . SUb-Total;.' ij ~ $(f- it. Total PaltJng ~ 3..6 TaylorMade ParIdn& Required fa~Ma. AutoMotive W~ .. fixed r:.a.ys/S,400 w '" space p*" bay 16.0 0fIIeU: 800 sq it 1 space per 300 19 It 27 WarehOUse: 120 sq ft . 1 .~(;, per Zpoo 5q ft OA- rilyb Made ~ Required 1i Total ParkJns. ProvIded Extmor Fi:nd Parkins. 12 Interior parkttg 10 Total Parkhg Provided 22 R_ement TaylorMade AutoModv~. . WIthIn Pr~~ LIne 2013- sq.. ft. within CitY ~ty l~ Lot Covetagf! w/ln TaitoMade rropertYlmA~ -57- f 7e,N f\Jf" .? IOTA l c2'1 ,.........--- r:..... c: ...... N ....J o U1 o ...". n W l-> .....- ........_~ l- ii ~ J'-t Iii Ifl 16 1In. r ~--- ----:t ~"---_?- ~ f\ /1 ~\ /f ..2 I \ .I I , , J I "PI 1\", '1 -', III ~ V' I : 'Vf ~ t;1' l/\f :P\~ 0 1/\llj\,1 ;::J , i ... I I' 1 I '( ... ~ tf \: m ~-----4 f,----u_o) e 1\ /1 1\ ff m ... t I I, F I ~ I \ I I I 'I. , I ''\'11\.11 f-' :Yl ry: IIU.' . t... ' l.f \ J I/"\ j : j \ ~~. It ....~ I' \, ~ l/ \f 1/ \l~... ~-- ---J. "------~ ~ h ,f I .,.. 9'1"'1' t I , i f " .f. 1 \ 1 I : 'i I I 1 ~ I I J ... 1 'r ,~ J J ... f J t , I 1t . II "&'&._____..1 m m o w !11 (0 " ~ ...... o (Jj ~1l%W.~ - I!i ,lIS ~ ot:o _9";: I"1Jn iNuu.v :IfCIIW tpnoS IOO'ODIi . K-~---:;a :\ /: ,\ " : \ " I , ,! I ) II I r / \ i I l \, 1.1 .... I ., \ I ~_ \1 " --; ; \ /1 .' I I ~ \! I I V I ,,~: , , " , ....~,\! t'"Rr~ i(~l,:;::~!~t~t~~ ? ; j''''--..... ~ ......- , -,<... I _,.-....... I...~/ ""...,. "":;:---------; . ..-.... , '-[1 r ........,._ : __....'c"'''''''_ .k::__..____:~ ~.... I r \ I \ \ ..I , ...- 'l._ !$i. .'. (. , \. ;.....-.l ............,.. '~/-... .... J.. ") ... J' , .I v' rt;-' t I I I I I L. _.J t ...w .~: ... ....-......"'""-- .. ..-sid ~.... ......... , ....:=c:- I ;::.::--~::::~J ......- ../"i~i ".J"~'" I _",~_...- .........-...1 e:==::r:B:'===-:::::,,,:,c.":! ......".............. _.,.-.....?ii I .-:~~'.... 1 ~~~:: ..~----=~.:.;J ! -'''''''__IF<..,-,Jtll I .,~....... , I "r-.... . -'t.. I ~~=!:!,.e,=::=::._..~~ I -~.... -",,~r-tJ.r ~ ....,~':J"-=......... . i I J",...., .. I ~..- . -", J ,,~--~----- -:H I ........ '.. ~"""'''1Ij I ':><"'" I I ~.;11'......... I I ...~,-, ....,......... I r~~~:~~:::~ ; ,.......~~. .................. I ~~----_.__. --_:::?1 I .......,_ _,,-'B: ! /:>t:::......... ! ~:" :::- :::::~ L 'if ~ g I Ul 00 I ~d;::: ~;::":~.: {t: <~.:~ "~ :}{~~~"; ;~'l : ;r:~~~:: ~;~!-';:>\~~~~ \ "., ...... "1J W rOo'oo~ .... J George R. Corey Stevan N. Luzaich Dario de Ghetaldi Jerry E. Nastari Amanda L Riddle Edward A. Daniels Janet M. Li COREY; L UZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTARI LLP Attorneys at Law 700 EL CAMJNO REAL, P.O. Box 669 ~BRAE,CALWO~~94030 (650) 871-5666 · FAX (650) 871-4144 Hon. Edward W. PlisJr-B. (Ret) XenophoD Tragoutsis (Ret.) October 28,20.05 IvIr. :tyra1~C C. Teglia - Chairman . Mr. Willianl E. Zemke - Vice Chairman Ms. Mary L. Giusti Ms. Judith M. Honan Mr. John Prouty Mr. William R. Romero' Mr. Eugene H. Sim Re: Auto Use - Response to City Attorney Letter of 9/23/2005- Request for Planning Commission Insnection Dear PlamlingCommissioners: This letter follows that of your city attorney responding to our complaint for discrlllUl1atory practices in the granting of a business license for a permitted use. We read the City Attolney letter to say very simply that if staff has the necessary information.and no exceptions are required it (by . administrative actions) allows issuance ofthe.city business license. This'letter examines each question raised by the City Attonley and C0111pares them to 344 Victory Avenue and other uses in the same disti-ict. We hope you will have time to ll1ake a personal inspection prior to the Ineeting. The numbered paragraphs in this letter follow the City Attorney's fOlTI1at which speaks in the 1110st general terms and not to the specifics of this application. . 