Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-25 e-packet AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, JULY 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 referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. PEDRO GONZALEZ Vice Mayor RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR Mayor MARK N. ADDIEGO Councilman JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman KAR YL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman RICHARD BATT AGUA City Treasurer FLO DERBY Interim City Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager STEVEN T. MATT AS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMP AIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCA nON PRESENT A nONS . Certificate of Recognition to SamTrans "Art Takes a Bus Ride" Winner Marlo Ghilardi- Lopez, Martin Elementary School 1 st grade student . Wet Weather Phase II Presentation - Director of Public Works Terry White AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL . Announcements . Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the Minutes ofthe City Council meeting of July 11, 2007 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of July 25, 2007 3. Adoption of resolution approving Amendment No. 12 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson. 4. Adoption of a resolution to award the emergency construction contract for the repair of sewer trench at 130-148 Beacon to JMB Construction, in the amount of$415,000 5. Adoption of a resolution authorizing installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue 6. Adoption of an ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 4.20, Section 4.2.130 to grant authority to impose liens for delinquent payment of the Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT") (second reading) 7. Adoption of a resolution awarding a contract to Affordable Painting Service, Inc., of Sacramento, California in amount of$37,580 for the Grand Avenue Pole Painting Proj ect PUBLIC HEARING 8. Public hearing regarding proposed amendment to East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee; adoption of resolution adopting the City of South San Francisco 2007 East of 101 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 25, 2007 PAGE 2 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update and revising the City's Traffic Development Impact Fee for future development within the East of 101 Study Area 9. Public Hearing regarding proposed amendment to East of 101 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee; motion to continue indefinitely, staff will re-notice ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 10. Adoption of a resolution establishing policy goals and a voluntary program promoting the elimination of polystyrene food service ware LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 11. Introduction of an ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 3, Chapter 8.54, Section 8.54.205 related to cost recovery of public nuisance abatement 12. Introduction of an ordinance amending South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 4.22 to add administrative provisions for the collection of the commercial parking tax 13. Introduction of an ordinance amending Chapter 11.68.020 and 11.68.025 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to update the streets subject to radar enforcement of speeding violations and adopting updates to the Radar Survey Report of May 2005 COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM CLOSED SESSION 14. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)) Zimmerman et al. v. City of South San Francisco et al ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 25, 2007 PAGE 3 Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 3 DATE: July 25, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Barry M. Nagel, City Manager SUBJECT: Contract Amendment for Professional Services Agreement between South San Francisco and Meyers Nave for Legal Services RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution authorizing Amendment No. 12 to the Professional Services Agreement between South San Francisco and Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council is hereby requested to consider and approve Amendment No. 12 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of South San Francisco ("City") and Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson ("Meyers Nave"). If approved by the City Council, the new contract terms would be effective August 1, 2007. The proposed amendment modifies the compensation terms of the agreement between the City and Meyers Nave. Specifically, the retainer amount has been increased to $33,080 per month for up to 250 hours of basic services. The hourly rate for basic service hours in excess has also been increased to $187 per hour. Additionally, the redevelopment legal services rate has been increased to $191 per hour for associates and $245 per hour for principals and "of counsel" attorneys; the rate for land use cost recovery matters has been increased to $216 per hour for junior associates, $243 per hour for "of counsel" and senior associates, and $270 for principals; the flat fee for photocopy/faxlU.S. mail costs has been increased to $560 per month; and litigation rates have been increased to $103 per hour for paralegals, $185 per hour for junior associates, $201 per hour for senior associates, and $230 per hour for principals and "of counsel" attorneys. The contract also specifies that specified personnel arbitrations, grievance and administrative and hearing processes are included as special service items and subject to the litigation :;S'01~. u_.~ l . Barry M. Nagel - '-"--<1 - City Manager 1987323 I I I RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND MEYERS NAVE WHEREAS, the City and Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson entered into a professional services agreement in March 1994; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend said agreement to modify the compensation provided to Meyers-Nave. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: 1. Approve Amendment No. 12 to the Professional Services Agreement as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; 2. Authorizes the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City Amendment No. 12. * * * * * 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 25th day of July, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: 987331 City Clerk AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER AND WILSON The City of South San Francisco and Meyers-Nave do hereby agree as follows: 1. Section 4 "Compensation - Basic Services" is hereby amended to read as follows: "City shall pay the amount of Thirty Three Thousand Eighty Dollars ($33,080) per month effective August 1, 2007 for up to 250 hours per month of Basic Services as described in Section 1, excluding redevelopment legal services which shall be billed separately. City shall pay Law Firm $187 per hour for any Basic Services provided to City in excess of250 hours per month. The Law Firm shall notify the City Manager in writing of the anticipated need for excess services prior to performing Basic Services in excess of 250 hours in anyone month. In addition to Basic Services compensation, Law Firm shall also be paid for (1) redevelopment legal services at the rate of $245 per hour for Principals and Of Counsel attorneys and $191 per hour for associate attorneys and (2) cost recovery matters involving land use entitlements at the rate of $270 per hour for Principals, $243 per hour for Senior Associates and "Of Counsel" attorneys, and $216 per hour for Junior Associates with the City's costs reimbursed by the development applicant. For purposes of this section, cost recovery matters shall include the following: 1) all non-residential projects requiring approval of a conditional use permit, planned unit development, development agreement, zoning amendment, general plan amendment, specific plan or amendment thereto or other discretionary approval; 2) all residential or mixed use projects containing four (4) or more residential units and/or those residential projects requesting an owner participation agreement, disposition and development agreement, affordable housing agreement or development agreement; and 3) any project requiring a mitigated negative declaration, environmental impact report, or an addendum to an environmental impact report. In addition to the Basic Services compensation, Law Finn shall also be reimbursed $560 per month for photocopy/fax/U.S. mail costs incurred at the Law Finn's Oakland office. City shall also reimburse Law Firm for the actual costs paid by Law Finn for Westlaw and Lexus computer research services, messenger services and document requests. 2. The first sentence of Section 5 "Compensation - Special Services" is hereby amended to read as follows: "City shall compensate Law Firm for special services described in Section 2 hereof and which are authorized by action of the City Council on an hourly basis at the rate of$230 per hour for shareholders and "Of Counsel" attorneys, $185 per house for 987266-l junior associates, $201 per hour for senior associates and $103 per hour for paralegals. " 3. Section 2 is hereby amended to add Subsection (f) to read as follows: "(f) Providing legal services for personnel related arbitrations, grievance hearings, hearings and administrative processes before the California Fair Employment and Housing Agency, the California Personnel Employee Relations Board and the City's Personnel Board." 4. Except as expressly provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Professional Services Agreement between the City and Meyers-Nave shall remain in full force and effect for the term of this Agreement. This amendment shall be effective as of August 1,2007. Date: City of South San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California By: Barry M. Nagel, City Manager Attest: City Clerk Approved as to Form: Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson Special Counsel By: Steven T. Matias, Principal 987266-l - :\)'t\\ 84# ~ca.C_'~~.\ '.". -'_' .. ".~. 1(0. 0 l>< .... .~ ~ v 0 C'4l1FOP.~\.~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 4 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 25, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY TRENCH WORK TO REPAIR A POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SANITARY SEWER AT 130/148 BEACON STREET RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the emergency construction contract for the repair of the sanitary sewer trench located at 130/148 Beacon Street to JMB Construction, Inc. in the amount of $415,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Wet Weather Program was initiated to remediate a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on July 16, 1997. In response to this order, the City completed capacity improvements at the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), an infiltration and inflow (1&1) study and master plan of recommended infrastructure improvements, subsequently referred to as the Wet Weather Program. The CDO required the infrastructure sewer improvements to be constructed by November 1,2007. The Wet Weather Program consists of four phases. Phase I consisted ofthe replacement of two pump stations (San Mateo and Shaw Road) and several miles of new gravity/force main sewer lines, connecting the pump stations to the WQCP. This project was designed by Carrollo Engineers and constructed by Mitchell EngineeringlObayahsi, A Joint Venture (Mitchell). These pump stations and gravity/force sewer lines have been completed and are currently in operation. As part of the construction of the sewer main from the Shaw Road pump station to WQCP, the design called for tunneling a sewer line under US Route 101, and continuing in a 16- foot deep trench within a City sewer easement between 130/148 Beacon Street. The contractor initiated this portion ofthe work in the summer of2004. On February 14, 2005, a portion ofthe open trench adjacent to 130/148 Beacon Street failed due to inadequate shoring. Following restoration ofthe trench, it was later discovered that Mitchell EngineeringlObayashi had used sand as trench backfill instead of lightweight aggregate, as specified by the geotechnical and design engineers. Staff Report Subject: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY TRENCH WORK TO REPAIR A POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SANITARY SEWER AT 130/148 BEACON STREET Page 2 of2 The geotechnical engineer retained by the City evaluated the trench. He determined that due to the underlying soil which consists of bay mud and high ground water, the sand backfill used by Mitchell may "liquefy" during a significant earthquake and pose a threat to the stability ofthe building structures at 130/148 Beacon Street. Due to outstanding claims this project has yet to be accepted by staff or by the City Council. The proposed emergency repair by 1MB Construction, Inc. will correct the existing problem by excavating the trench to the top ofthe pipe and replacing the sand backfill with lightweight aggregate. FUNDING This project is included in the FY 07-08 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with funding provided by the sewer fund. CONCLUSION Council authorization to proceed with the emergency construction project to restore and repair the sanitary sewer trench at 130/148 Beacon Street would provide for the completion of this project. The completion of this project will also allow the property owners to complete the follow-up work of the restoration of the parking lot drainage and surface repair in a timely manner. BY:~U Marty VanDuyn Assistant City Manager -- -+ Approved: Attachments: Resolution DC/SBIDC RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY WORK TO REPAIR A POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SANITARY SEWER AT 130/148 BEACON STREET WHEREAS, in September 2003, the City of South San Francisco ("City") proceeded to undertake a public works project titled Wet Weather Program Phase I Project, Project No. 71-13235- 0351 ("Wet Weather Project") to improve the City's sanitary sewer system; and WHEREAS, as part ofthe Wet Weather Project Phase I, the City contracted with Carollo Engineering, Inc. ("Carollo") as the design professional, and Mitchell Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture ("Mitchell") as the contractor; and WHEREAS, as part of the work for the Wet Weather Project Phase I, Mitchell had to excavate a trench approximately 6 feet wide and 16 feet deep through a parking lot between two different structures located at 130/148 Beacon Street; and WHEREAS, on or about on February 14, 2005 the trench excavated at the parking lot between 130/148 Beacon Street failed; and WHEREAS, Mitchell filled the trench with sand and light aggregate material; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of geotechnical engineers retained by the City, the current trench conditions pose a risk to life, health and property since the sand placed in the trench could liquefy in the event of an earthquake and could cause damage to the structures at 130/148 Beacon Street; and WHEREAS, geotechnical engineers retained by the City and the owners' experts at 130/148 Beacon Street have concluded that a repair method of excavating the trench and replacing the sand backfill with light aggregate would resolve the liquefaction issue, thereby removing the risk to life, health and property posed by the current condition; and WHEREAS, staff contacted three contractors to submit proposals for the subject repair; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the above described emergency work in an amount not to exceed $ 415,000; and WHEREAS, in addition, a well recognized exception in Common Law to the competitive bidding requirement for public entities exists where the nature of a contract or project is such that competitive proposals would be unavailing or would not produce an advantage, thereby rendering 848911 v1 any advertisement for competitive bidding undesirable, impractical or impossible (see Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 631,635; 164 Cal. Rptr. 56, 58); and WHEREAS, the rationale for the adoption of the above exception is found in the purposes of the provisions requiring competitive bidding in letting public contracts. Those purposes are to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption; to prevent waste of public funds; and to obtain the best economic result for the public (see Graydon, 104 Cal.App.3d. at 636); and WHEREAS, it has also been recognized by Common Law that where competitive proposals work in incongruity and are unavailing as affecting the [mal result ofthe public works project, or where competitive proposals do not produce any advantage, or where it is practically impossible to obtain what is required and to observe such form, competitive bidding is not applicable (see Graydon, 104 Cal.App.3d. at 636); and WHEREAS, in addition to the Common Law exception listed above, Public Contract Code Section 22050 permits a city to forego formal competitive bidding requirements if its city council passes a resolution by a four-fifths vote declaring that the public interest and necessity demand immediate expenditures of city funds to safeguard life, health or property, without giving notice for bids to let contracts; and FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A. Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22050, substantial evidence set forth in this resolution and recorded in the meeting minutes establishes that the emergency conditions relating to the trench do not permit the delay that would result from the competitive solicitation of bids for the work described above, and that such work is necessary to respond to the emergency conditions relating to the trench; and B. In the instant case, entering into a negotiated contract with a qualified contractor, rather than soliciting competitive proposals, would allow the City to immediately address the serious risk of harm to life, health and property posed by the trench's current condition; and C. That such a proposed negotiation of a contract would not constitute any sign of favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud or corruption; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco. 848911 v1 2 2. Award of a contract for the emergency work to repair the trench between 130/148 Beacon Street described above is exempt from California Public Contract Code competitive bidding requirements pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22050 and the established common-law doctrine articulated in the case of Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 631. 3. City staff are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf ofthe City a contract for the performance of the emergency work described above to JMB Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $ 415,000 and at contract prices substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions that are appropriate for such projects of city public works departments, as approved by the City Attorney. 4. City staff is directed, in accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 22050( c)(1), to place on future regular agendas of the Council an item concerning the contract authorized pursuant to this resolution so that the Council may determine whether there is a need to continue the emergency work described above or whether such work may be terminated. 5. This resolution shall become effective immediately. 6. Each portion ofthis resolution is severable. Should any portion of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional. * * * * * 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 848911v1 3 - ~~\\ s4,N ~~~~ ~ - r.t.~ (O~ r r.\c'-iiyn :><1,1 J ..:;; ~~g Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 5 DATE: July 25,2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INST ALLA TION OF STOP SIGNS ON RAILROAD AVE AT MAPLE AVE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: In March ofthis year, staff received a request for installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue due to sight distance limitations and speeding vehicles on Railroad. This intersection is a "T" configuration with Maple Avenue running in the north direction and Railroad Avenue in the east/west direction. Currently, there is a stop sign on Maple Avenue and no stop signs on Railroad Avenue. The Traffic Advisory Committee (T AC) reviewed this request at its March meeting and determined that this intersection does not meet the City's guidelines for stop sign installation based on CaItran's warrant analysis. A field study of the intersection concluded that the sight distance for Maple Avenue is less than recommended minimum values. The limited sight distance is due to a vertical curve just east of the intersection on Railroad A venue and dense on-street parking at the corners. T AC recommended that the Engineering Division review this issue and make the final recommendations. Based on engineering judgment and in order to increase public safety at this intersection, it is recommended that the City Council approve the installation of stop signs on Railroad A venue at Maple Avenue. Exhibit 1 displays the existing condition and the proposed recommendation for the installation of the stop signs. Staff Report Subject: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON RAILROAD AVE AT MAPLE AVE Page 2 of2 FUNDING: No additional funding would be necessary to install the stop signs at this location. The stop sign and pole are in stock with the Street Maintenance Division and the time used to install the sign and pavement markings would be charged to general street maintenance. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the installation of stop sign on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue. By: ~ Assistant City Manager ~ Approved: Bb::!~ City Manager ~ Attachments: Resolution Location Map - Exhibit 1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON RAILROAD A VENUE AT MAPLE AVENUE WHEREAS, in March of 2007, staff received a request for the installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed this request at its March of 2007 meeting and determined that this intersection does not meet the City's guidelines for stop sign installation based on CaItran's warrant analysis; and WHEREAS, the TAC recommended that the Engineering Division review this issue and make the final recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Engineer Division has reviewed the issue and recommends approval of the installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue in order to increase public safety at this intersection; and WHEREAS, no additional funding would be necessary to install the stop signs at this location because the Street Maintenance Division has stop signs and poles in stock and the time used for installation will be charged to general street maintenance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby authorizes the installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of July 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT 1 ..-z --ll ~ \ ~ 1 I I APPROX. I I ,,1111 NEW "KNST ALLA TION i i i I I I ! ,,/" W :J Z W ~ .. ~J L"'\ r \. ~ APPROX. 150' 1 EXISTING PROPOSED ~J1APLE AVENUE AT RAILROAD AVENUE --- R1= STANDARD 36" STOP SIGN MOUNTED ON A 2" DIA. POLE ...L. W17= STANDARD 36" STOP AHEAD SYMBOL SIGN MOUNTED ON A 2" DIA, POLE C:\Documents and Settings\kmunar\Desktop\mapJe@railroadStopSignln5tal.dw9, Layout!, 7{11/2007 2:43:22 PM ort AGENDA ITEM # 6 DATE: July 25,2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Steele, Finance Director SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.20, SECTION 4.20.130 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO GRANT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE LIENS FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENT OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 4.20.130 of Chapter 4.20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is now ready for adoption. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3.12 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO GRANT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE LIENS FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENT OF TRANSIENT OCCUP ANCY TAX. (Introduced on 7/11/07 ~~er -, By: 987359_1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE AUDIT AND LIEN AUTHORITY FOR TRANSIENT OCCUP ANCY TAX REPORTING AND COLLECTION WHEREAS, on August 22, 1966, pursuant to its authority under California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 7280 et seq., the City Council of South San Francisco adopted Ordinance No. 554 (South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 4.20)("TOT Ordinance"), which provided for the imposition and collection of a general excise tax on the privilege of using hotel accommodations in the city (a "transient occupancy tax" or "TOT") to be paid by hotel users and collected by hotel operators; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted several amendments to the TOT Ordinance, the last of which was Ordinance No. 1365 in 2005 (a one percent rate increase approved by voters), and it has found that certain changes are necessary in order to improve and enhance the administrative and enforcement components of TOT collection; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that this ordinance adds new methods of enforcing South San Francisco's existing TOT and will not impose a new tax, extend or increase the existing tax rate, or revise the methodology by which the tax is calculated in a manner that increases the existing tax rate. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby amends section 130 of Chapter 4.20 of Title 4 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows as follows: "4.20.130 Actions to collect. (a) Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed a debt owed by the transient to the city. Any such tax collected by an operator which has not been paid to the city shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the city. Any person owing money to the city under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the city for the recovery of such amount. (b) Attorney's Fees and other costs. In an action authorized by this section, the prevailing party shall recover court costs, attorney's fees, personnel costs, and auditor's fees to be added to the judgment and set by the court. These fees are recoverable at all levels of trial and appeal. (c) Recording Certificate - Lien. If any amount required to be paid to the city under this chapter is not paid when due, the tax administrator may, within three years after the amount is due, file for record in the office of the San Mateo County recorder a certificate of delinquency of transient occupancy tax lien specifying the amount of tax, penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and personnel costs due, the name and address of the operator liable for the same as it appears on the records of the tax administrator, and the fact that the tax administrator has complied with all provisions of this chapter in the determination of the amount required to be paid. From the time of the recording of the Certificate of Delinquency of Transient Occupancy Tax Lien, the amount required to be paid, together with interest, penalties and attorney's fees, constitutes a lien upon all real property in the county owned by operator or thereafter acquired before the lien expires. The lien has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien and shall continue for thirty years unless sooner released or otherwise discharged. (d) Priority and Lien of Tax. The amounts required to be remitted and/or paid by any operator under this chapter with penalties and interest shall be satisfied first in any of the following cases: (1) Whenever the person is insolvent; (2) Whenever the person makes a voluntary assignment of his assets; (3) Whenever the estate of the person in the hands of executors, administrators, or heirs is insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased; (4) Whenever the estate and effects of an absconding, concealed or absent person required to pay any amount under this chapter are levied upon by process of law. This chapter does not give the city a preference over any recorded lien which attached prior to the date when the amounts required to be paid became a lien. The preference given to the city by this section shall subordinate to the preference given to claims for personal service by Sections 1204 and 1206 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (e) Seizure and Sale. At any time within three (3) years after any operator is delinquent in the payment of any amount, the tax administrator may forthwith collect the amount in the following manner: the tax administrator shall seize the property, real or personal, of the operator and sell the property, or a sufficient part of it, at public auction to pay the amount due together with any penalties and interest imposed for the delinquency and any costs incurred on account of the seizure and sale. Any seizure made to collect transient occupancy taxes due shall be only property of the operator not exempt from execution under provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. (f) Successor's Liability. If any operator liable for any amount under this chapter sells out his business or quits the business, his successor or assignee shall withhold sufficient of the purchase price to cover such amount until the former owner produces a receipt from the tax administrator showing that it has been paid or a certificate stating that no amount is due. (g) Liability of Purchaser - Release. If the purchaser of a hotel fails to withhold from the purchase price as required, he shall become personally liable for the payment of the amount required to be withheld by him to the extent of the purchase price, valued in money. Within 30 days after receiving a written request from the purchaser for a certificate, or within 30 days from the date the former owner's records are made available for audit, whichever period expires the later, but in any event not later than 60 days after receiving the request, the tax administrator shall either issue the certificate or mail notice to the purchaser at his address as it appears on the records of the tax administrator of the amount that must be paid as a condition of issuing the certificate. Failure of the tax administrator to mail the notice will release the purchaser from any further obligation to withhold from the purchase price as above provided. The time within which the obligation of the successor may be enforced shall start to run at the time the operator sells his business or at the time that the determination against the operator becomes final, whichever event occurs later. (h) If the taxes are not paid when due, such tax, penalty and interest shall constitute a special assessment against such business property and shall be a lien on the property for the amount thereof, which lien shall continue until the amount thereof including all penalties, interest and costs of collection are paid, or until it is discharged of record. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. * * * * * Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 11 th day of July, 2007. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the 25th day of July, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this 25th day of July, 2007. Rich A. Garbarino, Mayor m "" . ~~\ (~ ~ ~ ~ v 0 C4l~~'~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 7 DATE: July 25, 2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: GRAND AVENUE POLE PAINTING PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution, awarding a contract to Affordable Painting Service Inc., of Sacramento, California, as the most responsive proposal in the amount of $37,580.00, for the Grand Avenue Pole Painting Project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Grand A venue Pole Painting Project will paint the City's various 374 poles and metal infrastructure on Grand A venue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard including: street light poles, traffic signal poles and traffic heads, parking meter poles, controller cabinets, bike boIlards and tree well grates. The painting ofthese items is needed in order to maintain and upgrade the appearance of the infrastructure. The last time the metal infrastructure on Grand Avenue was painted by a contractor was in 1991. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared for this project and was advertised. The City received nine (9) responses to the RFP. The following proposals were received: CONTRACTORS PROPOSAL AMOUNT Affordable Painting Services Inc. Clean Innovation Corp. Metro Structural Painting Armstrong Painting Inc. Z.K. Painting Co. Yarsity Painting Diaz Corporation Yan-Go Painting Inc. Fix Painting Co. $37,580.00 $42,529.65 $49,420.00 $52,546.00 $66,185.00 $76,605.00 $78,955.00 $91,080.00 $136,990.00 Pole Painting Estimate $ 50,000.00 Staff Report Subject: Grand A venue Pole Painting Project Page 2 Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Affordable Painting Services and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to Affordable Painting Services Inc., of Sacramento, California, in the amount of $37,580.00. FUNDING: In Fiscal Year 2006/2007, a $50,000 budget transfer was made from Park Salaries to the Street Lighting Account 10-14570-4210. Salary savings occurred due to staff vacancies. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval ofthis contract. Completion of this project will keep the public areas of Grand Avenue looking fresh and clean. The process of painting the City's exposed metal infrastructure on Grand Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard will begin approximately August 20,2007, and be completed on or around October 20, 2007. Park Department personnel will regularly monitor the painting process of the contractor. \ ()-JL . By~ ~ Terry Whit Director of. lic Works APPro~d~ arry M. Nagel City Manager Attachment: Resolution TW /vamh S:\ Staff Reports - White\ Grand Ave Pole Painting Project RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO AFFORDABLE PAINTING SERVICE INC., OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE GRAND AVENUE POLE PAINTING PROJECT WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding a contract to Affordable Painting Service Inc., of Sacramento, California ("Affordable Painting"), in the amount of$37,580.00, for the Orand Avenue Pole Painting Project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project will paint the City's 374 various poles and metal infrastructure on Orand Avenue between Spruce A venue and Airport Boulevard as part of an effort to maintain and upgrade the appearance of the infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the metal infrastructure has not been painted by a contractor since] 991; and WHEREAS, as of July 10, 2007, the Public Works Department received nine (9) proposals in response to a Request for Proposals; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Affordable Painting and found it to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, the process of painting the City's exposed metal infrastructure on Orand Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard will begin approximately August 20, 2007, and be completed on or around October 20, 2007, with Park Department personnel regularly monitoring the painting process of the contractor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a contract to Affordable Painting Service Inc., of Sacramento, California, for the Grand A venue Pole Painting Project in the amount of $37,580.00 * * * * 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 July 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: ATTEST: Isl City Clerk ~ 1\ I I I I AGENDA ITEM # 8 Staff Report DATE: July 25, 2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The East of 101 Area is the employment center for the City of South San Francisco and has experienced significant new development over the past ten years. Since the adoption of the South San Francisco General Plan in 1999, the City has approved over 4.5 million sq. ft. of new office/R&D space and 2,000 new hotel rooms in the East of 101 Area. With the surge of the biotech industry, the General Plan recognized that the total build-out in the East of 101 Area will double from 12.82 million sq. ft. in 2000 to approximately 26.79 million sq. ft. in 2020. On September 26,2001, the City Council adopted the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This program includes certain specific objectives: 1) identifying new streets and physical improvements; 2) establishing an effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for employers; 3) establishing a fee structure that would help pay for future physical improvements; and 4) complying with State and County congestion management requirements. The program's street improvements and traffic fees were designed to help the City reduce future traffic congestion during peak hours and manage anticipated growth in the East of 101 Area. I I II I \ I I In 2005, the City commissioned a traffic study to determine the need for additional street improvements in the East of 101 Area and update the costs to implement the adopted and new improvements. The Traffic Impact Fee Study, East of 101 iuea dated May 6, 2005, provided the justification for the proposed Traffic Fee Ordinance. This study presented an analysis of the need for a total of 22 roadway and intersection improvements to accommodate new development at an estimated cost of $21.6 million. As required by law, the repOli documented a reasonable relationship between new development and the proposed impact fee for funding these facilities. II II II I I I II II II I II ,i ii II I I I II I -.J Staff Report Subject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Page 2 of6 Adopted Traffic Impact Fee (2005) The following table shows the traffic facilities impact fee based on the cost per trip calculated in the Traffic Fee Study and the trip rates used to model development impacts. The cost per hip is convelied to a fee per unit of development based on building square feet or hotel rooms. Land Use PM Trip Cost Per Trip Traffic I Admin Total Rate] Fee2 Fee3 Fee Commercial 3.74 $2,288 $8.56 0.21 $8.77 Office/R&DJ 0.90 $2,288 $2.06 0.05 $2.11 Hotel 0.21 $2,288 $480.52 12.01 $492.54 1 Trips per 1,000 square feet of building area or per room (for hotels). 2 Fee per square foot, or per hotel room. 3 Based on an estimate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee 4 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively. Traffic Impact Fee Update Project (2007) The need for additional projects to be added to the TIP was identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) completed for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlap District Expansion in 2006. This resulted in four additional traffic mitigation projects. In addition, two studies were included. Additional Intersections/Street Improvements and Studies (2007) Project Description Add a lane on NB Dubuque Ave, between the Route 101 off ramp intersection and Oyster Point Blvd. Reconfigure the NB approach to Oyster Point Blvd to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. As part of this widening, eliminate the left turn lane on the SB Dubuque approach to the Route 101 intersection I (which serves the mini warehouse facilities) and allow , SB left turns from the SB through lane. This will allow for provision of five full ~"'B travel lanes on Dubuque Ave between the NB off ramp intersection and Oyster Point Blvd. Adjust signal timing. Create an additional through lane on WB Oyster Point Blvd approach from Veterans Blvd to NB Route 101 on ramp. Widen EB approach to this intersecbon to allmv the existing shared through/right turn lane to be reconfigured into separate thTough and right turn lanes and SB right turn overlap. 23. Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 Northbound On-Ramp 24. East Grand Ave/Harbonnaster Rd/F orbes Blvd Staff RepOli Subject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Page 3 of6 25. Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave Restripe the Route 101 off ramp approach to Dubuque Ave from an existing exclusive left, share tl'Lrough/left I turn and exclusive right tum lane to provide exclusive left tum lanes and a shared through/left tum lane. 26. US 101 northbound off-ramp/East Grand Widen off ramp to provide an additional lane. A ve/Executive Drive Restripe Route 10 1 through lane to allow optional exit to E. Grand Ave/Executive Drive I Replace overhead sign on 101 to provide for two lane exit from freeway. 27. Utah Ave Over Crossing Project Study Prepare a study to detem1ine feasibility of an over Report ' crossing of Utah Avenue over Highway 101. [- Prepare a comprehensive update of the traffic 128. Prepare new East of 101 Area Traffic Study engineering analysis originally prepared for the TIP and I I TDM, which has not been revised since 2001. Revised Traffic Impact Fee (2007) The following table lists the 2007 cost estimates for the previously approved and new traffic improvements to accommodate new development. Total Construction Cost Project (2006 Dollars) 1. Bayshore/ Airport Blvd. & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd. $591,000 2. Dubuque A ve.& Oyster Point Blvd. $1,461,240 3. Eccles Ave. & Oyster Point Blvd. $435,920 I 4. Gull Dr. & Oyster Point Blvd. I $685,400 I i 5. Airport Blvd. & Miller A ve.fUS 101 SB off-ramp $2,048,100 I I 6. AirpOli Blvd. & Grand Ave. $154,000 7. Dubuque Ave. & East Grand Ave. I $3,719,400 i ~ , I - A I T I 8. Gate\'. ay Blvd. & East Grana Ave. 19. Forbes BJvd./East Grand Ave. & Harbor Blvd. 110. Grandvi ew Dr. & East Grand Ave. i 11. Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave. L_ [12. South Airport BJvd./Mitchell Ave. & Gatev/ay Blvd. $1 b2,OuO I I $2,490.600 i . I $704,800 I $1,066,800i I $4,04Loon I Staff RepOli Subject: AMEl\iTIED EAST OF 101 TRP-..FFIC IMPACT FEE Page 4 of6 I TIC " t I ala ons rucnon ~os Project (2006 Dollars) ! 13. South Airport Blvd. & Utah Ave. $440,800 14. Harbor Way ; $5,281,787 j Mitchell Ave I $2,362,600 I 15. I 16. Highway 101 northbound off-ramps/So Airport Boulevard I $2,841,000 17. Highway 101 northbound off-ramp/East Grand Avenue $305,000 18. Forbes Avenue & Eccles }''.Venue I $2,491,980 i 19. Forbes Avenue & Gull Road $210,400 I I I 20. East Grand Avenue & Littlefield Avenue $1,183,200 21. East Grand A venue & Allerton $643,000 22. Utah Avenue and Harbor Way $1,162,000 I . . I 23. New- Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 northbound On-Ramp $2,520,840 24. New- East Grand Ave/Harbormaster RdlForbes Blvd $188,000 25. New- Oyster Point BIvd/Dubuque Ave $39,500 26. New- US 101 northbound off-ramp/E.Grand Ave/Executive $1,292,000 Dr. 27. New- Utah Ave Over Crossing Project Study RepOli $250,000 28. New- Prepare new East of 101 Area Traffic Study $500,000 I I Subtotal (Road Improvements and Studies) $39,272,367 I Less: Existing Fund Balance I l I ($6,908,987) j Total I $32,363,380 I Staff Rep0l1 Subject: A1vlEh'DED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Page 501'6 The following table shows the traffic facilities impact fees based on the cost per trip calculated in the Traffic Fee Study and the trip rates used to model development impacts. The cost per trip is converted to a fee per unit of development based on building square feet or hotel rooms. I Land Use PM Tlip Rate 1 I Cost Per Trip Traffic I Admin I Total I Fee2 Fee3 ! Fee Commercial 3.74 $18,513.00 $18.51 I $0.46 $18.97 Office/R&DJ 0.90 $4,455.00 $4.46 $0.11 $4.57 Hotel 0.21 $1,039.50 $1,039.50 $5.99 $1,065.49 Trips per l,OOO square feet of building area or per room (for hotels). 12 Fee per square foot, or per hotel room. : Based on all estimate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee , , '. . . i Based on weIghted average of PM tnp rate for office and R&D JanG uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectlVciy. Environmental Review Transportation improvements included in the updated traffic fee study consist of those improvements identified in the two earlier studies (2001 and 2005), as well as new improvements identified in the 2006 Genentech Master Plan EIR. The transportation improvements identified in the 2007 study (including previously identified improvements and the new improvements) will undergo a separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA once the individual improvements have been sufficiently designed and engineered such that their potential environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated. As the adoption of this traffic fee update is not a causal link in the provision of the identified improvements, adoption of the fee update is not a "project" for the purposes of CEQA. As such, no further environmental review is required at this time. See Pub. Resources Code, 9 21 080(b )(8)(D). Exempted and Reduced-Fee Land Uses Pursuant to General Plan policies, the City will encourage the development of child care facilities and employee-serving ancillary commercial establishments, such as small restaurants and dry cleaners. All of these land uses are intended to support the increased number of employees working in the East of 101 Area. As such, these land uses will not generate new vehicle trips-or ",rill only generate very few new vehicle trips-and therefore, will have no impact, or very little impact, on the need for the transp0l1ation improvements identified in the 2007 study. Thus, the resolution allows the Chief Plam1er in consultation with the City Engineer to exempt these land uses fi'om paying the traffic impact fee, if the Chief Planner determines that a particular qualifying development will not generate any new vehicle trips. Alternatively, if the Chief Planner determines that such a development will generate minimal new vehicle trips, the Chief Planner may reduce the fee as applied to the pal1icu1ar development, proportional to the new vehicle trips that the development will produce. Inflation Adjustment The traffic impact fee shall be adjusted annually to prevent the revenue from falling behind the costs of constructing new facilities. Staff recommends the City Manager adjust the impact fee am1Ually to account for rising costs in both construction and land acquisition. Construction costs should be adjusted in accordance with the Engineering j<ews Record's Construction Cost Index (20-city average). This is an appropriate index because il directly re1lects the City's costs of providing roadway capacity for future Staff R cport Sui)ject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC j~/;F ACT FEE Page 6 G r 6 customers Land acquisition costs shoulJ be adjusted in accordance with the percemage chJnge in land cost pei- acre WIthin the C:lty, based on a comparison of the most recent Jppraisals. The fee adJustment "vi]] occur beginning on July 1,2008, and again each ,fu]y thereafter. CONCLUSION BY~AA Marty Van Duyn \ Assistant City Manager U 1t is recommended that the City Council adopt the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Update. f .{Jfr, f r. ---, Approved: b4~ ,j<7Y Barry M. Nagel 0 City Manager Attach...'11ent: Resolution with Attachments RRJts/dc 988765.1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 2007 EAST OF 101 TRI\FFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE AND REVISING THE CITY'S TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEE FOR FUTURF, DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EAST OF 101 AREA RECIT ALS 'vVHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted the South San Francisco General Plan ("General Plan"); and WHEREAS, the General Plan, as adopted, applies to the East of 101 Area, which is a Planning Area that includes the land within the jurisdictional limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the General Plan area is included on the Land Use Map contained in the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City's adopted General Plan includes policies requmng that new development within the East of 101 Area should be required to pay its fair share toward upgrades to existing transportation facilities and construction of new transportation facilities as those upgrades and facilities are necessitated by new development in the East of 101 Area (see Policies 4.2-G-7, 4.2-1-7 and 4.2-1-6); that the potential impacts of new growth will be mitigated through development fees and other exactions (see Policies 4.2-G-land 4.2-1-8); that development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision of essential community services or facilities, including but not limited to transportation improvements (see Policies 4.2-G-6 and 4.2-1-4); that the location, timing and extent of growth shall be guided through capital improvements programming and financing, including through the use of impact fees and developer contributions, to prevent increased congestion and level of service deficiencies (see Policy 4.2-1- 1); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, SS 21000, et seq. ["CEQA"J), on October 13, 1999, the City Council of the South San Francisco approved and certified an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") analyzing the enviromnental impacts of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant enviromnental impacts which could be mitigated to a level of less than significance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA requirements, the City adopted mitigation findings and a specific mitigation monitoring and reporting program to track compliance with the mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the transportation improvements identified in the General Plan and the tratnc impact fee study update, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, will undergo separate environmental review once the improvements have been sufficiently engineered to identify their scope and potential impacts; WHEREAS, in 2001, 2005, and 2007, the City of South San Francisco retained MuniFinancial to assist the City in reviewing the needs of residents, businesses, and employees through build-out under the adopted General Plan, and in preparing a traffic impact fee study to determine the a.lllount of fees necessary to generate funds to pay for the transportation improvements necessitated through build-out under the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2001, the City Council adopted the Traffic Impact Fee Study for the East of 101 Area, prepared by MuniFinancial; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005 the City Council adopted the 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area, prepared by MuniFinancial; and VlHEREAS, MuniFinancial has now prepared and presented to the City Council a second Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area ("2007 Traffic Fee Study Update"), which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update identifies additional transportation improvements that are necessary to accommodate future development within the East of 101 Area, and estimates the cost of all improvements, including previously identified improvements; and WHEREAS, cost estimates for each transportation improvement are based on calculations performed by TY Lin, as described in Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, TY Lin estimates that $6,708,780 of the total cost of the transportation improvements is attributable to land acquisition expenses; and WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update calculates the fee necessary to fully fund all identified traffic improvements, per square foot of each specific type of land use; and WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update demonstrates the appropriateness of the amount of the traffic impact fee proposed for adoption, based on current estimates of the cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development; and WHEREAS, the specific transportation improvements needed have been identified based on several factors, including (1) anticipated future development in the East of 101 i\rea; (2) the number of new vehicle trips generated by anticipated future development in the East of 101 iuea; and (3) means of minimizing traffic congestion and maintaining acceptable levels of service tlu'oughout the East of 101 Area; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code S 66016(a), at least 14 days prior to the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted, notice of the time and place of the hearing was mailed to eligible interested parties who filed written requests with the City for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code 9 66016(a), the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update, containing the data upon which the traffic impact fee is based (attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A), was available for public review and comment for ten days prior to the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted; and WHEREAS, ten days advance notice or the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted was given by publication in accordance with Government Code 9 6062(a). FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update complies with California Government Code 99 66000, et seq., by establishing the basis for imposition of the fee on new development in the East or 101 Area. The purpose of the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution is to finance transportation improvements necessary to reduce the impacts caused by future development in the East of 101 Area, as further identified and explained in Exhibit A. Additionally, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update: 1. identifies the purpose of the fee; 2. identifies the use to which the ree will be put; 3. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project upon which the fee will be imposed; 4. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development project upon which the fee will be imposed; 5. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portions of facilities attributable to the development upon which the fee will be imposed. B. The traffic impact fee collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the transportation improvements described in Exhibit A, subject to the City's authority to make reasonable modifications or replacements to the improvements, as further described in Section 13 of this Resolution. C. Based on the entirety of the Record, which includes without limitation, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update (contained in Exhibit A), cost estimates and breakdowns from TY Lin (as described in Exhibit B), all reports, including staffreports received for the public hearing on this matter, the testimony received at this noticed public hearing, the agenda statements, the General Plan, and all cOlTespondence received (collectively, "Record"), the City Council approves and adopts Exhibit A and incorporates such report herein. The City Council further finds that future development in the City will generate the need for the transportation improvements described in Exhibit A, and that such improvements are consistent with the General Plan. D. Adoption of the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution, as it relates to development within the East of 101 Area, is intended to obtain funds for transportation facility improvements necessary to reduce congestion and improve levels of service within the East of 101 Area. While the fee may contribute sufficient funds for the improvements, it will not, by and of itself, ensure the improvements are constructed. Moreover, any improvements intended to be funded by the fee will be fully analyzed under CEQA when the improvements are sufficiently engineered and the precise location and scope of the improvements identified. As such, the fee, as it relates to development within the City, is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA because it is not a necessary causal link in the provision of the improvements identified in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update. (Pub. Resources Code S21080(b)(8)(D)). E. In adopting the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution, the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution. F. The Record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution (payment for certain listed transportation improvements) and the type of development projects on which such fee will be imposed, specifically, commercial, office/research and development, and hotel, because such new development in the East of 101 Area generates new vehicle trips, increasing congestion and decreasing levels of service, thereby contributing to the need for the transportation improvements listed in Exhibit A; and 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the transportation improvements listed in Exhibit A and the type of development projects on which the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution is imposed because new development in the East of 101 Area-office/research and development, commercial and hotel-will increase the number of people who work in the East of 101 Area, generate more vehicle trips in the Area, and contribute to the need for the transportation improvements listed in Exhibit A; and 3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution and the cost of the transportation improvements listed in Exhibit A or that portion of such improvements attributable to the development on which such fee is imposed because such fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses, the total cost of construction of such facilities, and the percentage by which development within the City contributes to the need for such facilities; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in Exhibit A are reasonable estimates for the cost o~ the transportation improvements listed therein, and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected cost of such improvements; and 5. That the method of allocating of the fee set forth in this Resolution to a particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each development's burden on and benefits from the improvements to be funded by such fee, because such fee is calculated based on the number of trips each particular development will generate. ADOPTION OF FEE NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does resolve as follows: 1. The 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted. 2. Definitions. (a) "Applicant" shall mean any person or legal entity that applies for a permit or other entitlement for a new development project. (b) "Child Care Facility" shall mean any child care facility, as that term is defined by section 1596.750 of the Califomia Health and Safety Code, including but not limited to facilities providing non-medical care to children under eighteen years of age in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection and supervision of an individual on less than a 24-hour basis. Such facilities shall include day care centers, employer-sponsored child care centers, and family day care homes. (c) "City" shall mean the City of South San Francisco. (d) "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land use designation or zoning designation for facilities for the purchase or sale of commodities or services and/or the sales, servicing, installation, or repair of such commodities or services and other space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include, but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls, auto accessories stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores, discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishings and improvement centers; hotels and motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters. "Commercial" includes the Commercial land use designation in the General Plan. (e) "Commercial, Office/Research & Development and Hotel Development Project" shall mean the construction of new Floor luea on a lot in the Community Commercial, Business Commercial, Coastal Commercial, Mixed Industrial, and Business and Technology Park land use classifications, identified in the General Plan, and located in the East of 101 .Axea. (f) "Commercial, Employee-Serving Amenities" shall mean ancillary commercial establishments and services, and other uses incidental to business park or campus activities, as identified in the South San Francisco General Plan Policy 3.5-1-8. Uses may include small restaurants and cafes, and services such as dry cleaners that are intended to support and to meet tbe needs of employees from a larger office or research and development park or technology campus in the East of 101 ;'\rea. (g) "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration, or addition, other than by the City, of any building or structure within the area within the City of South San Francisco. (h) "Development Project" means any Commercial, Office/Research and Development and Hotel Development Project. (i) "East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee" "Traffic Impact Fee" and "Fee" shall all mean the charge or charges imposed on development to fund the transportation improvements to ensure that such development pays its fair share of improvements generated by such development pursuant to this Resolution and applicable law. (j) "Floor i\rea" shall mean the area of all floors and levels as defined in the City of South San Francisco Building Code. (k) "Hotel" shall mean a commercial facility containing guestrooms for the temporary use of transients where access to individual units is predominantly by means of common interior or exterior hallways. (1) "Industrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for the manufacture, production, assembly, or processing of consumer goods and/or other space uses incidental to these activities. Industrial land uses include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractors' storage yards; fabrication; lumber yards; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards; printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy commercial uses. "Industrial" includes the following General Plan land use designations: light industry and heavy industry. (m) "Land Use Category" shall mean any of the specific land uses that have been listed in this Resolution and are used to provide the basis for future traffic projections. (n) "New Development Project" shall mean any construction, addition, alteration or other change of use of a building or land that requires the City to issue a grading, building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical permit, or any other form of entitlement. (0) "Office/Research and Development" and "Office/R&D" shall both mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for general business offices, medical or professional offices, administrative or headqumiers offices, offices for large wholesaling or manufacturing operations, research and/or development, research and development campus development with ancillary retail and services, and other space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include, but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business parks; finance offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices and office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real estate offices; research and/or development offices and travel agencies. (P) "Public Warks Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works or the Director's designee. (q) "Transportation Improvements" shall include those improvements that are described in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Updated, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. (r) "Vehicle Trips" shall mean the number of average, daily trips generated by uses ofland, as specified in the "South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report," April 2001. 3. Revised and Adjusted Traffic Impact Fee Imposed. Pursuant the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code SS 66000, et seq.) the updated Traffic Impact Fee identified in this Resolution, and in the documentation provided in Exhibit A, shall be imposed, paid, and othenvise apply as prescribed in this Resolution for each non- residential development (including commercial, hotel, and office/research and development). 4. Time for Fee Payment. The Traffic Impact Fee shall be charged and paid for each non-residential development, including commercial, hotel, and office/research an~ development, upon issuance of the building permit, or if no building permit is required, upon approval of a use permit for the development project, or, ifno use permit or amendment thereto is required, at the earliest of any other permit required for the proj ect. 5. Amount of Fee. As calculated in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Traffic Impact Fee to be imposed and paid pursuant to this Resolution shall be in the amount identified in the following table, based on the land use classification for the particular project for which the Traffic Impact Fee is being imposed: Land Use Cost per PM Trip Cost per Traffic I Admin Total Fee Trip Rate] 1000 SF or Fee per SF I Fee 2 per SF or I hotel room I . hotel room I or botel I room I I I I ' Commercial I $4,950 I 3.74 ' $18,513.00 1$18.51 ! $0.46 1$18.97 I Office/R&D $4,950 ,0.90 $4,455.00 $4.46 I $0.11 ' $4.57 I Hotel lJ4,950 ! 0.21 I $1,039.50 I $1,039.50 ! $25.99 I $1,065.49 I 1 Trips per 1,000 building square feet (for commercial and office/R&D) or per room (for hotels). 2Based on an estimate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee. 3Based on a weighted average of PM trip rate and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively 6. Exemptions and Reductions of Fee. Certain development in the East of 101 Area may be constructed to serve the existing and new commercial and office/R&D uses in the Area. Such development, including small restaurants, dry cleaners, and Child Care Facilities, will not generate new vehicle trips, or will only generate very few new vehicle trips, because these development will be used exclusively, or nearly exclusively, by employees working in the East of 101 Area. Therefore, if in the judgment of the City's ChiefPlmmer, in consultation with the City Engineer, the development of any of the land uses identified in this section of the Resolution will not generate any new vehicle trips, but rather only contribute to "linked-in" trips, the Chief Planner may exempt the particular development from paying the Fee. Alternatively, if in the judgment of the City's Chief Planner, in consultation with the City Engineer, the development of any of the land uses identified in this section of the Resolution will only generate minimal new vehicle trips, the Chief Planner may reduce the Fee to be paid by the particular development, proportional to the new vehicle trips generated by the development. The types of developments to which such an exemption or reduction may be applied are limited to the following: a. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished; provided that, the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the. building was destroyed or demolished, unless the replacement or reconstruction increase the square footage of the structure by 50 percent or more. b. Any "Child Care Facility" as that term is defined in this Resolution. c. Any "Commercial, Employee-Serving Amenities" as that term is defined in this Resolution. 7. Credit for Existing Uses. Applicants whose projects involve the rehabilitation, remodeling or replacement of existing buildings with warehouse, industrial or light industrial uses shall be entitled to fee credits that discount the overall Fee by the number of trips already generated by existing uses. Thus, credit shall be awarded to existing uses based on a net increase in trip generation. The amount of any such discount shall be determined by the City Engineer in his or her sole discretion. 8. Use of Fee Revenue. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate, interest bearing account to pem1it accounting for such revenues and the interest that they generate. Such revenues and interest shaU be used only for the facilities and the purposes for which the Fee was collected, which are the following: a. To pay for acquisition ofihe right-of-way: b. To pay for design, engineering, construction, maintenance of and propeliy acquisition for. and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related to, the Transportation Improvements; c. To reimburse the City for the Transportation Improvements constructed by the City with fUl1ds from other sources including funds fl-om other public entities, unless such funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the TranSpOliation Improvements. d. To reimburse developers that have designed and constructed any of the Transportation Improvements with prior City approval and have entered into an agreement, as provided in Section 14, below; and e. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of progTam development and ongoing administration of the Fee program, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies, legal costs, and other costs of updating the Fee. 9. Standards. The standards upon which the need for the Transportation Improvements are based are the standards of the City, including the standards contained in the General Plan and those City standards reflected in this Resolution, including the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update. 10. Periodic Review. a. During each fiscal year, the Public Works Director shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code 9 66006, identifying the balance of Fee revenues in the Fee account. b. Pursuant to Government Code 9 66002, the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted City Capital Improvement Plan each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Transportation Improvements to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee revenue balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 11. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee. The Fee set fOlih herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the Record identified above. The City may continue to conduct further study and analysis to detel111ine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional infoTI11ation is available, the City Council may review the Fee to determine that the Fee amounts are reasonably related to the impact of Development within the City. In addition to the inflation adjustments pursuant to Section 12, below, the City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of fUliher studies and any standards in the General Plan, as from time to time amended by the City. 12. Fee Adjustments. Beginning July 1, 2008 and each July thereafter, the Fee shall be automatically adjusted to account for inflation. The City Manager or his designee shall be responsible for performing the calculations described in this Section. The adjustments described in this Section shall be applied administratively. The Fee shall be adjusted as follows: a. Land Adjustment. The adjustment for the land acquisition costs shall be equal to the percentage change in land cost per acre within the City, based on a comparison of a current appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee) and the immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology). This calculation shall be known as the "Land Adjustment." (1) For the purposes of calculating' the Land Adjustment, the City should conduct annual appraisals; however, in the event that the City has not conducted appraisals on an arumal basis, in any year in which the Land Adjustment is applied to the Fee, the Land Adjustment shall be based on the percentage change between a current appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee) and the last available appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology). (~) If in any year, for any reason, the City Manager or his designee does not calculate the Land Adjustment, the Fee shall still be automatically adjusted using only the Construction Adjustment. b. Construction Adjustment. The adjustment for construction costs shall be equal to the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (20-city average) between the prior April, and the April of the preceding year. This calculation shall be known as the "Construction Adjustment." c. Fee Adjustment. Once calculated, the Construction Adjustment and the Land Adjustment shall be applied to the respective portions of the total cost of the Transportation In1provements, to determine a new, adjusted total cost. (The portions of the 2007 total cost attributable to each factor are described in Exhibit B: $6,708,780 of the total fee is attributable to land acquisition costs; the remainder of the total fee is attributable to construction costs). This adjusted total cost shall be used to calculate the Cost Per Trip (Table 7 of the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update) and the Total Fee (Table 9 of the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update) in the same maru1er as in the 2007 Traffic Fee Smdy Update. 13. Replacement or Modification of Transportation Improvements. At the discretion of the City Engineer, specific TranspOliation Improvements may be reasonably modified or replaced with comparable improvements, provided that the modifications or replacements achieve the same or greater mitigation of traffic impacts, and maintain the reasonable relationship requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, as identified in Govemment Code S 66001. 14. Credits and Reimbursement for Develooer Constructed Facilities. The City and a developer may enter into an improvement agreement to allow the developer to construct certain of the Transportation Improvements. The City shall retain total discretion as to whether to execute such an agreement. Such agreement shall provide for security for the developer's commitment to construct the Transportation Improvements and shall refer to this Resolution for credit and reimbursement. If the City enters into such an agreement with a developer prior to construction of one or more of the Transportation Improvements, the City shall provide the developer a credit in accordance with the following: a. Credit Amount. The credit shall be in the amount of the lowest bid received for construction of the facility, as approved by the Director of Public \V orks. However, in no event shall a credit pursuant to this provision exceed the current cost of the Transportation Improvement. For the purposes of this section, such current Transportation In1provement cost shall be the amount listed in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update for that particular Transportation Improvement, as subsequently adjusted pursuant to Sections 11 and 12 of this resolution prior to issuance of the building permit for that Transportation Improvement. Once issued, credit pursuant to this section shall not be adjusted for inflation or any other factor. Credit provided pursuant to this section is not transferable. b. Application of Credit. Developers may apply credit pursuant to this section against the Fee applicable to a particular project, until the credit is exhausted or an excess credit results. The total credit shall be divided by the number of units to determine the amount of credit that can be applied against the Fee for each unit, and if the credit per unit is less than the Fee per unit, the developer shall pay the difference for each unit. c. Reimbursement for Excess Credit. Reimbursement for excess credit shall only be from remaining unspent Fee revenues. Once all the Facilities have been constructed or acquired, and to the extent Fee revenues are sufficient to cover all claims for reimbursement of Fee revenues, including reimbursement for excess credit, developers with excess credit shall be entitled to reimbursement, subject to such developers certifying in writing to the City that the cost of constructing the facility that resulted in an excess credit was not passed on to tenants of the development, and indemnifying the City from land-owner claims for reimbursement under Government Code S 66000 et seq., and S 66001 in particular. Ifremaining Fee revenues after all of the Transportation Improvements have been constructed or acquired are insufficient to cover all claims for reimbursement of Fee revenues, such claims, including claims for reimbursement of excess credit, shall be reimbursed on a pro rata basis in accordance with applicable law. 15. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately. In accordance with Govemment Code ~ 66017, the Fee shall be effective 60 days from the effective date ofthis Resolution. 16. Severabilitv. Each component of the Fee and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or any portion of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining Fee components and/or resolution portions shall be fu'1d continue in full force and effect, except as to those Fee components and/or resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, ilTespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or lU1constitutionaI. PASSED, APPROVED Al\TJ) ADOPTED this _ day of the following vote: _, 2007, by AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 987805.3 EXHIBIT A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE EAST OF 101 AREA CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FINAL REPORT JULY 19, 2007 MuniFinancial A WILLDAN COMPANY Oakiand Office 1700 Broadway 6th Floor Oakland, California Tel: (510) 832-0899 Fax: (510) 832-0898 Anaheim, CA Industry, CA Lancaster, CA Memphis, TN Oakland, CA Orlando, FL Phoenix, AZ Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA Temecula, CA www.muni.com This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTEi'-.!TS Purpose of Study Mitigation Fee Act Findings Traffic Demand from New Development Implementation Appendix A.: Transportation Improvement Plan Items ':l '-' 6 15 16 This page intentionally left blank. TRAFFIC iMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE PURPOSE OF STUDY This report updates the Traffic Impart Fee Stur/} ~+;date dated May 6, 200S (2005 Update Study). The 2005 Update Study was incorporated into a Resolution by the City Council, dated August 24, 2005 revising the Traffic Development Impact Fee for future development \v1thin the East of 101 area. The original City 0] South San Francisco East 0]101 Trciflic Impc7d Fee StudY'.vas prepared in 2001. The first update study was completed in 2003.' The City of South San Francisco's (City's) Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program are designed to reduce future traffic congestion during peak hours in the East of 101 Area, establish a fee structure that viOuld help pay for fuLure physical improvements, and comply with State of California and San Mateo County reqUlrements. The initial Traffic Impact Fee Study was conducted 111 2001 Lo implement the TIP and TDM program. A comprehensive update of the traffic engineering analysis originally prepared for the TIP aml TD:t'vI programs was not dcemed necessary at this time. However, since the most recent update study, a need for adelitional projects to be added to the TIP was identified in an envuonmental impact report (ElR) completed In 2006 for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay Dlstrict Expansion. The new Genentech facilities will be developed in the East of 101 Area. The Genentech ElR incorporates new traffic modeling and identifies adelitional traffic mitigation measures that will be necessary. Consequently, some adelitional traffic analysis conducted for the Genentech EIR is incorporated into this study and four adelitional traffic mitigation projects identified in the Genentech EIR have been added to the East of 101 Area TIP. Analysis conducted for the Genentech EIR of intersection Level of Service (LOS), combined with a separate assessment by the City of South San Francisco City Engineering staff of those intersections not included in the Genentech EIR analysis, is also used to update the current LOS data. Based on these assessments current intersection LOS conelitions remain at or above the acceptable level based on adopted City of San Francisco standards. The purpose of continued impact fee collection lS to fund traffic improvement projects to maintain intersection LOS within the accepted standards. This report presents an updated analysls of the need for roadway and intersection unprovements in the East of 101 Area. It l11corporates the additional capital projects to be funded by the fee and uses new cost estimates for all projects in the fee program. The new cost estimates reflect the significant ll1creases 111 road construction costs that have occurred over the last several years. The report documents a reasonable relationship between new development in the East of 101 Area and an lmpact fee for funeling traffic facilities to serve that new development Estimates of new development that will occur 111 the East of 101 Area are based on the amount of new development remainll1g to reach buildout of the East of 101 Area, as specified 111 the City or South San FranClSCO General Plan. It is assumed that General Plan buildout \Arill occur by 2020. MuniFinancial 1 S out/! J{iJi .Pram1-:-!'!,' Filla/ Report - East uf 101 "'J rea Trc!ffic Impart Fee Update TRAFFIC FEE PLANNING AREA The planmng area includes all land located east of US 101, south of San Bruno Mountain and the Cny of Brlsbane, west of i:he San FranClscc> Bay, and north of the San Francisco International Airport. The tr3ditional core of South San Francisco's industry, the East of 101 Area was originally developed with meatpacking and heavy manufactunng activities. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards \'Vire Rope Factory "were some of the City's majOr establishments whose products helped build California's modern transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged as a major mdustry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more attractive asa shipping terminal, and the City became the central distribution point for the entire peninsula. In the post-war years the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically resh3ping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a GOO-acre industrial park adpcent to the newly developed Oyster Pomt Marina. 1'hlO ind\lstnal park was South San Francisco's first industrial development to 111 C orp orate comprehensive pbnning, llltegrated design, and performance provisions, and featured a 0.5 floor area ratio (L;'R), ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design. The industrial park heralded South San Francisco's industrial future. In some ways a microcosm of American mdustry, South San rrancisco has been making a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Warehousing, research and development and biotechnology, in part spurred by the success of the 114-acre Genentech campus, employing over 4,500 people, have largely replaced steel production and other heavy industries. While the East of 101 Area is almost completely built out, redevelopment and intensification of land uses and employment density remains extremely active. The City's industrial base has continued to evolve in response to market trends and conditions and will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's future. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN In October 1999, the South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan, which contains a Transportation Element with specific policies that provide for improving circulation in the East of 101 Area. A traffic impact fee for the planning area is called for in the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment. Policy 4.2-1-7 of the Amendment directs the City to: Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. ... Establish a traffic Improvement fee to fund transportation improvements in the East of 101 area. Therefore, the objective of the South San FranClsco General Plan Amendment is to implement the General Plan Transportation Element policy by: 1) updatmg traffic projections for the East of 101 Are;:! and identifymg specific street improvements; 2) identifying transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon that \\ciJ.J help the City manage anticip:1.ted A1uniFina71cial 2 South 5011 Frall:'!.rm Filio! Report - EaJ! ~! 101 Area T4fir 11l7pad Fee Update growth lJ1 the Eas~ of 101 Area; 3) enhancing street capac][y; and 4) provH.:ling new linkages to integrate a fTmlti-modal transportation system. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS The 1999 General Plan and General Plan EIR established a 20-year projection for future development in the East of 101 Area, based on new F ARs of up to I.U and an estimate of how much land would convc:rt from older industrial uses to hIgher-density research and development facilities. b 2001, the Cny Council amended the estimated General Plan buildout by adopting the South San FranClsco General Plan j\mendment and Transportation Demand Management Orchnance Supplemental EIR. The Supplemental ErR incorporated the follO\ving assumptions into the TIP analysis: . Total buildour will more than double from existing development: 12.82 million square feet to 26.79 million square feet due mainly to the increase in office and R&D development. ApproXllTIately six million square feet more of development \\Jill be constructed than \vas projected in the General Plan. . Employment 'Nill increase by a factor of 2.4 from 21,654 to 52,880. 1'1115 increase is due to both Increases in floor space in the East of 101 Area and due to office and R&D uses having much higher employment intensity than industrial development. Total build out will increase to 23.3 rrdlion square feet with a 0.9 fl\R, compared 21.7 million square feet \\rith a 0.5 FAR. These assumptions remain unchanged and are used in this impact fee update study. . . MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS Traffic facilities fees are a subset of public facility fees, which are fees to be used to construct facilities or infrastructure improvements required to accommodate new development. They are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Ac~ with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act reqmres local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that follows. ..1'\.1l statutory references are to the /1c1. PURPOSE: OF FEE For the first finding the City must: Identify tne purpose of the fee. (566001(a)(1)) MuniFi77C!ncial 3 Soutb Jail FrailriJro Filla! Report - East oj 101 Area Traffic ImpadFee Updale The policy of the C:lty of South San FranClsco (City) IS iblt new developmem will not burden existing development with the cost of public facilities, inclucling traffic facilities, required 10 acconuTIodate growth. The purpose of the public facilities fee is to implement this policy bv providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fee advances a legitimate interest of the City by enabling the City to provide municipal services to new development. USE DF FEE REVENUES For the second finding the City must: Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (~66001 (a) (2)) The traffic facilities fee will fund expanded facilities to serve new deveiopment. All planned facilities \ovill be located within the City of South San Francisco. These faciliTIes included in the findings presented here include: .. Roadway widening; .. Intersection signalization; .. Other roadway improvements in the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area, and; .. Public transportation and related facilities. Planned traffic facilities are identified in this report. The City may change the list of planned traffic facilities to meet changing circumstances and needs, as it deems necessary. The fee program should be updated if these changes result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new development. Planned facilities to be funded by the fee are described in the "Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth" section of this report. BENEFIT RELA TIDNSHIP For the third finding the City must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee IS lmposed. (566001 (a) (3)) New commercial, R&D, and hotel development 111 the East of 101 Area will generate increased amounts of vehicle traffic. More individuals 'Will be employed in the area, and many of these new employees 'Will drive to work. In adclition, customers and hotel guests will be drawn to the area by the new development, creating additional vehicle trips. \'</ithout improvements in the traffic facilities in the East of 101 Area, the new vehlcle trips will cause more congestion and will decrease intersection levels of servlce. MuniFi na ucial 4 J onti! Sel/,' Frailc/'[() .hnol Report - 0o.[t ~f 101 ""1rea Trqffic ImpoctFee [~/)date The en)' will use fee revenues [or the acquisition of nght of ways; constructJon ot traU]c improvements ]ncluding ruadway widening, signal l11stallation and retiming, and intersection restJ"iping; and completion of traffic studies to serve new development. Transportation facilities funderi by the fee \vill allow vehicles to move more efficiently, mall1taining an acceptable level of service or preventing further deterioration in the level of serVlCe at intersections irnpacted by development ];] the East of 101 Area. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship bct'ween the use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that \:vill pay the fee. The planned facilities that wlll be funded by the fee arc described in the following chapter. BURDEN RELA TIONSHIP For the fourth finding the City must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public faciliry and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (~,66001(a)(4)) The need for the fee is based on b:affic engmeering reports prepared by the City that quantify G'lc expected traffic impacts of new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel developmem in the East of 101 Area based on analyses of existing and future roadway and intersection Level of Service (LOS). i\ccording to the engineering reports, ",~thout improvements in the traffic facilities 111 the East of 101 Area, the ne\-v vehicle trips would cause more congestion and would decrease current intersection levels of service. Based on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, commercial, office, R&D, and hotel development are the only types of development anticipated In the East of 101 Area. These types of development will generate additional employment, which will cause an increase in vehicle trips as new employees drive to work. In addition, customers, guests, and visitors to the new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel facilities will generate new vehicle trips. Therefore, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new traffic facilities and the new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel development on which the impact fee will be imposed. Building square footage by land use category is an indicator of the demand for traffic facilities needed to accommodate growth. LOS measurements were based on projected "PM trip rates" (those trips associated with new development anticipated during the evening commute hours). Different land uses were assigned different amounts of projected PM trips based on data collected 111 the East of 101 Area for the traffic engineering study prepared for the City by CCS Planning & Engineering in 2001. (See page 13 for more information.) LOS standards are based on City of South San FranClsco policy to mainta111 a LOS of "D" or to accept a LOS "E" or "F" if there is no feasible way to achieve a better LOS and the land uses creating the impact are deemed to be of significant public benefn. (please also see Facility Standards discussion on page 7.) PROPORTIONALITY For the fifth finding the City must: Deterrmne how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or p~rtion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee ]s unposed. (~66001 (b)) A111niFinancial 5 S oull' S 01! FranciJw Fz;;a/ Refill!"! - EaJI 0) 101 Area Traffic impact .Fee UPd:J!(~ This re?sonable relationshIp between the traffic lnlFilct fee for a specific development proJcct and thE cost of the facilities attributable to tbt project IS based on the estimated vehicle tnps the project will add to public roadways. The total fee for a specific project is based on building sguare feet for commerc1al, office, and R&D development, and hotel rooms for hotel development. The fee schedule converts the estlmated sguare footage of a development project Dr the number of hotel rooms to be built into a fee based on the size of the project and the estimated number of trips associated with the proJect's land use category. On average, larger projects of a certain land use type '.Vill generate more trips because they employ more workers who drive to their jobs and generate more trips from visitors; therefore, larger projects pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use type. Thus, the fee schedule ensures :~ reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee for a specitlc development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project. CCS Planpjng & Engineering conducted trip counts at selected points in the East of 101 Area for the original East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study in 2001. Based on development data provided by the City of South San FranClSco Planning staff, CCS Planning & Engineering calculated actual a.m. and p.m. trIp rates associateJ \\71th different land uses in the East of 101 Area. Traftlc demand from new deveJupment and llTIpacr fees are based on the rates calculated by CCS Plannmg and Engineering Evcmng peak hour trip generation rates are used because this period is more congested than the morning and therefore has a greater irnpact on the need for traffic improvements. TRAF'FICDEMAND FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT The 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update estimated the number of trips that '.Vill be generated by new development in the East of 101 Area from that date forward. This estimate was based on average trip rates in the area and the amount of development identified in the General Plan Amendment.1 Using the number of anticipated trips and cost estimates for projects in the TIP, the 2005 study calculated a traffic impact fee based on a cost per trip of $2,288 plus a 2.5 percent administrative fee. The total number of trips estimated to be generated by new development upon completion of the General Plan .Amendment is unchanged frorn the 2005 study. The number of trips that '.Vill be generated from the date of this study to completion of General Plan Amendment build out is estimated by subtracting trips generated between the 2005 study and the time of this report from the total number of trips estimated in the 2005 report. The number of trips generated between the 2005 study and this report is based on impact fee revenue collected between the 2005 report and the present time. Table 1 shows building permits approved and fees paid from March 2005, when remaining trips were estimated in the 2005 srudy, until the time of this report. 1 In the 2005 study, the total sguare footage of commercial, office/R&D, hotel, and industrial development antlclpated upon General Plan buildout was estimated The sguare footage of development which was already existing or approved at the time of the 2005 study wa" subtracted from the antJcipated buildout development, to estimate the sguare footage of remaining future development in each land use category. Finally, the amount of remalf'.mgdeveiopment was muluplied by the P.M pe?k he'-1: tnp generation rates observed in the East of 101 .-\re3 to estimate the number of ne\'.' P.Tvl. peak hour wps that would be generated by furore development (see page 13 for more 111formation on tnp generatIOn rates). lvl uniPinallcial 6 jOlllh SOil Framirro Fi;'I'!LReport - Ea.rl ~/1 0 1 .4rea Tralfir 11J~t){Jd Fee Upda~e Table 1: Office/R&D Projects Approved and Fees Paid 2005-2007 Project Name Fee Paid Gateway $ 191,726 Slough 737,810 Bayside 54,234 Unknown 17 U 56 Unknown 606,731 Genentech 74,346 Slough 219.848 Unknown 49,365 Genentech 51,828 Slough 243,179 Slough 169.076 Slough 189.827 Haskins 152,749 Slough 495,727 Slough 110,714 Lowes Home Improvement 1,307,774 Haskins 179,956 Wells 112,775 Total $ 5,118,822 Source: City of South San Francisco. Table 2 calculates the trips generated from March 2005 to May 2007, based on the fee collection data shown in Table 1. Table 2: East of 101 PM Peak Hour Trips 2005-2007 Fees Collected 2005-2007 Less 2.5% Admin. Fee Net Fees Collected 2005-2007 Cost per Trip Trips Generated 2005-2007 A B C=A-B o E=C/D $ 5,118,822 (127,971 ) $ 4,990,851 2,288 2,181 Sources: Table 1, City of South San Francisco; Traffic Impact Fee StUdy Update East of 101 Area, May 6,2005, Table 5; MuniFinancial. MuniPinancial 7 S Ollt/! Sail Fromiseo Filla/ Report - East oj 101 Area Traffic lJitpad Fee Update Based on the estirnatd tnps genera Leo from 2005 uuw build out of the General Plan Amendment and fee revenue colleued since the :1dopLion of the 2005 fee update, tnps remaining from May 2007 to General Plan Amendment build out are calculated in Table 3. Table 3: East of 101 PM Peak Hour Trips Generated by Growth Trips Remaining to General Plan Buildout, 2005 Trips Generated 2005-2007 Trips Remaining to General Pian Buildout, 2007 8,719 2,181 6,538 Sources: Table 2; City of South San Francisco; Traffic Impact Fee Study Update East of 101 Area, May 6, 2005, Table 5; MuniFinancial. FACILITY STANDARDS The City's traffic LKility standards are based on a measure of congestion commonly used in traffic planmng and known as "level of service" (LOS). LOS is calculated based on the volume of traffic on a roadway or at an intersection compared to the capacity of the roadway or intersection. LOS "A," "B," and "C" suggest that delays are insignificant to acceptable. LOS "D" suggests tolerable delays though traffic is high and some short-term back-ups occur. LOS "E" and "F" suggest significant to excessive delays as traffic volumes meet or exceed the capacity of the facility. The following policies present the performance standards acceptable to the City of South San Francisco: · Strive to maintain level of service (LOS) "D" or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. · Accept LOS "E" or "F" after finding that there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. Traffic impacts from growth were measured using computer traffic modeling. The models were calibrated to existing conditions usmg traffic counts and land use data. Based on planned improvements and anticipated future development, the models produce estimates of future LOS at intersections in the East of 101 l\.rea. The East of 101 Area model was last run prior to the 2003 Trciflic Impact Fee Stucry Update. AdditlOnal traffic modeling was conducted in 2006 for the Genentech COtporate Facziities Research & Development Overiq)i District Expansion EIR. This modeling includes the impacts of the four projects newly added to the TIP. Table 4 presents the LOS in the studied intersections based on existing conditions with no traffic improvements, and future conditlOns ,mth planned improvements that minimize the decline in LOS caused by growth. Existing LOS data shown in Table 4 is from the Genentech Expansion EIR modeling for intersections where data from thIS study were available. The Genentech EIR did not provide LOS data for five of the intersections with planned improvements in the TIP, and LOS data from thc East of 101 Area model run 111 2003 are MuniFinancial s filla/ Report - Eart of 101 /1reo Trod!1 lmpaii Fe~ Update S oiltli SOil FramisL'O shown, The City of South San Francisco Llty Engineer has examined these five ll1krscctions and determined th~lt they currently prmTJde 8n acceptable level of serVIce, T,lblc 4 shows future LOS estimates [com both models, The results shO\,,.'J1 fr0m the 2003 run of the East of 101 Area are for LOS in 2020, The model incorporates the improvement projects in the TIP at the time the model was run and assumes that intensive traffic demand management measures will be Implemented, \'X/here available, 2015 LOS estimates from the Genentech EIR modeling are also shown in Table 4, The results shown are for 2015 development l11cluding the Genentech project and assuming implementation ofche traffic improvemems in the East of 101 Area TIP, The results of the traffic modeling shown in Table 4 mdicate that new development is responsible for t..~e total cost of planned improvements, Per the City of South San Francisco, all intersections currently operate at an LOS deemed acceptable by the city, Thus there are no existing deficiencies attributable to current development. \V'ithout improvements in traffic facilities, new development would cause the LOS to deteriorate to unacceptable levels, Although the LOS in some intersections is still expected to decline, the planned improvements are necessary to minimize the amount of congestion caused by new development. For all inter~ections except one, the planned improvements either maintain existing LOS or mirumize the decline in LOS caused by the increased traffic generated by new development2 Because new development generates the traffic which creates the need for the planned improvements, it is has been allocated the responsibility for the funding of these improvements, 2 )\ccordmg to the traffic modeling, the planned improvements are expected to raise the level of sen'lCe at the interseccion of East Grand j\ venue and Allerton i\ venue from the current LOS C to LOS B Tl,e Cit'.' of South San Franc1sco City Engll1eer has determined that there 1S no less expenSIve way to rrucigate the Increased lraifIC from future development than the planned slgnalizauon, sIgna] interconnecuon, and lane re-srripmg, MuniFinanclal 9 S out/; Sail Frallaj(O Fillal Report - EC:J0!! 101 /lrea Tnlfi!.Impact Fee Update Table 4: PM Peak Heur Intersection Operations East of 101 Area Genentech Study (2003) EIR (2006) Existinq ~ 1 Future' Intersection Control LOS' Delay' LOS' Delay' LOS' Delay' Intersections with TIP Improvements Airport Blvd/Bayshore Blvd & Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 31 0 31 N/A f\J!A Dubuque Ave/US 101 ramps & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 17 F 85 F >80 Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B' 13 B 13 N1A N/P, Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 30 C 17 C 34 Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp Signal C 25 B 15 N/A N/A Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Signal C 35 0 26 NIl\ N/A Oubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Signal 1', 7 A 4 NIA N/A Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave Signal B 19 C 22 NIA N/A Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Wy Signal C 30 0 26 E 58 Harbor wl Grandview Dr & Grand Ave" Stop (Signal) C 18 C 19 F >80 Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Signal C 30 C 22 0 38 South Airport Blvd/Mitche!! Ave & Gateway Blvd Signal C 33 D 25 0 35 Mitchell Ave' South Airport Blvd & Utar, Ave Signal C' 16 C 17 NiA NIA Hwy 101 northbound hook. ramps/So Airport Blvd Signal C 31 C 19 1''Ij/.::', N!.A, Hwy 101 northboud off-rampIGrand/E. Grand Ave overcrossing Signal B 16 8 9 N/A N/A Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave Stop B' 11 F 831 N/A N/A Forbes ,b,ve & Gull Rd Signal B 14 0 29 N/A NiA East Grand .A.ve & Littlefield Ave Signal B' 10 C 15 N/A N/A East Grand Ave & Allerton Ave' Stop C 15 F (F) OVR B 17 Utah Ave & Harbor Way Stop O' 29 F OVR N/A N/A US 101 NB off-ramp/E Grand Ave/Executive Dr' Stop A 0 A (.A.) 0 N/A N!.A Other East of 101 Area Intersections Oubuque Ave & US 101 Ramps Signal C 28 C 22 N/A N/A Oyster Point Blvd & Gateway Blvd Signal C 28 F 63 N/A N/A Forbes Blvd/Allerton Ave' Stop B 10 A(C) 2 N/A N/A Bayshore Blvd & US-101 SB Ramp(s)' Stop (Signal) C 11' F 82 N/A N/A Gateway Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 24' F 63 N/A N/A Veterans Rd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal A 3' B 13 N/A N/A Bay West Cove Driveway & Oyster Point Blvd' Stop A (A) 0' A (C) 1 N/A N/A Marina Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 7' B 13 N/A N/A Forbes Ave & Allerton Ave' Stop A(B) 2' A(C) 2 N/A N/A South Airport Blvd & 1-380 EB Ramp Signal A 5' B 6 N/A N/A South Airport Blvd & 1-380 WB Ramp/North Access Rd Signal B 14' B 14 N/A N/A South Airport Blvd & North Access Rd' Stop A (A) l' A (A) 1 N/A N/A . LOS data from 2003 East of 101 Area Model run (eeS Planning & Engineering) used INhere Genentech EJR data were unavailable. All other eXIsting LOS data are from Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EJR Parlia/ Revision. , 2020 LOS assuming Intensive TOM with Additional Improvements . LOS for 2015 Future Baseline Plus Genentech Project, with East of 101 Mitigations. 