Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-25 e-packet . SPECIAL MEETING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007 7:25 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Co State of California, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco wi Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 25th day of April, 2007, at 7:25 p.m., in the Municipal Building, Community Room, 33 AlTOYO Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose ofthe meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Agenda 4. Closed Session: Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 n property negotiations related to 356 Grand Avenue; Agency Nego Assistant Director Marty Van Duyn 5. Adjournment SPE,CIAL MEETING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007 7:25 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 25th day of April, 2007, at 7 :25 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 AlToyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Closed Session: Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 reai property negotiations related to 356 Grand Avenue; Agency Negotiator: Assistant Director Marty Van Duyn 5. Adjournment AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007 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 refelTed 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 c:aHed, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR Mayor PEDRO GONZALEZ Vice Mayor MARK N. ADDIEGO Councilman JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Proclamation: West Nile Virus and Mosquito and Vector Control Awareness Week, April 23-29,2007 - Recipient: District Trustee Ray Honan · City Permit Process: Chief Building Official Jim Kirkman · Certificate of Achievement to former City Clerk Sylvia Payne; presented by Northern California City Clerks Association Chair Rhonda Basore . Certificate of Recognition: Ashley Gray, San Mateo County Teacher ofthe Year-2007 AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL . Announcements . Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR I. Motion to approve the minutes of April 5, 2007 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of April 25, 2007 3. Motion to approve funding for the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in the to upgrade its information technology system and equipment in the amount of$9503.91 4. Resolution authorizing Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Transportation Development Act Article 3, pedestrian and bicycle funding for FY 2007-08 for "Bikeway Connections and Kiosk", for Centennial Way and committing the necessary non-federal match for the project and stating the assurance of the City of South San Francisco to complete the project 5. Resolution approving a supplemental indenture of trust, and authorizing other related actions regarding the 1987 Magnolia Plaza Apartments financing 6. Resolution approving the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Reauthorization and Joint Powers Agreement REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 25, 2007 PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING 7. Consideration of Modification to Stonegate Estates Planned Unit Development and Design Review allowing exterior changes to several dwelling, adding several new retaining walls, and modifying an above ground tree well at Hillside Avenue and Stonegate Drive, in the R-2-H-P Zone District; Owner/Applicant: Stonegate Home Development ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Consideration of resolution adopting the EIR Addendum for the Blue Line Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station at 500 East Jaime Court; Owner: Richard E. Haskins (P06-0093) COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 25, 2007 PAGE 3 - ~'t1l S&f ~ ~ . ~~\ (0 ("l l>-o r;;1 ~ C') v 0 ~l!!#, Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 25, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Susan Kennedy, Assistant to the City Manager APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, by motion approve $9,503.91 in funding for the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to upgrade their information technology system and equipment. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Attached is a request for $9,503.91 for a new technology system and equipment upgrades. The present system does not allow Chamber staff to operate in an efficient manner hindering their ability to effectively Serve their membership. Quotes were received from ChamberWare and Race Technologies indicating the services and cost for these upgrades. FUNDING - Money is available in the 2006-07 non-departmental budget to cover this request. CONCLUSION Approval of this funding request will allow the Chamber of Commerce to improve its level of service to members and South San Francisco in general. Staff recommends approval of this funding. By: ~~E:lo Assistant to the City Manager AWrov~ ~~f=J . Nagel City Manager Attachment: Funding Request /Quotes Officers Sandra O'Toole, Co-President South San Francisco Conference Center Sara Watson, Co-President First National Bank of N OlihernCalifornia Nico Martin, IS! Vice-President Nico Martin Presents Paul Formosa, Treasurer South San Francisco Scavenger Company South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 213 Linden Avenue South San Francisco, Ca. 94080 650588-1911 FAX 588-1529 E-mail info@ssfchamber.com Michael J. Valencia, Past-President Ross, Hackett, Dowling, Valencia & Walti Board Helyn Dahle Ce11 Genesys Cesar Dominguez Royalty Auto Collision Center Norm Faria See's Candies, Inc. SUSaJl Kennedy City of South San Francisco Debbie Mendes Kaiser Pennanente Kevin Mullin KM2 Communications Barbara Olds South San Francisco Unified School District Mike Pacelli Bay Relations Daniel Richards Haas Industries Maria Martinucd CEO April 10, 2007 Mr. Barry Nagel City Manager City Of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 ~/V'0-:1 DearMr. ,N~ On behalf of the Board of Directors and the membership of the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, please accept this request for funding $9503.91 for much needed information technology system and equipment upgrades. The present system and equipment are outdated and do not allow Chamber staff to operate efficiently. Enclosed are quotes from ChamberWare and Race Technologies in support of the funding request. I appreciate the City of South San Francisco's consideration of this request. These improvements will allow the Chamber to better serve its membership and South San Francisco. If you have any questions or if I can provide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely /i /:JAi.~. /J b~cfiti.--{!-t-1 Maria Martinucci CEO t[)ace 1 (.>("nologies. .nc. ESTIMATE Account Number: Estimate Number. Estimate Date: P.O. Number Representative 69 000531 03/26/2007 PREPARED FOR AUTHORIZATION SSF Chamber of Commerce Attn. Maria Martinucci 213 Linden Ave South San Francisco, CA 94080 US Date of Authorization: For approval, please print and sign estimate, then fax estimate back to 650-246-8901. ESTIMA TE-A T -A-GLANCE TERMS & CONDITIONS Estimate Number: 69 000531 03/26/2007 One year warranty on parts. If defective, exchangeable within 30 days from date of purchase. After 30 days, parts will be repaired under the manufacturer warranty. 100% deposit required before order will be processed. All price estimates are valid for 15 days from date of estimate. installation and configuration hours are estimations only. Due to unforeseen circumstances, actual time spent may be less or more than the hours estimated. Race attempts to provide as accurate a quote as possible. If fewer hours are required, the client will not be billed for the full hours as listed in the estimate. However, if more hours are required, the client will be notified and the additional hours will be itemized separately. Account Number: Estimate Date: EstImate Total: $3763.91 QUESTIONS? For questions or information call 1-650-246-8900 or email us at info@race.com. ESTIMATE DETAIL Description Qty Rate Amount P4 Dual Core 3.4 Ghz Workstation (black) 2 900.00 $1800.00 - Intel Dual Core 3.4 Ghz LGA775 CPU - Intel D945 MotherBoard (AudioNideo/LAN) - DDR2-667 Mhz 512 MB RAM (1 GB) - Western Digital 250GB SATA2 HDD - Sony DVD Burner (Blk) - 1.44 FDD (Blk) -In-Win Mid-Tower Case w/350Watt PS (black) C1- "' Viewsonic 19" Widescreen LCD (black) 250.00 $250.0~ Microsoft Ergonomic Keyboard/Optical Mouse (black) 2 50.00 $100.00 Microsoft Windows XP Pro w/ SP2 and Vista Update 2 200.00 $400.00 Microsoft Office 2003 Pro w/ SP2 2 340.00 $680.00 Symantec Norton AntiVirus 2007 2 45.00 $90.00 Technical Support 2 85.00 $170.00 - Workstation Setup at Location - Network Configuration of Workstation - Network Cable Cleanup Under Desk Sub-Total: $3490.00 Tax: $273.91 TOTAL: $3763.91 ChamberWare Systems 24328 Highlander Rd West Hills CA 91307 818-999-0700 INVOICE 5339 Date 03/19/2007 Account Number: 2372 DateDue: 03/19/2007 Amount Due: $5490.00 Sold To: Maria Martinucci South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 213 Linden Ave South San Francisco CA 94080 Quantity 1 1 1 Item Custom data managment software 3 user version Web-Site Generator Add-On Data conversion services from previous system Price $3995.00 $995.00 $500.00 Total $3995.00 $995.00 $500.00 Maria, thanks for purchasing Visual ChamberWare. For use only at the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Support is mandatory for two years beginning in six months, at the then current rate. Currently support is $300.00 per year. Data conversion isfrom WebLink data, Web Generator is OptionaL We lookforward to working with you. Please sign for the Chamber and return this copy: X Date: Thanks for your support and for purchasing ChamberWare. Please call if you have any questions. Invoice Total: Balance Due: $5490.00 $5490.00 Page I of I Make checks payable to ChamberWare Systems 24328 Highlander Rd -- West Hills CA 91307 -- 818-999-0700 4/1 0/2007 ~'t\\ S&f S ~ . ~~ o ('l. >-0 ~ t=. C') v 0 '<lIFO"~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 4 DATE: April 25, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sharon Ranals, Director of Recreation and Community Services SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROJECT FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 FOR "BIKEWAY CONNECTIONS AND KIOSK" FOR CENTENNIAL WAY, AND COMMITTING THE NECESSARY NON- FEDERAL MATCH FOR THE PROJECT AND STATING THE ASSURANCE OF THE CITY 0F SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for $25,738 to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Funding for Fiscal Year 2007/08 for "Bikeway Connections and Kiosk" for Centennial Way, and committing the necessary non-federal match for the project and stating the assurance of the City of South San Francisco to complete the project. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: In November of2006 the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) announced a call for applications for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Approximately $1.36 million was available during that cycle of funding for San Mateo County. Proj ect applications were to be ranked by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BP AC) of C/CAG, serving as the administrator for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). C/CAG "pre-qualifies" projects for funding. Technically an application is then submitted to MTC; hence the wording in the title and resolution of this report refelTing to application for the funds. The project has been approved; MTC requires the specific language in the attached resolution. As the City Council is aware, the city has successfully submitted a number of grant applications with a strategy of securing sufficient funding for construction of Centennial Way. When this round of funding was announced, staff inquired about applying for funding for the local "match" that we have been required to commit for past grant awards. Staffwas advised that the MTC considers Centennial Way fully funded, hence we were not eligible to apply for more funding for the same project for which funds Staff Report Subject: Resolution Authorizing Filing of Application to MTC for TDA Funds April 25, 2007 Page 2 have previously been awarded. We were also informed that an application toward maintenance of the future linear park would not be highly ranked. However, we were permitted to apply for funding for project enhancements. The city retained Callander Associates to work with Recreation Department staff to submit an application for additional "bikeway connections" to paint bicycle lanes on both sides of Orange Avenue between Tennis Drive and Memorial Drive, and an additional kiosk for Centennial Way at the southern end near Tanforan. The total cost of these two enhancements is estimated at $38,608. Because the source ofthe funding is federal, a local match of at least 11.5% is required. However, a greater match is favorably considered by the scoring committee as a demonstration ofthe city's commitment to the project, and our initiative in securing additional funds. This application used a match of 50%, or $12,870. A total of 20 project applications were received in response to the call for projects, with a total of approximately $2.4 million in requests from eight (8) jurisdictions. South San Francisco's Bikeway Connections and Kiosk was ranked as #4 by the BP AC Committee, and approved for $25,738 in funding. The city recently received an E-76 - authorization from Caltrans Local Assistance to proceed. Phase I, Tanforan to Orange Avenue, has been advertised, with bids to be opened on May 8, 2007. Given the requirement that plans and specifications be reviewed by Caltrans, construction of the bike lanes and additional kiosk may need to be included in Phase II. FUNDING: The total projected cost of the 2.85 mile Centennial Way is estimated at $6.5 million (as estimated in 2003). To date $4,043,855 in grant funds have been secured for the Linear Park Master Plan, Orange Avenue intersection, Spruce intersection, Phase I (San Bruno BART Station to Orange), and Phase II (Orange Avenue to Chestnut). The city will continue to submit applications for funding for which the Centennial Way is eligible. CONCLUSION: If approved, this action will authorize the City Manager to accept $25,738 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission from Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Funding for "Bikeway Connections and Kiosk" for Centennial Way; commit the necessary non-federal match for the project; and commit the city to complete the project as described in the application, and to encumber the funds before June 30 ofthe fiscal year that the project is included in MTC's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), in this case 2007/08. Staff Report Subject: Resolution Authorizing Filing of Application to MTC for TDA Funds April 25, 2007 Page 3 By: ~P1~ Sharon Ranals Director of Recreation and Community Services APProv~ ' rc;;::J M. Nagel City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROJECT FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 FOR "BIKEWAY CONNECTIONS AND KIOSK" FOR CENTENNIAL WAY, AND COMMITTING THE NECESSARY NON-FEDERAL MATCH FOR THE PROJECT AND STATING THE ASSURANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding ofprojects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised, entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects," which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of "TDA Article 3" funding; and WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation ofTDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby declares it is eligible to request an allocation ofTDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of South San Francisco does hereby declare that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of South San Francisco to calTY out the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of South San Francisco attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments of San Mateo County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 25th date of April 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Sharma Ochoa Interim City Clerk Resolution No. Attachment A Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2007/08 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Proiect Funding Findings Page I of I I. That the City of South San Francisco is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of South San Francisco legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in "Attachment B" of this resolution. 2. That the City of South San Francisco has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B. 3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s). 4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested. 5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). 6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion ofthe project(s). 7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or design engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of South San Francisco within the prior five fiscal years. 8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.). 9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a "Class I Bikeway," meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual. 10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are ready to commence implementation during the fiscal year of the requested allocation. II. That the City of South San Francisco agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public. RESOLUTION NO. Attachment B Page 1 of 6 C/CAG BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMMITTEE TDA ARTICLE 3 FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 PROGRAM APPLICA rlON AGENCY: South San Francisco Park, Recreation, and Maintenance Services Department FUNDS REQUESTED: $ 25,738 PROJECT DESCRIPTION / OBJECTIVE: The BART SFO Extension project of 2003 connected the Cities of Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae and the San Francisco International Airport to the regional BART train system. BART set the tracks underground within the City limits of South San" Francisco, allowing for the development of a 3+ mile Class1 bikeway and linear park, along the vacated land above the BART tunnels, now officially called Centennial Way. This bikeway and linear park will connect the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART train stations, effectively linking schools, retail and recreational areas with these major transportation hubs. The goal of this phase of the project is to better identify trail connections and points of interest as well as provide safe connections to existing adjacent trails. There are two separate aspects to this phase, but related under the same goal. The first is a new informational kiosk at the Huntington Avenue trail head plaza. The kiosk's map would provide essential information regarding Centennial Way, trail connections, points of interest, and other information to those coming from the adjacent BART station to enhance the trail user's experience. The second aspect would be new Class 2 bike lanes on Orange Avenue from Memorial Drive to Tennis Drive. This is an extremely important project to provide a safe bike lane connecting Centennial Way with the existing Sister Cities Park (Class 1 trail) and Orange Memorial Park. It will also provide much needed traffic calming to the area by reducing the traffic lanes. I. PROJECT SCREENING a. CAL TRANS Standards Explain how the project meets CAL TRANS Standards. All applicable Caltrans bikeway design standards will be met including Class 1 and Class 2 bike trail/lane standards. b. CEQA approval? Yes ~ No 0 Page i of 6 Date of approval Notice of Exemption - November 19, 2004 Note: CEQA document must be submitted with the application. II. STATE OF READINESS a. Make sure that the project proposal is complete and contains all required documentation. The more complete the application will result in a higher project score. If required, Right-of-way Cert. completed? Yes [g] No D N/A D Yes [g] No D b. Right-of-Way certification required? Comments: The bike lanes on Orange Avenue are within City R.O.W. The kiosk will be located on BART property. The City and BART have completed a 30 year encroachment permit for Centennial Way including where the kiosk will be located. c. Permits/Agreements approved? Yes [g] No D N/A D List all permits and/or agreements approved/obtained to date: r-----.--.------ --1 I I ! Document ! Date approved/ obtained 1----.---.--.--------------.------ ,.-----------..-., I Memorandum of Understanding and Permit to Enter I May 24, 2006 I ~-_--------_.-_-._-------.-----.---I___ -.--.....--.----__-.--1 I I I I. I i ~=--===-=--=l===~ ; I i I I i \_.__.____.____.__._._____.._..________.__.__._....___.._.______.._______._._______....L_______..____________...___.._.__..........._.1 Comments: d. Comment on the status of design of the project, and indicate the percentage of design completed. The City completed an extensive community outreach and master planning process from which the City's preferred bikeway alignment was developed as well as other design features. Design and construction funding has since been secured for the majority of the trail from Huntington Avenue to Lawndale Avenue. Construction documents have been completed for the segment from Huntington Avenue to Orange Avenue and construction is anticipated in the Summer of '07. Construction for the final phases are expected by Summer of '08. Page 2 of 6 Construction details have been prepared for the kiosk. An identical kiosk has already been constructed at Orange Avenue (see pictures). Construction documents would need to be prepared for the bike lanes. But it is anticipated that the project could be ready for bid within 3 weeks after funding approval. III. COMMUNITY SUPPORT a. Listed as "priority project" in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan or a recommended pedestrian plan. Yes ~ No D Plan: These improvements are part of the greater Colma to Millbrae Bikeway Project listed in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan on page 56 and recommended as a top recommended project in the executive summary. Page: Page 56 and summary. b. Local approval by bicycle/pedestrian (BPAC) organization? Yes ~ No D Other organized groups with demonstrated knowledge of bicycle and pedestrian needs? (examples: clubs, school committees, citizen coalition, combined citizens/public BPAC, etc) Yes D No D Comment on level of support. Attach approval documentation and show composition of relevant committee. (examples: letters, meeting minutes, ete) The SSF Bicycle Advisory Committee, comprised of members of the Planning and Engineering Departments, reviewed and approved the inclusion of the SFO BART Linear Park in the City's 1999 General Plan Update, and reviewed and approved the kiosk and bike lane improvements on October 2, 2006. c. Funds requested: Local match to be provided: $ 25,738 $ 12,870 Local match percentage = Local match provided Funds requested = = 50% IV. MEETS PROGRAM OBJECTIVES a. Does the project eliminate or mitigate the effects from an identified problem? . Yes IZI No D Explain: Page 3 of 6 The information kiosk will provide invaluable information on the extensive non- motorized trail system within the City as well as key destinations and points of interest. These maps will encourage usership by highlighting transportation alternatives and illustrating the connectivity of the system. It is important that a kiosk be located at Huntington Avenue since it is anticipated that many BART users will be utilizing the trail and would benefit from such signage. With the construction of the first phase of Centennial Way anticipated in the Summer of '07 it will be important to provide safe access to the trail, and other existing trails in the area. The construction of class 2 bike lanes on Orange Avenue will provide a safe connection for bicyclists from the Centennial Way to the existing Class 1 trail at Sister Cities Park as well as to Orange Memorial Park. The lanes will also effectively narrow the extraordinarily wide travel lanes on Orange Avenue and are expected to provide much needed traffic calming to this busy area. b. Bicycle and Pedestrian: 1. Does the project provide access to bicycle facilities in high use activity centers? Yes l23J No 0 2. Does the project provide access to pedestrian facilities in high use activity centers? Yes l23J No 0 Explain: The Orange Avenue bike lanes will greatly enhance access to the greater Centennial Way and Sister Cities Park. Both provide bicycle and pedestrian access to schools, retail, residential and recreational areas of South San Francisco to the BART regional train system. The Orange Avenue bike lines are also critical to providing much needed traffic calming in the area. The kiosk will improve access to the overall City non-motorized transportation system by highlighting routes, trails, connections, destinations, etc. c. Is commute use improved by the project? Yes lZl No 0 Explain: When the BART bikeway is completed, it will successfully link commuters and communities with the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Mil/brae BART stations through a continuous non-motorized transportation route for bicyclists and pedestrians. The safer and more direct that route is will increase commuter use. The proposed bike lanes and kiosk will greatly enhance access and education of this system. d. What is the relationship of the project to more significant bicycle or pedestrian routes? Explain: The Orange Avenue bil<e lanes will connect to the existing Class 1 bike lane. within the Sister Cities Park (extending from Orange Avenue to Spruce Avenue) and will connect to the 3 mile long Centennial Way bike trail. Centennial Way will Page 4 of 6 also eventually link to the BART bikeway linking commuters and communities to the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae BART stations through a continuous non-motorized transportation route for bicyclists and pedestrians. The goal of the kiosk will be to highlight these connections to educate the public and increase usership. e. The project is consistent with or included in the following: (Attach copy of documentation for item Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 4 as appropriate) 1. County or City facilities plan: Yes (g] No D 2. Circulation element of general plan: Yes ~ No D 3. C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan: Yes [gJ No D 4. Pedestrian Plan equal to "e.3" above: Yes (g] No D Plan: City of South San Francisco Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Update Page: Page 23 f. Comment on the level of local support: The Centennial Way master plan, which included alignment review of the BART bikeway and the SSF Linear Park component, was. developed in large part through a series of well attended community workshops. Participants in these workshops have overwhelmingly supported the project and upgrades at critical intersections. As a result, the master plan was unanimously approved in March 2003. V. SAFETY How is safety improved because of the project? Explain: There are currently no bike lanes along Orange Avenue connecting Centennial Way with Sister Cities Park and Orange Park. Cars on the street, due in part to the wide travel lanes, can travel at high rates of speed within this heavily used area. The bike lanes will designate a bicycle only lane on the street, providing a safer connection for bicyclists while at the same time reducing travel lane width providing much needed traffic calming to the area. VI. OTH ER ITEM (These Items are for information ONL Y and will not be "scored" but may be used as a tiebreaker) a. Can the project be partially funded? Yes 0 No ~ If "Yes", how much? Explain: Page 5 of 6 b. Can the project be divided into phases? Yes D No I2:Q If "Yes", describe the different phases and cost associated with each phase. VII. PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION Primary Contact Person: Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer Telephone Number: (650) 829-6663 Email address:dennis.chuck@ssf.net Secondary Contact Person: Sharon Ranals, Director of Recreation Telephone Number: (650) 829-3800 Email address:sharon.ranals@ssf.net Page 6 of 6 - ~~\\ s&\, 5 ~ . ~~\ (0 n i>< ..... ~ ~ v c ~lJFO.P Staff Re120rt AGENDA ITEM # 5 DATE: April 25, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Steele, Director of Finance SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST REGARDING THE 1987 MAGNOLIA APARTMENTS FINANCING RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution, which authorizes a supplemental indenture of trust and related actions regarding the 1987 Magnolia Plaza Apartments financing. This is an administrative action being recommended to modernize the bond documents that will have no impact on the City, its finances, or its credit rating. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: In May 1987, the City provided for the issuance of $6,100,000 City of South San Francisco Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds 1987 Series A (the "Bonds"). The City lent the proceeds to the Magnolia Plaza Associates (the "Developer"), who was working in collaboration with Bridge Housing in order to construct Magnolia Plaza Apartments (the "Project"). The Project consists of approximately 125 unit multifamily apartments located at Magnolia and Grand Avenues in South San Francisco. The Bonds were issued as conduit limited obligation revenue bonds, payable only from amounts made available by or on behalf of the Developer. The City has no liability with respect to the Bonds. In order to enhance the marketability of the Bonds, the Developer, at the time the Bonds were issued, caused Wells Fargo Bank, National Association ("Wells Fargo"), to deliver a direct- pay letter of credit (the "Letter of Credit") securing the payment of the principal and purchase price of, and interest on, the Bonds. Although the original Letter of Credit expired in 1994, Wells Fargo has extended it several times, and it has cUlTently been extended until May 20, 2012. The Bonds were issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust dated as of May 1, 1987 (the "Indenture"), between the City and the trustee. The Indenture sets forth the terms and conditions of the Bonds, including the terms and conditions of early redemption of the Bonds. In the event of redemption of the Bonds, the bond owners are paid by a draw on the Letter of Credit. Once the bond owners are paid, the Bonds cease to be outstanding, and the Developer has an immediate reimbursement obligation to Wells Fargo for the full amount of the draw on the Letter Staff Report Subject: Resolution Approving a Supplemental Indenture of Trust Regarding the 1987 Magnolia Apartments Financing Page 2 of 2 of Credit. These are standard provisions for these types of financings, and the Indenture, as written, reflected industry standards at the time the Bonds were issued. In certain instances (such as the expiration of the Letter of Credit), even though the Indenture requires a mandatory redemption of the Bonds, Wells Fargo might be willing to, in effect, keep the Bonds "alive" by using a draw on the Letter of Credit to purchase the Bonds, rather than redeem them. In such event, Wells Fargo would own the Bonds, and the Developer would have time to find a new letter of credit bank to replace Wells Fargo. Upon the delivery of a Letter of Credit by the new letter of credit bank, the Bonds would be remarketed to investors, and Wells Fargo would no longer hold the Bonds. These types of arrangements are now standard in bond indentures. The Indenture currently does not contain the necessary provisions allowing a "purchase in lieu of redemption" as described above. Wells Fargo, with input from Jones Hall, the City's bond counsel, and review by the City Attorney's office, has prepared a First Supplemental Indenture of Trust (the "First Supplement") for consideration by the City Council. The sole purpose of the First Supplement is to add the "purchase in lieu of redemption" provisions. Wells Fargo is requesting this amendment to the indenture, and has the concurrence of the Developer. This amendment is consistent with how bond indentures are now written, and will not adversely affect the City, its finances, or its credit. The Bonds are scheduled to mature on May 1,2017. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City from adopting this resolution. The legal fees for making the attached changes are being paid by the Developer. CONCLUSION: Adopting the attached resolution will facilitate more advantageous financial flexibility to Wells Fargo Bank at no cost and no risk to the City, and with the concurrence of the Developer. Prepared by: C~ Jim . teele Finance Director Approved b~ c (~) M. Nagel . City Manager Attachments: Resolution First Supplemental Indenture of Trust RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY THEREOF, AND OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE MAGNOLIA PLAZA APARTMENTS WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (the "City") has issued its Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Revenue Bonds 1987 Series A (Magnolia Plaza Apartments Project), in the aggregate principal amount of $6,100,000 (the "Bonds") pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 1987 (the "Indenture"), by and between the City and Seattle-First National Bank, as succeeded by U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"); and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds were used by the City to fund a loan to provide financing with respect to a multifamily rental housing development located in the City of South San Francisco and owned by South San Francisco Magnolia Plaza Associates, A California Limited Partnership (the "Borrower"); and WHEREAS, the Bonds are secured by a letter of credit (the "Letter of Credit") issued by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Letter of Credit Bank"); and WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Letter of Credit Bank have requested that the Indenture be amended to allow for the purchase of Bonds by the Letter of Credit Bank in lieu of the redemption of Bonds pursuant to the Indenture; and WHEREAS, to provide for the purchase of Bonds in lieu of redemption, the City has been requested to execute a supplement to the Indenture; and WHEREAS, all actions to be taken or consents to be given prior to the execution and delivery of a supplement to the Indenture, shall be taken or given as required by the Indenture prior to the effective date thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of South San Francisco as follows; SECTION 1. The First Supplemental Indenture of Trust (the "Supplemental Indenture") between the City and u.s. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), in the form on file with the City Clerk is hereby approved. The City Manager and the Assistant City Manager (the "Designated Officers") are, and each of them acting alone, hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver the Supplemental Indenture, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to attest the signature of the Designated Officer, in substantially said form, with such additions thereto or changes therein as are recommended or approved by the Designated Officers upon consultation with bond counsel to the City, the approval of such additions or changes to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery by the City of the Supplemental Indenture. SECTION 2. The Designated Officers and any and all other officials of the City or such other person designated by the City are hereby directed, for and on behalf of the City, to do any and all things and take any and all actions, which they, or any of them on the advice of bond counsel to the City, may deem necessary or advisable in order to effect the provisions of the Supplemental Indenture, as provided W02- WEST:5MMLl \400209777.8 -1- herein, and to execute and deliver any and all other documents, which they, or any of them, on the advice of bond counsel to the City, may deem necessary or advisable in connection with the execution of the Supplemental Indenture. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: Mayor * * * * * 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 , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk W02- WEST:5MMLl \400209777 .8 -2- FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST by and between CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, as Issuer and U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Successor Trustee Dated as of ,2007 Relating to: $6,100,000 City of South San Francisco Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds 1987 Series A (Magnolia Plaza Apartments Project) W02- WEST:5MMLl \400201990.2 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST THIS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST (the "First Supplemental Indenture"), dated as of February _, 2007, by and between the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, duly created and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (the "Issuer"), and U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States of America (the "Trustee"), the successor in interest to Seattle-First National Bank, supplements and amends the Indenture of Trust, dated as of May I, 1987 by and between the Issuer and the Trustee (the "Indenture"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Indenture, the Issuer has issued its Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds 1987 Series A (Magnolia Plaza Apartments Project) (the "Bonds "); and WHEREAS, the Issuer is desirous of amending the Indenture to provide for the right of Bank to purchase the Bonds in lieu of redemption. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree to amend the Indenture as follows: Section I. Recitals. The Issuer acknowledges that each of the above recitals is true and correct. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Indenture. Section 2. Amendments. Article VI of the Indenture is hereby amended by adding at the end the following: Section 607. Purchase of Bonds in Lieu of Redemption. If the Bonds are called for redemption in whole or in part, the Bonds called for redemption may be purchased in lieu of redemption in accordance with this Section. (a) Purchase in Lieu of Redemption. Purchase in lieu of redemption shall be available for all of the Bonds called for redemption or for such lesser portion of such Bonds as constitute authorized denominations. The Bank or the Developer with the written consent of the Bank may direct the Trustee to purchase all or such lesser portion of the Bonds so called for redemption. Any such direction to the Trustee must: (1) be in writing; (2) state either that all of the Bonds called for redemption are to be purchased or, if less than all of the Bonds called for redemption are to be purchased, identify those Bonds to be purchased by maturity date and outstanding principal amount in authorized denominations; and (3) be received by the Trustee no later than 12:00 noon one Business Day prior to the redemption date. W02- WEST:5MMLl \400201990.2 -1- If so directed, the Trustee shall purchase such Bonds on the date which otherwise would be the redemption date. Any of the Bonds called for redemption that are not purchased in lieu of redemption shall be redeemed as otherwise required by this Indenture on the redemption date. (b) Withdrawal of Direction to Purchase. On or prior to the scheduled redemption date, any direction given to the Trustee pursuant to this Section or any consent given by the Bank to such a direction may be withdrawn by written notice to the Trustee. Subject generally to this Indenture, should a direction to purchase or the consent of the Bank be withdrawn, the scheduled redemption of such Bonds shall occur. (c) Purchaser. If the purchase is directed by the Bank, the purchase shall be made for the account of the Bank or its designee. If the purchase is directed by the Developer with the consent of Bank, the purchase shall be made for the account of the Developer or its designee. (d) Purchase Price. The purchase price of the Bonds shall be equal to the outstanding principal of, accrued and unpaid interest on and the redemption premium, if any, which would have been payable on such Bonds on the redemption date for such redemption. To pay the purchase price of such Bonds, the Trustee shall use such funds, if any, in the Redemption Account or otherwise that the Trustee would have used to pay the outstanding principal of, accrued and unpaid interest on and the redemption premium, if any, that would have been payable on the redemption of such Bonds on the redemption date. Otherwise, the Trustee shall pay the purchase price only from: (i) moneys derived from drawings under the Letter of Credit; (ii) proceeds from the sale of the Bonds; (iii) any other amounts for which the Trustee has received, at the time such amounts are deposited with the Trustee, an opinion of nationally recognized counsel experienced in bankruptcy matters, to the effect that the use of such moneys to make payments on the Bonds would not be voidable as preferential payments or recoverable under the United States Bankruptcy Code should the Issuer, the Developer, any general partner or a general partner of a general partner or guarantor of the Developer become a debtor in proceedings commenced thereunder; or (iv) investment income derived from the investment of the moneys described in clause (i), (ii) or (iii) (the "Available Amounts"). The Trustee shall not purchase the Bonds pursuant to this Section if by no later than the redemption date, sufficient moneys have not been deposited with the Trustee, or such moneys are deposited, but are not available. (e) No Notice to Bondholders. No notice of the purchase in lieu of redemption shall be required to be given to the Bondholders (other than the notice of redemption otherwise required under this Indenture). Section 3. Execution in Several Counterparts. This First Supplemental Indenture may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. W02- WEST:5MMLl \400201990.2 -2- Section 4. Governing Law. This First Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in such State. Section 5. Incorporation By Reference. The Issuer and the Trustee agree that the amendments contained in this First Supplemental Indenture shall be incorporated by this reference thereto into the Indenture, which Indenture as so amended shall produce a conformed amended and restated Indenture which collectively shall serve as the sole operative Indenture in connection with the Bonds. Section 6. Ratification and Reaffirmation of Indenture. Except as hereby expressly amended, the Indenture shall remain in full, force and effect; and the Indenture, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed. Section 7. Interpretation. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of Indenture and this First Supplemental Indenture, the provisions of this First Supplemental Indenture shall control. Any reference in this First Supplemental Indenture to a Section, without further qualification (such as, by way of example, "of this First Supplemental Indenture") shall mean the specified section of the Indenture as amended and supplemented by this First Supplemental Indenture. All references to the Indenture in the Loan Agreement, the Reimbursement Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement (each as defined in the Indenture) or any other document executed in connection with any of the foregoing shall refer to the Indenture as amended by this First Supplemental Indenture. Section 8. Binding Effect. This First Supplemental Indenture shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Issuer, the Trustee, the owners of the Bonds art their respective successors and assigns. Section 9. Effective Date. The provisions of this First Supplemental Indenture shall become effective upon the execution and delivery hereof by the parties hereto. [Remainder of page left intentionally blank.] W02- WEST:5MMLl \400201990.2 -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO has caused this First Supplemental Indenture to be signed in its name attested by its duly authorized officer, and US. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION has caused this First Supplemental Indenture to be signed in its name, all as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: Name: Title: Attest: By: Secretary U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By: Authorized Officer W02- WEST:5MMLl \40020 1990.2 -4- The foregoing First Supplemental Indenture is hereby consented to: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MAGNOLIA PLAZA ASSOCIATES, a California limited partnership By: BRIDGE PROPERTIES, INC., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, General Partner By: Name: Title: By: ADAMS & GRA YES, a California General Partnership, General Partner By: Richard M. Adams, General Partner WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By: Name: Title: W02-WEST:5MMLl\400201990.2 -5- - ~'t1l s4N ~ ~ . ~'W (~ j) '4llFO,.w Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 6 ...... DATE: TO: FROM: April 25, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Barry M. Nagel, City Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY (C/CAG) AND APPROVING THE RELATED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City to continue its participation in the City/ County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) and approve the Joint Powers Agreement (JP A). BACKGROUND/DISCDSSION: The C/CAG was founded in 1991 and renewed in 1995, 1999, and 2003. The current JPA under which the C/CAG operates is set to expire on 12/1/07. Therefore, it is necessary to review the City's membership in C/CAG and consider reauthorization. All of the cities in San Mateo County ("County") and the County are currently members of C/CAG. The City of South San Francisco approved participation in the C/CAG and the related JP A in 2003. C/CAG Role The role of C/CAG is to: o Provide a forum for all agencies to work together on common issues, including: Transportation NPDES Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Solid Waste Airport Land Use Commission Legislation o Educate and elevate the decision-making of local elected officials and technical professional staff to include and address county-wide concerns in local decisions; Staff Report April 25, 2007 Subject: C/CAG Continued Participation Page - 2 - o Develop a consensus on the common issues of concern to the general public, solutions, and applicable funding recommendations/ priorities; and o Act as Program Manager for Congestion Management Plan (CMA), Transportation funds (State and Federal) and Air Quality funds (AB434fTFCA). C/CAG Performance C/CAG programs are mandated, bring in revenue to San Mateo County, or provide a cost savings through county-wide implementation. See the attached C/CAG Accomplishments/ Analysis/ Programs. Some ofC/CAG's most significant accomplishments include the Congestion Relief Plan, AB 1546 C/CAG DMV Fee (only County in State), Subregional RHNA Process (only subregion in the State) and the Transit Oriented Development Incentive Program. C/CAG has also received numerous County, Regional, State and National awards. The C/CAG FY 06-07 Budget member dues/ fees ($2,490,931) are leveraged 3.9 times for total revenue and 14.3 times for controlled transportation funds. Utilization of two direct staff and contract staff for the remaining tasks has minimized the staffing necessary to meet the program requirements. This staffing approach enables C/CAG to meet the program requirements in a cost-effective manner. Most of the C/CAG programs are mandates that must be performed. It is likely that the cost for the City to perform the mandates provided by C/CAG would be significantly higher than the annual fee of $221,048. Membership in the C/CAG has given the City a voice in programming over $100M in transportation funds. C/CAG Benefits C/CAG participation provides the following benefits to member agencies: o A forum to share ideas and solutions among agencies for common issues; o A vote in the distribution of State and Federal Transportation funds ($70-80M every two years) allocated to San Mateo County; o Support and assistance for agencies in getting and maintaining transportation funds to the City and to San Mateo County; o Cost-effective programs to assist member agencies in meeting mandates; o Active intergovernmental support for San Mateo County and the member agencies in the region; o The provision of additional information to City staff on the system wide transportation impacts of proposed developments such that better local decisions can be made. o Lobbyist support in Sacramento. Staff Report April 25, 2007 Subject: C/CAG Continued Participation Page - 3 - o Proactive advocacy at the State level to preserve City/County revenue and to provide additional funding, e.g., AB 1546. Joint Powers Agreement The proposed JP A is essentially identical to the one adopted by the City in 2003. To assist in your review of the document, changes are shown in bold below and in italics in the agreement. Substantive changes in the proposed JP A include: 1- Section 12. Dates changed to reflect reauthorization: "Effective Date/ Termination Date. This agreement shall be effective on July 1,2007, or upon its execution by the County and by at least eleven (11) cities representing the majority of the population of the County, whichever is later. This agreement shall automatically terminate on December 1,2011, unless renewed in writing by the County and by at least eleven (11) cities containing a majority of the population of the County. Upon such termination, the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 apply." 2- Section 17. Fixed Self-Insured Retention limit: Insurance. The County shall add C/CAG to its existing excess liability insurance coverage and shall maintain such coverage in full force and effect during the life of this agreement. Said excess liability insurance coverage includes a has a $250,000 self-insured retention by the County. Unless the Board of Directors decides otherwise, County shall provide for the defense of any claims or litigation within the amount of the $250,000 self-insured retention. Legal representation by the County will ordinarily be provided by the Office of the County Counsel. Any out-of-pocket expenses or loss, by way of judgment or settlement, arising out of the operation of this agreement, within the limits of the County's $250,000 self-insured retention shall be shared by the parties in accordance with the formula set forth in Section 6. Expenses shall not include salaries or office expenses of any county employees, including any attorneys from the Office of the County Counsel. 3- Section 24. Added to reflect a new legislated program: AB 1546 Transportation! Environmental Vehicle Reltistration Fee Prol!ram. C/CAG shall serve as the overall program manager for the San Mateo County Transportation! Environmental Program which programs up to a $4 motor vehicle fee in accordance with Chapter 2.65 (commencing with Section 65089.11) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code and Section 9250.5 of the Vehicle Code. FISCAL IMPACT The 2007/08 member assessment for the City of South San Francisco is $221,048, which will be included in the non-departmental budget. Staff Report April 25, 2007 Subject: CICAG Continued Participation Page -4- CONCLUSION Adoption of the attached resolution will authorize the continued participation by the City of South San Francisco in C/CAG through December 1,2011. BMN:ips Attachment: 1) Resolution 2) Joint Powers Agreement: Continuing Establishment of the City/County Association of Governments (Revised March 2007) 3) 2005 Annual Report RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AUTHORIZING CONTINUED P ARTICIP A TION IN THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY (C/CAG) AND APPROVAL OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco is currently a member of the City/ County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG); and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco approved and executed the Joint Powers Agreement in 1999, extending its participation in C/CAG for four years; and WHEREAS, the C/CAG has been highly effective and some of its most significant accomplishments include the Countywide Transportation Plan and the Transit Oriented Development Incentive Program; and WHEREAS, the C/CAG has received numerous county, regional, state and national awards for its programs; and WHEREAS, the C/CAG provides programs to address State Mandates in a cost effective manner; and WHEREAS, participation in the C/CAG provides the City of South San Francisco with a voice in the programming of over $60-80 million dollars in transportation funds; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco desires to continue participation in C/CAG; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco desires to execute the Joint Powers Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of South San Francisco is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Joint Powers Agreement for and on behalf of City of South San Francisco to renew membership in the City/County Association of Governments in San Mateo County. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of April 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Continuing Establishment of the City/County Association of Governments THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO (hereinafter referred to as "County") and those cities within the County of San Mateo who become signatories to this agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Cities" or "City" as the context requires), is made in light of the following recitals: A. The County and the Cities have authority to perform a variety of functions in their respective communities and desire to establish a City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) within the County of San Mateo whereby the parties will prepare, review, adopt, monitor and facilitate implementation by the member agencies county-wide state mandated plans as specified in 3(c) below. Local land-use decisions, except as they are affected by state-mandated county-wide plans, will remain solely within the cognizant local jurisdiction. B. The parties are authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power pursuant to Government Code Sections 6500 through 6518. NOW, THEREFORE, the County and the Cities, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Establishment of City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. The parties hereby create an entity to be known as the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (hereinafter referred to as "C/CAG") for the preparation, review, adoption, monitoring and facilitation of implementation by the member agencies of county-wide state mandated plans. C/CAG shall be an entity which is separate from the parties to this agreement and shall be responsible for the administration of this agreement. Except as provided herein, the debts, liabilities, and obligations of C/CAG shall be the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the entity and not the debts, liabilities, and/or obligations of the parties to this agreement. C/CAG shall have the power and is authorized to do any or all of the following: (a) To make and enter contracts; (b) To employ agents and employees; (c) To lease, maintain, manage, acquire, construct or operate any building, works or improvements; (d) To acquire, hold, or dispose of property; (e) To incur debts, liabilities, or obligations; (t) To sue and be sued in its own name; 2. Board of Directors. The Board of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) shall consist of a member of the City Council of each participating City to be selected by that City and one (1) member of the Board of Supervisors to be selected by the Board of Supervisors. Each City Council and the Board of Supervisors may select one (1) alternate member from its body who shall participate when the regular member is absent. In addition, there shall be two (2) non-voting ex-officio members: a representative of the San Mateo County Transit District Board of Directors selected by the Board of Directors and a representative of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority selected by the Authority. Additional Ex-Officio members may be established by Board action in accordance with the special C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 2 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 voting procedures identified in 4 (c). Regular attendance by the designated representative or alternate at the C/CAG Board and Subcommittee meetings shall be encouraged by the C/CAG Board and member agencies. 3. Purposes and Activities. C/CAG is established to fulfill the following purposes operating through the Board of Directors for control, direction, and administration: (a) Plan, organize, and maintain the work of C/CAG and be responsible for its overall operation. (b) Advise City Councils and the Board of Supervisors of all significant activities ofC/CAG. (c) Prepare, review, adopt, monitor and facilitate implementation by the member agencies the following state-mandated county-wide plans: (1) Congestion Management Plan (as the designated Congestion Management Agency including enforcing compliance with the Congestion Management Plan); (2) Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (as the designated Local Task Force); (3) Airport Land Use Plan (as the designated Airport Land Use Commission) ; (4) Hazardous Waste Management Plan; (5) NPDES - Stormwater Management Plan. (d) Perform such additional county-wide planning activities as approved by or directed by two-thirds (2/3) of the members C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 3 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 representing two-thirds (2/3) of the population of the County. Final adoption of any such plans shall only be after the plan has been introduced at a prior meeting held at least twenty-five (25) days earlier. (e) Perform any additional County-Wide activities as set forth in this agreement (Sections 20., 21., 22., and 23.). (t) Utilize and establish advisory subcommittees wherever necessary, including but not limited to: (1) Airport Land Use Committee (2) Congestion Management and Air Quality Committee (3) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Technical Advisory Committee (4) Solid Waste Advisory Committee (Local Task Force) (5) Hazardous Waste Management Plan Advisory Committee (6) Bikeways and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (7) Finance Committee (8) NPDES Committee (9) NPDES Technical Advisory Committee (10) Legislative Committee Subcommittees may be established by Board action in accordance with the special voting procedures identified in 4 (c). Subcommittee membership may include persons who are not members of the Board of Directors, including other elected officials or public members. (g) Adopt By-laws and such other rules of procedure as may be deemed necessary. C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 4 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 The duties, responsibilities or obligations of C/CAG, as set forth in this Agreement, are not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to expand or diminish any legal duties, responsibilities or obligations that any city or county member of C/CAG has, Of may in the future have, under any provision of State or Federal law . Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other provision of this Agreement, C/CAG shall have no authority and/ or obligation to implement or enforce the provisions of any County-wide plan except when C/CAG is functioning as an agency specifically designated by state or federal law as having the authority and/ or obligation to implement or enforce such County-wide plan. 4. Voting Procedures. The parties intend to strive for consensus following fun discussion but in the event consensus cannot be reached the following voting procedures shall be utilized. (a) A quorum shall consist of at least a majority of the voting members and shall be required for all meetings of C/CAG. (b) All decisions and actions shall be by majority vote of those present unless the decision involves the adoption of a county-wide plan or anyone (1) member requests the use of the special votin~ procedures hereinafter set forth. (c) The special voting procedures shall be utilized upon the request of anyone (1) member. Addition of Ex-Officio members to the Board, the establishment of Subcommittees, and the fmal adoption of county-wide plans shall require the special voting procedures. Special voting procedures shall be as follows: for a motion to be successful it must receive the votes of a majority of the C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 5 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 members representing a majority of the population of the County. In determining the population of local governments, the population shall be utilized as set forth in a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 19. 5. Budget. The Board annually shall adopt, by a date C/CAG designates by resolution, an operating budget for C/CAG setting forth anticipated expenses, financing sources and proposed service levels necessary to carry out the purposes of this agreement. C/CAG shall establish its fiscal year by resolution. Immediately after approving the annual budget, the Board shall recommend the budget to the governing bodies of the members for the purpose of securing from each of them contributions and/or appropriations in accordance with each party's obligations as set forth in Section 6 below. It is expressly agreed and understood that the Board has no authority to bind any governing board to make the recommended contribution and/or appropriation and that this decision rests solely with each governing body. Each party shall deposit its monetary contribution to the budget with the C/CAG Treasurer on or before the date C/CAG designates by resolution. 6. Contribution of Parties. In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree that they shall make the following annual contributions towards maintaining the program of C/CAG. Each member's contribution shall be its pro-rata share of the reVenue needed for the annual budget as adopted by the Board of Directors. The pro-rata share of each agency shall be based upon its population as set forth in a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 19. By use of the special voting procedures under special circumstances the C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 6 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 Board of Directors may waive contributions. If a member fails to pay its annual contribution, it shall forfeit its voting rights as provided in Paragraph 10 and there shall be no further recourse against it for nonpayment. 7. Treasurer. The Board of Directors shall select a Treasurer from one of its member entities who shall be the depository and have custody of all the money and property of C/CAG from whatever source. The duties of the C/CAG Treasurer shall include those set forth in the Government Code Section 6500 et seq., Joint Exercise of Powers. 8. Controller. The Board of Directors shall select a Controller from one of its member entities who shall perform the functions of auditor and/or controller for C/CAG. The duties of the C/CAG Controller shall include those set forth in Government Code Section 6500 et seq., Joint Exercise of Powers. 9. Staffing. It is understood that C/CAG may require the support of its own administrative staff. When deemed necessary, the Board of Directors may employ an Executive Director. The Board shall have responsibility for all employment decisions regarding said Executive Director who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall be responsible for the day-to-day administration of C/CAG under the direction of the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall seek advice and assistance from the Administrators' Advisory Committee. The Executive Director shall have the authority to employ administrative staff consistent with the approved budget of C/CAG. C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 7 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 There shall be an Administrators' Advisory Committee. The Committee will be advisory to the C/CAG Board of Directors and Executive Director to assist them to most effectively accomplish the objectives of C/CAG by giving advice on agenda matters, monitoring outcomes of activities, assisting with identifying and allocating resources, and communicating with all members. The Committee members shall be: the City Managers from cities that contract staff to C/CAG, the County Manager, the General Manager of SamTrans, one (1) City Manager appointed by the City Managers' Association, and, the Chair and Vice-Chaires) and Legal Counsel of C/CAG as ex-officio members. Committee Chairs and staff who have items for discussion at the Committee will be invited to participate. The definition and membership of this Committee may be revised by Board action in accordance with the special voting procedures identified in 4 (c). It is understood that C/CAG may employ personnel, utilize existing County, SamTrans or City staff, or retain professional consultants to perform any necessary staff work in meeting its goals and objectives. It is further understood that no County, SamTrans or City staff will be utilized without the consent of the employing agency. 10. Withdrawal. Any party may withdraw from this agreement by filing written notice of intention to do so with the Chair of the governing board by September 30th of each year, or by another date C/CAG designates by resolution. The rights and obligations of such party shall terminate at the end of the first full fiscal year for which the withdrawing party has made its contribution following such notice having been given. The withdrawal of any party from this agreement shall in no way affect the rights and obligations of the remaining parties. If a party withdraws from this agreement, such party shall not be entitled to the return of any funds C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 8 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 contributed to C/CAG nor to the return in cash or in kind of any materials or supplies until termination of this agreement. If a party fails to make its contribution in accordance with Section 6 of this agreement, that agency shall forfeit its voting rights during the period of such non- payment. However, if one of the Cities or the County wishes to rejoin after forfeiting its membership by non-payment of its contribution, it may do so by paying the designated amount. 11. Termination and Disposition of Pro{>ertv. This agreement shall be deemed terminated when the number of Cities participating in this agreement contain less than a majority of the population of the County, or are fewer than eleven (11) in number. Upon termination, equipment and all other assets shall be distributed to the parties hereto in proportion to the contributions of the parties during the life of C/CAG including distribution to parties which may have withdrawn at an earlier date. Upon termination, any surplus money on hand shall be returned to the parties in proportion to the contributions of the parties during the life of C/CAG including distribution to parties which may have withdrawn at an earlier date. 12. Effective DateiTermination Date. This agreement shall be effective on July 1,2007, or upon its execution by the County and by at least eleven (11) cities representing the majority of the population of the County, whichever is later. This agreement shall automatically terminate on December 1, 2011, unless renewed in writing by the County and by at least eleven cities containing a majority of the population of the County. Upon such termination, the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 apply. 13. Meetings. Monthly meetings of the C/CAG Board of Directors shall be held in CICAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 9 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq. The Board of Directors shall establish a regular time and place for the required meetings. In addition, the Board of Directors shall have such other meetings as are deemed necessary. 14. Notice of Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6503.5, C/CAG shall, within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this agreement, cause a notice of the agreement to be prepared and filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. 15. Other Associations. Participation in C/CAG is not intended to preclude member entities from entering into similar agreements with other jurisdictions. 16. Legal Counsel. Unless the Board of Directors determines otherwise, the County Counsel shall serve as legal counsel to C/CAG and provide all routine legal advice and service necessary including attendance at Board of Directors meetings. 17. Insurance. The County shall add C/CAG to its existing excess liability insurance coverage and shall maintain such coverage in full force and effect during the life of this agreement. Said excess liability insurance coverage includes a has a $250,000 self-insured retention by the County. Unless the Board of Directors decides otherwise, County shall provide for the defense of any claims or litigation within the amount of the $250,000 self-insured retention. Legal representation by the County will ordinarily be provided by the Office of the County Counsel. Any out-of-pocket expenses or loss, by way of judgment or settlement, arising C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JP A) 10 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 out of the operation of this agreement, within the limits of the County's $250,000 self-insured retention shall be shared by the parties in accordance with the formula set forth in Section 6. Expenses shall not include salaries or office expenses of any county employees, including any attorneys from the Office of the County Counsel. 18. Amendments. This Joint Powers Agreement may be amended at any time with the agreement of the majority of the members representing a majority of the population of the County, except as provided in 3(d). 19. Adjustment of Population Figures. The Board of Directors shall establish by resolution the population figures to be utilized in determining the population of local governments under this agreement based on the results of the decennial federal census or population figures provided by the State Department of Finance, and may revise the population figures at any time by resolution. 20. Clean Air Vehicle Registration Fee Program. C/CAG shall serve as the overall program manager for the San Mateo County under Health and Safety Code Section 44241 for funds made available by the increase in motor vehicle registration fees that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is authorized to levy under A.B. 434, (1991 Statutes, Chapter 807.) 21. Storm Water Discharge Plan and Permit. The City/County Association of Governments shall assume responsibility for the following activities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (40 CFR 122): C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 11 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 (a) Ratify submission of a county-wide storm water discharge permit application and accept permit on behalf of the County and Cities in the County, as co- permittees. (b) Prepare preliminary draft and fmal draft storm water management plan describing existing activities the County and Cities are conducting to help minimize the discharge of pollutants to storm water, describing new pollution measures that will be undertaken during the initial five year period of the NPDES permit, and containing other matters C/CAG determines are necessary or desirable. (c) Identify and recommend alternatives for implementation of a revenue program. (d) Enter into contracts with the County, the Cities, the County Flood Control District, and other entities to implement the revenue program and the storm water management plan. (e) Perform additional county-wide activities in connection with the NPDES program as set forth in the storm water management plan approved by, or as directed, by the Board of Directors. (t) Provide coordination and overall management of the NPDES program and advice to the County and the Cities on implementation. The County and each City shall be solely responsible for complying with NPDES permit conditions and all federal, state, and local laws and regulations, relating to discharges from the storm sewers in its jurisdiction and under its control. The County and each City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless every other party to this agreement, and its officers and employees, from all claims, suits, actions, fines, penalties, damages, or liability of C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 12 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 every name, kind, and description arising in any way out of the negligent or intentional acts of that County or City in complying or failing to comply with NPDES permit conditions, and all federal, state, and local regulations applicable to that County or City. 22. Service Authority for Abatement of Abandoned Vehicles. C/CAG shall be the service authority for the abatement of abandoned vehicles under Vehicle Code Section 22710. C/CAG shall impose a service fee of one dollar ($1) on vehicles registered to an owner with an address in San Mateo County as authorized by Vehicle Code Sections 9250.7 and 22710. As provided in Vehicle Code Section 2271O(b), C/CAG may contract and undertake any act convenient or necessary to carry out any law relating to its duties as the service authority. 