1. None of the CUP requirenlents apply to this application. Our plan always showed the whole site from the begirming .and we repeatedly told staff about each tenant when they inquired. -59- October 28, 2005 Page 2 DISCRIMINATION - 131 So. Maple Unit #3 is just around the corner. A Luno Transportation service convelied to an auto repair shop (sanle as Gibbs). It is . one of eight different businesses in a building and that unit #3 contains approxinlately 4500 square feet of which almost 1000 square feet is office space. Thatunit has'three (3) parlcing spaces assigned by the building owners. . Staff did not require a single piece of information fi.om that applicant - NOT parki.ng-NOT landscaping -NOT uses'ofothertenants~.: NOT trips of his or other tenants - NOT hours of operatioil. Staff extended that discrimination by approving the business lice11se for 1387 Lowrie, which is a COIi1mon building with two tenants. Each one has approxinlately 5,000 square feet. Unit 1387 is an allowable use but different than the prior tenant. Your staff did NOT 'require parking - NOT landscaping - . NOT uses. of other tenants - NOT trips of his or other tenants ~ NOT hours of operation - NOT a question of office space. In 8ho11 every complairit staff makes about Gibbs they forgave at units #3 131 Maple and 1387 Lowrie. 11. The hours of operation were described in our fIrst letter to the city for lvlr. Gibbs, they never requested other tenants hours but exhibits I, 2, 3 to this letter cover the use, ]2arking, trips, hours of operation, office space and tenancy for each unit. A snnple request from staff would have put this san1e information h"'1 v,rriting earlie~. The City Attorney's letter conIes rather late in a statement indicating we did not provide sufficient info lTIlation. DISCRIMINATION - 131 Maple Unit #3 and 1387 Lowrie do not have and NEVER had any such information requested about any other tenant in their facility. In fact, their business license was approved without a single page of paper to staff (except the business license application ). l~o hours of operation are reflected for. any tenant, nor is there information on any of the other . cliteria. -60- October 28, 2005 Page 3 111. The vehicle trip question is the same smoke screen as the ~ours of operation. Staff never asked any other tenant who changed fiom one allowable use in this zone to another allowable use about vehicle trips, not even their own, let alone those of other tenants. DISCR.II\1INATION - Not only 131 Maple'unit #3 and 1387 Lowrie, but in addition United Auto Repair, 108 So. Linden Avenue, who c4anged from a plurnbingshop to an auto repair afte:rlvLL .Gibbsapplication, never got a request from staff for anything except a parking plan which is exhi:tJit 5 to Oill" original letter and now becomes exhibit 4 to this letter. Additionally 108 Linden never had a landscaping plan (and has zero landscaping). NO trip count - l~O hours of operation - and nothing else Mr. Gibbs is supposed to provide. ADDITIONAL DISCRIMlNATION - please review exhibit 4 to this letter per 108 Linden Avenue, it is an absurd comparison to the