3 LOS:; Level of service ~ Delay=' Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds. OVR = Overflow Conditions 5 Improvements on Harbor Way support capadty at Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd intersection. Ii Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the "With Additional Improvements" scenarios only 7 Improvements on MItchell Avenue support capacity at South Airport Bivd/Mitche!1 Ave & Gateway intersection 5 A (0) = For unsignalized intersections: average LOS for aU vehIcles passing through intersection (LOS for most difficult movement) S Bayshore Blvd. and US.101 S8 Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. Itis evaluated with Hook Ramps and signaiized Intersection for future scenanos Sources: CCS Planning 8. Engineenng, Addendum to Traffic Impact Fee. July 2, 2003; Tables 4.7-2 and 4.7-15. Genentech Corporafe Facilities Master EIR Par/ial Revision, MuniFinancial. lvfuniFinancial 10 J outli Jail FhiiuiJW t<ZJJa! Report - Em! 0/101 A rea Tn?lfi( Impart Fee Updaie FACILITY COSTS TO ACCDMMODATE GROVVTH As a result of the traffic engmeering study conducted for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District ExpnslOn EIR, the need for additional traffic improvements to accommodate new development \vas identified. Four road L'11provement projects and one project study were added to the East of 101 Area TIP. These improvements :ue deemed necessary to either maintain existing LOS or minimize the decline in LOS. These projects are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Items Added to TIP 2007 "Location Improvement Items Cost Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 N 8 on-ramp East Grand Ave/Harbormaster Rd/Forbes Blvd Widen and reconfigure Dubuque Ave approach, create an additional $ through lane on WB Oyster Point, adjust signal timing. 2,520.840 $ 188,000 Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave Widen and reconfigure EB approach Re-stnpe US-101 off-ramp approach to Dut;uque Ave from an $ existing exclusive left, shared through/left turn and exciusive right turn lane to provide exclusive left turn lanes and a sl"iared through/right turn lane Widen off-ramp to prOVide additional lane. re-stnpe US-101 to allow $ optional exit to East Grand Ave/Execuiive Dr, Replace overhead sign on US-1 01 to provide for two-lane exit from freeway Utah Ave overcrossing project study report $ 39,500 1,292,000 US 101 NB off-ramp/E Grand Ave/Executive Dr 250,000 Source: City of South San Francisco. Cost estimates for all of the traffic improvements to accommodate new development included in the fee program, including the new improvements listed in Table 5 above, are shown in Table 6. All cost estimates were newly computed in 2007. Estimated costs include the cost of construction materials and labor, construction contingency, mobilization costs, design costs, environmental review and clearance, and construction engineering and management. The costs shown here do not include the costs to administer the fee program, which are accounted for separately (see page 14). A detailed list of improvement items is shown in Appendix A. East of 101 Area ilnpact fees collected to date will be used to fund a portion of the cost of the traffic improvements needed to accommodate new development. The current impact fee fund balance is shown in Table 6. The fund balance is reduced by 2.5 percent, which was collected with current fees to cover administrative costs. ]~1uJliFinancial 11 S ONtlJ Sail .fram:ij(U Filial Report - "0aJt ~f 101 /'lmi T~'Clffi( Impact Fee l~bd'7tf Table 6: Net Cost of Planned Tiaftlc Projects Project Road Improvements 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 S8 off-ramp Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Dubuque Ave & East 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 \IVy Mitchell Ave Hwy 101 nOiihbound hook ramps/So Airport Blvd Hwy 101 northboud off-ramp/Grand/E. Grand Ave overcrossing Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave Forbes Ave & Gull Rd East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave East Grand Ave & Allerton Ave Utah Ave & Harbor Way Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 NB on-ramp East Grand Ave/Harbormaster Rd/Forbes Blvd Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave US 101 NB off-ramp/E Grand Ave/Executive Dr Subtotal Other Proiects Utah Ave overcrossing project study report Prepare new East of 101 Area traffic study Subtotal Less.' Existinq Fund Balance Fees Collected 2001-2004 Fees Collected 2005-2007 Subtotal - Fees Collected Administrative Cost (2.5%) Existing Fund Balance Available for Projects Net Cost - Project Cost Less Existing Fund Balance Cost $ 591,000 1.461,240 435,920 685,400 2,048,100 154,000 3,719,400 162,000 2,490,600 704,800 1,066,800 4,041,000 440,800 5,281,787 2,362,600 2,841,000 305,000 2,491,980 210,400 i ,183,200 643,000 1,162,000 2,520,840 188,000 39,500 1,292,000 $ 38,522,367 $ 250,000 500,000 $ 750,000 $ 1,967,319 5,118,822 $ 7,086,141 (177,154) $ 6,908,987 $ 32,363,380 Sources: TY Un International: City of South San Francisco; MuniFlnancial. Ai uniFinancial 12 .sOIlI/; S aJi .r:(l.N/(/J(() ______.I/II{t/ P'POrl - EC!Jt~l1 O! _ "i rea Traffir Impart Fee Updai( Development pWJcct:' lmpact the tran:;ponauol1 ncrwol-).: :It different r~lLes depending on the number of tnp:; gUJCL1Lcd. A cost per tnI' [;1ctor i" ,lscd to calcuhre each project's fair sh:lrc cf planned improvement C:0:;1$. The cost per trip lS c:lkuhted by dividing the planned L1Cibty costs (net of :llready-coUectcd lmpact fees) by the rotal tnps generated by new development from 2007 to Gener:ll Plan build out. The re:;ulting cost per tnI' lS shO\vn ln Table 7. Table 7: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs Peak Hour Trips (PM) $ 32,363,380 6,538 Cost per Trip $ 4,950 Sources: Tabies 3 and 6; !v1uniFinancial. TRIP GENERATION RATES CCS Planmng & Engineenng conducted tnp counts at selected points in the East of 101 i\.rea for the ongmal East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study in 2001. Intersection operations were evaluated for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at 32 study mtersections. Based on development data provided by the City of South San FranClsco Planning staff, CCS Planning & Engineering calculated actual a.m. and p.m. trip rates associated with different land uses in the East of 101 Area. Traffic demand from new development and impact fees are based on evening peak hour trip generation rates because this period is more congested than the morning and therefore has a greater impact on the need for traffic improvements. Table 8 shows the trips generated by new development (per 1,000 square feet for commercial office/R&D, and industrial uses, and per room for hotels). These trip generation rates are unchan2:ed from the previous two impact fee studies. ~ . . Table 8: Trip Generation Rate by New Development PM Land Use Trip Rate Commercial 3.74 per 1,000 sf Office/R&D 1 0.90 per 1,000 sf Hotel 0.21 per room Industrial 0.54 per 1,000 sf , Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60. respectively. Sources ees Planning and Engineering. Mun!Financial ---------.----..-------.-~.--- ~.~ . --- -.~.----- ----______ _...____._ __on MuniFinanciaI .13 SOli!!; .\ (iJ/ /:hlli' tJIO - l~_'~J! 0/ ~!!J =-J!I'[l TrafJir ],:'JJtld F<'I' {primt FEE: SCHEDULE: Table 9 shows the traffic facilities llnpact fee based on the cost per tnp calculated 111 Table 7 ~l11d rhc trip rnco assocIated Yv1th the land useo jJj the East (If jUi "'\rca. The CU~l p:.:r mp l:i converted to a fee per unit of developnlent based on building square feet or hotel rooms. The admlI1lstraIlon fee IS based on an estimated cost of 2.5 percent of the traffic fee. Table 9: Traffic Facilities Impact Fee Cost per 1000 Traffic Cost per PM SF or hotel Fee per SF or Admin Total Land Use Trip Trip Rate; room hotel room Feel Fee Commercial $ 4,950 3.74 $ 18,513.00 $ 18.51 $ 046 $ 1897 Office/R&D3 4,950 0.90 4,45500 446 0.11 457 Hotel 4,950 0.21 1,03950 1,03950 25.99 1,06549 I Trips per 1 ,DOlj ~;:Jddirlg square feet or per ioom (for hotels) 2 Based on an eS~.;(nate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee. -~ Based on v/el9hted aveiage of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 060, respectively Sources Tab!e~ 7 and 8: CCS Planning and Engineering: MuniFlnancial For compjJ[]son, Table 10 shows a comparison of the newly GiJculated fee nece:isary to funJ projects in the TIP with the fee calculated in the 2005 Traffic Impact Fcc Stud" lipdate As Table 10 iUustrates, the fee necessary to fund construction of projects 111 the TIP ha, Increased considerably. TI115 is primarily a result of an increase 111 the cost of projects in the TIP, as road construction costs have risen considerably. In addition, five new projects have been added to the TIP since the 2005 fee was calculated. Table 10: 2005/2007 Fee Comparison 2005 2007 Net Cost of TIP Projects 1 $ 19,950,681 $ 32,363,380 Remaining Trip Generation 8,719 6,538 Cost per Trip $ 2,288 $ 4,950 Traffic Facilities Impact Fees 2 Commercial $ 877 $ 18.98 Office/R&D 2.11 4.57 Hotel 492.54 1,06549 1 Total project costs less fee revenue already collected 2 Fee per square foot for Commercial and Office/R&D and pel room for Hotel. Sources Table 3 and 6. TraffiC Impact Fee Study Update East of 101 Area. May 6, 2005. l\.1 uniFi 1117 lIei,d !4 JOIlI/l .Liii r'r.-llhlJi(J FIIIII/ Rq>OF/ -Em'! o! ! (}? "<'1 rea Tri!lfic iJJ~tJac!F,'( (_,;,,;,;/1' -._---_.._---_.._._-"~-_._...- ---- --.---.-.------ IMP LEM ENT fj.,TI 0 N This sc--:tion Idcnrific~' tc\sks th<lt the City of SOlilh S:u, Fr<l!1cisco should complete \\,hell lmplementing the fee programs. PRD15RAMMING REVENUE:S AND PROJECTS WITH THE CIP The City should update lls Transportation Improvement Pbn (TIP) on an annual b;1sis to show the programm1l1g of fee revenues to the trafhc faClhues [iSf of theTIP 111 this manner provides ongOlng and up to date doculT1t>ntation of a reasoll<lbie relationship Det\veen new development and the use C'f fee revenues. The City may alter the scope of the planned projects listed in Table 6, or substitute new projects, as long as the project list continues to represent improvements needed to accommodate new development in the East of 101 Area. If the total cost of all phnned projects net of non-fee funding sources, if any, vanes from the tolal cost used as ;1 basis for the fee, the City should revise the fee acccrdmgly. :For the rIve-year plan111ng period of the: TIP, the: em' "hould <lllocate all existing fund balances and projected fee revenue to traffic proJects. The Cll\' can hold funds in a project account for planned nnprovement.s longer than five years lf necessary (0 collect suffiClent funds to complete the project. /NFLATIClN ADJUSTMENT The City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordmance and adopt an automatic inflation adjustment to the fee annually If nght-of-way acquisition is planned the Cn)' should use separate indexes for land and construction costs. Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser every several years. The construction cost index can be based on the City's recent capital project experience or taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record. However, care should be taken to assure that the index chosen appropriately captures fluctuations in key road construction materials (e.g. steel). To calculate the fee increases each index should be weighted by the share of total planned facility costs represented by land or construction, as appropriate. RE:PCJRTING REQUIRE:ME:NTS The City should comply ,.vith the annual and tlve-year reporting requirements of Government Code 66000 et seg. For facilities to be funded with a comb111ation of impact fees and other revenues, the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify '-'.Then the other revenues ;J,re antiCIpated to be available to fund the project. A1uniFl7Ia71cial 75 rn 2: w }- 1...__ r- I '" ~ 1.2 E : 1'=6 ~ I~ ~u I .... I I I~ I:.g :.a 2 i~ ~ <I.J E ..t: <I.J +- > E 8 o p.. 10.;; E I~ .... I~ I": ! f--. z <( I ..J M LJ... f- "7 k, w L w > o ~ c.. I i I I I~ E <I.J ... ...... ... C <I.J S <I.J > o ... p.. S ...... z o f- <f ~ ~ o 0- m z ~ ~ l- . . <( >< o z W 0.. [l <! I I~ I'.g '" I'" .0 i"": i ! , ~ ii L-. ;;;;. ..D ~ +- ~:. Qj 3: r .L.-' ~: ~ 0 u .b ....... .:J r> .S '8 ~ ..., "0 p.. 0 v B "U U ~fS~~ e, ~ - OJ 8-' S 0 6 8 8 ~ Z :: 8' ~ 5 . V:: ;J o.J C ~ '" t, ~ ~ '" ~ ~= ~ ~ c bJ.)~ '""d ;:i Vl co.... ~~~ b:o "D v, .~ ~ c ....- c::i ..!S aJ ~ ~ 11-2 o]tZ ..., co <I.J Bli H~ ~ ~::: M I <1J..>:: ;:i IUI;~~~ ,....., ,..... t::: --0 E E 0 ~ ~ 0 ..., "B ..D ,.3 ~ :t:: ""0 Vj Z '""':i '~I ~ ~ 2 ~, c .- i-'-' Oi U . ~ ,"" V',J _ '"Pc:::. ~~ sc ("' 0 '"' ~ ~ r::::: ,',1 '..r.' .... ~ '-' ,..r r/ '" G:; ~ C;; c: .g c. o c co '" ..D .8 <1J C ~ 8 B +- ..c .~ l-< I [ Ie> 1'0' o~ .- 10 j~ I I i I I I I I I I I I~ I~ i I I I I .9 "'0 ~ to +- 5 P >-'-< ..., Q) +- r 6 c <1J 0 > <1J o C u~ .8 <1J C ~ ..c .~ ..., ........ ..c blJ ;:i o bJ).~ C Q) _ ~ ~ E9 5..c~ <1J 1if ~ ~ 2 +- ].-s ~ U '" r::::: t:; C <1J ..., ~ B ~ tZ co ~ -0 " N ~I s ~ ~ f:1 ~ 51 tS I, ~ S 0 vi 0 ...... Q) C I ~ oL ~ ..;31 ~ 81 '" C:\H =1.9-< ;:: 1"0 ~ .... ~ IJ.) 5 'tf:c .~ '.::! v.~ C ~ ~ ~ 81 31 01 11. U. 'I 0 ~ Jl-<~ I' ~ t:; ~ ~~. 12 ~ ~ 'I~~ ~::: . ~ :7 I~ ~. I~ ~ '- -....:...... I ! t'.l i Ie, 17 i "~ I~ 1-'" i- I E c <.t "'0 OJ g 7 >:; ~ -........ r::::: CJ ~ co ~ aj c: "'0 .2 '~ ,~ ~ i"'O C i~ r-;; I I I · i i i I I i i c :Q v.. ~ r< ciS E ~ ? 9 ~ ~ c:~ '0 l-< C. v c: ~ " ;:; 2 ..c .~ l-< <.1: ~ c: 9 . ~U=; ,8\D '" 0 at ~~ ....... ... "'Oc 0.8 c: ~~I ~ : ~I i.~ f:' _tJ 0)4->"'::':::...."", 5 ~ ~151~ ~~ EI 5 V1 ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ 81 l-< (7, ~~ ~~z ~I -;;: ~ c: 1:::::1 g. +- C . ~I '" .... .- (':j....... -1--.,. ~ :-Q .~ c ~ ~ u ~ I 9 ~- x! S Q) "& '" ' ~I ~ LD I ~'I r::::: ~ r- ~ i ~ -:-:1. .1-:-:. .12 :.:a "'0 '" "'0 "'0 co o ...... c: p) ~ W "'0 00 ~. IU ~ ~ c ~ ~o ;::. ...- U' .D tF, ~ ,,-..., 0 1- I~ 1 , I I I , I I I i i I~ I ! i I I I I ! !r". Iv i "7 i /....... Iv 10 iZ : , i I s I I I : lqv ]~ ~ 10 "'-" l-< 0 o +- l-< '" 0....;0..... '" u co <1J c '0' o l-< 'r:: 0.., u "" <1J <1J '" > ~ ~ .5 c;:: ..,... ..,.., (j :-' ~P5 ~ - ~ ~ C '-'ll:Q.., ] ~ ~ ;-., ,.... '-' ;::;1 ~ :31 . I I i V) I ',-" 100 S1~. ;>. 12 21~P:S I, ;;.... c2 11 ~ ~I(:C .~ : ~ ::::'1 >-. ~ 1::;- <- j :.:: : ~ ;1 G ~ i~ ~;";: :I. i""""': se1 r...: '-' , ILl. , cl ~I ;;. j ;:;.~.I c :1 z ~I . ~ '- - ~ 'C ~ '- ~ - 0,,- ~ Cl.;;' I '" i ~ ~ 1 C I &11 ~ ~ ~ ~ I :E :: 'ilil k; "0 8 01' "t: '"C 0.. ~ I -< a ~il ~ I- ":: I - ~- ~ a <::\ ,S ~ .... 'J" :.a "' " '"C E 1< c.J '2 I c.J S ~ .s ~ 1:; S 8 <::\ 0 0.. ~ ..t:: S It)..... ~ 0- I~ I I I 1 1 I "' S III .... ...... .... t: III S III :> o .. 0.. S ...... Ig ~ I'~ '!:l 1 u "" '0 ;;:l 1....1 ri: l::: I ~i >--- ~ ! ci ~ 'z '-ll I~ 16 12 I I <fl e e cO v t S v ~l :> i~ .51 1j "0 ~ 2:l iU II ~ ,u . . "0 :> 0025 "0 C P:::o ~: i ~ ~ i~ ~ I:> 6 I' , I~ i Lt:; ~ > GJ bD e ::l .$ c ,~; s -B e E ~ ~~~ ...c: 0 ~ ,ep '+:1 '-.... l-< o.....c: o b{J "0 ::l cO 0 o l-< p:::.-B <fl_ ~A l-< b{J 2:l 'l:i vc;; >- c ~ ,g ~o 0.. ~o '.3 ~ R B 03 ,5 iU iU 9<~ .tJ- ~ c V l-< P::: E iU ~ "0 ull .... ~ E ~1I o cO P::: @I c 1:' .... o l-< 8 >-< c;; iU C e S 0 ~ 21 ~ ~ . 2 I I I I I I I~ 1- o "'1 ~ en ('<", 7 - iU Ie ,0 2 [3 "' _____ co P::: ~ -:S v S ::l o e ~ ~ "O-t:: iU "' ,~ iU 5-] .., ... >-'-< c;; c o '.0 ::a "0 cO l-< o I~ 1..2. I I · ~I 5 c :> cO o ::a l-< iU 8 8 >-< iU C;; ~ g a '.0 iU --a P::: "0 '<I . ~ "'0 I ~~ ~ ~ '""0_:> iU ~ Eg100 ;:Q Q p-. iUS -l-' l-; :> 0 ~ ~I< c: I~ ~] 1:: 1>-.010 ~ Ic8 001~ 0 I , Ie-- i I Iv.: I 4-< o iU :-g "' c ~ ~ '0 ~ ;:: ~;.o- c c co co........ :.n U S "'OiU ~ Uu ~ ;> iU 1J '3 E W 8 cO cr' C 4-< bbIJ~O~ .5 0'~ If) ~ 0......0 en C'l:I ~ G "08 ~ r/).--< If) r-' 5]g~w ~ ~ ~ ~ ...., . "'0 11 c '-< E E s~ e~ OJ 0 ~ Z "'4-< -D":: u co W '0 '-'-< '-' o cO <U .~ :Q b{J ~~ cO cO iU S e iU ~ e '~ ~ "0 S ~ B ..d 5 ~ '.0 o G ~s p-."O cO 0 Lt:; p:) S iU 2 c;; ~ .~ "' 0; g '.0 l-< ~~ "0 "' '" iU C ~~ b{J E "' ';:1 W . I I 10 Ie ~ co , ':J "" r' C ~ ~ c '-' :> .-- c;; c ,0 I~ . ... ~ v. 6 <01 r..Cf: '-' '-' ~ ::l U~ C' "Q ~ Cli 'C g Q ~;::::::: t; ::J ~0 _______4-< P::: ~ O;:Q c "' .g ~ :..;:; ~ .-a iU ~-f 4-< blJO C iU .,.,"'0 ~ . U3 bb~ 11 ~ co bI) e 5 .g ~ "'...c: :> b[J G jJ ~ ,.., 't:i v fr"J Q ;::1 -I (5 ~ C> Z iU '-' o..::l o C -.D rJj '" . . (l) ~ o " '" "' '-' .E ... ... ;:: I Lt:; ~ o Z '-' "0 "> o ... 0.. o .... iU ~I'6 ~I ~ '-< 0 r' ;:Q ~ Z c;; ,~ cU '" e blJ 5 ~ .2 '-' "' ~ M'~ l3 'I:< W e o '.0 cO u ,..q ::a o 6 . I i I", 1'2 , , I 18 i 1-. I~I~ Ie - A L.o.-. ~ .~ 0 '"U .~ ~ 11 ~ ~ t"'3 b[J ------- co "C,oS~ C bI) 0.. "'3 ~ '5 .~ s 'g ~ "S ..2 ~ :Q _ ~.~ ~ ~ V) -..... :3 C/) ~~4-<0C;;~P:::'" W u - ~ t c;; {ip ~ -B ~ go'E "r1_S ~.~ iU 4-< ,_ '" _ "0 v ,~ 0 B ,S .D "0 OJ iU ~1 @ ~ ~ ~ l ~ fcO~c,-"'".p ~ ~ ~ 8 0 ] '~ ~ ',:il l,L.;i. iU g Z ~ '-' 0 'U : ~ ,::;~ u C ,OJ) ~ .2 ~ .S Vl 0.. ... p-. C c c..E c 0.. en u 0., ~ I _______ f ~~ M ~ .~ ~ ,.3 nJ t;j oj 6 > ",000...- -;;< ~ ~ 0...P:) OJS~p.,o~ iU::l t:l '-' 0 :>....00::00.. ,..., 0 Lt:; '-...c: c.J ,!:l H S~ b{Jb{Jt-c: W~"C C::l....'1:l en "0 ~ '.0 0 S 0 ci ;; ~ cO 'R -5 ';;; g 0 0.. OJ iU cO iU.D '~ ,,""0 IlJ o~.-B u .. 'S: .-B .... o..::l ,..q C ~ 0 '-' ,::1 "' Sl b::a ~ ~ ~ b.O III b.O ~ 0 Il~l~f~~~ ~ ~~ '-< ,- cO 0 v 0...E ~ p ~ S$ .j...l......... If) 'Vj ..:::1 en b[J iU ------- '-' 8 ~ _ r' ',::1 9< ib :> Cl b{J C '" v ::1 tJ ::l 0 ~ S 'p 51 :Q ~ ~ 9 SA' 5'0 ,~ -< :> iU ~ ~ ~ ,~~. ,:-1 I ~ :::; ~ l-l ~ - ~ .... '" j..J...l 1----::'1 ::gi IZi~!. .. . c(j "0 :> 05 I~ la I~ I~ 10- i"""'" I I I "pI ~ ...., I ;:l 0... 05 1<0r:2 ~ g I] 'oJ-S P-.. :: ~ 0 iJll"''::f5j Ii" I ~ ~ - 01* 1-< ~ 0 1~I(,i 1-1- t'-.. -. -.. ~ .~ ;::: ~ .... - '- k. '.... .... ~, ...::. ~ II ~I'I~ A, .: -;: I..g r.L,ii~ '<:; 'II '"d ~ ,I~ ~il ;II'~ h I I': ~. 11.2 ~ I ~ Zl -il~ 5 211 c.J E I ... c.J ~I-= > 1:: S 8 ~IIP f 1.5 i I ,0 .~ I'! ~ II~ B [-:' ':S '" '" '-) I . Iz I ,.. ~ ~ i:: * c.J ... S ~ ~ p.. U o^ E ~ H ,-< "" <lJ c: :D ~ 0 ~ ~ bD ...0 '"' S n v; :Q '::x .., bfJ OJ OS bfJ {; 'inS 1E '8 ~ M ~ ~g~ ~ .~ ~ ~ " ... ~ &LE ] Q) ~ .:::.b ~ '-' ~ V) e rfJ E Cl) .... H .... ::: Cl) E Cl) > o .... 0. E >-< Cl OJ ~ 4-< ~. ~ '"' '"' .8 .2 tJ iiJ C ~ ..!S -:5~ C OJ 5'::::::' .......c .... bfJ ...c ::l bfJO IQ ii if] .... 11 >1J~ -<'"d .... ~ q 5 C/l c<1 ,... ..... Q) 5 q @ :> ';J ---. o .:3 ~ ~ ~]o S QJ 'i' J----j c..,.....!:' ~ '5 ~ ~ "( 0 .~ CJ .., ~ p::; ~ "'0 -r::: . 06 ~ Q) ro~ --c ~ r- 1&- I;: c; I r<. i- I , I I I 10 I::) i~^ 1- r", "" I ~ ;:;J 0 eOJ:5OJ) -r::: ~D1 ~ uS ~ CL '-< 5 ~ q C) '""0 ~.; b .~ ~ ~ .0 bfJE! Vl U 8 .S U' bfJJj H C Q) c:: ....... rn ~ ~ 't; c ~ I c:':;! & ~ 1t:58: OJ Vl'" i . i I <U ~,~ ~. .8 .::1 <lJ ~.~ ~ ~;:;J r! U ~ .~ ~ ~ .t: H 0 [/) ~ ";j ~.s n ~_Q,) r.n ~ cS .~ OJ 8 !j q 0 0; -r:::oljU . ...:< H o a... Vl ::l "'0 ~ 0 bD~ .~ ~ c 5 ::l ~ :;-r::: ~ Q) Q) ~ ~::l Vl o ...0 Vl H::l 0 2Q tJ .~ ~ t:: .8 Z Cl) .g ~ ~ ~ ~ U::l & ~@I~j~~ S"'~"'O"~o tJ--<c::..-U 8S"'O~~-""'" .., ;0.g u.o U)s....o:lO~q ~ .......0i>,8-..!S '" .Ej 0; C v S ~.~ Vlq~SOOa... 'x 0 _ 0 U ~ 0 ~ w ;.@I t3 <b ~ p,; -5 . ~l . <U :> o S <U .... '"d q '" <U a... ...9 Vl . 06 ~ I ~ < I -r "'0 1'-; ~ l::l .., S"G 1..0 .... i :;. ~ !O I.ii i I:::: I C <U ..;::: :;; ~ OJ ,~c E '2..~ ~ ~ (; ~ .., 0... '-' ~ ;;4S 8 ~ ~ .0 i3 ,,1 "'0 QJ ~V) ~ .::1 'C ~ 15 g,~vE -~c:n~~ . 05" bJj~ ~ 2) '" ~ P...t: OJ ~ ...0 <lJ .......0 .8 0 ~:; c ~ <U...o . ~, '-< U E U) c: o U bD o .>:< ::l -0 Cl <U .... c<1 U o QJ . -- \:: .~ ~ ~ ..... r..:... .... ~ ;s ~ ~ Ii ~il~ 'i:~-_; -i C -: 11.8 G:; II ~ .,...11 '"C ~ < ~II ~-. ~II ~II- ~i 8 ;':;.j:l.g, ~ I~ , '''0 -il< <:), _ <l.l 't;--, -5 "'" ~ Q1 I Ig ~ I"=: '8 I ~ - I c .; I'~ 1-0-. I ~ I c.-- I -:...::. I ~ i c ~ iZ , s o ..::: ..... u ~ 0... 8 ..... tIJ S v ..... ..... ..... c: <I.J S <I.J :> o ... 0... S ..... ~ I ,. 5 :, I :> (I).!o 2 Uf,g g- ,('.1 ,. \0 ~ ........ """ tIJ c: <l.l S <I.J :> o ... 0... S ..... I Iv I~ I ' I I I I I I '"0 V \-< V '" g; '"5i u.:c ~ .~ lIJ \-< <1J-....... ~~ '" g .s tIJ 5~ ~; .9 o ..... ~ .~ >=1 .., H v c.. 'E Vl v Q; c O:::~ '"0 .~ c o u . I I I~ ~ Ic3 ~ If0 ~ v; I'" '" :":w len 1- r< ~ .c ..... ..c: .2P '-< '" .9 .., c ~ ..... ..c bJJ 'C ~ ~ ;;; c.. v Vl cO .., '"0 'J> o ... c.. o ..... ..c u '" o ... c.. c.. '" i=O r.r:I bJJ .S ..... Vl X .., .., v c..c: '5..!S L( C ~ E . <:t:: ~ "@ r' .g ~ Vl '"0 .., '" c: c ~ '" C '"0 \-< '"g ~ o<:t:: .....~ v :> 0 ~ e ] '0 c ~ "il C) '0 G ~I ~ ~ ~ t:: bJJ bJJ c: v .Sc:: - :> ~ ~ ~ 8 'r< '" c: ~ e .~ ~ Cl) ~ M .9-' .... ""@ = ~ .5 c tr.l ,.... V) .g v ~ 'x _0:::2L1J ~ '"0 -r.: . Vl .., ..... .~ ~ ;:l v r~ i 0::: +:: i I · I I ~ i3 \-< o ..Q ... '" - ...c. o ..... v ~I ~ 8 ] v cO 8 l3 8 ~ -:;> e: v o 1l U)I~I ~ . . --< . ..... tIJ '" L1J ~cC"D ..?; ~ l: co.....CO I ..., ,~ 1.s I~ l3 ~ I i !:::: .5 ri ~ ~ -.......-::: bJJ ~o E ~ e: 'n ~ ';;; M 0] .., r< ';::1 co Q) .;:1 ...... .... ~ ~:g ~ U Cl::! <l) t;~ ~-B ~C~h~ '""" ~ '3 g ~ 5 u ~ OJ ~ ~ cc ~...c 8 . '"0 c: '" V C '" -5 bJJ ;:J o ... -B '" c: .g ;.Q '"0 co ,..... '"0 '"0 cO o ..... ~ '"0 ~..?; co . . E bJJ..... .f q ~ ~ l..... .~ ~ ,. o 0 0 +:: ;::I \-<,.p ~8~2~ ~ .~ g ] ~ .5 t; .5 v e: -5 8 ""' v o \-< V \-< .-< ;:J cr v ~ . ,. -so ;:J o \-< -B OJ .~ Vl i3 v Z . . '"0 ..... cO Vl o aJ ~-5 cO \-< \-< 0 bJJe: ,. ,~ Q.) ~.-E 'x v ,_ g ~ ;:::l..Q cO 0 ~ ~ bJJ<... e: 0 ';::1 .., iU .@ '"0 --E V '(jj <... \-< ..... o v:. ~ E .~ ~ 8 cr ~ 8 ~ g (;i Eo Vi . I I 18 DOn I~ I ~g .~ ~ ~I~ ~ ,...., S-r.: o <... .gl~ .~ cO ;> '"0 u 0 c ..9 E ~ IlJ V ,. r~ 1 I i \-< Q i3 v V ? .:; .-::: iu ~ I C c: I r: ~ 10 u I le- i- I -------, I I I I I I I ! i I ~ ~ OJ e ~ 2 CO v <:t:: ZB~ V '"0 e: '"0 0 cO .9 0.;" e: ~ V 'D 'J> o ..!>:: \-< U c.. '" .9 c..Q ... bJJ V : .~~ g ~ tJ '"0 V .~ 'p g @ @ ~ ;....; - .;...J l1.i <u (j....!:: V"J C ~ @ 1;; gp.S fJl.8 ~ -; oj 0 @ C ..... ~ ~ L1J J:j ';::1 Q) ~ ....-4 "zj Ni _~ u 8 :::< ~ ;;] ,::? ~ Q"l~~.u~-,,"" ?'" :>v~e: 8 .S ~ ~ 0...'"0 01 8 "8 CO .~ '~ ~ ~ ~ .9P C/) > ~ ~ .5 '" '"0 ::: '"0 ~ z~0 OJ " 2 ~ '"0 ~ . 0~ ~ 0""0 ,-< @ U) . . 0(:) c>, -. -.. ~ .~ ::::: ~ .- ~ 'g "" ~ <:l,;. Ii ~I;i- ~,I~ ~II~ ~I~ ~I ':1 ~'I 211~ ~ 1.1:!2 .:': '\ ,:; c ;::;11< Q,) -, Q,) E ~I ,.Q Q,) ~'I ~ i lI..111..;: E I u.... IlK ! i I : i i I <> '-' ~ .~ u ~ c Ll.., 1.....:1 '" I ~I ~ I~ <IJ S ~ .... .... c Q,) S QJ > o ... Q.. S .... II I I '" o .... ~ I Q,) I 5 ':10 5 0 ~ iiulg E o. .... I;;; [ I~ 1"-. I po; ...; I~ o.J ! C 8 I~ ~ I ~ ..s .::1 b ::l C C;<Q,) I ~Oj ...c i"-- ...... I I . I I 18 .C. - "<t- o -<f. - 5 9P ~ .5., '" u ...; ..0 0.) '" C is ~ c... U o ~ c ~ .g ""0 C'C 1-< .@ Z .::< 0.) G3~ 5 ~ ~li "- .... p:; g _ '" '" c~ .g ~ ~ ~ '"d 0.) '" ~ <n..c ~ t .- 0 g.,c 0.) 0.) p:;..c I · . c bl] 0.)", QJ:2 t. 'f.o a ~ ] ~~ ~v ~~clj c ~ .~ 8 c g? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 0 C ..=.. -c ~ ':: ~ ~.8 ~ ~~.,.q '-4-1 Qj 'T.8 ~ C"i bJJ ~ ~ B .s .~ B 5 ~'"O<lJob '"O.).A o 0.) ~ c C _ ':0 ~ ~ rr. o.J rod .2 ~ ~ ~...r::-~ o~ ~"1j c ~~~~g~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ .;...l 'zj 0 ~ ~ '""0 ~ ~~ .$ ~ J 0 ~ ~ '"d ::l Q) ... ..., '"d ~ k "'0Q).a~(:CI ~2.J:, B 1:..E B.5 ~ B gp:g '"d ":'^ 4-< ~ ~ Co", :>"'"0";:;-'::0 '"0 ~I. ~ .~ Cd ~ ~ € .~ ~, ~ ! ~ Q) ....>1 B ~ 3" ~ ~ 81 ~ E ~ OJ''"' &~ '" 0 '" 0"30.) 0.."'- S ~ -5 .~ ct B ~ s 8 ~ .5 ] ~Hl~H~~I~H 0.....-] c: 0 p.~ QJ 0.:....; Vi..::" ~.I~ "'~;?:23 8Z~e5 ~e:> ~. . .I~J.. '" '" V) 0<:: '"0 > Q) P3 > -r: o ,8 o..,~ .;:: r-; ........;? 00 ;< i3 ~ o ~ c3 0..'U ~;;$c(j '-.., ~ QJ .....C'..............::I t:''1J Qj'"'O o ~ ~ I (/) c:c ~ ;:0 10 I- I r l......., ~ ~ - </) V) GO '"djSw..i g -I-J r-o bl]C> C 023 v .2 ~ t; 2 Q),,-ou ~ ~ .S" E ~ ...r: r.r., Q) C ' .tj 0 4-i ~ ::l.p 0 S ~~ v v ~~]A c o ~a:; ~~.5 ~~E .B b c ~ v t: '"'0] .~ '" v, '"0 C/) ...c: ctl ~ t OJ .::1 0 ;::l g.,C5 Q) (j) po ~...o..-r' . . OJ .:e ~ <lJ '" bl]- ~ c ~ ~ u ! '"0 C~ cO .!:: (1) .... .E ~ C '0 ... C B '" ...c .8 .~ ~ ~:: ~~ '"0 ';' "'..c Obl]C .... ;j 0 >-. 0 .Jj ~ ;j ~ ~ ~ "2 oj2d'U~ C r~ ~ .::l ~ '-' '" c~~ ... V) bl] B C c:: ~ ~.~ :3 ~ 23 .B z '" .~ '" . . i I i_, !6 '00 I~. ,- I g ~ "- p:; o 00 0. ~ ~ N Vl '" 0.) 1~]""8 1"- ... ~ ~J:b ]~~ ~ ~ "'-' ~ r.n en ~ ~ ~ ~o"O .::l C ~ ;:j b[)......-! C;<C>V ~-2-~ C'i (:CI , . - ~I g "0 o .Jj :> ~I;g ~ .9 ~ t. i2 d3 0.- .8 .t:1 . '" <IJ g., ~ ~I ~ 0 tJ I po; V) , I . . ~ (3 ~1l .~ @ ...... ....c ll) if:; 0) '"' '" co ~ "0 "0 '" '"0 C C'i ~ 1 ~~ E ...5S Q3 ~ c 2 ~ to: ~ E <t:: ~ g ~ .... ~ ~.-E ~ QJ'"O ~ C > op:i --g '"0.... 13 0.) '"0'" .Jj x l1H ~~I~ ~ 25 Z ~ 81! ~ ~ >t;b.O+--r2>VJ ~ ~!H:!~HH~ E~b~r.rJEI~ <lJ233 '"d '"0 '"0 '"0 '"<. ..~.. 1'"0 I~ I 0 Q) ~~ ""'i -c I~ ~ ,c5; ~ "0 N I~ < I.~ > >-<-( l~ ~ i 0 -q il:... u: 1- i0: .... c " ,., r-=: CD V) Q) C o "0 '"0 '" B 0.) ~ Vl Q) 'U u ~ '"0 C '" '"0 to> c:Q -r--, I I I I d o .Jj '" ~'I "" :;;1 Cil ....; -, .~ Z,...,- I"":: . Z i I I I c<5 I "I i ~I (:CI ....1 ~ 01 -D tl " ~ i i..I.. --::1 -i I I I I ('1 ~.l /..:, CJ (""1 - ~ .... u I::: ~ k: .... I::: ::s "" ~ r--~---,-- ~ ...';ii .2) : '" '-' 1,-...,"":1,.... .~ >-.! II (3 "'...1 ~ I''::: :> (to. 1- ~ii~ &.0:1~' 1::; )i<"U,.. _ \:3:: C i-- -Q..'i i~ !t',1 ~ !L____i~' ~!! -i ~il-o ~i! ~ ~I !.~ ~ il.,... ~,!!~ ~ '\ ii'"O '-: ! < ~CJ 2,11 OJ ~ ;I~ 2 ~ 12 E ..- ..... u Ol ',"", 12 I ~ I ] i ! en S ~ .... .... Q v E v :> o ... c. S .... ! "1;..< -' 1<, l_ i r:::: '-~ , r: _ I ,.. I 1.5 v. 1._ if. I~ ~ Ii .~ ..s .-< ;0 i~ I~ i I . "0 C Q) .... ><: ~I ~ ~~~I ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~I : j ~i ~ r--~ ~i · I I~ c I~ ~ ,.S: I '-' ! ~ I~ .~ I ~ I:f: J: i-' .~ I ~: ~ 1"-------- ~ I cO <:: :7 ~C :: ,- I r] "'T OC' ('I "'" '-' c::: ::::: ~ 0 IX r ,. ""1""' s>p-g '0 c, - -./ C':. .~ :5 ~ "0 Co.. "0 0 : ~ ~ :-Q 3 ,~ ir~ ~15 . Q) ,.. ,.. ;:; .8 et; ~ Q) ....c: .... ;--~ ,.. (t ...:= if'.' c.. ,.. c _ ro ~ ~ r.: ~ ~ 8 c u ..- '" .., ,.. ..25 u o ('"', "U C P "0 0 c;; ~'n 7 o u c .... Q) 0 c.~.;.:: 8 ~ g ~ .S :::c ~.5CO ~I ~ ~ Z ~1 - .c: -0 ~I ~ ~ ; ,; ] ~S uv,~ jj]!~:~ ~I 0/ ::::--- v --:. .. :ccG~' ~~ ~ r " ;z::-- u ..) ,""'" ,..,- ,I: r~ 1 ''"' :;. .c: c Q) Q) e V .J:J "0 a.i :> c 05~ .... c ... ... 8...8 .~ t.t ~3d cr. 0.., 8 cO ~ ~ ~ c:: g~ >-r< C .... ... c .8 V vet; e~ Q) V .J:J C o ~"O P5 ; t; ~ o c g.. cO C ~] .~ ;:l Q) lfl o c ;..a (/) 0 0 c:::_ p' Z .8 Q) 0; Q) :> ~ --c; ._ M ~ Vi ~] c:: o ~ 'p ~] .~ ~ cO W . --c; . Z I I I I I I I I I I k Iz~ V i ,0. j,..~ I I I I 1 I I i ! "0 C cO "0 C ~ ~ c .~ ....<.s ~I.s ~ ~ .~ .Ci I C -, I~ ~ 2 ~ .c 0 8 U e _"0 '3 .8 .J:J Q) V :> ~--r:: ~ li,...c ...... ...... ~ cr. I~ ZJj Z ~ - o"Q .-c'jO ~ ~I: ~ ~I ~ ~ r~IS ....' ....... 1'---'. I I 1\0 1('.) , OJ I~ 12 I'" ('.1 I i I 19 lo^ Lf1 C I: 1- c;; c:: .g ~ "0 -<:: . "'C OJ ,.. :> ~~ l5u C Of) W ~ .;. "'Q l5 u. , 0 ~ W tl 0... ---- +-; OJ OJ c :> :> ~ --r:: 0 u c:: '" o ~ ~ ~ --c; .Q "0 U c:: ~ cO '-i H (jJ o -' .S W "" Of) OJ S ; Cl..~ ~8 ti .8 "0 o~ ~ OJ:: Oc::: ::W g 0 o .E u c::: oj Z.E OJ H C ::; ... ~E olt: o OJ u~ ~ ~ o "0 C cO ~i3--d ~~~ ~--EJjCO '0 ::i c:: ...-... o .... cO <n.8~ OJ .... ..- o..,.c cO 'r:; .'2fJe..? ..- '-i ~CQ-S ~ Z'~ . o o "!- r<J 00 ...... ,: 2 I ~ nj I ~ :> --......--c; ~J:l o;Jj C v .g 'E I~ ~ "0...... cO 0 ~ v tI:'S ;:l VJ 0"'.... OJ VJ ~ ~ I · I I I I "0 ~r.r.i ~~ :> ~ 0) .9- '\:I .b ; ~ ... Q) o '-i .- VJ 8 - So; ~ C R .g W - ~ "0 . < . c::: 5[.1.; ~ ~ ::> 0 I~ I~ ~ ~'U ....CJ 10 L:: l~ .~ 1[.1.; ...., I~I e !-, 1"'; c ~ b . . a.i C ~ l:< C -so '\:1 r:Q Z 0; .~ VJ Of) C ';1 VJ 'x w c;; ~ V3 . . . , , I -.-J ...... 1:::: "1:l l:::: ~ ;::: ~ 'N E ~ ~!I- &III'~ J:I~ ~ < ~ ~ '" % !:: "; h ;:: <::I .~ ~ ..... ~ ~ < "- c:;::, "- ~ ~ Q1 t:; '~ l::: !:: ~ ~ '-l ':B ;" ,0 c; IIZ '" 8 v ..... ,.., ..... ;:: v E v ;.. o ... 0.. 8 ,.., ;:: .~ ..... ~ u o ....:l .... ;:: v S * v ..... ;.. ~ 8 8 U 0. 0.. '" 8 '<::j- ,.., 'D .... '" ..... ;:: <lJ V E ..::: v ..... ;.. o ... 0.. 8 ,.., E o ~ ..... u ~ 0.. E ,.., v o o "'0 "'0 <<l o ..... <U ;.. ~ 0 roo ~ B II :; 0 o t::: 'P Lt:: <U 0 <<l ~ S ~ "'0 ~ ~ 'in .1:l 8 i:O .S 5 EWo:l;.:cJ S <U q <U - 0.. 0/) "'0 Cd '5 .~ ;:::= o '? ::s .s o <U <U '" 'P ~ Z J:i ;.:cJ "'0 ~ . . . ~ <U ;.. ...... " <U ]~ e q \..') 0 ..... t:: ~~ w-< I~ <U " o z <U q ~ ~ o o o ('oJ. 'D ...... ...... - ~ o z q o .... ..... <U ::::l ~ o .... <U ~ "'0 o <<l ..... () i:O W S o ..tj <U o ~ <<l :g :ge .~ ~ {j ;:., ~"2 <<l ;....... ~ -<11 +-ol ,..q en .2 <<l ~ ..... ::; <U <U <<l 0 0 ::r:: g ~ ~ g .ff P. S O/)g;J;j-S.8 o ~~ ~~Lt:: o ~;:: 0..."" <U ~ o..-S ~ .S ~ <<l ~ i:O ';;j i:O ~ ...... ."" z 11 W <U d ~~o<uo .; <<l"..... 0/) 0 o '" 0 "'0 .~ 0 "'0 00 o ...... ..... 0 ..0 <<l "'0 ,"" 'p 5 .~ <<l :.E -8 <<l ~ i:j S ..0 <U 0 ."'O:=! a<u:.E~ilS~.s 058""""'O.8<u'~ u ;:< 0.. R ,;:, ..... '- ~ 0 Lt:: 0 ...... .1:ls].8~~~8 .S - <<l.l5 0.. i:O R ,~ .......""" q O/)'~ ~ '" :~<<l 8 ~.~ 'in W .8 <U 0.:;:: '<U .... ~Cn~~Bl~g~ "'0 . ~ . . ..... o ..0 ..... <<l J:: ~ <U ;;- --< [3 ~ ;:J~ 0- N -< ......... z ::s <U z...,., ---::. . z "'0 ~~ i:O...... t:O 8.i:O :.::JW ''1 ~ -;:2 g c55~B o I'" r-- 00 r--. ..... 00 N. Lt") - I i I~ z 'MblJ~ "'0 '0 ~ .13 .13 :Q <U 0/) q::l g ~ u VJ . '3 c ~ 5 ~ 8.. -:s "2 0'"'- S ..o<U II '-';:::oo<U~. ..9 .... ;:j..o <U ..... 0 "'0 blJ "'0 ~. c' "'O:::,......<U,,<U""" <U "'0 VJ.t::> U.tl.;:; uS . d'- <U ............. ~ ::I 0.. <<l:.Q '" .. ~ S <U ~ ~ ar 5 0... ~ .13 ~<<l::l..o...... ....."'<Uo..tJ ~O~O<<lch"''''O''''' r, <<l .... ...... .... q <U 0 0 <U 0 0 <U >-,......, >-,0"'0 0 <<l"O......... ~ co:j . ~ '.0 "Vj ',0: ..--I tr.l 0- '" ::s '" ::S;.:CJ <<l "'0 B u .... ~ "'0 ~ "'0 "'0 -:s ,g .1:l ~ <<l C '::I <<l.;:' <<l <<l o."::l ~..o o..s <U 0"'0"'00..0..0"'0 . u <U ..... 11 ..... -.:J 0 0.. <<l ,"" ~ ~ t) -0 b'~ 8 8 ~ ] ~ ~ ...... ." ......... Z . ~ ......... Z blJ ~ v ..... ;;- 8..-< ,,:=! ~ <U .~ ~ ~~ ::S"'O "'0 0 ~ <<l ..... <U <U.;< ~ ' ~] '<t <<l "'I ~ 0 0 ............ 0 5 ~ 5 .~ 5 es ~ ~ ;.. ..... <U '" o 0..0 .S ;:<-BC":l S <<l ,g " _ J::._.~ E:E 00 "'0 0 ::s ~ il Z o:l o o 'p ."" "'0 "'0 -< . -< ......... z . "'0 "'0 ~ ~ i:O" i:O "'0 t:: 0 t: 8 o~ o~ ~ ,~~ ,g- ~ ~ -c;o -<<U.... ..<:1~o...<:1~O ....... ,. I 4--' ~ ..D ::I...c. S ::I ", I .... o O' '" V)~ ~iV)ZJ:: ..... '" N '" '" '" <"I <"I - ~ .~ l::: ~ it; ..... l::: ~ ., .s " ~ ::3' t: .9 .-:; "'0 "'0 < ~ ~ -c, ~' '-< ~ 1::: h l::l ~ ~ "- c:::, "- ~ ~ Il.1 ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l::l '-l -:s II 0 ~llz ~ t: o ..... .... ...... "'0 "'0 < cu ..s E o ~ .... u ~ Q.. E ..... '" E cu .... ..... .... d Il) E Il) :> o .... Q.. E ..... t: .9 .... ~ u o .....:l </J cu cu "'0 ::::>~r:S ""d~ :;></J ~p ...........ou ';:l~ P:; 0<2"0 crr:: OJ..o~ ~ ~"O is ~c;:l ~ b @ .~ 0 ~ '" :;> ;.cIOJ......~ :::,~ "0 "'cu,.:,....'" ~ r--~ ro ~ ~ ~ Vj co ~ 'tn..:::l c:= ~ .~ ~ ~ OJ)'~ .g u ::;j .... ~'E ~ ..... 8 2"' Q.."'O </J"'O :g ,oJ ft ~.~ ~ < 13 I-L-l "--' ~ It)_ .... c (]) E * (]) .... ~ ~ i5.u E ..... o o \0 C'J" \0 r<") "I - '"'"' o '" .... d Il) E Il) :> o .... Q.. E ..... . OJ) j .... &~ -B~ .~ b :>-'..0 '" .... ~ '" "O:I: "'"0 8 q cu '" ~~ iiii ""'" :>-. '" '" o ~ ...... 1:1 cu '" ::l0 5 q :> cu -< cu - Z "0 cu ..0..0 u 0 ~ 0 ,2, .~ 0:.0 cu ';:1 "0"0 t3 ~ 11 cu :> o 9 8 ....... OJ q o .~ ~ "'0 < . cu ::l o cu ;> ....... " ~ cu ..0 u ~ ..;- '" o ..;- 00 o' C'J VI C'J^ - 6 OJ) ,@ ::l "0 "'0 .~ cu V "0 cu ..0 c OJ) 'en cu "0 S' .S j cu .... 0.. . ~ 0 "0.9 .~ "0 8 ;> V H C ~ ~ u .tJ 0.. '" M U '.~ ~ .tJ cu ocu '" C/]~t 5 "Ci .... o.@ 8 ..,..,~ z .... cu ;> "0 ~ cu 0.. cu _ _ .S Z iii 1: ..0 "0 o.....c 0.. (]) ...... ~ ~.~ ~ :; g c2 8 ~ .S S 8;:1 </J g. ~ ~,~ 0 :> O'o...c:'- ::J (]) </J - ::S -<:p... .......:;..0 </J 8'"'"' 0 cu 1:1 tJ.~ 0 ~ -5 B 0 ~ ::l</J......Vlt:;HjJ Oz g' a~..El '" ~ ~ 't.~ cu ..0 0 u 0..C/] "--'- '> ..0 ::l"O ~</Jcuo~o""" Q ~B 0<..0 oC/].... 0 P=l ..c:: '" . -;;.~ ~ o..::l z .5 ~ </J" ~ 0 ~ Jl g z o~o~",cu....",~cu o a:l i5. ~ -;:; ~ ......scu"'O "'..0 ",</Jo.. ...- o~cu,..,..; ",~"""'O""o' "'.:>u .... .E 1:1 ~ .... B .... 0.---- -< 1: 5 _ .~ Z B .l5 B 8.~'~ ~ ~ E ~ Ci. ct:: M...... ce ............... ...- '"-' cu 0 0.. Jj ~ .t:i ";) ....;:;l f--< cr.S > .g 8 ...... cu -,..... u ::l 0 g ..... 0 cu ;>.~ cu 0.2 as.g p... 8 ~ 8 ~] :g ~ H ~.E Q ~ ~ o~t.;.lUU~::3g..cc:~ "'cuO~XcO..oMOO .... 0 cu CU.;:< P:; cu ::l </J "'O::J u 0 0] cu.... 0 CU"O ~ ~ ~ t z 'cu.tJ ~ -B.E ~ OJ o o .~ ;.cI "0 -< . cu "5 0.. o 8 P:; ::1 ~ o >:0 Z .S ------ 0"0 0.. ~ .... > cu cu ~"'3~ ~oo O~_ I~ "0 ;> iii c:: o P- o.. 8 ~ ~ '" c:: 0'0 ,..... ~: c:: .... o 5 (])~ ~~ :;z ~8 o '" .] c:: --l-l ~ U) . (]).... .Wl ~ ~ 'B .~ 8 ~ ,..... ~ 0 0 8--g~f .~ C::..o 8 U'l C\1 U 1-1 ~ ~ 8 ~ .2- ~ ~.... 00 "0.... . -< U ",.E "0 "0 -< . . . I o o o 00' 00 ,..... - as I~ M c:: '.0 </J ..... ~ 0 0 cu ...... .... J:j .S B ...... "0 .... ~ ~ io o ::l..... ~ M.... "'L;:1~ o c:: C/] ...... 0"'0 t: U q o cu '" .~ .... '" a:l ~ ~ E.8~ .s g ~ :.E~.l5 l:I .$2P ~ .:: .... ~t"g ~I ",.t:i '" 8 0...........0 ......oM cu o..M::l :> 0..::l0 0 '" 0.... ;; ~.].tJ 8 Ul ...... 1:1 e...... c::"O O~OJ ~~~~o ::;:"'o..~o :;>...c cu .... .~ '" </J 0 ~ "0 -< . "0 '" ......... 0 cuP:; > .... <1:!] "O~~ ~ ~ </J o () ~ t;.-e b '" '" ~ r.Lix......... \0 r<") o o VI C\. r<") - as c:: o Z cu :>"0 ~ ~ ~ c:: ~ 8 ~ g' B 8 ...oct::B ::l cu Q,ct:: o..c:: ~ .... OJ) cu "B 5'~ "'.] :g 8 4-" u &'"2 ~ as '" i;j cu ~ o....c:: :-Q - 8 '" > q '" 0'" ';< 'to i5. B ~-t ~ ocu8~ ~.e a) ~t:l o :g q......... ~u~~ 1:!xc::]c ::l cu .... 0 ~ .W ~ -B cu ",...c:"O ..c:: '>1 .2fJ cu ~ Q) ~ ~ 0..0 >...c: 'c ~.~ en t";SEcq , 0 u"O ~~;j~ ------ "0 1: (:Q <J) .5 ~ o OJ 0.. ;:l .... cr <J) ::J t;..o >-. ::l 00 r-- ("<"') i "" N -.. ~ I'~ ~ ~ ... ~ I~ ~ ,I I ~I~ 5 [ ::J" ,-< E * .S! ill ... 0 '" ...:> 0'" 0 ~ ~ 8 u ~" j~t 2 ~ II:E '\ :g 2: '"- -( ~ ;::: ill E ~ .s ~ "" d 0 <3 ..... ~ ..g E ... ...... U I~ ,... c; ..... UJ E ill ... ..... ... c; ill E ill :> o ... Q.., E ...... <::> " '8 ~ ~ Q; ~ c.