The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-04-10 e-packetAGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM APRIL 10, 2002 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO F1VE (5) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. In the event that there are more than six persons desiring to speak, the Chair may reduce the amount of time per speaker to three (3) minutes. 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. EUGENE R. MULLIN Chairman PEDRO GONZALEZ Vice Chair RAYMOND L. GREEN Boardmember BEVERLY BONALANZA FORD Investment Officer MICHAEL A. WILSON Executive Director JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETlNGS AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM APRIL 10, 2002 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. In the event that there are more than six persons desiring to speak, the Mayor may reduce the amount of time per speaker to three (3) minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. PEDRO GONZALEZ Mayor Pro Tem EUGENE R. MULLIN Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RAYMOND L. GREEN Councilman KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman BEVERLY BONALANZA FORD City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attomey PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · On-Line Data Base Presentation - Library staff members Banny Rucker and Claudia Killian · Proclamation: National Library Week, April 14-20, 2002, presented to Library Board President Bill Boldenweck · Traffic Summit May 6, 2002 - Deputy Director of Maintenance Services Terry White AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Community Forum · Subcommittee Reports · Reappointment of Library Board President Bill Boldenweck to the Peninsula Library System Advisory Board CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the minutes of the March 20 and 27, 2002 special meetings and March 27 regular meeting 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of April 10, 2002 o Resolution accepting $49,242 in additional grant funding for the Community Learning Center from multiple sources Resolution modifying the CDBG budget to incorporate funds received from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium to be allocated with CDBG funds o Resolution awarding a construction contract to O'Keeffe Mechanical Co. for the Police Department HVAC Replacement Project in the amount of $118,400 Resolution awarding a construction contract for the Spruce Avenue/North Canal Traffic Signal Improvement Project to Steiny and Company, Inc., in the amount of $66,325.50 o Resolution awarding a construction contract to Blossom Valley Construction for the Americans with Disabilities Act Play Area Renovations at Winston Manor Park Nos. 3 and 5 and Zamora Park in an amount not to exceed $351,381 Acknowledgement of proclamations issued: Atotonilco E1 Alto, April 1, 2002; and Arbor Day Celebration, April 6, 2002 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING April I0, 2002 AGENDA PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING o Hearing to consider resolution authorizing submittal of the City's One Year Plan for Housing and Community Development to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and authorizing the execution of all documents necessary to secure and award CDBG funds for the City 10. Hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 20.74.120 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code related to off-site parking requirements (city-wide) 11. Hearing to consider appeal of Planning Commission denial of Variance (PO 1-0007) to allow living and garage area additions within the required rear setback at 3 Emerald Court; Applicant: Renee Yates ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Discussion: Provide direction to staff related to the placement of a sound wall or alternate public improvements on Sister Cities Boulevard CLOSED SESSION 13. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Existing Litigation: Aetna Realty v. City of South San Francisco ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA April 10, 2002 PAGE 3 Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 10, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Library Director RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT $49,242 IN ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDING FOR THE COMMUNITY LEARN ING CENTER AND AMEND THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2001/2002 OPERATING BUDGET RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution accepting $49,242 in additional revenue for the Community Learning Center and appropriating this amount for use in the Library Department's 2001/2002 operating budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION~ The Library will exceed our projected revenue for the Community Learning Center by $49,242. We wish to recognize this revenue and expand our expenditures in the Community Learning Center accordingly. Below, please tind the summary o£ Projected Revenue and Actual Revenue £or Fiscal Year 2001/2002. The Peninsula Community Foundation The San Francisco Foundation Oracle Corporation Atkinson Foundation Lucille Packard Foundation for Children's Health Woodlawn Foundation County of Sail Mateo Charles and Helen Schwab Family Foundation Kaiser Permanente CA State Library -ELLI Silver Giving Foundation Miscellmleous TOTAL TOTAL DIFFERENCE FUNDING: PROJECTED REVENUE ACTUAL REVENUE $ 80,000 $84,911 30,000 20,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 0 50,000 10,000 10,000 25,000 22,600 30,000 0 0 3,000 0 45,000 40,000 35,000 6,269 0 $246,269 $295,511 $ 49,242 Additional grant funding received ill Fiscal Year 2001/2002 will be used to amend the Library's current budgel. Grant cycles typically run for one year from time of receipt; therefore, grant funds not expended at the end of Fiscal Year 2001/2002 will be can-led over into the following year. By_.' Valcrie Sommer Library Director Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachmenl: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ACCEFI'ING $49,242 IN ADDH'IONAL GRANT FIINDING FOR THE COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2001/2002 OPERATING BUDGET (No. 02-13) WHEREAS, staff recommends accepting $49,242 in additional grant funding for the Community Learning Center; and WHEREAS, additional grant funding received in Fiscal Year 2001/2002 will be used to amend the Library's current budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the acceptance of $49,242 in additional grant funding for the Community Learning Center and amends the Library Department's 2001/2002 Operating Budget (No. 02-13). I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: \~MULDER~VGATTREIA~\file cabinet\Curren! Reso's~4- l 0learning center res.doc City Clerk StaffReport DATE: April 10, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: Budget Amendment for the Community Development Block Grant Program Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving a budget amendment to the 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program operating budget. The amendment incorporates the administrative HOME Investment Partnership Program funds the City receives from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium. BACKGROUND The purpose of this staff report is to amend the 2002-2003 operating budget for the Community Development Block Grant program to include funds received from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium. The City will receive administrative funds from the HOME Investment Partnership Program in the amount of $22,620. These funds will be incorporated into the 2002-2003 CDBG fiscal year budget and will authorize their expenditure. , The City's Agreement with the San Mateo County HOME Consortium provides for one percent of the HOME Entitlement to be passed on to participating jurisdictions for administrative expenses. The City's allocation depends on the total HOME Entitlement the San Mateo County HOME Consortium receives each year. Therefore, every year the City must request these funds from the County and provide proof of administrative expenses incurred for HOME prOgram administration., This is the reason the City receives the HOME administrative funds one year after they were obligated by the County HOME Consortium. DISCUSSION The Department of Housing and Urban Development has approved the use of these funds to implement the City's Fair Housing Plan.. Strict limitations guide the City's expenditure of such funds and no other CDBG activities are eligible for this source of funding. The City's budget must be amended to allow for receipt and expenditure of these funds for fair housing. The City Council has previously designated the HOME Administration funds to provide legal and advocacy services as required by the City's federal fair housing obligation. STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: Budget Amendment for the Community Development Block Grant Program Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Operating Budget DATE: April 10, 2002 Page 2 La Raza Centro Legal and Project Sentinel have submitted CDBG proposals to reduce impediments to fair housing that exist in our community. By funding two agencies to provide these services, the City is able to offer a wider range of services to more citizens in need of fair housing counseling. Project Sentinel provides traditional fair housing counseling and advocacy for South San Francisco residents. Project Sentinel's work includes providing fair housing education, enforcement, and dispute resolution in cases of housing discrimination. Additional services include community education and information on mortgage default and delinquency. La Raza Centro Legal, which has an office in South San Francisco, provides residents with fair housing services pertaining to habitability standards and legal representation in housing matters, including code enforcement actions and mediation. Additionally, La Raza provides advocacy in employment and immigration. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing a budget amendment to the 2002-2003 CDBG operating budget. This action is necessary in order to incorporate the funds into the budget and allow for expenditures to be billed against that account. This funding strategy highlights the City's efforts in meeting federal fair housing requirements. Director x./ Economic and Community Development Michael A. Wilson City Manager MAW:MVD:NF:AFS Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMF~T TO THE 2002- 03 OPERATING BUDGET (NO. 02-14) TO ADD $22,620 TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT BUDGET WITH FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the 2002-03 Operating budget (No. 02-14) to add $22,620 to the Community Development Block Grant budget with funding received from the San Mateo County HOME Investment Partnership Program. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: AB SENT: FAille cabinefiReso's~cdbdbu.amd.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 10, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works POLICE DEPARTMENT HVAC REPLACEMENT PROJECT ENGINEERING FILE PB-00-8, BID NO. 2316 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract for the Police Department HVAC Replacement Project to O'Keeffe Mechanical Co., Inc. in the amount of $118,400.00. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project will replace six of the existing deteriorated HVAC units and add one new unit for the Police Department's portion of the Municipal Services Building. The new units with other minor modifications should improve the airflow and temperature control in the Police Department. Bids were opened on March 27, 2002 and the following list of bids were received: CONTRACTOR O'Keeffe Mechanical Co., Inc. San Francisco, CA AC Systems, Inc. Concord, CA American Air Conditioning Plumbing & Heating Co. San Francisco, CA Engineer's Estimate (Approx.) BID AMOUNT $118,400.00 $120,735.00 $124,479.00 $100,000.00 Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Police Department HVAC Replacement Project April 10, 2002 Page: 2 of 2 Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of the low bidder and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to O'Keeffe Mechanical Co., Inc., in the amount of $118,400.00. The following is a breakdown of the project budget: Construction Contingencies (8%) Construction Inspection/Administration $118,400.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 6,OOO.OO Total $134,400.00 Construction is expected to start late May 2002 and be completed by the end of July 2002. FUNDING: Funding for this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51-13232-0022) in the amount of $174,200. John Gibl~s Director 6f Public Works Approved by: Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENT: Resolution RTH/JG/ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HVAC REPLACEMENT PROJECT TO O'KEEFFE MECHANICAL CO., INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $118,400 WHEREAS, the City desires to award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, O'Keeffe Mechanical Co., Inc., in the amount of $118,400; and WHEREAS, funding for this project is included in the City's 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program budget in the amount of $174,200. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the Police Department HVAC Replacement Project to O'Keeffe Mechanical Co., Inc., in the amount of $118,400. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: F:\file cabinet\old.Resol 2_00\4-10police. HVACreplacement.res.doc City Clerk StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 10, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works Spruce Avenue/North Canal Street Traffic Signal Improvement Engineering File TR-01-1, Bid No. 2314 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract for the Spruce Avenue/North Canal Street Traffic Signal Improvements to Steiny and Company, Inc., in the amount of $66,325.50. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project will improve traffic flow at the intersection by providing a left turn lane on north bound Spruce Avenue for turning onto west bound North Canal Street. Vehicle traffic on north bound Spruce Avenue will be controlled by a video detection camera mounted on overhead signal pole. Bids were opened on March.27, 2002 and the following list of bids were received: CONTRACTOR Steiny & Company Vallejo, CA Republic Electric Novato, CA Mike Brown Electric Co.. Cotati, CA BID AMOUNT $66,325.5O $75,531.10 $89,859.00 Engineer's Estimate (Approx.) $53,000.00 Staff Report To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: Spruce Avenue/North Canal Street Traffic Signal Improvements Date: April 10, 2002 Page: 2 of 2 Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of the low bidder and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Steiny & Company, Inc., in the amount of $66,325.50. The following is a breakdown of the project budget: Construction Contingencies (8%) Construction Inspection/Administration $66,325.50 $ 5,674.50 $ 6,000.00 Total $78,000.00 Construction is expected to start late May 2002 and be completed by the end of August 2002. FUNDING: Funding for this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51 - 13231 ~0127) in the amount of $110,000.00. John Gibbs i Director of Public Works Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENT: Resolution RTH/JG/ed RESOLUTION NO.__ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE SPRUCE AVENUE/NORTH CANAL STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS TO STEINY AND COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,325.50 WHEREAS, the City desires to award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Steiny and Company, Inc., in the amount of $66,325.50; and WHEREAS, funding for this project is included in the City's 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program budget in the amount of $110,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the Spruce Avenue/North Canal Street Traffic Signal Improvements project to Steiny and Company, Inc., in an amount of $66,325.50. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: F:\file cabinefiold. Resol 2_00\4-10spmce.ave.north.canal.st.imp.res.doc City Clerk StaffReport DATE: April 10, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance Services SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract for the Americans With Disabilities Act Play Area Renovations RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding a construction contract for the Americans With Disabilities Act Play Area Renovations at Winston Manor Park #3 and #5, and Zamora Park in an amount not to exceed $351,381, and amending the 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program to include an additional $254,081 for the completion of all three sites. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In May 1996, the city secured the landscape architecture services of Robert Mowat Associates to survey all of its play areas for compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). As a result, seventeen (17) locations were found to be in need of renovation as funds became available. Since that time, the city has renovated fourteen (14) play areas throughout the community predominately using in-lieu park fees. A summary of completed sites is listed below: 1. Sellick Park 2. Buri Bud Park (large area) 3. Buff Buri Park (small area) 4. Clay Avenue Park 5. Winston Manor Park #1 6. Brentwood Park 7. City Hall Play Area 8. Cypress and Pine Park 9. Francisco Terrace Tot Lot 10. Gardiner Tot Lot 11. Orange Memorial Park (large area) 12. Orange Memorial Park (small area) 13. Paradise Valley Park 14. Siebecker Center Play Area The three (3) remaining sites in need of renovations are Winston Manor Park #3 (Newman Drive and Gibbs Way), Winston Manor Park #5 (Dundee Drive and Mansfield Drive), and Zamora Park (Zamora Drive). Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Resolution Awarding Construction Contract for ADA Play Area Renovations Date: April 10, 2002 Page 2 On October 25, 2001, the Parks and Recreation Commission began a neighborhood outreach effort to residents adjacent to the three remaining parks by providing them with concept plans and soliciting their input at a regular Commission meeting. Subsequent meetings with residents finalized the designs for each site (attached). The following is a tabulation of the bids received on March 27, 2002, for this project: Bidder Blossom Valley Construction, San Jose G+G Builders, Inc., Pleasanton CJE/RTE (JV), Concord Bid Amount $351,381 $353,624 $428,812 Staff recommends that a construction contract be awarded to Blossom Valley Construction in the amount of $351,381. A breakdown of the anticipated total project costs is as follows: Construction Administration and Inspection Contingencies (10%) Grand Total $351,381 $ 17,560 $ 35,140 $404,081 It should be noted that construction will commence in May and be completed by August 2002. FUNDING The 2001/02 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) currently contains $150,000 for only the renovation of Winston Manor Park #3. Staff is recommending that the CIP be amended to include an additional $254,081 for the completion of all three sites. It should be noted that no general funds are needed for this project. The entire $404,081 is available from local assistance monies generated by the passage of the State Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 - Proposition 12. Ultimately, the city will receive a total of $750,269 for parks and recreation capital improvements as a result of the voter's approval of Proposition 12. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Final Play Area Design Michael A. Wilaon City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BLOSSOM VALLEY CONSTRUCTION FORTHE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT PLAY AREA RENOVATIONS AT WINSTON MANOR PARK #3 AND #.5, AND ZAMORA PARK IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3.51,381 AND AMENDING THE 2001-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (02-12) TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL $2`54,081 FOR THE COMPLETION OF ALL THREE SITES WHEREAS, the City desires to award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Blossom Valley Construction in the amount $351,381; and WHEREAS, the 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program currently contains $150,000 for only the renovation of Winston Manor Park #3; and WHEREAS, the entire $404,081 is available from local assistance monies generated by the passage of the State Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 - Proposition 12; and : WHEREAS, ultimately, the City will receive a total of $750,269 for parks and recreation capital improvement as a result of the voter's approved of Proposition 12. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a construction contract to Blossom Valley Construction for the Americans With Disabilities Act Play Area Renovations at Winston Manor Park #3 and #5, and Zamora Park in an amount not to exceed $351,381 and amends the 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program (02-12) in include an additional $254,081 for the completion of all three sites. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: F:\file cabinet\Current Reso's\4-10play.area.renovation.res.doc City Clerk NEW AREA DRAIN AT EXISTING PIPE FLOW- THROUGH NEW BASKETBALL HOOPS & PO~TS NEW BASKETBALL PAVING & STRIPING · NEW 48" BOX MULTI-TRUNK ED ~ SPECIMEN TREE PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 84" SOUARE BENCH UNDER. TREE NEW GROUND COVER SHRUBS (TY~.) FREESTANDING SLIDE EXISTING ~,EATER METER TO REMAIN TRAPEZE CI~IMBER EXISTING HYDRANT 'FO REMAIN MOUNTAIN CLIMBER WoOD CHIP SURFACING (TY]"-.) NEW BENCH (TYP.) SINGLR BAY SWINGS {2 TOT) PRECAST CONC. PILASTERS ('FYI).) EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN TRASH RECEPTACLE -NEW COLORED CONCRETE PAVING W'/4"X4" WOOD DIVIDERS 4 - 36" BOX PYRUS CALLERYANA ~ARIS'~OCRAT' 'FREES RE-SOD LAWN AREA EXISTING CONCRETE PA'DWI PICNIC BENCH TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN NEW GROUND COVER & SHRUBS WINSTON MANOR #3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PLAY AREA CURVED PRECAST COLORED CO~'CRETE ,~EATWALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE: FIREPOLE CLIMBER · DNA ClaIM BER ZIPPER CLIMBEJ~ NEW GROUND COVER & S -fRUBfi (TYP.: EXISTING SHRLIBS TO REMAIN "U" cLIMBERS NEW BACKFLOW LOCATION MOUNTAIN CLIMBER · / CONCRETE RAMP (TYP.) · 4'-5' LONG X 18%24'HIGH CLIMBING BOUEDERS (7 EACH) DOUBLE BAY SWINGS (2 TOT & 2 REGULAR} WOOD CHIP SURFACING (TYb.) R~LOCATE EXISTING BACKFLOW DRIVE EXISTING LAWN TO REMAIN NEW BASKETBALL PAVING &STRIPING NEW?BASKETBALL HOOPS AND POSTS EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN (TYP,) EXrSTING PICNIC TABLE TO REMAIN TRASH RECEPTICLE WINSTON MANOR #5 PLAY AREA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.[FORNIA NEW CONCRETE PAVING EXISTING LA~ TO REMAIN COMPOSITE STRUCTURE CLIMBER HREPOLE CLIMBER CORKSCREW SLtDE TRANSITION STA I'ION TRACK RIDER SUSPENSION BRIDGE CURVEO SLIDE DOOBLE SLIDE EXISTING TABLE TO REMAIN RECEPTACLE EXISTING F'OUNTAIN TO REMAIN ZAMORA COURT EXISTING CHAIN I_INK FENCE TO REMAIN (1'.YP.) EXISTING GROUND COVER 1'0 REMAIN WOOl) CHIP SLJRFACING DOUBLE BAY SWINGS o aECl. ~ ~ ro'r) PRECAST COLORED CONC'. PEDESTALS (TYP.) TWO-COLORED CONC'. SEATWALI... 12" TO 24" HIGH IN WAVES WITH INSET DESIGN WHIRL EXISTING PAVING TO REMAIN NEW PRECAST COLORED CONC. PILASTERS (4 EACH) NEW W.I. FENCE ZAMORA'COURT PLAY AREA SOUTFI SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA rr NORTH City Council Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 10, 2O02 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Economic and Community Development ONE YEAR PLAN AND STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM YEAR 2002-2003. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1) conduct the public hearing on the City's One Year Plan for Housing and Community Development and the Proposed Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for fiscal year 2002-2003; and 2) adopt the Resolution authorizing submittal of ali required documents in the City's Federal Application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and 3) authorize the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to secure and award CDBG funds for the City. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is the final required public hearing regarding funding allocations for the 2002-2003 Community Development Block Grant Program. The purpose is to obtain public comments regarding the proposed Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds and the City's One Year Plan for Housing and Community Development. Notice of this public hearing was published in the San Mateo Times on March 30th as required by federal regulations. In addition, notices were mailed to community organizations that have submitted applications for funding. The CDBG Entitlement amount for next fiscal year is $748,000 which represents a reduction of $20,000 from last year's allocation. There is an additional amount of $173,439 in program income that may be added to the entitlement amount for a total CDBG allocation of $921,439. Of that amount, a total of $138,215 may be allocated for public service activities and a total of $149,600 may be allocated for program administration activities. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Annual Plan and CDBG Statement of Objectives and Use of Funds April 10, 2002 Page 2 This year, the HOME Investment Partnership Program provided the City with administrative funds in the amount of $22,620. These funds have been incorporated into the CDBG budget by City Council action this evening, allowing them to be received and expended in fiscal year 2002- 03. HOME funds are usually received one year at a time and allocated to undertake fair housing activities as designated by the City Council to continue funding for Project Sentinel and La Raza Centro Legal. In order to maximize the use of CDBG funds, the City has traditionally allocated Redevelopment Agency Housing Fund dollars to housing related activities such as emergency shelter programs carded out by community agencies. Requests for Proposals are received via the CDBG process and the City Council recommends that those fundsbe made available to specific projects that qualify under that funds requirements. Please note that only the direct provision of housing services qualify for redevelopment funds. There are no other public services or rehabilitation activities that are eligible. The Redevelopment Agency has funded Family Crossroads and Maple Street Shelters, operated by Shelter Network, and the Human Investment's Shared Housing Project for ten years. This year the request from Safe Harbor Homeless Shelter will be placed in this category for funding purposes. CDBG SUB COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS: The CDBG Sub-committee reviewed applications for funding, individual program accomplishments and general parameters and priorities for funding based on an assessment of the most critical community needs. Those critical needs were established by City Council in the City's Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan and include the funding priorities established for project eligibility. The attached Exhibit "B", CDBG Sub Committee Funding Recommendations to City Council, provides the allocation amounts proposed for each funding request. Please refer to the column labeled Sub-committee recommended allocation amounts, for fiscal year 2002-2003. These proposed funding levels were published, as such, and 'provided to each CDBG applicant. This evening, City Council has the opportunity to revise the funding levels at its discretion or accept the recommendations, in whole or in part. Essentially, the Sub-committee has recommended the same level of funding for public service organizations as the prior year, with a few exceptions. Making the funding allocations is difficult particularly because there were requests for $50,000 more than the funds available in the public service category. All but one currently funded applicant were recommended for funding by the Sub-committee. The Daybreak Shelter was not recommended for continued funding because they have not been meeting their obligation to serve the required number of South San Francisco residents. The three public service applicants not recommended for funding are recognized to be valuable programs; however, limited resources did not allow for an Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Annual Plan and CDBG Statement of Objectives and Use of Funds April 10, 2002 Page 3 allocation to those agencies. Neighborhood Services Center and Second Harvest received modest increases in funding due the extreme needs identified by their clientele in the current economic climate. There were two new public service activities receiving allocations, the Tooth Mobile and the Rape Trauma Center. The sub-committee recognized the great unmet need in these two areas. First, the incidence of rape and abuse in our community is statistically higher than the incidence of rape for the county overall. The Rape Trauma Center does not duplicate existing battered women's services as it provides a specialty type of program for rape victims. Secondly, the Tooth Mobile provides a desperately needed service to low income families and will offer a complimentary component to the Families on Track program. The Tooth Mobile funds will be used exclusively to provide dental services and the costs of the mobile unit and the dentists are provided at no cost to the program. In the housing and commercial rehabilitation and public facility category requests exceeded available funds by $150,000. The Sub-committee recommends funding two new activities in this category, Families on Track and ADA modifications for new playgrounds. Families on Track has outgrown their current facility and requires a new classroom/office trailer to continue to meet the needs of their clientele and growing program. The ADA modifications to playgrounds are required by federal mandate and CDBG funds will help offset costs to the City in those activities. Last year, the Boys and Girls Club was required to use all available CDBG funds (including prior allocations) for their disabled accessible restroom, with a commitment to provide additional funds in fiscal year 2002-03 for the exterior painting. However, the agency has not been able to move forward with the bathroom remodel and two years of funding has not been expended. Federal regulations require that CDBG funds must be expended in a timely manner. Therefore, the Boys and Girls Club is being asked to move forward with either the bathroom or the exterior painting, whichever can proceed first, and return to City Council when existing funding allocations have been expended. The Director will be asked to keep staff posted on their progress. The Latino Commission's request for $200,000, providing 50% of the acquisition cost of a transitional house, is not recommended for funding this year and the agency has been asked to generate local community support and return next year to request funds from the City Council Housing Sub- Committee for a project of this nature. The administration category for the block grant program is recommended to be allocated $149,600 which is the maximum amount allowed by federal statute for those expenditures, or twenty percent of the entitlement amount. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Annual Plan and CDBG Statement of Objectives and Use of Funds April 10, 2002 Page 4 CONCLUSION: This is an excellent opportunity to express appreciation for our non profit agencies and their resourcefulness in leveraging limited funds to provide quality and crucial public services to our community residents. It should also be noted that, a recommendation not to fund a particular project at its requested level is not to be viewed as an assessment of the merits of each proposal but rather indicative of the limited resources available in this fund. It is recommended that City Council make final CDBG funding allocations and adopt the attached Resolution authorizing submittal of the City's One Year Action Plan for Housing and Community Development and all required documents to H.U.D.; and further authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to secure and award CDBG funds for the City. The City's One Year Plan and CDBG Statement of Objectives and Use of Funds is submitted to HUD via the San Mateo County Consortium and is due to the County by May 1st for submittal to HUD by May 15th, as required by federal statute. I Director of Economic and Community Development City Manager MAW:MVD:NF Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Resolution Preliminary Sub-committee Funding Recommendations Executive Summary One Year Annual Plan for Housing and Community Development and CDBG Statement of Objectives and Use of Funds 2002-2003 Allocations RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITI'AL OF ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO SECURE AND AWARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR THE CITY WHEREAS, it is recommended that the City Council make final Community Development Block Grant funding allocations and authorize submittal of the City's One Year Action Plan for Housing and Community Development and all required documents to H.U.D. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes submittal of all required documents to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to secure and award Community Development Block Grant funds for the City as directed by the City Council. The City Council approves the CDBG Subcommittee funding recommendations. I hereby ~ertify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: AB SENT: ATTEST: City Clerk F:kfile cabinet\old. Reso 12_00\oneyearplan.res.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FY 2002-2003 SUB COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Total Total Fund Sub Sub Total Funding Funding Request Committee 00-01 01-02 02-03 Recommends 02-03 COMMENTS 1. Child Care Coordinating Council 2. City-Sponsored Child Care 3. Friends to Parents 4. Children's Center (SSFUSD) 5. SMC©- Intedaith Hospitality Network 5,000 5,000 5,387' 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 10,000 0 Sub Total 37,387 27,000 1. City-Sponsored Adult Day Care 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 2. Second Harvest Food Bank 5,000 5,000 5,500 5,500 Sub Total, 25,500 [ 25,500 1. Neighborhood Services Ctr (NPNSC) 20,000 2. The Tooth Mobile & Families on Track 3. Project READ - West Orange Library 5,000 4. International Institute of SF 5. YFA - Daybreak Shelter for Homeless Youth 6,700 Sub Total 20,000 25,000 25,000 15,000 15,000 6,000 7,500 6,000 13,200 0 8,000 15,000 0 75,700 46,000 1. Center for Domestic Violence Prevention 5,000 8,000 13,000 8,000 2. Sor Juana Ines o Abused Women Advocacy 3,000 4,000 5,000 4,000 3. Rape Trauma Services Center 5,000 5,000 Sub Total 23,000 17,000 1. C.I.D. - Social Services 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2. ELLIPSE Peninsula Aids Program 3,000 4,000 5,000 4,000 Sub Total 7,000 6,000 1 .John's Closet 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 2..Family Alternatives (NPFA) 3. SSF Foundation for Youth -Exchange Sub Total *Total Public Service Activities 8,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 7,937 0 19,937 12,000 188,524I 133,5001 33,5OO Page No. 1 4/3/02 Total Total Funding Funding 00-01 01-02 Fund Request 02-O3 Sub Committee Recommends 02-03 Sub Total COMMENTS 1. Latino Commission 2. Boys & Girls Club 3. C. I.D. Housing Access 4. Gatepath Center Rehab 5. Families on Track 6. City Sponsored - Housing Programs 7. City Sponsored Commercial 8. ADA Playground Renovation "Total Housing, Commercial & Public Facilitties 15,000 10,000 13,000 13,000 5,000 5,000 200,000 240,000 175,000 175,000 200,000 0 20,000 0 ~ 13,000 13,000 10,000 0 40,000 40,000 240,000 357,459 2 175,000 175,000 50,000 50,000 2 748,000 635,459 635,459 1. CDBG Program Admin *Total Administration Adtivitites 1. La Raza Centro Legal 2. Project Sentinel *Total Home Program Activities 147600 152800 149,600 149,600 149,600 149,600 149,600 19,500 15,000 19,500 19,500 6,670 6,000 9,500 6,000 29,000 25,500- 25,500 1. HIP (Human Investment Project) Housing 25,000 2. Shelter Network - Crossroads 18,000 3. Shelter Network - Maple Street 10,000 4. Samaritan House - Safe Harbor *Total Redevelopment Activities GRAND TOTAL 25,000 10,000 27,800 25,000. 18,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 7,000 7,000 62,800I 52,00011 I II 52,000 996,059 1. It is recommended that applicant spend prior years allocations on either bathroom or exterior paint and then request additional funds. 2. These allocations include program income funds from 2001-2002 which may be expended in the current fiscal year. 3. This allocation consists of $2,880 in CDBG Public Service dollars and $16,620 in Home Administration funds. Page No. 2 4/3/02 City of South San Francisco One-Year Action Plan 2002-2003 Executive Summary The 2002-2003 One-Year Action Plan describes how the City of South San Francisco will address the City's housing and non-housing community development needs during the 2002-2003 fiscal year. In April 1998, the City of South San Francisco adopted a five- year Consolidated Plan for housing and non-housing community development activities for 1998-2004. The Consolidated Plan identified the community's needs in housing, neighborhood improvements, social services, and'economic development. It also set priorities for addressing those needs and described how the City will use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, and local funds to address those needs. This document, the One-Year Action Plan, is consistent with the priorities established in the .five-year Consolidated Plan. The One-Year Action Plan is organized by activity type and includes the following sections: financial resources, housing activities, non-housing community development activities, fair housing, reduction of poverty-level families, coordination of public services, removal of affordable housing barriers, monitoring standards and procedures, and citizen participation. Much of the Plan, however, focuses on describing the housing and non-housing community development activities the City will carry out in 2002-2003. Housing Activities The City continues to endeavor to increase and improve the supply of affordable housing through new construction and the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing. The City also funds a variety of programs that provide housing for special needs groups including homeless persons, victims of domestic violence, seniors, and persons with disabilities. For homeowners, the City has several housing rehabilitation programs available. The City offers low-interest loans and grant vouchers to low-income homeowners for housing repairs. The City also funds a minor home repair program to perform free minor home repairs for very low-income homeowners. New for potential homeowners this year will be the introduction of a first time homebuyer program for the City. For renters, the City works with private rental property owners and non-profit organizations to identify suitable rental properties that can be acquired and/or rehabilitated to provide housing for very low-income renters. One project currently underway is Willow GardenS, a 64-unit acquisition and rehabilitation project. The City is also working to acquire and rehabilitate a single room occupancy hotel or apartment building in or near the downtown. To create new affordable rental units, the City is sponsoring the construction of 40 new affordable townhouses for seniors and low-income families scheduled to be completed in Fall/Winter of 2002. 