23. Programming State and Federal Transportation Funds. C/CAG acting as the Congestion Management Agency shall be responsible for programming State and Federal Transportation Funds allocated to San Mateo County. These funds include but are not limited to State Transportation Improvement Program, Transportation Equity Act for the 21rst Century, and Transportation Development Act Article 3. 24. AB 1546 Transportation/Environmental Vehicle Registration Fee Program. C/CA G shall serve as the overall program manager for the San Mateo County Transportation! Environmental Program which programs up to a $4 motor vehicle fee in accordance with Chapter 2.65 (commencing with Section 65089.11) to Division 1 ofTitie 7 of the Government Code and Section 9250.5 of the Vehicle Code. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto by their duly authorized representative, C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 13 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 have affixed their hands on this ATTEST: Clerk of the Board ATTEST: Clerk of Town Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council day of ,2007. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO by President of the Board of Supervisors TOWN OF ATHERTON by Mayor CITY OF BELMONT by Mayor CITY OF BRISBANE by Mayor CITY OF BURLINGAME by Mayor C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) REVISED: MARCH, 2007 14 ATTEST: Clerk of Town Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council TOWN OF COLMA by Mayor CITY OF DALY CITY by Mayor CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO by Mayor CITY OF FOSTER CITY by Mayor CITY OF HALF MOON BAY C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JP A) 15 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of Town Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: by Mayor TOWN OF IDLLSBOROUGH by Mayor CITY OF l\tIENLO PARK by Mayor CITY OF MILLBRAE by Mayor CITY OF PACIFICA by Mayor TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY C/CAG J OINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JP A) 16 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 Clerk of Town Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council ATTEST: Clerk of City Council by Mayor CITY OF REDWOOD CITY by Mayor CITY OF SAN BRUNO by Mayor CITY OF SAN CARLOS by Mayor CITY OF SAN MATEO by Mayor CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by Mayor C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) REVISED: MARCH, 2007 17 TOWN OF WOODSIDE ATTEST: by Clerk of Town Council Mayor F:\USERS\CCAG\ WPDAT A \JP A \2007\JP A07DRFT 02/23/07 C/CAG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) 18 REVISED: MARCH, 2007 2005 Annual Report -------. - ---- City/County Associations of Governments of San Mateo County C/CAG CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton . Bebaonl . Brisbane. Burlingame . Calma. Daly Cily . Easl Palo AlIa. Fosler Cily . Half Moon Bay. HiIl,borough . Menlo Par~ . Mllbrae Pacifica. Porlola Valley. Redwood Cily . San Bruno . San Carlos . San Mateo. San Maleo Counly . South San Francisco. Woodside Dear Citizens of San Mateo County: We are pleased to present to you the 12th Annual Report of the City/ County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. Our Board, which represents every jurisdiction in San Mateo County, and County transportation agencies, had a busy 2005 working on critical issues of local, county, and regional significance that affect the quality of life of every person who lives in or travels through our unique County. C/CAG provides a cooperative. cost-effective means of responding to countywide planning, transportation and other mandates from the State of California and the Federal Government. It distributes millions of dollars in State and Federal transportation and air quality funds. C/CAG is implementing the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan, whose goal is to move the County forward to meet the Countywide Transportation Plan requirement to increase transit ridership from 6% to 20%. It pools countywide expertise for a cost-effective program for complying with stormwater run-off mandates, which no individual city could effectively do on its own. This year it distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars, in efforts to rid the County of abandoned vehicles. In 2005, C/CAG began implementation of the T ransportation/ Environmental Program to support programs to address stormwater pollution caused by motor vehicles. This is a pilot program funded through a $4 motor vehicle fee for San Mateo County with strong management controls including public hearings, specific work program! budget. performance measures, independent audit, sunset provision, and a report to the legislature. The EI Camino Real (ECR) Incentive Program was adopted to encourage the Cities and County to expand the stock of housing and improve the land use, esthetics and mobility in the EI Camino Real Corridor. The program provides significant financial incentives for the fourteen jurisdictions along the EI Camino Real Corridor to participate in the process, conduct detailed land use planning for their individual jurisdictions, and to implement specific projects. Significant progress was also made on the 2020 Gateway Corridor Study that is evaluating solutions to problems on Highway 101 and its connection to the Dumbarton Bridge. Extensive conceptual engineering and analysis was done on various possible solutions. The C/CAG Board approved the implementation of ramp metering and authorized the Executive Director and a technical committee to define the parameters for the first phase on Highway 101 south of Highway 92. The Intelligent Transportation System Plan was adopted that defines programs and projects for San Mateo County to provide user information and improve overall travel times. Much has been done this year but there is still much to do. Please share this report with your friends and neighbors and contact us with your opinion. Sincerely. f;rt f/J IJ7 James M. Vreeland Jr., Chair 555 County Center. Fifth Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone: 650.599.1406 Fax: 650.361.8227 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County C/CAG Annual Report 2005 C/CAG.. "Creative Solutions by Working Together" .:. EnvironmentaV Transportation Program (AS 1546) Goal - Address Impact of Motor Vehicles . Funding for Storm-Water Pollution . Funding for Congestion Relief .:. EI Camino Real Incentive Program Goal- Increase Housing, Improve Esthetics, Land Use, and Mobility on the EI Camino Real Corridor . Planning Funding Incentives . Transportation Project Funding . Tools and Resources .:. Intelligent Transportation System Plan Goal- Operational Improvements for Increased Mobility . Ramp Metering . Signal Coordination . Incident Management City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 2 Annual Report 2005 C/CAG Program Performance Congestion Management Program Adopted the 2005 Congestion Management Program. EI Camino Real Incentive Program Adopted. Adopted 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (ST/P) - $56.8 M. Extensive conceptual engineering and analysis Was done on possible solutions for the 2020 Gateway Study. Allocated $ 1,324,548 to 10 jurisdictions to construct bicycle and pedestrian projects. Allocated $1,075,000 in State Clean Air funds to three agencies. Cost Effectiveness of $34,308 per ton of pollutants _ with 25.65 tons eliminated from the air. EnvironmentaV Transportation Program (AB 1546) Investigated Hydrogen Shuttles and Station. 12 Traffic signals retimed! replaced! upgraded. 130.14 miles of streets and roads resurfaced! reconstructed! restriped. 89 miles of street signage improved. 5,138 miles of streets/roads swept once per month. 3,059 storm drain inlets and catch basins inspected and cleaned and 600 feet of rock swales installed. San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan .~~ AtElIIlO ~. .r-"'ht: r:~r>~r~/)f\Y SIiVlTLe -..~ ';H;;n'.::'::';O~G'l?r:' Programmed $ 431,599 to support six city shuttle programs and one employer based shuttle to serVe over 300,000 passengers per year. Approved and initiated implementation of ramp metering program on Route 101. Adopted a Countywide Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan. Provided $500,000 funding to the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Alliance to expand services Countywide. 3 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County C/CAG Annual Report 2005 RevieweJ/commented on one airport environs development proposal. RevieweJ/commented on 10 environmental documents. Supported State legislation [AB 1358 (Mullin)) regarding review of charter schools to be located within an airport environs. Received C/CAG eligibility from the FAA to apply for a Federal grant to update the Comprehensive . Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the environs of San Francisco International Airport. On-going monitoring of the San Mateo County Airport Master Plan program and related environmental review for Half Moon Bay Airport. Airport Land Use Commission/Plan Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program Vehicles Towed - 26,576 f Vehicles Destroyed - 2,259 (estimate). Cities/County Cost Reimbursement- $676,421 Cost per Vehicle - $25.45 Administrative Rate - 2.35% Agencies Participating - 18 Air Quality Emissions Reduction - 16.8 to 25.2 Tons. Submitted the 2004/5 Annual Report to RWQCB. Removed 5 7,000 cubic yards of material. Performed extensive public outreach to 59 schools reaching 12,500 students, commercial outlets and the general public through various media, on the control of non-point source runoff to the Bay. Continued Park Dept. Maintenance Group training in IPM and Park Maintenance Procedures and Performance Standards. Found 352 illicit discharges and eliminated all discharges. Cost per Capita - $1,504,409/717,000 = $2.10/ Capita. n Stormwater Management Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 4 Annual Report 2005 C/CAG S" f' a'JJOOS' C" Ie" Ii. G A "...) ',:c,liJj]nID,aJry O. ~_c'. '., ,_ r},~~ l=~ct)lv>>tJ1es .:. Approved the implementation of Ramp Metering. .:. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Plan adopted. .:. EI Camino Real (ECR) Incentive Program adopted to encourage the Cities and County to increase housing, improve land-use, esthetics and mobility in the ECR Corridor. .:. Adopted the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - $56.8M. .:. Implementation of the EnvironmentaVTransportation Program (AB 1546). Allocated $476,993 to 16 jurisdictions for local programs to address the impact of motor vehicles. .:. San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan. Funded (together with the T ransportation Authority) six local service shuttles, one employer based shuttle and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. .:. Conceptual engineering and analysis was done on solutions for the 2020 Gateway Study. .:. Allocated $1,075,000 in State Clean Air funds to three agencies to improve air quality. .:. Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program (AVA) reimbursed 17 cities and the County $676,421 for the cost to tow 26,576 vehicles from the San Mateo County streets. .:. Public outreach on the control of non-point source runoff to the Bay to 59 schools reaching 12,500 students, commercial outlets and the general public through various media. .:. Through local agencies, removed 57,000 cubic yards of materials to prevent them from potentially contaminating the Bay. Found 352 illicit discharges and eliminated all discharges. .:. Received C/CAG eligibility from the FAA to apply for a Federal ALUC grant. .:. Advanced C/CAG State Legislative Advocacy. C/CAG responsibilities include the followin.g functions and CountyvlJide plans: Allocation of State and Federal transportation funds to cities, the County, and other agencies. State Legislative Advocacy Congestion Management Plan Countywide Transportation Plan Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan San Mateo County Congeslion Relief Plan (SMCRP) Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Reimbursement Program Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (review and comment) Hazardous Waste Management Plan Clean Air (fFCA)Expenditure Program for San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) EnvironmentalfTransportation Pilot Program (AB 1546) 5 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County C/CAG Annual Report 2005 Projected Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance FY 2005-06 C/CAG Budc et General Transportation SMCRP TFCA NPDES AVA AB 1546 Total Fund Programs Proaram ~9!'1.!!'- _ BEGINNING BALANCE $20,341__ _~121,80~_ $68,449 $371,745 $ 1 ,098,477 $166,172 $0 $ 1 ,846,985 f---- -- RESERVE BALANCE $43,346 $50,000 $0 $0 $100,903 $0 $0 $ 194,249 PROJECTED REVENUES 1--- -- Interest Earnings $1,000 $5,000 $ 10,000 $4,000 $6,000 $ 2,000 $ 10,000 $38,000 Member Contribution $226,779 $354,564 $ 1 ,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,881,343 ---- Cost Reimbursements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -- ISTEA Fundina $0 $390,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $390,OOg_ .- -- Grants $0 $40,000 $447,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $487,500 ---- - SFIA Traffic Study $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 TFCA $0 $67,000 $0 $ 1,047,289 $0 $0 $0 $1,114,289 NPDES $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 1 ,388,456 $0 $0 $ 1 ,388,456 _f:.VA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $680,000 $0 $680,000 Miscellaneous $0 $ 120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 1 ,860,000 $ 1 ,980,000 Total Revenues $227,779 $1,276,564 $ 1,757,500 $ 1 ,051 ,289 $ 1 ,394,456 $682,000 $ 1 ,870,000 $8,259,588 TOTAL SOURCES OF $248,120 $ 1 ,398,364 $ 1 ,825,949 $ 1 ,423,034 $2,492,933 $848,172 $ 1 ,870,000 $ 1 0,106,573 FUNDS PROJECTED EXPENDITURES 1----------- -- Administration Services $ 1 03,000 $93,741 $20,000 $11,300 $149,825 $ 15,000 $ 125,000 $51 7,866 __ ._-- Professional Services $ 100,000 $747,562 $50,000 $31,000 $206,500 $0 $50,000 $1,185,062 Consultina Services $0 $416,000 $ 195,000 $0 $ 1 ,046,018 $0 $ 300,000 $1,957,018 _~2Plies $44,500 $4,000 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $50,000 Prof. Dues & $1,600 $0 $0 $0 $34,066 $0 $0 $35,666 Memberships Conferences & Meetinas $4,000 $4,500 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $1 0,000 Publications $20,500 $5,500 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $41,000 f--TFCA Distributions $0 $0 $0 ~~5,000 $0 $0 $0 $ 1 ,055,000 NPDES Distributions -- I------ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - ---- AVA Distributions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $675,000 $0 $675,000 -- Miscellaneous $2,000 $ 102,177 ~go,oO<!__ $0 $50,000 $0 $1,103,000 $2,657,177 -- I--- Total Expenditures $275,600 $1,373,480 $ 1 ,665,000 $ 1 ,097,300 $ 1 ,504,409 $690,000 $ 1 ,578,000 $8,183,789 TRANSFERS --- Transfers In $67,657 $0 $ 1 04,000 $ 78,783 $0 $0 $0 $250,440 ----- --- Transfers Out $0 $24,885 $0 $81,783 -~!~ --~ $ 1 04,000 $250,440 -- ----- --- ----- Total Transfers ($67,657) $24,885 ($ 1 04,000) $3,000 $39,773 $0 $ 104,000 $0 NET CHANGE $ 19,836 ($121,801) $ 196,500 ($49,011) ($ 149,726) ($8,000) _ $ 188,000 $75,799 TRANSFERS TO RESERVES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ------ --'---- -- ----. --- TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $207,943 $ 1 ,398,365 $1,561,000 $ 1,100,300 $1,544,182 $690,000 $ 1 ,682,000 $8,18~,~ -- -~-- -- 1----------- 1--- ENDING FUND BALANCE $40,1 77 ($0) $264,949 $322,735 $948,752 $ 158, 172 $ 188,000 $ 1 ,922,784 ---- -- --- --- -- _RESERVE FUND BALANCE $43,346 $50,000 $0 $0 $ 100,903 $0 $0 $194,249 NET INCREASE (Decrease) IN FUND BALANCE as of $ 19,836 ($121,801) $ 196,500 ($49,011) ($ 149,726) ($8,000) $ 188,000 $75,799 June 30, 2006 -- C/CAG IVlel1f!her. Dues/Fees Highly Level'(~ged C/CAG Controlled Funds. - Leveraged Revenue 15% Leverage = $31,959,588/$1,969,799 = 16.22 to 1 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 6 C/CAG CITY/COUNTY AsSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton . Belmont. Bri.bane . Burlingame . Calma . Daly City. East Palo Alto . Fo.ter Ciry . Half Moon Bay. Hill.borough . Menlo Par~ . Millbrae Pacifica . Portola VaUey . Redwood Ciry . San Bruno. San Carlo. . San Mateo . San Mateo County . South San Francisco . Wood.ide C/CAG Officers _ 2005 Chairperson - James M. Vreeland Jr.- Pacifica, 2005 Vice-Chairperson - Nicholas Jellins - Menlo Park 2005 Vice-Chairperson - Deborah Gordon - Woodside, Executive Director - Richard Napier 555 County Center Fifth Floor Redwood City California 94063 Phone: 650 599-1406 Fax: 650361-8227 Vp7\a..2oo5.vp 6/22/06" Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 25, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager MODIFICA TION OF: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW ALLOWING EXTERIOR WINDOW AND DOOR CHANGES TO SEVERAL DWELLINGS, THE ADDITION OF SEVERAL NEW RETAINING WALLS AND THE MODIFICATION OF AN ABOVE GROUND TREE WELL. Mitigated Negative Declaration (approved by the City Council on July 14,2004) Location: Southeast corner of Hillside Boulevard and Stonegate Drive Zone: Medium Density Residential (R-2-H-P) Zone District. SSFMC: Chapters 20.18, 20.84 & 20.85. Owner & Applicant: Stonegate Home Development, Inc. Case Nos: P07-001O [PUD07-001 & DR07-0006] [Original Case Nos. PUDOl- 012, DROI-012 & MNDOI-012] RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings, the addition of several new retaining walls and the modification of an above ground tree well, subject to adopting the recommended conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The 1.4 acre project site is situated at Hillside Boulevard and Stonegate Drive, and is adjacent to other condominium residences, a church and small school. The project, approved by the City Council on July 14,2004, is comprised of six (6) detached single family dwellings (model Types A and B) and ten (10) attached town homes (model Type C). Construction was started last fall and the dwellings are in the framing stage. The developer has re-examined the floor plans and wants to make changes to improve the efficiency of the floor space in several rooms. This will entail relocating some windows, and eliminating several ground floor exterior doors. The revised plans for model Type C also include moving the fireplaces for direct venting to the outside wall rather than through the chimney, possibly eliminating the chimneys, and providing a heating duct to the garage level storage room. Staff Report Subject: Stonegate Residential PUD Modification Date: April 25, 2007 Page 2 The project sponsor also proposes to change the window style, type and finish (including removing many grid style windows) yielding a different look than the approved plans. The applicant also proposes to add several new retaining walls. The applicant's plans are attached. While each of the proposed changes is relatively minor in nature, the cumulative effect of all the proposed changes will be noticeable, and are therefore, subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council as a Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development [SSFMC Chapters 20.84 and 20.91]. The City Council's review is required because the final approval of the original project was made by the Council. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's proposed changes at their meetings of March 15, and April 5,2007. During the first meeting, the project representatives reviewed many of the proposed changes and attempted to compare the proposed changes with the approved construction and conceptual plans. Over the course of the meeting, the Planning Commissioners engaged the applicant and City Staff with many questions and concerns. The Commissioners concluded that they needed more time to consider the numerous changes and directed the applicant to provide a power point presentation and reorganize the plans facilitating comparisons between the proposed changes and approved plans. They expressed concern regarding the proposed elimination of many of the grid type windows on all of the dwellings, and the changes to model Type C including the potential elimination of the chimneys and the addition of a heating duct to the garage level storage room. In response to the Commission's concerns, the applicant revised the plans per the Commissioner's direction, prepared a power point presentation, and revised the window schedule utilizing the window style shown on the conceptual plans, including retaining all of the grid type windows (though the windows are slightly larger in some cases due to Uniform Building Code (UBC) egress requirements) . At it's April 5, 2007 meeting, after a lengthy and very detailed review, the Planning Commission made the following decisions: · ConculTed with most of the remaining window and exterior door changes. · ConcUlTed with the Design Review Board and City Staff recommendation to retain the chimneys on model Type C to maintain architectural detailing, break up the roof mass and maintain design integrity (even though the chimneys will be non-functional). To be functional the chimneys would be required by the UBC to be set a minimum of 5 feet from the property boundary between the individual duplex units and not as shown on the approved conceptual plans. · Determined, based in part by testimony from the City's Fire Marshall and Senior Building Inspector that the heating ducts in the garage level storage room and bath room needed to be removed. The concerns were that it would be too convenient for future owners to convert the storage area into a habitable room (such as a bedroom or studio), and the room did not meet the UBC requirements for egress (the sole egress cannot be through the garage) . Staff Report Subject: Stonegate Residential PUD Modification Date: April 25, 2007 Page 3 · Determined that the proposed retaining walls (only shown in a plan view) and especially the wall needed to conserve the existing trees at the southeasterly property comer adjacent to Ridgeview Drive, should be subject to the review and approval by the Design Review Board and City Staff · Added Conditions of Approval to ensure the above mentioned design changes. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved by the City Council in association with the original project on July 14, 2004. City Staffhas determined that the aesthetic impacts of the proposed changes are minor and that the MND is still adequate. Because the impacts of the proposed changes are minor, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council is not required to taken any action on the environmental document. CONCLUSION: The majority of the proposed changes were determined by both the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission to be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and sympathetic to the approved "mediterranean design style". The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Modification of a Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings, the addition of several new retaining walls and the modification of an above ground tree well, subject to adopting the recommended conditions of approval. By: Marty Van Duyn Assistant City Mana Approved: ~ <- L :g=) . agel '-=' City Manager Attachments: I. City Council Draft Resolution 2. Exhibit A - Supplemental Conditions of Approval 3. Planning Commission Resolution 4. Original Conditions of Approval 5. Planning Commission Staff Reports March 15, 2007 & April 5, 2007 6. Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 2007 & April 5, 2007 8. Plans - 1- RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF HILLSIDE BOULEVARD & STONEGATE DRIVE AND AS SUBMITTED BY STONEGATE HOME DEVELOPMENT, INe., SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WHEREAS, on July 14 of 2004, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held a properly noticed public hearing and approved a Residential Planned Unit Development Permit allowing sixteen (16) dwellings and landscaped common area, a Tentative Subdivision Map allowing the subdivision of the site into sixteen (16) lots and common area, Design Review of sixteen (16) dwellings, a Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing the environmental impacts associated with the development, and adopted conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, in February of2007, the Stonegate Home Development, Inc., hereafter referred to as the "Applicant", applied to the City to proceed with exterior revisions to several of the dwellings; and WHEREAS, on March 15, and April 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held properly noticed public hearings to consider the Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and the associated land use entitlements including the revisions to the approved design of several of the dwellings that are a part of the Proj ect (P07- 0010); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the exterior modifications of the dwellings with Conditions of Approval are consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinances. The Planning Commission therefore recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and associated land use entitlements, including revisions to the exterior window and door designs of several dwellings and other changes to the Project design. The Planning Commission's recommendation included conditions of approval summarized in the staff report for the April 25, 2007 City Council hearing on the Applicant's proposal and summarized in Exhibit A to this resolution; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2007, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and the associated land use entitlements including the revisions to the approved design of several of the dwellings that are a part of the Project; and - 2- WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the exterior modifications of the dwellings and other Project design changes, with Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A, are consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinances; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based on the entire record of the Applicant's design revisions, including the Applicant's plans submitted in association with the Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and the associated land use entitlements, the Applicant's written naJTative for the dwelling exterior modifications, the South San Francisco General Plan, the proposed Modification of the Planned Unit Development Permit, the Design Review of the proposed dwelling changes, the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco on July 14, 2004 City Council Resolution Number 69- 2004, the South San Francisco Design Guidelines, the Draft Planned Unit Development Findings, the Planning Commission Staff Reports dated March 15,2007 and April 5, 2007 and the testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meetings on March 15,2007 and April 5, 2007, the City Council Staff Report dated April 25, 2007, and the testimony and materials submitted at the City Council meeting on April 25, 2007. I. Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 14,2004. The Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that the proposed development would not have any adverse aesthetic impacts. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed changes would not create any adverse impacts. There is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the City that the changes to the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and the associated land use entitlements therefore complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Planned Unit Development Permit. As required by the Planned Unit Development Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.84] and Revocation and Modification of Permits [SSFMC Chapter 20.91], the following findings are made in approval ofa Modification of Residential Planned Unit Development Permit P07-0010, to approve exterior changes to windows and doors of several dwellings. A. The 1.4 acre site is physically suitable for the 16 unit residential development with common area. The changes to the dwellings are in keeping with the architectural design of the new dwellings and because the changes are limited to windows and a few doors the buildings will still be in conformity with the surrounding residential developments. The City's Design Review Board recommended approval of the proposed changes. B. The changes to the dwellings have been reviewed and recommended for approval by the City's Design Review Board to be in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Design Guidelines and to provide a high quality of fit with the neighborhood. The changes will improve -3- the efficiency of the living space of the affected dwellings and will contribute to a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability. C. The changes to the dwellings are in keeping with the General Plan Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential and the Zoning of Medium Density Residential Zone District [R-2-H] in that the changes will not result in any dwelling unit density increases. D. The changes to the dwellings are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential and the Housing Element in that the changes will not result in the reduction of either the market rate or affordable dwellings associated with the development. E. The changes will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The changes are designed to comply with the City Design Guidelines and the architectural theme of the development and the surrounding residential enclave. Conditions of Approval have been adopted which will ensure that heating ducts to the garage level storage room will be removed, that the windows on the mid and upper level of side facades are aligned, that the chimneys on dwelling model "Type C" are installed, and that the new retaining walls are subject to the review and approval by the City's Design Review Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: A. Approves the Modification of Residential Planned Unit Development Permit (P07 -0010) allowing exterior revisions to the dwellings consisting of window and door changes and other aspects ofthe Project design subject to the additional Conditions of Approval recommended by the Planning Commission and attached as Exhibit A. B. Approves the Design Review of the exterior revisions to the dwellings consisting of window and door changes and other aspects of the Project design subject to the additional Conditions of Approval recommended by the Planning Commission and attached as Exhibit A. -4- I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the day of 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: City Clerk -5- EXHIBIT A SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MODIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT P07-0010 HILLSIDE BOULEVARD AND STONEGATE DRIVE (Recommended by the Planning Commission on April 5, 2007) Prior to the Final Inspection the construction plans shall be revised to comply with the plans submitted in association with the P07 -0010 Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development and approved by the City Council. These changes shall include the following: 1. Model Type A The mid-level front fa<;ade roof changes, the lower level rear door changes, the elimination of an exterior lower level side elevation window, the increased height of the mid and upper story windows near the interior stairwell, and the front entry and door roof changes. The Model Type A dwellings shall not be granted a Final Inspection until the changes are implemented. The plans shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official and Chief Planner. 2. Model Type B The elimination of the exterior side door on the ground level, the mid level front fa<;ade roof changes, the lower level rear door changes, the elimination of an exterior upper level side elevation window, the addition of a lower level window, and the front entry and door roof. The Model Type B dwellings shall not be granted a Final Inspection until the changes are implemented. The construction plans shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official and Chief Planner. 3. Model Type C The mid-story and upper story exterior windows on the side elevations near the front corner of dwelling Model Type C shall be aligned with one another to provide a visually pleasing fa<;ade, direct vent fireplaces and roof mounted chimneys. The chimneys shall not be connected to the fireplaces. The heating ducts in the ground level storage room and bath room adjacent to the garage shall be removed to eliminate the possibility that the rooms will be used as habitable space. The Model Type C dwellings shall not be granted a Final Inspection until the changes are implemented. The construction plans shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official and Chief Planner. 4. Prior to Final Inspection the new retaining walls on Lots #A ,#1 and #7 and the modification to the above ground tree well on lots # 14 and # 15 shall be subj ect to the review and approval by the South San Francisco Design Review Board, the City's Chief Building Official, and the Chief Planner. The approved plans shall be included in the final construction plans. -6- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUD 01-012, SA 01-12, DR 01-012 & ND 01-012 Stonegate Estates / Hillside Townhomes (As approved by the City Council on July 14, 2004) A. PLANNING DIVISION: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the Architectural and Landscape Plans, prepared by The Paul Davis Partnership, dated January 19,2004, Civil Engineering, Grading and Drainage, and Tentative Subdivision Map plans prepared by Charles W. Davidson Company, dated February 4, 2004, and Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Southeast Corner of Hillside Boulevard and Ridgeview Court, prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc., dated October 12, 2000 in association with POI-012. 3. The landscape plan shall include mature shrubs and trees. Shrubs shall be a minimum size of 15 gallons, trees shall have a minimum size of 24 inch box and 15% of the total number of proposed trees shall have a minimum size of 36 inch box. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. 4. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the Final Subdivision Map shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. The Final CC&Rs shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner, City Engineer and City Attorney. Both the Final Subdivision Map and CC&Rs shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. 5. Prior to the final occupancy for each dwelling, the owner shall pay the child care impact fee in effect at the time as required by SSFMC Chapter 20.115 for the associated dwelling unit. The current fee per dwelling is $1,630.00. The total fee for all the dwellings is estimated to be $26,080.00 (16 dwellings x $1,630.00/unit = $26,080). 