-, "" ..... ;,: <::> c.-, c; .9 ... 0:1 U o ~ o Z ";j- ~ r-- \0 00"1 o 0 N~ o 0 r-- O"O"N If")OO\ N Lf) "1 _ _ Y7 .9 11,~ ~ B OJ </) .. .. E ~ 8 ,S ...... .. ~ ~ ~ t:1 ';:1 ~ 2"'g .. .. ~ 5 .........~ ~ ,~ I ~ I ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ......... ......... Z Z . . ..., </) OJ w .9 ... '~ Il) '~ Il) ill q ~ N ~ ~ t:1 c8 o Il) ';j ~ 0... 'S; o 0 ~~ P.. .s ~.g 0 B ~ OJ::: (/) q 0 0 u .is:;"" lE ~ t:1 ~ 0:1 ~ ~::l ~ OJ...t:1 . 0 0:1 o a.o.. ~ 0 :Qgc::lq t;":J 1>.,00 o~ o ,..q :> q 0...,... ~I p..::: '<a ,2P 0 8 ~oou</) ~"-- 8+-'~Q.)"U ~o o 0... Il) X 0:1 v :> d ... W:':i B </) ~~g""""'13~~~ ~...:..~~I>~u t> .. ...... <u 0 <u ,~ ~ I-< 0 0..."< <u ~ 0 q 'Cd c "t:: ""0 u ~ l-; q<u"'q~f:1o... 0:1 o ""'0 '? Cl::! C; ~.(1) IV ';j S Il) ... 0 0 ... .. ....1:;:> ~0 ~J::i 8.. 8.. ~ .. . ~ ~ ,~ tt ~ l-; orlc::l CQ0~ Z ~ 'g o W ~ :E~ ..., 0............ ,::l 6 <u I~ ~ ~ I 100 10') u o 0:1 <u ... <u -t:: ::l ,... q 0 ~ ,... -< '0 ...t:1 ... 0:1 </) 2) W -.. ~ ..... \..l \:: ~ ;:;: u:: .;::; ~ 0-, 0 0') "'" EXHIBIT B PROJECT PROJECT COST RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS 1. Bayshore/ Airport Blvd. & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd. $ 591,000.00 $ - 2. Dubuque A ve.& Oyster Point Blvd. $ 1,461,240.00 $ 135,240.00 3. Eccles Ave. & Oyster Point Blvd. $ 435,920.00 $ 73,920.00 4. Gull Dr. & Oyster Point Blvd. $ 685,400.00 $ 176,400.00 5. Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave.IUS 101 SB off-ramp $ 2,048,1 00.00 $ - 6. Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. $ 154,000.00 $ - 7. Dubuque Ave. & East Grand Ave. $ 3,719,400.00 $ I 134,400.00 I 8. Gateway Blvd. & East Grand Ave. $ 162,000.00 $ - 9. Forbes Blvd.lEast Grand Ave. & Harbor Blvd. $ 2,490,600.00 $ 621,600.00 10. Grandview Dr. & East Grand Ave. $ 704,800.00 $ 100,800.00 11. Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave. $ 1,066,800.00 $ 100,800.00 12. South Airport Blvd.IMitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. $ 4,041,000.00 $ 636,000.00 13. South Airport Blvd. & Utah Ave. $ 440,800.00 $ 100,800.00 14. Harbor Way $ 5,281,787.00 $ 1,276,800.00 15. Mitchell Ave $ 2,362,600.00, $ 621,600.00 16. Highway 101 northbound off-ramps/S. Airport Boulevard $ 2,841,000.00 $ 756,000.00 EXHIBIT B PROJECT PROJECT COST RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS 17. Highway 101 northbound off-ramp/East Grand Avenue $ 305,000.00 $ - 18. Forbes Avenue & Eccles Avenue $ 2,491,980.00 $ 973,980.00 19. Forbes A venue & Gull Road I $ 210,400.00 $ 50,400.00 20. East Grand Avenue & Littlefield Avenue $ 1,183,200.00 $ 151,200.00 21. East Grand Avenue & Allerton $ 643,000.00 $ - 22. Utah Avenue and Harbor Way I $ 1,162,000.00 $ 315,000.00 23. New- Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 northbound On-Ramp I 231,840.00 $ 2,520,840.00 $ 24. New- East Grand A veIHarbormaster Rd/Forbes Blvd $ 188,000.00 $ 84,000.00 25. New- Oyster Point BlvdlDubuque Ave $ 39,500.00 $ - 26. New- US 101 northbound off-ramplE.Grand AvelExecutive $ 1,292,000.00 $ 168,000.00 27. New- Utah Ave Over Crossing Project Study Report $ 250,000.00 $ - 28. New- Prepare new East of 101 Area Traffic Study $ 500,000.00 $ - Subtotal (Road Improvements and Studies) $ 39,272,367.00 $ 6,708,780.00 ? nf? - ~'t\\ s~ It_Cl.- _m ~ _'" _ m/-_P~\ ~ . ~~\ (0 n >< .... ~ . ~ v 0 C4.l1FO-p..~\.~ - Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 9 DATE: July 25,2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: EAST OF 101 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing for the update of the East of 101 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Staff requires further analysis of the sewer fee update in order to make a fmal recommendation for any fee increase. This matter will be brought back to Council at a future hearing. FUNDING The East of 101 sanitary sewer projects and studies are funded through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing for the East of 101 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Update. BY~ Marty Van Duyn ( Assistant City Manag -". Approved ~~~ garry M. Nagel City Manager RR/sb/dc/rc ~'t\\ S:4N G 10 n:) >< c;; ~ ~ v 0 ~llFor$'~ Staff Report A GENDA ITEM # 10 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 25,2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY GOALS AND A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM PROMOTING BIODEGRADABLE AND RECYCLABLE FOOD PACKAGING AND THE ELIMINATION OF POLYSTYRENE FOOD SERVICE WARE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution encouraging voluntary use of recyclable and/or biodegradable food containers instead of polystyrene containers and directing staff to work with local business groups, including the local Chamber of Commerce and interested residents, to discuss and prepare a Green Food Packaging Ordinance for future consideration by the City Council. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION At a meeting held on April 25, 2007, the City Council discussed the growing amount of polystyrene non-recyclable disposable food containers littering the City and directed staff to develop an ordinance banning such containers. In the course of developing a green food packaging policy, staff has researched newspaper articles, interest group literature, ordinances and has interviewed representatives from municipalities that have already enacted polystyrene food container bans. More than 100 communities nationwide have adopted such ordinances, and the number is increasing with growing concern over global warming, dependency on oil and oil-based products, and increasing public demand for green or environmentally-sustainable community policies. Generally, ordinances around the State that prohibit the use of polystyrene food containers target businesses that offer take-out food and are not aimed at food manufacturers or retail stores selling food products in polystyrene containers displayed on store shelves. Where such ordinances generally differ is on the methodes) to achieve compliance. These methods vary from voluntary compliance combined with a citizen complaint process to periodic inspections by City staff with the owners responsible for providing supporting documentation of compliance. All of the methods vary in the degree of success. Regardless of the methods, the support of local residents and businesses has remained one of the keys to effective implementation. In other cities that have enacted polystyrene bans there has been concern expressed by the business community. It has been widely reported that recent efforts by local communities, including San Staff Report Subject: Polystyrene Disposal Food Containers Date: July 25, 2007 Page 2 Francisco, Oakland and Millbrae, have garnered a fair amount of interest by the affected business community. Four of the primary concerns of the business community appear to be: (1) the increased costs of using recyclable products; (2) convenience of compliance; (3) opportunity to utilize existing stocks of polystyrene containers, and (4) the possibility for exemption. With this in mind, staff recommends that the City Council adopt an interim resolution promoting voluntary use of biodegradable and/or recyclable food service ware while staff coordinates with the local business community to develop an enforceable ordinance that is tailored to the needs of South San Francisco. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution expressing the community and environmental benefits of using recyclable food containers, encouraging the voluntary use of recyclable disposable food containers, and the intent of working with the local business community in developing an ordinance banning polystyrene disposable food containers By: ved: ~i:g~ City Manager arty Van Duyn Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Sample Polystyrene Ordinances . San Francisco . Oakland RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY GOALS AND A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM PROMOTING THE ELIMINATION OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM FOOD SERVICE WARE WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ("City") has a duty to protect public health and the natural environment; and WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that all California jurisdictions achieve and maintain a landfill diversion rate of 50%, beginning in 2000; and WHEREAS, solid waste that is nonbiodegradable and nonrecyclable poses an acute problem for any environmentally and financially responsible program of solid waste management; and WHEREAS, discarded food service ware represents a growing and substantial portion of waste in the City's waste stream, and regulation of said packaging is a necessary part of any effort to reduce the disposal of solid waste and the environmental costs of waste management; and WHEREAS, there is currently no meaningful recycling of post-consumer polystyrene foam food service ware due to contamination from food residue and the economic unfeasibility of such a service; and WHEREAS, biodegradable food service ware can be included in commercial and residential food scraps collection programs and processed at compo sting facilities rather than landfilled; and WHEREAS, the process of manufacturing polystyrene contributes to large amounts of air pollution and liquid and solid waste; and WHEREAS, plastic litter, including polystyrene foam, poses a threat not only to the marine life and other wildlife, but also to the natural environment at large; and WHEREAS, plastic food packaging is a petroleum processing by-product and oil is a nonrenewable resource; and WHEREAS, biodegradable or recyclable products are available and environmentally sound alternatives to nonbiodegradable and nonrecyclable products; and Reso - Voluntary Polystyrene Elimination.DOC WHEREAS, it is increasingly costly to site and develop landfills and such costs represent an economic burden on the residents ofthe City; and WHEREAS, it would be both environmentally and financially beneficial to the City to decrease the nonbiodegradable and nonrecyclable waste stream and maximize the operating life oflandfills; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to set forth guidelines for developing a long- term policy that will eventually eliminate the use of nonbiodegradable, non-returnable, and non- recyclable packaging originating at retail food establishments ("Green Food Packaging Policy"); and WHEREAS, a Green Food Packaging Policy and the use of biodegradable food service ware made from renewable resources is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the ability of a substance to biodegrade and the impact of a substance on our natural environment are meaningful criteria to use when developing public policy to reduce litter and blight and improve the management and disposal of solid waste; and WHEREAS, as a result of these concerns, municipalities and counties across the State of California have banned or are in the process of banning polystyrene food service ware, including neighboring cities such as Berkeley, Santa Cruz, Oakland, San Francisco, and MiIlbrae; and WHEREAS, any successful program requires the establishment of clear policies and laws conducive to responsible waste management; and WHEREAS, responsible waste management cannot occur without cooperation with City residents and the local business community; and WHEREAS, the Green Food Packaging Policy is consistent with and helps to implement the City's Waste Management Plan (South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.16) and the California State legislature's intent in enacting the California Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 (Gov. Code Section 667700 et seq.). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that: 1. It shall be a policy goal of the City that food packaging provided by retail food establishments shall be biodegradable, recyclable, or returnable. 2. The City shall promote, on a voluntary basis, the reduction of non-biodegradable, non-recyclable, and non-returnable food and beverage packaging used by retail food establishments within the City of South San Francisco to the maximum extent possible. 3. Staff shall consult with the Chamber of Commerce and representatives from affected businesses over the next twelve months to discuss and prepare a Green Reso - Voluntary Polystyrene Elimination.DOC Food Packaging Ordinance for future consideration by the City Council. * * * * * 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 July, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Reso - Voluntary Polystyrene Elimination.DOC ~lt::alU1Ut::.Ul. Vl. ""11'= YH.l.U.l..'C NO. 060944 ORDINANCE NO. <-7 Q ~- {)h /-.. I November 14. 2006. I 1 [Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance.] 2 3 Ordinance amending the San Francisco Environment Code by adding Chapter 16, 4 Sections 1601 through 1611, to: (1) prohibit the use of polystyrene foam disposable 5 ,food service ware and require the use of biodegradabfeJcompostable or recyclable 6 disposable food service ware by restaurants, retail food vendors, City departments and 7 the City's contractors and lessees unless there is no affordable alternative; and, (2) 8 provide for penalties for violation; and amending the San Francisco Health Code by 9 repealing Sections 469 through 469.10, which ban the use of food packaging and 10 plastic food service ware made with chlorofluorocarbons. 11 12 13 Note: Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman; deletions are strikcthr{3/;{gh italics Times ,""10",' ROln$l.l'l. Board amendment additions are double underlined. Board amendment deletions are stfikethrough normal. 14 Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco: 15 Section 1. Findings. 16 (a) The City and County of San Francisco has a duty to protect the natural 17 environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens. 18 (b) Reusing food service ware and using compostable and biodegradable take-out 19 'materials made from renewable resources such as paper, corn starch and sugarcane are 20 among the effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of disposable food 21 service ware. 22 (c) Polystyrene foam is a common environmental pollutant as well as a non- 23 biodegradable substance that is commonly used as food service ware in the City and County 24 of San Francisco. 25 Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval. Maxwell, Dufty, Ma} ftJ{ofv - R~, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 11/14/06 I II ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (d) There continues to be no meaningful means to recycle polystyrene foam food service ware and biodegradable/ compostable or recyclable disposable food service ware is an affordable, safe, more ecologically sound alternative. (e) Affordable biodegradable/compostable or recyclable food service ware products are increasingly available for various food service applications such as cold cups, plates and hinge containers and these products are more ecologically sound than polystyrene foam materials and can be recycled or turned into a compost product. (f) The natural compost product from these biodegradable or compostable materials is used as fertilizer for farms and gardens, thereby moving towards a healthier zero waste system. (g) Disposable food service ware constitutes a large portion of the litter in San Francisco's streets, parks and public places and the cost of managing this litter is high and rising. (h) Polystyrene foam is a notorious pollutant that breaks down into smaller, oon- biodegradable pieces that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife thus harming or killing them. (i) Due to the physical properties of polystyrene foam, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states "that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy." U) In the product manufacturing process as well as the use and disposal of the products, the energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, polystyrene foam's environmental impacts were second highest, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Duffy, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 11/14/06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (k) Styrene, a component of polystyrene foam, is a known hazardous substance that medical evidence and the United States Food and Drug Administration suggest leaches from polystyrene foam containers into food and drink. (1) Styrene is a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin that potentially threatens human health. (m) The general public is not typically warned of any potential hazard from styrene ! particularly in the immigrant and non-English-speaking community. (n) Due to these concerns, nearly 100 cities have banned polystyrene foam food service ware including several California cities, and many local businesses and several national corporations have successfully replaced polystyrene foam and other non- biodegradable food service ware with affordable, safe, biodegradable products. (0) The City of Berkeley banned polystyrene foam in 1990 and has reported that Berkeley restaurants have had no problem switching to paper and other alternatives. (p) The City of Berkeley also reports positive environmental impacts from the ban, citing there is almost no styrofoam litter in Berkeley since the ban and further that their food waste stream is cleaner and more compostable. (q) Restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware products and requiring them to be replaced with biodegradable or recyclable food service ware products in San Francisco will further protect the public health and safety of its residents, the City and County I of San Francisco's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, would advance the City's goal I of Zero Waste by 2020 and fulfill Article 10 of the Environmental Accords, whereby San Francisco partnered with other cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year. Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 11/14/06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (r) In 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 542-88 (Health Code use of food packaging and plastic food service ware he Ordinance provides that it shall be void upon the erallawor regulation imposing limits on the use of . Effective 1994, the federal government banned the products. 40 CFR Part 82 (58 Federal Register 4678 Section 469 - 469.10) which banned the made with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). T enactment or adoption of any state or fed CFCs in the manufacture of plastic foams l use of CFCs in the manufacture of foam January 15,1993). Accordingly, the 1988 Section 2. The San Francisco Env Chapter 16, Sections 1601 through 1611 , SEe. 1601. TITLE. , This Ordinance shall be known as the ! SEe. 1602. DEFINITIONS. (a) "Affordable" means purchasable o(the non-Biodef!radable non-Compostable 0 (b) "ASTM Standard" means l'neetinfl Materials (ASTM) International standards D vias lies. as those standards mal! be amended. (c') /1Compostable" means all the mat other"vt!lse become vart or usable compost (e. manner in San Francisco's comoostino or or in :J homo compost pilo or dovico. Con 'No.y of oX:Jmplo, must meet ASTlvJ-Standa Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi,Ammiano. MeGa I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ordinance is void by its terms. ironmental Code is hereby amended by adding to read as follows: Food Service PVaste Reduction Ordinance. (or not more than 15 vercent more than the vurchase cost r non-recvclable alternative(s). the standards o(tlle American Societv (or Testing and 6400 or D6868 (or biodegradable and compostable erials in the product or package will break down into, or g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and time/v ooram ::m 3ppropri3to composting progr3m or facility, mostable Disposable Food Service Ware includes, by rds for comDostabilitv Bio Plastics (pJ3ctic like driek, Sandoval, Maxwell. Dufty, Ma Page 4 11/14/06 \ I 11 I 1 I I i 2 I i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 products) th::lt Dro and anv biD-plastic or olastic like product must be clear!v labeled. pre(erablv with a color svmbol, to allow Proper identification such that aAY San Francisco's corn post collector and orocessor can easi/v distinr!uish the ASTMStandard Compostable plastic from non-ASTM Standard Compostable plastic. For the purposes ofrhis ordinance the term biodegradable shall have the same meaninf! as compostable. This ordinance uses the terms hiodef!radable and conmostable interchanr!eabll' and in all cases 'rl,'hether the terms are used selJaratelv. in the dis;unctive or in the cOllhmctive thev shall alwavs be interpreted and avvlied consistent with this definition of the term "composta bl e It. (d) "Otv Administrator" means the CitY' Administrator appointed under Section 3.104 o(tlle Charter or his or her desif!11.ee. (e) "Citv contractors and lessees" means alll' person or entitv that has a contract with the Citl' . for public works or improvements to be ver(ormed. for a franchise. concession or lease of propertv. for grant monies or r!oods and services or suvplies to be purchased at the expense of the Ot)? and Countv. or to be paid out of monies deposited in the Treasurv or out of tm..')t monies under the control or col/ected bv the Of\' and COlmtv. (j) "Otv Faciliiv!! means anv building, structure or vehicle owned or operated bv the Otv of San Francisco. (f!) liCit\! Faeilit"\! Food Provider" means an entitv that provides, but does not sell. Prepared Food in Otv Facilities. includinr! lv/thou/limitation. San Francisco General Hospital. Laguna Honda Hospital. San Francisco Countv Jail and the San Bruno Jail Complex. (h) "Disposable Food Sen>ice Ware!1 means all containers. bmvls. plates. travs, carton. cups. lids, straws. (orks. spoons. knives, napkins and other items that are desir!ned for one-time use (or Prepared Foods. including without limitation, service ware for takeout foods and/or leftovers from partiallv consumed meals prepared bv Food Vendors. The term IIDisposable Food Service Ware" does Supervisors Peskin. Daly, Mirl<arimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval. Maxwell. Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 5 11/14/06 , I I I I ! I I I I ; I I ! I ! 1 lOt include iterns composed entirelv of aluminum or po/vstvrene foam coolers and ice chests that are 2 'mended (or reuse. nor docs this term include recycbble food cervico W8re. 3 (0 "Food Vendor" means anl! Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor located or operating l>t'ithin 4 the Citv and Countv o( San Francisco. 5 m "Person" means all individual. tnisl. firm, foint stock companv, corporation includin'l a 6 government corporation. pal1nership, or association. 7 (k) "Polvstvrene Foam" means blown polvstvrene and expanded and extruded (oams 8 (sometimes called S'tvrofoamâ„¢; which are thermopla.stic petrochemical materials utilizinf! a stvrene 9 monomer and r;rocessed bv anv number of techniques includinf!, but not limited to, fusion of po Iv mer 10 mheres (expandable bead polvstvrene), infection moldillf!, foam molding, and extrusion-blown molding 11 (e.:r.tru.ded foam polvst1/rene). Polvstvrene (oam is f!enerallv used to make cups. bowls, plates, trav'S, 1 :2 clamshell containers. meat travs and e!!f! cartons. 13 (I) "Prepared Food" means food or beveraf!es, which are serviced. packaged. cooked. chopped. 14 sliced. mb:ed. brewed. frozen. squeezed or otherwise prepared (collective/v "prepared") within the City 15 and Countv o(San Francisco (or individual customers or consumers. For the purpose of this Chapter, 16 Prepared Food includes take-out food. but does not include raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultrv 17 sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. 18 (In) "Recl/dable" means material that can be sorted, cleansed. and reconstituted using San 19 Francisco's available recvclin'l collection programs (or the purpose of using the altered (orm in-the 20 manufacture o( a new product. Recvclinf! does not include burning. incinerating, converting. or 21 otherwise thermallv destrovinf!. solid waste. 22 (11) "Restau.rant" means an)! establishment located within the Otv and Countv of San Francisco 23 that sells Prepared Food (or consllmotion on. near. or oifilS premises. For purposes o(ihis Chapter. 24 the term includes a Restaurant operating (rom a temlJorarv ({lei/ill', carl. vehicle or mobile unit. 25 Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Duffy, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 6 11/14/06 1 (0) "Retail Food Vendor" means anI' store. shop, sales outlet. or other establishment. includinr] 2 ,a frocerv store or a delicatessen, other than a Restaurant, located ~vithfl1 the eft\' and Countv o(San 3 II 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Francisco that sells Prenared Food. I I SEe. 1603. PROHIBITED DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE. (a) Food Vendors mav not sell Prcnared Food in Disposable Food Service Ware that contains Polvstvrene Foam. I (b) Otv Facilitv Food Providers mav not provide Prepared Food in Disposable Food Service Ware thar contains Polvstvrene Foam. (C) Citv Deoartments mav not purchase, acquire or use Disposable Food Service Ware that contains Polvstvrene Foam. ! (d) Citv contractors and lessees mav not use Disposable Food Sen1ice Ware that contains I I Polvstvrene Foam in Citv Facilities and while per(ormin? under a Otv contract or lease. SEe. 1604. REOU/RED BIODEGRADABLE/ COMPOST ABLE OR RECYCLABLE DISPOSABLE FOOD SER VICE WARE. (a) All Food Vendors usinf! anv Disposable Food Service Ware shall use a suitable Affordable alternative Biodegradable/Comnostable or Recvclable product, unless there is no suitable Affordable Bioderzradable/Compostable or Recvc/able product available as determined bv the Citv Administrator in accordance with this subsection. Not later than 30 davs before the overative date ofthis Chapter, and after a public hearin~, the eitv Administrator shall adovt a list o( available suitable Affordable Bioder!:radable/ Compostable or Recvclable alternatives for each product tvne. The eitv Administrator . shall reJ!Ularlv update the list. Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 7 11/14/06 1 2 i I i (bJ All Citv Facilitl' Food Providers and ('itv departments llsinf? anv Disposable Food Sen'ice Ware shall use Biodegradahle/Compostable or ReC1lclable Disposable Food Service Ware unless ther is no Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product available as determined bv the Citl/ Administrator in accordance with subsection 1603(.1)1604(a). (c) eitv contractors and lessees usinf? anv Disposable Food Service Ware shall use suitable Biodegradable/Compostable or Recvclable Disposable Food Service Ware in Otv Facilities and \.vhile performing under a Citv contract or lease unless there is no suitable Affordable Biodegradable/Compostable or reeve/able product available as determined bv the Otv Administrator in accordance with subsection 1603(8) 1604(a)c SEe. 1605. IMPLEMENT AT/ON: CITY CONTRA CTS AND LEASES. (a) The Citv Administrator is authorized to promulfJate ref!ulations. guidelines and forms and to take anv and all other actions reasonable and necessary to implement and enforce this Chapter. (b) Anv person mav seek a .vaiva from the re(/uirements of Section 1604 of this CJumter bv filing a request on a form specified bv the Citv Administrator. The Oiv Administrator, consistent tvith this Chapter. may waive anv specific requirement of this Chapter for a period of up to one vear iftke person seeking the waiver has demonstrated that strict application oOlle specific requirement would create an undue harcL'ihip or oraclical ditficultv not flenerallv applicable to other persons in similar circumstances. The Citv Administrator's decision to .f!rant or denv a waiver shall be ill vvritillg and shall be final. (C) All Citl' contracts and leases. includinf! without limitation, contracts with Citv Facihtv Fo pr(yviders. shall contain the followinf! minimum lanf!1wfJe: "Contractor ar;:rees to complv fullv with and be hound bv all of the provisions of the Food Service fVaste Reduction Ordinance. as set forth in San Francisco Environment Code Chamer 16, including the remedies provided, and implementing Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick. Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 11/14/0 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ad 8 6 1 gilldelines and rules. The provisions of Chamer 16 are incorporated herein bv reference and made a 2 part of this agreement as though full1.' set forth. This provision is a material term of this arzreement. Bv 3 enterinf! into this agreement. contractor agrees that if it breaches this provision, Cirv ~,,'ill suffer actual 4 damages that will be impractical 01' extreme/v di(ficult 10 determine: further, Contractor af!rees that the 5 sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00) liquidated damages for the first breach, t1t'0 hundred dollars 6 ($200.00) liquidated damarzes for the second breach in the same veal'. and five hundred dollars 7 ($500.00) liQuidated damages for-subseQuent breaches in the same vear is a reasonable estirnate of the 8 damaf!e that Citv ~'I/ill incur based on the violation, established in light oflhe circumstances existinfj! at 9 the time this agreement was made. Such amounts shall not be considered a penaltv, but rather af!reed 10 monetarv damaf!es sustained by Citv because o(contractor '.'I (ailure to complv ).vith this provision. /I 11 12 SEe. 1606. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES. 13 (a) The CitY' Administrator shall issue a written warni1zfj! to anv person he or she determines is 14 violating Sections 1603(a) or 1604(a) of this Chapter. If after issuing a ).vritten 'warning of violation 15 from the Citv Administrator. the Citv Administrator finds that person continues to violate the vrovisions 16 o( Sections 1603(a) or 1604fa), the Citv Administrator mav apply (or or imoose the various sanctions 17 provided in this Section. 18 (b) An}' oerson ~.vho violates the provisions ofSectiol1S 1603(a) or 1604(a) oftlus ClzaTJfer shall 19 be guiltv of an infraction. If chanted as an infraction, upon conviction thereof: said oerson shall be 20 punished (or the first offense bv a fine of not more than $100.00 for a first violation: not more than 21 $200.00 (or a second violation in the same vear and not more than $250.00 (or each subsequent 22 violation in the same vear. 23 fc) The CitY' Administrator mav issue an administrative civilliabilitv citation to such oerson In 24 an amount not exceedinf! $100.00 for the first violation, an amount not exceeding $200.00 for the 25 Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dutty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 9 11/14/06 1 2 I 3 I i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 second violation in the same vear, and an amount not exceedinf! $500.00 for each subsequent violation in the same vear. In determininf! administrative civil penalties. the Citv Administrator shall consider the extent of hann caused bv the violation. the nature and oersistence of tile violation, the length of time over which the violation occu.rs. the (reQuenc),' or past violations, anv action taken to mitigate the violation, and the financial burden to the violator. An\! person to whom the CUt., Administrator issues a }.vritten warnhu! of violation or an administrative civilliabilitv citation mal' request an administrative hearin'j! to !lTJpeal su.ch warning or determination ofliabilitv. Not later than 30 dal's before the operative date of this Chapter. and after a public hearing. the Citv Administrator shall promulgate mles and procedures for rel1Uesting and conducting an administrative heari,,';! under this Chavter. In an)! administrative hearin';! under this Article, all oarties involved shall have the ri~ht to offer testimonial. documentarv. and tal1f!ible evidence bearin';! on the issues, to see and copv all documents and other information the eitr relies on in the proceedinf!. and to confront and cross-examine anv witnesses af!ainst them. A decision bv the heaTin$! officer shall be final. Anv person assessed a vena/tv under this subsection mar contest such decision to the Superior Court within 20 davs after service of the Otv's decision. (dl TIle ON A.ttomev mal! seek ler:al, injunctive. or other celuilable relief to enforce this Chapter. includinf! \1'ithout limitation. civil penalties in an amount not exceedinf! $100.00 for the first violation, $200.00 for the second violation. and $250.00 for each subscelUent violation in an1/ $!iven vear. te) The Ot)! mav not recover both administrative and civil penalties pursuant to subsections (c) and (dJ of this Section for the same violation. Penalties collected under subsections (el and (d) of this Section. lvhich mar include recoverv or enforcement costs. shall be used to fund implementation and enforcement of this Chavter. Supervisors Peskin. Daly. Mirkarimi, Ammiano. McGoldrick. Sandoval. Maxwell, Duffy, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 10 11/14/06 1 2 SEe. ]607. REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. 3 No later than June 1 February 1. 2008. the Director ofllle Deoartmem of the Environment. in 4 consultation with the Cifv Administrator and "with inout from members of the oublic. shall submit to the 5 Board of Supervisors a renort recommendinJ! chan~es. if anv. to this ChaJJter. hlcludinf! "vllefher the 6 ban imposed bv this Chapter should be extended to other products. as supoorted bv the reoort. If the 7 Director recommends banninf! additional products. fhe reoort must include an estimate of the costs and 8 benefits of compliance with a ban on additionaloroducts. including the increased costs to the Citv as 9 well as to the Orv's food service industrv. 10 11 SEe. ]608. OPERATTVE DATE. 12 This ordinance shall become operative on lime 1. 2007. 13 14 SEe. 1609. SEVERABILITY 15 If an1/ section. subsection, sentence. clause. or phrase of this Chapter is for allV reason held to 16 be invalid or unconstitutional bv a decision of an)! court of competent ;urisdiction. such decision shall 17 not affect the validit)! of the remaininf! portions of the Chapter. The Board of Supervisors herebv 18 declares that it would have oassed this Chapter and each and everv section.. subsection. sentence. 1 9 clause. or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutionallvithout regard to whether anv !Jortion of this 20 Chaoter V\lould be subsequentlv declared invalid or unconstitutional. 