orderly plan of :MI. Gibbs. No nlatter which application one looks at (we submitted five different ones) when faced with complaints from staff such as being 6 inches. short on a 25 foot back up space as compared to the absurdity of the United performance parking plan shows how truly biased staff had become and how discriminatory they were as to Mr. Gibbs. Fronl the frrst day of the Gibbs application, parlcing was the only problem they ever ra~sed (see signage question referred to in separate: paragraph) as applies to the business license application. The 'City Attorney's letter now concedes Mr. Gibbs has his required parking but also ll1ai...ntains there is not sufficient parking for the entire building when in fact there is 1110re than enough parking and no such requirements were ever imposed 011 ~lY other applicant at or about the same time of application for the sanle kind of situation as Mr~ Gibbs. -61- October 28, 2005 Page 4 IV. The landscaping claim is' a sham. The City AttOTIley points to one of five pl311S that had less than 10% landscaping. It resulted froIn huge frustration with the parking denlands of the city including the 6 inch differential in a 25 foot back up space. Our designer drew one pl31l with 6% 1311dscaping and all the rest contain 10 or 10.1 % which is the tluust of this application fi-om the beginning, and is reflected on exhibit 7 in our fIrst letter to you. DISCR.IlVIINATION - Staff got NO other plans fi-om any other applicant nlentioned herein - didn't even ask, let alone demand information for other tenants landscaping needs or requirelnents .within the building and we now add another applicant-at 48 South Linden who after- the building had been vacant for more than a year opened an auto repair facility and has zero (NONE) landscaping. That same applicant was not required to provide trips, hours of operation, or any other of the requirements imposed on Gibbs. v. Signage Permit - TIns single item is where the City Attorney's letter is partially accurate. In my first meeting with the city, staff told me directly that the signage was a neon sign and if it was to remain needed a nOImal sign permit and planning commission approval. It was agreed we would defer that issue until we cleared up the business license application and then make the sign application. I will fuliher tell you the City Planner Mr. Carlson ip.dicated this was a goo~ looking sign for which he would reconnnend approval (it had been on.Mr. Gibbs previous location on San Mateo Avenue). YjerelY, . . Geor::::r- GRC:ap Enc1s. cc: Mr. Thomas SparkS - Planning birector Ivtr. Ban-y Nagel - City Manager Peter Spoerl, Esq. - City Attorney -62- Chris D~nny Declaration - Unit No.2 Gibbs Application for Use Pemlit - 344 Victory Avenue, South San Francisco My name is Chris Denny and I ran my operation out of unit #2 at 344 Victory Avenue in South San Francisco before Mr. 'and Ivrrs. Gibbs acquired the property.. Froin that time until the pre~ent my use has been exactly the same. 1. USE - I store auto parts in very limited number for use on restoring a single car at a time. I use the facility mainly on'iveekends and evenings 'andl"never' do any. work outside the building - i. e. driveways etc. 2. P A.R:KmG - r have tw'o parking spaces inside.the facility but I never use , more than one, unless you count the car I am woooQ.g on in wmch case that would be t\vo . No one else ever visits the facility so there is never more than my car plus the one car I am ~rorking on at any one ~e. 3. TRIPS -.r come to the facility approximatelytbree times per week which constitutes one drive in and one drive home.. Occasionally I go down once or t\vice on the weekends and of course sometimes not at alL I estimate that I go mto the facility not more than four tlnles per.week, (including weekends). 