2002-2003 One Year Action Plan - Executive Summa~, Page i The City addresses the housing needs of residents with special needs through a variety of programs. For homeless people, the City has adopted a continuum of care approach to assist families and individuals break the cycle of homelessness. The City funds an array of non-profit agencies that provide housing and services to families at-risk of becoming homeless. By providing support services, transitional housing, and permanent housing, City-funded non-profit agencies are able to help residents find permanent housing and avoid episodes of homelessness. Elderly and disabled residents require special programs and services that will allow them to remain in their homes in a safe and accessible environment. The City funds the Center for Independence of the Disabled which provides modifications to eliminate architectural barriers in their homes. Additionally, the House Helpers program assists seniors and disabled persons with minor home repairs. Non-Housing Community Development Activities To help create a vibrant community, the City of South San Francisco uses the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to fund a variety of non- housing community development activities. These include public services to low-income residents and programs to improve commercial areas, public 'and community buildings, · and low-income neighborhood amenities such as parks and community centers. Using CDBG, the City funds non-profit agencies that provide essential community services to low-income residents. Funded services are childcare, senior services, general social services, battered women's services, disabled services, and youth services. The City also uses CDBG funds for economic development in the Neighborhood Strategy Area. The Commercial Fatiade Improvement Program provides financial and technical assistance to property owners undertaking structural and faciade improvements to their buildings. These improvements help owners increase the use of their commercial buildings, and improve the appearance of the downtown. During 2002-2003 the City will also help Families on Track, a community nonprofit agency, install a modular unit to expand its facilities and increase services to low-income students and families. The City will also be removing outdated playground equipment and replacing it with new accessible equipment, including disabled access ramps and new playground surfacing, at various city locations. Other Activities The City continues to work to overcome housing discrimination by contracting with two agencies, Project Sentinel and La Raza Centro Legal, to assist residents with housing discrimination complaints. The two agencies provide counseling and advocacy in issues of fair housing and housing habitability. The City has a multifaceted approach to reducing the number of families living in poverty. First, the City participates in the construction and rehabilitation of housing that restricts rents to levels affordable to ]ow-income residents. This helps reduce the number of families living in poverty by decreasing one of their largest expenses, rent, to a reasonable level. Second, commercial renovations help increase the number of 2002-2003 One Year Action Plan - Executive Summary, Page ii pedestrian visits to the downtown. This in turn creates more spending and more job opportunities for low-income residents. Third, the City funds several non-profit agencies whose services help low-income residents with childcare, literacy and other services. And finally the City is contributing CBDG funding to Safe Harbor, a County homeless shelter that conducts a substance abuse program that helps people transition into employment and housing. To coordinate the delivery of services to residents, the City works closely with non-profit social service providers, other cities, the School District, the County, and the Chamber of Commerce. Efforts include housing rehabilitation and development, lead paint abatement, downtown beautification and services for low-income residents. Finally, the City will continue to monitor its public policies to identify areas where it can make improvements. The City will continue to maintain and encourage affordable housing development by applying density bonuses, allowing owners to construct second units in permissible areas, expediting reviews of affordable housing projects and giving disabled residents greater flexibility making accessibility modifications to their homes. 2002-2003 One Year Action Plan - Executive Summar3., Page iii Exhibit D Summary of Objectives One-Year Housing, Community & Economic Development Action Plan 2002-2003 Section III-Housing Activities A. Priority: Increase the supply of decent, affordable housing through the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing housing units.. Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program Voucher Program Emergency Code Violation Vouchers Debris Box Vouchers Minor Home Repair (House Helpers) First-time Homebuyer Loan Program Acquisition and Rehabilitation Willow Gardens Assist low- and moderate-income homeowners with housing repairs in the Neighborhood Strategy Area and citywide. 3-5 very low-income households will be assisted with low interest and/or deferred loans up to $25,000. Most households will be very low-income, elderly, female heads-of-household. Give grants to low-income homeowners in the downtown central area and citywide for emergency and other repairs using approximately $30,000. Provide homeowners grants of up to $2,500 to clear up code violations in their homes. This program will assist 12 low-income residents with approximately $5,000-10,000. Help low- and moderate-income residents in the CDBG target area remove accumulated debris and yard waste from their properties. This program will assist 10 !ow-income residents with approximately $5,000. Provide free, minor home repairs to 50 very low- income homeowners in the Neighborhood Strategy Area and citywide with $40,000. The majority of households assisted will be large families with small children and elderly, female heads-of-household. Develop program guidelines for a new first-time homebuyer loan program. Goal is to place 3-5 First time homebuyer first time homebuyer loans. Continue acquisition and rehabilitation of 64 units to convert into affordable rental units. During 2002-2003 the City anticipates purchasing 1-2 four-plex buildings (4-8 units) as they become available in the market. Downtown Affordable Housing Program Housing fund established to provide affordable rental housing through the acquisition and rehabilitation of dilapidated housing stock. Goal: During 02-03 purchase & rehab an unoccupied Single Room Occupancy or a 4-6 unit apartment building in or near the downtown. 2001-2002 One Year Action Plan Summary $240,000 CDBG (Sub-program of City Sponsored Housing Rehab Loan Program) (Sub-program of City Sponsored Housing Rehab Loan Program) (Sub-program of City Sponsored Housing Rehab Loan Program) (Sub-program of City Sponsored Housing Rehab Loan Program) $191,043 CDBG $200,000 RDA $14,000,000. HOME, RDA Funds, Public Purpose Bond, Private Activity Bonds, Tax Credits $117,459 CDBG $400,000 HOME $200,000 RDA Page I of 4 B. Priority: Increase the supply of affordable rental housing by constructing new rental units. New Housing Construction Project Mission/Chestnut Construction of 40 new affordable rental apartment $3,400,000 RDA units for seniors. Project scheduled to be completed by $3,500,000 HUD Fall 2002. Sect 202 C. Priority: Provide service-enriched shelter and transitional housing for homeless people and families. Shelter Network - Crossroads Shelter Network - Maple Street Center for Domestic Violence Prevention Samaritan House - Safe Harbor Human Investment Project Provide transitional housing to 10 homeless families. Provide transitional housing to 10 homeless people. Provide shelter and services to 5 battered women and children households. San Mateo County's emergency shelter serving 90 individuals a night with shelter, food, and restroom facilities. Provide shared housing referrals to 80 households. $10,000 RDA $10,000 RDA $8,000 CDBG $7,000 RDA $25,000 RDA D. Priority: Provide housing opportunities for elderly and disabled people Center for Independence of the Disabled (CID) Housing Accessibility Program Provide housing accessibility modifications to the homes of 30 people with disabilities. $13,000 CDBG Section IV-Non-Housing Community Development ACtivities A. Priority: Provide core public service activities to improve the quality of life for low-income residents and preventive assistance to families at risk of becoming homeless. Childcare Child Care Coordinating Council City-Sponsored Day Care Friends to Parents SSFUSD - Children's Center Provide emergency chiidcare for up to 10 children of families in crisis. CDBG monies provide fee assistance stipends to 20-25 children for before and after school recreational program. Provide affordable center-based childcare to 62 infants and preschool children. Provide extracurricular activities, primarily off-campus field trips, to 90 children. $5,000 CDBG $10,000 CDBG $9,000 CDBG $3,000 CDBG 2001-2002 One Year Action Plan Summary Page 2 of 4 (Priority A Continued) Senior Services Second Harvest Food Bank City-Sponsored Adult Day Care General Social Services North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) The Tooth Mobile Project READ Battered Women's Services Center for Domestic Violence Prevention Sor Juana Ines - Abused Women Advocacy Rape Trauma Services Center Disabled Services C.I.D. - Social Services ELLIPSE Peninsula Aids Program Youth Services John's Closet North Peninsula Family Alternatives (NPFA) Provides seniors over and those disabled a weekly bag of food to supplements their diets. Approximately 300- 400 seniors served. Provide structured and supervised care in the form of social, educational and recreational activities to 50 frail or disabled seniors. $5,500 CDBG $20,000 CDBG The San Mateo County core agency located in South San Francisco provides critical social services to 450 households (approximately 1200 people) with immediate needs. On site dental services for students of the Families on Track program. Approximately 250 individuals served. Provides individualized tutoring in basic skills to SSF residents as' well as tutor training for program volunteers. Approximately 25-50 individuals served. $25,000 CDBG $15,000 CDBG $6,000 CDBG See Housing Activities Priority C: Shelter and Transitional Housing for the Homeless Provide emergency services such as counseling and hotel vouchers to 100-200 women and children. Only agency within San Mateo County to provide information, resources, and support to sexual assault survivors and their loved ones. Approximately 50 - 100 individuals served. Provide counseling and assistance to approximately 30 disabled people Provide in-home support service to 11 households with HIV/AIDS Provide new clothing to 150 school children. Provide parenting skills to 20 monolingual Spanish- speaking households (70 people). $8,000 CDBG $4,000 CDBG $5,000 CDBG $2,000 CDBG $4,O00 CDBG $3,000 CDBG $9,O00 CDBG 2001-2002 One Year Action Plan Summary Page 3 of 4 Bo Priority: Rehabilitation assistance for non-housing structures including public, commercial, and historic buildings. Housing, Commercial & Public Facilities SSFUSD - Families on Track City-Sponsored Commercial Rehabilitation ADA Playground Renovation Acquisition and installation of a modular unit to expand existing facility. Approximately serving 160- 260 Households. Provide financial and technical assistance to property owners undertaking exterior business improvements, which can include signs, awnings and exterior painting. These improvements help owners increase the use of their commercial buildings and improve the appearance of the Historic Downtown district. Goal: to assist 5-8 businesses Remove outdated playground equipment and replace with new accessible equipment including disabled access ramps and new playground surfacing at various city locations. $40,000 CDBG $175,000 CDBG $150,000 RDA $50,000 CDBG $400,000 other City Funds Section V-Lead-Based Paint Abatement Lead-based paint Incorporate new federal regulations into abatement abatement procedures procedures to reduce lead-based paint hazards in rehabilitation projects. Collaborate with the County of San Mateo and other county jurisdictions to coordinate educational efforts. (Funded through rehabilitation programs) Section VI-Fair Housing Project Sentinel La Raza Centro Legal Provide fair housing counseling and advocacy casework to 12 households and respond to 140 telephone inquiries from residents requesting fair housing information. Provide 200 households with services including information and referral, legal advice and counseling, and legal representation. $6,0~ HOME $16,620 HOME $2,880 CDBG 2001-2002 One Year Action Plan Summary Page 4 of 4 City Council Staff Report DATE: April 10, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to Chapter 20.74, "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.120, "Location." Applicant: City of South San Francisco Case No. P02-0012 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20.74 entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations," Section 20.74.120, "Location." BACKGROUND: Staff presented this zoning ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of March'7, 2002. At that meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to forward the amendment to the Council with a recommendation for approval. The Commission recognized that there are parking problems throughout the City in both commercial and residential areas and felt that this amendment would serve as an effective solution for commercial areas. DISCUSSION: Section 20.74.120 of the Zoning Ordinance currently requires all parking for all commercial uses to be located on site. There is one exception to this rule, however it requires applicants who are unable to meet their parking requirements to find an adjacent property owner not only willing to lend his parking facilities, but also willing to record a covenant or easement on his land stating as much. While there may be many property owners throughout the City who are willing to share their parking facilities, most do not want permanent covenants, easements or other similar shared access rights placed upon their property, believing such rights may decrease the value of their property. This amendment would allow more flexibility for certain uses that might not have enough required parking at their particular sites. If approved, it would allow applicants unable to provide the required parking on-site to enter into parking lease agreements with nearby property owners willing to share their parking facilities. An applicant wishing to use this new exception would Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: P02-0012 April 10, 2002 Page 2 of 2 have to enter into a lease agreement with an adjacent property owner which spells out how many parking spaces would be leased and for what hours of operation and days of the week and submit a copy of the agreement as part of a use permit application. Staff would review this agreement to ensure that there is no conflict of hours of operation between the two parties. The agreement would also be subject to review and approval by both the City Attorney and the Planning Commission as part of the use permit approval process. In each case, the agreement would terminate when the applicant (the borrower of the parking) ceased use of the property for which the Use Permit was granted. CONCLUSION: This amendment to the zoning ordinance would provide businesses with more flexibility to meet the City's current parking requirements. The Transportation Element of the General Plan specifically encourages utilizing opportunities to share existing parking facilities in order to reduce the amount of land needed for parking, so this amendment is in compliance with the General Plan. In its review of the amendment, the Planning Commission expressed concern over the possibility of conflict of hours of usage between the two parties, so a condition has been included requiring all hours of usage to be spelled out in the lease agreement so staff can ensure that there will be no overlap. In addition, a standard condition of approval will be placed upon each application requiring the lessee to notify the City upon termination of the lease should the lessee move to another location or go out of business. For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20.74 entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations", Section 20.74.120, "Location." Marty Van Duyn, Direcf~r J)f Economic And Community Devel{hp_j/nent Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance Planning Commission Resolution No. 2614 with attached Exhibit Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 7, 2002 Minutes of the March 7, 2002 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission S:\Staff ReportsXP02-0012 Council Report.doc DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.74.120 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO OFF-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2002, recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance that allows a parking lease agreement to be used in lieu of a parking easement in those cases where the required on site parking spaces for a particular use exceed those available on site and the applicant desires to use adjacent or nearby property to satisfy the parking requirements; and, WHEREAS, the sharing of parking spaces between adjacent or nearby property owners is consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the Transportation Element of the General Plan encourages exploring opportunities to share existing parking facilities in order to reduce the amount of land needing to be converted into new parking lots (see Policy 4.3-1-13). Because the amendment facilitates shared parking by allowing adjacent or nearby property owners to contract for the use of a single parking facility, this amendment furthers General Plan Policy 4.3-I-13; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Section 15061(b)(3) states that where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, the ordinance allows an applicant to substitute a lease agreement for parking in lieu of a parking easement. The amendment refers to the type of legal document required to satisfy the off-site parking requirements of the Zoning Code. The amendment does not confer a right to proceed with a project but rather every project subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.74 must undertake a separate environmental analysis prior to project approval. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: Chapter 20.74, Section 20.74.102 (b), "Location" of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Parking spaces for all non-residential uses shall be located on the same lot or parcel as the facility or use to be served, except that an adjacent contiguous, or other proximate property (i.e. within 500 feet) may be used by the permitee for the parking spaces subject to approval of a conditional use permit if either of the following occurs: 1) 2) The owner of record of the adjacent, contiguous or other proximate property submits a title report for the parcel and a covenant running with the land, or an easement, which (1) describes the parcel and obligates it for parking purposes free and clear of exceptions which would interfere with the use, (2) describes the obligation of the party to maintain the parking facility, and (3) describes the parking facility by a parking diagram approved by the planning commission. The covenant running with the land, or easement, shall be subject to the approval of the city attorney and shall be recorded in the county recorder's office; or The permittee enters into a parking lease agreement with the owner or owner's agent of the adjacent, contiguous or other proximate property that states 1) the number of spaces subject to the lease; 2) the days and hours of operation when the parking will be leased and 3) a description of the facility, including a parking diagram. This agreement shall be signed by both the permittee and property owner or agent of the property owner authorized to bind the owner and shall be subject to the approval of the city attorney and recorded in the county recorder's office. a) This lease agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the approving body for the Use Permit. b) Any Use Permit for which a lease for parking is used to satisfy the requirements of this section shall include a condition of approval which states the Use Permit is subject to revocation if the lease for parking is terminated. The Use Permit shall also contain a condition of approval requiring the permittee to provide written notice to the City of termination of the lease. 2. PUBLICTION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. 3. SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the day of ,2002. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of 2002 by the following vote: AYE S: 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 2002. F:\WPDWINRSW~405\001\ORDX2002\offsiteparking3 11 02.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2614 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.74 "OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS," SECTION 20.74.120, "LOCATION." WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has submitted a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as follows: Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 20.74 "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations," Section 20.74.120 "Location," to allow City-approved parking lease agreements with owners of adjacent, contiguous, or other nearby properties as a means to satisfy off-street parking requirements as further described in Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the above described amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will ensure internal consistency in the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, as required by the "Amendment Procedures" (SSFMC Section 20.87), the following finding is made in support of the amendment to the zoning ordinance of Chapter 20.74 entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations," based on public testimony and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 7, 2002, that the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan which encourages utilizing opportunities for shared parking facilities to reduce the number of new parking spaces required; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is exempt from environmental review based on the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on all the evidence in the record, including the staff reports and oral and written comments received at the duly notice public hearing of the Planning Commission on March 7, 2002, by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco that it is hereby recommended that the City Council: Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 20.74 "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations", Section 20.74.120, "Location", to allow City-approved parking lease agreements as a means to satisfy off-street parking requirements as indicated in Exhibit A. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of March, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Romero NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt ATTEST: ( Commission Secretary ~'~ Thomas C. Sparks EXHIBIT A Modifications to Chapter 20.74, "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" Section 20.74.120 "Location" March 7, 2002 EXHIBIT A Modifications to Chapter 20.74 "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" Section 20.74.120 "Location" March, 2002 Modify the existing wording of Chapter 20.74, "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" as follows: The Zoning Ordinance currently contains the following text: Chapter 20.74, Section 20.74.120 "Location" (b) Parking spaces for all non-residential uses shall be located on the same lot or parcel as the facility or use to be served, except that an adjacent or contiguous lot may be used by the permitee for the parking spaces if the owner of record submits a title report for the parcel and a covenant running with the land, or an easement, which (1) describes the parcel and obligates it for parking purposes free and clear of exceptions which would interfere with the use; (2) describes the obligation of the party to maintain the parking facility, and (3) describes the parking facility by a parking diagram approved by the planning commission. The covenant running with the land, or easement shall be subject to the approval of the city attorney and shall be recorded in the county recorder's office. The proposed text revisions are shown as follows as "strikeouts" to remove existing text, and "underlines" to add new text: Chapter 20.74, Section 20.74.120 "Location" (b) Parking spaces for all non-residential uses shall be located on the same lot or parcel as the facility or use to be served, except that an adjacent, o~ contiguous, or other proximate property (i.e. within 500 feet) may be used by the permitee for the parking spaces if subject to approval of a conditional use permit if either of the following occurs: 1) The owner of record of the adjacent, contiguous or other proximate property submits a title report for the parcel and a covenant running with the land, or an easement, which (1) describes the parcel and obligates it for parking purposes free and clear of exceptions which would interfere with the use; (2) describes the obligation of the party to maintain the parking facility, and (3) describes the parking facility by a parking diagram approved by the planning commission. The covenant running with the land, or easement shall be subject to the approval of the city attorney and shall be recorded in the county recorder's office; or 2) The permitee enters into a parking lease agreement with the owner or owner's agent of the adjacent, contiguous or other proximate property that states 1) the number of spaces subject to the lease; 2) the days and hours of operation when the parking will be leased and 3) a description of the facility, includine a parking diagram. This agreement shall be signed by both the permitee and property owner or agent of the property owner authorized to bind the owner and shall be subject to the approval of the city attorney and recorded in the county recorder's office. a) This lease agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the approving body for the Use Permit. b) Any Use Permit for which a lease for parking is used to satisfy the requirements of this section shall include a condition of approval which states the Use Permit is subject to revocation if the lease for parking is terminated. OPlanning Commission Staff Report DATE: March 7, 2002 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to Chapter 20.74, "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.120, "Location." Applicant: City of South San Francisco Case No. P02-0012 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 20.74 entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations," Section 20.74.120, "Location." DISCUSSION: Section 20.74.120 of the Zoning Ordinance currently requires all parking for residential and non- residential uses to be located on site. Subsection (b) of this section provides an exception for non-residential use's by allowing an applicant to obtain a covenant or easement from an adjacent property owner to use that person/party's parking facilities to satisfy the parking requirements. This property owner must provide a title report reflecting such a covenant or easement to the City Attorney's Office for approval and have the document recorded by the County Recorder's Office. However, many property owners do not want permanent covenants, easements or other similar shared access fights placed upon their property, believing such rights may decrease the value of their property in the eyes of potential buyers or lessees. In addition, adjacent or contiguous properties may not always be available while other nearby sites might be. Consequently, the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment is proposed to allow additional flexibility in meeting parking requirements while ensuring adequate legal controls to guarantee parking availability. The proposed amendment reads as follows, with existing text to be removed shown as striked out and new text to be added shown as underlined: Section 20.74.120 (b) Parking spaces for all non-residential uses shall be located on the same lot or parcel as the facility or use to be served, except that an adjacent, o~ contiguous, or other proximate property (i.e. within 500 feet) may be used by the permitee for the parking ¢ Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P02-0012 March 7, 2002 Page 2 of 4 spaces ff subject to approval of a conditional use permit if either of the following occurs: (1) The owner of record of the adjacent, contiguous, or other proximate property submits a title report for the parcel and a covenant running with the land, or an easement, which (1) describes the parcel and obligates it for parking purposes free and clear of exceptions which would interfere with the use, (2) describes the obligation of the party to maintain the parking facility, and (3) describes the parking facility by a parking diagram approved by the Planning Commission. The covenant running with the land, or easement, shall be subject to the approval of the city attorney and shall be recorded in the county recorder's office; or (2) The permitee enters into a parking lease agreement with the owner or owner's agent of the adjacent, contiguous or other proximate property that states (1) the number of spaces subject to the lease, (2) the days and hours of operation when the parking will be leased, and (3) a description of the facility to include a parking diagram. This agreement shall be signed by both the permitee and the property owner or agent of the property owner authorized to bind the owner and shall be subject to the approval of the city attorney and recorded in the county recorder's office. a) b) This lease agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the approving body for the Use Permit. Any Use Permit for which a lease for parking is used to satisfy the requirements of this section shall include a condition of approval which states that the Use Permit is subject to revocation if the lease for parking is terminated. This amendment would allow more flexibility for certain uses that might not have enough required parking at their particular sites. If such uses were able to lease the parking facilities of adjacent or nearby properties without conflicting with the parking needs of the use on that property, then a parking agreement between the two would be a practical solution. It is anticipated that more property owners would be willing to enter into a written lease for parking than to allow a permanent covenant or easement to be placed upon their land. An applicant wishing to use this new exception would have to enter into a lease agreement with an adjacent property owner which spells out how many parking spaces would be leased and for what hours of operation and days of the week. A copy of this agreement would be submitted to the Planning Division as part of the application packet. The Planning Division would refer the agreement to the City Attorney for review and then forward it to the deciding body for its consideration. A copy of the agreement would also be provided to the deciding body as part of the review process for each application. This agreement would then become a public document S :\Staff ReportsL2002\ DRAFT SR\03-07-02 PC~P02-0012.doc Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P02-0012 March 7, 2002 Page 3 of 4 and would be retained in the Planning Division's file for the property that is borrowing the additional parking. A condition of approval would also be added to the Use Permit and parking agreement requiring the lease to be in effect for the duration of the permitted use only. The agreement would terminate when the applicant ceased use of the property for which the Use Permit was granted. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE The Transportation Element of the General Plan encourages exploring opportunities to share existing parking facilities in order to reduce the amount of land needing to be converted into new parking lots (see Policy 4.3-I-13). This amendment would achieve this goal provided that the lease agreements are drafted in sufficient detail to ensure that sufficient parking is provided to meet the needs of the parties sharing the facilities, given the nature of the uses and their hours of operation to avoid conflicts between them. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is exempt from environmental review based on the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact on the environment. Section 15061(b)(3) states that where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the' activity in question may have a significant impact on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, the ordinance allows an applicant to substitute a lease agreement for parking in lieu of a parking covenant or easement. The amendment refers to the type of legal document required to satisfy the off-site parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment does not confer a right to proceed with a project, but rather every project subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.74 must undertake a separate environmental analysis prior to approval. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance would provide businesses with more flexibility to meet the City's current parking requirements. In addition, the Transportation Element of the General Plan specifically encourages utilizing opportunities to share existing parking facilities in order to reduce the amount of land needed for parking. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 20.74 entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations", Section 20.74.120, "Location." S :kS taft Reportsk2002\ DRAFT SR\03-07-02 PCLP02-0012.doc ¢ ¢ Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P02-0012 March 7, 2002 Page 4 of 4 Stephen Kowalski, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Resolution with attached Exhibits Draft Ordinance to the City Council S:\Staff Reports~2002\ DRAFT SR\03-07-02 PCXP02-0012.doc CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE March 7, 2002 TA~E1 PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide P02-0012 Zoning Amendment Approved Proposed Text Amendment to Chapter 20.74, "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.120, "Location", to allow City-approved parking lease agreements as a means to satisfy off-street parking requirements. Staff Report given. Public Hearing opened. Pastor Joshua Krishna spoke in favor of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Public Hearing closed. Commission comments were: · Would the required number of parking spaces have to be met for the specified use? · How will the City know if the lease is broken in order to schedule a revocation hearing? · If the project requires an environmental review, will the parking lease agreement be reviewed as well? · This ordinance allows churches and other non-profit entities to continue growing in the community. · Adding a condition that lessor notify the City when lease is broken. · The Commission asked if the City can enter into this agreement in order to allow the City to know when lease has been terminated · This ordinance addresses non-residential parking and not residential parking. Staff should return with solutions for residential parking issues on a specific date. · The Commission asked that the hours of operation for future applicants not conflict with the hours of operation of the surrounding businesses. Staff response: · Yes the minimum number of parking spaces must be provided but can be shared on off hours. · The lessor will be required to let the City know if the lease has been broken. · Yes, the shared parking will be part of an environmental review should the project require one. · City Attorney Mattas noted that the City does not want to take a part in the deed and suggested that a condition could be added to notify the City of termination of a lease. · The zoning ordinance update will be a good opportunity to present a proposed solution for residential parking problems. City Attorney Mattas read the following language to the ordinance subsection 2b and noted that this would also be a condition of approval on the Use Permit application: "The use permit shall also contain a condition of approval requiring the permittee to provide written notice to the City of termination of the lease". Motion Teelia / Second Sim to recommend that the City Council adopt this ordinance. Approved by unanimous voice vote. City Council Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 10, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Economic and Community Development Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a Variance allowing additions to a home within the required rear yard setback in the Single Family Residential (R-i-E) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.82.050. Owner/Applicant: Renee Yates Case Nos. P01-0008, VAR01-0001 & DR01-0003 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, make the recommended findings, and deny Applications P01-0008, VAR01-0001 and DR01-0003 allowing additions to a home within the required rear setback in the Single Family Residential (R-l-E) Zoning District. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this application on F~bruary 21, 2002. At that meeting, staff recommended denial of the application on the grounds that the findings required for approval of a variance per SSFMC Section 20.82.050 could not be made. In its review of the item, the Planning Commission agreed with staff and voted unanimously to deny the application. The applicant subsequently appealed this decision on March 8, 2002. DISCUSSION: The applicant requests a variance to allow the addition of a fourth bedroom and a second attached garage space that encroaches five feet into the required rear yard setback at an existing residence at 3 Emerald Court. According to Section 20.82.