21 22 SEe. 1610. NO CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. 23 Nothinf! in this Ordinance shall be interpreted or arm/ied so as to create an}! reQuirement. 24 power or dutv in conflict with anv federal or state law. 25 Supervisors Peskin, Daly. Mirkarimi. Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 11 11/14/0q 1 2 3 4 1 I I SEe. 1611. UNDERTAKING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE. i I ! In undertaking the irnolementation of this Chaoter, the Citv is assuming an undertakim; onlv t promote the fleneral welfare. It is not assuminf!. nor is it imoosinf! on its officer and emvlovees, an obligation for breach o{which it is liable in monev damag:es to anv oerson who claims that such breac i proximate/v caused iniurv, Section 3. The San Francisco Health Code is hereby amended by repealing Sections 469 through 469.10 in their entirety. SEe. 469. CHLOROPLUOROC4RBOIV PROCESSED FOOD PACKAGL"h/G FINDL'VGS. The B()a.,~-{l ef Supor~'isors fi:lds thet the r<:loase of chlerofiuo:-ocarb(HlS (CFC) inte the environment RIa)' olUiango:- public health ems v,'C!fs.rc hy causing o,~ c{)J'1t:-ibutil'lg t{) significant I depletion of the stJ'tItosphcrfc 8::0110 kzycr. CFCs arc manufactured chcmie~l!s that remain in the EJt:1'1osphcre for de::ades slol':~): mfg:-atin 1:lpwards ~I/ithout reacting with {l.'lY other chemictlls. StrstDsphorie e::onc shields the ca.rth's surfa.ce from d8.l'lgoro~s ultravielct (crv B) Mdi::ztiol'l. Whc,'z CFC molecules react '.t'ith UV lig/it in t he s:r..'l:osphc-,~c the:,>, brea.k down, Fecing chlorine s.iams ~','hieh [:attl(r:;e the destruction of o:::one. One chlo,~i:lC aJorn can scstro,:" as :ucw)' as ,1 00. 000 O:011C molecules bC'forc it is :'Cl1dcrcd inactive or rCJ1w::cd from the [~tf12osphc:'e. ,1 national a.nd intcrnatio:zal COllS0:1SW;j has dc'.'C!opcd rhtIt u:u.lbatcd use 0.;' CPCs is rcswlthlg i dcplctiol'l of strElto5phe:-ie o::;onc. The E:l~ 'iro:zme:2fal Protection .1gcn(~' has dcterrn;.;/cd thaI as stratospheric ozone le~'cls drop, pc:/cr:'atio:l of UV B ;-adiatiell wi!! increase resulting ;,'1 potentia! health and environmental htlrm. Direct cjJects arc !ikc~).' to include incres.sLYi incidence ef skin cSlIcer ; Supervisors Peskin. Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 11/14/0 o 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 h g ,'2 2 6 20 21 22 23 1 and c[:tara.Cls, sUf3fJrcssian olthe immunc resJ9Ol;SC systnn and damage to c;'o]3s and r:u/ua:fc 2 organisms. (Federa.l Register, .1ugus: 12. 1988. p. 30566.) 3 In the tropesphe;'c, :he lcn..cr atm(]sphc.~e, CPCs a!'cmg wi!:h other du:mic:ils (lBSOrb i:-frB.7'cd 4 '"a.:d;at1'e'l 'l'[l"'r>h" t'IC 0.;,,":11 SciC"ihs"s p"cPe' t~at p-1eea' T:lr'n;'w /7'u:}' 'ncl' 887&" fee 1"':1'::;," Sc& ' ~ I ~, I I #.0 I ,.. -/ ,." '" ,. &. I b" "'" I 1..1 0 ' . I ... j 40 I ", " 5 levels and flood !GH' lying coasts. }: may also dis."ltpt agriculture due :e sh.:fts ill glebal tCJnpc."ature 6 lmd rai;ifa!! patterns. CFCs a.~e widely used as Mer,ring agents in tile ma.:71{factMrc e/ pf.sstic food j''Jacbging. 7 8 Uo:"cover. while other-foam products Sk:Jrc o.~ bank much of the CFCs ~I'i:hin t,11CFJI, f(;J()d sc......iec 9 prOdl/CiS cmit ;'iU}st ()f the CFC used in theil" manufacture during t,k nU31:1ufa.cture. use a:ul disposal of 10 the products. 11 The Board of Supcr.'isers finds, :hcrcforc, :he.t the ',i'idesprcad use of CFC processed food 12 packagi,"lg poses a threat b,",: thc intredNctian a/toxic byprsducts "nEe the atl'nssphcr:J and general 13 c,'n'iromnozt afthe City and Cmmty sf San F;w-;wisca. 14 The BatJ:"d of SUPL7"'.'isors further finds that rest-riding the sale of crc pJ"seesss& food packaging flnd the use of CFC processed food pac!caging in retail foed cstahlishments in San P;Bl1eisco 15 16 woukl be a step lO',','srd slowing o;onc loss and grcenh(J1;lsc gas b1:lild:blP, th0"cbYP.~(Jf:ccting the public 17 health 18 In addition to c;nitling CFCs, ph<zstic foed scr:icc items take hundreds efycars to dc..'C3mposc 19 ami ea,'met bc rec.;.dcd. HOli'ews", these load p&ckfigfng ftenIs eEm .k made frem ether ms.teriC1!s, such a.s rcc"..cled or virgin paper, and other biodegradable products which fJ.re not ma.:k .....ith CPCs, Bv this ~ , legislatio,'l, the Board of Sbl]3c.~..is3rs imends te encel/rage ,"cstaurant and foed ,"ctailcrs and whoksa!crs i1) San Fmndsce to use biodegradable psckagi;zg in ]3faCC of those l'l'l6ldc with CFCs. 25 24 SEe. 469.1. DEFINITIOIVS" Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 13 11/14/06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 'I As !.sed ia Sections 169 through 169.9 in cll:lsi'"c, thcfol!o~\'il1g '.t'ord:; s:u! terms shan hEl:'c the follov,'ing meanings: (a) "Ch!orofll:leroctJrbens," ("CFCs") ,'9!cans thc.f{;zmi!y of subsume as contaf,'zil'lg carbo,'!, fluon'nc and chlorine and having no h)'drogc:l atoms 3m! no daNble bonds. I !I (6) "CI::C proccssc:.(f()"od packaging" Fl1cans j.(oolf pack:lging lv#~ich uses chlorofluorocarbons as blowing agents in its manufacture. (e) "Dircctor" mexl.llS the Directo:' of Health of San Francis.:;)'s DCfJc::;-tmcnt 0/ Public H-calth. ();> designee. (d) "Food" means any article intended/or usc/orfood. dri:zk, confection. or condiment, or 6lll)' article ,....hie;, is used or illtegrated for use as s component of the fOGS or otherwise 4Jcc:'1ing the component of the food. (e) "P eed packaging" means ag food related wrsppings, boxes, containers. bov.'ls, plates, trays, ctl:'t01'lS. cups, tids Dr drinking utensils, an which e,- in which food is plr!lcc:1 or padagcd on the rctai.'foed cs.-a.blishmcnt's premises, and which arc not intended for reuse. Feod packaging docs Not include forks. k7'll1'CS, str-aws or siNgle scr~'iec cO;ldim.c:2t packages. (j) "Retail food establishment" me(:lnB anyfcod product s:nd marketing establishmont as dcfi;wd in Sec.-foil 110 of this COck m'ld ai'l)IoOd pr-cparatfo}1, s:l'ld se;",'iec eSMbh'shment as defined in Scetie:! (g) "Supplic;-" meaJiS a.'1)'OT'lC selling. 0... otherwise supplying ]3lwkagi:zg to 6l rctElil food establishment. (11) "W11OIcsa!cr" means Sl'I)'Gl"lC ~p'ho acts as a 'r',4wksalc merchant. broker, jebbc;' or e:gc1'lt, who sclls for resa.le. Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 14 11/14/06 1 SEe. 469.2. PROHIBITIO}V 0:"/ USE OF CHLOROFLUOROCARBO/V PROCESSED FOOD 2 PACK1GING. 3 (a) ,~lo retail food estahlishment located and doing fJ1:isiness a'itl:i;'l the City a:ld CoU,'l~'" of S&n 5 busi:~c.ss, ~mJ' erc processed food paek.'igi;lg, except as [Jf'()\'idcd in 5'celio:13 469.4 and 169,5. I i i I , i , ! I 4 Francisco shall pu:-c!w.sc, obtain, keep, sell, dist;-ihute, provide to customers Gr other....isc use in its 6 (b) N.o wholesaler !vcated and doi:lg busi:wss within the City and COUllty of San Francisco 7 s!u;-!! sell, distrf}3utC or j3],,{:}l'idc te cz;stonwrs, Gr keep within the Of).' ::.lad CO!m(): of San Francisce, an)' 8 erc proccssodfood packaging, except as pra~'idcd in Sections 169.1 a:zd 169.5. 9 10 SEe. 469.3. FOODI.D.tCK1GING PROOPOFCOAfPLL41,TCE. 11 (3.) E-,'cry :-ctail food esta.hlislmwnt sh.1!.f sho,',' proof of compliance with Section 169.:: ef this 12 C:Jdc b.:.. (1) either entc:ri;lg into a contract 'with its sUj9p!icrs, or ebw.ining a ~l'ri:tcJl ste.temc:ltfrom its 13 S/;lpp!ic,~s, ~~'hieh. pn:nidcs t,lUlt the sl.pp!icr will SUfJP~"" DI'I!yfsodpackaging not l'1U:lltufactu;'CCl ll'ith 14 epcs and r;;) obtaining a H'ri:len sul.tcmentfrom the sU:J7J3li~r em each :,J:",,'oiec.forfoedpackaging thot 15 tJu:food padagi:xg inmicct! ',',','is ,'lOt CFC processed. 16 (b) Eilery ~~'holcs(J.k..,. shall shOll' proof of compliance ',~'ith Section 169.:: of this Code by 17 obtaining a ",'rit/on statement !rem :,~L~ supplier em each invoice for food packaging that is S3l:d, 18 distributed or provided to eustOlnas in the Cizr and CGb:nt.". (}fSe.n Pra:zcf.sco tha.t thefood pad caging 19 i:zl'oiccd ~('as 11.et crc processed. am:! Elckno~'..!cdgillg [hEll the sblfJplioT' is Elwarc of the pro~'isiol1s of this 20 ordinance l1u.lking illegal the previding a/false inf{Jrmalh:m on the iw,'oicc. 21 (c) It shall be un!a~vf'Ulfor an)' supplier:-o make anyfelse sts.tcmcnt rega.rding the 'Use or ]'l.01I 22 use ofCFCs in tho manufa.cture offood pac/caging supplied ts any ~~'halcsalcr 31' retailfood 23 est/;:blishmcnt. 24 25 Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 15 11/14/06 1 (d) Retai! food est..,r:,!is!l;nents shall rct~Jin cepics of esch cont;'czc: 0;' '.r;'ittcn state;nc,'lt rcqui:"od 2 by this 8cc:io:;, and w!16lcsalcrs shalf retain copies ofi:r;oices required .9.,' this Sectif:Jl1, s.l'I.d :h[,:y shall 3 mak.e them t'l....e.i!.;ibh:.for inspection UPS]; ;"c{j1;lcst. !1'l'."eiccs em:! contrscts T06Jbdrori b.y t!Jis Section shall I :) 4 be ;"ctained for a pc:-ied. of aile year. 5 6 SEe. 469.4. EXCEPTIONS. 7 8 The DircetG:- maJ exempt ..11'l item 81' type offooc! packaging/rem t,k ;"cquir:.~mcnts of Scctiens 169.2 E:fld 169.3 upon e.pplica:io;l by thc rCh'J.il foed cst~lblfshmcnt (kn;o!l:;t.~:.lti;zg t3 the sa.:i::,factio:l of 9 Ii the Director that the item Qr (;:130 of p(ldcsging has 1:;0 ;1.cccpte.ble ,"io.': CFC pr3ccsscd cqui....e!cnt. I SEe. 469.5. FOOD PACKAGING EXlSTlNG CONTRACTS. Feed pe.ekag.;l'I.g required to ho purchased untie a contract cnt.cnJ-d hto prior :9 or ',vithin six 10 11 12 13 f'lwnths a/the cffccti...'C date a/this o,....:liaancc is oxcmptfrem the pre','isiens a/this or-di1'la.ncc. 14 15 SEe. 469.6. PENAL TIES. 41'fD EZVFORCE.1fE;'VT. 16 (8) ne Director may enforce the pro'.:isions of Scct;r:JnS 169.2 and {69. 3 a.ge.inst ....iol&tions by 17 either ()fthc./011o~ring actions: 18 (1) Ser:ing notice rcq;;i;-lng the correction of a:lY violation: 19 (':) Calling U]90T'l the City Atte:"l'lcy to nUlinttlin an 3.cti::mfor i:&junction to enforce the 20 pro)'isiOl:S of Seeions -169.:} ami 469.3, tG cause the correctien of :1:1Y such ",'i3lation, a.nd for the 21 assessment tmd reCOl'c;:r of a ei",'il ]Jcnsky/or' suck '.'iol..<Jtic)1'!. 22 (8) An)' i:'l{ll'l'idual. firm, ps.,..tnersh~'3, carpo,~a:iol'l, csmpa;"l.Y, assecfation, society, gN)blj9, or 23 other person or legal entity thst '.'ioletos snypro....'ision ofScctio;1S 169.2 and 169.3 shall8e liaMc.fer (1 24 ci".'i! pons!:)', ,'10: to exceed $500 fo;- each da.v such '.'io.'-sti(m is commit/cd or pcrmiitcd to c3ntinuc. Any 25 Supervisors Peskin, Daly. Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick. Sandoval. Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 16 11/14/06 1 pcncd~y' shall be assessed tuul :-ecoy'cn>d in f1 civil action brought in the Ilc:mc of the pCBp!C :>f the Cit). 2 and Cou:zZ"y' of San F:"a:1ciseo b.y' the Cty Attorney in c:m)' COlt:'! of CO:llpctent jhTisdictiC:Jl1. . 'In.}' penalty 3 assessed (Hul ....ceo...y:red in en selion brought pursuant to this Sce:io1'l sherll be ptr.iit to the r....Cf1:Su;.cr of 4 the Ctyand CBUl'lt)' of Seal Fr::mcisco. 5 (c) Failure to comply with the proy'isioilS of Sections 469.2 and 169.3 shall be grounds for 6 .' suspension or reWJCaaO:l of a permit issued pursllant to Sections 110 and 152, after Cl hearing D."";' the 7 Department of Public Helllth. 8 9 SEe. 469.7. CITY AND COU,IVTY PURCHASES PROHIB!TED. 10 The Ci~...' and Caunzv shal! purchase no eFC p:-occsscd f-ood padcagil'lg, except pa.e.'U:lgi:'lg 11 :""'fiuirod to be purchased u:uier {;l eel'ltr&et cnte:,{)d into prior tt3 or within six lWJ1Uhs 3/ the cffcetbc 12 date of t-his ortii:umce unless the depa.rtment pllrclulsillg the item or typc of psckaging makes a slwl'p'ing 13 to the Director tha.t the it-cm or tJpe ofpack.agfl1g has 11.3 aceeptdble ;lOn CPC precessed equivalent. 14 15 SEe. 469.8. CONFLICT W!TH OTHER LA WS. 16 (fl) Eo",: Elsa-pring this ordinance. tho City {lnd County of&m Francisc$ dacs l'wt intend to 17 tm:hori::,e any activity t!tat federal 8r- state la~\' or r:.:g1lte.tion prohibits, to pro.{libit any activity that 18 federal 6]' 8t~zte !t.;~W ar regulation author-ices, or to dupliwtc Sl1)Icdcral 3:" state la',v o.~ :*cgulstioll 19 except to the cxte:1t allewed by unr. 20 (8) This ordi:1f1lZCC shall be ',l(Jid z:pon :.~c onClctmcnt or- adoptio:l of ;,my st3.te o,v.fccL"'r&! kI.1\' or 21 rcguls.usl'l imposing limits e:l the blse efCFCs in the manuftwturc afplastic/oams. 22 23 SEe. 469.9. PROAfOTING P[}RPOSES OF LEGl8LA TIO}',':. 24 25 Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 17 11/14f06 1 I I 2 J ) I 3 Ii 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II I The Beard of' Supervisors lril! pra:notc the lobbying a/the Steic Legislature ."lnd U:1ffca States Co:xgrcss to s:o-p the 1;lSC e/ chlo;'OjlZlO;-()Ce.:'ho:zs in thc U...i:cd Sl:acs. The Bocrd ~l'il! premolo C0.'1.ntlta1tans with Stll! Francisco siste.'" ::itf:.:s pursuing cUi end to ch!e:'ofluoroca:'bon use il1:crnstiona{.~).'. SEe. 169.10. SEVERA.B!LITY. If SllY Section, Subsection, Subdivision, ParBgr","ph, SOFltc:1CC, clause 0:' phrase of this A;'tfcfc er em): part thereof, is for any :'cason hdd .~o bc !:>t1'lccmstitutiona! 0," iW,'8lid or i,'wffceti','e b:r tiny em:r! of eompctc:~t jurisdictie1'l, such decision shall ,'w: (~ffcct the vandi:....: or cffrcti\'c:icss of the rCJ11.'lini:1g portions of this Art;'c/c or 101:1)' part the:'cof The Board 0/ Supcn'isors hercb.~,' rlcdt1,"'-cS that it would hCl'.'e pClssed c61ch Section, Subsection, Subdi'.:ision, Parag;':IP!'i, sentelIce, clause er ph,"ssc thereof irrcspecti'.:c o/the fs.et that all).' one or marc Sections. Subsections, S~~bdi'.'isions, Pa1"agraphs, scntcnces, cl611:isCS ar ]Jh,'"tlses be dcc!arcd unc[),'lstitutional or invs!fd :Jr hlCjJ~C.~i'.'c. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney t;~t:% 'BURK E. DELVENTHAL Deputy City Attorney By: Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval. Maxwell, Dufty, Ma BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 18 11/14/06 City and County of San Francisco T a Us Ordinance City Hall I Dr. Carlton B Goodlett Plnce San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 File Number: 060944 Date Passed: Ordinance amending the San Francisco Environment Code by adding Chapter 16, Sections 1601 through 1611, to: (1) prohibit the use of polystyrene foam disposable food service ware and require the use of biodegradable/compostable or recyclable disposable food service ware by restaurants, retail food vendors, City departments and the City's contractors and lessees unless there is no affordable alternatjve; and, (2) provide for penalties for violation; and amending the San Francisco Health Code by repealing Sections 469 through 469.10, which ban the use of food packaging and plastic food service ware made with chlorofluorocarbons. October 31,2006 Board of Supervisors - SUBSTITUTED November 14, 2006 Board of Supervisors - AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE Ayes; 11 - Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, EIsbernd, Ma, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval November l4, 2006 Board of Supervisors - PASSED ON FIRST READING AS AMENDED Ayes; 11 - Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, Elsbernd, Ma, Max,velL McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval November 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors - FINALL Y PASSED Ayes: 10 - Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Dufty, Elsbernd, Ma, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval Excused: 1 - Daly City a1ll1 County of San Frat/cisco 1 Printed at 11:01 AM on 11/22/06 O~ f'" ib "",L';, - ! hi 3: 13 AJ2~~nd Legall~ ~~4~ akland City Attorney's Office . 1 , . ~ .'':' :.; . .'.' I . '., .~ Introduced by Councilmember _QUAN (USE IF APPLICABLE) OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL Ordinance No. C.M.S. DRAFT - JUNE 13, 2006 AN ORDINANCE TO PROIDBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND REQUIRE THE USE OF BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOST ABLE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD VENDORS AND CITY FACILITIES This ordinance will institute two distinct practices by all food vendors and City Facilities in Oakland. The first is that the use of polystyrene foam disposable food service ware will be prohibited. The second is that all disposable food service ware will be required to be biodegradable or compostable, as long as it is affordable. WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of throw- away food service ware include reusing food service ware and using compostable and biodegradable take-out materials made from renewable resources such as paper, corn starch and sugarcane; and WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is a common environmental pollutant as well as a non- biodegradable substance that is commonly used as food service ware by food vendors operating in the City of Oakland; and WHEREAS, there continues to be no meaningful recycling of polystyrene foam food service ware and biodegradable or compostable food service ware is an affordable, safe, more ecologically sound alternative; and WHEREAS, affordable biodegradable or compostable food service ware products are increasingly available for several food service applications such as cold cups, plates and hinge containers and these products are more ecologically sound than polystyrene foam materials and can be turned into a compost product; and WHEREAS, the Oakland Coliseum has successfully replaced its cups with biodegradable corn starch cups and has shown an overall cost savings due to organics recycling; and WHEREAS, over 155 businesses in Oakland engage in organics recycling and it has been demonstrated that the use of biodegradable or compostable food service ware can reduce waste disposal costs when the products are taken to composting facilities as part of an organics recycling program rather than disposed in a landfill; and WHEREAS, the natural compost product from these biodegradable or compostable materials is used as fertilizer fOT fanns and gardens, thereby moving towards a healthier zero waste system; and WHEREAS, disposable food service ware constitutes a large portion of the litter in Oakland's estuary, streets, parks and public places and the cost of managing this litter is high and rising; and WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is notorious as a pollutant that breaks down into smaller, non-biodegradable pieces that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife thus hanning or killing them; and WHEREAS, due to the physical properties of polystyrene, the EPA states "that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health., wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy." and WHEREAS, a 1986 EP A report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing process as the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste in the United States; and WHEREAS, in the product manufacturing process as well as the use and disposal of the products, the energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, polystyrene's environmental impacts were second highest, behind aluminum, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board; and WHEREAS, styrene, a component ofpolystyrene, is a mown hazardous substance that medical evidence and the Food and Drug Administration suggests leaches from polystyrene containers into food and drink; and "WHEREAS, styrene is a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin which potentially threatens human health; and WHEREAS, styrene has been detected in the fat tissue of every man, woman and child tested by the EP A in a 1986 study; and WHEREAS, the general public is not typically warned of any potential hazard, particularly in the immigrant and non- English-speaking community; and WHEREAS, due to these concerns nearly 100 cities have baIUled polystyrene foam food service ware including several California cities, and many local businesses and several national corporations have successfully replaced polystyrene foam and other non- biodegradable food service ware with affordable, safe, biodegradable products; and WHEREAS, restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware products and replacing non-biodegradable food service ware with biodegradable food service ware products in Oakland wiTI further protect the public health and safety of the residents of Oakland, the City of Oakland's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, would advance the City's goal of Developing a Sustainable City, advance the City's goal of Zero Waste by 2020 and fulfill Micle 10 of the Environmental Accords, whereby Oakland partnered with other cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND DOES ORDAIN CHAPTER 8.07 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SHALL BE: Section 8.07.010 Definitions "Affordable" means purchasable by the Food Vendor for same or less purchase cost than the non-Biodegradable, non-Polystyrene Foam alternative. "ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and compostable plastics. ''Biodegradable'' means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal. "Compostable" means all materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware includes ASTM-Standard Bio- Plastics (plastic-like products) that are clearly labeled, preferably with a color symbol, such that any compost collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM Standard Compostable plastic from non-ASTM Standard Compostable plastic. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of Oakland, its agent~ agencies, departments and franchisees. "Customer" means any person obtaining Prepared Food from a Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor. ''Disposable Food Service Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items that are designed for one-time use and on, or in, which any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor directly places or packages Prepared Foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware for Takeout Foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at Restaurants or Retail Food Venders. "Food Vendor" means any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor located or operating within the City of Oakland. "Polystyrene Foam" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes called Styrofoam, aDow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Polystyrene' Foam is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays and egg cartons. "Prepared Food" means Food or Beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the Food Vendor's premises or within the City of Oakland. For the purposes of this ordinance, Prepared Food does not include raw, butchered meats, fish andlor poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. Prepared Food may be eaten either on or off the premises, also mown as "takeout food". ''Restaurant'' means any establishment located within the City of Oakland that sells Prepared Food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by Customers. Restaurant for purposes of this Chapter includes Itinerant Restaurants, Pushcarts and VeIDcular Food Vendors as those terms are defmed in sections 5.49, 8.08, 8.09 of the City of Oakland Municipal Code. "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a Restaurant, located within the City of Oakland that sells Prepared Food. Section 8.07.040 Prohibited Food Service Ware A. Except as provided in Section 8.07.042, Food Vendors are prolnbited from providing Prepared Food to Customers in Disposable Food Service Ware that uses Polystyrene Foam. B. All City Facilities are prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware and all City Departments and Agencies will not purchase or acquire Polystyrene Foam DisJ)osable FDod. Service Ware for 'USe at City Facilities. C. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware in City facilities or on city projects within the City of Oakland. Section 8.07.041 Required Biodegradable and Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware A. All Food Vendors using any Disposable Food Service Ware will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available fOT a specific application. Food Vendors are strongly encouraged to reuse Food Service Ware in place of using Disposable Food Service Ware. In instances that Food Vendors wish to use a Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware Product that is not Affordable, a Food Vendor may charge a "take out fee" to customers to cover the cost difference. B. All City Facilities will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. C. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. Section. 8.07.042 Exemptions A. Prepared Foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Oalc1and are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of Oakland are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter. B. Food Vendors will be exempted from the provisions of this Chapter for specific items or types of Disposable Food Service Ware if the City Administrator or hisfher designee finds that a suitable Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable alternative does not exist and/or that imposing the requirements of this Chapter on that item or type of Disposable Food Service Ware would cause undue hardship. C. Polystyrene Foam coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions ofthis Chapter. D. Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. E. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement: In a situation deemed by the City Administrator to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, City Facilities, Food Vendors, City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Section 8.07.043 Liability and Enforcement A. The City Administrator or mslher designee will have primary responsibility for enforcement of this Chapter. The City Administrator or msfher designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this Chapter, including, but not limited to, entering the premises of any Food Vendor to verify compliance. B. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter wiD be guilty of an infraction pursuant to Chapter 1.28 O.M.C. C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. Section 8.07.044 Violations - Penalties 1. If the City Administrator or his/her designee determines that a violation of this Chapter occurred, he/she will issue a written warning notice to the Food Vendor that a violation has occurred. 2. lfthe Food Vendor has subsequent violations of this Chapter, the following penalties will apply: a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after the warning notice is given. b. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after the warning notice is given. c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third and any future violations after the warning notice is given. 3. Food Vendors may request an administrative hearing to adjudicate any penalties issued under this Chapter by:filing a 'Written request with the City Administrator, or his or her designee. The City Administrator, or his or her designee, will promulgate standards and procedures for requesting and conducting an administrative hearing under this Chapter. Any determination from the administrative hearing on penalties issued under this Chapter will be final and conclusive. Section 8.07.045 Effective Date This Chapter will become effective January 1, 2007. IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, PASSED BY THE FOllOWING VOTE: AYES _ BRUNNER, KERNIGHAN, NADEL, QUAN, BROOKS, REID, CHANG, AND PRESIDENT DE LA FUENTE ,2006 NOES - ABSENT - ABSTENTION - ATTEST: LATONDA SIMMONS City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the City of Oakland. California l-. ., I ...,: .. -" ~ r1. \ 'i i i \,:;. ,I CITY OF OAKLAND ONE FRANK OGAWA PLAZA. 2ND FLOOR. OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 Jean Quan City Council Member, District 4 jq uan@oaklandnet.com www.jeanquan.org (510) 238-7004 FAX:(510) 238-6129 TTYITDD:(51 0) 839-6451 June 13,2006 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL Oakland, California Re: AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND REQUIRE THE USE OF BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOSTABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD VENDORS AND CITY FACILITIES Members of the Public Works Committee: I am proposing an ordinance that will institute two distinct practices by all Oakland food vendors and City facilities. The first is that the use of all polystyrene foam disposable food service ware will be prohibited. The second is that all disposable food service ware will be required to be biodegradable or compostable when it is cost-neutral to the Food Vendor to use these products (meaning the cost is the same or less than the non- polystyrene foam, non-biodegradable/compostable alternative). This ordinance will further the goal of the Mayor and City Council to develop a sustainable city and create a zero waste community and further efforts to align the disposable products used in our community with the waste systems in place. This or<i;inance will address solid waste, environmental and toxicity impacts of disposable food service ware in Oakland. This ordinance was developed in collaboration with many experts in the field of solid waste and greening of business. Legislation banning polystyrene foam food packaging has been adopted in nearly 100 American cities including Berkeley and Portland. Furthermore, other Bay Area communities including San Francisco, Palo Alto, Berkeley and Marin County are now considering legislation similar to this proposed ordinance. Polystyrene foam, a plastics product, is designed for a useful life of minutes or hours but continues to exist in our environment for hundreds Of thousands of years. There continues to be no meaningful fecycling of polystyrene foam in California. Biodegradable food service ware can be an affordable, safe, ecologically sound alternative to polystyrene foam and other disposable food service ware. Some Oakland businesses have voluntarily stopped using polystyrene foam products and some utilize biodegradable food service ware as their way of contributing to community health and the environment. Many of these businesses are also realizing waste disposal cost savings because food scrap (biodegradable) waste collection can cost less than garbage collection. Over 155 businesses in Oakland are now recycling organics and this number is growing every year due to overall cost savings. Non-biodegradable food service ware, especially polystyrene foam, constitutes a large portion of the litter in Oakland and the cost of managing this litter is high and rising. While there are no conclusive medical opinions, there is evidence suggesting that the component styrene, suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin and known hazardous substance, may leach from polystyrene containers into fatty food or drink, posing a potential health risk to people. The EP A National Human Adipose Tissue Survey for 1986 identified styrene residues in 100% of all samples of human fat tissue taken in 1982 in the U.S. Recently, a number of studies and news articles have detailed increased concerns about the cumulative effects of trace chemicals and suspected carcinogens on the human body, especially among children. FISCAL IMPACT The City will absorb any increased costs associated with purchasing non-polystyrene foam products for use in City Facilities. There will also be some cost associated with the complaint-based enforcement of the ordinance by the City Administrator. BACKGROUND Polystyrene foam, also known by the name "Styrofoam", is formed by adding a blowing agent to polystyrene, a petroleum-based plastic material. Polystyrene foam is light-weight (about 95% air), with good insulation properties and is used in all types of products from cups that keep beverages hot or cold to materials that keeps items safe during shipping. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) estimates that Californians use 165,000 tons of polystyrene each year for packaging and food service 1 purposes alone. In the past, polystyrene foam was banned by cities due in part to the ozone-depleting gases used as blowing agents; most polystyrene foam is now made with less damaging gases. Mare recent bans have been enacted because of the litter and marine debris impacts of polystyrene foam food packaging as well as overall environmental health. Nearly 100 cities nationwide including other California coastal cities such as Malibu, Aliso Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, Huntington Beach and San Clemente have banned 1 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board, December 2004. polystyrene foam food service ware. Polystyrene foam food service ware is also banned across China, Taiwan and India and other types of plastics are being banned all over the world. This proposed ordinance is consistent with several bills at the state level that seek to move towards zero waste and managing plastics: AB1866 (Karnette) would prohibit any state facility from selling, possessing or distributing polystyrene foam food containers; AB 1940 (Koretz) would convene a multi-agency task force to make progress in reducing marine debris statewide; AB 2147 (Hannan) would clarify the defInition of "compostable", "biodegradable" and "degradable" compostable plastic food and beverage containers in order to promote compatibility with waste management systems; AB 319 (Chan) bans some plastic products containing Phthalates and Bisphenol-A; SB 1379 (perata) establishes a biomonitoring program to detennine, assess and monitor the presence and concentration of chemicals in the tissue and blood of Californians. On May lOth, 2006, a public meeting was convened at City Hall to inform food vendors and the community about this proposed ordinance and get feedback on how to make the ordinance more effective. The meeting was attended by community members, several members of the waste disposal community, and at least two Chambers of Commerce. In addition, all major Chambers of Commerce and several franchise owners and food service ware vendors have been consulted about the proposed ordinance. While using biodegradable disposable food ware is preferable, the use of disposable food service ware in general will continue to have significant impacts on solid waste disposal and consumption of natural resources, local waterways, and litter. All food vendors should evaluate how they can reduce the use of all disposable food service ware and maximize the portion of their food service ware that is reused. KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS Solid Waste and Recycling The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that all California jurisdictions achieve and maintain a landfill diversion rate of 50%, beginning in 2000. In 2002, the City adopted a goal of75% reduction of waste going to landfills by 2010 in alliance with a countywide 75% waste reduction goal. In March 2006, Oakland City Council joined cities, counties and states worldwide in adopting a goal of zero waste by the year 2020. Zero waste principals, as applied to municipal solid waste, include improving "downstream" reuse/recycling of end-of-life-products, pursuing "upstream" re-design strategies to reduce the volume and toxicity of discarded products and materials, and promoting low-impact or reduced consumption lifestyles. Oakland achieved a landfill diversion rate of55% in 20042. The greatest oPPortunity for additional solid waste diversion is related to targeting waste reduction and recycling in the commercial sector.3 Collection of commercial organics, primarily food scraps, is a 2 Result not yet certified by California Integrated Waste Management Board. 