4. OFFICE SPACE - I have no office space whatsoever in the facility and no 'book work 'or accounting of any kind is done on this premises. ...- /O~2\ - o~ Date -63- A.rt Sa]ull1e Declaration - Unit No'.3 Gibbs Application for Use Permit - 344 Vict01Y Avenue, South San Francisco My name is Art Salume and I lease unit #3 which is approximately 3500 feet of space at 344 Victory Avenue. 1. . USE - This unit is a machine shop with limited production of machine parts for cOlnlnercial ac.counts. There is absolutely nn retail business and 99% of my business is shipped by UPS. I have no employees. 2. P ARKI:n,JG - I have three parking spaces ll1Side the building and I only park in one of them, so there are always at least two spaces open. On occasion my ",rife will come down to bring lunch or have lunch ,vith me, but there are still a maximum oftw.o cars when she visits. 3. TRIPS - I operate from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 pm. Monday - Friday with a ma..-nTIIUm qf ffiro trips per day on the occasions when illY wife conIes to the offic.e othenvise it is one hip (to .and from). 4. OFFICE SPACE - I have an qffice area that is approximately 50 sqLIa+e feet (a desk in the comer). It}- ;2 r- t::: ~ Date ...'::; Z- ...<....". .t::::,,~' 0'.,"jA'Y-t'. ...........y . - ~ ,....-<:~--~ Art SaluIDe -64- V\llnJiH.U1 ~toughi: ])'cclnrat'tOll Unh N(~. 4 (;.ib1:;s Applict'ltir..~~l for U~C 1'<::111111: .. 344 \l'i.Gtt:tl)" A VL~1J.Ut) South SEJJ) Fran{~j,scn My ni:m.')e if; "\ViHinm S10ugnt and I O",,,tt WiHialn SLtHlglu Pub1ishlJJg \.vbich lca~mt' lUti"t #4 (1-[ apprQ.i.tllna.tely 1700 SlTUrire feeL at 344 Vic.tory Avenue ibe fW';lhty is lOOt}/o 510rage aDd fOTDQ(Jr.h.J:=r pt1rffO~t.. ."' . ",.., -- 1, USE. \'Vf:. ~to1"ti hooks anupublicattolls fhr sale. fi'Olll eu)' Sa~ PIi..\IldSt~o ()ut~C'11 2. }>;\.RKINCi \\T(:. hn.ve. tWf.~ iLJsidc pa.t'kinf'.l>lac.cs huf '''.f; .never u'se lh~l')' ingS:m.ll(~h as ~"e n.r~ there a ITla'rim1.tr.IJ. of three ti.me.s per. month. . 3. TRJYS: - C)ur trui,.,,:kE.i pick. up cm.c1/or deliver fn.)r.n the facility not Jnvrt; l.lJ~tU 1hre.e titneJ~ per. n1.6nUl~ v-.7e, sunply. ba~.J( the:: ti11C'.,k. into 11:Jc ~"3reb.(Jusc ~UJd load or ulllt.,1t,u ElS neDC:$S!I.t~... Acc1:'H'di:o.gJ.y we <.ill Uot. m~inUJin h.ollrs of opt:rallt.1):J U1l1c~ss you r.oosideI' the thrt"e lri],J~ P(;[ ~nolltl1 a~ fiuch. 4. ()FFlCE SP AC'E -. T~ere is 110 offic.e.space as tbe ~Jlti.re fad.lity .is u~e-d up. with booK storag:e i:rn11 ~'Pace for out Irr)cks to pri.rk wh~Jl ",:e load and 111~J cwd / vale /~ .. /" . 71 - ...-.!g~ VilliHm ~Iougln . ) IJ'. !!., ?J~ -65- ;./' . ~ :'. ",:~:,". '\0:.- . . . :.' ~ ". : ". - ...:r.' .;- .. , ".. =-: ',;). '. . ~ .. 'UNIT.ED AUTO REPAIR CORP.ORATION .' '. .~ ....:. <.4:~<? COLLi~~ AVENU.~ " .,".:> .' .-:. CO~'.~.' . .... . .. ",To.' :So.l1~ l~~ty piarilJ.i.l+~ p:ep~erit: - . . . I ..' I ." ..... .... . . . .~ .. .. .. .. .0' ( .. . .. I,Peter Kwong .co:n,.i,i{tO.inailagi.p:gthe.paikmgand semce .of~y .:c8!s ~s~de .the.:b~~g ~t.'}.O~ ~:ou!;h ~in9~r.l:... ::~o. yeh~cle.8.b~ing '.. .s'ervic.