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, in order for the deciding body to approve a variance the following findings must be made: a) That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: P01-008, VARO1-0001 & DR01-0003 (Yates Residence) April 10, 2002 Page 2 of 4 b) In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of perspective profits and neighboring violations or pre-existing nonconforming uses or facilities are not hardships justifying a variance; and That such variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege granted to the recipient inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. There are no unique hardships associated with this property in accordance with the first finding that result in a circumstance justifying the granting of a variance. Furthermore, the applicant has the option of building a detached garage in her rear yard and adding a second story to her house, neither of which would require a variance. Granting a variance to the applicant solely based on her desire for an attached garage and a single-story addition would constitute a special privilege for the property, and the second finding expressly prohibits this. For a detailed discussion of this matter, please see the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 21, 2002. CONCLUSION: In its review of this application on February 21, 2002, the Planning Commission could not make the required findings and voted unanimously to deny the application for the reasons expressed above. The Commission recognized that there were other options available to the applicant to add additional square footage, and that approving a variance would grant a special privilege in this case. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, make the recommended findings, and deny Applications P01-0008, VAR01-0001 and DR-01-0003. City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Findings for Denial Appeal Application from Applicant Previous Correspondence from Applicant Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 21, 2002 Minutes of February 21, 2002 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Development Plans S:\Staff ReportsLP01-0008 Council Report.doc FINDINGS FOR DENIAL P01-0008, VAR01-0001 & DR01-0003 YATES RESIDENCE VARIANCE (As proposed by Staff on April 10, 2002) As required by South San Francisco Municipal Code § 20.82.050, the following finding(s) are made in denial of Variance P01-0008, VAR01-0001 and DR01-0003 allowing additions to a home within the required rear setback in the Single Family Residential (R-l-E) Zoning District based on public testimony and materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, which include, but are not limited to: Plans prepared by applicant, dated June 20, 2001; Correspondence from applicant; Minutes of the February 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting; and Planning Commission staff report dated February 21, 2002: a) There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, which constitute a unique hardship or deprive the property of rights held by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. The subject site is similar in size, shape and topography to many other lots in the vicinity. Emerald Court and many of the streets around it contain small, single-story homes with attached one-car garages that stretch across the lot with minimal side yard setbacks. For this reason, most of the owners of these homes cannot add additional bedrooms because there is no room to provide the second parking space required of homes with more than three bedrooms, without extensive remodeling to convert existing living space to garage. So, rather than this lot being denied privileges available to other similar lots in the area, it actually has more opportunities since it is located on a comer, allowing the option of adding a second garage within the required rear yard setback. Consequently, the granting of the requested variance would constitute a special privilege for this property inconsistent with the limitations imposed upon neighboring properties. b) The home addition could be built without the need for a variance given that the applicant has the option of building a detached garage in her rear yard, but has chosen not to exercise this. Granting a variance to the applicant solely based on the applicant's desire for an attached garage rather than a detached garage would constitute a special privilege for the property. CI"I. OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISC,- " Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue, South' San Francisco, CA 94080* F02 MAR -8 A 8:50 (415) 877-8535 OFFICE APPLICATION FOR APPEAL c.,-, CITY CLEf K SAN FRA'N 'iSco Applicants who Wish to file an appeal of a decision of the Chief Planner or the Planning Commission, or a Design Review decision, shall submit the following (a letter or additional sheets may also be submitted): 1. What, specifically, is being appealed? Case No: ?01-0008,VAR01-000Z &DR01-0003 Setback for a full two car garage that you can put~tw° cars in. I want t~e gmrage to be attached which is funccioning and confoxtaing and no~ a detached eyesore whick is illfunctioning and nonconforming tO the neighborhood, plus would cake away all of ,,Ly yaLd ~Pa~e. Please see attached typed correspondence for further What is the basis of your appeal? Include facts to support your appeal and all pertinent information. Fiease attac~e~. Typed presentation of 2/71/02, Typed correspondence of 3/5/02 35'reduced cooies of exhibits p~ tinning Co~iaa~on Hoar'lng to City Coun'cil Members If you are the original applicant, submit thirty-five (35) reduced copies (8W' x 11") of all exhibits (maps, plans, elevations, etc.) which were submitted with the original application. 4. Filing fee - See Fee Schedule. Name: Renee' Yates Mailing Address: #'3 Emerald Ct. So. San Francisco, Ca. 94080 ' --'~(s~Z~ur e~~~ (date) H. 650-827-1384 Ph°neN°. w. 415-333-2444 *Mailing Address:P. O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083 1/95 March 7th, 2002 Dear Mr. Moss, Just thought I would follow up per our last correspondence back in October of 2001 and that you might be interested that I'm ending up by going to City Council for an appeal following a denial by the Planning Commission at a hearing on Feb. 21, 2002. Sincerely, Renee' Yates March 5,2002 Attn: City Council Members I am responding in regards to tt~e findings in the denial letter dated 2/26/02 and signed by Tom Sparks, Secty., to the Planning Commission. Paragraph A: SPecial Circumstance: Hardships seem to be in tb~e eye of thm beholder. In today~ world and Bay Area, a small one car garage with. a wasl~er, dryer, sink and central heating system and a few storage boxes, one can barely fit a car in, if at all, and if you can, one cannot even open the car doors. With~street parking becoming an ever increasing problem and with BART to open, tha street parking will be an even bigger problem. We need more off street parking. I consider this a hardship. Allowing me a 10 ft. setback rather than a 15 ft. setback would then give me enough room to expand to a full two car garage that will actually fit two cars. Paragraph B: Regarding Special Privilege: Side by side or interior lo~S get more than I do. It is my understanding they have a 5 ft. setback on the side. My substandard reverse corner lot is required to have a 10 ft. setback on the street side. It is my understanding there is a minimum 5000 sq. ft. requirement for side by side/interior lots and a 6000 sq. ft. minimum requirement for Corner lots. My substandard reverse corner lot has less than 5000 sq. ft. Be it permitted or not permitted, there are far more interior lots in Sunshine Gardens with two car garages either side by side or tandem. Interior/side by side lots can do more than I can with my corner lot. Thus, I do not see any special privilege. If anything it seems the interior lots are getting the special privilege. So basically what I am understanding is, I could expand my garage to a larger one car garage and then add an eyesore, that would take up all of my yard space, will not conform to the area, would be an illfunctioning accessory building with less than 200 sq. ft. with no setback required or I can have a country shanty looking carport. DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE? NO, IT DOES NOT! I would like someone to explain the logic and common sense to this rationale! Truly, I would. The codes need to change. A comment at the hearing on 2/21/02 made by Co~nissioner Sim that my project, were it approved, would open up a Pandora's box and everybody would want to do it. This left me wondering what was the relevance? Once again, I would truly like someone to explain the logic to his comment. I doubt very much that there would be a stampede of people into the Planning Department because of my small project. If indeed, my small project might encourage a few others to obtain off street parking, I would certainly think the Planning Department, Commission and Council would be delighted and would consider this a plus rather than a minus. I know I and others do. We need more off street parking. Commissioner Sim also stated something about he has.done them as small as 18 ft. I understand the requirement for a two car garage in So. San Francisco is 20 ft. My plans passed Design and Review and evmn the City Managers Office reviewed my plans months ago and did not see a problem. It has been strongly recommended by many, that if need be, to consider taking the matter before City Council. Please feel free to read all of my past communication that should be on file ~n the Planning Department. My phone communication began approximately two years ago, March 5, 2002 Page two followed by written communication and more phone communication. New Code implementation has been unbelievably delayed for well over a year. The efficacy and efficiency of the Planning Department, I wo~ld think,certainly deserves some scrutiny. When an outdated, detached, illfunctioning eyesore of a structure is allowed to continue in the codes under the guise of an accessory rather than a modern day attached garage expansion, something is terribly wrong! I really feel this situation is strongly bordering on discrimination and tax paying property owners with corner lots like mine are not even being considered. There are also plenty of other corner lots with two car garages. I often wonder as well, how these huge 2nd story additions with two car garages are being allowed in our ranch style community? They are so out of place and nonconforming, take away from other property owners privacy, sunlight and views. Then there is my small project that does none of the negatives mentioned above and I am still under the allowed sq. ft. for my lot size, and yet it is being denied. Someone, please explain all of this to me. I invite City Council Members to drive throughout the Sunshine Gardens area to appreciate what I am referring to. If project approvals and/or exceptions are being made for so. many, then I feel an exception can be made regarding my small project, if indeed this is what it takes. Every rule has an exception and I feel for all the reasons delineated, that my variance should be granted. Like I respectfull~y reminded the Planning Commission, I am trying to do the right thing by going through proper channels and we should all be in this together to improve and beautify our community. I am hopeful this appeal process will be accomplished in a timely fashion. Two years has been long enough and I would like to proceed with my project. I have an 86 year old mother I would like to move into the ranch style setting. Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely,~ ~ Feb. 21, 2002 My name is Renee' Yates and I am the owner and applicant regarding the variance for 3 Emerald Ct. May I start by stating as I see it, my project certainly is a logical one. What I am asking for on a corner lot already exists on other corner lots in Sunshine Gardens, so I feel I am conforming to the area. My project would also be aesthetically pleasing, leave me with usable yard space and save my trees and shrubs as well. The project would pose no threat to the environment, would also have a 10 ft. setback from the supposed rear fence i.e., the planning dept. considers my side yard my rear yard. I have taken many pictures, which were submitted to the planning dept., of some but not all of the corner homes in Sunshine Gardens like mine that have attached 2 car garages. Those of you on the commission who live in the area should be aware of what I refer to. Those of you who do not live in the area, I invite you to drive through Sunshine Gardens to appreciate what I am refering to. My proposed project also stays below the sq. footage allowed for the lot size. On the other hand, a detached garage that the planning dept. is recommending nullifies the current code requirement of a 15 or 20 ft. setback yet it is being recommended, thus it is in total contradiction of the current code. A detached garage would have an approx. 5 ft. setback with an approx. 5 ft. damp, dreary breezeway between the two structures, would present as an outdated, illfunctioning enormous eyesore, does not conform the neighborhood, takes away my useable yard space and takes my trees and shrubs as well. If an approx. 5 foot setback is allowed with a detached garage then a 10 ft. setback should be allowed with an attached modern day garage. As I am now into a two year struggle with the Planning Dept. of South San Francisco, I sometimes wonder if the codes are designed to aggravate rather than assist tax paying property owners. I imagine one could debate this proposal forever and keep coming up with~some insignificane reason for denial. However, being on the receiving end I can certainly debate many reasons for approval. Tke codes are outdated and out of touch with the times. The codes need changing and as I was informed long ago by people in the Planning Dept. that these changes would be taking place. So far to my knowledge this has not come to fruition. There has been one delay after another. Every rule has an exception. I feel flexibility should be extended to me in light of unrealis%ic and contradictory code implementation and that this variance should be granted. As I have stated repeatedly in past correspondence, my corner lot is constantly considered and compared to a side by side lot. We cannot be treated or compared to side by side or interior lots. The setback requirements are contradictory and become invalid as to any substance or logic. With regards to comments in the staff report regarding my property having more opportunity, it's like comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples. I am not doing any developing of other yard spaee fronting the street and what does that have to do with anything? My project should be compared to other corner lots with 2 car garages in all of Sunshine Gardens and not side by side/interior lots. Thus I am in compliance with what already exists. Many interior lot property owners have built tandem 2 car garages and whether they are legal or illegal, the fact remains they exist in Sunshine Gardens. In comparison, I would not be able to have a tandem 2 car garage because of the lot structure, thus I have to go side by side or connected to the existing garage to obtain a 2 car garage. Most homes on the cul-de-sac and many in the nearby area as well as all of Sunshine Gardens have built additions and there are tandem 2 car garages. Carports have been another su§gestion by the Planning Dept. There is one on the cul-de-sac and others in the Sunshine Gardens area. They look like something from a country shanty with fiberglass and lattice extending out to the sidewalk. I can appreciate why people do construction without permits. This process has been incredible and especially for such a small project in comparison to others that are taking place. I would respectfully like to remind the Commission that we should all be working together to improve and beautify our community. I have attempted to go through proper channels to do the right thing. This process has taken an unbelievable amount of time, two years since I first started, has taken a lot of my personal and business time, has added extra expense for me and the cost of construction continues to rise as well. Given the facts I have presented, for not granting my variance. I do not see any logical reason I thank you for your time and consideration. These are just some but not all of the comer lot addresses that have 2 car garages: 1. 400 ForestvJew, comer of Crestwood 2. 1161 Crestwood, comer of Holly 3. 1143 Miller, comer of Holly 4. 240 Evergreen, comer of Ba~vwood 5. 401 Holly, comer of Crestwood 6. 298 Evergreen, comer of Miller 7. 300 Holly, comer of Miller 8. 1150 Miller, comer of Holly I submitted copies of photographs long ago to the Planning Dept. and copies of these are also being submitted with this Appeal. Being denied what already exists on comer lots comparable to mine i,&v 2 car garages, can also be considered a hardship. October 22, 2001 Marty VanDuyn, Director Economic & Community Development 400 Grand Avenue, City Hall P.O. Box 711 So. San Francisco, Calif. 94083 Dear Mr. VanDuyn: RE: 3 Emerald Ct. I am in receipt of your letter dated 10/17/01. While I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my October 4th letter, the problem regarding lack of proper staffing in So. San Francisco to handle the load still exists and to my knowledge is not being addressed and is not even mentioned in your letter. However, what is mentioned is "other work priorities preventing us from completing the amendments". After waiting approximately one year and eight months, I feel my project should now be a priority. The growth spurt in So. San Francisco was expected, including the BART Project, long before it began and appropriate staffing should have been implemented to accommodate the 10ad. Unfortunately for myself and others, this has not happened and we are expected to be Continuously put off for such an outrageous length of time. This is not acceptable and if the appropriate steps had been taken in the first place, this would not be happening. Thanking me for my patience will not solve the problem or make it go away.. In fact, my patience is depleted. The options you suggest: 1) Modify my 'proposal so that a variance would not be needed, is not a consideration. I need a big. enough bathroom and bedroom at ground floor level so that it is~elder friendly and I want and need a two car garage. Other corner lots alrmady have this and those of us with corner lots that are presently with one car garages are being discriminated against for expansion with the way the codes exist at present. 2) I have been informed that the Commission/Council does not like to grant variances. Once again I state, a Variance was created fOr exceptions to every rule or code. · Mr. Sparks informed me in early Angust that the'code changes WILL allow me to go ahead with my proposed project. However, you are saying in y'0u~-letter "could provide flexibility for your proposal". If indeed Mr. Sparks is correct, then I state once again RATHER THAN DELAY MY PROJECT FURTHERI WOULD APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE AND EXPECT TO HAVE IT APPROVED NOW~WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. Lo~ic tells me I should not have to keep waiting until sometime next year. Before I waste more time and money, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Because of the lack of efficacy 'and eff{cienc~ W{thin the Planning Dept., ~here has been one delay after another with completion of the amendments. 3) It is my understanding applying for zoning code revision would be a waste of my time, add more cost, and would probably be fruitless. 