3 City of Oakland Public Works Agency/Environmental Services Division Strategic Plan for 75% Reduction and Recycling of Solid Waste, February 28,2006. key program targeted in the Strategic Plan for 75% Solid Waste Diversion, adopted by Council in March 2006. There is currently no meaningful recycling of post-consumer polystyrene foam food service ware, due in part to contamination from food residue and in part to the economic unfeasibility of such a service. Polystyrene foam is also non-biodegradable, and a common contaminant in food scraps collection programs. Unlike polystyrene foam food service ware, biodegradable food service ware can be included in commercial and residential food scraps collection programs, and processed at compo sting facilities rather than landfilled. The natural compost products made from these biodegradable materials are used as soil amendments on farms, commercial nurseries and gardens. Oakland is already a leader in residential organics recycling. Since the February 2005 rollout of weekly residential recycling services that accepted food scraps along with yard trimmings, yard trimmings tonnage in 2005 increased over 46% compared to 2004, to 33,500 tons. A.n estimated 15% of households participated in the food scraps collection service in 2005. It is expected that participation will grow as food scraps recycling becomes a mainstream behavior, just as can, bottle and paper recycling did during the 19908. This ordinance will support and complement the Public Works Agency's Business Recycling Teclmical Assistance Project, a targeted program described in the Strategic Plan for 75% Solid Waste Diversion, which commences in July 2006. This project will enroll businesses in organics recycling programs, as well as the new Small Business Recycling Service that is part of the Franchise Agreement with Waste Management of Alameda County, and the Agreement For Residential Recycling with California Waste Solutions. Businesses can realize cost savings by shifting their discards from the garbage service to lower-cost food scrap recycling services. Commercial food scraps collection services are currently provided in Oakland's competitive, open market for source- separated, commercial recyclable materials, by two service providers, Waste Management of Alameda County and Norcal Waste Systems of Alameda County. AB noted, over 150 Oakland businesses already are recycling their food scraps and organic discards with these providers. Litter and Marine Pollution Polystyrene foam, though inexpensive and effective as a food service ware product, has many drawbacks and hidden costs which are later passed on to the public. Polystyrene foam presents unique management issues because of its lightweight nature, floatability, and prevalence to be blown from disposal sites even when disposed of properly. It is estimated polystyrene foam comprises 15% of the litter colJected in stonn drains.4 Pollution of our watenvays and waterfront negatively affects tourism and quality of life in Oakland. 4 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board. December 2004. Polystyrene foam breaks down into smaller, non-biodegradable pieces that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife. At least 162 marine species including most seabirds have been reported to have eaten plastics and other litter. Studies measuring plastics found up to five kilometers off the California Coast have found high levels of small plastic pieces from land-based sources, especially after storm events.5 The small pieces . are similar in size and sometimes more abundant than plankton, and represent a large risk to filter feeders (marine animals that eat suspended in water). Toxicity and Health There are potential health impacts from polystyrene foam disposable food service ware associated with the production of polystyrene and with the leaching of some of its chemical components into food and drink. The general public is not typically warned of these public hazards, particularly in the immigrant and non-English-speaking community. The process of manufacturing polystyrene pollutes the air and creates large amounts of liquid and solid waste. In the categories of energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, pollstyrene's environmental impacts were found to be second highest, behind aluminum. Additionally, the National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research identified 57 chemical byproducts released during the combustion of polystyrene foam.7 Benzene, a chemical component of polystyrene foam, is a known carcinogen and enters the human body either though the skin or respiratory system.8 Styrene, another component of polystyrene, is a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin and known hazardous substance. The EP A and FDA state that chemical components of polystyrene may leach from food containers into food and drink; the FDA recommends that plastic takeout containers never be microwaved for this reason. 9 There have been increasing calls for legislators to protect the public from the cumulative effects chemicals we are exposed to every day in our environment. 10 The cumulative effects of chemicals on the human body, also known as "body burden", are mostly unknown. Body burden studies show that we are exposed to complex mixtures of chemicals that are linked to health hanus.11 It is our responsibility as elected officials to take precautionary steps to protect our citizens from these risks. 5 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board, December 2004. 6 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board, December 2004. 7 Earth Resource Foundation http://W.NW.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp_styrofoam.htmI Accessed April 25, 2006. 8 US Occupational and Health Administration http://www.osha,gov/SLTC/benzene/index.htmJ Accessed May 23, 2006. 9 Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/styrene.htmIAccessed May 23, 2006, Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/fdaclfeatures/2002/S02_plastic.hlml Accessed May 23, 2006. 10 "Getling Serious About Chemicals", Oakland Tribune, January 31,2006. 11 Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/bodYburden/results.php Accessed May 23. 2006 Environmental Obligation The City of Oakland has a duty to protect the natural environment and natural resources for future generations. The City may exercise environmental stewardship by reducing the amount of polystyrene foam and non-biodegradable food service ware that enters out waste stream, our storm drain, watershed and waterfront. A common argument against polystyrene foam food service ware bans is that food service litter is not caused by a particular product or material but is instead caused by human behavior and further suggest that the use of biodegradable food service ware may actually increase litter because of the perception that it does not need to be disposed of in a trash receptacles. Some food service litter is unintended and actually a result of drifts from waste receptacles, waste haulers or events. Public education and existing litter laws have not to date eliminated food service litter from our community. Whatever the cause, the high costs oflitter cleanup and collection are borne by the City and its residents and several different strategies must be utilized to address the problem. The intent of this ordinance is to deal with one specific and significant issue in Oakland (polystyrene foam) and simultaneously propose an evolution in disposable food service ware in Oakland. Oakland has steadily moved forward with environmental initiatives and has become the 6th greenest city in the V.S.12 and is currently positioning itself to become a leader in the emergmg green economy. POLICY DESCRIPTION This ordinance applies to all food vendors in the City of Oakland, including restaurants, itinerant restaurants or retail food vendors and applies to all disposable food service ware products used by them, including: containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items designed for one-time use both on and off the food vendors' premises. The ordinance also applies to the City of Oakland and its facilities, departments and franchisees. There are two parts to this ordinance: A. Polystyrene Foam Ban This ordinance prohibits the use of all polystyrene foam disposable food service ware. Alternatives to PolyStyrene Foam and Their Costs Alternative products to polystyrene foam are widely available and used widely in other cities with polystyrene foam bans. These alternative materials include . Uncoated Paper . Coated paper . Cardboard · Aluminum . Other plastics . Bio-products (discussed below). 12 Green Guide Institute, 2006. In general, alternatives to polystyrene foam cost a few cents more peT item and vary in price with the product type, weight and durability. The actual cost to a food vendor to switch to an alternative product will be largely dependant on the amount and types of disposable food service ware that it currently uses. Overlooking unquantified costs passed on the public such as litter, blight, environmental and possible health costs, polystyrene foam is currently the least expensive food service ware material, although prices continue to rise due to increasing crude oil prices 13. B. Required Transition to Biodegradable and Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware This ordinance would require the use ofbiodegradabJe and compostable disposable food service ware by all food vendors (not only those transitioning from polystyTene foam), as long as it is cost-neutral. For the purposes of this ordinance, biodegradable means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal and compostable means all the materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate compo sting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Biodegradable and Compostable Products and Their Costs Biodegradable and compostable food service ware includes the following: · Uncoated paper products · Coated paper products · Some bio-products (discussed below). Because of the affordability provision, compliance with this part of the ordinance will be cost-neutral to food vendors. Depending on the product, biodegradable or compostable alternatives often cost the same as their plastic counterparts. Other specific compostable products which are new to the market can cost up to twice as much before prices come down. Some biodegradable or compostable food products already cost the same or less as their counterparts, and therefore food vendors should start to use these products now. For example, compostable plastic cups (for cold drinks) and clamshells (for salads) are generally the same price as plastic cups and plastic clam shells, depending on the distributor. Many restaurants and cafes already use paper cups and plates because they are affordable and effective. For some products such as hot food containers, biodegradable or compostable options are not always as inexpensive as coated paper or plastic containers, so while their use is encouraged, it will only be required when it becomes affordable. As the demand for biodegradable and compostable products increases, we expect to see a larger variety of 13 KPMG http://www.kpmginsiders.com/display-analysis.asP?CS_id=140493 Accessed May 23, 2006 biodegradable and compostable products at lower prices become available to Food Vendors. We are working with the Public Works Department, CEDA, the Chambers of Commerce and others to understand and meet the education needs of Oakland food vendors and food packaging vendors so that Food Vendors will know which products are appropriate for use in Oakland and packaging vendors will understand which products to supply. It is my intent that Oakland Food vendors will be able to buy all the biodegradable and compostable products that they need from their existing vendors. Weare also working with vendors ofbio-products to make those products more widely available and affordable in Oakland. The Oakland Alameda County Coliseum and Arena are transitioning to using compostable food service ware products for their food sales and Oakland restaurants such as the Nomad Cafe are successfully using compostable products as well. Bio-products Bio-products are manufactured from renewable resources such as corn starch, sugar cane, or a combination of bamboo, tapioca and water. "Bio-plastics", a subset ofbio-products, are relatively new products with performance and physical characteristics of plastics but made from plant products and byproducts instead of petroleum. Like plastic and paper products, many bio-plastics can be customized with business logos. Bio-plastic products used to meet the requirements of this ordinance must: 1. meet ASTM Standards. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International has established standards for the compostability ofbio-products (standards D6400 and D6868). BiD-plastics that meet the ASTM compostability standard demonstrate and ability to break down in a municipal compost system within a certain amount of time. 2. be clearly labeled: preferably with a color symbol, such that any compost collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM-standard compostable plastic from non-ASTM-standard compostable plastic. It is important to note that all types of disposable food packaging products cause environmental impacts. Most paper products, especially those for hot foods and beverages, are lined with a petroleum-based polyethylene coating. These products are not designed for composting programs but are currently generally accepted in Oakland. The majority of non-polystyrene foam disposable food service ware, with the exception of beverage containers, are made of clear polystyrene rigid plastic containers. Rigid plastic containers are made of petroleum-base polymers and many ofthese products have poor insulating value and are some are not intended for hot foods or drinks. Exemptions and Enforcement Enforcement of the ordinance will be on a complaint basis only. The City Administrator will be authorized to enforce the ordinance and issue fines for violations if a citizen complaint is not remedied. Food Vendors wiII be exempted for specific items or types of Disposable Food Service Ware if the City Administrator or hislher designee finds that a suitable Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable alternative does not exist and/or that imposing the requirements of this Chapter on that item or type of Disposable Food Service Ware would cause undue hardship. The City Administrator or hislher designee will determine if a violation of this chapter occurred and will issue a written warning notice to the Food Vendor that a violation has occurred. If a Food Vendor has subsequent violations, the following penalties will apply: a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after the warning notice is given. b. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after the warning notice is given. c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third and any future violations after the warning notice is given. Effective Date This ordinance would become effective January 1, 2007. Fellow Councilmembers, I urge you to support this proposed ordinance. Restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware in Oakland will conserve natural resources, reduce the use of non-renewable resources, protect the City of Oakland's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, and protect the public health of the residents of Oakland. This action would fulfill Article 10 of the Environmental Accords, whereby Oakland partnered with cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year. Sincerely, 00- JEAN QUAN Vice-Mayor and Councilmember, District 4 Staff Re ort AGENDA ITEM # 11 DATE: July 25,2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Title 3, Chapter 8.54 ofthe South San Francisco Municipal Code Related to Community Preservation and Cost Recovery of Public Nuisance Abatement RECOMMENDATION: Waive first reading and introduce an ordinance amending Section 8.54.205 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code related to cost recovery for abatement of public nuisances. BACKGROUND/DISCDSSION: California Government Code Section 38773.1 provides that a city may record a lien or make a special assessment for the cost of public nuisance abatement. The City adopted the Community Preservation Ordinance in 1999 (Title 3, Chapter 8.54 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code), providing forrecovery of abatement and related costs of certain public nuisances identified in that chapter. California Government Code Section 38773.5 further provides that a city may recover attorney's fees in any action, administrative proceeding or special proceeding to abate a public nuisance. The City's current mechanism to recover the cost of attorney's fees if the City pursues abatement of a nuisance allows unilateral recovery of fees by the city. In a recent case, City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett (2007) ----C.A.4th----, the Sixth Appellate District concluded that an ordinance allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees must allow for such recovery by the prevailing party. In other words for the ordinance to be valid the ordinance must allow either the City or the property owner to recover attorneys fee if that party is the prevailing party. The proposed ordinance includes language that that complies with this requirement. -2-~~ t;;;i:L ,'-.L\..u....-: J1'{ ~'; ... Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney --- Attachments: Ordinance 986593-1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 8.54, SECTION 8.54.205 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AND COST RECOVERY OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. The City Council hereby amends Section 8.54.2050fthe South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows: 8.54.205 Definition of costs. For the purposes ofthis chapter, "costs" shall mean administrative costs, including staff time expended and reasonably related to nuisance abatement cases, for items including, but not limited to, investigation, site inspection and monitoring, reports, telephone contracts, correspondence and meetings with affected parties, as well as all attorneys fees for the prevailing party incurred pursuant to abatement proceedings, including but not limited to filing fees and fees for witnesses, and the actual costs of abating the violation. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of its attorneys' fees from the other party only if, at the outset of the action, the City elects to recover its attorneys' fees. Any recovery of attorneys' fees pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in subdivision (b) of Government Code section 38773.5 and any successor statutes thereto. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION A.ND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilrnembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. * * * * * 986588-1 Introduced at a regular meeting ofthe City Council ofthe City of South San Francisco, held the _ day of July, 2007. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the _ day of , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this _ day of , 2007. Mayor 986588-1 - ~ ~ . ~v..\ (~ ~ I;:l ~ v 0 ~l~~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 12 DATE: July 25, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Steele, Director of Finance SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING TAX RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached ordinance that adopts various administrative procedures, exemptions, and guidelines, contingent on voter approval of the Commercial Parking Tax on the ballot on November 6, 2007. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION On July 11, 2007, the City Council authorized a measure for the November ballot that, if approved by the voters, would change the structure of the current parking tax from a Business License Tax, in which the business's tax receipts are taxed at 8%, to a tax on the parking customer of 8%. The City and County of San Francisco structure the parking tax on their parking lots in this manner, so there is precedent for the methodology. The tax is on the customer, similar to the City's Transient Occupancy, or TOT (hotel) tax. By implementing this methodology, the City would see an estimated $1.0 million annually from customers at the airport parking structure (SFO) within the City limits of the City of South San Francisco, instead of the current $150,000. The attached ordinance contains several administrative provisions that define the responsibilities of the Finance Director in collecting the parking tax, and providing for an appeals process for customers who believe they should receive an exemption. These provisions are not subject to Proposition 218's vote requirements, as are the main tax provisions of the parking tax. Therefore, by Council approving these provisions, these provisions can be modified by ordinance at a later date if need be. Exemptions After consultations with the Budget Subcommittee (Councilmembers Femekes and Matsumoto), staff recommends that the following exemptions be applied to the proposed parking tax: . When the City is the owner or operator of the lot. The City is already collecting parking fees from its current lots downtown, so the tax would be duplicative; Staff Report Subject: Parking Tax Administrative Ordinance Page 2 of 2 . For a public transit agency (such as Caltrain, SamTrans, the Water Transit Ferry, or BART) when the customer is parking for less than 24 hours, i.e., daily commuters would be exempted. This provision is recommended so as not to have a disincentive for commuters and other transit users from using mass transit. Staff is not aware of any other city in the Bay Area that taxes daily commuters. Note that this provision would not exempt long-term airport parking at the BART station. . When the law otherwise requires an exemption. FISCAL IMPACT If the voters approve the parking tax measure, staff estimates that the General Fund may realize approximately $800,000 - $1,000,000 in new revenue annually. CONCLUSION The proposed administrative provisions and exemptions will make the proposed parking tax more expeditious to administer, and will result in no disincentives to mass transit users. flg!:c~ Prepared by: "'-:-' .". Jim! teele Finance Director Approved by: arry M. Nagel City Manager Attachment: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.22 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL P ARKING TAX WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 76-2007, which put a measure to create a Commercial Parking Tax on the ballot for the November 6,2007 general election. If passed by the voters of the City of South San Francisco, the Commercial Parking Tax will be codified in chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, if passed by the voters of the City of South San Francisco, the Commercial Parking Tax will begin being imposed on January 1, 2008, unless the City Council passes a resolution to have the business license tax on commercial parking facilities be imposed instead of the Commercial Parking Tax; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that if the Commercial Parking Tax is passed by the voters of the City of South San Francisco and begins to be imposed on January 1, 2008, certain administrative provisions would aid the Director of Finance in the administration of this tax; and WHEREAS, if the Commercial Parking Tax is passed by the voters there will not be sufficient time to enact these administrative provisions between the time that the results of the election are confirmed and the implementation of the Commercial Parking Tax on January 1, 2008. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. IMPLIMENTATION OF THE AMENDMENTS IN THIS ORDINANCE Section 2 of this Ordinance contains amendments to Chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, which shall go into effect only if the voters of the City of South San Francisco approve the measure on the ballot of the November 6,2007 general election creating a Commercial Parking Tax, in which case the amendments in Section 2 of this Ordinance shall automatically go into effect once the City Council has declared the results of the election. SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby amends Chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code as follows (deleted text in strikethrough, added text in double underline): 4.22.010 Short title. This chapter shall be known as the Commercial Parking Tax of the City of South San Francisco. 4.22.020 Definitions. When used in this chapter the following terms shall mean or include: (a) "Cancelled transaction" - A transaction that an ooerator cancels orior to oavment because of an eauioment malfunction. Willl "The City" - The City of South San Francisco. (c) "Issued tickets" - The total number of oarkine: tickets issued to occuoants, includine: voided tickets and oarkine: tickets otherwise used or consumed in the ooeration of the oarkine: facility for a e:iven oeriod. B3}@ "Lost ticket" - A parking ticket that has been issued to and misplaced by an occupant and which has not been returned to the operator with payment of rent. W~ "Motor vehicle" - Any self-propelled vehicle operated or suitable for operation on the highway. fdtill "Occupancy" - The use or possession or the right to the use or possession of any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking station. Ww "Occupant" - A person who, for consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking station under any lease, concession, permit, right of access, license to use, or other agreement. OOQU "Operator" - Any person operating a parking station in the City, including but not limited to, the owner or proprietor of such premises, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee or any other person otherwise operating such parking station. A person who otherwise qualifies as an operator as herein defined shall not, by reason of the fact that he or she is exempt from the parking tax herein imposed, be exempted from the obligations of an operator hereunder. fgfill "Parking space" - A marked area or space designated for and only large enough for the parking of a single motor vehicle. Will "Parking Station" - The term "parking station" shall include, but is not limited to: (1) Any outdoor space or uncovered plot, place, lot, parcel, yard or enclosure, or any portion thereof, where motor vehicles may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any charge is made; (2) Any building or structure, or any portion thereof in which motor vehicles may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any charge is made. @i!Q "Parking ticket" - The record provided by the operator to the occupant setting forth the time and date that the occupant's vehicle entered the parking station that is used by the operator to determine the rent charged to the occupant. (1) "Public transit authoritv" - A oubEc entitv or agencv of a oublic entitv that orovides oubEc transoortation bv using trains, ferries, or buses to transoort oassengers between multiole stoos, terminals, or stations that are located in multiole communities or cities. (B(m) "Rent" - The consideration received for occupancy valued in money, whether received in money or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property or services of any kind or nature, and also the amount for which credit is allowed by the operator to the occupant without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. ~ "Tax Collector" - The Director of Finance of the City of South San Francisco or his or her designee. B1!ill "Transaction" - The calculation and payment of rent for occupancy. fmt!Rl "Unaccounted ticket" - A ticket that is issued to an occupant and is not returned to the operator. A lost ticket is an unaccounted ticket. ( a) "Unaccounted ticket ratio" - The ratio of unaccounted tickets to issued tickets for a given oeriod, exoressed as a oercentage of issued tickets. (r) "Voided ticket" - A oarking ticket that is not issued to an occuoant. but which is used in the course of the ooerator's testing, reoair, or maintenance of eauioment used bv the ooerator for transactions. 4.22.030 Imposition and rate of parking tax. Subject to the provisions of this chapter, there is hereby imposed a tax of eight percent of the rent of every occupancy of a parking space in a parking station in the City. 4.22.040 Charges subject to parking tax. The term "rent," as defined in section 4.22.020(m), shall be deemed to include the total charges required to be paid by an occupant (including but not limited to any separately stated valet or service labor charge for parking) in connection with the use or occupancy of a parking space, provided that nothing herein shall require the payment of parking tax on the sale of petroleum products, automobile parts, or the like, or the rendering of services (including car-wash services) totally unconnected with the use or occupancy of a parking space. The cost of services provided by an operator to an occupant at no extra or separate charge shall not reduce the amount of rent subject to the tax. 4.22.050 Occupant to pay parking tax to operator. Unless prohibited by the laws of the United States, the State of California, or exempted by the provisions of this code, every occupant occupying a parking space or spaces in a parking station in the City shall be required to pay the parking tax to the operator along with the rent for occupancy. This oblie:ation is not satisfied until the oarkine: tax has been oaid to the City. exceot that a receiot indicatine: oavment of the rent from an ooerator maintainine: a olace of business in the City or from an ooerator who is authorized bv the Tax Collector to collect the oarkine: tax shall be sufficient to relieve the occuoant from further liability for the oarkine: tax for the transaction to which the receiot refers. 4.22.060 Exemptions. No parking tax shall be imposed (a) On the rent for the occupancy of a parking space in a parking station of which the City is the owner or operator, either directly or through contract. (b) On the rent for the occuoancv of a oarkine: soace in a oarkine: station where (1 ) the ooerator is a oublic transit authority. (2) the oarkine: station serves users of a bus stooJerrv terminaL or train station of that oublic transit authority. and (3) the occuoant occuoies the oarkine: so ace for less than 24 consecutive hours. W~ On the rent for the occupancy of a parking space in a parking station where the occupant is exempt from being subject to the parking tax under the laws of the United States or the State of California. 4.22.070 Administration. (a) The Tax Collector shall deposit all moneys collected pursuant to this chapter into the general fund of the City. The collections may be expended for any City purpose. (b) The Tax Collector shall enforce the provisions of this chapter and may prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter as may be necessary or desirable to aid in the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. Such rules and regulations may include exemptions from the parking tax and may otherwise create limitations to the application of the parking tax. However, any rule or regulation promulgated by the Tax Collector that creates an exemption or limitation to the parking tax shall be only temporary unless explicitly approved by the City Council as a permanent exemption or limitation. The Tax Collector may also prescribe the extent to which any rule or regulation shall be applied without retroactive effects. 4.22.080 Collection of parking tax by operator; receipt to occupant. (a) Every operator renting a parking space in a parking station in the City to an occupant who is not exempted under this chapter or elsewhere in this code, shall at the time of collecting the rent from the occupant collect the parking tax from the occupant and on demand shall give to the occupant a receipt for the transaction. In all cases in which the parking tax is not collected by the operator the operator shall be liable to the City for the amount of parking tax due on the amount of taxable rent collected from the occupant under the provisions of this chapter, the same as though the parking tax were paid by the occupant. (b) Unless the operator can provide an explanation or other sufficient proof that the Tax Collector in his or her sole discretion deems to be credible to establish the validity of a claim for a lost ticket or an otherwise unaccounted ticket, every lost ticket and unaccounted ticket shall be considered as a full value parking ticket for which the operator is liable for transmitting to the City the full value of the parking tax required under this code applicable to a full day's rent for a single parking space occupancy without discount, exceot that an ooerator shall be allowed an unaccounted ticket ratio of 1.5 oercent for each oarking station that it ooerates in a reoorting oeriod for which the ooerator shall not be liable for failure to remit the oarking tax. ( c) The ooerator shall have the burden of exolaining and establishing the validitv of lost tickets and cancelled transactions. The Tax Collector mav consider a verified statement signed bv the occuoant claiming a lost ticket that includes the occuoant's name, address, teleohone number. the occuoant's motor vehicle license olate number. the time of entry and the time of exit as sufficient oroof of a valid lost ticket transaction. An ooerator shall maintain a log of all lost tickets and cancelled transactions. 