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the owner shall implement the provisions Affordable Housing Agreement. The implementation plan shall be subject to the review an approval of the City's Housing Division Manager. 7. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration 01-012. 8. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the final plans shall include a construction management plan including, but not limited to, a public information element that includes an on-site construction manager. The construction manager shall be required to meet with the adjacent property owners and to provide weekly information regarding grading and construction -7- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 2 of8 activities. The manager shall implement and monitor measures to minimize construction impacts. The construction management plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the city's Chief Planner. 9. The fmal ground floor plans of dwelling models Band C may include halfbath facilities but not full bath facilities. The plans shall be subject to the review and approval ofthe city's Chief Planner. (Planning Contact Person: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION: 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS The Developer shall comply with the Engineering Division's "Standard Subdivision and Use Permit Conditions for Townhouse, Condominium and Apartment Developments with Private Streets and Utilities", consisting of 8 pages. These conditions are contained in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998, (copies of this booklet are available at no cost to the applicant from the Planning and Engineering Divisions). 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. The existing downstream public drainage system has not been shown to have sufficient excess capacity to accommodate the storm water runoff from the fully improved Hillside Town homes Subdivision. In order to mitigate the potential impact of the storm water runoff from the improved site, the Subdivider shall design and construct improvements that will retain the subdivision's storm water on site, so that it will not exceed the storm water runoff from the site in its existing, unimproved, condition, during a 25-year design storm. b. The town house driveway aprons shall provide a minimum distance of 20 feet (which is the standard for single family detached homes in the Municipal Code and is the standard discussed in the applicant's project narrative dated October 17, 2002), between the garage door and the back of the sidewalk or street curb, as applicable, to permit the aprons to be used for additional guest parking and temporary vehicle parking. Driveway aprons shall have a maximum gradient of 12%, measured from the gutter flow line or pavement surface to the garage slab. c. The subdivider shall conform to the project's approved "Site Distance Study" requirements for landscape, grading, fencing, buildings and any other sightline obstructions along the frontage of Stone gate Drive, southeast of the lower exit driveway. Provide calculations of stopping sight distance, which account for the roadway grade. d. The subdivision's common area infrastructure, including the roadway, sewer, and drainage improvements, shall be owned and maintained by the subdivision's homeowners association, not the City of South San Francisco. The subdivision final map shall contain a statement - 8- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 3 of8 that no improvements within the boundaries of the subdivision are being dedicated to the City, within the proposed utility or other easements shown on the final map. e. The proposed yearly Homeowner's Association Budget shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval, as to the adequacy of the estimated common area improvements and infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement replacement and repaIr reserves. f. In accordance with current City Ordinances and the Standard Conditions, storm water pollution control devices and filters (such as a Stormcepter or CDS unit) shall be installed within the site drainage outfall system from the subdivision to prevent pollutants deposited within the site entering the public drainage system and eventually San Francisco Bay. Plans for these filters and anyon-site retention facilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Division and the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator for review and approval. g. The applicant shall relinquish vehicle access along Hillside Boulevard, Stonegate Drive, and Ridgeview Court, except at the two interior driveway intersections with public streets. h. Owner on Tentative Map must match the owner listed in the title report. 3. OFF-SITE IMPROVMENTS Various off-site improvements will be required to be constructed by the subdivider, such as intersection conform modifications, sidewalk and curb and gutter repairs and sewer, storm drain and utility connections and modifications within Ridgeview Court. Prior to the City Council approving the final map for the subject subdivision, the subdivider shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement to secure the installation of all off-site public improvements. Alternately, the subdivider may obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division and post cash deposit to secure the performance and payment of the work within the public street right-of-ways as shown on the approved improvement plans, prior to filing the final map for approval by the City Council. 4. INSPECTION The Engineering Division provides limited inspection services for the construction of the private streets and utilities within the subdivision, that are not inspected by the City's Building Division or the developer's civil and geotechnical engineers. a. In order to compensate the City for our inspection costs, the developer shall pay the hourly costs for services provided by the City's Construction Inspection staff, on a time and materials basis, in connection with the development of the subject subdivision improvements. b. The inspection costs will be billed monthly. The Subdivider shall pay City invoices within 30 days of their receipt and shall pay all outstanding charges prior to receiving an Occupancy Permit for the homes. -9- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 4 of8 5. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT OCCUPANCY The subdivider will likely request temporary occupancy of one or more homes to be used as models. Also, the subdivision's permanent residents will probably want to move into their homes before heavy construction within the project is complete. Either request could result in the public and/or residents being impacted in various health and safety ways by the construction activities. a. Prior to receiving a temporary certificate of occupancy for a model home within the subdivision, the developer shall submit for the City staffs review and approval a plan that will address at a minimum, the following items: 1) All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from areas accessible by the visiting public. 2) All areas subject to public travel shall be provided with adequate street and area lighting meeting the Police Department's requirements. 3) A parking and traffic safety plan shall be prepared and implemented. 4) Pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be provided within the model home complex. b. Prior to receiving permanent occupancy permits for the homes within the subdivision, the developer shall submit for the City staffs review and approval a plan that will address, at a minimum, the following items: 1) All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from the portion of the site occupied by the new residents and subject to public access. 2) All street lights within the occupied portion ofthe subdivision shall be operational and lit. 3) All traffic signs and pavement markings within the portion of the site accessible by the public shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans. 4) All site improvements within areas subject to public access shall be complete in accordance with the approved subdivision improvement, grading, drainage and utility plans. 5) Hours of construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). (Engineering Contact Person: Richard Harmon, 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT: -10- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 5 of8 1. Site Plan and Subdivision Map a. The Police Department has no concerns with the subdivision map. b. On-site parking and circulation appear adequate and acceptable for the project. c. The applicant shall submit a list of proposed street names for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department before filing of the parcel maps. City policy precludes the use of street names that are duplicates or sound alike of existing streets or names ofliving persons. Street names should be easy to pronounce, contain no unconventional spelling, and be unconfusing so that the public and the children, in particular, can handle the names in an emergency situation. The use of EI Rancho Drive is permissible. d. No fire lanes will be approved on site. The roadway system shall be designed so that roadways are wide enough so fire lanes are not necessary. 2. Municipal Code Compliance a. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance, revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. b. The applicant shall assure that the requirements and restrictions on construction noise (including deliveries, equipment warmup and maintenance, etc.) prescribed in chapter 8.32 of the municipal code are not violated by their own personnel or any subcontractors working on the project. 3. Security and Safety Conditions a. Security Planting 1) Landscaping shall of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. b. Doors 1) All exterior wood doors and doors leading from enclosed garage areas shall be solid core with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4". 2) Door framing shall comply with section l5.48.060A.l.h.; details can be provided by the Building Inspector. - 11- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 6 of8 3) Main entrance doors, pedestrian garage exit doors, and doors leading from enclosed garage areas into single-family dwellings shall be secured with a single-cylinder deadbolt lock with a minimum throw of one inch. a) The locks into the residence shall be so constructed that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob. (Garage exit doors and rear french doors may have a regular deadbolt lock.) b) Strike plates shall be secured to wooden jambs with at least 2 inch wood screws. 4) Vision panels in exterior doors or within reach of the inside activating device shall be of burglary-resistant glazing or equivalent. 1 (This includes the fixed garage window adjacent to the exit door and french door glazing panels within reach of the locking device.) 5) Overhead garage doors shall be equipped with automatic openers and shall not have bottom vents except those doors having double louvered or shielded vents or approved alternate devices to protect the locking mechanism. c. Windows 1) Windows shall be constructed so that when the window is locked, it cannot be lifted from the frame. 2) The sliding portion of a sliding glass window shall be on the inside track. 3) Window locking devices shall be capable of withstanding a force of300 lbs. in any direction. d. Numbering 1) A street number shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of the residence in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. a) The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. b) The numerals shall be lighted at night. 2) The applicant shall submit a project addressing prior to building permit application. Addresses should run in a clockwise direction. 1 5/16" security laminate, Yo" polycarbonate or approved security film treatment, minimum. -12- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 7 of8 e. Lighting Each entry and exit door shall be equipped with a light source of sufficient wattage to illuminate the door, porch, and stairway. Area lights, switch controlled from inside the residence, are encouraged to illuminate the rear and side yards. f. Other I) The developer/applicant shall enclose the entire perimeter of the project with a chain link fence with necessary construction gates to be locked after normal construction hours. A security person shall be provided to patrol the project after normal working hours during all phases of construction, and adequate security lighting shall be provided to illuminate vulnerable equipment and materials. 2) The applicant's voluntary installation of security alarm systems as a standard amenity in all residential units constructed, is encouraged on this project. 3) The applicant shall submit an addressing plan for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. The applicant shall indicate if the plan should be approved considering principles ofFeng Shui. 4) The applicant shall submit a phasing plan for the project to be approved by the city as part of their first building permit application. The phasing plan shall include detail on the separation of construction activity from the use circulation and occupancy of residential units and model units and sales office activities. (police Department contact person: Sergeant E. Alan Normandy (650/877-8927) D. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 1. All buildings shall be fire sprinklered for buildings with a height 3 stories or more. Roofline extends past property line. Fire area for fire flow will be assessed using Table IlIA of the Fire Area exceeding 3,600 sq ft. Describe common walls at property lines. (Fire Department contact person: Fire Marshal, Mo Dong (650/829-6671) E. WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT: 1. The onsite new catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo. Please have applicant contact Ray Honan at Water Quality Control for details. 2. In accordance with the Municipal Code and Federal law, new stormwater pollution control devices CDS Units/Stormceptor are to be installed in any new drainage inlets. Existing catch -13- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 8 of8 basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalents. In addition, the applicant is required to submit maintenance schedules for the inserts and CDS Units/Stormceptors. Submit schedules to the Environmental Coordinator. 3. That the applicant pays a Sewer Connection Fee based on the amount of Townhomes constructed. Current fee is $1 ,514.00/dwelling. Have applicant contact Ray Honan for details. 4. An Erosion Control Plan is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Have copy submitted to Ray Honan at Water Quality. 5. Additional comments when building plans are submitted. (Water Quality Control contact person: Ray Honan, (650/877-8634) -14- RESOLUTION NO. 2663-2007 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION OF A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF HILLSIDE BOULEVARD & STONEGATE DRIVE AND AS SUBMITTED BY STONEGATE HOME DEVELOPMENT, INC., SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WHEREAS, on July 14 of 2004, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held a properly noticed public hearing and approved a Residential Planned Unit Development Permit allowing 16 dwellings and landscaped common area, a Tentative Subdivision Map allowing the subdivision of the site into 16 lots and common area, Design Review of 16 dwellings, a Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing the environmental impacts associated with the development, and adopted conditions of approval; WHEREAS, in February of2007, the Stonegate Home Development, Inc., hereafter referred to as the "Applicant", applied to the City to proceed with exterior revisions to several of the dwellings; WHEREAS, on March 15,2007, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and the associated land use entitlements including the revisions to the approved design of several of the dwellings at are a part of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the exterior modifications of the dwellings are consistent with the City's General Plan and all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinances; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based on the entire record of the Applicant's design revisions, including the Applicant's plans submitted in association with the Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development Pemlit and the associated land use entitlements, the Applicant's written narrative for the dwelling exterior modifications, the South San Francisco General Plan, the proposed Modification of the Planned Unit Development Permit, the Design Review of the proposed dwelling changes, the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco on July 14, 2004 City Council Resolution Number 69-2004, the South San Francisco Design Guidelines, the Draft Planned Unit Development Findings, the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 15,2007, and the testimony and materials submitted at the Planning COIIL.'TIission meeting on March 15,2007; -15- 1 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 14, 2004. The Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that the proposed development would not have any adverse aesthetic impacts. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed changes would not create any adverse impacts. There is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the City that the changes to the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Modification ofthe Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and the associated land use entitlements therefore complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Planned Unit Development Permit. As required by the Planned Unit Development Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.84] and Revocation and Modification of Permits [SSFMC Chapter 20.91], the following findings are made in approval ofa Modification of Residential Planned Unit Development Permit P07-0010, to approve exterior changes to windows and doors of several dwellings. A. The 1.4 acre site is physically suitable for the 16 unit residential development with common area. The changes to the dwellings are in keeping with the architectural design of the new dwellings and because the changes are limited to windows and a few doors the buildings will still be in conformity with the surrounding residential developments. The City's Design Review Board recommended approval of the proposed changes. B. The changes to the dwellings has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the City's Design Review board to be in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Design Guidelines and to provide a high quality of fit with the neighborhood. The changes will improve the efficiency of the living space of the affected dwellings and will contribute to a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability. C. The changes to the dwellings are in keeping with the General Plan Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential and the Zoning of Medium Density Residential Zone District [R-2-H] in that the changes will not result in any dwelling unit density increases. D. The changes to the dwellings are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential and the Housing Element in that the changes will not result in the reduction of either the market rate or affordable dwellings associated with the development. E. The changes will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The changes are designed to comply with the City Design Guidelines and the architectural theme of the development and the surrounding residential enclave. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FlJRTHER RESOLVED TRAT THE Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: -16- 2 A. Recommends approval of the Modification of Residential Planned Unit Development Permit allowing exterior revisions to the dwellings consisting of window and door changes. B. Recommends approval ofthe Design Review of the exterior revisions to the dwellings consisting of window and door changes. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 4th day of April 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke and Vice Chairperson Giusti NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Chairperson Prouty Attest: /J / -}.. y'/ --=:::: b ,/./ .7. '/-1.44; A ~5?J '" .. S \ ! Ka11d1l r <- US)' / Secretary to the Planning Commission -17- 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUD 01-012, SA 01-12, DR 01-012 & ND 01-012 Stonegate Estates / Hillside Townhomes (As approved by the City Council on July 14, 2004) A. PLANNING DIVISION: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the Architectural and Landscape Plans, prepared by The Paul Davis Partnership, dated January 19, 2004, Civil Engineering, Grading and Drainage, and Tentative Subdivision Map plans prepared by Charles W. Davidson Company, dated February 4, 2004, and Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Southeast Corner of Hillside Boulevard and Ridgeview Court, prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc., dated October 12, 2000 in association with PO 1-0 12. 3. The landscape plan shall include mature shrubs and trees. Shrubs shall be a minimum size of 15 gallons, trees shall have a minimum size of24 inch box and 15% of the total number of proposed trees shall have a minimum size of36 inch box. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. 4. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the Final Subdivision Map shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. The Final CC&Rs shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner, City Engineer and City Attorney. Both the Final Subdivision Map and CC&Rs shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. 5. Prior to the final occupancy for each dwelling, the owner shall pay the child care impact fee in effect at the time as required by SSFMC Chapter 20.115 for the associated dwelling unit. The current fee per dwelling is $1,630.00. The total fee for all the dwellings is estimated to be $26,080.00 (16 dwellings x $1,630.00/unit = $26,080). 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the owner shall implement the provisions Affordable Housing Agreement. The implementation plan shall be subject to the review an approval of the City's Housing Division Manager. 7. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration 01-012. 8. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the final plans shall include a construction management plan including, but not limited to, a public information element that includes an on-site construction manager. The construction manager shall be required to meet with the adjacent property owners and to provide weekly information regarding grading and construction activities. The manager shall implement and monitor measures to minimize construction - 18- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 2 of8 impacts. The construction management plan shall be subj ect to the review and approval by the city's Chief Planner. 9. The final ground floor plans of dwelling models B and C may include halfbath facilities but not full bath facilities. The plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the city's Chief Planner. (planning Contact Person: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION: 1. STANDARD CONDmONS The Developer shall comply with the Engineering Division's "Standard Subdivision and Use Permit Conditions for Townhouse, Condominium and Apartment Developments with Private Streets and Utilities", consisting of 8 pages. These conditions are contained in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998, (copies of this booklet are available at no cost to the applicant from the Planning and Engineering Divisions). 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. The existing downstream public drainage system has not been shown to have sufficient excess capacity to accommodate the storm water runoff from the fully improved Hillside Town homes Subdivision. In order to mitigate the potential impact of the storm water runoff from the improved site, the Subdivider shall design and construct improvements that will retain the subdivision's storm water on site, so that it will not exceed the storm water runoff from the site in its existing, unimproved, condition, during a 25-year design storm. b. The town house driveway aprons shall provide a minimum distance of20 feet (which is the standard for single family detached homes in the Municipal Code and is the standard discussed in the applicant's project narrative dated October 17, 2002), between the garage door and the back of the sidewalk or street curb, as applicable, to permit the aprons to be used for additional guest parking and temporary vehicle parking. Driveway aprons shall have a maximum gradient of 12%, measured from the gutter flow line or pavement surface to the garage slab. c. The subdivider shall conform to the proj ect' s approved "Site Distance Study" requirements for landscape, grading, fencing, buildings and any other sightline obstructions along the frontage of Stonegate Drive, southeast of the lower exit driveway. Provide calculations of stopping sight distance, which account for the roadway grade. d. The subdivision's common area infrastructure, including the roadway, sewer, and drainage improvements, shall be owned and maintained by the subdivision's homeowners association, not the City of South San Francisco. The subdivision final map shall contain a statement -19- ConllitionsofApprov~ Stonegate Estates Page 3 of8 that no improvements within the boundaries of the subllivision are being dedicated to the City, within the proposed utility or other easements shown on the final map. e. The proposed yearly Homeowner's Association Budget shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval, as to the adequacy of the estimated common area improvements and infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement replacement and repaIr reserves. f. In accordance with current City Ordinances and the Standard Conllitions, storm water pollution control devices and filters (such as a Stormcepter or CDS unit) shall be installed within the site drainage outfall system from the subllivision to prevent pollutants deposited within the site entering the public drainage system and eventually San Francisco Bay. Plans for these filters and anyon-site retention facilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Division and the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator for review and approval. g. The applicant shall relinquish vehicle access along Hillside Boulevard, Stonegate Drive, and Ridgeview Court, except at the two interior driveway intersections with public streets. h. Owner on Tentative Map must match the owner listed in the title report. 3. OFF-SITE II'v.1:PROVMENTS Various off-site improvements will be required to be constructed by the subllivider, such as intersection conform mollifications, sidewalk and curb and gutter repairs and sewer, storm drain and utility connections and mollifications within Ridgeview Court. Prior to the City Council approving the final map for the subject subllivision, the subllivider shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement to secure the installation of all off-site public improvements. Alternately, the subllivider may obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division and post cash deposit to secure the performance and payment of the work within the public street right-of-ways as sho'Wll on the approved improvement plans, prior to filing the final map for approval by the City Council. 4. INSPECTION The Engineering Division provides limited inspection services for the construction of the private streets and utilities within the subllivision, that are not inspected by the City's Building Division or the developer's civil and geotechnical engineers. a. In order to compensate the City for our inspection costs, the developer shall pay the hourly costs for services provided by the City's Construction Inspection staff, on a time and materials basis, in connection 'with. the development of the subj ect subllivision improvements. -20- Condifions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 4 of 8 b. The inspection costs will be billed monthly. The Subdivider shall pay City invoices within 30 days of their receipt and shall pay all outstanding charges prior to receiving an Occupancy Permit for the homes. 5. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT OCCUPANCY The subdivider will likely request temporary occupancy of one or more homes to be used as models. Also, the subdivision's permanent residents will probably want to move into their homes before heavy construction within the proj ect is complete. Either request could result in the public and/or residents being impacted in various health and safety ways by the construction activities. a. Prior to receiving a temporary certificate of occupancy for a model home within the subdivision, the developer shall submit for the City staffs review and approval a plan that will address at a minimum, the following items: 1) All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from areas accessible by the visiting public. 2) All areas subject to public travel shall be provided with adequate street and area lighting meeting the P04ce Department's requirements. 3) A parking and traffic safety plan shall be prepared and implemented. 4) Pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be provided within the model home complex. b. Prior to receiving permanent occupancy permits for the homes within the subdivision, the developer shall submit for the City staffs review and approval a plan that will address, at a minimum, the following items: 1) All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from the portion of the site occupied by the new residents and subject to public access. 2) All street lights within the occupied portion of the subdivision shall be operational and lit. 3) All traffic signs and pavement markings within the portion of the site accessible by the public shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans. 4) All site improvements within areas subject to public access shall be complete in accordance with the approved subdivision improvement, grading, drainage and utility plans. 5) Hours of construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). -21- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 5 of8 (Engineering Contact Person: Richard Harmon, 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT: 1. Site Plan and Subdivision Map a. The Police Department has no concerns with the subdivision map. b. On-site parking and circulation appear adequate and acceptable for the project. c. The applicant shall submit a list of proposed street names for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department before filing of the parcel maps. City policy precludes the use of street names that are duplicates or sound alike of existing streets or names of living persons. Street names should be easy to pronounce, contain no unconventional spelling, and be unconfusing so that the public and the children, in particular, can handle the names in an emergency situation. The use of EI Rancho Drive is permissible. d. Nofue lanes will be approved on site. The roadway system shall be designed so that roadways are wide enough so fire lanes are not necessary. 2. Municipal Code Compliance a. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance, revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. b. The applicant shall assure that the requirements and restrictions on construction noise (including deliveries, equipment warmup and maintenance, etc.) prescribed in chapter 8.32 of the municipal code are not violated by their own personnel or any subcontractors working on the proj ect. 3. Security and Safety Conditions a. Security Planting 1) Landscaping shall of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. b. Doors -22- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 6 of8 1) All exterior wood doors and doors leading from enclosed garage areas shall be solid core wifu a minimum thickness of 1-3/4". 2) Door framing shall comply with section 15.48.060A.1.h.; details can be provided by the Building Inspector. 3) Main entrance doors, pedestrian garage exit doors, and doors leading from enclosed garage areas into single-family dwellings shall be secured wifu a single-cylinder deadbolt lock with a minimum throw of one inch. a) The locks into fue residence shall be so constructed that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob. (Garage exit doors and rear french doors may have a regular deadbolt lock.) b) Strike plates shall be secured to wooden jambs with at least 2 inch wood screws. 4) Vision panels in exterior doors or within reach of the inside activating device shall be of burglary-resistant glazing or equivalent. 1 (This includes the fixed garage window adjacent to the exit door and french door glazing panels within reach offue locking device.) 5) Overhead garage doors shall be equipped with automatic openers and shall not have bottom vents except fuose doors having double louvered or shielded vents or approved alternate devices to protect the locking mechanism. c. Windows 1) Windows shall be constructed so that when the window is locked, it cannot be lifted from the frame. 2) The sliding portion of a sliding glass window shall be on the inside track. 3) Window locking devices shall be capable of withstanding a force of300 lbs. in any direction. d. Numbering 1) A street number shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of the residence in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. 1 5/16" security laminate. '.I." polycarbonate or approved security film treatment. minimum. -23- Conditions of Approval Stonegate Estates Page 7 of8 a) The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. b) The numerals shall be lighted at night. 2) The applicant shall submit a project addressing prior to building permit application. Addresses should run in a clockwise direction. e. Lighting Each entry and exit door shall be equipped with a light source of sufficient wattage to illuminate the door, porch, and stairway. Area lights, switch controlled from inside the residence, are encouraged to illuminate the rear and side yards. f. Other 1) The developer/applicant shall enclose the entire perimeter of the project with a chain link fence with necessary construction gates to be locked after normal construction hours. A security person shall be provided to patrol the project after normal working hours during all phases of construction, and adequate security lighting shall be provided to illuminate vulnerable equipment and materials. 2) The applicant's voluntary installation of security alarm systems as a standard amenity in all residential units constructed, is encouraged on this proj ect. 3) The applicant shall submit an addressing plan for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. The applicant shall indicate if the plan should be approved considering principles ofFeng Shui. 4) The applicant shall submit a phasing plan for the proj ect to be approved by the city as part of their first building permit application. The phasing plan shall include detail on the separation of construction activity from the use circulation and occupancy of residential units and model units and sales office activities. {Police Department contact person: Sergeant E. Alan Normandy (650/877-8927) D. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 1. All buildings shall be fire sprinklered for buildings with a height 3 stories or more. Roofline extends past property line. Fire area for fire flow will be assessed using Table IIIA of the Fire Area exceeding 3,600 sq ft. Describe common walls at property lines. (Fire Department contact person: Fire Marshal, Mo Dong (650/829-6671) -24- Conditions of lAp pro val Stonegate Estates Page 80f8 E. WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT: 1. The onsite new catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo. Please have applicant contact Ray Honan at Water Quality Control for details. 2. In accordance with the Municipal Code and Federal law, new stormwater pollution control devices CDS Units/Stormceptor are to be installed in any new drainage inlets. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalents. In addition, the applicant is required to submit maintenance schedules for the inserts and CDS Units/Stormceptors. Submit schedules to the Environmental Coordinator. 3. That the applicant pays a Sewer Connection Fee based on the amount of Townhomes constructed. Current fee is $1,514.00/dwelling. Have applicant contact Ray Honan for details. 4. An Erosion Control Plan is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Have copy submitted to Ray Honan at Water Quality. 5. Additional comments when building plans are submitted. (Water Quality Control contact person: Ray Honan, (650/877-8634) -25- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: March 15, 2007 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF: Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings. Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously approved by the City Council on July 14, 2004) Location: Southeast corner of Hillside Boulevard and Stonegate Drive Zone: Medium Density Residential (R-2-H-P) Zone District. SSFMC: Chapters 20.84 & 20.85. Owner & Applicant: Stonegate Home Development, Inc. Case Nos: P07-0010 [PUD07-001 & DR07-0006] [Original Case Nos. PUD01-012, DROI-012 & MNDOl-012] RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a Modification to a Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings, subject to making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approvaL BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The 1.4 acre project site is situated at Hillside Boulevard and Stonegate Drive, and is adjacent to other residences and a church. The project, approved by the City Council on July 14,2004, is comprised of 6 detached single family dwellings and 10 attached town homes. Construction was started last fall. The developer has re-examined the floor plans and wants to make changes to improve the efficiency of the floor space in several rooms. This will entail relocating some windows, and eliminating several ground floor exterior doors. The revised plans also include moving the fireplaces for direct venting to the outside wall rather than through the chimney. The developer proposes to leave the exterior fireplace chimneys to m;n;m17:e the change in the building architecture. The project sponsor also proposes to change the window style, type and finish yielding a different look than the approved plans. The applicant also advises that the architectural representation of windows on the approved plans, while they appear different from the proposed -26- March 15, 2007 P07-0010 Hillside & Stonegate Page 2 of 3 drawings, are the windows specified on the window schedule of the original plans. The applicant's plans are attached. The Commission should determine whether the proposed changes are sympathetic to the approved building architecture. While each of the proposed changes is relatively minor in nature, the cumulative effect of all the proposed changes will be noticeable, and are therefore, subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council as a Modification of the Residential Planned Unit Development [SSFMC Chapters 20.84 and 20.91]. The City Council's review is required because the final approval of the original project was made by the Council. While copies of the approved construction plans and the proposed revisions and a general list of the changes keyed to the plans are attached, due to the number and nature of the changes, the applicant will make a detailed presentation to the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The proposed exterior changes were reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meeting of February 20,2007. The Board determined that the proposed addition, removal and relocation of windows, and the removal of the doors and exterior chimneys was acceptable and would not detract from the architecture of the buildings. However, the Board suggested that the grid style windows shown on the approved construction plans be retained to more closely resemble the appearance of the dwellings on the conceptual plans. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved by the City Council in association with the original project on July 14,2004. City Staff has determined that the aesthetic impacts of the proposed changes are minor and that the MND is still adequate. Because the impacts of the proposed changes are minor, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission is not required to taken any action on the environmental document. CONCLUSION/RECO:MMENDA TION: The proposed changes comply with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Therefore, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a Modification to the Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings, subject to making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval. -27- March 15, 2007 P07-00l0 Hillside & Stonegate Page 3 of 3 -?~~ - eve Carlson, Seruor Planner Attachments: Draft Resolution Plans -28- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: April 5, 2007 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Modification of: Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings and the addition of several new retaining walls and modification of a an above ground tree well. Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously approved by the City Council on July 14, 2004) Location: Southeast corner of Hillside Boulevard and Stonegate Drive Zone: Medium Density Residential (R-2-H-P) Zone District. SSFMC: Chapters 20.84 & 20.85. Owner & Applicant: Stonegate Home Development, Inc. Case Nos: P07-0010 [PUD07-001 & DR07-0006] [Original Case Nos. PUD01-012, DR01-012 & MND01-0l2] RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Councll approve a Modification to a Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings and the addition of several new retaining walls and modification of a an above ground tree well, subject to making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposed modifications to the dwellings including the floor plans, windows and doors were reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 15, 2007. The Commission members offered a range of comments and questions including, but not limited to, the loss of texture provided by the proposed door and window changes (including style, type and finish) the functionality of the chimneys, and the heating of the storage/workshop areas in Unit C. While the Planning Commissioners were generally supportive of the proposed concept of the window and door changes, they continued the matter to the Commission meeting of April 5, 2007 in order that the applicant could provide better graphics depicting the proposed changes and the approved conceptual plans, and that City Staff could review the Building Code questions -29- April 5,2007 P07 -00 10 Hillside & Stonegate Page 2 of 2 pertaining to the fireplace ducting through the attic to the roof, the heating ducts to the workshop area in Unit C, the second story structural beam in Units A and B (resulting in a small shed roof), and the proposed roof vents. A Building Division representative will attend the Planning Commission meeting to answer the Commissions questions. The Planning Commission members also were encouraged by the Chairperson to visit the project site to better understand the proposed or actual changes the developer has made to the dwellings. At the last meeting the developer has reviewed the proposed changes to Units A and B, some of the changes to Unit C, and had not had an opportunity to review the proposed new retaining walls. In accordance with the direction of the Planning Commission, the developer has revised the plans and will provide a power point presentation at the meeting. The applicant's plans are attached. The Commission should complete the review and determine whether the proposed changes are sympathetic to the approved building architecture. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved by the City Council in association with the original project on July 14, 2004. City Staffhas determined that the aesthetic impacts of the proposed changes are minor and that the MND is still adequate. Because the impacts of the proposed changes are minor, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission is not required to taken any action on the environmental document. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDA TION: The proposed changes comply with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Therefore, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Modification to the Residential Planned Unit Development Permit and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings and the addition of several new retaining walls and modification of a an above ground tree well, subject to making the required fmdings and adopting the conditions of approval. f!ff~ -----~~D, eIDor Planner Attachments: Draft Resolution Planning Commission Staff Report March 15,2007 Revised Plans -30- MINUTES March 15, 2007 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: TAPE 1 7:30 D.m. Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Giusti and Chairperson Prouty ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Girard Beaudin, Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Sky Woodruff, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer Sergeant Alan Normandy, Planning Liaison Tom Carney, Code Enforcement Officer City Attorney: Engineering Division: Police Department: Fire Prevention. CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Kalkin noted that Genentech has requested that item 4 be heard before item 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Tony Hamedany, Director of Engineering of Colombus Manufacturing, wanted to address the Genentech Childcare facility and the issues with their cooling units. Mr. Hamedany was informed by Chief Planner Kalkin and Commissioner Prouty that he can relate his comments on the item when it is before the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Stonegate Estates Planned Unit Development Modification Stonegate Home Development/Owner - Applicant Stonegate Estates & Hillside Avenue P07-0010: PUDM07-0001 DR07-0006 & MND-01-012 Modification of a Planned Unit Development and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings situated on the Southeast corner of Hillside Avenue and Stonegate Drive in the Medium Density Residential (R-2-H-P) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.84, 20.85 & 20.91. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Commissioner Prouty stated for the record that he was invited by the developer to tour the site. Ed Dauo, Stonegate Estates Developer, noted that their presentation would cover the three plans for the homes -31- Planning Commission Meeting of March 15, 2007 and the changes that occurred at every level. Plan A chanties and comments: Mr. Dauo noted that the sliding doors were changed to swinging doors to meet life safety needs, windows were changed from side to side sliding to single hung vertical, fireplace moved for functionality, replaced grid windows with windows without grids and the entry was raised by 14 inches to allow entry into home. Additional changes were octagon vents from eyebrow vents. Commissioner Teglia asked the applicant to compare the plans with before and after pictures and direct the Commission to the correct pages. Mr. Dauo noted that the page numbers were kept the same in the new plans to make it easier to identify the changes. Plan B chanties and comments: Mr. Dauo reviewed some of the changes made to this home plan: a solid core door was removed; windows were added in the kitchen, stairway and bathrooms; grids were removed from some of the windows; the entry was raised by 14 inches to allow entry into home, Commissioner Teglia noted that the second level and third level doors should be kept consistent. He added that they don't have to be full grids, but could just have grids on the outer edges. Mr. Dauo stated that it would be better to have them without grids to keep the views. Commissioner Teglia suggested keeping the grids consistent on all the doors. Commissioner Sim questioned what the Design Review Board's comments were on the windows with grids. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Design Review Board wanted to keep the grids and also liked the original mullions. Commissioner Sim noted that the grids are not bad given the style of architecture. Mr. Dauo stated that most custom homes do not use many grids and felt that it was best not to include grids in order to keep the views. Commissioner Sim reiterated that the presentation needs to show the before and after views side by side. Commissioner Teglia noted his concern with the glass looking blank without the grids. He added that on sheet A. 7b drawing 1, the center bar was removed while other bars have been extended to the arch area. He also noted that the through wall chimney flues. Mr. Dauo noted that plans A & B were approved with through wall vents and in order to be consistent they are requesting that the C plans also have them because building code requires a five foot wrap from a wall. He stated that all the vents are now direct in all three plans. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the chimney elements were originally approved with the intention to be operational and if the change is approved the chimneys will be nonfunctional. He pointed out that the Design Review Board felt that the original location of the chimney was the better of the two options. Senior Planner Carlson pointed out that elevation 1 for building B has a roof structure below the upper story window and noted that drawings one and four show this change. Commissioner Teglia asked if there was a function for the roof change. The applicant's architect noted that a beam needed to be added when this was sent to the structural engineer to support the structure and it sticks out 16 inches. They wished to cover this with something that would look natural. Mr. Dauo stated that they could leave the chimneys and the grids if the Commission so desired. Chairperson Prouty clarified that the applicant is willing to leave the grids in the windows, and the changes that are needed to meet certain building and structural requirements are okay with the Commission. Commissioner Teglia stated that the windows with the center bar are a great improvement and added that the grid windows on the lower and second levels should be maintained. Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Zemke and Commissioner Moore noted that they are inclined to take the Design Review Board's recommendation regarding the grids. Plan C chanties and comments: S:\M',^,L.<tes\03-iS-O:r RPC M',^,L.<tes.cloc -32- p~ge :2 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting of March 15, 2007 Commissioner Teglia asked if the proposed single hung windows meet egress standards. Senior Planner Carlson noted that this change came to staff's attention in February and does not know if the Building Official has approved these. Commissioner Teglia asked that this be looked at because casements may be required rather than single hung windows. Mr. Dauo noted that they do not have an issue with this if the Building Division looks at it for compliance. Mr. Dauo noted that the C plan changes are moving windows, removing grids from windows and relocating the chimney. Commissioner Teglia asked why the chimneys were not being placed where they were originally approved. Mr. Dauo stated that the C plans are duets that share a wall which is problematic from a Building Code perspective. Commissioner Teglia asked staff if the chimneys were approved. Senior Planner Carlson stated that they were approved and the Design Review Board had suggested that these should stay in their approved location to differentiate the two units. Commissioner Teglia asked if the fireplace and the chimneys could be placed where they were originally approved. Senior Planner Carlson stated that he would need to check with the Building Official. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the chimneys on the roof can be approved although they may be nonfunctional. Mr. Dauo stated that if the Commission wishes to keep them, they will put them where they were originally approved. Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Commissioner Honan noted that they would like to see them where they were previously approved and, if at all possible, they should be functional. Commissioner Honan stated that the Commission is being told of all the issues that occurred out in the field and felt it necessary to have the Building Official present to answer the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Teglia stated that the sliding windows would need to be changed to meet egress standards and every bedroom has a door access or casement access for egress. He felt that it was not necessary. Mr. Dauo noted that changes were made only to plans A and B for egress but not to plan C. Commissioner Sim felt that the Commission is micromanaging the project and the applicant needs to return to the Commission with a much more decipherable presentation. Chairperson Prouty suggested that the Commission visit the site, being that the project is under construction, and see the changes that have been done. He asked if the Commission could visit the site to make a determination. Assistant City Attorney Woodruff stated that the Commission would not be able to go as a collective body unless a special meeting was noticed and meeting place and time specified. He added that individual trips to view the site is pOSSible followed by a public noticed meeting. Commissioner Honan felt that the Building Official should be available to answer the Commission's questions on the changes. She added that the changes are not being clearly presented to the Commission. Commissioner Moore stated that it is best to visit the site to get a clear picture of the changes. Commissioner Sim stated that he is inclined to accept the Design Review Board's recommendations. Consensus of the Commission to individually visit the site and discuss the item at a reQular meetinQ. Motion Sim I Second Honan to continue the item to April 5, 2007 On the auestion Commissioner Honan asked what the issues with the storage area in plan C were. Senior Planner Carlson stated that there is a heating duct in the storage area and added that some of the Commissioners have had issues with garages and storage areas becoming illegal bedrooms. Commissioner Honan pointed out that this area cannot be used at anytime as a living space and asked that the heating ducts be removed. s:\MLv\'c<tes\D3-:L5-07 RPG M'v\'c<tes.clOC -33- p~ge 3 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting of March 15/ 2007 Approved by unanimous voice vote. TC1210 2. Kaiser Medical Office - Time Extension Kaiser/Owner Kaiser/Applicant 230 Oyster Point Blvd. PCA06-0008: UP04-0031, PM04-0003, DR04-0077, & TDM04-0004 Time Extension for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a single-story medical office building on Oyster Point Boulevard in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81. Moved prior to item 3 under Agenda Review. 4 Genentech Building 31 Carla Boragno/applicant Genentech, Inc/owner 1631 Grandview Dr. POS-OOOS: DROS-0003 & UPOS-0002 Use Permit to allow construction a five-story office building (Building 31) with a total floor space of 150,972 square feet at 1531 Grandview Drive in the Genentech R&D Overlay District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.39.60, 20.40.050, 20.40.060, 20.81 & 20.85 Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Lappen gave a PowerPoint presentation. Shar Zamanpour - Genentech/ Dan Jonatta - Johnson Fain Architects, gave a presentation on the project. Commissioner Zemke asked if there had been soil tests to determine what is on the site. Mr. Jonatta noted that all the borings necessary for the structure have been conducted with the two previous buildings and added that there should not be any surprises on the site. Commissioner Teglia questioned if the project has been presented to the Commission before. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the building was conceptually presented to the Commission at the annual review. He added that the building was submitted in 2005 and was delayed with the master plan process. Commissioner Teglia stated that historically there have been study sessions on the Genentech building proposals and this did not occur with Building 31. Commissioner Teglia noted that the focus is on the courtyard and noted that the side that faces Grandview does not have a good aesthetic view. He stated that the entrance cutout is a straight "L" rather than a graceful concave. He asked if more aesthetics were discussed on the Grandview side. Senior Planner Lappen stated that during the design review process staff discussed bringing in the elements on the interior out to the street and accentuating the view corridors. Commissioner Teglia felt that the gaps between the buildings are an interesting aspect of the site and the walkway could have been expanded. He also suggested having a curve on the long section to take in the curve of the street. He added that colored cement, pavers or stamped concrete could be s:\MlvcL-lteS\03-iS-07 RPC MlvcL-ltes.v1OC -34- p~ge -4- of 5 ~'t1\SAN p. ~O....~ II" ~ o>..~'_, '-#. ~ ......,6/..'~",~. ~ ~ o. .-;"'" .~ n ;... ~ l, (j; t: rnf'-,~~~~: ,_ n C) ." .'.-.-.-.,-,,-- .", '" "'. 0 ~,~. .~ ~' 4lIFOP.~'-~ MINUTES April 5, 2007 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: TAPE 1 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke and Vice Chairperson Giusti ABSENT: Chairperson Prouty STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Girard Beaudin, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Office Specialist Barry Mammini, Senior Building Inspector Sky Woodruff, Assistant City Attorney Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer Phil White, Fire Chief Brian Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall Building Division: City Attorney: Engineering Division: Fire Prevention. CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chairperson Giusti requested that the Planning Commission meeting in memory of Richard Cecil and Mary Jean Escovil. AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None 1. Approval of Regular Meeting minutes of October 19, 2006, November 16, 2006, December 7,2006, January 4, 2007 and February 1, 2007. 2. Kaiser Medical Office - Time Extension Kaiser I Owner Kaiser I Applicant 230 Oyster Point Blvd. PCA06-0008: UP04-0031, PM04-0003, DR04-0077, & TDM04-0004 (Continue to Apri/19, 2007) Time Extension for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a single-story medical office building on Oyster Point Boulevard in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81. Commissioner Teglia abstained from approving the January 4, 2007 minutes and Commissioner Sim would also abstain from approving the minutes of February 1, 2007. Motion Teglia I Second Moore to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by majority voice vote. Chairperson Prouty - absent. -35- Planning Commission Meeting of AprilS, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING 3. Stonegate Estates Planned Unit Development Modification Stonegate Home Development/Owner - Applicant Stonegate Estates &. Hillside Avenue P07-0010: PUDM07-0001 DR07-0006 &. MND-Ol-012 (Continued from March 15, 2007) Modification of a Planned Unit Development and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings and the addition of several new retaining walls and modification of an above ground tree well, situated on the Southeast corner of Hillside Avenue and Stonegate Drive in the Medium Density Residential (R-2-H-P) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.84 & 20.85 Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously approved by the City Council on July 14, 2004). Public Hearing Opened. Senior Planner Carlson gave a brief presentation. Kent Raff, Stonegate Estates Project Superintendent, gave a PowerPoint of the elevations with before and after pictures of the changes on building plans A, Band C. Commissioner Teglia noted that the window moved all the way to the corner on plan C looked strange. Mr. Raff noted that the window is over exagerated on the drawing and sits 8 inches from the corner. Commissioner Teglia asked what the issue was with keeping the window in its originally approved location. Mr. Raff stated that a bed with a headboard would be partially on the window. Commissioner Teglia noted that page C.1 had two windows on either side originally approved. Mr. Raff stated that they were on the elevations but were deleted by the structural engineer on the floor plans to incorporate structural members there. He stated that the approved floor plans do not show these windows and the architect forgot to remove them from the elevations. Commissioner Teglia stated that the elevations are an integral part of the Commission's approval and was concerned when an artist's rendition is changed after the Commission's approval. Commissioner Teglia asked staff if the Design Review Board (DRB) had suggested to keep the chimneys in their originally approved location. Senior Planner Carlson replied affirmatively and added that a Building Inspector is present to answer any questions of the Commission. Mr. Raff stated that by moving the chimney five feet from its location, it would be in the center of the living room, dining room and master bedroom. Mr. Dauo added that the chimneys cannot be seen from the street. Mr. Raff stated that they can leave the chimney in place for aesthetic purposes but it would not be functional. Commissioner Sim stated that a cross section of the site would help the Commission to view the chimneys in relation to the character of the street. Mr. Raff stated that the chimney is slightly visible from the rear elevation. Mr. Dauo reiterated that the chimneys will only serve as decoratives feature if the Commission wishes to keep them in their approved locations. Commissioner Sim felt more comfortable in recommending approval of what the Commission had previously approved. Commissioner Moore echoed Commissioner Sim's comments. Commissioner Sim stated that he is comfortable with the windows being moved on plans C.1 and C.2, but asked that the developer be consistent with the windows on the lower level to keep the character of the building. Mr. Raff stated that the windows on the bottom level are dictated by the utilities in terms of the location. Mr. Dauo stated that the C.2 and C.3 plan reflects the approved window location. Commissioner Sim was concerned with the Commission making reactionary decisions and stated that he was most comfortable with recommending approval of the current approval. He added that he understands moving certain elements to meet building codes and life and safety requirements but is not convinced about moving an element merely to allow space for furniture. Commissioner Teglia suggested moving the window higher than the S:\Mcvcute5\04-0S-0r RPC Mcvcute5.(;\OC -36- p~ge ::1 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2007 headboard and suggested that there needs to be consistency with the window placement. Mr. Raff stated that the bedroom window can be made smaller if the Commission recommended doing so. Commissioner Sim noted that he is willing to entertain a smaller sized window. Commissioner Teglia felt that a smaller window may look odd in comparison with other windows on the building. Commissioner Sim asked why there can't be consistency in the placement of the windows, particularly the lower level windows. Mr. Dauo stated that on the wall there are beams that limit the locations of the windows. He pointed out that they are trying to keep the changes to a minimum in order to make the master bedroom functional. Commissioner Sim felt that solving the functional issues is understandable but the Commission has not seen aesthetically pleasing solutions. Mr. Dauo stated that they can leave the window in its originally approved location because they have constraints on the timing of these approvals due to the project being under construction. Mr. Raff stated that the window will not be visible for the public because it is on the side elevation. Commissioner Zemke asked if the window can be eliminated. Mr. Dauo stated that the simple solution would be to eliminate the window, but he would prefer to keep the window. Commissioner Teglia stated that the windows need to be consistent and this means that the window will likely need to stay as approved. He stated that if the developer can find a solution to move the windows together, they can do so. Mr. Dauo noted that this is a good possibility. Commissioner Teglia suggested using a series of trims and patterns to tie in the fac;ade. Mr. Raff stated that they will line up the windows. Mr. Raff proceeded to show the site plan changes made to several lots within the project. He pointed out that in order to preserve the pine trees and to prevent the roots from going under the sidewalk they have added a retaining wall. Commissioner Teglia asked about the 12 foot section of the retaining wall and if the functional difference from the original plan was a slope versus a retaining wall. Mr. Dauo noted that that the 12 foot section is already installed. Mr. Raff stated that the height varies from 2 feet to 4 feet high. Commissioner Zemke noted that whatever the applicant can do to save mature encouraged. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the DRB has not seen the plans for the walls and is concerned with the finish and the softening of the entry with landscaping. Commissioner Teglia asked what staff's position on the wall is. Senior Planner Carlson stated that he would prefer to have DRB review it. Commissioner Teglia stated that there is not enough information to approve the retaining wall change and asked that the concept be approved with the condition that staff review and approve the specifics of the wall and softening its impact with landscaping in coordination with the DRB. Commissioner Teglia asked if staff had issues on the 12 foot extension of the wall at the main entrance of the site. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the Engineering Division needs to review to make sure that it does not create a sightline issue. Commissioner Honan asked what the resolution to the heating duct in the storage area of unit C was. Fire Marshal Niswonger stated that there was concern by they Commission that the storage area would be used as a bedroom and noted that Code Enforcement does not support it. Mr. Dauo stated that the heating duct was installed in the shop and a half bathroom and understood that the full bathroom was not permitted because of this concern by the Commission and Council. He felt that the elimination of the shower met the Commission's concerns and did not feel that a heat duct would result in the shop becoming an illegal dwelling. Commissioner Honan asked what the size of the shop was. Mr. Raff stated that it is approximately 9 feet by 18 feet. Commissioner Honan felt that heating is not needed in a shop or in the half bathroom. Fire Marshal Niswonger stated that Code Enforcement is dealing with numerous cases of illegal units in garages and felt that the size of the room conducive to conversion. He stated that it is best to discourage it and recommended the Commission not allow it. Commissioner Teglia asked Senior Building Inspector Mammini if the chimneys can't be built as approved Senior Building Inspector Mammini replied in the negative and added that a five foot area where the two buildings come together needs to be maintained. The code rates this as assembly and the code does not allow any s:\Ml,^,utes\04-05-07 RPC Ml,^,utes.oIoc -37- p~ge 3 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2007 penetrations within five feet in each direction on the roof to impede the spread of fire. Commissioner Teglia noted that this was previously approved by the Commission. Senior Building Inspector Mammini stated that this was probably overlooked during plan check though the appearance of the chimney could remain for aesthetic reasons, with the ducting running inside the building horizontally and outside a vertical wall. Public Hearing closed. Motion Tealia I Second Zemke to approve resolution 2663-2007 recommending approval of P07-0010: PUDM07-000l DR07-0006 & MND-Ol-012 adding Conditions of Approval to require aligning the windows, eliminate storage room and half bathroom heating to deter conversion to an illegal unit, the chimneys will remain and that the retaining wall be subject to review and approval by staff and the Design Review Board. Approved by majority voice vote. Chairperson Prouty - absent. S:\Mlv\'uteS\o4-0S-07 RPC Mlv\'utes.cloc -38- p~ge -4- of S - ~'t\\ s:4N .g (~ ~) t,) c ~~~~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 8 DATE: April 25, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR THE SSF SCAVENGER COMPANY MATERIALS RECOVERY AND TRANSFER STATION TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MUNICIP AL WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIAL IN THE SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution adopting the CEQA Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the SSF Scavenger Company Materials Recovery and Transfer Station to increase the amount of municipal waste and recyclable material in the Solid Waste Facility Permit. BACKGROUND In February 1999, the City of South San Francisco certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted appropriate zoning amendments, and approved a Use Permit for the Blue Line Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (MRF/TS). The project description for the EIR identified a facility handling an operational capacity of2,148 tons per day (TPD) during an 11 to 13 hour work day, and with a 24-hour design capacity of 4,488 TPD. In September 2000, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) awarded the SSF Scavenger Company a Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) to process 1,250 tons per day (TPD) of municipal solid waste and recyclable materials including construction and demolition debris. A total of 1,262 one-way vehicle (combination of haul and garbage collection trucks) trips are allowed in the Solid Waste Facility Permit. The facility is permitted to receive and process municipal solid waste (MSW) and recyclable material Monday through Sunday, 24 hours per day. DISCUSSION The MRF/TS is located adjacent to the San Francisco Bat at the east end of East Jamie Court. The main sorting and handling operations are housed within a single building of approximately 101,800 square feet (s.f.). A two-story, 9,374 s.f. office building houses administrative functions and has an adjacent 31-space parking lot. There is also a 10,140 s.f. vehicle maintenance building, a 3,600 s.f. service building where Staff Report Subject: Materials Recovery and Transfer Station Addendum to the 1999 EIR Date: April 25, 2007 Page 2 of3 containers can be repaired, a MRF office structure that also contains a visitor's center and observation area, a 200 s.f. scalehouse, and an autoclave device for sterilizing wastes from international flights. Proposed Changes to the Approved Project The revised project description for the Blue Line MRF/TS Project consists of the following: . Increase the amount of municipal solid waste and recyclable materials in the Solid Waste Facility Permit from 1,250 TPD to 2,000 TPD, which includes 500 TPD of mixed construction and demolition debris and 250 TPD of municipal solid waste. Maintain the number of one-way vehicles trips at 1,262 trips per day. . Add mechanized processing equipment inside the current building to achieve greater recovery rates and process additional material more efficiently. The applicant does not propose to make physical changes to the existing buildings or increase the number of vehicle trips to and from the facility. Existing City of South San Francisco Permits The Use Permit (UP-98-013) allows the construction and operation of the materials recovery and transfer station use at the 10-acre site at the terminus of East Jamie Court. The Scavenger Company does not propose to expand the facility nor increase the number of vehicle trips. Although the operator would increase the through-put of waste and recycled material in the facility, the proposed changes to the facility's waste process would remain consistent with the approved Conditions of Approval and Findings in the Use Permit. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) The CIWMB approved the original Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) on September 19,2000. The SWFP, Condition 17.i, requires the Scavenger Company to revise the SWFP in order to exceed the permitted tonnage of 1250 TPD. The operator will file a SWFP Revision to increase the tonnage to 2,000 TPD with a Transfer/Processing Report Amendment. The permitted traffic volume will remain the same at 1,262 one-way vehicle trips per day. The CIWMP requires that the Scavenger Company prepare an Addendum to the EIR that must be adopted by the "Lead Agency," the City of South San Francisco. According to California State Law, CEQA compliance is required for the establishment, expansion, or change in operation(s) ofa Solid Waste Facility requiring the issuance or revision of a Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP). The California CIWMB will need to concur with the issuance of the SWFP Revision acting as a "Responsible Agency" under CEQA Guidelines. Addendum to the EIR and CEQA Compliance The City Council as the decision-making body of the Lead Agency under CEQA, must consider the 1999 EIR as well as the Addendum when considering potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. CEQA does not mandate public circulation or formal review of an Addendum. The existing MRF/TS was previously analyzed in the 1999 EIR, which identified several significant impacts affecting Land Use, Aesthetics, Public Health and Safety, Traffic and Transportation, Air Quality, Noise, Geology and Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Biological Resources. The facility was Staff Report Subject: Materials Recovery and Transfer Station Addendum to the 1999 EIR Date: April 25, 2007 Page 3 of3 built as proposed with mitigation measures that reduced any potential impacts to less than significant. The EIR also recognized the increase in waste generation and the need to increase the permitted tonnage over time. The environmental impact of the proposed changes is studied in the Addendum in accordance with CEQA and in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines. The fundamental conclusion of the Addendum is that the revised project will not result in new significant impacts beyond those already identified in the 1999 certified Environmental Impact Report and will not result in substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in the EIR. If the City Council concurs with these conclusions, then per CEQA guidelines Section 15162 and 15164 (a), a subsequent or supplemental EIR need not be prepared. CONCLUSION The CEQA Addendum concludes that the revised project will not result in new significant impacts beyond those already identified in the 1999 certified Environmental Impact Report and will not result in substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in the EIR. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution adopting the CEQA Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the SSF Scavenger Company Materials Recovery and Transfer Station to increase the amount of municipal waste and recyclable material in the Solid Waste Facility Permit. By: ~ ~'-1~'L---_...._------'---By: Marty Van Duyn (J Assistant City Manager . , . , ~--"'" ~ '(~i ) ~------- B ; agel City Manager Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Resolution adopting the South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR, April 2007, Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3. 1999 Scavenger Company MRF/TS Draft Environmental Impact Report (the document is attached to the Staff Report in a CD-ROM) 4. 1999 Scavenger Company MRF/TS Final Environmental Impact Report (the document is attached to the Staff Report in a CD-ROM) Attachment 1: Location SSF Scavenger Company MRF/TS East Jamie Court RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING CEQA ADDENDEM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR THE SSF SCAVENGER COMPANY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AND TRANSFER STATION TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MUNICIP AL WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIAL IN THE SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT WHEREAS, in February 1999, the City of South San Francisco certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted the appropriate zoning amendments and, approved the Use Permit for the Blue Line Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (MRF/TS); and WHEREAS, the Project Description for the 1999 EIR was for a facility handling an operational capacity of2,148 tons per day (TPD) for an 11 to 13 hour work day, and with a 24- hour design capacity of 4,488 TPD. The facility was initially permitted to receive a daily maximum of1,250 TPD; and WHEREAS, the 1999 EIR identified several significant impacts affecting Land Use, Aesthetics, Public Health and Safety, Traffic and Transportation, Air Quality, Noise, Geology and Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Biological Resources. The facility was built as proposed with mitigation measures that reduced any potential impacts to less than significant. The EIR also recognized the increase in waste generation and the need to increase the permitted tonnage over time. WHEREAS, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 and Public Resources Code sections 21166, an Addendum to the prior environmental analysis adopted for the SSF Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station was prepared for the proposal to change the Solid Waste Facility Permit to increase the amount of municipal waste and recyclable material, and which is incorporated by reference and attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes, based on substantial evidence on the record, that the proposed project changes will not result in any new significant effects, or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified significant effects, nor is there any new information of substantial importance resulting in new significant impacts or affecting previously identified impacts, mitigation measures, or alternatives; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the SSF Scavenger Company Materials Recovery and Transfer Station to increase the amount of municipal waste and recyclable material in the Solid Waste Facility Permit, along with the previously adopted 1999 EIR, and the Council agrees with the conclusions reached in the Addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby finds as follows: 1. The proposed changes to the Solid Waste Facility Permit will not result in any new significant effects, or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified significant effects, nor is there any new information of substantial importance resulting in new significant impacts or affecting previously identified impacts, mitigation measures, or alternatives; therefore under CEQA the City need not prepare a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report; and 2. The Addendum to the EIR has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the SSF Scavenger Company Materials Recovery and Transfer Station to increase the amount of municipal waste and recyclable material in the Solid Waste Facility Permit. * * * * * * 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 , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk J :\WPD\MNRSW\405\OO 1 IRES0\2000IApriJ\SaJeofproperty .doc - - - """ SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVENGER COMPANY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AND TRANSFER STATION EIR ADDENDUM #1 - OPERATIONAL CHANGES - SCH # 98051024 - - - Prepared for: City of South San Francisco April 2007 """ """ """ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVENGER COMPANY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AND TRANSFER STATION EIR ADDENDUM #1 - OPERATIONAL CHANGES SCH # 98051024 Prepared for: City of South San Francisco April 2007 8950 Cal Center Drive Building 3. Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95826 916.564.4500 WWIV.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Petaluma Portland San Diego San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills ~ESA ~ - - '" TABLE OF CONTENTS South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes Paqe 1. Background and Purpose of this Addendum 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Purpose of this Addendum 1-1 2. Description of Proposed Changes to Facility Operations 2-1 2.1 Project Overview 2-1 2.2 Proposed Project Changes 2-8 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects 3-1 3.1 Land Use 3-1 3.2 Aesthetics 3-5 3.3 Public Services and Utilities 3-5 3.4 Public Health and Safety 3-5 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 3-6 3.6 Air Quality 3-8 3.7 Noise 3-10 3.8 Geology and Seismicity 3-10 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-10 3.10 Biological Resources 3-11 4. Conclusion 4-1 5. References 5-1 Appendices A. Traffic and Transportation Review of South San Francisco Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Proposed Operational Changes A-1 B. Construction and Demolition Ordinances B-1 C. Understanding Construction & Demolition Recycling Requirements - San Mateo County C-1 South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials ESA I 206097 Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR April 2007 Addendum #1 - Operational Changes Table of Contents - List of Figures 1 Project Location 2 Site Operations and Traffic 3 Building Plan and Traffic 4a&b Project Site Photographs 5a&b Project Site Photographs 6a&b Project Site Photographs List of Tables 2-1 3.1-1 3.6-1 Vehicle Trips from EIR Compared to Proposed Changes Summary of Major Development Projects 2001-2006 Project Operation Air Quality Emissions and Incremental Change versus Emissions in the DEIR Paqe 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-10 3-3 3-9 - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes ii ESA / 206097 April 2007 SECTION 1 Background and Purpose of this Addendum 1.1 Background The City of South San Francisco was the lead agency in developing the South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (MRF/TS) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse # 98051024). The City of South San Francisco published the FEIR in January 1999, and on February 10, 1999 the South San Francisco City Council certified the EIR, which incorporated both the FEIR and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), as complete and adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council further approved the project based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval. The Findings for the Project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15097, are incorporated by reference. The Findings document identifies impacts resulting from the project, and the MMRP outlines mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. The EIR concluded that all potential project-related significant impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts: (1) alteration of the character of the East of 101 Area, (2) generation of criteria air pollutants from project operations (NOx and ROG), and (3) noise that would affect the proposed extension of the Bay Trail on the south side of the facility. To accommodate increased growth in San Mateo County, and increased recycling of construction and demolition materials, the applicant now !JlUpuses ill\;rcasing the daily p-.:nnitled [(Jllluge {Of tbe [aclii~/, as discussed ill mule lkLctil iil Section 2.2 of this Addendum. 1.2 Purpose of this Addendum The CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) require that a lead agency prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the environmental evaluation of a project are necessary, unless any of the following occurs, in which case a subsequent EIR must be prepared: 1. Substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects; or South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 1-1 ESA I 206097 April 2007 .... 1. Background and Purpose of this Addendum 3. New information of substantial importance, which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the EIR was certified, shows any of the following: (i) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR, (ii) the project will result in impacts substantially more severe than those disclosed in the EIR, (iii) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt them, or (iv) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt them. The proposed operational changes at the MRF/TS would increase the permitted daily tonnage for the facility from 1,250 tons per day (TPD), to 2,000 TPD. As described in greater detail in this Addendum, the proposed change would not trigger any of the conditions described above, as it would not result in any new significant impacts, nor would it substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts. Moreover, there is no new information of substantial importance resulting in new significant impacts or affecting previously identified impacts, mitigation measures, or alternatives. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent EIR is not required under CEQA. Rather, an addendum to the previously certified EIR is legally sufficient to address the proposed changes to the project. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 1-2 ESA I 206097 April 2007 SECTION 2 Description of Proposed Changes to Facility Operations 2.1 Project Overview The previous EIR analyzed impacts from a proposed Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (MRF/TS), located on East Jarnie Court in the City of South San Francisco (see Figure 1). The MRF/TS site is bordered on the east and south by San Francisco Bay, on the north by the new Britannia East Grand R&D campus, and on the west by a trucking facility and new office construction. Figure 2 shows the project site layout and traffic patterns and Figure 3 shows the layout ofthe main processing building (101,800 square feet). Figures 4 and 5 show off-site views of the MFRlTS and Figure 6 shows on-site pictures of the buildings and operations. The facility was proposed to consolidate South San Francisco Scavenger Company's Blue Line Transfer Facility on Oyster Point Boulevard and their recycling facility and administrative offices on South Linden Avenue. Following the certification of the EIR and subsequent approvals and permits, the MRF/TS was built on East Jamie Court and has been in operation since April 29, 2001. The MRF/TS is currently permitted to process up to 1,250 TPD of wastes and recyclable materials, primarily from the cities of South San Francisco, Brisbane, and Millbrae, and from the San Francisco International Airport. The MRF/TS includes extensive facilities for recovering and processing recyclable, fuel ilnd compost:lble materi:lls from waste. Materials that cannot be recycled, used for fuel or transported for composing are transferred in long-haul trucks to the Ox Moootain Landtill, near Half Moon Bay. The facility's Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) allows for a maximum peak trip generation rate of 1,262 one-way vehicle trips per day. This EIR Addendum has been prepared in part because the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff are concerned that the proposed project changes, described in more detail in Section 2.2 of this Addendum, would be inconsistent with the approved project description, since: 1) the applicant (Blue Line Transfer Facility) is not the same entity that is identified in the South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station EIR (City of South San Francisco, 1999); and 2) the proposed project would create additional truck trips not analyzed in the South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station EIR (City of South San Francisco, 1999), thus creating new traffic impacts on local and regional roadways. \ South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 2-1 ESA I 206097 April 2007 - ~/ Ii "", :;,.' Si c/ ;: , ~/ ----------- ' '-------1 / --G;;;;;-__ -"1118n"e ------~ , / / / ell l '>' e " ~ .I -:/ ~ ' b .s; I ~/ ,/ E~/ ~; ~r:/ ' d:..' I /' '- -~--- ----- ----- ~-'-____ I ~, I ~! ! / \, i I ! i ! I I I fl ~I ~I ~l I, \ ...J! {\\.Ie ,___~-J 1,j\8.'t\ ~---\ ~ \\ - , , \\ \~ ~ \\ " -j> '\\.. ,--,~ I ~ >.: --- ~I ;:, ~! ":~ PROJECT LOCATION ~i ~I -<, !! ~J ./ I' ./ --, ; ; /\(~ J~/' / \,'b-~0 ,/ '6.'00 / '0 - -- t N NOT TO SCALE SOU RCE: Wilson Engineering & Transportation Consultants. 2006; and ESA. 2006 South San Francisco Material Recovery Facility CEQA . 206097 Figure 1 Project Location -L- __ __ _ -- -- -,- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - -- -I I I I I I I I I I I I , ~ I I , I · I r1, . ji I I L I I! --- I' I II I Ii.. L_ _______..._ -.- 1 _ _1I.L.__ I I I c: o 01 ~ c: Q. o ::l ,- ~ Cii l.) U5 0: ~ ~ '0. Q. ~~ Q ~ .... ~ .!!! g '(lj F t: ~ c::: Ui as 0 c: c: "0 S ~ ~ ~ ~ - - <ll ~ ~ ,~ ,!:2 ,- '0. Q. ~ pe~ ~ -n "<t ~::l l.t) -n g F o 2 F ~ 3F~= '-'-00 ~~...!.. ()' <ll l.) '0 Q) o ~ ex: ex: ::: (ij (ij (ij ~ l.) ,!:2 ,!:2 '0. '0. Q. ~ i~g~ 01 c: '0. ~ tJ) "0 c: 1'Il ..J ~ +-} o ,....N.~ mCl)= ~...~ C\I~1- .0) < .- "C OLLc: w CO U (/J ~ c: = 0 '0 ._ If <ti ... 2:' Q) ~ c. 8 0 Q) Q) ex: _ ~ i:i5 ~ 1ii ~ o l.) <Il '0 c: ~ U. c: <ll en .s= :; o en <J;) 8 N <i. en UJ 'C <: <U Iii' ~ c Q) E ~ <U <: <U ::; Q) g ,!!! 0.. E o () Cii g Uj () cr ::l o en III -1 -1 ~ III ~ ;Z ~ -1 W ::l u.. <:=> c::> III -1 -1 ~ III ~~ <( ,.... w c.:> <( II:: o ~ III W -1 <( lD !:I 0 ... c.:> 1D,~~w _1Il;Z ~ ~~~ ~ U~ a.. Q.::l ~~ 0::0 ~ c::> ~ ~ {I t:? ...Jc.:> ~~w 01ll;Z ffif3:::i ::EO~ ::EO!:! 011::0.. 00........ I ~ o ..J ... D: .... ~~ 0", :!5... oll~ ..J> :$L:j 00 "'''' ~D: ::E ____ 8 fI" --~----- ~ i:5 --------_ 0 en D: --~ '" ~~ ~lD 8 ~~ g 1&1 ~ 9 ........ $ in ........ f---~----------------- llV'M o ~ "'; ~ en <( ~c.:> C li!~ ~~ ~~ c o o ~ ~ ~ fi ~ l&JII:: ...Jl&J lDC <(z ~- 11::11:: 0<':> a.. o ~ w... Oil> -C:t ~ 11SYM \!lo _~ In. ~; 0 ~ "'''''''''' "'''' '" ",w. "'''' "''''''' "''''~ fr 2... _,_~,_,_,_,_,~,_,g,_ ~ fr \\ n fr ~I I I, c o Ol ~ ,~ g. iii t5 US a::: (ij (ij o 0 'a 'a ~~ Q ~ t5 ~ ~ '[!! ~ c: ~ ~ c ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ (ij (ij (ij (ij o 0 0 0 'a 'is. 'is. 'is. ~~~~ IO~~ ~ t5 ;;!; ~ t5 ~ og~Ol 2- t= .5 ~ ~ 2 ~ :g ~ '0 ijl ...J a. cr cr (ij (ij (ij (ij 000 0 'is. 'is. 'is. 'is. ~~~~ :;lz ;~ ~~ ::>:1: o. II"" IC(J~ Ol c 'is. <Il o Ul '0 c <Il ...J ~ ~} b; Ct) .2 oG):S:: co"'eel o~... ~ Cll- <( .- '0 ou-c ~ eel >, c == eel '0 a.. tf >, 0) ~ c CD .- > '0 o == ijl :J cr co ]i (ji rn ::a: o o Ul '0 C ~ l.L. C <Il CJ) .r: :; o CJ) '" o o N <i en w '0 t: <G Iii o o N - II ::E Q) () c: ,!!! Ci E o o 19 ~ w o a: ::l o en 4a. Gate entrance east end of Jamie Court 4b. Viewpoint down Jamie Court to the east South San Francisco Material Recovery Facility CEQA . 206097 Figures 4a and 4b Project Site Photographs SOURCE: ESA. 2006 - 5a. Project site from Bay Trail 5b. Project site from hilltop SOURCE: ESA, 2006 South San Francisco Material Recovery Facility CEQA . 206097 Figures 5a and 5b Project Site Photographs Ga. Site operations 6b. Site operations SOURCE: ESA, 2006 South San Francisco Material Recovery Facility CEQA . 206097 Figures 6a and 6b Project Site Photographs 2. Description of Proposed Changes to Facility Operations - With regard to the first concern ofCIWMB staff, the South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. and Blue Line Transfer, Inc. have a common ownership of the MRF/TS where the South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. is the collection company and Blue Line Transfer, Inc. is the applicant and the transfer/processing company. The Use Permit (UP-98-013) for the materials recovety and transfer station use at the 10-acre site at the terminus of East Jamie Court runs with the property rather than the property owner or operator. This Addendum acknowledges that the SWFP for this project is SWIS No. 41-AA-0185 and that permit identifies the facility as the Blue Line Material Recovety Facility at East Jamie Court. For consistency with the previous EIR the title of this EIR addendum will continue to identifY the project as the South San Francisco MRF/TS EIR. For the purposes of this EIR Addendum the South San Francisco MRF/TS can be considered to be synonymous with the Blue Line Material Recovety Facility. On review of the City's business license records, the South San Francisco Scavenger Company maintains a franchise agreement with the City of South San Francisco and operated the original Blue Line Transfer facility located at 180 Oyster Point Boulevard. City records indicate that the South San Francisco Scavenger Company operates the new materials recovety and transfer facility (Blue Line Transfer Facility) at East Jamie Court. The second concern (additional truck trips) of CIWMB staff is addressed in Section 3 of this EIR Addendum and the Traffic and Transportation Review that is included as Appendix A. It should be further noted that the South San Francisco Scavenger Company MRF/TS project was included in the General Plan buildout for the area and part of the 2001 Transportation Plan and the 2003 update to the Traffic Fee Study. - 2.2 Proposed Project Changes This addendum analyzes proposed changes to the project description in the previous EIR and Solid Waste Facility Permit for the MRF/TS. The proposed changes to the project are described below. The proposed changes would: · Increase the amount of municipal solid waste and recyclable materials in the Solid Waste Facility Permit from 1,250 TPD to 2,000 TPD, which includes 500 TPD of mixed construction and demolition debris and 250 TPD of municipal solid waste; and The proposed changes would: · Maintain a total of 1,262 one-way vehicle trips that were analyzed in the previous EIR and are allowed in the Solid Waste Facility Permit; · Maintain the operational design capacity of 4,488 TPD as identified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit; and · Use the existing buildings, no new buildings or an expansion of the existing buildings are proposed. - - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 2-8 ESA I 206097 April 2007 2. Description of Proposed Changes to Facility Operations As anticipated in the DEIR, the increase in permitted capacity is intended to accommodate increased growth in San Mateo County and increased recycling of construction and demolition materials resulting from local ordinances adopted in the County since 1999 when the facility was originally approved (see Appendix B). The MRF/TS has recently improved its ability to recycle C&D wastes by adding a C&D Processing Pickline in the southwest comer of the main processing building (see Figure 3). The proposed changes to the MRF ITS would alter the peak allowable tonnage of waste to be processed (from 1,250 to 2,000 TPD) but not beyond the total facility capacity identified in the DEIR. Furthermore, the applicant has not requested an increase in the permitted number of vehicle trips per day generated by the facility (1,262 one-way trips per day). When the facility originally opened, the largest portion ofproject-related traffic was generated by self-haulers or private citizens bringing waste to the site. However, the vehicle makeup of the collection related traffic stream has changed over the years, now more tonnage is delivered to the facility by curbside collection vehicles than is delivered by self-haulers. The applicant has provided an analysis of the future collection vehicle trips that indicates the project would not require a revision of the permitted daily vehicle traffic. Calculations based on observed vehicle traffic at the existing MRF/TS indicate that the traffic volume analyzed in the EIR (1,262 one-way daily trips) would be capable of handling the proposed increased tonnage (2,000 TPD). As explained below, this can be attributed to the reduction in self-haul vehicles and the proposed increase in heavier vehicles carrying C&D materials. Additional information on traffic and circulation is presented in Section 3 and Appendix A. The following changes in operations have contributed to the increase in the average tonnage for collection vehicles at the MRF/TS. South Francisco Scavenger Company, the collection company associated with the MRF/TS, implemented a new 3-cart collection system in 2001. At the same time, residents of single- family dwelling units were offered up to two free on-call clean-up pick -ups per yeal. Tili'> haS rcsulwJ iJ l a decrease ill lhe Humber or self-haul, dlie1cs, whOSG ~lveragG wcisbl is ad)' 700 pounds per load, or 0.35 tons per vehicle. A large decrease in small self-haul traffic does not substantially affect tonnages. Meanwhile, the amount oflarge loads of C&D debris, with loads averaging 4 tons per vehicle, has increased. Following the trends of less small self-haul vehicle trips in favor of heavier C&D debris, many more tons are derived from each vehicle trip and greater recycling opportunities are presented with the efficient processing of C&D debris. As a result of this changing mode of transport, the site operations can accommodate the increase in actual tonnage of waste from 1,250 TPD to 2,000 TPD without an increase in the permitted number of vehicle trips. Table 2-1 is a detailed breakdown of the proposed vehicle trips prepared by the applicant to show a comparison of the vehicle trips analyzed in the previous EIR and the vehicle mix estimated for the proposed operational changes at the MRF/TS. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 2-9 ESA I 206097 April 2007 - 2. Description of Proposed Changes to Facility Operations TABLE 2-1 VEHICLE TRIPS FROM EIR COMPARED TO PROPOSED CHANGES - 1,250 Tons Per Day (TPD) 2,000 Tons Per Day (TPD) 1999 EIR Proposed Modification Collection trucks 75 124 Transfer Trailers 50 86 Public Self-Haul 285 175 Roll-off Recycling 121 156 - EmployeesNisitors 100 90 Round Trips 631 631 One-Way Trips 1,262 1,262 .... - - - - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 2-10 ESA I 206097 April 2007 - SECTION 3 Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects The previous 1999 EIR evaluated the following environmental issues: land use; aesthetics; public services and utilities; public health and safety; traffic and transportation; air quality; noise; geology and seismicity; hydrology and water quality; and biological resources. These issues are re-evaluated in this Addendum for the proposed change in permitted daily capacity. This evaluation determines whether, with the increase in daily tonnage, the facility would result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the EIR. The 1999 Draft EIR (Chapter 3) describes the criteria used in determining the significance of environmental impacts. With regard to existing conditions, ESA reviewed the facility/site inspections of Blue Line Transfer Inc. (SWIS number 4l-AA-0185) as provided on the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) website. The facility is inspected for the CIWMB by the County of San Mateo Health Services Department. No violations or areas of concern have been reported through the inspection program for the year 2006 and there are no enforcement action records for the MRF/TS. 3.1 Land Use Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the MRF ITS are described in Section 2 of this Addendum. The area surrounding the MRF ITS has changed and continues to change (as envisioned in the East of 101 ArcCl Phn) from prior neavy industrial ann tmcking llSCS to office and rcseClrcn areas.. including continued expansion of Genentech offices. Therefore, land use impacts identified in the DEIR (pages IILA-lO through IlI.A-23) would be the same and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts also would apply to the proposed project changes. As determined in the previous EIR, all impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the exception of Impact IlI.A-5. Impact III.A-5 is the project effect of altering the character of the East of 101 Area by changing the planned land use. Subsequent to the EIR, the project land use designation and zoning were changed so the project site is now consistent with land use designations and zoning. Regardless, this impact is described in the 1999 EIR as being significant and unavoidable, as such, this impact has already taken place so changes to the MRF ITS analyzed in this EIR Addendum would have no further effects on current land uses in the area. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use classification at the site, the Zoning Ordinance, the East of 101 Area Plan development and design standards, and the project is included in the East of 101 Area Transportation Implementation Plan (2001). As mentioned above, the South San Francisco MRF ITS was included into the General Plan buildout for the area and part of the 2001 Transportation Plan and the 2003 update to the Traffic Fee Study. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-1 ESA I 206097 April 2007 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects The East of 101 Area is the employment center of the City and has witnessed the most new development over the past ten years, due largely to the conversion of industrial sites to office and R&D and to new hotel development. Since the adoption of the South San Francisco General Plan in 1999, the City has approved over 4.5 million square feet of new Office/R&D development and 2,000 new hotel rooms in the East of 101 Area. Even with the recent decline in "Dot-com" businesses, the General Plan recognized that total build-out in the East of 101 Area will nearly double from 12.82 million square feet in 2000 to 23.32 million square feet in 2020, due mainly to the increase in Office and R&D development. - East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program On September 26,2001, The City Council adopted the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The Program includes specific objectives, including: 1) identifying new streets and physical improvements, 2) establishing an effective TDM program for employers, 3) establishing a fee structure that would help pay for future physical improvements, and 4) complying with State and San Mateo County congestion management requirements. The Program's street improvements and traffic fee were designed to help the City reduce future traffic congestion during peak hours and manage anticipated growth in the East of 101 Area. - - The Traffic Impact Fee Study, East of 101 Area (September 6,2001) provided the justification for the adopted Traffic Fee Ordinance. The following traffic improvements were approved and added to the Capital Improvements Program in order to accommodate new development. - · Bayshore/ Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd · Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd · Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd . Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd · Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp · Airport Blvd & Grand Ave · Dur.llqlle Ave & Fast Grand Ave · Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave · Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd · Grandview Dr & Grand Ave · Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave · South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd · South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave . Harbor Way · Mitchell Ave - - Environmental Review of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program In 2001, the City Council certified the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The SEIR concludes that the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program would have a significant beneficial impact on air quality and transportation. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-2 ESA I 206097 April 2007 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects Traffic Impact Fee Update Project 2005 In 2005, the City undertook a traffic study to determine the need for additional street improvements in the East of 101 Area and update the cost to undertake the adopted and the new improvements. The Traffic Impact Fee Study, East of 101 Area, (May 6,2005) provides the justification for the proposed Traffic Fee Ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee Study, East of 10tArea (May 6, 2005) presents an analysis of the need for roadway and intersection improvements in the East of 101 Area in the City of South San Francisco to accommodate new development. The report documented a reasonable relationship between new development and an impact fee for funding of these facilities. The study identified several intersections and streets that would need to be improved. The City is currently updating the traffic study to incorporate additional development since 2005. The report will result in identifying additional transportation improvements and an increase in traffic impact fees. General Plan Land Use Assumptions The Addendum to Traffic Fee Impact Study East of 101 Area, dated July 2, 2003, does not change the General Plan 20-year (2020) land use and development buildout assumptions adopted by the City Council in 2001. The City continues to encourage efforts to convert aging industrial properties to Office or Office/R&D north of East Grand Avenue, in the East of 101 area. The 2003 Traffic Impact Fee Study notes that several new developments have been approved and constructed since 2001. Table 3.1-1 below summarizes the approved and constructed development by sub-area as of April 1, 2007 (Terrabay was not included into the East of 101 Planning Area). TABLE 3.1-1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 2001-2006 Area/ Proposed Use Application Date Project Name (Gross Sq Ft) Current Status Gateway/2000 Chamberlin Associates R&D - 3 story building (102,000 Approved. 180 Oyster Point Blvd s.f.) with parking garage on 2.35 acre site Area Z/2001 Britannia East Grand (Master Planned R&D campus with Development Agreement) 285 East Grand Avenue 19,200 sq. ft. Single story Kaiser Medical Building. Potential to build a 55,000 sq. ft. office building on the remainder parcel. Office/R&D 785,000 SF, Childcare Two building completed. Six building 8,000 SF, Fitness Center 5,000 are Under Construction SF, Residential/Retail 8,000 SF / 2 - 5/7 Level Garages Use Permit and parcel map application is under review. Approved. Project not constructed Kaiser Medical Facility 230 Oyster Point Blvd 2-story, 61,770 sJ. Office/R&D on Completed 9/06 a 2.89 acre site. Britannia Point Grand Development at 250-270 East Grand Avenue Demolish 4 existing 1 & 2 story buildings (177,938 sJ.) and construct 3 Office/R&D buildings (461,500 s.f.) and an 8-level parking garage in their place. Under Review South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EiR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-3 ESA I 206097 April 2007 - 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects TABLE 3.1-1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 2001-2006 Areal Proposed Use Application Date Project Name (Gross Sq Ft) Current Status Area U/2002 Slough Estates 2 R&D Bldgs, 203,488 SF, 3 Level Approved 6/03. Not constructed - Garage, 6.067 Acres Bldg 1 - 3 Story 177,507 SF Bldg 2 - 4 Story 1125,981 SF Area U/2004 249 East Grand Avenue 4 R&D/Office Buildings, totaling Approved, July 06 500,000 sq. ft. and a parking garage. Slough Estates at 494 Two 4-5 story office/R&D building Under Review Forbes Blvd totaling 315,444 sJ. on a 8.84 acre site 2006 Home Depot at 900 Construction of 121,000 SF Retail Approved Dubuque Avenue Store and 24,698 SF Garden Center - 2006 Lowes at 600-790 Construction of 101,272 SF Retail Approved Dubuque Avenue Store and 24,522 SF Garden Center - Area R/2004 333 Oyster Point The 8.84 acre site contains an Under Construction Boulevard R&D/Office existing warehouse building project (approximately 400,000 sq. ft.) Use Permit to construct a phased - development consisting of three office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 314,4400 sq. ft., and an 880 car parking structure. The site is located within an area designated by the General Plan for up to approximately 385,000 square feet of Business Commercial use. An existing warehouse that occupies about 80% of the site will be demolished and replaced by the proposed office/R&D buildings and garage. !\;-13Ci Z/2002 Aie>:cir:,~;-i(-j !-(s~! c~~tate 2 f::8.D S!