4) Waiting for the current revision of the zoning code: I have been doing this for approximately one year and eight months, which is long enough~. .5) The expansion objectives which you state has been offered by your staff, namely Steve Carlson, is to expand upwards which is not an option for me. Not only does it cost more, but is not ELDER FRIENDLY. Each and every person reading~this will realize this as you age. Thin~ about- it~ Building upwards, like I have stated previously, also takes away from peoples sunlight, views and privacy in a ranch style community and does not conform to the neighborhood. Mr. Carlson also spoke of a 'detached garage which makes no Sense as I have also previously stated. It would be an eye sore, create a damp dreary breeze way between two structures and take away all of my side yard, would go up to the fence line thus making the current set back problem a mute point and the set back regulations at present invalid. With my proposal there would still be approximately ten feet of Page two 10/22/01 set back. In a phone conversation with Mr. Sparks,he agreed with me regarding the detached garage and the current set back regulations regarding lots and structures like mine. It is my understanding other cities on the Peninsula only require 5-6 feet set back in similar situations like mine. This communication process has now given the Planning Dept. another month reprieve and has only added to my approximately twenty month wait. Will await a reply regarding the Variance issue stated in option #2 of this letter. If I am going to spend the time and money for a Variance I would expect some guarantee. Sincerely Rem e~e~~ cc: Joseph Fernekes~ Mayor Eugene Mullin, Mayor Pro Tempore Pedro Gonzalez, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember John Penna, Councilmember Mark Church, Supervisor Tom Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Klm Johnson, Asst. City Atty. Michael Wilson, City Manager George Dayeh, Architect September 17, 2001 t EP-,EiVED Mr. Tom Sparks, Chief Planner Planning Division 315 Maple Ave. So. San Francisco, Ca. 94080 RE: 3 Emerald Ct. Dear Mr. Sparks: I am following up with this letter regarding our phone conversation on 8/10/01 with regards to my long overdue attempt to add onto my home at # Emerald Ct. Let's hope we are on the same page. It is my understanding the zoning codes that are supposedly not allowing me to do my proposed addition are being eliminated and that this will enable me to proceed with my plans on my corner lot. You advised me not to apply for a variance and stated you would personally let me know when the change takes place and you would personally expedite my plans to move them along. The letter from Steve Carlson dated 7/11/01 speaks of yet another 3-4 month delay, which is just unacceptable and mentions me being told not to submit plans when infact, you told me to submit formal plans on the previous phone conversation. The Planning Department obviously needs more personnel along with more qualified personnel to handle the South City load. Something needs to be done about it. Another 3-4 months wait puts me in Winter which means I have to wait to Spring to build, which would then put this process at approximately 2 years in waiting. If I have misinterpreted anything from the 8/10 phone conversation with you, please advise. ! hope this is not another ploy to make me continue to wait because of lack of personnel and organization within the Planning Department. I have not received zoning information you stated you would send me. I left a message on your voice mail on 9/10/01 and still have not heard back from you. Sincerely, ~ Renee' Yatesf/ cc: Martin VanDuyn, Director, ECD Steve Carlson, Senior Planner George Dayeh, Architect Renee Yates -owner/applicant Denied George Dayeh -architect 3 Emerald Court P01-0008, VAR01-0001, DR01-0003 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities Design Review and Variance to allow living floor and garage additions within the rear yard setback. Chief Planner Sparks provided background information, stated that staff is going strictly by the zoning code and have suggested some alternatives. Associate Planner Kowalski gave staff report. Rene Yates, 3 Emerald Court, introduced her architect, George Dayeh and he was in attendance to answer questions of the Planning Commission. She felt the project was logical and gave a statement in opposition to the staff' s recommendation for denial. Kevin Greggins 326 Castile Way, a family member, spoke in favor of project. Commissioner Meloni noticed that the scale of the plot plan indicates that they are lA inch to the foot but they are 1/8 inch to the foot. Can't see any proof of hardship to grant a variance. Can still have a 2-car garage just have to rearrange some of the existing interior spaces. Asked Rene Yates if she can park a car in the garage? Rene Yates answered yes, but things are stored in there. Commissioner Meloni questioned why they were not taking out the two existing walls all the way to the front and to the rear rather than taking a portion out of the middle? It would be more convenient for space. Rene Yates noted this could be done but would cost more. Chairperson Meloni suggested the plan could be rearranged and still get a 2-car garage there. Mentioned that the pictures shown were taken of properties in the middle of blocks and were designed originally with 2-car garages. There isn't any change in the setbacks. None of these asked for variances because it was already there. Commissioner Sim in concurred with Commissioner Meloni because this would create a precedent. Commissioner Honan questioned if the project went to the Design Review Board. Associate Planner Kowalski noted that they reviewed it favorably, but acknowledged that a variance would be hard to obtain. Commissioner Honan did not see a hardship. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt noted that, in reference to the pictures, the house at 1150 Miller is the only lot setting that is the same as 3 Emerald Court. He asked for clarification on which is the backyard of the 1150 Miller comer lot. Chief Planner Sparks gave the definition in the zoning code that if you have a comer lot is that the narrow dimension is the front. We have a number of older lots in town where that is reversed, but that is the definition in the code. We will be addressing this with the zoning code update. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt only knows of one house at 304 Holly with a detached garage in Sunshine Gardens and questioned why is planning or the City asking for a detached garage. Chief Planner Sparks noted that it is not preferred but allowed by code. It's a legal solution. Commissioner Teglia stated a variance is a legal tool but cannot be done on this project. There are other options. Chairperson Romero asked for clarification as to designation of the rooms on the plans. If the applicant was to submit this as a request to add a family room and a second bath, would that be allowed without the second garage? Chief Planner Sparks stated that 4 bedrooms need 2 parking spaces. It's hard to do an absolute answer to that because there are always contextual issues. If limited to 3 bedrooms then it would be consistent with the code with a single car garage. Chairperson Romero stated if the applicant wants the additional garage then he concurs with staff. The setback requirement is in the existing code and we are required as a body to enforce. Don't support a detached garage. Commissioner Teglia Big developers come in with code changes associated with their projects. Is there a code change they could apply for? Chief Planner Sparks The issue is setbacks and I doubt we would want to change all our residential setbacks citywide for this particular item. We considered doing a one lot planned unit development. We have spent a lot of time to try to make this work but can't find a vehicle without a variance. 1. Motion Meloni/Second Honan to aoorove. Unanimous voice vote OPlanning Commission Staft Report DATE: February21,2002 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Variance to allow additions to a home within the required rear setback in the Single Family Residential (R-l-E) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.82.050. Owner/Applicant: Renee Yates Case Nos. P01-0008, VAR01-0001 & DR01-0003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission make the required findings and deny Applications P01-0008, VAR01-0001 and DR01-0003 allowing additions to a home within the required rear setback in the Single Family Residential (R-I-E) Zoning District. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant requests a variance to allow the addition of a fourth bedroom and a second garage space that encroaches five feet into the required rear yard setback at an existing residence at 3 Emerald Court. The subject property is located in an R-l, Single Family Zone, at the comer of Emerald Court and Sunnyside Drive, in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. The lot is 91 ft. deep by 50 ft. wide, and currently contains a 1,170 sq. ft. three bedroom, one bath home, with an attached single car garage. The lot is characterized as a reverse comer lot, which is defined as a comer lot, the rear of which abuts the side of another lot. The applicant proposes to add a 237 sq. ft. addition consisting of a fourth bedroom & bath, and a second garage space, resulting in a total of 1,407 sq. ft. of living space and approx. 550 sq. ft. garage. Zoning Standards · Lot Size The standard required lot size for new R-1 lots is 5,000 sq. ft. (50 ft. by 100 ft.) for interior lots, and 6,000 sq. ft. (60 ft. by 100 ft.) for comer lots. Typical lot sizes within the Sunshine Gardens area range from 4,500 sq. ft. (50 ft. by 90 ft.) to 5,000 sq. ft. (50 by 100), so this lot size, although substandard in terms of current requirements, is standard for the area. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P01-008, VAR01-0001 & DR01-0003 (Yates Residence) February 21, 2002 Page 2 of 4 · Setback Requirements The setback requirements for the R-1 Zone are as follow: R-1 Zone Project Front 15 ft. 18 ft. Rear - Standard Lot 20 ft. - Substandard 15 ft. 10 ft. Reverse Corner Lot Side - Interior 5 ft. 6 ft. 2 in. Side - Street 10 ft. 10 ft. While the standard rear yard setback in R-1 Zones is 20 feet, the Zoning Ordinance has a special standard for Substandard Reverse Coruer lots, allowing a rear yard setback of 15 feet. · Parking Requirements - Single Family Home Additions The following parking requirements apply to additions to existing residential units: Single car garage - Additions are allowed which do not exceed 1,800 square feet of living area and which include no more than three bedrooms. Two car parking - Additions are allowed which do not exceed 2,500 square feet of living area and which include no more than four bedrooms. Although the proposed project does not come near exceeding the square footage allowance for a single car garage (1,407sf vs. 1,800sf), because it includes a fourth bedroom a second parking space is required. This parking space may be either attached or detached. If it attached to the residence the Zoning Ordinance requires that it conform to the setback requirements. However, the Zoning Ordinance allows accessory structures, including detached garages, to be located within the required rear yard setback. Variance Request · Applicant' s Request As indicated in the attached letter, the applicant requests a variance to allow the garage expansion to encroach five feet into the required 15-foot rear yard setback arguing that a detached garage would be less attractive than an attached garage, would be out of character with the neighborhood and would result in less usable rear yard space. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P01-008, YAR01-0001 & DR01-0003 (Yates Residence) February 21, 2002 Page 3 of 4 · Variance Findings The Zoning Ordinance requires that to approve a variance the Planning Commission must make the following findings: "a) That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations or pre-existing nonconforming uses or facilities are not hardships justifying a variance. b) That such variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege granted to the recipient inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated." Emerald Court and many of the streets around it contain small, single-story homes with attached one-car garages that stretch across the lot with minimal side yard setbacks. For this reason, most of the owners of these homes cannot add additional bedrooms because there is no room to provide the second parking space required of homes with more than three bedrooms, without extensive remodeling to convert existing living space to garage. So, rather than this lot being denied privileges available to other similar lots in the area, it actually has more opportunities since it is located on a comer. Consequently, the granting of the requested variance would constitute a special privilege for this property inconsistent with the limitations imposed upon neighboring properties. Furthermore, there is ample room in the existing rear yard for a detached one-car garage. Detached garages are required to be at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep, and must be situated at least 6 feet from the main structure. If the applicant built a detached garage meeting these requirements flush with the front wall of the existing garage and located the reduced the room addition by 4 inches, the project could be built without need for a variance, and there would still be approximately the same amount of usable open space as provided in the requested application. CONCLUSION: Staff can see no unique hardships associated with this property that result in a circumstance justifying the granting of a variance. The applicant's lot is a comer lot, and therefore there is more developable yard space fronting the street than any of the interior lots in the neighborhood. All of Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P01-008, VAR01-0001 & DR01-0003 (Yates Residence) February 21, 2002 Page 4 of 4 the interior lots in the immediate vicinity have little or no room to expand their garages without converting existing living area because they all have minimal side yards. Granting a variance to the applicant solely based on a desire for an attached garage rather than a detached garage would constitute a special privilege for the property, and SSFMC Section 20.82.050(b) expressly prohibits this. Furthermore, the applicant has the option of building a detached garage in her rear yard, but has chosen not to exercise this. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Commission make the recommended findings and deny Applications P01-0008, VAR01-0001 and DR-01-0003. Stephen Kowalski, Associate ATTACHMENTS: Findings for Denial Variance Request Letter from Applicant Assessors Map of Vicinity Development Plans FINDINGS FOR DENIAL P01-0008, VAR01-0001 & DR01-0003 YATES RESIDENCE VARIANCE (As proposed by Staff on February 21, 2002) As required by South San Francisco Municipal Code § 20.82.050, the following finding(s) are made in denial of Variance P01-0008, VAR01-0001 and DR01-0003 allowing additi6ns to a home within the required rear setback in the Single Family Residential (R-I-E) Zoning District based on public testimony and materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, which include, but are not limited to: Plans prepared by applicant, dated June 20, 2001; Variance Request Statement from applicant; and Planning Commission staff report dated February 21, 2002: a) There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, which constitute a unique hardship or deprive the property of rights held by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. The subject site is similar in size, shape and topography to many other lots in the vicinity. Emerald Court and many of the streets around it contain small, single-story homes with attached one-car garages that stretch across the lot with minimal side yard setbacks. For this reason, most of the owners of these homes cannot add additional bedrooms because there is no room to provide the second parking space required of homes with more than three bedrooms, without extensive remodeling to convert existing living space to garage. So, rather than this lot being denied privileges available to other similar lots in the area, it actually has more opportunities since it is located on a corner, allowing the option of adding a second garage within the required rear yard setback. Consequently, the granting of the requested variance would constitute a special privilege for this property inconsistent with the limitations imposed upon neighboring properties. b) The home addition could be built without the need for a variance given that the applicant has the option of building a detached garage in her rear yard, but has chosen not to exercise this. Granting a variance to the applicant solely based on the applicant's desire for an attached garage rather than a detached garage would constitute a special privilege for the property. Januaw 11,2002 RECEIVED To: Planning Commission ,JAN ! ! 2002 Re: Variance request for 3 Emerald Court .PLANNING Members of the Commission, My plans to expand my home and garage conform to the neighborhood architecturally and will leave me with more rear yard space than a detached garage which the Zoning Ordinance currently allows me to build. In addition, a detached garage built in my rear yard would not conform to the neighborhood, look awful from inside of my house, and leave my family and I with less usable rear yard space than an attached garage. For these reasons, I am asking you to grant me the variance to allow me to build in the required rear setback. Sincerely, Renee Yates 3 Emerald Court South San Francisco, CA 94080 VIEW DR. 50,~ ' 7,~ 36 ~ -~ 35 COURT /5 I~SUNSHIN£ 6 I~ ASSESSOR S , /~PARCEI MA,z i~ ACREAGE CI~ 3c~ /3. FIRST F L.,.~ 0 I-( !/4" - 1'-0" T (~) ~N~ (E) FIRST 1/4' -- FLOOR fi PLAN PLOT PROVIDED FROM THE F_RiSTiNQ ALL WORK SHALL B! IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SOUTH MUNICIPAL CODE ANC THE !998 F..DmON OF' THE C~L!FORNIA ~UILDiNG CODE, CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, CAM?ORNtA PLUMBING CODE, AND THE CALIFORNIA FLECTRICAL CODE. QUAORUPLEX OUTLET SINGL~. SWITCH 9UPLEX OUTL~iF (E) WALLS TO BE REMOVED Fa '~-~-sT° ~_U~,N OGLING LIGHT 8:FAN SMOKE DL-I'ECTO R 4--WAY S~/ITO H GFC[ OUTLET 12,~ X ~-~" FLUORE$ ~GHT LOT ,-', r"',, ,,-'- ~ ,', ,'-' = 45% iJ © qQ ?/o~ IIII111 NAiL!aG SCH LL)ULi- 3. JOISTS TO SILL OR 61RDER TOENAIL ............................... 3-ad 2. ~RtDGtNG TO ..JOISTS ?QENAIL ¢_A¢i-.t ENO ......................... $- :X6 SUBFLOOR OR LESS TO ~'ACH JOIST, FACE NAiL......2-Bd ~. "*/fOER THAN 1X8 SUBFLOOR TO EACH JOIST, Rs, CE ,NAIL..5-Bd 5- 2" SUDFLOOR TO JOIST, OR GIRDER, BLIND AND FACE NAIL..2-]Bd ~,- SOLE PLATE TO JOISTS OR BLOCKING, TYPICAL FACE NAIL..,iEd~..!6"0,C SOLE ?LATE TO JOISTS OR BLOCKING, Al' 3F~.ACE0 WALL PANELL...5-~Sd 7 TOP PLATE TO ~l'un ENO NAIL ............................................. g. ST,,UO TO SOLO =LATE ............ 4.-8d TOENAIL OR !Sd END NAIL 9. DOUBLE STUDS PLATE £ACE NAIL ........................ !0. DOUBLED TOP ~L, ATES, TYPICAL FACE NAIL ......................................... DOUBLE0 TOP PLATES, LAD SP~CE ....................................... 8-!6d 11. ~LOCKING BETWEEN JOISTS~ OR R,~'TERSTO TOP PLATE,TOENAIL ........ 12. ,RIM JOIST TO TOP Pb,.~TES, TOENAIL ........ 8d 13. TOP PLATES, L~S AN0 INTERSECTIONS FACE NAIL !4-. CONTINUOUS HEADER TWO PIECES_IBd@.,16"O.O..ALONG EACH SiDE i_~. CEILING JOISTS TO PLATE TOENAIL ............................... 3-8d 16. CONTINUOUS HEADER TO STUD, TOENAIL ....................... ' ~?, ,SELLING JOISTS, LAPS OVER PARTITIONS FACE NAIL....,3-18d !8,. CEIUN0 JOISTS TO PARALLEL RAFTER FACE NAIL ........ 3-8d 19. ~AFTER TO PLATE, TOENAIL ............................................. 3-ad 20. l" 8P,.ACE TO ,.e. ACH STUD AND PLATE, FACE NAIL ......... 2~, i"X8" SHEATHING OR LESS TO EACH BEARING, FACE NAIL-2-Bd 22, WIDER THAN !X8 SHEATHING TO EACH BEARING, FACE NAIL..5-Bd 25, 9UILT UP CORNER STUDS ....................................... 2,:.. BUILT LiP GIRDER AND BEAMS ....... 20d'~..$2'O.C AT TOP & BOTTOM & STAGGERED 2-20d AT ENOS & F:.ACH SPLICE 2,5. 2" PLANKS ....................................... 2-'i6c1~ E. ACH eRF_A~ING 2.¢. WOO0 STRUCTURAL PANELS ANO PARTICLFBOARD : .~u~el.,oo~ ~,ND w.~4. ~,-i.t~'r~;',~¢- (TO 7/8'-1'. ......................................................................................................... ,~Oi,18~N~I~ON SUBF'L,0~-uNDE. r~'L~Y~4EN? (TO GENERAL -L 6ENF..RAL !..-q.L F~--ATURP-S OF CON~'I3~UCTION NOT F'ULLY :D"IOWN SHALL BE OF TN£ S,~J~£ TYPE AND CAP, ACTER AS SHOWN FOP, SIk41LAR CoNomoI,;~. 2. ~ WORK $1-~ i~ tH COMPLIANCE ~TH THE CITY OF ~DLrf'H .¢¢44 FR,ANCISCO ~UNiCIPAL CODE AND ;"P,4E 1998 EDi~ION$ OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING COOE. OAI.~FOFbNIA ~ECH. ANiOAL CODE, CALIFORNIA F'LUUI~IN¢ OOD£, AND CAUFORN~. ELECTRICAL FTF ~.CONCRi~'TE MIX B~ION 8TT~ENOHT -~00 ii 2.MINIMUkl CIrM~NT CONTF-NT- 5 SACK3 PER CU. YD. .%REINFOI~CM~qT - Gi~*~ 4~. LAP AJJ. SPUCE. S 32 DL~4ETERS. 12' B~ND AT ALL ¢OF~I~"~ AND tNT~J~EC~ON. :,~l ~u.L~ ON IdASONRY OR CONCI~'T~ FOUNDATION ,'~P, ADE *Z..~LL FRA~ING LU~EIER SHALL ]E D.F', ~P, AO~S AS FOLLOWS: 2X.!. STUDS,$1LLS ~-, PLATES ....................... ALL OTHER F,~blIN~?,XS,10,12 .................. ii 1 3. SH~kTHING ~gOF: .1/2KPLYWOOD - 32/15-1NT ~,¢'A ?D(TERIOR GLUE ~ ~/g PLYWGOD 24-/0 CD-~NT. APA EXT~;RIOR CLUE (BLOCK ALL JOiN'T~, NAIL $D~$ ~<1 ~ 4- O.¢. ALL CTH, E~ 5EARIN~ AT 4,. JOISTS H~(~RS AND OTHER METAL CONNECTORE$ SHALL ~E AS ~UFACTURED BY Slkll:~ON CO. SAN LF_ANORO OR StaffXeport ]Z- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 10, 2O02 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Economic and Community Development Myers DevelOpment Company RECOMMENDATION That the City Council uphold the existing subdivision agreement and condition of approval requiring a sound wall to be built along the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard. BACKGROUND As the Council is aware, a sound wall was identified in the 1982 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Terrabay as a potential measure to retain traffic noise at the level it was prior to Sister Cities Boulevard being constructed. The EIR did not identify a noise impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) noise criteria thresholds for traffic, but did state that a future engineering study and subsequent sound wall could be built along Sister Cities Boulevard to reduce traffic noise to the residents of Paradise Valley. The services of Charles Salter, Associates -Acoustical Consultants were retained to conduct noise measurements and assess the affect of a sound wall along the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard. (Note: The story poles are still in place demonstrating the location that a sound wall could be constructed). The findings of the noise analysis are: A six foot sound wall could be constructed for 650 feet from the westernmost location demonstrated by the story poles to the eastern terminus of the story poles. A wall any further east of that point would not attenuate noise due to terrain, Highway 101, Airport Boulevard and aircraft noise sources which dominate the noise environment. The 650 foot sound wall constructed at six feet in height would at best attenuate noise five decibels (A-weighted); a level barely perceptible to the human ear. (Note: The attenuation benefits with and without a wall were demonstrated at the neighborhood meetings and will be demonstrated to Council on April 10th'). Truck stack noise and aircraft noise which are the dominant noise sources affecting Paradise Valley would not be attenuated as a result of the wall construction. Staff Report Subject: Page 2 Sister Cities Boulevard Sound Wall As Council is also aware, three neighborhood meetings were held with the Paradise Valley community to discuss the emplacement of a sound wall, and barring that to identify other acceptable in-lieu improvements. Previous memoranda to Council are included in Attachment I, along with the acoustical report, meeting sign-in sheets and petition to the Vice Mayor Gonzalez, for your convenience. Neighborhood Meetings Three meetings were conducted one on January 29th followed by February 5th and March 19th. The March 19th meeting was conducted in response to a petition signed and delivered to Vice Mayor Gonzalez wherein 24 residents with addresses on Randolph Avenue and two with addresses on Pecks Lane indicated support for the sound wall. The petition indicates a difference of opinion from that expressed at the January 29th and February 5th meetings wherein the community voted 10-3 against the sound wall. During the first two meetings the community identified a desire for additional trees to be planted behind Sister Cities Boulevard along the slope above the residences on Randolph Avenue (see Memorandum to Council dated February 12, 2002). DISCUSSION The March 19th meeting sign-in sheet is signed by 14 people. The same presentations that were made in the previous two meetings were made again. The sound demonstration and photo simulation of sound wall were shown. Staff indicated that the two other options the community identified during the first two meetings, the addition of trees along the slope and improvements to Gardner Park were also being presented. Both options could be implemented in lieu of the sound wall should the community desire. A drawing of possible improvements to Gardner Park was presented. A vote was taken towards the end of the meeting. Five people voted for the wall and nine people voted against the wall. No one spoke favorably for improvements to Gardner Park. In all fairness it seems that there was confusion experienced by some. Some people may not have understood that additional landscaping and improvements to Gardner Park could be realized in lieu of a sound wall. Given the face of the petition, 26 individuals signing in favor of a wall, and individuals during the meetings expressing disdain for the wall, it appears that some people may not have spoken up during the meetings. Therefore, more people may favor a wall than not. Having said that, staff is recommending approval of the sound wall. Engineering and Planning staff researched the feasibility of constructing a sound wall along Sister Cities Boulevard. According to staff a precast concrete wall could be constructed adjacent to the road barrier on the shoulder of Sister Cities Boulevard. Columns could be drilled in place and the panels could then be slid in place, thus avoiding a lot of trenching and utility relocation. According to staff's research, a precast wall costs approximately $60/square foot. Therefore a wall would cost in the vicinity of $39,000. Staff Report Subject: Sister Cities Boulevard Sound Wall Page 3 CONCLUSION That the City Council uphold the existing subdivision agreement and condition of approval requiring a sound wall to be built along the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard. B~of Economic & Commkni, ty Development Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachment: I. March 13, February 12, January 25, 2002 Memoranda to Council, December 14, 2001 Memorandum to Council, March 1, 2002 petition to Vice Mayor Gonzalez, March 19, February 5 and January 29, 2002 meeting sign-in sheets, January 25, 2002 Acoustical Report by Charles Salter. ATTACHMENT I March 13, February 12, January 25, 2002 Memoranda to Council December 14, 2001 Memorandum to Council March 1, 2002 petition to Vice Mayor Gonzalez March 19, February 5 and January 29, 2002 meeting sign-in sheets January 25, 2002 Acoustical Report by Charles Salter Photo Simulation of the Wall CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 13, 2002 TO: Honorable City Council Michael A. Wilson, City Manager FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Allison Knapp, Plmming Consultm~t ~, Marty Van Duyn, Director Econolnic and ~o)~elopment Neighborhood Meetings Paradise Valley So'findwall BACKGROUND Developer Obligation The 1982 Environmental hnpact Report (1982 EIR) for the Terrabay Project required the construction of a soundwall along the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard. The 1982 EIR states that there needs to be a detailed study during the engineering of the road (extension of Hillside Boulevard) to determine the required height and location of the barrier. The sole purpose of the soundwall was/is to retain the noise levels in the Paradise Valley neighborhood (in absence of aircraft flyover and Highway 101) at the same level they were prior to extension of Hillside Boulevard. Staff conducted two neighborhood meeting one on January 29a~ and the other on February 5a~, 2002 regarding the construction of a soundwall along 650 feet of Sister Cities Boulevard. As Council is aware, the location and extent of the soundwall is illustrated by story poles. The February 12, 2002 memorandum to Council surrnnarizing the meetings is attached for your convenience. PETITION TO THE CITY Although the two neighborhood meetings were conducted and notice was mailed to 900 residences and businesses in the Paradise Valley neighborhood, little turn out of the meetings was realized. A petition from the Historic Old Town Homeowner' s and Renters Association (HOTHRA), attached, was submitted to the Vice Mayor. Based upon this petition staff' opted to conduct a third meeting that would be announced as a joint meeting by HOTHRA and the City in hope of garnering a larger turn out. Memorandum to Council Soundwall Sister Cities Boulevard March 13, 2002 THIRD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The third meeting will be conducted at the Terrabay Recreation Center on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 (see attached am~ouncement). The meeting will include the stone sound demonstration perfbrmed by Salter and Associates. The meeting will also include drawings of potential improvements to Gardner Park and additional landscaping along Sister Cities Boulevard, as these two options were identified by the meeting attendees as alternates to a soundwall. FOLLOW UP Staff, depending on the outcome and participation on Tuesday evelfing, anticipates returning to Council with a recommendation on this item at the second meeting in March or the first meeting in April. Staff will also have Salter Associates conduct the sound demonstration that was presented to the community. Soundwall, landscaping and park improvement drawings will also be presented, along with a recommendation for action. ATTACHMENTS II. III. Soundwall Council Memorandum February 12, 2002 HOTHRA Petition Third Meeting Announcement CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: February 12, 2002 Honorable City Council Michael A. Wilson, City Manager Allison Knapp, Planning Consultant Marty Van Duyn, Director Economic and Conununity Development Neighborhood Meetings Paradise Valley Soundwall BACKGROUND Developer Obligation The 1982 Enviromnental Impact Report (1982 EIR) for the Terrabay Project required the construction of a soundwall along the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard. The 1982 EIR states that there needs to be a detailed study during the engineering of the road (extension of Hillside Boulevard) to determine the required height and location of the barrier. The sole purpose of the soundwall was/is to retain the noise levels in the Paradise Valley neighborhood (in absence of aircraft flyover and Highway 101) at the same level they were prior to extension of Hillside Boulevard. Currently the developer (Myers) is responsible (pursuant to the Development Agreement and the Subdivision Agreement) to construct a soundwall along a portion of Sister Cities Boulevard. Preliminary cost estimates of a soundwall range from $30,000 (wood) to $60, 000 (concrete). The wall was envisioned (in 1997) to be wood in order to be less obtrusive and appear more natural. Wood walls can be and have been successfully constructed to attenuate noise. Wood walls can be built to last 20 to 30 years. Concrete walls have a greater longevity, and in the opinion of some, are more alienating in nature. Both concrete and wood walls require maintenance and repair if struck by a car. Concrete walls are typically more prone to graffiti. Neighborhood Meetings Staff conducted two neighborhood meeting one on January 29u~ and the other on February 5a~, 2002 regarding the construction of a soundwall along 650 feet of Sister Cities Boulevard. As Council is aware, the location and extent of the soundwall is illustrated by story poles. The two meetings were conducted and a total of twelve neighbors attended. Of the 12, five live and own homes in the neighborhood, five are renters and three are landowners that live outside the neighborhood. The majority of those present who live in Paradise Valley have lived in the neighborhood over 20 years. The presentation to the community included an audio simulation of the existing noise enviromnent and the noise environment with a soundwall, measured and simulated by Charles Salter Associates, acoustical consultants. The simulation presented was as if it were from the backyards of the homes along Randolph Avenue. The change in the sound level with or without the wall was not audible. At best case, the noise reduction with a wall in place was 5 dBA (at the west end of the proposed wall) and the farther the simulation traveled to the east the attenuation decreased to 3 dBA and then down to 1 dBA. Again, the most reduction would be as one would expect, at the westennnost location and as one would travel eastward along Sister Cities Boulevard. The benefit of attenuation reduced as the sound from Highway 101 became predominant. Additionally, a photo simulation of a soundwall was also presented to the corrnnunity. The photo shnulation is attached to this memorandum. A very active discussion of the pros and cons of the soundwall ensued. Three individuals desire a soundwall (one who did not attend the meeting called in a vote by telephone) while 10 expressed opposition to the soundwall. The three that expressed support felt that, "...anything at all can help." while those opposed expressed a range of concerns. Two individuals that expressed support for the sound wall also stated that additional landscaping would take too long to grow and they would not be alive to enjoy the benefit. Community Concerns-Noise The concerns expressed include: The wall would not help reduce the sound appreciably. The wall would block views to the Mountain. The wall would provide an area for crime and graffiti. The wall would inhibit police and emergency services. The wall would increase noise due to reflection of sound incident upon it. The noise study did demonstrate that a wall would not appreciably reduce noise in Paradise Valley. A wall would obstruct views to the Mountain as shown in the photo simulations and demonstrated by the placement of the story poles. A wall would also obstruct views from Sister Cities Boulevard to the east and south portions of South San Francisco. A soundwall would not reduce emergency response time to the community (Sgt. Mike Newell), however, the wall would introduce an opportunity area for crime and increased police calls could occur as a result of the opportunity. The wall could also be a target for graffiti, if history repeats itself. The wall could be constructed to absorb incident sound and/or reflect it at an angle to avoid sensitive receptors (Jack Freytag, Salter Associates). Memorandum to City Council Soundwall Sister Cities Boulevard February 12, 2002 Page 3 Potential alternatives to the sound wall identified by the Community include: Increase landscaping for a psychological sound barrier and basic improvement of the area. Replace and improve glazing and add insulation to the homes along Randolph Avenue which are most affected by the sound. (NOTE: Homes set back from Randolph Avenue receive some attenuation due to both distance from the source and the barrier that the homes along Randolph closest to Sister Cities Boulevard provide to homes further away from the source). Improve the community park in the area. Discussion of Alternatives 1. Increased Landscaping There are opportunities for addition pockets of landscaping along Sister Cities Boulevard, as can be seen from the attached photo simulations. It is important to note that the slope off of Sister Cities Boulevard is a drainage area that leads to a culvert at the bottom betfind the homes along Randolph Avenue. The area is somewhat inhospitable to vegetation as witnessed by the struggle it has been to plant and retain (in a healthy fashion) landscaping along Sister Cities Boulevard. The strong winds and bedrock exacerbate growing conditions. There is irrigation in place which would require some repair (Barry Nagel). Plantings could include Myopurm and London Plane. Thirty-six inch box. specimens would be planted. Approximately 50 trees, irrigation repairs and installation could be realized for $25,000. 2. Increased Noise Insulation in Homes in Paradise Valley The noise environment in Paradise Valley is complex. The dorninant source of noise in the area is Highway 101 and aircraft. The Oyster Point Flyover project, when completed, will add to the noise environment. Trucks traveling along Sister Cities Boulevard and to a lesser extent vehicular traffic add to the noise environment. According to Salter Associates, noise insulation ranges around $25,000 per home. The entire Pecks Lot subdivision is impacted by noise. Nine hundred letters were sent out for the workshops. It is reasonable to assume that approximately 900 homes would benefit from insulation. Using Salter's numbers, a noise insulation program for the area would cost approximately $2.24 million dollars. 3. Improve the Community Park Although this idea was mentioned it was not elaborated upon. However, a reasonable amount of Memorandum to City Council Soundwall Sister Cities Boulevard February 12, 2002 Page 4 playground equipment could be purchased for $25,000 to improve Gardner Park (Barry Nagel). Other Conm~unity Concerns Identified The neighbors also expressed concern about the condition of the streets and the preponderance of abandoned vetficles in the area. The Police Department has been conducting an abandoned car targeting and removal program the past few weeks. 1. Condition of Streets Staff spoke with the Streets Division regarding the condition of the streets in Paradise Valley. is true that the streets are in need of repair. Randolph Avenue is in the worst condition, although most of the streets are in need of repair. Randolph Avenue is rough, substandard in width and lacks the basic improvements such as sidewalk, curb and gutter. It The volume of traffic over a street as well as its condition are two criteria used to prioritize street repairs. The streets in Paradise Valley are not traveled as frequently as other streets in the City that also need repair, such as South Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue. Arterials and collectors have higher traffic volumes and serve larger areas whereas neighborhood streets tend to serve the immediate neighborhood. The Streets Division estimates $300,000 to $400,000 to repair Randolph Avenue. Most of the other streets in Paradise Valley require minor repairs which as a rule of thumb the cost would be approximately $75/square yard. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to determine the actual cost of a soundwall based upon specific design criteria. The cost of the soundwall could be secured as an in lieu fee and be used for additional landscaping or park improvement. ATTACHMENTS I. Photo Simulation of Soundwall Soundwall CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Michael A. Wilson, City Manager FROM: Allison Knapp, Planning Consultant Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: Soundwall Along Sister Cities Boulevard BACKGROUND The 1982 Environmental Impact Report (1982 EIR) for the Terrabay Project required the construction of a soundwall along the south side of what was then referred to as the "Hillside Extension," now known as Sister Cities Boulevard, to mitigate the roadway extension traffic noise. In a December 14, 2001 memorandum to Council, staff apprised Council of a forthcoming workshop that would be conducted with the Paradise Valley neighborhood to identify issues and discuss the soundwall. A copy of the neighborhood notice that was mailed to some 900 residents on January 23, 2002 announcing the workshop is attached for your information. ACTION The workshop will be held on January 29th from 7:00 to 8:30 PM at the Terrabay Recreation Center. The workshop will be conducted by City Staff, Jack Freytag, Acoustical Consultant, and Jack Myers. Story poles will be placed along the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard for approximately 650 feet at approximately eight feet in height to demonstrate the location and extent of the wall. The story poles are anticipated to be in place by Friday the 25th. The meeting is to provide the public with a copy of the noise study, and to discuss what the sound wall would and would not do with respect to diminishing various sources of noise in the Paradise Valley neighborhood. A graphic depicting how that wall could look will also be presented at the meeting. A follow-up meeting on February 5th (same location and time) will be conducted to obtain the neighborhood participants' opinions with respect to the wall. The week between the two meetings provides an opportunity for the public to consider the information provided at the first meeting, and then to respond at the second meeting if they so desire. The opinion of the neighborhood will be transmitted to Council on February 8th. ATTACHMENTS Announcement of Neighborhood Meeting. December 14, 2001 Memorandum to Council NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PARADISE VALLEY A meeting to discuss the placement of a sound wall on the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard and your input is requested. WHERE: Terrabay Recreation Center WHEN: January 29, 2002 TIME: 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM A presentation of the sound study will be made and your input and vote is requested. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 14, 2001 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Manager Allison Knapp, Planning Consultant Many Van Duyn, Director of Economic & Community Development Soundwall Along Sister Cities Boulevard BACKGROUND As many of the Council are aware, the 1982 Environmental Impact Report (1982 EIR) for the Terrabay Project identifies the construction of a soundwall along the south side of what was then referred to as the "Hillside Extension", now known as Sister Cities Boulevard, to mitigate the roadway extension traffic noise. The 1982 EIR (page 146) states: Existing homes which would be adjacent to the extension of Hillside Boulevard between North Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard would be exposed to peak hour Leq's and CNEL's from traffic noise of between 63 and 65 dB. Homes in the area are exposed to traffic noise levels in absence of aircraft ranging from about 56 to 63 dB. Again, in absence of jet aircraft noise, annoyance would be expected in this area. However, because of the contribution of jet aircraft noise, the resulting overall noise level would not increase a noticeable amount. Page 148 of the 1982 EIR states that: Increased traffic noises along Hillside Boulevard could be mitigated by the erection of a sound barrier on the south side of the extension. Detailed studies during the engineering of the road would determine the required height and location of this barrier. As noted in the impact section, the purpose of this barrier would be to maintain traffic noise levels at their existing levels in absence of aircraft noise. In March 2001, the City contracted the services of Charles Salter, Acoustical Consultants to perform detailed studies of the noise environment in the project area and to determine the extent and design of the noise barrier. The March 2001 Study quantified the noise environment at five locations along Randolph Avenue (see attached study) and found that the noise environment as a result of Sister Cities Boulevard traffic ranges from 54, 56, 59 and 63 dB, CNEL. As noted above, the 1982 EIR projected the 1990 noise environment in the project area to be 65 dB of which most (7 dB) is attributable to aircraft flyover. The March 2001 Study recommends shortening the length of the noise wall from that originally envisioned in 1982. Upon a second look by Salter on December 12, 2001 (attached) it is found that the noise wall could indeed increase noise levels that would be experienced by residents north of the noise barrier and would not (as also noted in 1982) reduce the noise environment to the project area to an appreciable level. The reason that the noise would be increased north of the proposed wall is due to reflection. The reason the noise environment in Paradise Valley neighborhood would not be decreased perceptibly is that the dominant source of noise in the Paradise Valley neighborhood is from aircraft and Highway 101 traffic, not from traffic along Sister Cities Boulevard. ACTION Staff is planning a workshop with the Paradise Valley neighborhood to identify issues and discuss these findings. After the workshop, staff will return to the Council with a recommendation with respect the soundwall. ATTACHMENTS I. March 2001 Noise Study II. December 12, 2001 Noise Amendment H OTHI2.~ Boord of Pire¢¢or~ I~rovi~ionol ~re~iden~' Vice Pre~iden¢ F'RANCO I~CCININNI ~e¢ording E~ecre~orie~ ~ .r.r.r::~,H~El~ IIDA PENNA Corresponding E~ecre'tor'Y LJ.~, DEr't~,T~EI Com'roll~r I~orlio mentorion hl~Y March 01, 2002 HISTORIC OLD TOWN HOMEOWNERS $ ~ENTEP-S ASSOCIATION P.O. E~ox :2D5, ~u'ffn ~an Francium, CA ~O~~ 650.7~7~0~ ~ Mr. Pedro Gonzalez Vice Mayor City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Re: Randolph Avenue Sound Wall Dear Pedro: The Historic Old Town Homeowners & Renters Assoc. has been approached by several of the residents of Randolph Avenue requesting our organization's help, Attached please find a petition from many of these residents expressing support for the construction of the proposed sound wall on the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard along Randolph Avenue. It is the belief of the residents of this neighborhood that the sound wall would greatly improve the quality of life in their neighborhood by decreasing traffic noise from Sister Cities Boulevard. The wall would be placed behind the homes on Randolph Avenue from Airport Boulevard to Irving Street. Additionally, each of the residents who signed the attached petition would like to be added to the mailing list for notification of any future meetings and/or information regarding the sound wall issue. Please add HOTHRA's address to the mailing list, as well. Pedro, we appreciate your help in expressing the concerns of our neighbors to City Hall. We believe that this sound wall will improve the quality of life for all residents of the Old Town area. Please feel free to contact me at 650.737.9303 should you require any additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Provisional President Histodc Old Town Homeowners & Renters Assoc. Attachment: Randolph Avenue Petition We the undersigned residents of Randolph Avenue and surrounding area would like to herein voice our support for planned sound wall on the south side of Sister Cities Blvd. One of the concerns we have as homeowners is who will perform the necessary maintenance and upkeep of this sound wall. As our street is heavily impacted by the noise of Sister Cities Blvd. we believe a sound wall is absolutely necessary. Name ~ "' Address We the undersigned residents of Randolph Avenue and surrounding area would like to herein voice our support for planned sound wall on the south side of Sister Cities Blvd. One of the concems we have as homeowners is who will perform the necessary maintenance and upkeep of this sound wall. As our street is heavily impacted by the noise of ~ister Cities Blvd. we believe a sound wall is absolutely necessary. We the undersigned .residents of Randolph AVenue and surrounding area would like to herein voice our support for planned sound wall on the south side of Sister Ci~ies Blvd. One of the concerns we have as homeowners is who will perform the necessary maintenance and upkeep of this sound wall. As our street is heavily impacted by the noise of Sister Cities Blvd. we believe a sound wall is absolutely necessary. 114 Address We the undersigned residents of Randolph Avenue and surrounding area would like to herein voice our support for planned sound wall on the south side of Sister Cities Blvd. One of the concerns we have as homeowners is who will perform the necessary maintenance and upkeep of this sound wall. As our street is heavily impacted by the noise of Sister Cities Blvd. we believe a sound wall is absolutely necessary. Name Address HISTORIC OLD TOWN HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS ASSOC. (HOTHRA) SSF COMMUNITY MEETING MARCH 19, 2002 TERRABAY REC. CENTER 7:00 PM - 8:30 ATTENDEE SIGN-IN SHEET PM NAME ADDRESS PHONE # EMAIL ADDRESS PAGE I HISTORIC OLD TOWN HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS ASSOC. (HOTHRA) SSF COMMUNITY MEETING MARCH 19, 2002 TERRABAY REC. CENTER 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM ATTENDEE SIGN-IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS PHONE # EMAIL ADDRESS PAGE 2 PARADISE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2002 ADDRESS Charles M Salter A S S 0 C Consultants in Acoustics & Audio/Visual System Design 130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454 cmsalter@ cmsalter.com www.cmsalter.corn 25 January 2002 Allison Wollman, Consulting Planner City of South San Francisco City Hall 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 via fax: 650.829.6639 Charles M Salter, PE David R Schwind, FAES Anthony P Nash. PE Eva Duesler Thomas A Schindler. PE Alan T Rosen John C Freytag, PE Harold S Goldberg, PE Kenneth W Graven. PE Timothy M Der Eric L Broadhurst PE Michael D Toy, PE Thomas J Corbett Durand R Begault, Ph.D Robert B Skye Ross A Jerozal Philip N Sanders Jason R Duty Cristina L Miyar Julie A Malork Robert P Alvarado Joey G D'Angelo Brian Brustad Brenda R Yee Eric A Yee Timothy C McLain Troy Gimbel Joshua M Roper Kevin M Powe[I Christopher A Peltier Claudia Kraehe Jessica Johnston Pamela M Void Kevin Frye Marion G Miles Marva D Noordzee Rayko Kurosaki Subject: Terrabay/Paradise Valley - Supplemental Noise Assessment CSA Project No: 01-0052 Ms. Wollman, This report presents the results of the Terrabay/Paradise Valley noise assessment conducted in March 2001. Summary and Conclusion The two primary goals of this assessment were 1) to determine how a noise barrier erected along the southern side of Sister Cities Boulevard would effect the noise environment in Paradise Valley, the residential neighborhood to the south, and 2) to compare the noise levels in this neighborhood: both with and without the noise barrier, with respect to relevant State codes. Our measurements and analyses show that a noise barrier along the western 650 feet of Sister Cities Boulevard would be marginally effective at mitigating noise exposure. However, continuing the noise barrier along the eastern portion of Sister Cities Boulevard would be less effective at mitigating traffic noise due to the increased noise exposure from Bayshore Boulevard, Highway 101, eventually the Oyster Point Interchange and aircraft activity that dominates the noise environment in this area. The effectiveness of a noise barrier along the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard depends upon 1) the noise contribution of the Boulevard relative to other local noise sources, and 2) the degree to which it would break the sightline from Sister Cities traffic to local residences. Those residences closest to the Bayshore Freeway are dominated by freeway Allison Wollman Paradise Valley - Supplemental Noise Assessment Page 2 noise and would therefore realize minimal benefit from reduction of Sister Cities Boulevard traffic noise. Residences with backyards well below Sister Cities Boulevard are afforded significant noise reduction from the natural terrain barrier, and would therefore realize minimal additional noise reduction from an additional noise barrier. However, residences more distant from the Bayshore Freeway and with a smaller embankment to Sister Cities Boulevard would benefit more substantially from this type of noise barrier. Project Overview Terrabay is located on the southeastern slopes of San Bruno Mountain, north of the City of South San Francisco and west of Highway 101. Our assessment focuses on the noise environment for two Terrabay locations. Terrabay Woods is located to the west of Highway 101 and north of Sister Cities Boulevard. Terrabay Duplexes, east of Terrabay Woods, is bounded by Highway 101 and Sister Cities Boulevard. Major noise sources include vehicular traffic on Highway 101, traffic on Sister Cities Boulevard, aircraft activity from San Francisco International Airport. Minor noise sources include Highway 280, E1 Camino Real and the Southern Pacific railroad corridor and eventually the Oyster Point Interchange. Background Following is a summary of relevant documents utilized in the preparation of this assessment. 1998 Draft Supplemental EIR for Terrabay II and Terrabay III: This report indicates that noise levels in backyards of homes proposed adjacent to and overlooking the Sister Cities Boulevard-Hillside Boulevard corridor and Sister Cities Boulevard-Oyster Point Boulevard intersections shall be mitigated with a six-foot high, airtight, minimum three pounds per square foot noise barrier. 1999 Sister Cities Boulevard Extension Noise Barrier Analysis, Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.: This report focuses on the height and length required for a noise barrier along the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard. An eight-foot high noise barrier is described as providing at least five decibels reduction in noise levels for residential land uses adjacent the roadway meeting current City standards for noise exposure. To reduce noise levels to 1982 levels, a 12-foot high noise barrier would be necessary along the western portion of Sister Cities Boulevard. Along the eastern portion of Sister Cities Boulevard, an eight-foot high noise barrier will result in noise levels that meet current City standards for noise exposure. Noise contributions from Bayshore Boulevard and Highway 101 complicate the noise environment and likely prevent the possibility of reducing the noise exposure to 1982 levels. Allison Wollman Paradise Valley - Supplemental Noise Assessment Page 3 Criteria The City of South San Francisco has adopted guidelines for exterior noise exposure levels. The suggested guidelines are that residential development with anticipated outdoor activities, the annual exterior CNEL should not exceed 68 dB of which up to 65 dB may be contributed by aircraft and aircraft engine noise, with the exception that the nighttime hourly Leq should not exceed 55 dB. Measurement Program On Friday, March 2, 2001, we visited the project neighborhood and conducted short-term measurements on tripods, five feet above ground at five locations along Randolph Avenue. See Figure 1, Noise Monitoring Locations. Additionally, at each location we observed whether line of sight exists to Sister Cities Boulevard. The measurements were taken using Larson-Davis 700 sound level meters calibrated to 94 dB at 1000 Hertz using a Bruel & Kjaer Type 4230 calibrator. In the field, the data are received and stored digitally in the sound level meters. This data is then downloaded into our laboratory computers and transferred into the appropriate format for further analysis and our reports. Measurement Locations Location A Location A is at Chapman and Randolph Avenue. Location B Location B is at Green and Randolph Avenue. Location C Location C is at Madrone and Randolph Avenue. Location D Location D is at Gardiner and Randolph Avenue. Location E Location E is halfway between Gardiner and Bayshore Boulevard on Randolph Avenue. Allison Wollman Paradise Valley - Supplemental Noise Assessment Page 4 Table A shows the various noise contributions for the four major noise sources at five measurement locations, and the total noise exposure, with and without the 8-foot noise barrier. The noise barrier is effective only for noise from Sister Cities Boulevard; the barrier is ineffective for distant Highway 101 noise, for aircraft flyovers and for distant Oyster Point traffic noise. The barrier is most effective for Sister Cities traffic at the westernmost locations where the topography allows for the most path length difference from noise source to noise receiver. The barrier becomes totally ineffective at easternmost Location E. The total noise exposure is the logarithmic sum of the noise contributions, in decibels, from the four noise sources. For example, the existing (i.e., no barrier wall) noise exposure at Location A is the sum of the exposures from Highway 101, Sister Cities Boulevard, aircraft flyovers and Oyster Point (46 dB, 63 dB, 58 dB and 35 dB respectively) producing a total noise exposure of 64 dB. The Location A total with the barrier wall is 59 dB, a noticeable 5-dB improvement (the maximum for any location). This improvement arises from the 1 O-dB reduction in noise from Sister Cities Boulevard (from 63 dB to 53 dB); the other noise contributions are unaffected by the noise barrier. Table A CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) Noise Exposure in decibels (dB) Location A Location B Location C Location D Location E Noise W/8' W/8' W/8' W/8' W/8' Source Exist. wall Exist. wall Exist. wall Exist. wall Exist. wall Highway 46 46 47 47 49 49 50 51 53 54 101. Sister 63 53 59 51 56 50 54 50 56 56 Cities Blvd Aircraft Flyovers~ (CNEL) 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 Oyster 35 35 36 36 38 38 39 40 42 43 Pomt Total 64 59 62 59 60 59 60 59 61 61 1 Aircraft noise exposure for the existing condition was taken directly from the latest available "Quarterly Report" (for the quarter ending September 30, 2000) prepared by San Francisco International Airport in compliance with Caltrans Department of Aeronautics regulations (CAC Title 21). Allison Wollman Paradise Valley - Supplemental Noise Assessment Page 5 Results and Conclusions Following are specific findings from this investigation: For all locations the CNEL contribution from San Francisco International Airport is a significant part of the total noise environment. This noise exposure will not be mitigated by a noise barrier. · Because the project criterion of the annual exterior maximum of 68 CNEL is not currently exceeded, no mitigation is required. Of the 1400 feet (described in Illingworth & Rodkin's 1999 Sister Cities Boulevard Extension Report) along the south edge of Sister Cities Boulevard leading west from Bayshore Boulevard, we find that a noise barrier would provide a small noise reduction for the westernmost 650 feet. However, the noise barrier is not warranted because the criterion is not exceeded. Please feel free to contact me at any time with questions or for clarifications. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Ju~ie Malo Senior Consultant O l-O0 5 2_JCF_Terrabay Report_JAM View From Sidewalk Traveling West Sound Wall Presentation As-Is 1/29/02 View From Sister Cities Boulevard Sound Wall Presentation With Sound Wall 1/29/02 View From Adjacent Property Line Sound Wall Presentation As-Is 1/29/02 View From Adjacent Property Line Sound Wall Presentation With Sound Wall 1/29/02 View From Sister Cities Boulevard Lookin~ East Sound Wall Presentation As-Is 1/29/02 View From Sister Cities Boulevard Looking East Sound Wall Presentation With Sound Wall 1/29/02