~c;i.."Will..be:p~keq. ou~~ide:". .._. ..' : .' . '. : .' . :, JO :" .. .... .. ~.. '.. . :' .. .. ..;:.. .. .. . . . ., '. . . ':. : 0' . ."" .. .. .", 'to. . :l.: .:. '~ .... '. .. ., .. . . '...10 .. .., ~. ...:...... .. . .' .. ," .. .. ". "..:." '".. :....... . ':.~ ..,:.. .. .. ," - .' .. '." :.. .... ... . . .. . '.. ".. . ." ..' '. .",.. . .' . . . I. I.. . . ;.. ,,~/ / .... . f J.ij..L?I.~ :Ti;f,~&>r.~.s:s-&~~!J:.k~~&2 v..AI"~~. .r~ ~I '). (7 --.' ,I . ..."} ~,,-J j;..d~~. pF-my. .~~ K. t'~:Yc.r~: Uk. .tJ.$ .$&,"- tJ^ -it .;z...-4.JIe~.:>;le/;Ch-YC f,(~ c!,,-k:,cI )0;01. . .'. '. .... ,-.' ....: ....j.~ ;/:.~5 ~ /, t....<;!:/ /. /~~.<.. <. . '., .': '.' . ;;. . . / . _r- . .: . .' P.H'ON'E: ..~.5'O~75-6.'!'222 FAX: 65.0-.7-56.:.1252 ," ,. . .' ", -66- ~ p . ) ~ )\~~~'0 vr ~ \\ ~ ~ \\ +' '/ ,;f.J\ov-(J ~.. ~ A ~ .JtfU e,tI ~ Jv /IIV~_,.,.-' vJ ,if-" 'IV U -f.- f <n J ..... ? ~r::;:::;-==----~ /::-';-1 -_:::;<:,.... : l!::=___ -=::::~J ..... .-~, I ............ "..- I : --',<.-:" : I .,,-', I 110-"- -...... 1 ~~=- ~-=.=-=:===- =.-==-~~ I ......, ....- I : .......................<:.......-..... : 111_~---- ............... I I<~---------~ J :""--_ _..... I I ......- .....- I 1 .....>,,:< 1 I --........ _ I 112,..-'- ......_ I '-'=-_ _______ ___::::.J r-::::-----------..::-:'1 I ......, ...." I : ..................:;::<....-- : :1)_,--- ......-...... : ~~---------~" : ................_ ,........_- I I ......::<- :I~r--- -.....-..._... '-'-- ------- --- r-::::--------- I......... . ,..-.... . .....- -- I ......><..... :'15_,--- -"'-... 1 IE------ :::->1 , '.... I I ....._"..... . 1 :;:<::: I I -- -..... I 11.1;....'- - ...... I - - 1 - ~ i l' .~\ j f~:",. . \ '1;1 ~'"V' r,e;> ~I- ,'. --1 1 I 1 I --' ~'- /~, !. -) ... ; ,- ... , -..; ~_-"\.\ - .. < ) '\ .... .. , J ..... ~_-. r- \ \ \ \ __J 'l- :;::------ -- --;:-1 ......- _..... I .......- -..".. I . :><: I 17_--- "'"-........: ,;:--------~>1 .....-......-..... ....---- : ::::<::: 1 -- -..... , IJ--- -.......... 1 .:.-------- ~.-rr' - , ...... -... r----"';J: h fl 1\ ; 1 1 \ J I I \ , I I Wl~/, 1 1 "'< 1 I .." 1 1 , '\ 1 1 ; , 1 I; \ 1 I, '\ I I' '\ 1 L___~ 1.,. ... tOO.OO' 1 r--',_.a- . " ~- r' J ".J...-'-".~""'.......r.......~li-,~'""rm~-~ (:# i ~ f ~ :i .....~ '1 "1 I J;;... \,1 l-----L i\,1 ! 1\ /1 I I '\ I I I I '\1:' 1 1 \ I 1 k 1 I 1 f '\ 1 I 1 , , 1 1 J \ 1 I J '\. 1 " '\ I If \1 l._____j r--' I i I ~------ ; j : ~), L~-- 1\ ;1 1 \ T 1 I \ , 1 I '\ J, I '~},' , I .;{ 1 I . 1 I I \ 1 I , \ 1 I J '\ 1 I J \, 1 I \ I IT \I L_____.JJ wu. ~...., IIIb ~ 3RIIIII Ill" 1 0\ "'l I f ....-..... ---, .......... -- I ...::=.:::- I ~,/,-"" ...............-.... 21 - :; I -..... -"' I ............ ,.....- I >IC I ~- ~- I ~~-- ..........,....~ ~,~, ~o 41 f .~ i ..I ! \1~--' . L__ J_______~-32~__ \ \ j>', '8..1 -. ------~~~~~~~ en...da U__ A......_ {' . f . . FLOOR PLAN 7" P.ARKI'Nd' i,~~bUT :-:;::=- ., sc~ ~/t6" = r~."'~:.:~:J~t~.".~;-.; '. ~ . ::~',,;:,~ :. .. ',. " .... @ '7 ll! @) ~2()G.m ) ~_I ~~ T ~) ~tQ :: '5riJcej 19 j., ~~ ~~ ~. .", ~ '1 ~i;l ~~ a:ts 'b ~~ fm~ ~s --1 i .fio~ I...}. . ~ 'j fABIDOO'. jIB',O'x! -Ii" ===--= .. _...L..........:- . ;: I : ! U Qj ... ~ ! '. :~'~< :;:,~:l!,. . ::. '. ....' : I : .., ". ..... .:r J. I'.. ~" ~ .. ....~. ::~:.'S,,: .;::.:....':i;~~.:~\.~.::~.:-i.q: t~~:.~. . . . : .,': ;. '-' .'~ "h ...... ,', . ...:-..... ... :.';.':. .; , .. ,.:": . ~ . r' .).+DI () t-cA tJ r Pi rc u .j: B2cY~~. ++. l! i:orp I ~l' spDCe~ re.4u In:'. d !!::!!::. I 0\ " (~)DRIVE.WAY 00 I " '.