~~9~, 133,-]00 SF, 6.13 /-",pprcJ\,:ec 1 -:,/02. Under CO:lstru,:;tiCill. Equities Acres East Jamie Bldg 11 2 stories over parking level, 57,700 SF Court/Haskins Way Bldg 2/3 stories, 75,300 SF - Gateway/2002 611 & 681 Gateway Office: 611 Gateway - 11 story 611 Gateway - complete (265,081 SF) Garage - complete and 681 Gateway R&D: 681 Gateway - 4 story completed 2006 (121,098 SF), 6 level parking - garage, 8.2 Acre Site GENENTECH R&D OVERLAY DISTRICT Genentech/2004 Genentech Office I 5 story bldg (bldg 33) Completed in 2005. Building 33 127,000 SF Genentech/2002 Genentch Office I 5 story bldg (bldg 32) Completed December 2003 Building B32 125,000 SF Genentech/2004 Genentech 152,000 SF Office 15 story bldg Under review. Building 31 Genentech 2005 Genentech 37,000 SF manufacturing bldg. Under review in 2006, approved in 2007 Building 51 - - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-4 ESA I 206097 April 2007 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects TABLE 3.1-1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 2001-2006 Area/ Application Date Project Name Proposed Use (Gross Sq Ft) Current Status Building 50 Expansion of the Genentech Overlay District from 124 acres to approximately 200 acres and from 2.8 million sJ. to 6 million sJ. during the ten year planning period.. 5-story, 168,000 sJ. R&D/Manufacturing/Office building Adopted April 2007 Genentech/2007 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Genentech 2007 Under review BAY WEST COVE Bay West Cove/2000 Bay West Cove (Overall Specific Plan Buildout with Development Agreements) Oyster Point Marriott Planning Area 1: 600,000 SF Office/R&D, 20,000 SF Restaurant/Retail, 350 Hotel Rooms or 200,000 SF additional office Planning Area 2/3: 564,000 SF - Office/R&D, 10,000 SF- Restaurant/Retail, Childcare (80-100 children) 350 room, 20 story, full service hotel/ 4.0 Acre site Specific Plan / Amendments / Approved 11/00. Purchased by Genentech and not constructed. Four buildings have been completed. Building 5 is currently under construction. The retail/restaurant and child care facility has not been constructed Approved 3/01. Not constructed 3.2 Aesthetics Section III.B of the DEIR analyzed impacts to aesthetics associated with the MRF/TS. Because the proposed changes in this EIR Addendum do not include any new exterior structures, there would be no impacts to aesthetics that were not analyzed in the 1999 Draft EIR. With the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR (pages III.B-16 through III.B-30), the aesthetic impacts analyzed in the 1999 EIR were all determined to have a less-than-significant impact. With the Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with the East of 101 Area development and design standards. The proposed change would not affect aesthetic impacts identified in the DEIR. 3.3 Public Services and Utilities Impacts to public services and utilities associated with the MRF/TS are described in section IILC ofthe DEIR. I~pacts resulting from changes to the project would be the same as described in the DEIR, therefore mitigation measures identified in the DEIR (pages IILC-5 through IILC-9) would still apply, and would reduce all impacts to less-than-significant levels. 3.4 Public Health and Safety Section IILD of the DEIR analyzed public health and safety impacts associated with the MRF/TS. The proposed changes to the MRF ITS analyzed in this Addendum would not result in any new impacts to public health and safety or substantially increase the severity of the impacts analyzed in the previous EIR (DEIR pp. III.D-16 through III.D-26). Therefore, no changes are needed for the mitigation measures in the 1999 EIR, which were determined by the 1999 EIR to reduce the public health and safety impacts to less-than-significant levels. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum # 1 - Operational Changes 3-5 ESA I 206097 April 2007 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects As mentioned in the introduction to Section 3, the MRF/TS is inspected periodically for the CIWMB by the County of San Mateo Health Services Department. No violations or areas of concern have been reported through the inspection program for the year 2006 and there are no enforcement action records for MRF/TS. - 3.5 Traffic and Transportation Impacts to traffic and transportation associated with the MRF/TS are described in section III.E of the DEIR. Impacts to traffic and transportation identified in the DEIR include: · potential increase in safety hazards on Littlefield Avenue; · increased truck traffic loading and potential pavement deterioration on East Jamie Court, Haskins Way and Littlefield Avenue; · internal circulation conflicts which would present a safety hazard to vehicles and pedestrians on the project site; - · and, a cumulative increase in daily peak-hour traffic on local roadways. All impacts analyzed could be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR (pages IILE-22 through III.E-30) except impact III.E.2, which would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact IILE.2 discusses the potential increase in safety hazards on Littlefield Avenue under project Alternative C. The City, however, conditioned the project to require that transfer trucks use Alternative A, so this impact would be avoided. -, Appendix A contains a traffic and transportation review of the proposed changes in operations compared to the traffic analysis in the previous EIR. The evaluation in Appendix A focused on two areas based upon the requested alternations to the current operating permit. The proposed project would increase the peak daily tonnage which can be processed through facility from 1,250 tons to 2,000 tons. However, it would not increase the number of total vehicle trips per day in and out of the facility. What would change would be the makeup of the vehicle stream which would allow the same number of vehicles to haul an increased tonnage to and from the site. As discussed in the project description section, a changing solid waste environment has resulted in a significantly reduced number of self haulers traveling to and from the MRF ITS due to increased curbside collection efforts and an increased number of larger construction-debris-related vehicles transporting larger loads to the site due to increased recycling requirements for construction waste. This translates to the potential for two types of traffic and transportation related impacts. -, 1. Potential impacts to roadway capacity resulting from increased peak hour traffic. 2. Potential impacts to roadway pavement condition resulting from increase truck loading. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-6 ESA / 206097 April 2007 - 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects Potential Impacts Peak Hour Roadway Operating Characteristics The proposed modifications allowing processing of a maximum of 2,000 TPD of solid waste would not have a significant impact on peak hour roadway operating characteristics in the project area relative to the existing operating permit and the analysis in the previous EIR. The previous EIR assumed a peak hour traffic volume of 84 inbound and 63 outbound trips during the morning peak hour with another 43 inbound and 51 outbound trips during the evening peak hour. Review of trip generation estimates for the proposed project summarized in Table 2 of Appendix A show the project is now forecast to generate a significantly reduced volume of traffic during both morning and evening peak hour periods. In terms of passenger car equivalents (assigning a heavier weight to trucks per the Highway Capacity Manual), the peak hour trip forecasts for the proposed new vehicle mix summarized in Table 2 of Appendix A remain less than those initially forecast for the previous EIR (Table 1 of Appendix A). The previous EIR identified impacts and needed mitigation associated with the higher trip generation, including signalization of the intersection of Littlefield and Grand Avenue, which has been completed. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on peak hour roadway operating characteristics during either the morning or evening peak commute periods. Pavement Deterioration A large number of industrial and warehouse related development that generates a substantial volume of truck traffic is located South San Francisco in the East of 101 Area. As a result, most roadways providing circulation through area are designed to accommodate truck turning requirements at intersections. Larger intersections may include dual turn lanes, most curb returns have at kaSL a 20-fout radius, al1J chanllclization islands arc typl<.;ally configured LO ,h,:cV1llIltodatc off-tracking of large semi-truck trailers. Roadway widths and lane widths are typically sufficient to accommodate truck traffic. Table 7 of Appendix A includes pavement related traffic indexes assuming: . 1998 conditions without the MRF/TS; . 1998 base conditions with the MRF/TS processing up to 1,250 TPD; and . 1998 base conditions with the MRF/TS processing up to 2,000 TPD. The comparison between the two MRF ITS conditions in Table 7 of Appendix A shows the proposed 2,000 TPD permit is not forecast to result in a substantial increase in the traffic on any segments, though it may result in a minor increase in the traffic index on two segments (southbound Haskins south of Grand and eastbound Grand between Littlefield and Haskins). South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-7 ESA I 206097 April 2007 - 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects With the exception of these two segments, traffic index levels on all other segments of roadway evaluated are forecast to not increase beyond those levels previously approved as part of the current permit. The project proponent was required to perform deflection or pavement testing on Haskins Avenue and upgrade the roadway's structural section as part of the conditions of approval of the original 1,250 TPD permit. The deflection testing was conducted in 1999 by CHEC Consultants Incl. As a result of the testing the project proponent was required to put an overlay on Haskins Way and East Jamie Court. - - In the evaluation of the previous permit application, an increase of a traffic index of 1.5 or greater was used as the criteria for warranting pavement deflection testing and a potential pavement overlay dependent upon the results of the testing. Review of Table 7 of Appendix A will show the traffic index increase forecast for eastbound Grand A venue associated with the proposed 2,000 TPD permit is estimated to remain below this level relative to 1998 conditions without the MRF/TS. Therefore, the proposed 2,000 TPD permit would not have a significant negative impact on pavement conditions relative to the 1,250 TPD permit limit, analyzed and mitigated in the DEIR. With respect to pavement deterioration, the project change would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. While the proposed project change would not create a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of any previously identifies impacts related to pavement deterioration, to ensure these impacts remain less-than-significant, Mitigation Measure III.E.3, identified in the original EIR and made a condition of project approval at the time the City Council approved the project, shall be re-implemented as part of the project changes: Mitigation Measure III.E.3 (from EIR): The project applicant shall complete deflection testing of the existing pavement on East Jamie Court and Haskins Way to determine whether additional pavement strength is needed to accommodate projected traffic increases. If the need for additional pavement strengthening is indicated, the project proponent shall contribute a pro rata share towards the cost of upgrading the pavement section(s) to the required level. 3.6 Air Quality Section IILF of the DEIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with the MRF/TS. Impacts to air quality identified in the DEIR include: · increased emissions of criteria pollutants (NOx and ROG) from vehicular traffic to and from the project site; - · nuisance odor emissions; · particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-powered vehicles; · and, contributions to cumulative mobile-source emissions. CHEC Consultants Inc., Deflection Testing/Analysis Structural Pavement Design E. Grand Avenue, Haskins Way & E. Jamie Court, Job No. 99201, September 1999. - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-8 ESA I 206097 April 2007 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects All impacts analyzed in the DEIR could be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR (pages IILF -9 through IILF -17) with the exception of impact m.F.2 and impact IILF.7, which would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact III.F.2 discusses the potential increase of criteria pollutants from vehicular traffic to and from the project site and that the increase in emissions would exceed BAAQMD significance criteria for NOx and ROG. The increase would be less-than-significant for PMlO and CO. Impact IILF.7 discusses how the MRF/TS combined with the other projects underway at the time of the DEIR would result in a significant cumulative impact on air quality. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) EMF AC2007 model was used to determine the potential air pollutant emissions from the project vehicular traffic (as described in the "Traffic and Transportation" report included in this document) generated by the proposed MRF/TS changes. As depicted in Table 3.6-1 below, these values were then compared to the calculated emissions included in the DEIR in order to assess the incremental change in air pollutants due to the facility changes and associated on-road vehicle traffic. TABLE 3.6-1 PROJECT OPERATION AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS AND INCREMENTAL CHANGE VERSUS EMISSIONS IN THE DEIR Project Proposed Project Emissions Emissions Incremental Significance (DEIR) . (Year 2007) . Change Threshold Air Pollutant (pounds/day) (pounds/day) (pounds/day) (pounds/day) NOx 349 152 (197)1 80 PM-10 79 27 (52) 1 80 ROG 81 11 (70)1 80 SOx 20 None CO 398 152 (246) 1 550 1 Values in (parentheses) represent a reduction in the air pollutant emissions estimated for the proposed project versus those included in the DEIR. Source: ESA. 2006 As shown in the Table 3.6-1 above, the incremental change in pollutant emissions for NOx, PM-lO, ROG, and CO would be a reduction for the proposed MRF/TF changes versus the DEIR calculations, due primarily to reductions in the predicted future on-road vehicle emission factors resulting from a cleaner future mix of vehicles. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-9 ESA I 206097 April 2007 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects ~ 3.7 Noise Section TILG of the DEIR analyzed noise impacts associated with the MRF/TS. Noise impacts resulting from operational changes to the MRF/TS would be the same as those identified in the DEIR. Impacts identified in the DEIR include the generation of substantial levels of noise and its affects on the Bay Trail extension. Impacts TILG.2 and TII.G.4 were determined to be significant and unavoidable impacts to the Bay Trail due to facility operations, all other impacts relating to noise were determined to be less-than-significant. In regards to project generated traffic noise levels (discussed in Impact TII.G.3 of the DEIR), the proposed MRF/TS changes would not result in a substantial change. Although the ratio ofvehic1e types (i.e., heavy trucks versus light duty vehicles) would change with more heavy trucks being used, industrial and industriaVcommercial land uses such as those located along the noise impacted roadway segments are not typically considered noise sensitive. Also, a 3 dBA increase in traffic noise is produced by a doubling of traffic, and there would not be an increase in total traffic volume. Mitigation measures identified in the DEIR (pages TII.G-1O through TILG-17) designed to help reduce the magnitude of identified impacts would be the same and would apply to the proposed project changes. In summary, the MRF/TS is currently permitted and operational, identified noise impacts already exist, the proposed changes to facility operations would introduce no new impacts, and no existing impacts would become substantially more adverse. 3.8 Geology and Seismicity Section IILH of the DEIR analyzed the impacts of geologic and seismic hazards associated with the MRF/TS. Geologic hazards include soil settlement and expansion, corrosive soils, soil erosion, and slope failure. Seismic hazards would include strong ground shaking, liquefaction, fault rupture, ground lurching and earthquake-induced inundation. The proposed changes to the MRF/TS analyzed in this Addendum would not result in any new impacts from geologic or ~eismic haZdrJs or ~ub~lanllally increase thc severity of the impad~ anaiyzed in the previous ElK (DEIR pp. IILH-12 through IILH-18). Therefore, no changes are needed for the mitigation measures in the 1999 EIR, which were determined by the 1999 ErR to reduce the impacts of geologic and seismic hazards to less-than-significant levels. - ...'" 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Section IILI of the DEIR analyzed hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the MRF/TS. The proposed changes to the MRF/TS analyzed in this Addendum would not result in any new impacts to hydrology and water quality or substantially increase the severity of the impacts analyzed in the previous EIR (DEIR pp. IILI-8 through IILI-13). Therefore, no changes are needed for the mitigation measures in the 1999 EIR, which were determined by the 1999 ErR to reduce the hydrology and water quality impacts to less-than-significant levels. - - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-10 ESA I 206097 April 2007 3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects 3.10 Biological Resources Section IIIJ of the DEIR analyzed biological resources impacts associated with the MRF/TS. Impacts identified in the DEIR included the potential to adversely affect significant biological resources, aquatic resources and the potential to increase the presence of non-native invasive plant species on the project site. The proposed changes to the MRF/TS analyzed in this Addendum would not result in any new impacts to biological resources or substantially increase the severity of the impacts analyzed in the previous EIR (DEIR pp. IILJ-7 through III.J-II). Therefore, no changes are needed for the mitigation measures in the 1999 EIR, which were determined by the 1999 EIR to reduce the biological resources impacts to less-than-significant levels. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 3-11 ESA I 206097 April 2007 .. - - SECTION 4 Conclusion On the basis of the evaluation presented in Section 3 of this Addendum, the proposed changes to the project would not result in any new significant impacts, nor would they substantially increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the EIR for the project. Furthermore, there is no new information of substantial importance resulting in new significant impacts or affecting previously identified impacts, mitigation measures, or alternatives. Therefore, none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and Section 1.2 of this Addendum, apply to the proposed changes. This Addendum satisfies the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 4-1 ESA I 206097 April 2007 - - SECTION 5 References Brady and Associates, East of 1 01 Area Plan, City of South San Francisco, July 1994. Button, Doug. South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc., Phone Interview, December 1,2006. California Integrated Waste Management Board, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/Inspection.asp?SITESCH=41-AA-0 185, LEA Site Inspection Summaries for 1/6/2006, 2/14/2006, 2/28/2006, 4/20/2006. CCS Planning & Engineering, Addendum to Traffic Impact Fee Study East of 101 Area, July 2, 2003. CCS Planning & Engineering, Traffic Fee Impact Study, September 6, 2001. CREC Consultants Inc., Deflection Testing/Analysis Structural Pavement Design E. Grand Avenue, Haskins Way & E. Jamie Court, Job No. 99201, September 1999. City of South San Francisco, Resolution NO.1 0 1-2005, Resolution Adopting the City of South San Francisco 2005 East of 101 Traffic Fee Study Update and Revising the City's Traffic Development Impact Fee for Future Development Within the East of 10 1 Area, August 2005. Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. :993081040, Apri12001. Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR, SCH No. 97122030, October 1999. Environmental Science Associates, South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Draft EIR, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, CA, 1998. Environmental Science Associates, South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Response to Comments, Final EIR, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, CA, 1999. Environmental Science Associates, Site tour of Blue Line Transfer Facility at East Jamie Court and surrounding properties, November 30, 2006. Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, Inc., Traffic and Transportation Review of Proposed Changes at South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (Appendix A), November 2006. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes 5-1 ESA I 206097 April 2007 - - - - Appendix A Traffic and Transportation Review of South San Francisco Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Proposed Operational Changes December 2006 Prepared by: Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, Inc. Prepared for: The City of South San Francisco ~ESA ~ - - - TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW Project Description The proposed project consists of operational changes at the Blue Line Transfer, Inc., Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (MRF/TS) on East Jamie Court in South San Francisco, as requested by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company (SSFSC) and Blue Line Transfer, Inc (Blue Line), the owners and operators of the facility. The operational changes will require modification to the Solid Waste Facility Permit. The proposed changes reflect changing solid waste collection conditions within the South San Francisco area. The site currently processes solid waste for the Cities of South San Francisco, Millbrae, and Brisbane. Materials which cannot be recycled, used as fuel, or composted are transferred in long-haul trucks to the Ox Mountain Landfill on SR 92 near Half Moon Bay. The proposed modifications to the Permit would increase the amount of allowable municipal solid waste and recyclable materials in the current permit from 1,250 tons per day (TPD) to 2,000 TPD, which includes an additional 500 TPD of mixed construction and demolition debris and 250 TPD of municipal solid waste. The increase in permitted capacity is needed to accommodate increased growth in San Mateo County and increased recycling of construction and demolition materials resulting from local ordinances adopted by the County since 1999 when the facility was originally permitted. The facility's current permit allows the processing of up to 1,250 TPD of municipal solid waste and recyclable materials including construction and demolition debris and a peak trip generation r~:tc of 1~2S2 one-\\~t~, \,c,hi.:,lc trips. l\ S:ln1tna~)r of trip bLi-E~ratj()n ~stin~dti.:,) (\f~lvt:r:lge \v~ckJay daily, A.M. Peak hour and P.M. peak hour traffic for operation of the facility when permitted are summarized in Table 1. The estimates are from the EIR completed for the current Solid Waste Permit and reflect conditions of the existing permit. The proposed modifications to the existing use permit would alter the peak allowable tonnage of waste to be processed but would not alter the permitted number of vehicle trips per day generated by the facility. When originally opened approximately eight years ago, a significant portion (largest single portion) of project related traffic was forecast to be generated by self-haulers or private citizens bringing waste to the site. As indicated in Table 1, approximately 440 or one third of the 1,262 daily trips generated by the facility were forecast to be generated by small, private, self-haulers. The vehicle makeup of the collection related traffic stream has evolved and now there is increased tonnage delivered to the facility by curbside collection vehicles and less tonnage transported to the site by self-haulers. SSFSC now operates special pickup days at regular intervals where SSFSC trucks pick up waste curbside. Residents can now periodically set waste curbside for pickup by SSFSC vehicles at no additional cost rather than having to South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Stanon Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-1 ESA I 206097 December 2006 - Appendix A personally transport it to the MRF/TS. This change in the mode of transporting of waste has reduced the total number of vehicles into the site by allowing a fewer number oflarger SSFSC vehicles to transport what was previously transported by a larger number of smaller self-haul vehicles. As a result of this changing mode of transport, the MRF/TS can accommodate an increase in actual tonnage of waste without an increase in the permitted number of vehicle trips (from the existing approved peak rate of 1,250 TPD to 2,000 TPD). Table 2 summarizes trip generation estimates with an increase from 1,250 TPD to 2,000 TPD that reflects this shift in mode of transport. Review of Table 2 and comparison to Table 1 will show a site generating the same volume of traffic on a daily basis (1,262 one-way trips) but with a different mix of vehicles. Peak hour traffic would be reduced from the estimates in the ErR, based upon surveys of existing scale house traffic volumes that reflect actual operations from this shift in the mode of transport. TABLE 1 PERMITTED SITE TRIP GENERATION A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour One-Way Trips One-Way Trips Number Daily One- (8:00 - 9:00 A.M.) (4:00-5:00 P.M.) Vehicle Type/Use Of Axles Way Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Commercial Collection Vehicles Curbside Recycling" 3 40 1 1 0 0 Greenwasteb 4 20 0 0 0 0 Garbage Collection Rear Loaderc 3 44 11 11 0 0 Front Loaderd 3 46 8 8 0 0 RollofflDrop Box" 3 242 9 9 9 0 Employees: 2 180 20 0 0 20 Visitors/Customers:" 2 20 1 1 1 1 Private Collection:- cluusehold Haz 'iVdSt8 2 20 1 Buyback Drop-off 2 30 2 1 1 2 Small Self-haul 2 442 22 22 22 22 Large Self-Haul 3 78 4 4 4 4 Transfer Trucks:! 5 90 4 4 4 0 Recycling to Market" 5 10 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 1,262 84 63 43 51 a Assumes arrival and departure of vehicles occurs evenly throughout a 10 hour period when the facility is open to the public (7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.). b Assumes arrival and departure of vehicles occurs midday. c Assumes 2 round trips by each of the rear loader vehicles between early AM. and afternoon with one inbound and one outbound tripl truck during the AM. peak hour. d Assumes 3 round trips by each of the front end loader vehicles between early A.M. and afternoon with one inbound and one outbound tripl truck during the AM. peak hour. e Assumes arrival and departure of roll-offl drop box vehicles occurs evenly throughout a 13-1/2 hour period (3:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M.). f Assumes arrival and departure of transfer vehicles occurs evenly throughout an 11 hour period when the Ox Mountain Landfill facility is accepting waste (3:00 AM. - 2:30 P.M.). SOURCE: South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station EIR. Environmental Science Associates. Inc.. 1998 South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-2 ESA I 206097 December 2006 Appendix A The project site is located at the east end of East Jamie Court in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. The existing roadway network is shown in Figure 1. An overview of site operations and traffic are shown in Figure 2. TABLE 2 PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour One-Way Trips One-Way Trips Number Daily One- (8:00-9:00 A.M.) (4:00-5:00 P.M.) Vehicle Type/Use of Axles Way Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Commercial Collection Vehicles Rolloff (C&D)a 3 312 9 9 5 5 Garbage Collection Front/RearLoader. 3 216 8 8 3 3 Loader" Recycling 3 32 0 0 EmployeesNisitors: · 2 180 6 0 0 3 Private Collection:" Large Self-haul 3 110 4 4 5 5 Small Self-haul 2 240 9 9 10 10 Transfer Trucks:b 5 80 3 3 2 0 Recycling to Market" 5 92 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 1,262 43 37 28 26 ~ Based upon counts of during current operation of the existing MRF/TS. Assu!T1es 2rriva! 8'1r d~08:i:ir~ of ~~rlc"..;f~r v.~h;,~IAS or "urs 8\)9r11y th~oU~~V'f.:"1r i '1 ~'~J[: :-lerirld 'v~>?:l t~e C;x L1':,I~nt;-lir'1 L;3nc:~itl facility is accepting waste (3:00 A.M. - 2:30 P.M.). SOURCE: SSFSC/Blue line Transfer, Inc., 2006 Solid waste from the site is transferred to the Ox Mountain Landfill on State Route 92 (SR 92) west of Interstate 280 (1-280) or to another disposal facility. The basic haul route for transfer vehicles follows East Jamie Court, Haskins Way, East Grand Avenue, Gateway Boulevard, and Produce Avenue and/or South Airport Boulevard to/from U.S. 101. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfar Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-3 ESA I 206097 December 2006 - 10' ~ c ~ " :r: Jamie Ct.! ~ Site - - EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK PROJ. NO.: 06-943 DATE: 10/20/06 FIGURE NO. Wilson Engineering & Transportation Consultants SCALE: N.T.S. 1 - -1- __.__ --.---,-. ._-, . , I I I I I I I I I I I I ---I .- I I I I I I I I I I j I I I ~ I I ~ . I I (I, i_ f ~ L___ . ~i I i~ I ill.. L __ __"._ - _v,- --.-- l I I I I I , ~ I ~ 0 , .. ~I 0 ~m ~. I II I ~ ~ ti ~ c: o Cl ~ c: a. .g ~ $ 0- en a. ~ ~ 0i5.. a. ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ::3 O(ij F: t: ~ c 3: (f) cu 0 aic:~'5 F: ~ ~ ~ (ij (ij cu ~ O~ oa. oa. 0i5.. a.>->-~ loe~ ~ ~ -.t '>::::3 U'l 13 g F: 02F:g> :::3. F :::: = '-Ciiog. -8 ~ ....!.. 0 6 ~~ it d: -' 0... _ (ij (ij (ij ~ o~ oa. oa. 0i5.. a.>->-~ iCD~ Cl c: 0i5.. cu o (f) "0 c: cu -' ~ +-} o o Q i i ~ i l;;N.g OCl)_ co...~ 0;:]1- ~Cl <( .- '0 ou..c UJ ctl t) en ~ c = 0 00 .- Lf cu .... 2:' Q) Q) a. i) 0 o Q) Q) lJ: _ ~ U5 a; Cii :2 o o (f) 00 c: l!! u. c: cu en ..c: :; o en <D o o N -< rJ) W "0 c: <U Iii o o N c Q) E Q) Ol <U ai :iE Q) u c: .!!! Ci E o () (ij ~ ti.i () a: :::> o rJ) Appendix A Existing Setting Regional Roadway System Regional access is provided to the project site by U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), a freeway linking South San Francisco with San Francisco to the north and the Cities of Burlingame, San Mateo, and San Jose to the south. Regional roadways linking the project site with the Ox Mountain Landfill site include 1-380, 1-280, and SR 92 as well as U.S. 101. Access to U.S. 101 is available via the South Airport BoulevardJ Produce A venue interchange or access could be provided to 1-380 directly via the North Access Road interchange where U.S. 101 intersects 1-380. U.S. 101 typically includes four lanes in each direction through the City of South San Francisco. Grade separated interchanges within South San Francisco are present at Oyster Point Boulevard, Grand Avenue, South Airport BoulevardJ Produce Avenue and North Access Road at 1-380. U.S. 101 currently accommodates a two-way average daily traffic volume ranging between 201,000 vehicles per day (vpd) at the northerly end of the city to 242,000 vpd at 1-380 (Caltrans, 2006). - 1-380 is regional freeway extending between U.S. 101 and 1-280 at the southern edge of South San Francisco. 1-380 contains four through lanes in each direction and accommodates approximately 130,000 vpd near U.S. 101. 1-280 is a regional freeway extending south from San Francisco, parallel to and several miles west of U.S. 101, to San Jose. 1-280 typically has four through lanes in each direction, and accommodates approximately 105,000 vpd immediately south ofI-380. SR 92 extends east from the City of Half Moon Bay at the Coast, through the City of San Mateo and across the Bay (San Mateo Bridge), to the City of Hayward. SR 92 extends easterly from Half Moon Bay as a two-lane facility with a rural character that widens to four lanes and is improved to freeway status east ofI-280. SR 92 currently accommodates approximately 24,500 vpd in the vicinity of the entrance to Ox Moumain Landfill. Caltrans is planning to add a westbound climbing lane between 1-280 and SR 35. Local Road System Local roadways providing access to the site and linking it with regional arterials and other areas of South San Francisco include East Jamie Court, Haskins Way, East Grand Avenue, Gateway Boulevard, Littlefield Avenue, Utah Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard. The transfer truck haul route linking the site with the regional roadway network follows East Jamie Court to Haskins Way to East Grand Avenue to Gateway Boulevard to U.S. 101. - East Jamie Court is a local roadway with two travel lanes and a curb to curb width of 44 feet. No on-street parking is allowed and it has a 25 MPH speed limit. The intersection of Jamie Court and Haskins Way is controlled with a stop sign on East Jamie Court. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-6 ESA / 206097 December 2006 Appendix A Haskins Way is a local/collector roadway with two travel lanes and a curb to curb width of 52 feet. Parking is allowed on both sides and the street has a 25 MPH speed limit. The intersection of Haskins Way with Grand Avenue is controlled with a stop sign on Haskins Way. East Grand A venue is a major east/west roadway in the City of South San Francisco that extends west from Haskins Way as a collector, then past Littlefield Way and into the central area of the City west of U.S. 101 as an arterial. East Grand Avenue is typically a divided facility with four to six lanes plus exclusive turn lanes at major intersections. The intersections of East Grand Avenue with Brittania, Pointe Grand, Forbes Boulevard, and Gateway Boulevard are controlled with traffic signals. Gateway Boulevard is a major, north/south arterial east of U.S. 101 which extends southerly from Oyster Point Boulevard to South Airport Boulevard. It has a 35 MPH speed limit and includes two lanes in each direction separated by a raised median. The intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Airport Boulevard is controlled with traffic signals. Airport Boulevard extends southerly from Grand Avenue west of U.S. 101 to Produce Avenue. South Airport Boulevard extends east from Produce Avenue under U.S. 101 and then continues southerly on the east side of U.S. 101 to the San Francisco Airport. It varies in width between two and three lanes in each direction separated by a raised median south of Grand Avenue to 1380. The intersections of South Airport Boulevard with Produce Avenue, Utah Avenue, Belle Air Road and the north and southbound ramps to 1-380 are controlled with traffic signals. Study Area Traffic Volumes and Existing Levels of Service Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour traffic volumes at select locations in the project area are summarized below. The volumes are based upon traffic counts completed during the review of other projects in the area including a proposed Home Depot and Lowe's (City of South San Francisco, 2005, 2006). East Grand Avenue currently experiences a two-way PM peak hour volume of approximately 2,200 vehicles just east of Gateway, and 1,200 vehicles just west of Littlefield Avenue. Between East Grand A venue and South Airport Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard currently accommodates a two-way P.M. peak hour volume of approximately 900 vehicles. Littlefield Avenue currently experiences a two-way P.M. peak hour volume of approximately 500 vehicles south of East Grand A venue. Traffic volumes on South Airport Boulevard currently range between approximately 1,350 vehicles north of Utah Avenue to 1,800 vehicles north of Gateway Boulevard. Levels of Service The capacity of an urban street is typically controlled by the capacity of its intersection with other roadways. Operating characteristics and capacities of intersections are typically described using a level of service (LOS) analysis which provides a standardized means of quantifying a roadway or intersection's operation in terms of capacity, delay, and maneuverability available to drivers. Potential LOS range from LOS A representing best possible or virtually free flow conditions to LOS F representing the worst or jammed conditions. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-7 ESA I 206097 December 2006 - Appendix A As part of the review of the initial 1250 tpd project proposal in 1998, a total of eight intersections were evaluated with regard to the potential to be impacted by a new MRF/TS on East Jamie Court. The intersections were selected by City Staff at that time as reflecting key locations that would be required to accommodate project traffic. The locations included: Signalized Intersections: East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard South Airport Boulevard/Gateway BoulevardIMitchell Avenue South Airport Boulevard/ Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue South Airport BoulevardlUtah Avenue Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard East Grand A venuelLittlefield A venue Unsignalized Intersections (Minor Street Stop-Controlled): East Grand Avenue/Haskins Way East Grand A venue/Grandview Drive Operating characteristics LOS for signalized intersections summarized below (see "Existing Intersection Operations") was evaluated using the operational type methodology described in the 2000 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual for signalized intersections (Transportation Research Board, 2000). This methodology characterizes an intersection's operations in terms of LOS as a function of the amount of delay encountered by drivers entering the intersection. A description of the LOS criteria for signalized intersections is presented in Table 3. - Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections were evaluated using methodologies described in the 2000 edition of tnc~ Highwa)' larwcitv1fo'111(J! fnr llnsignal izcc1 intersections (TramrortCltion Research Board, 1994). This methodology also characterizes an intersection's operations in terms of LOS based upon the amount of delay encountered by drivers. A description of the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections is presented in Table 4. Unsignalized all-way stop controlled intersections are evaluated as a whole similar to signalized intersections. Unsignalized one-way or two-way stop controlled intersections are evaluated both as a whole or overall and by stop controlled movement. Stop controlled approaches at a two-way stop intersection generally experience significantly more delay than the uncontrolled approaches where vehicles have the right-of-way and are not required to stop. - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-8 ESA I 206097 December 2006 - Appendix A TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS level of Service Typical Operating Characteristics Average Control Vehicle Delay in Secondsa Delay ~ 10 seconds A Level of Service A describes a condition where the approach to an intersection appears quite open and turning movements are made easily. Little or no delay is encountered. No vehicles wait longer than one red traffic signal indication. The traffic operation can be described as excellent. Level of Service B describes a condition where the approach to an intersection is occasionally fully utilized and some delays may be encountered. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. The traffic operation can generally be described as very good. Level of Service C describes a condition where the approach to an intersection is often fully utilized and backups may occur behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. The driver occasionally may have to wait more than one red traffic signal indication. The traffic operation can generally be described as very good. Level of Service D describes a condition of increasing restriction causing substantial delays and queues of vehicles on approaches to the intersection during short times within the peak period. However, there are enough signal cycles with lower demand such that queues are periodically cleared, thus preventing excessive backups. The traffic operation can generally be described as fair. Capacity occurs at Level of Service E. It represents the most any particular intersection can accommodate. At capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection and vehicles may be delayed up to several signal cycles. The traffic operation can generally: be described as poor. Level of Service F represents a jammed condition. Back-ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of venicles out of the approach under consideration. Hence, volumes of vehicles passing through the intersection vary from signal cycle to signal cycle. Because of jammed conditions, this volume would be less than capacity. B C D E F a Capacity is defined as Level of Service E SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, 1980, 1985, 1994.2000 Delay = 10.1 - 20 seconds Delay = 20.1 - 35 seconds Delay = 35.1 - 55 seconds Delay = 55.1 - 80 seconds FailLif:; Delay> 80 seconds Existing Intersection Operations A summary of existing levels of service within the study area is presented in Tables 5 and 6. The tables include LOS for existing conditions in 1998 before the MRF ITS was opened on East Jamie Court and current (Year 2005) conditions with the MRFITS operational in its current configuration. Table 5 summarizes A.M. peak hour conditions and Table 6 summarizes P.M. peak hour conditions. Review of the tables will indicate currently all of the intersections operate at an LOS C or better which South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-9 ESA f 206097 December 2006 - Appendix A is an improvement over 1998 conditions when all but one intersection in the a.m. peak hour, and two intersections in the p.m. peak hour, operated at an LOS D or better. In 1998, during the a.m. peak hour, the all-way stop-controlled unsignalized intersection of East Grand and Littlefield Avenues operated at unacceptable LOS F, met the peak hour rrrinimum volume warrant for signalization, has since been signalized, and now operates at an LOS B. - In 1998, the intersection of East Grand and Littlefield Avenues operated at unacceptable LOS E during the evening peak hour. The intersection now operates at an LOS B during the evening peak hour after being signalized. The intersection of South Airport Boulevard/Gateway BoulevardlMitchell A venue was found to operate at unacceptable LOS F with significant delays during the p.m. peak hour in 1998. Improvements at that location now allow it to operate at an LOS C during the evening peak hour. - Pavement Truck Loading Requirements Existing pavement truck loading requirements of select roadways in the project vicinity were evaluated using truck counts that were translated into traffic indices. A traffic index (T.!.) is a standardized method of assessing pavement structural requirements needed to accommodate anticipated traffic loads. Structural requirements for roadway pavement are essentially dictated by the heavy weight of trucks versus auto traffic. A traffic index sets a pavement design criteria based on forecasts of truck loading requirements for a 20- year period or a typical pavement design horizon. Peak period counts completed at four intersections in the project area in 1998 included the number of trucks classified by the number of axles. Percentages of truck loading during these peak periods were assumed indicative of truck percentages for a typical 24-hour period to allow calculation of existing truck loading on ten roadway segments. The results of the analysis ofT.I.s completed as part of the transportation evaluation for the initial opening of the MRF/TS on East Jamie Court are summarized in Table 7. Review of the table will indicate truck loading at that tin;:~ \'Jr!ecl nciWCC':1 a T.T. ofS to (J TT. 12, dependent Ur'111 location. Sine,=-, that timC', t1l1ck traffic in the East of 101 Area has decreased as overall land use has been shifting to more office versus warehousing uses (Lappen, 2006) - TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALlZED STOP SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Typical Operating Characteristics Average Control Delay in Secondsa A B Level of Service A describes a condition where the approach to an intersection appears quite open and turning movements are made easily. Little or no delay is encountered. No vehicles wait longer than one red traffic signal indication. The traffic operation can be described as excellent. Level of Service B describes a condition where the approach to an intersection is occasionally fully utilized and some delays may be encountered. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. The traffic operation can generally be described as very good. Delay ~ 10 seconds Delay = 10.1 - 15 seconds - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-10 ESA I 206097 December 2006 Appendix A TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALlZED STOP SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Typical Operating Characteristics Average Control Delay In Secondsa C Level of Service C describes a condition where the approach to an intersection is often fully utilized and backups may occur behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. The traffic operation can generally be described as very good. D Level of Service D describes a condition of increasing restriction causing substantial delays and queues of vehicles on stop controlled approaches to the intersection during short intervals within the peak period. However, there are enough intervals with lower demand such that queues are periodically cleared, thus preventing excessive backups. The traffic operation can generally be described as fair. E Capacity occurs at Level of Service E. It represents the most any particular intersection can accommodate. At capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection and vehicles may be delayed up to several minutes on select approaches. The traffic operation can generally be described as poor. F Level of Service F represents a jammed condition. Back-ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under consideration. Hence, volumes of vehicles passing through the intersection vary through the peak period. Because of jammed conditions, this volume would be less than capacity. Delay = 15.1 - 25 seconds Delay = 25.1 - 35 seconds Delay = 35.1 - 50 seconds Failure Delay> 50 seconds a Average delay per vehicle on stop controlled approaches or turning movements on uncontrolled approaches. Capacity is defined as Level of Service E. SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, 1980, 1985, 1994, 2000 TABLE 5 1998 AND EXISTING 2005 A.M. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS)A 1998 2005 LOS Delay LOS Delay Signalized Intersections East Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. C 19.8 C 25.9 South Airport Blvd./Gateway Blvd./Mitchell Ave. C 16.3 C 26.9 South Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. B 12.7 C 28.6 South Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. B 10.7 C 29.6 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. C 23.7 C 17.1 All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue F 60.9 B 17.4 South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-11 ESA I 206097 December 2006 Appendix A TABLE 5 1998 AND EXISTING 2005 A.M. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS)A 1998 2005 LOS Delay LOS Delay Unsignalized Intersections (Minor Street Stop-Control) East Grand Avenue/Haskins Way b A 1.0 N/A N/A c A 4.3 N/A N/A East Grand Avenue / Grandview Drive b A 2.9 B 14.8 c E 33.2 N/A N/A a Peak hour counts conducted by Environmental Science Associates, Wednesday, July 1, 1998 b Average vehicle delay for entire intersection where only minor street is controlled with a stop sign c Average vehicle delay for worst case stop sign controlled approach only N/A Not available Delay = average vehicle delay in seconds SOURCE: Genentech Corporate Facilities Master DEIR. South San Francisco, 2006, 249 East Grand Avenue Draft Focused EIR, South San Francisco, 2005, South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, Environmental Science Associates, Inc., 1998 - - TABLE 6 1998 AND EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS)A 1998 2005 LOS Delay LOS Delay Signalized Intersections East Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. B 9.0 B 18.9 South Airport Blvd./Gateway Blvd./Mitchell Ave. F 96.0 C 33.2 - South Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. B 14.7 C 30.2 South Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. B 14.2 B 17.9 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. C 17.1 C 34.6 All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection East Grana Avenue/Littlefleid Avenue E 35.1 B 11.5 Unsignalized Intersections (Minor Street Stop-Control) East Grand Avenue/Haskins Way b A 1.9 N/A N/A c A 5.0 N/A N/A East Grand Avenue / Grandview Drive b A 2.9 C 17.7 c C 10.1 N/A N/A - a Peak hour counts conducted by Environmental Science Associates, Wednesday, July 1, 1998 b Average vehicle delay for entire intersection where only minor street is controlled with a stop sign c Average vehicle delay for worst case stop sign controlled approach only N/A Not available Delay = average vehicle delay in seconds SOURCE: Genentech Corporate Facilities Master DEIR. South San Francisco, 2006, 249 East Grand Avenue Draft Focused EIR, South San Francisco, 2005, South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, Environmental Science Associates, Inc.. 1998 - - - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-12 ESA I 206097 December 2006 Appendix A TABLE 7 1998 PLUS 1,250 TPD MRF/TS TRAFFIC INDEXES AND 1998 PLUS MFRlST PLUS 2000 TPD MRF/TS TRAFFIC INDEXES ON LOCAL ROADWAYS SERVING THE PROJECT SITE A,S 1998 Plus 1998 Plus 1998 w/o MRF/TS 1,250 TPD MRF/TS 2,000 TPD MRF/TS Roadway Traffic Index Traffic Index Traffic Index Haskins Way S of Grand Northbound 8.5 10 10 Southbound 8.5 10 10.5 East Grand Avenue W of Haskins Eastbound 9.5 10 10.5 Westbound 9.5 10 10 East Grand Ave. E of Littlefield Eastbound 10.5 11 11 Westbound 10.5 11 11 East Grand Ave. W of Littlefield Eastbound 10.5 11 11 Westbound 10.5 11 11 Littlefield Ave. S of East Grand Northbound 9 N/A N/A Southbound 9.5 N/A N/A South Airport W of Gateway Eastbound 10 10.5 10.5 Westbound 12 12 12 South Airport S of Mitchell Northbound 11 11.5 11.5 Southbound 11.5 11.5 11.5 Gateway Blvd. N of So. Airport Northbound 11 11.5 11.5 Southbound 10 10.5 10.5 South Airport S of Utah Northbound 10 N/A N/A Southbound 10 N/A N/A Utah Avenue E of S Airport Eastbound 10 N/A N/A Westbound 10 N/A N/A a Calculated assuming peak period truck percentages are representative of 24-hour percentages. b This table is modified from the Table III.E-6 in the 1998 South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Tr~nsf8r StCltior Dq~ EIP. .6.t th8 timB .A.ltA;n,1~ive Rnut~.6... ~nrl C \A.'':>~P ~-,eil1g cnnsiderPd. Now tre facility o~erates ushg the Alternative A route for transler trucks. N/A Not applicable. Transfer trucks are using Alternative A and not affecting these roadways. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The evaluation of potential project related impacts focused on two areas based upon the requested alternations to the current operating permit. The proposed project would increase the peak daily tonnage which can be processed through facility from 1250 tons to 2,000. However, it would not increase the number of total vehicle trips per day in and out of the facility. What would change would be the makeup of the vehicle stream which would allow the same number of vehicles to haul an increased tonnage to the site and then sort recycled, compost, fuel and residual landfill materials. As discussed in the project description section, a changing solid waste environment has resulted in a significantly reduced number of self haulers traveling to and from the MRF ITS due to increased curbside collection efforts and an increased number of larger construction debris South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-13 ESA I 206097 December 2006 - Appendix A related vehicles transporting larger loads to the site due to increased recycling requirements for construction waste. This translates to the potential for two types of traffic and transportation related impacts. - 1. Potential impacts to roadway capacity resulting from increased peak hour traffic. 2. Potential impacts to roadway pavement condition resulting from increase truck loading. Significance Criteria This analysis is focused upon environmental effects of the changes that would result from the project. Specifically, the questions are whether the increased tonnage would result in new significant traffic impacts not analyzed in the previous ElR for the MRF/TS project or whether the increased tonnage would result in traffic impacts that are substantially more severe than the previous EIR. According to CEQA standards, a project would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial relative to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system is considered to have a significant adverse impact of the environment. The City of South San Francisco has established minimum performance standards for signalized and unsignalized intersections. At signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the minimum acceptable level is LOS D, while the stop controlled approaches of a two-way stop are to operate at an LOS E or better. As indicated in Tables 5 and 6, all seven signalized intersections evaluated currently operate at an LOS D or better and the stop controlled approach of Grandview at Grand Avenue currently operates at an LOS E or better. - - No new significant traffic impacts have been identified in these analyses that were not analyzed in the previous ElR. - For tne purposes of this analysis, the following conditions would indicate that the project would result in traftic impacts that are substantially more severe than the impacts analyzed in the previous EIR. - 1. If the traffic impact of the project on peak hour LOS would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR. If the traffic impact of the project on the Traffic Index (T.!.) of the affected roadways would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR. - 2. Project Trip Generation - Estimates of daily and peak hour trips which would be generated by the MRF/TS accommodating a peak waste stream flow of2,000 tpd are summarized in Table 2. As indicated in Table 2, the site is forecast to continue generating a maximum of 1,262 trips per day. Of these, 43 are forecast too be inbound and 37 outbound during the morning peak commute period (8:00 - 9:00 P.M.) with another 28 inbound and 26 outbound during the evening peak period (4:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.). These - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-14 ESA I 206097 December 2006 Appendix A forecasts, particularly the peak period forecasts are based upon actual traffic counts of existing operations at the site scalehouse, whereas peak period traffic forecasts for the original 1,250 tpd project shown in Table 1 were based upon estimates in the EIR before the MRF/TS was built and began operating. The traffic forecast estimates used in the 1998 traffic impact evaluation for the current 1,250 tpd permit were specifically developed with a margin of error to ensure review of a worst case scenario. Six plus years of operation of the site, has shown that the peak period estimates in the previous E1R were considerably high, the largest reason being most employees arrive well before 7:00 A.M. and depart before 4:00 P.M., or outside of the peak commute periods. Comparison of peak hour forecasts in Tables 1 and 2 show that the estimates in the previous E1R were actually almost double what has been found to be occurring based upon scale house counts. In terms of daily volumes of traffic, as indicated in Table 1, peak project throughput of 1,250 tpd allowed under the current operating permit was forecast to generate a maximum of 1,262 trips per day. As described in the project description, this has now changed due to a change in the mode or types of vehicles used for collection and transport. Previously, a significant portion (approximately 30 percent) of the daily traffic stream was expected to be generated by self-haulers with small loads. The solid waste collection process has now evolved to where SSFSC collection trucks circulate through residential areas periodically to pickup all but hazardous materials curbside, which has had the effect of significantly reducing the number of self-haulers. The net effect is being able to transport and process a peak of2,000 tpd without exceeding 1,262 trips per day (see Table 2 above, SSFSC/BL Inc., 2006). Trip Distribution and Assignment Changes in trips associated with the changing mode of transporting waste to the MRF/TS site were distributed to the surrounding area and assigned to the roadway network based upon current service area demand levels and haul routes. The basic haul route assumes transfer trucks and a significant portion of collection trucks would use East Jamie Court, Haskins Way, East Grand A venue, lial\,;way lJoulevard, and Produce A venue and/or ~outh Airport Boulevard to/from U.S. 101. The largest change in traffic associated with the proposed new permit will be an increase in truck loading on the haul routes between the site and U.S. 101 over a 24 hour period. There will be an increase in collection trucks as well as off-haul transfer and recycling trucks. The previous ErR traffic analysis distribution and assignment of employee, customer, and small self-haul traffic assumed approximately 10 percent to and from the north (Brisbane), 30 percent to and from the south (Millbrae), 55 percent to and from South San Francisco west of U.S. 101, and the remaining five percent to and from areas east of US. 101. This has been assumed to remain constant with the new permit as has the previous distribution for collection related trucks. The roll-off and drop-box distribution assumed approximately 16 percent to and from the north (Brisbane), 20 percent to and from the south (Millbrae), 60 percent to and from South San Francisco west of U.S. 101 or from the San Francisco International Airport, and the remaining four percent to and from areas east of U.S. 101. Collection trucks from the west of US. 101 area were expected to cross U.S. 101 using East Grand Avenue, San Mateo/South Airport Boulevard or follow 1-380. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-15 ESA I 206097 December 2006 Appendix A Potential Impacts Peak Hour Roadway Operating Characteristics The proposed modifications to the existing use permit allowing processing of a maximum of 2,000 TPD of solid waste should not have a significant impact on peak hour roadway operating characteristics in the project area relative to the existing operating permit and the analysis in the previous EIR. The previous ErR assumed a peak hour traffic volume of 84 inbound and 63 outbound trips during the morning peak hour with another 43 inbound and 51 outbound trips during the evening. Review of trip generation estimates for the proposed project summarized in Table 2 show the project is now forecast to generate a significantly reduced volume of traffic during both morning and evening peak hour periods. A review of potential changes accounting for increased truck volumes yielded the same results. In terms of passenger car equivalents (assigning a heavier weight to trucks per the Highway Capacity Manual), the peak hour trip forecasts for the proposed new permit summarized in Table 2 remain less than those initially forecast for the previous EIR (Table 1). - The previous EIR identified impacts and needed mitigation associated with the higher trip generation, including signalization of the intersection of Littlefield and Grand Avenue, which has been completed. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on peak hour roadway operating characteristics during either the morning or evening peak commute periods. - Pavement Deterioration A large number of industrial and warehouse related development that generates a substantial volume of truck traffic is located South San Francisco in the East of 101 Area. As a result, most roadways providing circulation through area are designed to accommodate truck turning requirements at intersections. Larger intersections may include dual turn lanes, most curb returns have at least a 20-foot radius, and channelization islands are typically configured to accommodate off-tracking oflarge semi-truck trailers. Roadway widths and lane widths are typically sufficient to accommodate truck traffic. - Table 7 includes pavement related traffic indexes assuming 1998 conditions without the MRF/TS, the current Conditional Use Permit and SWFP allowing processing of up to 1,250 TPD with 1998 traffic volumes as a base, and 1998 conditions with the increased proposed limit of 2,000 TPD. The comparison between the two MRF/TS conditions in Table 7 shows the proposed 2,000 TPD permit is forecast to result in a minor increase in the traffic index on two segments (southbound Haskins south of Grand and eastbound Grand between Littlefield and Haskins). Traffic index levels on all other segments of roadway evaluated are forecast to not increase beyond those levels previously approved as part ofthe current permit. The project proponent was required to perform deflection or pavement testing on Haskins Avenue and upgrade the roadway's structural section as part of the conditions of approval of the original 1,250 TPD permit. In the evaluation of the previous permit application, an increase of a T.r. of - ... - South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EiR Addendum #1 - Operationai Changes A-16 ESA I 206097 December 2006 Appendix A 1.5 or greater was used as the criteria for warranting pavement deflection testing and a potential pavement overlay dependent upon the results of the testing. Review of Table 7 will show the T.r. increase forecast for eastbound Grand Avenue associated with the proposed 2,000 TPD permit is estimated to remain below this level relative to 1998 conditions without the MRF/ST. Therefore, the proposed 2,000 TPD permit would not have a negative impact on pavement conditions relative to the 1,250 TPD permit limit. References CAL TRANS, 1996 Traffic Volumes, 1997. CCS Planning and Engineering, Route 101lBayshore Boulevard Hook Ramps PSRlPR Traffic Operations Analysis, March 23, 1998. City of South San Francisco, 249 East Grand Avenue, Draft Focused EIR, 2005 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, July 1994 City of South San Francisco, Genentech Corporate Facilities Master DEIR, 2006 City of South San Francisco, Home Depot Project, Draft Focused EIR, 2005 City of South San Francisco, Lowe's Project, Draft Focused EIR, 2006 Environmental Science Associates, Inc., South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, 1998. Lappen, Michael. Senior Planner. City of South San Francisco. Personal communication, November 2006. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209,1980,1985, 1994,2000. South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Project EIR Addendum #1 - Operational Changes A-17 ESA I 206097 December 2006 - - - - - - - - ""..."*' Appendix B Construction and Demolition Ordinances ....:;~ r- ESA .~ - - - - - - - - ... - - - APPENDIX B CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCES Prepared by Edgar & Associates, 2005 ,'f...... A total of 10 ordinances were reviewed as part of a study of San Mateo County Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinances via general web searches and content from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) website. These ordinances came to be in response to the need to meet AB 939 mandates and because Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste is a significant and growing part of the disposed waste stream in California (approximately 28%). With the current wave of construction that is occurring in San Mateo County, addressing the local C&D waste stream is crucial to reducing the amount of waste being landfilled. Even a small construction project, such as a room remodel, has many opportunities for recycling. The economic vitality of the region depends upon facilities such as Blue Line to divert large quantities of such materials for reuse or recycling. In San Mateo County the responsibility for implementing C&D Ordinances generally falls to the generators, who, in all cases, are a combination of the project or permit applicant, project developer, permittee, property owner, or assigned project applicant. The threshold by which a project is deemed "covered" within the County varies and includes either dollar value, the size of new construction projects, tons of waste generated, all C&D projects, or in one case, to "maximize reuse and recycling to the greatest extent possible". Diversion requirements in San Mateo County range from the state minimum standard of a 50% diversion requirement for all C&D to 100% of all inert materials, where most require that 60% of C&D debris be recycled at a certified or permitted facility. Additional minimum limits are placed on soil, total tonnage, roofing, and other materials. To meet the C&D recycling mandates, formal paperwork is required to delineate the project upon application with estimates of total materials and materials to be recycled. All forms require quantification in order to report real tonnages to be recycled or disposed of, which are verified during the reporting phase of a project. Vendor receipts, weight tags, the initial permit paperwork, good project records, certified photo copies, etc. are required. These should be readily available upon request by the Waste Management Program Officer (WMPO). Upon project completion, reporting with the required form and necessary documentation is typically required in 30-60 days following final construction or demolition. Failure to comply with reporting requirements can incur various enforcement options. I - - - - - - - - ...... - - - - - Appendix C Understanding Construction & Demolition Recycling Requirements - San Mateo County r-- ESA ~ - - - - - - ~'", -, - - - - - - - UNDERSTANDING C&D RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS . Must allow 10 working days for Any project over salvage prior to demolition ATHERTON $50,000 or . D or C: recycle 60% of total waste Recycling & Waste 650-752-0560 yes yes generating more . ShingLe/shake roofing project: Open to all haulers Management Reduction than 10 tons of recycle 50% of total waste Plan debris. . ALterations/Additions: re cle 50% of total waste All demolition, Builder must pursue recycling through BELMONT new homes, and a good faith effort. This effort is South San Francisco 650-637-2968 yes no** large commercial monitored and enforced by the Code Scavenger Co. Enforcement Officer and the Building projects. Division. . Must allow 5 working days for Demolition over sa lvage prior to demolition. 200 fe, remodel or . D: recycle 100% of inert solids, * BRISBANE new construction 50% of other construction debris South San Francisco C&D Recycling and Waste 415-508-2120 yes yes exceeding $75,000, . C: recycle 50% of total waste Scavenger Co. Reduction Plan or re-roonng over . RemodeVRe-rooflng: recycle 500 ft' 50% of total waste . Must allow 5 working days for Demolition, new salvage prior to demolition construction . D or C or ALterations: recycle Recycling and Waste BURLINGAME 60% of total waste 650-558-7271 yes yes projects, and . Limits on use of inert solids* to Open to all haulers Reduction Plan alterations over achieve diversion goals Compliance Report $50,000 . ADC is not counted as recycled material . Must salvage if possible All demolition, . D: recycle 50% concrete/asphalt, COLMA remodel, 15% of other waste Open to all haulers Recycling and Waste 650-757 -8888 yes yes construction . C: recycle 50% of total waste Reduction Form projects . ShingLe/shake roofing project: recycle 50% of total waste All demolition, DALY CITY re-roonng, and new . D or C or ALterations or 650-991-8126 yes yes construction greater Re-rooflng: recycle 60% of Open to all haulers Waste Management Plan than $10,000, total waste includin alterations All demolition, . D: recycle 60% soil, concrete/ EAST PALO ALTO new single-family, asphalt, 25% other waste Open to all haulers Recycling and Waste 650-853-3100 yes yes multi-family and . C: recycle 55% concrete/asphalt, Reduction Form commercial 20% other waste All demolition and new construction . Reuse and salvage to the greatest FOSTER CITY projects and extent feasible Open to all haulers Recycling and Waste 650- 286- 3280 yes yes specified residential . D or C or ALterations: recycle Reduction Form and commercial 50% of total waste alterations HALF MOON BAY no** Projects over Reuse, salvage and recycle to the Open to all haulers Waste Management Plan 650-726-8263 yes $5,000 greatest extent feasible . D or C or ALterations: recycle 50% If using a debris box, All demolition, of total waste Recycling and Waste HILLSBOROUGH alteration, and . If hauling mixed debris, must use must use a company with Reduction Plan 650-375-7403 yes no** new construction approved mixed processing facility a signed, non-exclusive Compliance Report franchise agreement with projects . ADC is not counted as recycled Hillsborough. material -t. UNDERSTANDING C&D RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS All residential . Must allow 7 working days for projects over salvage prior to demolition Recycling & Waste MENLO PARK 1,000 ft', . D or C: recycle or salvage at least Open to all haulers Management Reduction 650-330-6704 yes yes Commercial 60% of tota l waste Plan projects over . ADC is not counted as recycled 5,000 ft' material . Must allow 2 weeks for salvage prior Planning to demolition - MILLBRAE Commission . D or C: recycle 50% of all waste South San Francisco Solid Waste Management 650-259-2444 yes yes approved projects generated, at least 25% must Scavenger Co. Plan and all demolitions be from sources other than soil, concrete or as halt PACIFICA Coastside Scavenger Co. 650-738-7300 no Any project greater . Must allow 5 working days for than $10,000 or salvage prior to demolition PO RTO LA VALLEY generating more . D: recycle 60% concrete/asphalt, Open to all haulers Waste Management Plan 650-851-1700xI8 yes yes than 10 tons of 25% other waste debris; remodels . C or Remodel or Re-rooflng: tar er than 1,000 ft2 rec cle 60% of total waste REDWOOD CITY Open to all haulers 650-780-7360 no . C or Remodel: recycle 50% of - All new total waste SAN BRUNO construction, . D: recycle 50% of total waste, 650-616-7065 yes yes demolition, and any 25% of total material recycled must San Bruno Garbage Co. remodel over $50,000 be from sources other than soil, - concrete or as halt. Any project over $10,000 or . Must allow 5 working days for generating more salvage prior to demolition - SAN CARLOS than 5 tons of . D or C: recycle 60% of total waste, Open to all haulers Waste Management Plan 650-593-1685 yes yes debris. Any at least 25% must be non-inert re-roon ng with material* wood shake, tile - or concrete. . Salvage as much as possible Any demolition, . D or C: recycle 60% of total waste, Recycling & Waste SAN MATEO construction, or at least 25% must be non-inert 650-522-7346 yes yes remodel over material* Open to all haulers Management Reduction $50,000 . Remodel: recycle 50% of total Plan waste SOUTH SAN in City of South San Francisco was South San Francisco FRANCISCO developing C and D recycling Scavenger Co. 650-387-9777 progress ordinance at the time of rintin Any project . Must allow 5 working days for over $5,000 or salvage prior to demolition WOODSIDE generating more . C: recycle 60% of total waste Open to all haulers Waste Management Plan 650-851-6790 yes yes . D: recycle 60% of total waste, than 10 tons of debris at least 15% must be non-inert materiat* - Demolition projects UNINCORPORATED over $5,000, SAN MATEO COUNTY no** construction . D or C: recycle 100% of inert Open to all haulers Waste Management Plan yes projects greater solids, * 50% of all non-inerts* - 650-599-1496 than $250,000 or 2,000 ft' * Inert solids include asphatt, brick, concrete, dirt, fines, rock, sand, soil and stone. " - ** Fines or penalties may apply for non-compliance.