4.22.090 Reporting and remitting. (a) On or before the last day of each month, each operator shall file a return with the Tax Collector on forms provided by the City reporting the total amount of rent charged and received and the total amount of parking tax collected by the operator for the occupancy of the operator's parking spaces in the previous month. (b) On or before the last day of each month, each operator shall remit to the Tax Collector the parking tax collected by the operator for the occupancy of the operator's parking spaces in the previous month. (c) Returns and remittances are due within ten days of the cessation of business for any reason, or within ten days of a change in ownership of the business. All parking taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the City until payment thereof is made to the Tax Collector. 4.22.100 Penalties and interest. (a) Any parking tax that is not remitted to the City within the time required is delinquent and the operator shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount of delinquent parking tax. (b) An operator who fails to remit any delinquent parking tax on or before a period of thirty days following the date on which the parking tax first became delinquent shall pay an additional delinquency penalty of another ten percent of the amount of the delinquent parking tax. (c) If the Tax Collector determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax shall be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section. (d) In addition to the penalties imposed by this section, any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter shall pay interest at the rate of one percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of the delinquent tax, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid. (e) Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this section shall become a part of the parking tax required to be remitted by the operator. 4.22.110 Failure to collect or to report parkin!! tax: determination bv tax collector of amount due: ri!!ht to hearin!! on determination. (a) If an operator fails or refuses to collect the parkin!! tax or to make within the time provided in this chapter any report or remittance of the parkin!! tax or any portion thereof reauired bv this chapter. the Tax Collector shall proceed in such manner as he or she may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to make an estimate of the parkin!! tax due. The Tax Collector shall then determine and assess a!!ainst the operator the parkin!! tax. interest. and penalties. as provided for bv this chapter. The Tax Collector shall !!ive notice to the operator of the amount determined and assessed as provided in section 4.22.130. (b) If an operator files a tax return and remits the amount of parkin!! tax stated on the return. but it appears to the Tax Collector that the operator has not remitted the full amount of parkin!! tax that has been or should have been collected. the Tax Collector shall proceed in such manner as he or she may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to make an estimate of the parkin!! tax that should have been collected and remitted. The Tax Collector shall then determine the amount of parkin!! tax that should have been collected and remitted. but which was not remitted. and assess a!!ainst the ooerator this amount of oarking tax. interest. and oenalties. if any. as orovided for bv this chaoter. The Tax Collector shall give notice to the ooerator of the amount determined and assessed as Dfovided in section 4.22.130. (c) Within ten days after the serving or mailing of notice of a determination and assessment bv the Tax Collector made oursuant to subdivisions (a) or (b) above. the ooerator may submit to the Tax Collector an aoolication in writing for a hearing on the amount assessed in the determination. If no aoolication bv the ooerator for a hearing is made within the time Drescribed. the oarking tax. interest and oenalties. if any. determined and assessed bv the Tax Collector oursuant to subdivisions (a) or (b) above shall become final and conclusive and immediately due and oavable. If such aoolication is made. the Tax Collector shall give not less than five days' written notice in the manner Drescribed in section 4.22.130 to the ooerator to show cause at a time and olace fixed in the notice as to why the amount determined and assessed bv the Tax Collector should not be fixed as the amount of oarking tax. oenalties. and interest owing. At such hearing. the ooerator may aooear and offer evidence why such soecified oarking tax. interest. and oenalties should not be so fixed. After such hearing the Tax Collector shall determine the Drooer oarking tax to be assessed and shall thereafter give written notice to the ooerator in the manner orescribed in section 4.22.130. The amount determined and assessed to be due shall be oavable ten days from the service of the decision. unless an aooeal is taken as Drovided in section 4.20.120(a). 4.22.120 Aooeal. (a) Anv ooerator aggrieved bv any decision of the Tax Collector with resoect to the amount of oarking tax. interest. or oenalties determined to be due and owing bv the Tax Collector may aooeal the Tax Collector's decision to the City Manager bv filing a notice of aooeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the service of the determination by the Tax Collector that is being aooealed. The City Manager shall fix a time and olace for hearing such aooeaL and the City Clerk shall give notice in writing to the ooerator as orovided in section 4.22.130. Following the hearing the City Manager shall make findings and issue a decision. which shall be served uoon the ooerator as Drovided is section 4.22.130. The decision of the City Manager shall be final and conclusive and any amount found to be due shall be due and oavable ten days from the service of the decision. unless an aooeal is taken as orovided in section 4.20. 120(b). (b) Anv ooerator aggrieved bv a decision of the City Manager on an aooeal taken oursuant to section 4.22.120(a) may aooeal the City Manager's decision to the City Council bv filing a notice of aooeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the service of the decision of the City Manager that is being aooealed. The City Council shall fix a time and olace for hearing such aooeaL and the City Clerk shall give notice in writing to the ooerator as orovided in section 4.22.130. Following the hearing the City Council shall make findings and issue a decision. which shall be final and conclusive and shall be served uoon the ooerator as Drovided is section 4.22.130. Any amount found to be due shall be immediately due and oayable uoon the service of notice. 4.22.130 Notice. Whenever notice is reauired under this chaoter. it shall be delivered oersonallv or bv deoositing: it in the United States mail. oostae:e oreoaid. Notice to an ooerator shall be delivered to the ooerator's last known olace of business. 4.22.140 Maintenance and examination of books, records, and witnesses. (a) It shall be the duty of every ooerator liable for the collection and remittance to the City of the oarking: tax imoosed bv this chaoter to keeo and oreserve for a oeriod of three years all records as may be necessary to determine the amount of oarking: tax as the ooerator may have been liable for the collection and remittance to the City. (b) The Tax Collector. or his or her desig:nee, is authorized to examine the books, oaoers, and records of any ooerator. includine: any oerson subject to this chaoter. for the ouroose of verifving: the accuracy of any return made, or if no return was made, to ascertain the oarkine: tax due. Every ooerator or oerson subject to the orovisions of this chaoter is reauired to furnish to the Tax Collector or his or her desig:nee the means, facilities, and oooortunitv for makine: such examination and investig:ations. The Tax Collector is authorized to examine any oerson under oath and to comoel the oroduction of books, oaoers, and records for the ouroose of verifvine: the accuracy of anv return made, or if no return was made to ascertain the oarkine: tax due. 4.22.150 Information confidential. (a) The Tax Collector and any oerson having: an administrative duty under the orovisions of this chaoter shall keeo confidential and not disclose the business affairs, ooerations, or information obtained bv an investie:ation of records and eauioment of any ooerator. including: the amount or source of income, orofits, losses, or exoenditures of the ooerator. (b) Nothing: in this section shall be construed to orevent: (1) The disclosure to, or the examination of records and eauioment by, another City official. emolovee, or ae:ent for collection of taxes for the sole ouroose of administerine: or enforcine: any orovisions of this or any other City codes. (2) The disclosure of information to or the examination of records bv federal or state officials, or the tax officials of another city or county, or city and county, if a reciorocal arrane:ement exists, or to a e:rand jurv or court of law uoon subooena: (3) The disclosure of information and results of an examination of records of a oarticular ooerator, or relating: to a oarticular ooerator. to a court of law in a oroceedine: broue:ht to determine the existence or amount of any oarking: tax liability of the oarticular ooerator to the city: (4) The disclosure bv way of oubhc meeting or otherwise of such information as may be necessary to the Citv Council in order to oermit it to be fully advised as to the facts when an occuoant or ooerator files a claim for refund of oarking tax, or submits an offer of comoromise with regard to a claim asserted against an occuoant or ooerator bv the City for oarking tax. (5) The disclosure of general statistics regarding taxes collected or business done in the city. 4.22.160 Nonconclusiveness of statements. No declarations or statements shall be conclusive as to the matters set forth therein. Declarations and statements shall be subject to audit and verification bv the Tax Collector or his or her designees who are authorized to examine, audit, and insoect such books and records of any ooerator as may be necessary in their judgment to verify or ascertain the amount of oarking tax due. 4.22.170 Refunds. (a) Wherever the amount of any oarking tax, interest. or oenaltv has been ovemaid or oaid more than once or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received bv the citv under this chaoter it may be refunded as orovided in this section orovided a claim in writing stating under oenaltv of oerjurv the soecific grounds uoon which the claim is founded is filed with the Tax Collector within one year of the date of oavment. The claim shall be on forms furnished bv the Tax Collector. (b) An ooerator may claim a refund for the amount of oarking tax ovemaid or erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established in a manner orescribed bv the Tax Collector that the occuoant from whom the oarking tax was collected was exemot from the oarking tax: orovided, however. that a refund shall not be allowed unless the amount of the oarking tax so collected has been refunded to the occuoant who oaid the oarking tax. (c) An ooerator mav claim a refund for the amount of oarking tax remitted to the City in excess of the oarking tax that was due to be collected and which, in fact. was not actually collected from occuoants when it is established in a manner orescribed bv the Tax Collector that the ooerator remitted more oarking tax than was required and that this excess oarking tax was not in fact collected from occuoants. (d) An occuoant who has oaid the oarking tax may obtain a refund of oarking tax ovemaid or illegally collected or received bv the City bv filing a claim in the manner orovided in subdivision (at but only when the oarking tax was oaid bv the occuoant directlv to the Tax Collector. or when the occuoant. having oaid the oarking tax to the ooerator. establishes to the satisfaction of the Tax Collector that the occuoant has been unable to obtain a refund from the ooerator who collected the oarking tax. (e) No refund shall be paid under the provisions ofthis section unless the claimant establishes his or her rie:ht thereto bv written records showinl! entitlement thereto. (D Anv decision bv the Tax Collector ree:ardine: a claim for refund under this section mav be appealed by the claimant to the Citv Manae:er by fHine: a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the service of the decision by the Tax Collector that is beine: appealed. The City Manae:er shall fix a time and place for hearine: such apoeaL and the City Clerk shall e:ive notice in writine: to the claimant as provided in section 4.22.130. Followine: the hearine: the City Manae:er shall make findine:s and issue a decision. which shall be final and conclusive and shall be served uoon the claimant as orovided in section 4.22.130. 4.22.180 Actions to collect: lien orocedures. !iLAny parking tax required to be paid by any occupant under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed a debt owed by the occupant to the City. Any such parking tax collected by an operator, which has not been paid to the City, shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the City. Any person owing money to the City under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable in an action brought in the name of the City for the recovery of such amount. (b) In an action authorized by this section. the orevailine: party shall recover court costs. attorney's fees. personnel costs. and auditor's fees to be added to the iude:ment and set by the court. These fees are recoverable at all levels of trial and apoeal. (c) If anv amount required to be oaid to the City by an operator under this chaoter is not paid when due. the Tax Collector may. within three years after the amount is due. file for recordine: in the office of the San Mateo County Recorder a Certificate of Delinquency of Parkine: Tax Lien specifyine: the amount of tax. oenalties. interest. and attorney's fees and personnel costs due. the name and address of the operator liable for the same as it aooears on the records of the Tax Collector. and the fact that the Tax Collector has como lied with all orovisions of this chapter in the determination of the amount required to be oaid. From the time of the recordine: of the Certificate of Delinquency of Parkine: Tax Lien. the amount required to be oaid toe:ether with interest. oenalties. and attorney's fees shall constitute a lien upon all real orooerty in the county owned by the ooerator or thereafter acquired by the ooerator before the lien exoires. The lien has the force. effect. and oriority of a iude:ment lien and shall continue for thirty years unless sooner released or otherwise dischare:ed. (d) The amounts required to be remitted and/or oaid by any operator under this chapter. includinl! penalties and interest. shall be satisfied first in any of the followine: cases: (1) Whenever the operator is insolvent: (2) Whenever the operator makes a voluntary assie:nment of his or her assets: (3) Whenever the estate of an operator in the hands of executors. administrators. or heirs is insufficient to pav all the debts due from the operator: (4) Whenever the estate and effects of an abscondine:. concealed. or absent person reQuired to pav any amount under this chapter are levied upon bv process of law. (e) This section does not e:ive the city a preference over any recorded lien which attached prior to the date when the amounts reQuired to be paid became a lien. The preference e:iven to the City by this section shall subordinate to the preference e:iven to claims for personal service by Sections 1204 and 1206 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (f) At any time within three (3) years after any operator is delinQuent in the payment of any amount. the Tax Collector may forthwith collect the amount in the followine: manner: the Tax Collector shall seize the property. real or personal. of the operator and sell the property. or a sufficient part of it. at public auction to pay the amount due toe:ether with any penalties and interest imposed for the delinQuency and any costs incurred on account of the seizure and sale. Any seizure made to collect parkine: tax due shall be onlv property of the operator not exempt from execution under provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. (e:) If any operator that is liable for any amount under this chapter sells out his or her business or Quits the business. his or her successor or assie:nee shall withhold sufficient of the purchase price to cover such amount for which the operator is liable until the former owner produces a receipt from the Tax Collector showine: that it has been paid or a certificate statine: that no amount is due. (h) If the purchaser of a parkine: station fails to withhold from the purchase price as reQuired in subdivision (e:) of this section. the purchaser shall become personally liable for the payment of the amount reQuired to be withheld by the purchaser to the extent of the purchase price. valued in money. Within 30 days after receivine: a written reQuest from the purchaser for a certificate. or within 30 days from the date the former owner's records are made available for audit. whichever period expires the later. but in any event not later than 60 days after receivine: the reQuest. the Tax Collector shall either issue the certificate or mail notice to the purchaser at the purchaser's address as it appears on the records of the Tax Collector of the amount that must be paid as a condition of issuine: the certificate. Failure of the Tax Collector to mail the notice will release the purchaser from any further oblie:ation to withhold from the purchase price as above provided. The time within which the oblie:ation of the successor may be enforced shall start to run at the time the operator sells his or her business or at the time that the determination ae:ainst the operator becomes final. whichever event occurs later. en If the taxes are not paid when due. such tax. Denaltv and interest shall constitute a soecial assessment ae:ainst such business orooertv and shall be a lien on the orooertv for the amount thereof, which lien shall continue until the amount thereof includine: all oenalties. interest and costs of collection are oaid. or until it is dischare:ed of record 4.22.190 Violations: misdemeanor. (a) Anv person violatine: any of the orovisions of this chapter shall be e:uiltv of a misdemeanor and shall be ounishable therefore bv a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or bv imprisonment for a period of not more than six months or bv both such fine and imorisonment. (b) Anv ooerator or other person who fails or refuses to furnish any return reQuired to be made. or who fails or refuses to furnish a suoolemental return or other data reQuired bv the Tax Collector. or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim. is e:uiltv of a misdemeanor. and is punishable therefore bv a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or bv imprisonment for a period of not more than six months or bv both such fine and imorisonment. (c) Anv person reQuired to make. render. sie:n or verify any reoort or claim who makes any false or fraudulent report or claim with intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due reQuired bv this chaoter to be made. is e:uiltv of a misdemeanor and is punishable therefore bv a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or bv imorisonment for a oeriod of not more than six months or bv both such fine and imorisonment. 4.22.200 Determination by City Council to impose either the commercial parking tax or the business license tax on commercial parking facilities. (a) For any calendar year the City may only impose throughout the City either the commercial parking tax of this chapter or the business license tax on commercial parking facilities in section 6.16.047 of this Code. The City may not impose both taxes anywhere in the City at the same time. The decision whether to impose the commercial parking tax or the business license tax on commercial parking facilities is within the discretion of the City Council to decide. If the City Council wishes to change which tax is being collected, it shall do so by resolution passed before the start of the calendar year to which it is to apply. (b) Whenever the commercial parking tax of this chapter is being imposed, and the business license tax on commercial parking facilities in section 6.16.047 is not being imposed, commercial parking facilities shall be subject to the business license tax provided for in section 6.16.240. SECTION 3. SEVERABll.JTY If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 4. PUBLICATION This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption, although the amendments in Section 2 of this Ordinance will not be implemented until such time as provided in Section 1. * * * * * * Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the _ day of , 2007. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this _ day of , 2007. Richard A. Garbarino, Mayor II I II II II II II 4~ /"oCl~ ,'\"'" P..p). ~ . ~'(t ~..".,',~"l"".~ e~. ~ ("') U ~ S taf[ Report AGENDA ITEM # 13 II II ii II \" .1 I I I I I i Ii 'i I II I I. II I DATE: July 25, 2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager II II I SUBJECT: ORDINAl\JCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.68 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO M~UNICIPAL CODE TO lJPDATE THE STREETS SUBJECT TO RADAR ENFORCEMENT OF SPEEDING VIOLATIONS AND ADOPTING UPDATES TO THE RADAR SURVEY REPORT OF MAY 2005 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council waive reading and introduce an ordinance amending Sections 11.68.020 and 11.68.025 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, which allows the Police Department to utilize radar for enforcement of speeding violations, making the following amendments: 1. Delete "Bayshore Boulevard - from city limits to Sister Cities Boulevard" from Chapter 11.68.020, Prima facie speed limit declared'thirty-five miles per hour; 2. Add "Airport Boulevard (formerly Bayshore Boulevard) - from city limits to Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard" to Chapter 11.68.025, prima facie speed limit declared forty miles per hour; 3. Adopt the attached updates to the radar survey report that supports the ordinance and allows radar survey information to be transmitted into court records for traffic hearings. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On July 12, 1995, the City Council introduced Ordinance 1170-95, adding Chapter 11.68 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 11.68, "Prima Facie Speed Limit on City Streets", allows the Police Department to utilize radar to enforce speeding violations that would not otherwise be effectively addressed due to the configurations of the streets, and allows radar survey information to be transmitted into court records for traffic hearings. The California Vehicle Code indicates that the prima facie speed limit on local streets is 25 mph in residential/ business districts and 65 mph on all other locations. The Vehicle Code also provides for intermediate speed limits, if an engineering and traffic survey shows that such speeds would not only Staff Report Subject: INTRODUCE ORDINA.l"\fCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 11.68.020 AND 11.68.025 ~Nl) ADOPT UPDATES TO THE RADAR SURVEY REPORT OF MAY 2005 Page 2 of2 facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic, but also would be reasonable and safe. The Vehicle Code further provides that radar can be used to enforce these speed limits when radar is justified by a survey conducted within the last five years and when the survey results have been adopted by ordinance. The City's last survey was conducted in May of2005. To comply with the guidelines ofthe Vehicle Code, it was necessary for staffto update and conduct radar speed surveys and a traffic engineering study at the locations listed in the attached report so that radar enforcement can be utilized. The next required update is scheduled for May of2010. During preparation of the speed survey conducted in May 2005, Airport Boulevard (formerly Bayshore Boulevard) from the city limits to Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard was under heavy construction. Therefore, it was recommended that a speed survey of this area be conducted after construction was completed in order to evaluate the traffic speeds accurately. With the completion of the US-lO 1 Hook Ramps, staff conducted a new radar speed survey and engineering study and completed it on June 27,2007. A copy of the radar report update prepared by the Engineering Division and the Police Department to support the speed limit change mentioned in the ordinance is attached as Exhibit A. FUNDING: Staff time used to evaluate the modifications was charged to the General Fund. The installation of new speed limit signs will be charged to general street maintenance. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council waive reading arid introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 11.68 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and adopt the update to the radar survey report attached as Exhibit A, which allows radar survey information to be transmitted into the court records for traffic hearings. By: ~ Assistant City Manager -- Approved by: .{;.,.. Barry Nagel City Manager Attachments: Ordinance Update to the May 2005 Traffic Radar Survey Report DC/ts/rc ORDINANCE NO. Al~ ORDiNANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11.68 TO l.JPDA TE THE STREETS SlJBJECT TO RADfu~ ENFORCEMENT OF SPEEDING VIOLATIONS AND ADOPTING UPDATES TO THE RADAR SURVEY REPORT OF MAY 2005. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: DELETE PHRASE FROM SECTION 11.68.020, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LThlIT DECLARED THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR." The words "Bayshore Boulevard - from city limits to Sister Cities Boulevard" are hereby deleted from Section 11.68.020 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. SECTION 2: ADD PHRASE TO SECTION 11.68.025. "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT DECLARED FORTY MILES PER HOUR." The words "Airport Boulevard (formerly Bayshore Boulevard) - from city limits to Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard" are hereby added to Section 11.68.025 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. SECTION 3: ADOPT UPDATE TO THE MAY 25, 2005 RADAR SURVEY REPORT IN SECTION 11.68.005, DETERMINATION AND DECLARATION OF PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. Section 11.68.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 11.68.005 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits. The City Council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic survey dated May 25,2005, and the June 27, 2007 update to said survey, prepared by the Police Department and City Engineer, for the streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the City Clerk and City Engineer. The City Council finds and determines that the survey was conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation and that the survey justifies the speed limits set forth in this chapter. The City Council further finds and determines upon the basis of the survey that a speed greater than twenty-five miles per hour will facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and will be reasonable and safe upon the streets or portions of streets designated in Sections 11.68.015 through 11.68.035 and declares that the prima facie speed limit of each street or portion thereof is the most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The City Council declares these speed limits as prima facie speed limits for the streets or portions thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the streets or portions thereof. SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4: PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those members of the City Council voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. * * * * * * Introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the day of ,2007. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of ,2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this _dayof ,2007. Mayor 2 UPDATE TO MAY 25.2005 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT FOR SPEED L!MITS (JUNE 27. 2007) This detailed discussion and attached radar/traffic survey is to replace section in May 25, 2005 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report for Speed Limits. Airport Boulevard (Formerlv Bayshore Boulevard) Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard to City Limits Oyster Point Posted Speed Limit: I -- MPH I I Recommended Speed: 40 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 49.7 MPH Conditions: This segment of Airport Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. The northern most end is striped for two lanes in each direction and is divided by two double yellow lines. There is a striped shoulder aiong the segment. There are no sidewalks on either side for the length of the segment. The speed limit is posted 35 MPH heading southbound just out of the Brisbane city limits, but this was not based on an engineering study and cannot be enforced by the Police Department using radar. The speed limit in the adjacent jurisdiction of Brisbane is 45 MPH. The speed limit on Airport Boulevard south of the Sister Cities Blvd/Oyster Point Blvd intersection is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial with Highway 101 running parallel. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic is low. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Sister Cities Boulevard, the future Terrabay intersection, and the US-101 Hook Ramps. Parking is not allowed on the entire segment. Airport Boulevard carries roughly 13,368 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were six (6) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2005 through 2007. This equated to an accident rate of 0.6 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.10 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 49.7 MPH in both directions, yielding a 45 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 40 MPH due to the following conditions: . Current construction traffic and future commercial use causes slow moving traffic entering/exiting driveway at Terrabay. . High truck ratio. Therefore, the posted speed limit will be 40 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed for northbound traffic just after the Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection. The existing 35 MPH sign should be replaced with a 40 MPH sign located just south of the Brisbane city Hillit. City of South San Francisco i=nrtinc.prinrt ~nr! Tr~ffj,... ~;JnJo.\i _.t~"'__ "':::J -..- . ,_"'''''' '-''-AI! '2f''''.;.' Summary Stre2t: AIR::'ORT (FORMERLY ~AYSHORE BLVD) Limits: SISTER CITIES/OYSTER POiNT BLVDS BRISBANE CITY liMITS Field Obseiv8f SHAM/GONZA.l...EZ Checked By: DC Dtite: 4/4/2007 r I I I I I I I I i Factors Direction: tJorth/South A. PrevailinQ Speed Data Location of Survey mid-pomt on segment 85th Percentile 49.7 10 mph Pace 36 - 45 Percent in Pace 54.6% Posted Speed Limit 35 I I I i . I I i -! , I i I B. Collision History Date Range Covered 1/1/2005 To 6/6/2007 Total Collisions 6 Collision Rate (AcclMVM) 0.594 Expected Collision Rate ., ~ <..1 C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic 13368 4500 Length of Segment Lane Configuration StreetClassifaction 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Islands Major Arterial ;....'..'.,.... '. ,.,-"',,,' :.,. ...':C':,', :,' '.","<" ".;. ,';" ."..'..:..... '-""."". .... . .. - .. .' . . '.. . D. Conditions Not Readilv Apparent Conditions Lightpedestrian use and bicycle use on roadway. Roadway Geometries No Sidewalk 2.5 Comments High truck ratio. Terrabay construction is still ongoing approximately midway on segment for the next several years. Speed limit in Brisbane City Limits is 45 MPH. Additional signage is required. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial, US-101 Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Ghange? Yes Revised Speed Limit 40 City of South San Francisco: ~ /1 'j V''') ~/J7 I" , ~ V r !~ i / Date Loc. # 389 I I I I I ~I 1 I I I I , I ! I Street Name: I I Limits: . City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department AIRPORT (FORlm:RL Y BAYSHORE BLVD) SISTER CITIES/OYSTER POINT BLVDS to BRISBANE CITY LIMITS I I it . R2dar Sur-ley Sheet X=North/South I 55 150 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% -rr~: I ~fFR-H-i.' -+.-111 i i ! T! ;.IJ. f-H-++++ fTu: i I .f "'1 I ! ,.1 I !. I I r I I: J I I i Ttt-tT1 i I I t I i '! ,Ii, ~1 I ! Ii IT i -ITI J I J ! : L.U J 1.1 J .,~ . J .. ,I I" A:~<I):\rxlX: ; 1m' ' U I : Ii' I II.. rill . IT IT '111111l 2.8~~1 lOr..J%i'.I. I Ii, !: J ' l : ! ,I I I I 'l.! ~'1.5%97.2%1 IXI I I 'i "';_ I I: i--+--~ 111 ,! I. ~ ; i II t lI1511,3%195.6.%1 IX I IV ,/v1X''Xix t rr-r I I U-.t' ; I:", 1,1 16 4.1%'94.4%1 [ I. I I 4 1.0% 90.3% I I 12 3.1% 89.2% [ ! I I '17 4.4% 86.2% I I I i I Ii' 13 3.3% 81.8% I , ! I Ii 18 4.6% 78.5% , ! . 'I i><IXI ! I I . l-li-t ! . ~_ U ..~ LL 15 3.8% 73.8%1 :/. I," l' I ' /' i I I I , I w.+W-J--+.i-Lu. i, ,15 3.8% 70'0%11 45 'J" . ." /1 . ',.[ , w ."v,:,x.i/,"-"'lX, I I .' , I ,_ :! i , , i 22 I 5.6% 66.2%..1' A><IX'X,i/ : . )<,1/.', . I 'i,xJ'.x}~M'~/i ' JJ ': L, L't.- ~i !' l '.' : 23 t--5.9%160.5% ~JXY'" I" 'IX::><T> pI. **'y1'Y'JXtXIXIXI'y, "~ i rr! ii n LH I UJJ 24162% 154.6%1 I I/!" I IXIX, 'T:~b'I><1\1>,',(i'XIXiXT I 'i . T i i I . ! ' ! 1 i I i 24 i 0.2% 48.5% I /!V~fr.>. IXIX t ~'I--i I [ '11 2~ 16'% 423%1 ! i. /\. ~~I,r I *_~~---+_ t :4+ i i i + ! j I ::>. .4-0 .', OJ 40 I .": I I i ,xlXiXTXTxrx II I i l ' : : 1 S I: I! 22 5.6% 35.9%1 ./ ,: i'.' I !Xi/i IXiX' iXIXIX, l i , [.; I 14tJ I, i 25 I 6.4% 30..3%, i I I I _ I I i I Iii' i I !-LL. 16 4.1% 23.8% i I I I. _~ ; +ii ! 15 3.8% 19.7% I ! I I ! . I I i 17 4.4% 15.9% 1 ~, r 16 4.1% 11.5% 15 3.8% .7.4% 51.3% 3.6% 3 0.8% 2.3% 1 0.3%1.5%; 2 O.sokC1.3%"(.; '. 11 It 60 rrr J ryl I AI 35 . ;.f. ... 1 30 x xx 2 0.5% 0.8% I>< 25 ~j-., -- -c-' - - j- .--1- I 1 0.3% 0.3% ! : i , I i t-j I I I i I .1!-I, 1 , I+. I! . U _Lul...-1- 1 lil...LLLLl : II ! ,Wl 11 I I l'Ti.!t I +TTTTTTI+IJ;,.}J._L~L . ULIIIIIIIllIJ i I I I L I Total fulmples I I I I 13!-'lO 20 151 I Date of Survey: 4/4/2007 Start Time: 10:40 . ,. 85th Percentile Speed: . 50th Percentile Speed: I _ II 15th Percentile Speed: 10 MPH Pace: I i Number in Pace: Percent in Pace: 49.7 42.3 35..? Weather: C:ear End Time: 14:30 36- 4.5 213 54.6% I I I I Street Class.: Malor Arterial Observer: SHAM/GONZ Road Condition: Good Posted Speed: 35 Conditions not Lightpedesirion use and bicycle use on roadway Apparent: