The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-06-14 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, June 14, 2017 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA City Council Regular Meeting Agenda June 14, 2017City Council Regular Meeting Agenda PRADEEP GUPTA, Mayor LIZA NORMANDY, Vice Mayor KARYL MATSUMOTO, Councilwoman RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Councilman MARK ADDIEGO, Councilman FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer KRISTA MARTINELLI, City Clerk MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager JASON ROSENBERG, City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017 June 14, 2017City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW PRESENTATIONS Certificate of recognition to Natalie Cedeno for being named 2017 Mother of the Year by Everything South City. (Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor) 1. Certificates of recognition to four Eagle Scouts. (Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor)2. Resolution Recognizing June as LGBT Pride Month in the City of South San Francisco. (Mike Futrell, City Manager) 3. Certificate of recognition for Royal Pin Donuts on celebrating 20 years in business. (Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor) 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding a resolution approving the report of stormwater management service charges, approving the stormwater management service charges for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and directing the stormwater management service charges to be collected on the official tax assessment roll. (Andrew Wemmer, Environmental Compliance Supervisor) 5. Resolution approving the report of stormwater management service charges, approving the stormwater management service charges for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and directing the stormwater management service charges to be collected on the official tax assessment roll.. 5a. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017 June 14, 2017City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding an amendment to a Development Agreement between ARE-San Francisco No. 21 LP, and ARE-San Francisco No. 42 LLC and the City of South San Francisco, and related planning approvals, to relocate the parking garage and create a campus open space at 213-221 East Grand Avenue (Merck Campus) and make a determination that the project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2007 Environmental Impact Report (EIR07-001) as described in the 2017 Addendum, and no further environmental review is required per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner) 6. Resolution making findings and a determination that the 213 East Grand Avenue project (UPM17-001) is within the scope of the environmental analysis contained within the 2007 Environmental Impact Report (EIR07-001) and that the 2017 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project 6a. Resolution making findings and approving the Use Permit Modification UPM17-0001, Parking Reduction request, Transportation Demand Management Plan TDM17-0002, and Design Review DR17-0007 at 213-221 East Grand Avenue in the Business and Technology Park Zoning District subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. 6b. An Ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between Alexandria Real Estate Equities -San Francisco No. 21 LP, Alexandria Real Estate Equities -San Francisco No. 42 LLC and the City of South San Francisco for the Office/ R&D Campus at 213 - 221 East Grand Avenue. 6c. Report regarding ordinance adopting a Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee, an ordinance amending the Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee and a resolution updating the Sewer Capacity Charge (Richard Lee, Director of Finance) 7. Resolution updating the Sewer Capacity Charge established pursuant to Resolution 39-2010 to increase the charge for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 7a. Ordinance amending Chapter 8.67 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code revising the method of calculation for the Parkland Acquisition Fee and a Parks Construction Fee and expanding application of the fees to nonresidential developments to mitigate the impacts of new developments on park and recreational facilities in the city 7b. Ordinance adding Chapter 8.68 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code requiring payment of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee to mitigate the impacts of new developments on bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the city 7c. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017 June 14, 2017City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding resolution approving the City of South San Francisco’s commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement (Deborah Gill, Special Projects Manager) 8. Resolution approving the City of South San Francisco’s support of the goals contained in to the Paris Climate Agreement. 8a. Staff report regarding a resolution approving a purchase price of seven million one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($7,180,000) and retention by the City of South San Francisco of certain former Redevelopment Agency real property assets pursuant to the approved Long Range Property Management Plan and Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5. (Marian Lee, Assistant City Manager and Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney) 9. Resolution approving a purchase price of seven million one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($7,180,000) and retention by the City of South San Francisco of certain former Redevelopment Agency real property assets pursuant to the approved Long Range Property Management Plan and Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5. 9a. Report regarding a resolution confirming an increase in solid waste collection rates submitted by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company effective July 1, 2017. (Richard Lee, Director of Finance) 10. Resolution confirming an increase in solid waste collection rates as submitted by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company, effective July 1, 2017. 10a. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Minutes from the meetings of February 8, 2017, February 22, 2017 and March 8, 2017. 11. Motion confirming payment registers for June 14, 2017. (Richard Lee, Director of Finance) 12. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-587 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:1. Certificate of recognition to Natalie Cedeno for being named 2017 Mother of the Year by Everything South City.(Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition Natalie Cedeno The South San Francisco City Council does hereby congratulate Natalie Cedeno for being named “2017 Mother of the Year” by Everything South City. Your dedication and commitment as a loving mother of four children is truly valued by the City of South San Francisco. Presented on this 14th day of June, 2017, by the City Council of South San Francisco Pradeep Gupta, Mayor Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor Mark Addiego, Councilmember Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-586 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:2. Certificates of recognition to four Eagle Scouts. (Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition Andrew Dean The South San Francisco City Council does hereby congratulate Andrew Dean for achieving the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouting program — Eagle Scout. Your remarkable service, commitment, and dedication to the City of South San Francisco is truly appreciated. Presented on this 14th day of June, 2017, by the City Council of South San Francisco Pradeep Gupta, Mayor Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor Mark Addiego, Councilmember Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition William De Bruce The South San Francisco City Council does hereby congratulate William De Bruce for achieving the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouting program — Eagle Scout. Your remarkable service, commitment, and dedication to the City of South San Francisco is truly appreciated. Presented on this 14th day of June, 2017, by the City Council of South San Francisco Pradeep Gupta, Mayor Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor Mark Addiego, Councilmember Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition Jack Tan The South San Francisco City Council does hereby congratulate Jack Tan for achieving the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouting program — Eagle Scout. Your remarkable service, commitment, and dedication to the City of South San Francisco is truly appreciated. Presented on this 14th day of June, 2017, by the City Council of South San Francisco Pradeep Gupta, Mayor Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor Mark Addiego, Councilmember Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition Zane Girouard The South San Francisco City Council does hereby congratulate Zane Girouard for achieving the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouting program — Eagle Scout. Your remarkable service, commitment, and dedication to the City of South San Francisco is truly appreciated. Presented on this 14th day of June, 2017, by the City Council of South San Francisco Pradeep Gupta, Mayor Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor Mark Addiego, Councilmember Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-600 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:3. Resolution Recognizing June as LGBT Pride Month in the City of South San Francisco.(Mike Futrell, City Manager) WHEREAS, this month commemorates the events of June 1969 when an uprising was staged in New York City at the Stonewall Inn against the police harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons; and WHEREAS, the first time June was recognized as Gay and Lesbian Pride month was in 2000 when President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton, our nation’s 42nd President, issued Presidential Proclamation 7316; and WHEREAS, in Presidential Proclamation 7316, President Clinton recognized the prejudice and discrimination faced by (LGBT) persons who “have had to hide or deny their sexual orientation in order to keep their jobs or to live safely in their communities” and the “prejudice against gays and lesbians can still erupt into acts of hatred and violence”; and WHEREAS, in June 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama II, our nation’s 44th President, issued Presidential Proclamation 8386, which designated June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month and calls upon all U.S. residents to “commit to achieving equal justice under the law for LGBT Americans” and “to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists”; and WHEREAS, since June 2009, President Obama has issued annual proclamations for the celebration of LGBT Pride Month, and on May 30, 2014, issued Presidential Proclamation 9136 that called upon the nation to “celebrate victories that have affirmed freedom and fairness, and we recommit ourselves to completing the work that remains”; and WHEREAS, Presidential Proclamation 9136, references the 2013 case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, Windsor v. United States that struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage law as unconstitutional and ends with a call for greater tolerance: “Following their example, let each of us speak for tolerance, Justice, and dignity - because if hearts and minds continue to change over time, laws will too”; and WHEREAS, the City held its first in a series of community events on diversity, “Diversity: It’s In the City’s DNA: A Community Conversation” on Saturday, May 20, 2017, at the Joseph A. Fernekes Building; and WHEREAS, the City held Immigration Forums for residents on Wednesday, May 31, 2017, at the Grand Avenue Branch Library, and on Sunday, June 11, 2017, at Morelos Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby declare June, 2017, as LGBT Pride Month, and that the City is proudly celebrating June as LGBT Pride Month by lighting City Hall in the rainbow colors of the LGBT Pride flag and raising the LGBT Pride flag at City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, from June 23 through June 26, 2017. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-585 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:4. Certificate of recognition for Royal Pin Donuts on celebrating 20 years in business.(Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition Royal Pin Donuts The South San Francisco City Council does hereby congratulate Jim and Kim Gip of Royal Pin Donuts for celebrating their 20 years of valued service to the community of South San Francisco. Your dedication and commitment to the City of South San Francisco is deeply appreciated. Presented on this 14th day of June, 2017, by the City Council of South San Francisco Pradeep Gupta, Mayor Liza Normandy, Vice Mayor Mark Addiego, Councilmember Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-463 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:5. Reportregardingaresolutionapprovingthereportofstormwatermanagementservicecharges,approvingthe stormwatermanagementservicechargesforFiscalYear2017-2018,anddirectingthestormwatermanagement servicechargestobecollectedontheofficialtaxassessmentroll.(AndrewWemmer,Environmental Compliance Supervisor) RECOMMENDATION ItisrecommendedthattheCityCouncilconductaPublicHearingand,byafour-fifthsvote,approvea resolution to: (1)Approve the report of stormwater management service charges, (2)Approve the stormwater management service charges for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and (3)Directthestormwatermanagementservicechargestobecollectedontheofficialtaxassessment roll. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION TheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,underamendmentstotheCleanWaterActof1977andlatertheWater QualityActof1987,imposedregulationsthatmandatedlocalgovernmenttocontrolandreducestormwater pollutionrunoff.TheframeworkforregulatingstormwaterdischargesisthroughaNationalPollution DischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)Permit.ThepermitisimplementedandenforcedbytheCalifornia State Water Resources Control Board through its regional agency. FiscalYear(FY)2017-2018marksthe25thyearofSouthSanFrancisco’sparticipationintheSanMateo CountywideWaterPollutionPreventionProgramthatcoordinateswithcitiestomeetthestormwater complianceoftheNPDESMunicipalRegionalPermit(MRP).ThecurrentMRPwasrenewedonNovember 19, 2015. The 152-page permit contains 22 provisions including: ·Municipal operations, ·New development and redevelopment, ·Industrial and commercial site control, ·Illicit discharge detection and elimination, ·Construction site control, ·Public information and outreach, ·Water quality monitoring, ·Pesticides toxicity control, ·Trash load reduction, ·Mercury controls, ·PCBs controls, ·Copper controls, and ·Control on other chemical compounds. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-463 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:5. Water Pollution Prevention Program Examples of general program responsibilities include to: ·Coordinate the overall program efforts, ·Submit annual reports to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, ·Develop and sponsor training workshops, and ·Develop educational/informational materials for dissemination within jurisdictions. Examples of City specific program activities include: ·Streetsweeping,stormdraincleaningandothermaintenance-relatedactivitiesthatmayhaveanimpact on stormwater quality, ·Minimizingoreliminatingpotentialstormwaterpollutionsourcesatcommercialandindustrialfacilities throughinspectionandeducationaloutreachactivities,andtoeffectivelyprohibitillicitdischarges(such as oil, paint, or soapy wash water) to the municipalities’ storm drain systems, ·Educatingthepublicaboutthedifferencesbetweenthesanitarysewerandstormdrainsystemsandthe causesofstormwaterpollutioninordertoencourageresidentstoadoptlesspollutingandmore environmentally beneficial practices, Accomplishments of the South San Francisco Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Water Pollution Prevention Program (“Program”) to date include: ·Respondedtoover60spillorillicitdischargecomplaintsofmaterials(i.e.paint,oil,fuel,orconcrete materials) that had the potential to enter into the storm drains, ·The Environmental Compliance Inspectors conducted over 66 erosion control inspections, ·TheEnvironmentalComplianceInspectorsconductedover168stormwaterinspectionsoffood facilities, auto repair facilities, and industrial facilities, ·Reviewedover100buildingandconstructionplansandpreparedwrittencommentsrequesting incorporationofstormwaterpollutionpreventionmeasuresandpostconstructionstormwatertreatment measures, ·OnSeptember20-21,2016,theCityofSouthSanFrancisco’sEnvironmentalComplianceProgram participatedinPollutionPreventionWeekbysettingupanoutreachboothatthePublicLibrary.Staff distributed 73 reusable bags and various other outreach materials to the public, ·TheEnvironmentalComplianceProgramsetupanoutreachboothonJuly23,August6,August13and September10,2016toprovidepollutionpreventionoutreachtothecommunityattheSSFFarmers’ Market.Staffdistributed489reusablebags,84greasereceptacles,32greasescrapersandvariousother outreach materials to the public, ·OnSaturday,September17,2016,theCityofSouthSanFranciscoinpartnershipwiththeCountyof SanMateosponsoredaCreekClean-UpEventofColmaCreek,northoftheUtahBridge.Thiswasa threehoureventwithover35volunteers,includingCitystaffandcommunitymembers,pickingupover 200 gallons of trash, ·OnWednesday,April26,2017,EnvironmentalCompliancestaffsetupanoutreachboothattheAmgen EarthDayFairtoprovidepollutionpreventionoutreachtothecommunity.Staffdistributed170 reusable bags, 26 grease scrapers and receptacles and various other outreach materials to the public, ·ForEarthDayonSaturday,April22,2017,theEnvironmentalComplianceInspectorsincollaboration withSanMateoCountyand15citizenvolunteersremovedapproximately390gallonsoftrashfrom Colma Creek in the area of the pedestrian bridge, ·OnSaturday,May20,2017,theCityofSouthSanFranciscoinpartnershipwiththeCountyofSan City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-463 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:5. ·OnSaturday,May20,2017,theCityofSouthSanFranciscoinpartnershipwiththeCountyofSan MateosponsoredaCreekClean-UpEventofColmaCreekattheUtahBridge.Thiswasathreehour event with over 200 gallons of trash picked up by volunteers, and ·TheEnvironmentalComplianceProgramparticipatedinseveraladditionalCity-sponsoredand community events, providing pollution prevention information and distributing outreach materials. Current Stormwater Fees and Fee Changing Process OnJuly19,1993,theCityCounciladoptedastormwaterfeethatatthetimerepresentedanequitable distributionofstormwaterregulationcosts,takingintoconsiderationthesizeanduseoftheparcelandthe estimatedamountofstormwaterrunoffgeneratedbytheparcel.Overthelast25yearstheMRPcompliance requirementshaveincreased,whilethefundingmechanismsforstormwatermanagementhavenotincreased. The fee continues to remain the same since inception in1993. AsCouncilisaware,stormwaterfeesdonotfallintosamecategoryassewerratesundertheProposition218 requirements,meaningthatatwo-thirdsvoteinageneralCityelectionisrequiredinordertoincreasethefee.If theCityCouncilweretoplaceaballotmeasuretoincreasethestormwaterratesonafutureelection,andif approved by the voters, such an increase would help to cover the City’s costs of MRP compliance. FUNDING ThebasisforcalculatingtheprogramfeesistheEquivalentDwellingUnit(EDU),whichisrepresentativeof onesingle-familyhousehold,$8.72/EDUperyear.Thesquarefootageofeachparcelintheserviceareais dividedbytheaverageEDUsquarefootageof5,372tocalculatethenumberofEDUsforthatparcel.This valueisthenmultipliedbytheEDUclassrateforthatparcel(single-family,multi-family, commercial/industrial,etc.)resultingintheannualservicecharge.ThisassessmentiscollectedbytheSan Mateo County Assessor via property tax billings as in the previous year. TheproposedProgrambudgetforFiscalYear2017-2018is$1,071,500.Currentlyfundingwillbeprovided fromprogramservicefeesandsupplementedwithgastaxandgeneralfunds,asstormwaterfeescollected continuetofallshortofthetotalcostofprovidingtheservices.Abreakdownoftheproposedprogramfees according to classification type can be seen in Exhibit A. CONCLUSION ItisrecommendedthattheCityCouncilconductaPublicHearing,andbyafour-fifthsvote,adoptaresolution to: (1)Adopt the report of stormwater management service charges, (2)Approve the stormwater management service charges for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and (3)Directthestormwatermanagementservicechargestobecollectedontheofficialtaxassessmentrollin order to ensure continued funding of the stormwater program at the current rate. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-464 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:5a. Resolutionapprovingthereportofstormwatermanagementservicecharges,approvingthestormwater managementservicechargesforFiscalYear2017-2018,anddirectingthestormwatermanagementservice charges to be collected on the official tax assessment roll.. WHEREAS,SouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCodeChapter14.04enablestheCityofSouthSanFrancisco (“City”)toestablishasystemofchargesforthelocalportionoftheSanMateoCountyStormwater Management Program; and WHEREAS,pursuanttoSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCodeChapter14.04,apublichearingnotice, announcingapublichearingtobeheldonJune14,2017waspublishedasrequiredfortheenactmentofthe subject stormwater charges; and WHEREAS, the proposed local program budget for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 is $1,071,500; and WHEREAS,theStormwaterServiceChargesaremaintainedatthesamelevelestablishedinFiscalYear1993- 94; and WHEREAS,pursuanttoSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCodeChapter14.04,CityCouncilheldadulynoticed public hearing on June 14, 2017; and WHEREAS,staffrecommendsthattheCityCounciladopttheReportofStormwaterManagementService Charges,approvetheStormwaterManagementServiceChargesforFiscalYear2017-2018forpropertywithin the City, and direct stormwater management service charges to be collected on the official tax assessment roll. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,bytheCityCounciloftheCityofSouthSanFranciscothattheCity Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby takes the following actions: 1.Adopts the Report of Stormwater Management Service Charges, attached hereto as Exhibit A, 2.Approvesthestormwatermanagementservicecharges,forFiscalYear2017-2018,assetforthin Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein, and 3.DirectsthestormwatermanagementservicechargesforFiscalYear2017-2018tobecollectedonthe officialtaxassessmentroll,togetherwithrealpropertytaxes,andthattheamountshallconstituteliens uponthepropertieswhichshallbeeffectiveatthesametimeandtothesameextentasisprovidedfor by law in the case of real property taxes with like penalties for delinquencies. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-464 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:5a. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ REPORT OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES FOR Fiscal Year 2017-2018 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 14.04.100 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE In accordance with Chapter 14.04.100 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the following report prepared as of May 4, 2017, is submitted. This report describes the procedure for charging those parcels of real property, which receive benefits of stormwater system services, and the amount of the annual charge, which will be imposed against each parcel for Fiscal Year 2017-2018. Summary of Charges All single-family residential properties $ 124,037.60 All multi-family residential properties $ 67,948.14 (Including duplexes) All commercial/industrial $ 215,547.90 Parking lots $ 12,277.48 Vacant $ 5,907.56 TOTAL $ 425,718.68 This report refers to and incorporates by reference the report entitled “Notice of Proposed City of South San Francisco Stormwater Management Program Rate Structure” for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 prepared by and on file with the Environmental Compliance Supervisor. This report summarizes the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 charges that will be reviewed by the City Council on June 14, 2017. Upon adoption of the proposed charges, or amendments thereto, the report entitled “City of South San Francisco Stormwater System Charges,” prepared by Engineering Data Services, Los Altos, California, describes the amount of annual charge imposed against each parcel, by Assessor’s Parcel Number, for Fiscal Year 2017-2018. All of these documents, including this report, shall be filed with the County Tax Collector or Auditor. Accompanying the filing of this report shall be the City Clerk’s endorsement that the report has been duly adopted by the City Council. Dated: May 5, 2017 Richard Lee Director of Finance CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHARGES FOR FY 2017-2018 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Public Hearing at a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, June 14, 2017, commencing at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California, to consider the adoption of charges to be collected on the tax roll for the local portion of the San Mateo Stormwater Management Program pursuant to Chapter 14.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. The Council may continue the hearing from time to time without further written notice. Written correspondence may be submitted to the attention of the City Council, at the address below. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the written report containing a description of each parcel receiving stormwater management services and the proposed charge for each parcel has been filed with the City Clerk and is available for public review. The following formula, proposed for adoption, shall be used to calculate stormwater service fees for each parcel: PARCEL SIZE ÷ BASE THRESHOLD x EDU RATE = ANNUAL SERVICE FEE (sq. footage) (average sq. ft. of (per class) single family dwelling) [number of EDU’s] Sample Fees per Classification: Type of Parcels Annual Rate 1. Single Family Residential 5,352 sq. ft. ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $8.72 = $ 8.72 [1 EDU] 2. Multi-Family Residential 10,704 sq. ft. ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $17.42 = $ 34.84 [2 EDU] 3. Commercial/Industrial (a) 16,056 sq. ft ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $17.86 = $ 53.58 [3 EDU’s] (b) 43,560 sq. ft ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $17.86 = $ 145.36 ( 1 acre) [8.139 EDU’s] 4. Vacant 13,380 sq. ft. ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $1.74 = $ 4.35 [2.5 EDU] 5. Parking Lots 10,704 sq. ft. ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $26.14 = $ 52.28 [2 EDU] The actual per parcel Stormwater Program Fees scheduled for adoption will be available for review in the City Clerk’s Office. Questions concerning the Stormwater Program Fees should be directed to the Environmental Compliance Supervisor, Water Quality Control Division, Department of Public Works, (650) 877-8555. If you challenge in court the action taken by the City Council regarding the item described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice of in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you have any questions or wish to submit written correspondence regarding this matter, contact the City Clerk, at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 or (650) 877- 8518. Krista Martinelli City Clerk City of South San Francisco May xx, 2017 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-508 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:6. ReportregardinganamendmenttoaDevelopmentAgreementbetweenARE-SanFranciscoNo.21LP,and ARE-SanFranciscoNo.42LLCandtheCityofSouthSanFrancisco,andrelatedplanningapprovals,to relocatetheparkinggarageandcreateacampusopenspaceat213-221EastGrandAvenue(MerckCampus) andmakeadeterminationthattheprojectisfullywithinthescopeofenvironmentalanalysisinthepreviously certified2007EnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR07-001)asdescribedinthe2017Addendum,andnofurther environmentalreviewisrequiredpertheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)Guidelines (Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION ItisrecommendedthattheCityCouncilconsiderthePlanningCommission’srecommendationsandtake the following actions to facilitate the development of the Merck Campus at 213-221 E. Grand Avenue: 1)Adoptaresolutionmakingfindingsandadeterminationthattheprojectisfullywithinthescope ofenvironmentalanalysisprovidedinthe2007EIR,the2017Addendumistheappropriate environmentaldocumentfortheproject,andnofurtherenvironmentalreviewisrequiredperthe California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and 2)AdoptaresolutionapprovingtheUsePermitModification,ParkingReductionrequest, TransportationDemandManagement(TDM)Plan,andDesignReviewat213-221EastGrand AvenueintheBusinessandTechnologyPark(BTP)ZoningDistrictsubjecttotheattachedDraft Conditions of Approval; and 3)WaivereadingandintroduceanOrdinanceamendingtheDevelopmentAgreementbetweenARE -San Francisco No. 21 LP, ARE-San Francisco No. 42 LLC and the City of South San Francisco. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Overview InFiscalYear(FY)2008-09,forthevacantseven-acresitelocatedat213EastGrandAvenuetheCityCouncil adopted: (1)Ordinance No. 1403-2009 approving the Development Agreement (DA) (Attachment 1); (2)ResolutionNo.114-2008approvingaUsePermit,DesignReview,MasterSignProgram, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (“Original Entitlements”); and (3)Resolution No. 113-2008 approving the Environmental Impact Report. UndertheDAandOriginalEntitlements,thedeveloper,AlexandriaRealEstate(ARE),ispermittedto constructanine-story,291,634squarefoot(sq.ft.)office/research&developmentbuilding,athree-story ancillaryamenityspaceofapproximately8,495sq.ft.,afive-levelparkingstructurewith616parkingspaces, andsurfaceparkingforanother210vehicles.PriortochangesmadetotheSouthSanFranciscoMunicipal Code(SSFMC)in2012,theprojectsitewaszonedP-IPlannedIndustrial,nowzonedBusinessandTechnology Park(BTP),whichrequiredaUsePermitfor“AllNon-ResidentialUseswhichbytheirusegenerateone City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2017Page 1 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-508 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:6. hundred or more vehicle trips per day” (Formerly Section 20.32.060 of the SSFMC). Thesiteiscurrentlyvacant;however,sitepreparationisunderwayforfutureconstructionoftheproject,subject to the proposed changes requested by the applicant. Project Description/Discussion Theentitledseven-acrepropertyislocatedatthenortheastcornerofEastGrandAvenueandForbesBoulevard intheheartoftheEastof101areaandwithinwalkingdistanceoftheplannedCaltrainStationrelocation.Since theDevelopmentAgreement(DA)andOriginalEntitlementswereapprovedin2009,AREhassuccessfully leasedtheprojecttoMerckPharmaceuticals,apreeminentcompanyintheLifeSciencesbusinesssector.In collaborationwiththenewtenant(Merck),AREhasupdatedthedesignandsiteplanoftheprojectinorderto meettheneedsofMerck’srequestforamoremodernandintegratedcampus.Asaresult,theapplicantis seeking a DA Amendment and Use Permit Modification for the following project changes: ·ReducetheparkingprovidedonthesiteaspertheParkingReductionRequestandupdatedTDMPlan, witharatioof2.23parkingspaces/1,000sq.ft.andatotalof650spaces(originallyentitledfor2.83 spaces/ 1,000 sq. ft. with a total of 826 spaces), ·Relocatetheparkingstructureawayfromthestreetfrontagetoalessprominentlocationontheeastside of the project site, ·Modifythedesignoftheparkingstructuresothatitcreatesanaestheticallypleasingedgeforthenewly formed open space of the campus, and ·Create a campus open space and outdoor recreation area for employees. Furthermore,perSection21oftheoriginalDA,“AmendmentorCancellationofAgreement”,theapplicant mayamendtheDAfollowingthesameprocedureastheoriginalDA.Ashighlightedabove,theapplicanthas requested modifications to the Original Entitlements, which are analyzed in this staff report. OnApril20,2017,thePlanningCommissionreviewedtheapplicant’srequestandunanimouslyrecommended thattheCityCouncilapprovetheDAAmendment,UsePermitModification,ParkingReductionrequest,TDM Plan, Design Review and 2017 EIR Addendum. Development Agreement (DA) DA - 2009 AspartoftheFY2008-09projectapprovals,theCityandtheapplicantnegotiatedaDAtoclarifyandobligate severalprojectfeaturesandmitigationmeasuresincludingtransportationimpactfees,publicimprovementsin theEastof101area,publicartcontribution,andTDMreportingandmonitoringrequirementswhile simultaneously vesting the applicant’s approvals for 10 years. First Amendment to the DA - 2017 Theapplicant’srequestforaDAAmendmentseekstomodifythelayoutoftheoriginalsiteplanandreduce requiredparking.Morespecifically,theparkinggaragewouldbemovedtoalessprominentlocationonthe eastsideoftheprojectsite,furthercreatingcampusopenspaceandrecreationalopportunities,andparking wouldbereducedtoaratioof2.23spaces/1,000sq.ft.throughanadvancedTDMPlan.TheproposedDA Amendment is included as Exhibit A to the associated draft City Council Ordinance. Use Permit Use Permit - 2008 In2008,theprojectsitewaszonedP-IPlannedIndustrial,whichrequiredaUsePermitfor“AllNon- City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2017Page 2 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-508 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:6. In2008,theprojectsitewaszonedP-IPlannedIndustrial,whichrequiredaUsePermitfor“AllNon- ResidentialUseswhichbytheirusegenerateonehundredormorevehicletripsperday”(FormerlySection 20.32.060 of the SSFMC). Use Permit Modification - 2017 In2012,theSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCode(SSFMC)wasmodifiedandtheprojectsiteiscurrently zonedBusinessandTechnologyPark(BTP),whichpermitsthesetypesofusesbyright.Althoughthezoning codehaschangedsincethe2008UsePermitwasapproved,theapplicantisnowrequestingaparkingreduction toreducetheamountofrequiredparkingthrougharobustTDMPlan(Attachment2),whichrequiresa modification to the original Use Permit. Design Review Board AtitsmeetingonFebruary21,2017,theDesignReviewBoardreviewedtheapplicationandrecommended strong approval for the project with the following minor suggestion: 1.ConsideraddingadditionalAmericanDisabilitiesAct (ADA)parkingstallsonupperlevelsofthe parking garage, adjacent to elevators. Zoning Consistency Analysis TheproposedprojectsiteisnowzonedBusinessTechnologyPark(BTP).TheBTPZoningDistrictprovides locationsforamixofcorporateheadquarters,researchanddevelopmentfacilities,andotherofficesina campus-likeenvironment.Asproposed,therearenousechangesfortheprojectsite;however,the modificationsandenhancementstotheprojectsitewouldcreateamorecampus-likeenvironmentwith additional open and recreational space for employees and guests. Parking Reduction Request and TDM Plan PerSection20.330.004oftheSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCode(SSFMC),“RequiredOn-siteParking Spaces”,ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)usesrequireoneparkingspaceper350sq.ft.Theexisting DevelopmentAgreementandUsePermitarebasedonaprojectwith291,634sq.ft.andaparkingratioof2.83 spaces/1,000sq.ft.(approximately826parkingspaces).MuchhaschangedinthepastdecadesincetheDA andOriginalEntitlementswereapprovedwithincreasesintheuseofpublictransportation,privateshuttlesand employeecommutepreferences.Takingthisintoaccount,theapplicanthasanalyzedandevaluatedtheirneed forparkingfacilitiesat213EastGrandAvenueandhasrequestedtoseekaparkingreductionfrom826parking spacesto650parkingspaces(from2.83spaces/1,000sq.ft.to2.23spaces/1,000sq.ft.)throughtheapproval ofaConditionalUsePermitpursuanttoSection20.330.006(D)oftheSSFMC.AConditionalUsePermitfor reduced parking can be permitted if the applicant meets the following “criteria for approval”: A.Special conditions exist that will reduce parking demand at the site, including but not limited to: ·The nature of the proposed operation, ·Proximity to frequent transit service, ·Transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site, or ·Because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program. Analysis:ThenatureoftheproposedoperationconsistsofalifesciencefocusedResearchandDevelopment facilitywithaverylowdensityofemploymentpopulation.Theexpectedpopulationinthefacilityis estimatedtobe400to440peopleoverthecourseoftheentireday-especiallysincescientificexperiments areconductednotjustduringbusinesshours.Therefore,theirneedforparkingissignificantlylowerthan moretypicalcommercialusers.Thefacilityisalsolocatedwithin½mileoftheCaltrainStationaswellas City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2017Page 3 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-508 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:6. moretypicalcommercialusers.Thefacilityisalsolocatedwithin½mileoftheCaltrainStationaswellas beingservedbymajorpublictransitagencies:BART,SamTransandtheWETAFerrysystem.Inaddition toprivateshuttlesoperatedbysomeofthearea’slargestemployers,theSanMateoCountyCongestion ReliefAllianceprovidesfirstandlastmileshuttlestomanyemployersontheeastsidefromthebus,light rail and ferry hubs. Moreover,theapplicanthasundertakenadraftTransportationDemandManagement(TDM)Programthat demonstratesa35percentalternativemodesplitthroughstrategiesunderthreemaincategories:property infrastructure,tenantrequirements,andongoingdevelopersupport(seeAttachment2toreviewthefull draft TDM Plan). B.As demonstrated by the TDM, the use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking. Analysis:TheR&Dnatureoftheuseonthesitewillbemorethanadequatelyservedbytheproposedon- site parking. C.Parkingdemandgeneratedbytheprojectwillnotexceedthecapacityoforhaveadetrimentalimpact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area. Analysis:Theapplicantanditstenantconfirmthatbasedonthepopulationdensityexpectedonthesiteof nomorethan440people/employees,theproposedon-siteparkingof2.0spaces/1,000sq.ft.(650spaces)is morethansufficienttomeetthedemandgeneratedbytheproject.Thedeveloper,Alexandria,has significantexperiencefromothersimilarprojectsinMissionBay,SierraPoint,andEastof101areaaswell asbychangingtransportationtrendsandmulti-modaloptions.Insupport,Alexandriahascompiledrecent datafromtheir249EastGrandAvenuecampus(locateddirectlyadjacenttotheprojectsite),andhas documentedunderutilizationofparkingattherequired2.83spaces/1,000sq.ft.ratioandhasachieveda32 percent alternate mode split consistently over a five-year period. Basedonrecenthistory,currenttrends,andprojections,Alexandriaisconfidentthatthisprojectcanmeet parkingdemandswithatotalof650parkingspacesataminimumof2.0spaces/1,000sq.ft.asoutlinedbythe draftTDMPlan(Attachment2);with650parkingspaces.However,theactualparkingratiowillbe2.23 spaces/1,000sq.ft.Furthermore,thefulldraftTDMplanoutlinestheprogramsandstrategiesthatsufficiently supportarequestforaparkingreductionfrom2.83parkingspaces/1,000sq.ft.downtoaminimumof2.0 parking spaces/ 1,000 sq. ft. A condition of approval has been included to ensure TDM compliance. Design Review BothstaffandtheDesignReviewBoardhavereviewedtheapplicationanddeterminedthattheproposalmeets theCity’sregulationsanddesigngoals.TheOriginalEntitlementswouldbesubstantiallyimprovedasthe parkinggaragewouldbemovedtotheeastsideofthesiteawayfromthestreetfrontage,furthercreatinga campusopenspaceforemployeestogatherandrecreate.Inaddition,theenhanceddesignoftheparkinggarage complimentsthedesignoftheentitledR&Dbuildingandservesasacampusedgetothenewlydesigned campus open space. General Plan Consistency Analysis TheproposedprojectisconsistentwiththeguidingandimplementingpoliciesintheGeneralPlanasithas beendesignedtopromotecampus-styleusessuchasbiotechnology,high-technology,andresearchand developmentuses.Therevisedsitelayoutandoverallarchitecturewouldcontinuetoshapethecampus characteroftheEastof101area.TheprojectisconsistentwiththeGeneralPlanlandusewhichdesignatesthe City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2017Page 4 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-508 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:6. characteroftheEastof101area.TheprojectisconsistentwiththeGeneralPlanlandusewhichdesignatesthe propertyBusinessandTechnologyPark.Office/R&Dusesarespecificallyidentifiedasanappropriateuse under this designation. Environmental Review In2009,theCitycertifiedanEnvironmentalImpactReportforthe213EastGrandAvenueOffice/Research and Development Project (EIR07-0001)-State Clearinghouse No. 2008022094. PursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15164,aleadagencyshallprepareanaddendumtoapreviouslycertified EIRifsomechangesoradditionsarenecessary,butnoneoftheconditionsdescribedinCEQAGuidelines Section 15162, calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR, have occurred. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the conditions necessitating preparation of a subsequent EIR are: (1)Substantialchangesareproposedintheproject,whichwillrequiremajorrevisionstothepreviousEIR duetotheinvolvementofnewsignificantenvironmentaleffectsorasubstantialincreaseinpreviously identified effects, (2)Substantialchangesoccurwithrespecttothecircumstancesunderwhichtheprojectisundertaken whichwillrequiremajorrevisionstothepreviousEIRduetotheinvolvementofnewsignificant environmental effects or a substantial increase in previously identified effects, or (3)New information is discovered, which shows that there will be: a.Additional significant environmental effects, b.Substantially more severe environmental effects, c.Mitigationpreviouslybelievedtobeinfeasibleisinfactfeasible,whichwouldsubstantially reduce significant environmental effects, but the applicant declines to adopt it, or d.Newmitigationisproposed,whichwouldsubstantiallyreducesignificantenvironmentaleffects, but the applicant declines to adopt it. The2017AddendumconcludesthattheprojectwouldnotmeetthecriteriaunderCEQAGuidelinesSections 15164or15162justifyingpreparationofasubsequentEIR,andthusanaddendumistheappropriate environmentaldocumentfortheproject.The2017Addendumfurtherconcludesthattheprojectdoesnot representasubstantialchangetothe2007EIREIR07-0001andthattheprojectisfullywithinthescopeof environmentalanalysisasdescribedinthe2007EIR.TheCityhasreviewedthe2017Addendumand supplementalanalysis(ExhibitAtotheassociatedCEQAresolution)andhasdeterminedthattheprojectis indeedconsistentwithpreviouslyadoptedenvironmentaldocuments,andthatnofurtherenvironmentalreview is required. FUNDING The proposed actions would have no direct fiscal impact on the City. CONCLUSION TheproposedmodificationstotheDevelopmentAgreementandOriginalEntitlementsareconsistentwiththe ZoningOrdinanceandoriginallyentitledprojectin2009.Themodifieddesignandplacementoftheparking garagehelpscreateacampussettingwithadditionalopenandrecreationalspace.Likewise,areductionin parkingthroughanadvancedTDMPlanallowstheapplicant/tenanttoaltertheirparkingplantomeetthe needsanddemandsofnewemployeetravelbehaviors,andfurtherreduceunderutilizedorunneededparkingto aminimumratioof2.0spaces/1,000sq.ft.Forthesereasons,staffrecommendsthattheCityCouncilconsider the Planning Commission’s recommendations and take the following actions: City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2017Page 5 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-508 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:6. 1)Adoptaresolutionmakingfindingsandadeterminationthattheprojectisfullywithinthescopeof environmentalanalysisprovidedinthe2007EIRandthatthe2017Addendumistheappropriate environmental document for the project; and 2)AdoptaresolutionapprovingtheUsePermitModification,ParkingReductionrequest,Transportation DemandManagement(TDM)Plan,andDesignReviewat213-221EastGrandAvenueintheBusiness and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval; and 3)WaivereadingandintroduceanOrdinanceamendingtheDevelopmentAgreementbetweenARE-San Francisco No. 21 LP, ARE-San Francisco No. 42 LLC and the City of South San Francisco. Attachments 1.Executed Development Agreement 2.TDM Plan 3.Project Description 4.Architectural Plans 5.April 20, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report 6.Planning Commission CEQA Resolution #2801-2017 7.Planning Commission DA Resolution #2800-2017 City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2017Page 6 of 6 powered by Legistar™ r~~ar lfb``. ~`e'~'i ~4 r~ ryi '.±mF.v Recording Requested By: City of South San Francisco Office of the City Clerk When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk Department City of South San Francisco PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103, 27383 APN: 015-041-0300 2009-0 ~'S081 11:27am 06/09109 AG Fee: NO FEE Count of pages 64 Recorded in Official Records County of S:~n Mateo Warren Sllocum Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder IIII (IIII VIII VIII (IIII IIIIII IIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIII 2 0 fl 9 p g 7 5 0 8 1 A R NO DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX DUE This Space for Recorder's Use Only DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 213 East Grand Avenue Office /Research and Development Project This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE OFFICE /RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT is dated Dc-l-o ber !o 2008 A~reement"), between (i) ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 21, L.P., a California limited partnership ("Primary Property Owner"), and ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 42, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Adjacent Property Owner"), on the one hand, and (ii) the CITY OF SOUTHSAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"), on the other hand. As used in this Agreement, the term Owner" shall mean Primary Property Owner and/or Adjacent Property Owner, as applicable. Further, Owner andthe City are collectively referred to herein as "Parties." RECITALS A. WHEREAS, California Government Code ("Government Code") Sections 65864 through 65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property or on behalf of those persons having same; and, B. WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City has adopted rules and regulations, embodied in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code Municipal Code"), establishing procedures and requirements for adoption and execution of development agreements; and, C. WHEREAS, this Agreement concerns property (the "Property") consisting of the following: a 6.695-acre site located at the northeast corner of East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Primar~perty"); and 2. a 0.332-acre site, adjacent to the Primary Property, located at the northwest corner of East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road, as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A-2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the Adjacent Property" ); and, D. WHEREAS, ARE-San Francisco No. 21, L.P., has a legal or equitable interest in the Primary Property subject to this Agreement, and ARE-San Francisco No. 42, LLC, has a legal or equitable interest in the Adjacent Property subject to this Agreement; and, E. WHEREAS, Owner has submitted a development proposal to the City that would permit the development of the Property as depicted on the 213 East Grand Avenue - P~ C'~+y ear dated ~s~e~; 2008, prepared by Dowler-Gruman Architects (the "Plan Cow--c~ 1 .i)e~-~-bu- !b~ Page 1 of 23 213 E. Grand Ave. Development Agt. October 10, 2008 10. New Taxes Any subsequently enacted City-wide taxes shall apply to the Property, provided that: i) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (ii) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 11. Assessments Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from common benefit assessments levied against it and similarly situated properties by the City pursuant to and in accordance with any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services that benefit the Property. 12. Additional Conditions Owner shall comply with all of the following requirements: a) Traffic Impact Fees. Owner shall pay the following Traffic Impact Fees: Oyster Point Overpass Fees -Oyster Point Overpass fees shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect as of the time the City issues the first building permit for the Project, and shall be payable substantially concurrently with, but not later than, the issuance of such building permit. The City and Owner agree that any ancillary tenant amenity space will be treated as "General Office Building" for purposes of calculating the Oyster Point Overpass fees. 2. East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee -East of 101 Traffic Impact fees shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect as of the time the City issues the first building permit for the Project, and shall be payable substantially concurrently with, but not later than, the issuance of such building permit. The City and Owner agree that any ancillary tenant amenity space will be treated as "Office/R&D" for purposes of calculating the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee. b) Rails To Trails Improvements. Should the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property, and identified in the General Plan as a future bike path, become available for public use prior to July 31, 201 1, the City may elect, at the City's option to be exercised in the City's reasonable discretion, to have Owner either install the improvements described in subsection 12(bZ .i. below for the portion of the corridor that directly abuts the Property or provide the cost estimates and funds described in subsection 12(b~ below. The City shall give Owner written notice of its election. i. If the City so elects, Owner shall install improvements at its sole cost and expense for the portion of the corridor that directly abuts Page 7 of 23 213 E. Grand Ave. Development Agt. October 10, 2008 the Property. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, paving, lighting, and landscaping of a design and scope consistent with standard portions of the City's then existing Bay Trail. ii. Pursuant to Owner's obligation to install said improvements, Owner shall submit plans, including a cost estimate, for the improvements, to the City for review and approval. Owner shall complete construction of said improvements by the later of (A) the date that is two (2) years after the City gives Owner written notice that the City has elected to have Owner construct said improvements, and (B) December 31, 2013. 2. If the City does not elect to have Owner construct the improvements described in subsection 12(b)l.i. above or the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property does not become available for public use prior to July 31, 2011, then, prior to expiration of the Development Agreement: Owner shall (A) provide the City with a cost estimate, subject to the City's review and approval, of the costs that would be required for the improvements described in subsection 12(b)1. above; and B) provide the City with the funds described in the cost estimate, to be used by the City solely to upgrade substandard portions of the City's then existing Bay Trail. ii. Owner shall provide said cost estimate and funds prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the shell of the final building to be constructed as part of the Project, but no later than December 31, 2013. 3. If at any time the City decides to form an assessment district with the objective of acquiring and completing a rails to trails conversion for the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property, Owner agrees not to oppose the formation of such a district. c) Caltrain Station Enhancement Contribution. Owner shall pay an in-lieu fee to be used for enhancing, enlarging, repairing, restoring, renovating, remodeling, redecorating, and/or refurbishing the Caltrain Station located at 590 Dubuque Avenue and/or its associated facilities currently planned at the southeast corner of Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue. The in-lieu fee shall be in the amount of two hundred ninety-one thousand six hundred thirty-four dollars ($291,634.00), and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments. One-half (1 /2) of the in-lieu fee shall be payable substantially concurrently with, but not later than, the issuance of the building permit for the shell of the first building to be constructed as part of the Project, and one-half (1/2) of the in-lieu fee shall be payable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the shell of the final building to be Page 8 of 23 213 E. Grand Ave. Development Agt. October 10, 2008 constructed as part of the Project, but no later than December 31, 2013. Payments of the in-lieu fee shall be deposited and held in a separate account by the City. The Parties intend for the entire in-lieu fee to be expended for the Caltrain Station enhancements and/or associated facilities described in this subsection no later than the date that is five (5) years after the date Owner pays the second installment of the in-lieu fee. If any portion of the in-lieu fee has not been expended for such enhancements and/or associated facilities as of such date, the City shall give Owner written notice of the amount of the unused portion and thereafter such unused portion may be expended by the City for any transit or public space improvements or enhancements in the East of 101 Area. d) Transportation Demand Mana eg_ment. Owner shall prepare an annual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) report, and submit same to the City, to document the effectiveness of the TDM plan in achieving the goal of thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage by employees within the Project. The TDM report will be prepared by an independent consultant, retained by the City with the approval of Owner (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and paid for by Owner, which consultant will work in concert with Owner's TDM coordinator. The TDM report will include a determination of historical employee commute methods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the buildings on the Property. One hundred percent (100%) of all non-responses will be counted as a drive alone trip. TDM Reports: The initial TDM report for each building on the Property will be submitted two (2) years after the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the building, and this requirement will apply to all buildings on the Property except the parking facilities. The second and all later reports with respect to each building shall be included in an annual. comprehensive TDM report submitted to the City covering all of the buildings on the Property that are submitting their second or later TDM reports. i. Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.120 of the Municipal Code. The initial TDM report shall either: (A) state that the applicable property has achieved thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (B) state that the applicable property has not achieved the thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the TDM goal of thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode usage. ii. Penalty for Non-Compliance: If, after the initial TDM report, subsequent annual reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM plan, the thirty-five percent (35%) alternative mode Page 9 of 23 213 E. Grand Ave. Development Agt. October 10, 2008 Notices to Owner shall be addressed as follows: ARE-San Francisco No. 21, L.P. c/o Alexandria Real Estate Equities 385 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 299 Pasadena, CA 91101 Attn: Corporate Secretary A party may change its address for notice by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Page 21 of 23 213 E. Grand Ave. Development Agt. October 10, 2008 IN WITNESSWHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the Parties on the day and year first above written. CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: `` y agel, City Manager ATTEST: QUA- `^'~ - erk Deputy Clty CI APPROVED ASTO FORM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney OWNER: Primary Property Owner" ARE-SAN FRANCISCO N0.21, L.P., a California limited partnership By: ARE-SAN FRANCISCO N0.21 GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, General Partner By: ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Managing Member By: ARE-QRS CORP., a Maryland corporation, General Partner By: Print Print Page 22 of 23 213 E. Grand Ave. Development Agt. October 10, 2008 Reai Estate Legal Affairs Adjacent Property Owner" ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 42, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Managing Member By: ARE-QRS CORP., a Maryland corporation, General Partner By. nc o nPrintame: Print Title: ~~ Page 23 of 23 213 E. Grand Ave. Development Agt. October 10, 2008 EXHIBIT A-2 ADJACENT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The land referred to in this Agreement as the "Adjacent Property" is situated in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwesterly corner of the lands described in Parcel 3 in deed to Milland Development Company, a corporation, recorded December 29, 1954, in Book 2716 of Official Records, of San Mateo County, at page 407 (13837-M) on the northerly line of East Grand Avenue; thence from said point of beginning along the northerly line of East Grand Avenue, north 89° 52' 30" east 202.07 feet to the true point of beginning of the lands to be described; thence north 53° 22' 42" east 201.62 feet; thence south 56° 37' 18" east 83.08 feet; thence south 33° 22' 42" west 146.62 feet to the northerly line of East Grand Avenue above mentioned; thence along the last mentioned line south 89° 52' 30" west 99.63 feet to the true point of beginning. Assessor's Parcel No. 015-041-050-4 213 E ALEXAN . Grand NDRIA REAL Avenue, L ESTATE E , South S EQUITIES | 1 San Fran 1700 Owens ncisco, C s St., San Fr CA rancisco, CAA 213 E. Grand TDM Plan + Parking Reduction Analysis 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 1 INTRODUCTION The City of South San Francisco approved a Development Agreement for the vacant seven- acre site at 213 E. Grand Avenue in 2009. The Agreement allows Alexandria Real Estate Equities (the Developer), to construct a nine-story, 291,634 square foot office/research & development building. The Agreement also requires a five-level parking structure with 616 spaces and surface parking for another 210 vehicles. Alexandria’s construction and ongoing operations plans for this property are designed to achieve at least Silver LEED status. The property is strategically located in the heart of what is known as The East Side – a geographic area that lies east of Highway 101. Its northern boundary is the Oyster Point Channel; its southern border is the San Bruno Channel; the San Francisco Bay is at its eastern edge. This area is known for the dozens of Life Sciences companies who have built similar, office and R&D facilities here. It’s also an industrial hub, populated with several large warehouses and businesses with strategic affiliations with San Francisco Airport to the south. 213 E. Grand Avenue is at the intersection of a major east-west thoroughfare – Grand Avenue, and an important north-south corridor – Forbes Avenue, which becomes Harbor Way just south of E. Grand. Within two blocks of the 213 E. Grand site are several major Life Sciences facilities including Verily, Exelixis, Renat Neuroscience, and parts of the Genentech campus. Also within a short distance are half a dozen hotels; two of which are within a two block walk. The South San Francisco Caltrain station is a short, five-minute walk from the corner of E. Grand and Forbes, and there are two vehicular routes to Highway 101 (northbound and southbound) nearby, via either Grand Avenue or Forbes/Oyster Point Blvd. The Developer, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, has developed and manages several other East Side properties including the 249 -279 E. Grand campus, 600, 630, 650, 681 and 901-951 Gateway Blvd, 400-450 E. Jamie Court, 500 Forbes Boulevard, 7000 Shoreline Court, 341-343 Oyster Point Boulevard, 849/863 Mitten Road and 866 Malcolm Road. All of these have successful longstanding transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Alexandria has successfully leased the 213 E. Grand site to Merck Pharmaceuticals one of the pre-eminent firms in the Life Sciences business sector and similar in nature to those populating its other East Side properties. This Transportation Plan builds on TDM strategies which have been most successful at these existing properties as well as data about the changing nature of the workforce, commute preferences, and how specific transportation modes are evolving, including local conditions in South San Francisco. THE REQUESTED PARKING REDUCTION 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 2 Alexandria and its Tenant Merck Pharmaceuticals have evaluated their need for parking facilities at the site and determined that we need to seek a reduction in the required parking through approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s Planning Code Section 20.330.006 Criteria for Approval a)Special conditions i.The nature of the proposed operation consists of a life science focused Research and Development facility with a very low density of employment population. The expected population in the facility is estimated to be 400 to 440 people over the course of the entire day – especially since scientific experiments are conducted not just during business hours. Therefore, their need for parking is significantly lower than more typical commercial users. ii.The facility is located within ½ mile of the Caltrain Station as well as being served by major public transit agencies: BART, SamTrans and the WETA Ferry system. In addition, the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Alliance (The Alliance), provides first and last mile shuttles to many employers on The East Side from the bus, light rail and ferry hubs. Several private shuttles are also operated by some of the area’s large employers. iii.The Applicant has undertaken a Transportation Demand Management Program that demonstrates the reduction of parking demand generated at this site. The TDMP is attached in the second part of this document. b)The R&D nature of the use on the site will be more than adequately served by the proposed on-site parking. c)Applicant and its Tenant confirm that based on the population density expected on the site of no more than 440 people –proposed on-site parking of 2 spaces/KSF is more than sufficient to meet the demand generated by the project. The developer, Alexandria has significant experience from other similar projects in Mission Bay, Sierra Point and The East Side as well as by changing transportation trends. Its most proximate data draws from experience at Alexandria’s campus at 249 E. Grand Avenue which has documented underutilization of parking at the required 2.83/KSF ratio, and achievement of a 32% alternate mode split consistently over a five -year period. The effective historical parking ratio at this site has been no more than 2.15/KSF. Further supporting our application for a parking reduction, we have prepared the attached Transportation Demand Management Plan which further describes the reduction in parking demand as required by the Code. 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 3 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 THE TDM PLAN FRAMEWORK The Development Agreement for 213 E. Grand Avenue targets a 35% alternative mode utilization. Achievement of this target will be determined by an annual survey completed by over half of total employees working at the property. Non-compliance may subject the Developer and/or its tenant(s) to a penalty of as much as $15,000 for every percentage it falls below this goal. This TDM Plan is based on several fundamental principles:  It is information-based. TDM strategies are intended to inform and educate employees about their commute options. This includes both ongoing ‘commute planning’ assistance and short-term ‘real time’ information systems that tell employees when trains, shuttles, ride-hail services are arriving and what the availability of car and bike sharing is.  It is flexible. Transportation modes are shifting and will continue to change over the course of this Plan. For example, not long ago, information was disseminated largely by printed materials posted on centrally located bulletin boards. These bulletin boards have largely been replaced by online and digital forms. Transit screens in lobbies, digital displays in elevators and in other public areas are currently the preferred means of communicating information. Digital information on internal websites and communicated via email has supplanted old ‘print collateral.’ Both BART and Caltrain – the two major light rail transit operators – are in the midst of a ‘renaissance’ of sorts which will ultimately greatly increase capacities, travel speeds and access for patrons. New forms of shared-rides are evolving quickly and economic conditions play a role in commute decisions. In short, programs that may be effective today will need adjustments as the transportation environment changes. As both transit and employee needs evolve, this TDM Plan will also be re-evaluated.  It is practical and results-oriented. Alexandria is making significant investments in TDM as it constructs this site; it will also require its tenant(s) to make significant ongoing investments in TDM to achieve the 35% alternative mode split target. In order to be viable and sustainable long-term, programs must be practical and produce an ROI for employers. Whether the ROI is measured in dollars and cents per employee, or in broader terms such as the ability to recruit and retain quality employees, programs must demonstrate clear benefits and be effective. Strategies that don’t work for whatever reason will need to be modified.  It is comprehensive. The most effective TDM programs offer a spectrum of choices and options to consumers. Employees have different needs on different days and/or at various times. For instance, perhaps taking transit works for someone three days a week, but they have conflicts with transit schedules once or twice a week. Or someone can bike to work occasionally but not every day. Ideally, employees will make commute decisions along a continuum of options.  It is measurable. At the end of the day, we must be able to quantitatively and qualitatively measure the effectiveness of the TDM program. The ultimate metric is whether it has achieved the 35% alternative mode split target, but other metrics will likely be evaluated as well. 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 5  Geography. Where employees live is a huge determining factor in what their commute options may be. It is important that TDM programs constantly analyze this and design programs and services accordingly to tap into particular transportation challenges and opportunities. THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION LANDSCAPE The East Side is served by all the major public transit agencies: BART, Caltrain, SamTrans and the WETA Ferry system. In addition, the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Alliance (The Alliance), provides first and last mile shuttles to many employers on The East Side from the bus, light rail and ferry hubs. Several private shuttles are also operated by some of the area’s large employers. BART AND CALTRAIN LIGHT RAIL BART serves The East Side community from its South San Francisco station and the Millbrae Transit Center. The South San Francisco station has direct service from Pittsburg/Bay Point at all times and from Richmond on weekdays until 8pm. BART riders on the Dublin and Fremont lines transfer at Daly City. Riders going to or from San Francisco Airport can make connections at either San Bruno or Millbrae. BART is in the midst of a major modernization and expansion which will increase capacities and travel speeds on the Bay Area-wide light rail system over the next few years. Starting in 2017, new cars will be arriving and by 2021, BART will have 100 more cars. These new higher capacity cars have features which will encourage more multi-modal use such as enhanced bicycle accommodations. Caltrain has major improvements slated in the next few years as well, most notably, electrification of the system and station improvements. These will also come online by 2020. The South San Francisco Caltrain station will undergo a major renovation beginning in 2017 and be complete in late 2019. Improvements coming to this local station include plazas on both sides of Highway 101 which will establish an important new connection between The East Side and Downtown district. A designated area for employer shuttles to pick up employees will be located on the east side of the station, and a new bike/pedestrian tunnel will be the east-west connector. This station is currently a ‘local’ Caltrain terminal and is only served by some local and limited trains at the present time. Millbrae Transit Center, located some 5.5 miles further south, is a major transportation hub where patrons can transfer between Caltrain, BART and SamTrans. All Caltrain service stops at Millbrae. Because of this, many employers currently provide shuttle services between their East Side facilities and the Millbrae Transit Center. While we don’t know yet how service at local stations will be improved as a result of electrification, we do know that the capacity will be for at least more train in each direction each hour. 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 6 SAMTRANS SamTrans has several routes that serve the South San Francisco BART Station: 122, 131, and the ECR (El Camino Real). Its 397 line that operates between San Francisco and Palo Alto has stops in South San Francisco at Grand Avenue and Airport Blvd. Two local routes also stop on Airport Blvd:  Route 131 which operates from Serramonte Center  Route 133 which operates from Tanforan Shopping Center and San Bruno BART Improved connections between Downtown and The East Side at the newly renovated SSF Caltrain transit hub will offer significant new opportunities for better links with these local, express, and intercity bus services. For example, employees who live near Serramonte and Tanforan or alone other bus lines that go to either San Bruno or SSF BART will be able to easily get to the new transit hub, and can then hop on an East Side Shuttle, walk or bike the last mile. WETA FERRIES The tip of Oyster Point in South San Francisco is the location of WETA’s newest ferry terminal. This terminal currently has three morning arrivals from the East Bay and three evening departures. ‘Last mile’ connections to some East Side employers from the ferry terminal are currently made via either the Alliance shuttle network or private shuttles. PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION Private transportation options are mushrooming as technology transforms traditional ‘on demand’ services such as taxi’s and ‘pooling services’ such as vanpools into services that blend the best of both worlds into more relevant configurations for today’s commuters. On-demand ride-sharing, whether for short or long distance, is developing quickly and will likely go through several more iterations as this marketplace matures. On-demand ride-sharing currently takes several forms. It may look like a traditional ‘carpool’ where everyone is going to the same location (or close to it, including the driver), except that rides are arranged on an as- needed basis, one trip at a time. No daily or weekly commitment is needed. The same rider is not necessarily paired with the same driver every trip. No round trip is required. Rides can be booked the night before for a morning commute; by 3pm that same day for a ride home again. Increasingly, these programs are being approved for ‘subsidy’ as part of tax-free Commute Benefits programs. On-demand ride-sharing may be pools with more than two passengers sharing the ride (and the cost). The driver may be an employee on his or her way to work or driving for a company such as Lyft or Uber. These services tend to work best in high density areas, such as between major employment centers and transit hubs, and rely on a ‘many-to-one’ model (where many people are coming from one origin such as a transit hub and are going to one or more locations along a route; or the reverse; where individuals may be picked up along a route and many are dropped at a single location). 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7 These new models of ride-sharing will play a major role in shaping the amount of parking needed in the future. Even in the smallest of shared rides, at least one parking space is eliminated. If the driver is also an employee, not only is one less parking space needed (the rider’s); there is one less SOV on the road. If the driver is working for a service such as Lyft, at least one parking space is eliminated, as well; more if it is a ‘pool’ with 2 or more riders going to the same location. Pools also eliminate more SOV trips. While we don’t know which of the current ride-share services will survive long term or what they will ultimately look like, we have long known that filling empty seats in vehicles is one of the easiest and most effective ways to ease congestion, reduce parking demand, decrease our carbon footprint, and maximize our existing roads. With more rides becoming ‘high occupancy’ and more efficient will come challenges on many fronts; designing new residential and commercial complexes to accommodate them will further this advance, as will integrating true multi-modalism into transit hubs and other public spaces. SHUTTLES Many large employers have filled gaps in the public transportation system by providing either one-seat, long distance rides from various residential communities to their corporate campuses, or ‘last mile’ service from nearby transit hubs. Groups of employers in some geographic areas also organize around ‘pooled shuttle services’ so that the individual companies can provide first/last mile services through a collective, shared expense network. The Alliance public-private partnership has established collaboratives to provide such service to BART, Caltrain and the Ferry terminals on behalf of employers and property owners in The East Side. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Walking and biking have not traditionally been modes of preference for employees working at East Side properties, because of relatively long distances between origins and destinations, a hilly terrain (in some areas), and the overall isolation because of the highway, a major physical barrier between the East Side and Downtown. As The East Side continues to develop, it is becoming more of a community with ‘local’ destinations. The renovation of the SSF Caltrain station will remove the physical barrier between the East Side and destinations on the west side of highway 101. These new connections, improved safety and the overall experience of walking and biking should encourage more active transportation. Complementing these new physical links are the evolution of e-bikes, which make traveling longer distances, handling hills and other challenges, possible for more commuters. As The East Side densifies, bike-sharing programs of some sort well may become part of the transportation landscape. 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 8 STRATEGIES We have organized the TDM strategies into three main categories: Category 1: Property Infrastructure Category 2: Tenant Requirements Category 3: Ongoing Developer Support CATEGORY 1: PROPERTY INFRASTRUCTURE This category includes TDM elements the Developer is building into the Project: parking facilities that meet the minimums necessary without incentivizing more SOV’s than necessary; designating space for carpools, easy access for ride-share and hailed-ride vehicles; bicycle parking and support facilities (i.e., showers and lockers); safe pedestrian routes to shuttle and local bus stops, etc. These elements support the use of active and non-SOV transportation modes. PARKING The current Development Agreement is based on a project with 291,634 square feet and a parking ratio of 2.83/KSF. Much has changed in the past decade since the DA was approved with increases in the use of public transportation, private shuttles and employee commute preferences. These changes allow parking ratios to be reduced significantly with no adverse effects. This would result in a site populated at build-out by an estimated 400 to 440 workers. At a maximum parking rate for the total project of 2.5 spaces/KSF, the site would be supported by some 730 parking spaces. Based on recent history, current trends and projections, Alexandria is optimistic that this project can meet parking demands with a minimum of 2.0 spaces/KSF. This would provide a total of 584 parking spaces. We therefore propose that the project be constructed at a parking ratio of 2.0 spaces/KSF, for a total of 584 spaces. The proposal to reduce the parking ratio is grounded in Alexandria’s experience from other similar projects in Mission Bay, Sierra Point and The East Side as well as by changing transportation trends. Its most proximate data draws from experience at Alexandria’s campus at 249 E. Grand Avenue which has documented underutilization of parking at the required 2.83/KSF ratio, and achievement of a 32% alternate mode split consistently over a five -year period. The effective parking ratio at this site is 2.15/KSF. 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9 Alexandria anticipates similar use and employee density at the 213 E. Grand site. A breakdown of the parking facilities proposed is shown in the tables below: Table 1: Minimum Parking Allocations – 2.0 Spaces/KSF Phase Unrestricted Spaces Reserved for Carpools (10%) Reserved for ADA (2%) Reserved for Visitors (2%) Total No. of Parking Spaces 1 501 59 12 12 584 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Clear, direct and safe pedestrian pathways between the building and sidewalk are essential to encouraging walking. Employees at 213 E. Grand will have pleasant, well-lit facilities connecting the site to the community. The project is within easy walking distance of the SSF Caltrain Station which should make walking a preferred alternative for many, provided that they feel safe. The station’s redesign will also establish an important new pedestrian and bicycle connection with Downtown South San Francisco which will further encourage travel by foot between Downtown and The East Side. BICYCLE FACILITIES Both bicycle racks and lockers will be required at 213 E. Grand under the proposed 381,634 square foot scenario. Alexandria will provide both secured indoor and outdoor parking to accommodate employees’ bicycles as well as the requisite shower and changing facilities to encourage the use of bicycling as an alternate commute mode. Should demand for programs such as bike-share grow in The East Side, Alexandria will participate in area-wide programs that evolve, providing facilities and other support as requested by tenants. Again, the renovations planned for the SSF Caltrain station will make cycling a more attractive option for employees on The East Side with improved facilities at the train station as well as its new links to other parts of the community west of Highway 101. DELIVERIES There will be a delivery area in front of the building to allow deliveries to be made to the site quickly and efficiently. CATEGORY 2: TENANT REQUIREMENTS This section includes what will be mandatory for any tenant (or multiple tenants) who lease space at 213 E. Grand Avenue. All leases and other legal documents will contain provisions that clearly articulate the TDM requirements – from having an onsite Employee Transportation 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 10 Coordinator to having a specific commitment to provide certain TDM activities, and conducting annual surveys to monitor the TDM programs in place. EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR Helping employees learn about their commute options and facilitating utilization requires having someone who is proactive in reaching out, consistent in follow-through, and knowledgeable. Sorting out a commute – and commutes that may need to be flexible – can be time consuming and daunting to employees and is especially so when they are relocating to a new location. Making using alternatives easy and seamless for employees is the job of the ETC. Whether this is an on-site staff person or a consultant, this is a critical and ongoing permanent function. Two of the most important functions of the ETC are to make sure that information about commute programs and incentives is up to date and readily accessible and to be available to answer questions and/or resolve issues that arise. Other aspects of the ETC position will vary, depending on which commute programs and services are offered. It may include managing a private shuttle; in other cases, it may involve dissemination and management of annual transit passes, commute rewards programs, and other activities. The requirement of an ETC will be included in all leases for the 213 E. Grand Avenue project. Before occupancy, Alexandria will require that tenants designate an ETC, and that it is apprised of any new designees throughout the term of the lease. The ETC will also be the primary point of contact for the annual employee commute survey. SPECIFIC TDM ACTIVITIES While Alexandria cannot prescribe specific TDM activities for tenants, it can and will assist tenants in developing programs and provide a liaison to other properties and programs which are open to area employers. Part of the pre-move-in process will include conversations about TDM goals, existing programs and resources. It should be noted that because certain TDM measures – such as providing transit passes, subsidizing carpooling and other preferred modes – have become such intrinsic elements of broader employee benefits packages and expectations – we anticipate most tenants to have many of the TDM elements in place when they move in. Should a tenant be a start-up or lack TDM programs, Alexandria will provide additional support as necessary to make sure they will be able to reach the alternate mode target. Having an effective TDM program in place on Day One is a priority. While mode use for any particular mode may vary, the following chart illustrates the range in results that can typically be expected from each. The variations depend on the availability and cost of transit and the types of incentives and information employees receive. Given existing resources and practices in the area, we would expect any tenant(s) at 213 E. Grand to achieve results skewed on the high end of these ranges which should satisfy the 35% alternative mode use target. Transit (including shuttles) 7 to over 30% Carpools 6 to 12% Active transportation 3 to 14% 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 11 ANNUAL SURVEY AND REPORTING We must be able to measure the results of commute investments against the overall 35% alternative mode use goal. In addition to the requisite report to the City, employers and Alexandria need to know what’s working, what’s not, and what’s changing. To this end, an Annual Survey will be conducted each Fall, with results reported to the City in December. The survey will evaluate specific program and mode utilization, general awareness of transportation options, as well as employee perceptions and attitudes. It will follow industry-accepted practices such as counting non-responses in the ‘drive-alone’ category, and requiring a sufficient participant rate so as to be statistically meaningful. Alexandria will coordinate this annual survey with the ETC and be responsible for reporting results to the City. Should a tenant fail to meet targets, Alexandria will work with them proactively to develop a plan to attain compliance as quickly as possible. CATEGORY 3: SUPPORT This category includes those activities and commitments Alexandria Real Estate Equities is responsible for once the property is leased and occupied. Among these: working with tenants’ pre-occupancy; participating in area-wide services such as the Alliance shuttle network; educating tenants and prospective tenants about what is required and the options available to them; and providing the technical infrastructure (such as TV monitors, Internet access or electric vehicle charging stations). 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 12 PRE-OCCUPANCY ACTIVITIES During the leasing process, Alexandria will address the TDM requirements for any tenant at 213 E. Grand. As the process concludes, we will work with tenants as needed to help determine what may be most effective for them at this site; to facilitate certain programs and connections; and to conduct pre-move-in activities to learn where their employees will be coming from. We will facilitate pre-move-in events on request – for instance – a ‘demonstration ride’ on the shuttle so employees know what the Alliance shuttles look like, where to catch them, and what the routes are, before they actually move in. PARTICIPATION IN AREA-WIDE SERVICES Alexandria is a Developer participant in the Alliance-managed shuttle programs on The East Side. This automatically gives tenants’ employees access to existing BART, Caltrain and Ferry shuttles. Tenants may also benefit from other activities stemming from ARE’s active involvement in both The East Side and adjacent Sierra Point communities. We are continually looking at opportunities to collaborate on important initiatives such as transportation, whether it’s advocacy for a specific project or ways to improve existing levels of service and efficiencies. PROVIDING LOBBY AND COMMON AREA INFORMATION ‘INFRASTRUCTURE’ Alexandria is committed to making its properties have the infrastructure to accommodate the latest technology. Examples of this are providing connections in lobbies and other ‘public’ places within the building for ‘real time’ information screens, and EV Charging stations. As technology progresses and needs change, we are committed to supporting new advances throughout our properties. 213 E ALEXAN . Grand NDRIA REAL Avenue, L ESTATE E , South S EQUITIES | 1 San Fran 1700 Owens ncisco, C s St., San Fr CA rancisco, CAA 213 E. Grand Project Description 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 1 INTRODUCTION The City of South San Francisco approved a Development Agreement for the vacant seven- acre site at 213 E. Grand Avenue in 2009. The Agreement allows Alexandria Real Estate Equities (the Developer), to construct a nine-story, 291,634 square foot office/research & development building. The Agreement also requires a five-level parking structure with 616 spaces and surface parking for another 210 vehicles. Alexandria’s construction and ongoing operations plans for this property are designed to achieve at least Silver LEED status. The property is strategically located in the heart of what is known as The East Side – a geographic area that lies east of Highway 101. Its northern boundary is the Oyster Point Channel; its southern border is the San Bruno Channel; the San Francisco Bay is at its eastern edge. This area is known for the dozens of Life Sciences companies who have built similar, office and R&D facilities here. It’s also an industrial hub, populated with several large warehouses and businesses with strategic affiliations with San Francisco Airport to the south. 213 E. Grand Avenue is at the intersection of a major east-west thoroughfare – Grand Avenue, and an important north-south corridor – Forbes Avenue, which becomes Harbor Way just south of E. Grand. Within two blocks of the 213 E. Grand site are several major Life Sciences facilities including Verily, Exelixis, Renat Neuroscience, and parts of the Genentech campus. Also within a short distance are half a dozen hotels; two of which are within a two block walk. The South San Francisco Caltrain station is a short, five-minute walk from the corner of E. Grand and Forbes, and there are two vehicular routes to Highway 101 (northbound and southbound) nearby, via either Grand Avenue or Forbes/Oyster Point Blvd. The Developer, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, has developed and manages several other East Side properties including the 249 -279 E. Grand campus, 600, 630, 650, 681 and 901-951 Gateway Blvd, 400-450 E. Jamie Court, 500 Forbes Boulevard, 7000 Shoreline Court, 341-343 Oyster Point Boulevard, 849/863 Mitten Road and 866 Malcolm Road. Alexandria has successfully leased the project to Merck Pharmaceuticals, a pre eminent company in the Life Sciences business sector and similar in nature to those populating its other East Side properties. In collaboration with its Tenant, Alexandria has worked to update the design of the project in order to meet the needs of the Tenant. As a result, we are applying for a Use Permit Modification and Development Agreement Amendment. This document together with the plans provide the justification for the request. 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 2 THE REQUESTED REVISIONS The Tenant for the facility is Merck Research Laboratories (MRL), the arm of the company focused on discovering and developing therapies to improve patients’ lives. The new nine-story, multi-disciplinary discovery research facility will initially accommodate approximately 300 scientists and eventually growing to no more than 440 employees on site. The work of this division will support research spanning exploratory biology through early clinical development. The building is being custom designed with an open atmosphere that encourages collaboration and team work. The site will include a large auditorium to provide space for nearby academics, scientists and entrepreneurs to convene and engage in scientific dialogue. MRL is actively recruiting for employees for this exciting venture, and selected the 213 E Grand Avenue campus in large part because they: 1. Loved the building design and its prominence at a major gateway to the East of 101 community of South San Francisco; 2. Understood that their employee base will be well served by proximity to transportation options; 3. Desired an opportunity to create a true urban campus that would reflect their company’s focus on collaboration, diversity and integration. To that end, it was MRL who initiated the desire to revise the Site Plan for the project in order to create a more modern and integrated facility on the site. The desired changes include: 1. Reducing the parking provided on the site as per the Parking Reduction and TDM Plan. 2. Relocating the parking structure to be in a less prominent location on the site. 3. Revising the design of the parking structure so that it creates a pleasing edge for the open space of the campus. 4. Maximize the opportunities for outdoor collaboration and recreation for their employees. In order to accommodate these desires, Alexandria undertook to: 1. Study and revise the layout of the Site while preserving the approved location and design of the nine story building. 2. Hire WRNS - an architectural firm that is known for designing high quality, architecturally recognized parking structures to design a new parking structure in a less prominent location of the site. 3. Optimize the open space on the site and design it in such a way that employees will have opportunities for recreation, relaxation an collaboration. 213 E. GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 3 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA City of South San Francisco Legislation Details (With Text) File #:17-381 Name: Status:Type:Staff Report Public Hearing File created:In control:4/5/2017 Planning Commission On agenda:Final action:4/20/2017 Title:Report regarding consideration of an Amendment to a Development Agreement (DA) between ARE- San Francisco No. 21 LP, and ARE-San Francisco No. 42 LLC and the City of South San Francisco, Use Permit Modification, Parking Reduction request, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, and Design Review to relocate the parking garage to the east side of the site and create a campus open space at 213-221 East Grand Avenue in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and make a determination that the project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2007 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (EIR07-001) as described in the 2017 Addendum, and no further environmental review is required per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 and 15162 . (Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:1. 213 E. Grand_Project Description_SR Attachment 1, 2. 213 E. Grand_Architectural Plan Set_SR Attachment 2, 3. 213 E. Grand_TDM-Parking Plan_SR Attachment 3, 4. 213 E. Grand_2009 Executed DA_SR Attachment 4 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. ReportregardingconsiderationofanAmendmenttoaDevelopmentAgreement(DA)betweenARE-San FranciscoNo.21LP,andARE-SanFranciscoNo.42LLCandtheCityofSouthSanFrancisco,UsePermit Modification,ParkingReductionrequest,aTransportationDemandManagement(TDM)Plan,andDesign Reviewtorelocatetheparkinggaragetotheeastsideofthesiteandcreateacampusopenspaceat213-221 EastGrandAvenueintheBusinessandTechnologyPark(BTP)ZoningDistrictinaccordancewithTitle20of theSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCodeandmakeadeterminationthattheprojectisfullywithinthescopeof environmentalanalysisinthepreviouslycertified2007EnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)(EIR07-001)as describedinthe2017Addendum,andnofurtherenvironmentalreviewisrequiredpertheCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 and 15162 .(Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider making the following actions: 1)ApprovearesolutionmakingfindingsandrecommendingthattheCityCouncilmakea determinationthattheProjectisfullywithinthescopeofenvironmentalanalysisprovidedinthe 2007EIRandthatthe2017Addendumistheappropriateenvironmentaldocumentforthe project; and 2)ApprovearesolutionmakingfindingsandrecommendingthattheCityCounciltakethefollowing actions:(1)adoptanOrdinanceapprovingtheFirstAmendmenttotheDevelopmentAgreement betweenARE-SanFranciscoNo.21LP,ARE-SanFranciscoNo.42LLCandtheCity;and(2) approvetheUsePermitModification,ParkingReductionrequest,TransportationDemand City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/17/2017Page 1 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-381,Version:1 approvetheUsePermitModification,ParkingReductionrequest,TransportationDemand Management(TDM)Plan,andDesignReviewat213-221EastGrandAvenueintheBusinessand Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District subject to the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND Overview In2008/2009,theCityCounciladopted(1)OrdinanceNo.1403-2009approvingtheDevelopmentAgreement (DA)(Attachment4),(2)ResolutionNo.114-2008approvingaUsePermit,DesignReview,MasterSign Program,TransportationDemandManagement(TDM)Plan(“OriginalEntitlements”),and(3)ResolutionNo. 113-2008approvingtheEnvironmentalImpactReportforthevacantseven-acresitelocatedat213EastGrand Avenue.TheDAandOriginalEntitlementsallowedAlexandriaRealEstateEquities(theDeveloper)to constructanine-story,291,634squarefoot(sq.ft.)office/research&developmentbuilding,athree-story ancillaryamenityspaceofapproximately8,495sq.ft.,afive-levelparkingstructurewith616parkingspaces, andsurfaceparkingforanother210vehicles.PriortochangesmadetotheSouthSanFranciscoMunicipal Code(SSFMC)in2012,theprojectsitewaszonedP-IPlannedIndustrial(nowzonedBusinessand TechnologyPark[BTP]),whichrequiredaUsePermitfor“AllNon-ResidentialUseswhichbytheiruse generate one hundred or more vehicle trips per day” (Formerly Section 20.32.060 of the SSFMC). Thesiteiscurrentlyvacant;however,sitepreparationisunderwayforfutureconstructionoftheProject,subject to the proposed changes requested by the applicant. PROJECT DESRIPTION/ DISCUSSION Theentitledseven-acrepropertyislocatedatthenortheastcornerofEastGrandAvenueandForbesBoulevard intheheartoftheEastof101areaandwithinwalkingdistanceoftheplannedCaltrainstationrelocation.Since theDAandOriginalEntitlementswereapprovedin2009,AlexandriaRealEstateEquities(Alexandria)has successfullyleasedtheProjecttoMerckPharmaceuticals,apreeminentcompanyintheLifeSciencesbusiness sector.Incollaborationwiththenewtenant(Merck),AREhasupdatedthedesignandsiteplanoftheprojectin ordertomeettheneedsofMerck’srequestforamoremodernandintegratedcampus.Asaresult,theapplicant is seeking a DA Amendment and Use Permit Modification for the following Project changes: ·Reduce the parking provided on the site as per the Parking Reduction Request and updated TDM Plan, with a ratio of 2.23 parking spaces/ 1,000 sq. ft. and a total of 650 spaces (originally entitled for 2.83 spaces/ 1,000 sq. ft. with a total of 826 spaces). ·Relocate the parking structure away from the street frontage to a less prominent location on the east side of the Project site. ·Modify the design of the parking structure so that it creates an aesthetically pleasing edge for the newly formed open space of the campus. ·Create a campus open space and outdoor recreation area for employees. Furthermore,perSection21oftheoriginalDA,“AmendmentorCancellationofAgreement”,theapplicant mayamendtheDAfollowingthesameprocedureastheoriginalDA.Ashighlightedabove,theapplicanthas requested modifications to the Original Entitlements, which are analyzed in this staff report. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) DA - 2009 Aspartofthe2008/2009Projectapprovals,theCityandtheapplicantnegotiatedaDAtoclarifyandobligate severalProjectfeaturesandmitigationmeasuresincludingtransportationimpactfees,publicimprovementsin theEastof101area,publicartcontribution,andTDMreportingandmonitoringrequirementswhile City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/17/2017Page 2 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-381,Version:1 simultaneously vesting the applicant’s approvals for 10 years. First Amendment to the DA - 2017 Theapplicant’srequestforaDAAmendmentseekstomodifythelayoutoftheoriginalsiteplanandreduce requiredparking.Morespecifically,theparkinggaragewouldbemovedtoalessprominentlocationonthe eastsideoftheprojectsite,furthercreatingcampusopenspaceandrecreationalopportunities,andparking wouldbereducedtoaratioof2.23spaces/1,000sq.ft.throughanadvancedTDMPlan.TheproposedDA AmendmentisincludedasAttachment1tothedraftCityCouncilOrdinance,whichisattachedtothe entitlementsresolutionasExhibitA.NotethatfollowingarecommendationbythePlanningCommission,the DA Amendment would have to be approved by the City Council through an Ordinance. USE PERMIT Use Permit - 2008 In2008,theprojectsitewaszonedP-IPlannedIndustrial,whichrequiredaUsePermitfor“AllNon- ResidentialUseswhichbytheirusegenerateonehundredormorevehicletripsperday”(FormerlySection 20.32.060 of the SSFMC). Use Permit Modification - 2017 In2012,theSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCode(SSFMC)wasmodifiedandtheprojectsiteiscurrently zonedBusinessandTechnologyPark(BTP),whichpermitsthesetypesofusesbyright.Althoughthezoning codehaschangedsincethe2008UsePermitwasapproved,theapplicantisnowrequestingaparkingreduction toreducetheamountofrequiredparkingthrougharobustTDMPlan(Attachment3),whichrequiresa modification to the original Use Permit. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TheDesignReviewBoard,atitsmeetingonFebruary21,2017,reviewedtheapplicationandrecommended strong approval for the Project with the following minor suggestion: 1.Consider adding additional ADA parking stalls on upper levels of parking garage, adjacent to elevators. ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS TheproposedprojectsiteisnowzonedBusinessTechnologyPark(BTP).TheBTPZoningDistrictprovides locationsforamixofcorporateheadquarters,researchanddevelopmentfacilities,andotherofficesina campus-likeenvironment.Asproposed,therearenousechangesfortheProjectsite,however,the modificationsandenhancementstotheProjectsitewouldcreateamorecampus-likeenvironmentwith additional open and recreational space for employees and guests. Parking Reduction Request and TDM Plan PerSection20.330.004oftheSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCode(SSFMC),“RequiredOn-siteParking Spaces”,ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)usesrequireoneparkingspaceper350sq.ft.Theexisting DevelopmentAgreementandUsePermitisbasedonaprojectwith291,634sq.ft.andaparkingratioof2.83 spaces/1,000sq.ft.(approx.826parkingspaces).MuchhaschangedinthepastdecadesincetheDAand OriginalEntitlementswereapprovedwithincreasesintheuseofpublictransportation,privateshuttlesand employeecommutepreferences.Takingthisintoaccount,theapplicanthasanalyzedandevaluatedtheirneed forparkingfacilitiesat213EastGrandAvenueandhasrequestedtoseekaparkingreductionfrom826parking spacesto650parkingspaces(from2.83spaces/1,000sq.ft.to2.23spaces/1,000sq.ft.)throughtheapproval ofaConditionalUsePermitpursuanttoSection20.330.006(D)oftheSSFMC.AConditionalUsePermitfor reduced parking can be permitted if the applicant meets the following “criteria for approval”: A.Specialconditions-includingbutnotlimitedtothenatureoftheproposedoperation;proximityto City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/17/2017Page 3 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-381,Version:1 A.Specialconditions-includingbutnotlimitedtothenatureoftheproposedoperation;proximityto frequenttransitservice;transportationcharacteristicsofpersonsresiding,working,orvisitingthesite;or becausetheapplicanthasundertakenatransportationdemandmanagementprogram-existthatwillreduce parking demand at the site. Analysis:ThenatureoftheproposedoperationconsistsofalifesciencefocusedResearchandDevelopment facilitywithaverylowdensityofemploymentpopulation.Theexpectedpopulationinthefacilityis estimatedtobe400to440peopleoverthecourseoftheentireday-especiallysincescientificexperiments areconductednotjustduringbusinesshours;therefore,theirneedforparkingissignificantlylowerthan moretypicalcommercialusers.Thefacilityisalsolocatedwithin½mileoftheCaltrainStationaswellas beingservedbymajorpublictransitagencies:BART,SamTransandtheWETAFerrysystem.Inaddition toprivateshuttlesoperatedbysomeofthearea’slargestemployers,theSanMateoCountyCongestion ReliefAllianceprovidesfirstandlastmileshuttlestomanyemployersontheeastsidefromthebus,light rail and ferry hubs. Moreover,theapplicanthasundertakenadraftTransportationDemandManagement(TDM)Programthat demonstratesa35percentalternativemodesplitthroughstrategiesunderthreemaincategories:property infrastructure,tenantrequirements,andongoingdevelopersupport(seeAttachment3toreviewthefull draft TDM Plan). B.As demonstrated by the TDM, the use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking; and Analysis:TheR&Dnatureoftheuseonthesitewillbemorethanadequatelyservedbytheproposedon- site parking. C.ParkingdemandgeneratedbytheProjectwillnotexceedthecapacityoforhaveadetrimentalimpact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area. Analysis:Theapplicantanditstenantconfirmthatbasedonthepopulationdensityexpectedonthesiteof nomorethan440people/employees,theproposedon-siteparkingof2spaces/1,000sq.ft.(650spaces)is morethansufficienttomeetthedemandgeneratedbytheProject.Thedeveloper,Alexandria,has significantexperiencefromothersimilarprojectsinMissionBay,SierraPoint,andEastof101areaaswell asbychangingtransportationtrendsandmulti-modaloptions.Insupport,Alexandriahascompiledrecent datafromtheir249EastGrandAvenuecampus(locateddirectlyadjacenttotheProjectsite),andhas documentedunderutilizationofparkingattherequired2.83spaces/1,000sq.ft.ratioandhasachieveda32 percent alternate mode split consistently over a five -year period. Basedonrecenthistory,currenttrendsandprojections,AlexandriaisconfidentthatthisProjectcanmeet parkingdemandswithatotalof650parkingspacesataminimumof2.0spaces/1,000sq.ft.asoutlinedbythe draftTDMPlan(Attachment3);with650parkingspaceshowever,theeffectiveparkingratiowillbe2.23 spaces/1,000sq.ft.Furthermore,thefulldraftTDMplanoutlinestheprogramsandstrategiesthatsufficiently supportarequestforaparkingreductionfrom2.83parkingspaces/1,000sq.ft.downtoaminimumof2.0 parking spaces/ 1,000 sq. ft. A condition of approval has been included to ensure TDM compliance. Design Review BothstaffandtheDesignReviewBoardhavereviewedtheapplicationanddeterminedthattheproposalmeets theCity’sregulationsanddesigngoals.TheOriginalEntitlementswouldbesubstantiallyimprovedasthe parkinggaragewouldbemovedtotheeastsideofthesiteawayfromthestreetfrontage,furthercreatinga campusopenspaceforemployeestogatherandrecreate.Inaddition,theenhanceddesignoftheparkinggarage complimentsthedesignoftheentitledR&Dbuildingandservesasacampusedgetothenewlydesigned City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/17/2017Page 4 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-381,Version:1 complimentsthedesignoftheentitledR&Dbuildingandservesasacampusedgetothenewlydesigned campus open space. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS TheproposedProjectisconsistentwiththeguidingandimplementingpoliciesintheGeneralPlanasithas beendesignedtopromotecampus-styleuses,suchasbiotechnology,high-technologyandresearchand developmentuses.Therevisedsitelayoutandoverallarchitecturewouldcontinuetoshapethecampus characteroftheEastof101area.TheProjectisconsistentwiththeGeneralPlanlandusewhichdesignatesthe propertyBusinessandTechnologyPark.Office/R&Dusesarespecificallyidentifiedasanappropriateuse under this designation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In2009,theCitycertifiedanEnvironmentalImpactReportforthe213EastGrandAvenueOffice/Research and Development Project (EIR07-0001)-State Clearinghouse No. 2008022094. PursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15164,aleadagencyshallprepareanaddendumtoapreviouslycertified EIRifsomechangesoradditionsarenecessary,butnoneoftheconditionsdescribedinCEQAGuidelines Section15162callingforthepreparationofasubsequentEIRhaveoccurred.UnderCEQAGuidelinesSection 15162,theconditionsnecessitatingpreparationofasubsequentEIRare:(1)substantialchangesareproposedin theproject,whichwillrequiremajorrevisionstothepreviousEIRduetotheinvolvementofnewsignificant environmentaleffectsorasubstantialincreaseinpreviouslyidentifiedeffects;(2)substantialchangesoccur withrespecttothecircumstancesunderwhichtheprojectisundertakenwhichwillrequiremajorrevisionsto thepreviousEIRduetotheinvolvementofnewsignificantenvironmentaleffectsorasubstantialincreasein previouslyidentifiedeffects;or(3)newinformationisdiscovered,whichshowsthattherewillbe(a)additional significantenvironmentaleffects,(b)substantiallymoresevereenvironmentaleffects,(c)mitigationpreviously believedtobeinfeasibleisinfactfeasible,whichwouldsubstantiallyreducesignificantenvironmentaleffects, buttheapplicantdeclinestoadoptit,or(d)newmitigationisproposed,whichwouldsubstantiallyreduce significant environmental effects, but the applicant declines to adopt it. The2017AddendumwaspreparedfortheProject,whichconcludesthattheProjectwouldnotmeetthecriteria underCEQAGuidelinesSections15164or15162justifyingpreparationofasubsequentEIRandthus,an addendumistheappropriateenvironmentaldocumentfortheProject.The2017Addendumfurtherconcludes thattheProjectdoesnotrepresentasubstantialchangetothe2007EIR(EIR07-0001)andthattheProjectis fullywithinthescopeofenvironmentalanalysisasdescribedinthe2007EIR.TheCityhasreviewedthe2017 Addendumandsupplementalanalysis(ExhibitAtotheCEQAresolution)andhasdeterminedthattheProject isindeedconsistentwithpreviouslyadoptedenvironmentaldocumentsandthatnofurtherenvironmental review is required. CONCLUSION TheproposedmodificationstotheDevelopmentAgreementandOriginalEntitlementsareconsistentwiththe ZoningOrdinanceandoriginallyentitledProjectin2009.Themodifieddesignandplacementoftheparking garagehelpscreateacampussettingwithadditionalopenandrecreationalspace.Likewise,areductionin parkingthroughanadvancedTDMPlanallowstheapplicant/tenanttoaltertheirparkingplantomeetthe needsanddemandsofnewemployeetravelbehaviors,andfurtherreduceunderutilizedorunneededparkingat apotentialratioof2.0spaces/1,000sq.ft.Forthesereasons,staffrecommendsthatthePlanningCommission approvearesolutionmakingfindingsandrecommendingthattheCityCouncilapproveaDAAmendment (DAA17-0002),UsePermitModification(UPM17-0001,ParkingReductionRequest,TransportationDemand ManagementPlan(TDM17-0002)andDesignReviewPermit(DR17-0007),andapprovearesolutionmaking findingsandrecommendingthattheCityCouncilmakingthedeterminationthatthe2017Addendumisthe appropriateenvironmentaldocumentfortheproject,subjecttotheDraftConditionsofApprovalattachedtothe City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/17/2017Page 5 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-381,Version:1 appropriateenvironmentaldocumentfortheproject,subjecttotheDraftConditionsofApprovalattachedtothe resolutions. ATTACHMENTS 1.Project Description 2.Architectural Plans 3.TDM Plan 4.Executed Development Agreement ASSOCIATIONS 1.DraftCEQAResolution______makingfindingsandrecommendingthattheCityCouncilmakea determinationthattheprojectisfullywithinthescopeofenvironmentalanalysisprovidedinthe2007 EIR and that the 2017 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. A.Exhibit A- 2017 CEQA Addendum B.Exhibit B - 2007 EIR:<http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/61806/Page1.aspx> 2.DraftResolution______makingfindingsandrecommendingthattheCityCounciltakethefollowing actions(1)adoptanordinanceapprovingaDAAmendment(DAA17-0002),and(2)adoptaresolution approvingaUsePermitModification(UPM17-0001),ParkingReductionRequest,Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM17-0002) and Design Review Permit (DR17-0007). A.Exhibit A- Draft City Council Ordinance i.Attachment 1- First Amendment to the Development Agreement B.Exhibit B - Draft Conditions of Approval City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/17/2017Page 6 of 6 powered by Legistar™ RESOLUTION NO.2800-2017 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DAA17-002) BETWEEN ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 21 LP, ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 42 LLC AND THE CITY, USE PERMIT MODIFICATION (UPM17-0001), PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM17-0001), AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DR17-0007) TO REVISETHE ORIGINAL USE PERMIT (P07-0106) FOR 213-221 EAST GRAND IN THE BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PARK (BTP) ZONING DISTRICT AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS FULLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROVIDED IN THE 2007 EIR AND THAT THE 2017ADDENDUM IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHEREAS, in 2009, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted an Ordinance for a development agreement, use permit, design review, and transportation demand management (TDM) program for the demolition of four existing one-and two-story buildings, and construction of a single nine-story building, a five-level parking garage, surface parking lot, and related improvements on an approximately 7.027-acre site located at 213-221 East Grand Avenue ("Project" or "213 East Grand Avenue Project") and certified the 2007 EIR (State Clearinghouse No 2008022094); and WHEREAS, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (“Applicant”) proposes to move the parking garage to the east side of the project site and requests a parking reduction for 2.0 parking spaces/ 1,000 SF at 213 East Grand (“213 East Grand Avenue Project” or “Project”) in the BTP Zoning District, which requires approval for a development agreement amendment, use permit, and design review; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board reviewed the Project at its February 21, 2017 meeting and strongly recommended approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis for the proposed Project was conducted, which concluded that the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Project are fully within the scope of the environmental analysis provided for in the 2007 EIR, such that the Project does not meet the criteria under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 or 15162 justifying preparation of a subsequent EIR and thus, an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to the 2007 EIR was prepared for the Project (“2017 Addendum”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on April 20, 2017 at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the Project and the 2017 Addendum, as well as supporting documents, prior to the Planning Commission making its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2007 EIR, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed April 20, 2017 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A. General Findings The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. The Exhibit attached to this Resolution, including Exhibit A (Amendment to Development Agreement) and Exhibit B (Draft Conditions of Approval), are incorporated by reference as if they were each set forth fully herein. The documents and other materialconstituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. B.CEQA Findings The Planning Commission,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subsection (d), has considered the 2017 Addendum prepared for Project including the related environmental analysis, along with the previously certified 2007 EIR. Upon consideration of the 2017 Addendum, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Project will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require further environmental review through preparation of a subsequent EIR. The Project will not create anynew significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Further, the Planning Commission finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe significant effects, as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents. Nor are any new or additional mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review, and that the 2017 Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. C. Conditional Use Permit Findings The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor be detrimental to the surrounding properties or improvements because the proposed project is located in the Business Technology Park area of the community and will be transforming an infill parcel into uses that are consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning regulations for the area; The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan because the proposed building(s) and associated amenities and landscaping are consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Business & Technology Park land use designation; The proposed Project complies with all applicable standards included in Chapter 20.110 (“Employment Districts”) as well as the implementing policies and guidelines found in the Business & Technology Park Zoning District; and The proposed project complies with the City’s design guidelines which were used to evaluate the Project by staff and the City’s Design Review Board at their meeting on February 21, 2017. Findings Required in addition to the Conditional Use Permit Findings (SSFMC 20.330.006): Based on the nature of the proposed operation; proximity to frequent transit service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; and because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program, parking demand forthe proposed use should not exceed the provided parking on-site; The use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking since the site will be more than adequately served by the proposed surface parking and five-story parking garage; and Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area since the Draft TDM outlines programs and strategies that sufficiently support a request for a parking reduction from 2.83 parking spaces/ 1,000 SF to a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces/ 1,000 SF. D.Design Review Findings The Project is consistent with the applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance because as submitted and modified through the Design Review Process, this Project meets or complies with the applicable standards included in the Employment Districts (Chapter 20.110); The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Business & Technology Park (BTP) and the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed office building use is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Business & Technology Park land use designation; The Project is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed use is consistent with projects in the East of 101 Area; The proposed Project is subject to a Use Permit approval and those findings have adequately made in support of the project; and The project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated against, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. D.Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Findings The proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed use or mix of usesand the project’s location, size, and hours of operation; and The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by this chapter will be achieved and maintained since the application will continue ongoing developer support to the project site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves DA Amendment (DAA17-0002), Use Permit Modification (UPM17-0001), Parking Reduction Request, Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM17-0002), and Design Review (DR17- 0007) and makes a determination that the 2017 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project and no further environmental review is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of April, 2017by the following vote: AYES:Chairperson Faria,Vice Chairperson Nagales,Commissioner Ruiz, Commissioner Wong, Commissioner Shihadeh, CommissionerTzang NOES: ABSTENTIONS:_______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________ Secretaryto the Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO.2801-2017 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT (UPM-17-001) IS FULLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AS DESCRIBED IN THE 2007 EIR (EIR07-001) AND THAT THE 2017 ADDENDUM IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHEREAS, in 2009, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted an Ordinance for a development agreement, use permit, design review, and transportation demand management (TDM) program for the demolition of four existing one-and two-story buildings, and construction of a single nine-story building, a five-level parking garage, surface parking lot, and related improvements on an approximately 7.027-acre site located at 213-221 East Grand Avenue ("Project" or "213 East Grand Avenue Project") and certified the 2007 EIR (State Clearinghouse No 2008022094); and WHEREAS, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (“Applicant”) proposes to move the parking garage to the east side of the project site and requests a parking reduction for 2.0 parking spaces/ 1,000 SF at 213 East Grand (“213 East Grand Avenue Project” or “Project”) in the BTP Zoning District, which requires approval for a development agreement amendment, use permit, and design review; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board reviewed the Project at its February 21, 2017 meeting and strongly recommended approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis for the proposed Project was conducted, which concluded that the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Projectare fully within the scope of the environmental analysis provided for in the 2007 EIR, such that the Project does not meet the criteria under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 or 15162 justifying preparation of a subsequent EIR and thus, an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to the 2007 EIR was prepared for the Project (“2017 Addendum”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on April 20, 2017 at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the Project and the 2017 Addendum, as well as supporting documents, prior to the Planning Commission making its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2007 EIR, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed April 20, 2017 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A. General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 2.The Exhibit attached to this Resolution, including Exhibit A (2017 Addendum), is incorporated by reference and set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. B.CEQA Findings 1.The Planning Commission, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subsection (d), has considered the 2017 Addendum prepared for Project including the related environmental analysis, along with the previously certified 2007 EIR. 2.Upon consideration of the 2017 Addendum, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Project will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require further environmental review through preparation of a subsequent EIR. 3.The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Further, the Planning Commission finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe significant effects, as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents. Nor are any new or additional mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project. 4.Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review, and that the 2017 Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval ofthe Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and makes a determination that the 2017 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project and no further environmental review is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* I hereby certify that theforegoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of April, 2017by the following vote: AYES:Chairperson Faria,Vice Chairperson Nagales,Commissioner Ruiz, Commissioner Wong, Commissioner Shihadeh, CommissionerTzang NOES: ABSTENTIONS:_______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-545 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6a. Resolution making findings and a determination that the 213 East Grand Avenue project (UPM17-001) is within the scope of the environmental analysis contained within the 2007 Environmental Impact Report (EIR07-001) and that the 2017 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project WHEREAS,Applicantsoughtapprovalforthedemolitionoffourexistingone-andtwo-storybuildings,and constructionofasinglenine-storybuilding,afive-levelparkinggarage,surfaceparkinglot,andrelated improvementsonanapproximately7.027-acresitelocatedat213-221EastGrandAvenue("Project"or"213 East Grand Avenue Project"); and WHEREAS, in approving the Project, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted the following: (1)OrdinanceNo.1403-2009approvingaDevelopmentAgreementwithAlexandriaRealEstateEquities, Inc. (“Applicant”), (2)ResolutionNo.114-2008approvingausepermit,designreview,andTransportationDemand Management (TDM) program, and (3)Resolution113-2008certifyingthe2007EnvironmentalImpactReport(“2007EIR”)(State Clearinghouse No 2008022094); and WHEREAS,ApplicantnowseekstomovetheparkinggaragetotheeastsideoftheProjectsiteandrequestsa parkingreductionto2.023 parkingspacesper1,000squarefeetfortheProjectintheBusinessandTechnology Park (BTP) Zoning District (“Revised Project”); and WHEREAS,thechangessoughtbyApplicantfortheRevisedProjectrequiresapprovalofaDevelopment Agreement Amendment, Use Permit Modification, and Design Review; and WHEREAS,environmentalanalysisfortheRevisedProjectwasconducted,andconcludedthatthe environmentaleffectsassociatedwithconstructionandoperationoftheRevisedProjectwerefullyanalyzedin theenvironmentalanalysisconductedforthe2007EIR,suchthattheRevisedProjectdoesnotmeetthecriteria underCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)GuidelinesSections15164or15162justifying preparationofasubsequentEIRandthus,anaddendumistheappropriateenvironmentaldocumentforthe Revised Project; and WHEREAS,pursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15164,anaddendumtothe2007EIRwaspreparedforthe Project(“2017Addendum”),whichalongwiththe2007EIRisattachedheretoandincorporatedhereinas Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively; and WHEREAS,theDesignReviewBoardreviewedtheRevisedProjectatitsFebruary21,2017meeting,and recommended approval of the Revised Project; and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionconsideredandrecommendedapprovaloftheenvironmentalanalysis City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-545 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6a. for the Revised Project at a public hearing on April 20, 2017; and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilheldaproperlynoticedpublichearingonJune14,2017,atwhichtimeinterested partieshadtheopportunitytobeheard,andtoreviewtheProjectandthe2017Addendumaswellassupporting documents prior to the City Council making its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilexerciseditsindependentjudgmentandanalysis,andconsideredallreports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOWTHEREFORE,basedontheentiretyoftherecordbeforeit,whichincludeswithoutlimitation,the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct,PublicResourcesCode§21000,etseq.andtheCEQAGuidelines,14 CaliforniaCodeofRegulations§15000,etseq.;theSouthSanFranciscoGeneralPlan,andGeneralPlan EnvironmentalImpactReport;theSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCode;2007EIR,andassociatedMitigation MonitoringandReportingPrograms;allsiteplans,andallreports,minutes,andpublictestimonysubmittedas partofthePlanningCommission’sdulynoticedApril20,2017meeting;allsiteplans,andallreports,minutes, andpublictestimonysubmittedaspartoftheCityCouncil’sdulynoticedJune14,2017meeting,andanyother evidence(withinthemeaningofPublicResourcesCode§21080(e)and§21082.2),theCityCounciloftheCity of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.Exhibit A (2017 Addendum) and Exhibit B (2007 EIR) attached to this Resolution, and the associated 2007 Statement of Overriding Considerations and its adopting resolution, are incorporated by reference and as if set forth fully herein and all findings contained within those documents are also incorporated fully herein. 3.Thedocumentsandothermaterialconstitutingtherecordfortheseproceedingsarelocatedatthe PlanningDivisionfortheCityofSouthSanFrancisco,315MapleAvenue,SouthSanFrancisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B.CEQA Findings 1.TheCityCouncil,pursuanttoCEQAGuidelinessection15164,subsection(d),hasconsideredthe2017 AddendumpreparedfortheRevisedProject,includingtherelatedenvironmentalanalysis,alongwiththe previously certified 2007 EIR. 2.Uponconsiderationofthe2017Addendum,theCityCouncilfindsthattheproposedProjectwillnot resultinanyoftheconditionsidentifiedinCEQAGuidelinessection15162thatwouldrequirefurther environmental review through preparation of a subsequent EIR. 3.TheRevisedProjectwillnotcreateanynewsignificantimpactsorsubstantiallymoresevereimpactsas comparedtothosealreadyidentifiedandanalyzedinthe2007EIR.Further,theCityCouncilfindsthat thereisnonewinformationofsubstantialimportancethatdemonstratesneworsubstantiallymoresevere significanteffects,ascomparedtothoseidentifiedinthepriorCEQAdocuments,norareanynewor City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-545 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6a. additional mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Revised Project. 4.Accordingly,theCityCouncilfindsthatCEQAGuidelinessection15162doesnotrequireanyfurther CEQAreview,andthatthe2017Addendum,preparedpursuanttoCEQAGuidelinessection15164,isthe appropriate environmental document for approval of the Revised Project. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDthattheCityCounciloftheCityofSouthSanFranciscohereby makesthefindingscontainedinthisResolution,andadoptsaresolutionmakingadeterminationthatthe2017 AddendumistheappropriateenvironmentaldocumentforapprovaloftheRevisedProjectandnofurther environmental review is required. BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthatthisResolutionshallbecomeeffectiveimmediatelyuponitspassageand adoption. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ 076218\8647405v1 1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 2nd ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE OFFICE/R&D PROJECT A. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: 213 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Use Permit Modification and Development Agreement Amendment Application 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 3. Contact Person(s) and Phone Numbers: 4. Project Location: 213 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION In 2008, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (“Alexandria” or “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of South San Francisco (the “City”) for a Use Permit (No. UP13-0002), Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan, Design Review, and a Development Agreement to develop a campus- style office/research & development (“R&D”) complex at 213 East Grand Avenue (the “213 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project” or the “Project”). The proposed Project included one nine-story building totaling 291,634 square feet, a five-level parking garage containing 616 spaces, and an additional 210 spaces of surface parking. The City certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and approved the Project on January 14, 2009. The Project Site is located in South San Francisco’s East of 101 area (“East of 101 Area”) and is comprised of two parcels: (1) a 6.695-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, and (2) a 0.332-acre parcel, adjacent to the primary property located at the northwest corner of East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road (the “Project Site”). The Project Site was previously developed with four one- and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have since been demolished. The Site is currently vacant and predominantly paved. Proposed Changes to the Project The Applicant is proposing to make certain changes to the approved Project site plan and parking requirement in order to (1) maximize the open-space for the campus; (2) provide a parking ratio that reflects the Project site’s proximity to the Caltrain station and meets the anticipated occupancy of the facility and commitment of the workforce to transit; and (3) to create a more urban campus. To accomplish these goals, Alexandria is proposing to (a) relocate the parking garage to the east side of the Project Site (given the irregular shape of the Project Site, the garage will be moved approximately 70 feet and 120 feet from the original location, dependent upon the point of 076218\8647405v1 2 measurement), (b) change the parking garage size and design to include 524 spaces (a reduction of 92 stalls), and (c) reduce surface parking to 110 spaces (a reduction of 100 stalls) (the “Revised Project”). The Revised Project parking supply would also include 16 ADA automobile and van accessible spaces located throughout the Project Site, for a total of 650 parking spaces. The parking changes would result in a reduction of the overall parking ratio to 2.23 spaces/1000 square feet of floor area, allowing for increased campus open-space area. The Revised Project requires approval of modifications to Use Permit No. UP13-0002 and an amendment to the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR and imposed on the Project through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would continue to apply to the Revised Project. As documented herein, the Revised Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than identified in the EIR, and the potential environmental effects of the Revised Project have been adequately addressed in the certified EIR for the 213 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project. CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM: California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a) provides that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration (“ND”) have occurred. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(a).) An addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR or ND. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(c).) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(d).) An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND pursuant to Section 15162. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(e).) Consequently, once an EIR has been certified or a ND adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or ND shall be prepared under CEQA unless, based on substantial evidence: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;1 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR [or ND] . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “. . . a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance . . .” (See also Pub. Resources Code, § 21068.) 076218\8647405v1 3 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR [or ND] was certified as complete . . . shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR [or ND] or negative declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR [or ND]; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR [or ND] would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162 (a); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21166.) This Addendum constitutes substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required for the Revised Project, and may be relied on by responsible and trustee agencies for any related approvals for the development of the Project. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As required under CEQA, the City of South San Francisco has reviewed the Revised Project to determine whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166(a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a).) Based on the environmental analysis set forth in this Addendum as well as the EIR, the Staff Report, testimony received at public hearings, and the record of proceedings, the City has determined, based on substantial evidence, that: 1) No substantial changes are proposed that would require major revisions to the previous EIR resulting from new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts. 2) No substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Revised Project will be developed have occurred that would require major revisions to the previous EIR resulting from new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts. 3) No new information has arisen that was not known and could not have been known when the previous EIR was certified demonstrates any of the following: a. The Revised Project will cause significant environmental impacts not discussed in the previous EIR; 076218\8647405v1 4 b. Significant environmental impacts previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental impacts, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental impacts, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, since none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, the City prepared this Addendum to the EIR for the East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Use Permit Modification and Development Agreement Amendment Application. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15164, 15168.) ANALYSIS The Project Site was previously developed with four one- and two-story non-residential buildings totaling 124,000 square feet and was completely disturbed. As such, per the Draft EIR, impacts to the following CEQA topics were determined not to be significant and no additional analysis was provided: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, and recreation. The preexisting buildings have since been demolished and the Project Site is currently flat and predominantly covered with concrete. As explained in greater detail in each impact category below, because the Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to the anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information has come to light meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required. 076218\8647405v1 5 Aesthetics Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? AESTHETICS – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vista? No No No N/A b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No No No N/A c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No No No N/A d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No No No N/A Discussion: The Project Site is located in the East of 101 Area, which is a historically industrial area transitioning to high technology office/R&D uses. The Project, like others in the East of 101 Area, involves replacement of older facilities and/or a vacant site and includes landscaping and pedestrian improvements to current City standards. Given the condition of the surrounding area, the EIR concluded that the Project would have no adverse impact on the visual character of the Site or the East of 101 Area. The EIR also concluded that the Project would not result in new sources of substantial adverse light or glare since the Project would consist of development and lighting treatments typical of the existing commercial/industrial urban setting and would incorporate standard and tailored lighting measures to address undue lighting on adjacent areas. The EIR found that the Project would not result in a cumulative adverse impact to visual quality or aesthetics. The Revised Project is consistent with the EIR analysis. The Revised Project will result in the relocation of the parking garage to east side of the Site and a slight reduction in the massing of the garage, as well as a reduction in surface parking. The reduced parking will allow for the creation of additional open space. The Revised Project would not increase the height or mass of the office/R&D building. The Project will continue to remain consistent with established City standards and will adhere to established restrictions, guidelines, standards, policies, and criteria that address building appearance, height, bulk, and configuration. Therefore, the Revised Project would not adversely affect the visual quality and aesthetics of the Site. It does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to aesthetics exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 6 Agricultural Resources Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No No No N/A b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No No No N/A c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No No No N/A d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No No No N/A e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No No No N/A Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that it would have no impact or a less-than- significant impact on agricultural resources with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of agricultural resources. The Project Site was fully developed with four one- and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have since been demolished. 076218\8647405v1 7 The Revised Project is consistent with the Initial Study’s analysis. Although the prior buildings have been demolished, the Site remains disturbed, vacant, and paved. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any agricultural resources impacts. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to agricultural resources exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 8 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No No No N/A b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No No No Yes c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No No No Yes d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No No No Yes e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No No No N/A Discussion: The EIR concluded that short-term construction impacts and long-term project impacts to air quality would be less-than-significant with mitigation. Mitigation measures for impacts to air quality were included in the EIR. Construction activities would temporarily impact local air quality, but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures requiring dust suppression and exhaust reduction procedures (MM Air-1). Long-term impacts on air quality due to operation of the Project would be less-than-significant after implementation of a TDM program, which is required by City Ordinance for the life of the Project and would reduce emissions related to employee vehicle use commuting to and from work (MM Air-3). The EIR indicated that the Project has the potential to emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants with the potential to affect nearby sensitive receptors, but this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures requiring compliance with BAAQMD, OSHA standards, and the Airport Land Use Plan (MMs Haz-4, Haz-5, Haz-6). Diesel odor impacts from construction vehicles would be temporary and would likely not be noticeable beyond the Project Site’s boundaries. Such odor impacts are further reduced through implementation of dust suppression and exhaust reduction procedures (MM Air-1). Further, with respect to cumulative air quality impacts, the EIR included an analysis of regional air quality impacts with respect to reactive organic gases, nitrous 076218\8647405v1 9 oxide, and fine particulate matter. The EIR concluded that the emissions of those pollutants from the Project would be below the significance thresholds established by BAAQMD. In regards to greenhouse gas emissions, the EIR evaluated the Project’s compliance with State measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The EIR concluded that the Project would not conflict with the State’s greenhouse gas reduction measures. The Project’s estimated yearly emissions of CO 2 are 176.63 tons, which falls well below the reduction state goal and reporting limit for major facilities (i.e. emissions of at least 25,000 metric tons of CO 2 E/year). As such, the Project does not constitute a “major facility” that is a large stationary point source of emissions. As aforementioned, the Project includes a TDM program, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the Project construction and operations. The Revised Project is consistent with the EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not increase the mass or intensity of the proposed office/R&D use on the Site. Accordingly, the Project would not result in additional construction emissions, odors, or cumulative impacts on air quality beyond those analyzed in the EIR. The relocation of the parking garage to the eastern portion of the Project Site does not result in a change in impacts to sensitive receptors. The Revised Project will implement all relevant air quality mitigation measures from the EIR. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any air quality impacts not analyzed in the EIR. Further, in regards to greenhouse gas emissions, the Revised Project will result in the same or fewer vehicle trips and, thus, will not result in more severe regional air quality impacts. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to air quality exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 10 Biological Resources Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No N/A b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No N/A c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No No No N/A d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No No No N/A e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No No No N/A f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No No No N/A 076218\8647405v1 11 Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a less-than-significant impact on biological resources with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of biological resources. The Project Site was fully developed with four one- and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have since been demolished. The Project Site is currently vacant and predominantly paved. The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. After the demolition of the preexisting four one- and two-story buildings, the Project Site—including the area for the relocated parking garage on the eastern portion of the Site—has remained disturbed, vacant, and predominantly paved. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any biological resources impacts that were not previously analyzed. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to biological resources exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 12 Cultural Resources Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No No No N/A b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No No No N/A c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No No No N/A d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No No No N/A Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a less-than-significant impact on cultural resources with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of cultural resources. The Project Site was fully developed with four one- and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have since been demolished. The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. After the demolition of the preexisting four one- and two-story buildings, the Project Site has remained disturbed, vacant, and predominantly paved. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any cultural resources impacts that were not previously analyzed. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to cultural resources exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 13 Energy Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? ENERGY – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Use energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner, either during construction, operation, or maintenance? No No No N/A b) Have insufficient energy supplies available to serve the project from existing local and regional sources, or otherwise have an adverse effect on energy resources? No No No N/A c) Comply with existing state and local energy standards? No No No N/A d) Result in a significant increase in peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy? No No No N/A e) Significantly increase vehicle miles traveled, such that the project would result in increased transportation energy use? No No No N/A Discussion: In the Utilities and Services chapter (Chapter 12), the EIR determined that the Project would have an incremental increase in energy demand, such as gas and electricity, for construction and operation of the development. However, the Project would be served by existing capacities, and so would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded energy facilities. Further, PG&E infrastructure is already present on the Site. The Project also would comply with the applicable federal, state, and local energy standards and efficiency regulations, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Thus, the EIR concluded that the Project would have a less-than- significant impact with respect to energy efficiency and consumption, and no mitigation was required. The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not involve the intensification of the office/R&D use and so will not generate additional demands or otherwise increase impacts to existing energy capacity or energy resources, either during construction or during operations. The Project would also continue to be consistent with all applicable energy standards. In fact, due to revised Title 24 requirements, the Revised Project would likely be more energy efficient than the Project contemplated by the EIR, and thus, could result in reduced demands on energy supplies. Further, due to the Project Site’s proximity to the Caltrain station and implementation of a TDM program, the Revised Project would not increase transportation energy use from employees or other visitors to the Site. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new 076218\8647405v1 14 information related to energy demand exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 15 Geology and Soils Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No No No N/A ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No No No Yes iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No No No Yes iv) Landslides? No No No N/A b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No No No Yes c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No No No Yes d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No No No N/A e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No No No N/A 076218\8647405v1 16 Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that impacts from exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards would be less-than-significant with mitigation. The EIR indicates that there is a high probability that the Project will be subjected to strong seismic ground shaking during its designed life and/or seismically induced ground failure, including liquefaction, densification, and ground surface settlement. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures requiring compliance with the California Building Code and obtaining a building permit (MMs Geo-2a, Geo-2c and Geo-3c), and compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report and Structural Design plans (MMs Geo-2b and Geo-3a). The EIR indicates that the presence of undocumented fill soils and Bay Mud on the Project site presents potential impacts from unstable soils, which would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of a Design Level Geotechnical Investigation (MM Geo-4), which would incorporate proper foundation engineering. Additionally, as the Project will involve mass grading at a location which drains stormwater to the San Francisco Bay, the EIR indicates that the Project could expose underlying contaminated soil to the elements which would be subject to erosion during storm events. The impact to soil erosion would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (MM Geo-6). With respect to cumulative geology and soils impacts, the EIR indicates that the Project would be one of numerous sites anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the Project Site vicinity and would contribute to a cumulative increase in sites facing these impacts. However, the Project-specific contribution would be reduced through the aforementioned Project-specific mitigation measures to a less-than- significant level. The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. Applicable EIR mitigation measures will be implemented, the Revised Project would continue to comply with California Building Code standards and the project design will incorporate the foundation engineering and construction recommendations contained within the design level geotechnical investigation report, and would conform with structural design plans as prepared by a registered structural engineer. As previously discussed, the EIR concluded that the majority of the Project Site is overlain by a layer of undocumented fill, and thus, to minimize long-term settlements, new structures should be supported on the dense, sandy native soils and bedrock underlying the undocumented fills. The relocation of the parking garage to the east side of the Project Site does not impose any additional risk in connection with site geology and soils not already analyzed in the EIR, as the new location is substantially similar to the originally approved site. Further, the reduction in surface parking and incorporation of additional open space does not involve any additional ground disturbing activity and so would not result in any geology or soils impacts not analyzed in the EIR. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to geology and soils exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 17 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No No No Yes b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No No No Yes c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No No No Yes d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No No No N/A e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No No No N/A f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No No No N/A g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No No No N/A h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No No No N/A Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that impacts from exposure of people or structures to hazards or hazardous materials would be less-than-significant with mitigation. Given the Project’s use as a Class A laboratory and office building, depending on the nature of the research planned at the proposed facilities, there could be hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site, which will ultimately require disposal, in addition to such hazardous materials being transported to and from the Project Site. The EIR indicates that the impact of the Project’s potential 076218\8647405v1 18 incorporation of routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures requiring adherence to Fire and Safety Codes (MM Haz-1a), construction inspection and final inspection prior to occupancy (MM Haz-1b), implementation of a Hazardous Material Business Plan Program (MM Haz-1c), registration and compliance with DTSC’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program (MM Haz-1d), and compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding transportation and disposal of hazardous waste (MM Haz-1e). Further, the EIR indicates that the Project Site has a well-documented history of industrial activity including the use and storage of hazardous materials. An underground storage tank was removed from the Project Site in 1986. Subsequent testing detected elevated levels of TCE, PCE and two metals remaining in confined areas of the soil, which are not identified at specific locations in the EIR. The EIR concluded that the Project Site contains limited amounts of subsurface hazardous materials that could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials during regular construction activities and exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures requiring a demolition plan and permitting prior to demolition (MM Haz-2a), registration with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (MM Haz-2b), and implementation of a Site Management Plan. Standard construction Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) would be implemented to reduce pollutant emissions during construction. The Project would comply with regulations enforced by CUPA, Cal/OSHA, and DTSC to ensure that safety measures and precautions are taken to reduce impacts resulting from accidental upset or release of hazardous materials associated with the Project Site. With respect to hazardous materials near schools, the EIR indicates that the Project is located near three child care centers, which could be impacted by contaminated dust disturbed by grading of the Project Site and/or future emissions of the research laboratory facilities. These impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures requiring demolition and construction air quality control strategies (MM Haz-4) and compliance with BAAQMD and OSHA standards (MM Haz-5). In regards to cumulative hazardous impacts, the EIR indicates that the Project would be one of numerous sites in the vicinity that are anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment. The Project would, thus, contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of sites handling hazardous materials. However, this impact is expected to be slight and the aforementioned project-specific mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not involve the use of additional construction vehicles or the transport of any additional hazardous materials not already analyzed in the EIR. Further, the Revised Project will not result in substantial changes to disturbance of the subsurface that would result in increased exposure risk to underground hazardous materials. The EIR identified possible soil contamination as a general condition at the Project Site and incorporated generally applicable mitigation measures (MM Haz-4 and MM Haz-5) to address possible exposure to contaminated soil; the EIR analysis regarding impacts and mitigation measures associated with contaminated soil is not unique to specific locations on the Project Site. As such, the aforementioned mitigation measures are equally applicable to the Revised Project and the new location of the relocated garage on the east side of the Project Site. The Revised Project will implement all relevant EIR mitigation measures, including standard construction BMPs. As such, the 076218\8647405v1 19 Revised Project would not result in any hazards and hazardous materials impacts not analyzed in the EIR. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to hazards and hazardous materials exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 20 Hydrology and Water Quality Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No No No Yes b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No No No N/A c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No No No Yes d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? No No No N/A e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No No No N/A f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No No No N/A g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No No No N/A h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No No No N/A i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No No No N/A j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No No No N/A Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less-than-significant with mitigation. As stated in the EIR, the Project loading/trash area could create potential pollution of surface water, which would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through 076218\8647405v1 21 water quality BMPs. In addition, the EIR indicated that the Project could cause potential contamination of local groundwater that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures pursuant to the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit. The EIR indicates that construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from grading activities by subjecting unprotected bare soils to rainfall. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through compliance with a Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements (MM Hydro-4). The Project would have no impact on ground water recharge or stormwater drainage systems. In regards to cumulative hydrology impacts, the EIR indicates that the increased construction activity and new development resulting from the Project, in conjunction with other foreseeable development in the City, would nevertheless result in less-than-significant impacts on hydrology and water quality. The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not involve any additional construction or ground-disturbing activities compared to what was analyzed in the EIR. As such, the Revised Project would not otherwise contribute pollutants or result in erosion that would have the potential to degrade water quality that was not already analyzed. The Revised Project will also continue to implement all relevant EIR mitigation measures. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to hydrology and water quality exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 22 Land Use and Planning Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? LAND USE & PLANNING – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Physically divide an established community? No No No N/A b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No No No N/A c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No No No N/A Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that the Project would be consistent with applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies, and so would not have an adverse impact with respect to land use and planning. The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not alter the Project’s physical location, but instead reduces parking, reorients the location of the parking garage, and increases open space on the Project Site. The Revised Project remains consistent with the General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any land use or planning impacts not analyzed in the EIR. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to land use and planning exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 23 Mineral Resources Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No No No N/A b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No No No N/A Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a less-than-significant impact on mineral resources with no mitigation required; thus, the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of mineral resources. The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. For the prior analysis, the Project Site was fully developed with four one- and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have since been demolished. The Project Site is currently vacant and predominantly paved. Further, the EIR contemplated development on the portion of the Project Site on which the Revised Project will be developed, as the Project would have developed additional surface parking on the location of the to- be-developed garage of the Revised Project. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any mineral resources impacts not previously analyzed. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to mineral resources exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 24 Noise Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? NOISE – Would the proposed Revised Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No No No N/A b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No No No N/A c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No No No N/A d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No No No Yes e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No No No N/A f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No No No N/A Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that noise impacts from construction and operation of the Project would be less-than-significant with mitigation. The potentially significant noise impacts associated with construction of the Project are mitigated through implementation of noise-reducing construction practices that would reduce truck noise and noise from other construction equipment to a less-than-significant level. Further, the EIR concluded that the cumulative noise impacts of the Project would be less than significant, as the cumulative noise increase from increases in traffic would not be expected to generate noise levels perceptible over the existing ambient noise levels. The Revised Project is consistent with this analysis. The Revised Project does not result in additional construction vehicle trips and so would not increase vehicle noise during construction. The Revised Project also would not increase the intensity of development and so would not require additional construction equipment, construction personnel, or time for construction. Therefore, the Revised Project would not generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels from 076218\8647405v1 25 the use of construction equipment not already analyzed in the EIR. The Project also would continue to implement relevant construction noise-reducing mitigation measures. As the Revised Project would reduce the overall parking on the Project Site and create additional open-space, it would not create a cumulative noise increase as compared to the Project. The location of the parking structure as planned in the Project did not result in any significant noise impacts, and the Revised Project’s relocation of the parking structure to the eastern portion of the Project Site would not affect that conclusion. The EIR found that, due to the prevalence of industrial land uses in the area, noise thresholds vis-à-vis the Project and neighboring land uses are higher than they would be if more sensitive land uses were present near the Project Site. Thus, while the Revised Project will relocate the parking garage to a different portion of the Site, traffic noise associated with this relocation will not result in increased noise impacts. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to noise exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 26 Population and Housing Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? POPULATION & HOUSING – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No No No N/A b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No No No N/A c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No No No N/A Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a less-than-significant impact on population and housing with no mitigation required; thus, the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of population and housing. The Project does not propose any housing and so would not induce population growth, and the Project Site is not currently developed with housing and so none would be displaced. The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. The Revised Project would not increase the square footage or density of the office/R&D building or alter the use of the office/R&D building in a manner that would induce a substantial population growth. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any population and housing impacts not previously analyzed. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to population and housing exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 27 Public Services Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No No No N/A ii) Police protection? No No No N/A iii) Schools? No No No N/A iv) Parks? No No No N/A V) Other public facilities? No No No N/A Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or less-than-significant impact on public services with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of public services. The Project does not include residential uses and so would not increase demand on parks, schools, or libraries. The office/R&D development would also not generate an increase in demand for fire or police services resulting in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. The Revised Project would not increase the square footage or intensity of the office/R&D building, or alter the use of the office/R&D building or Project Site in a manner that would increase impacts on public services. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any public services impacts not previously analyzed. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to public services exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 28 Recreation Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? RECREATION – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No No No N/A b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No No No N/A Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a less-than-significant impact on recreation with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of recreation. The Project does not include residential uses and so would not increase demand on recreational facilities. The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. The Revised Project would not alter the use of the office/R&D building or Project Site in a manner that would create an impact on recreational facilities. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to recreation exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 29 Transportation and Circulation Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No No No No b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No No No Yes c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No No No N/A d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No No No Yes e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No No No N/A f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No No No N/A g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No No No N/A Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that the Project would generate impacts to transportation and circulation, the majority of which either are less-than-significant without mitigation or are reduced to less-than-significant through the implementation of various mitigation measures. The EIR concluded that the Project would create one significant and unavoidable impact on an off-ramp diverge location from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (“Impact TRAF-17”). The EIR found that no improvements are feasible to mitigate this Project-specific impact and the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for this impact via Resolution No. 2676-2008. The EIR indicates that the Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours, thereby triggering the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments Agency Guidelines requirement that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenant mitigates all new peak hour trips projected to be generated by the Project. This impact would be 076218\8647405v1 30 mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of a TDM program. The EIR indicates that in order to mitigate a potential significant impact regarding internal pedestrian connections, the Project would incorporate sidewalks and crosswalks connecting the Project’s main entrance with the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue (MM Traf-5). Additionally, the EIR indicates that the State Public Utilities Commission has noted that a nearby intersection grade rail crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and pavement striping, a problem that would be aggravated by the addition of the Project. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of a mitigation measure requiring installation of grade crossing approach signing and pavement striping as detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission (MM Traf-7). The EIR also indicates that Project impacts to the intersection levels of service at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard; E. Grand Avenue/Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way; E. Grand Avenue/Roebling Road; Gateway Boulevard/ S. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue; and intersection signalization needs at E. Grand Avenue/Roebling Road would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures requiring physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersections in compliance with City standards (MMs Traf-8, Traf-9, Traf-10, Traf-11, Traf-12). Further, Project impacts to cumulative vehicle queuing at signalized and unsignalized intersections, and off-ramp queuing to freeway mainlines are also reduced to less-than- significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures requiring physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersections in compliance with City standards (MMs Traf- 13, Traf-14, Traf-15, Traf-16). A March 15, 2017 technical memorandum prepared by Adavant Consulting, “213 East Grand Avenue Parking Demand Analysis,” (the “Adavant Memorandum”) analyzed the Revised Project’s impacts on transportation and circulation and concluded that the proposed changes would not result in new or substantially increased transportation impacts than those already identified within the EIR. In regards to circulation and traffic, the Adavant Memorandum found that vehicular access to and from the Revised Project would remain unchanged, as the driveways would remain located at East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road. For daily vehicle trips generated by the Revised Project, the Adavant Memorandum noted that the 2008 EIR evaluated the number of daily vehicle trips generated by the Project based on the 7th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (“ITE”) using the land use category of “Office Use.” Given that vehicle trip generation for office has been found to be higher than for R&D uses, this resulted in a conservative trip generation estimate for environmental impact analysis purposes. The Revised Project will consist of laboratory and R&D uses. Since 2008, the ITE has updated its Trip Generation Manual to include an “R&D” land use category, which the Adavant Memorandum applied in the analysis of the Revised Project to accurately calculate trip generation for the proposed uses. The Adavant Memorandum concluded that the Revised Project would generate 26 percent fewer daily trips than the Project (respectively, 1,183 versus 1,606 daily vehicles accessing and parking at the site), resulting in a corresponding decrease in on-site parking demand. In sum, the Adavant Memorandum found that, while the Revised Project would reduce the parking supply by 21.5 percent, this reduction would not result in a parking deficit given the expected 26 percent reduction in daily trips. Overall, the Adavant Memorandum concluded that the Revised Project would not be expected to substantially change the travel conditions in the area, or modify the conclusions reached by the EIR. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new 076218\8647405v1 31 information related to transportation and circulation exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 32 Utilities and Service Systems Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No No No N/A b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No No No N/A c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No No No N/A d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No No No N/A e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No No No Yes f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? No No No N/A g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No No No N/A Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that impacts on the City and other service providers to deliver water supply, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, solid waste, and energy services would be less-than-significant with mitigation. While the Project would increase demand for utilities and services systems, the Project site is located in a largely built-out urban area, and intensification of development in the area is and has been anticipated by the City and service providers and is within the planned future capacity of these systems. Mitigation includes the payment of a sewer- connection fee and monthly impact fee to the City for the cost of sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the Project. The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not involve the intensification of the office/R&D use and so will not generate additional impacts on the City and other service providers to deliver water supply, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, solid waste, and 076218\8647405v1 33 energy services. The Revised Project will also implement all relevant EIR mitigation measures. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to utilities and service systems exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 076218\8647405v1 34 Mandatory Findings of Significance Issues: Could Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances that could Result in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Indicating New significant Impacts? Do the EIR Mitigation Measures Address Impacts? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE – Would the proposed Revised Project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No No No N/A b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No No No N/A Discussion: The EIR determined that the Project would have one significant and unavoidable impact. The Project would create a significant impact on an off-ramp diverge location from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (“Impact TRAF-17”). The EIR found that no improvements are feasible to mitigate this Project-specific impact. The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project will continue to create the significant and unavoidable Impact TRAF-17 due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes on an off-ramp diverge location from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. In regards to mandatory findings of significance, as indicated above, the Revised Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The Revised Project would also not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Further, the Revised Project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. 076218\8647405v1 35 The Revised Project will implement all applicable EIR mitigation measures for the Project. The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed in the EIR, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information exists that meets the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CONCLUSION Accordingly, because some changes to the Project as analyzed in the Draft EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred, an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document to address the changes. Based on the findings and information contained in the certified EIR, the analysis above, and the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the Revised Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental effects than identified in the EIR, and the potential environmental effects of the Revised Project have been adequately addressed in the certified EIR for the East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Use Permit and Development Agreement Application. Therefore, an addendum to the EIR is appropriate under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The EIR, including this Addendum is adequate for use by the Planning Commission and City Council in their review of the Use Permit Modification (No. UP13-0002), the Development Agreement Amendment, and the adoption of findings required by CEQA in acting on such requests. Adavant Consulting 200 Francisco St., Second Floor, San Francisco, California 94133 (415) 362-3552 Page 1 Memorandum To: Terezia Nemeth, Vice President, Alexandria Real Estate Equities From: José I. Farrán, PE Date: March 17, 2017 Re: 213 East Grand Avenue Parking Demand Analysis This technical memorandum summarizes the parking demand analysis performed by Adavant Consulting at your request for proposed project being considered at 213 East Grand Avenue, in the City of South San Francisco. The main purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the site access and parking supply of the currently proposed development, compare it to the expected demand, and assess if the proposed changes by the new proposal could result in new or substantially more severe transportation impacts than those identified as part of the previously approved development Final EIR. BACKGROUND In 2008, the South San Francisco City Council approved Alexandria Real Estate Equities’ (ARE) proposal to develop a nine-story 291,634 gross square foot (gsf) building at 213 East Grand Avenue, the “Original Project”; Figure 1 on the next page graphically depicts the Original Project site proposal. The approved project consisted of a combination of research, development and office uses, whose potential transportation impacts were evaluated in an environmental impact report prepared in May 2008.1 The Original Project called for a total of 826 parking spaces to be provided on-site, 616 of them within a five-level parking structure and the remaining 210 at various surface parking lots. As such the parking supply ratio for the Original Project was 2.83 spaces per 1000 gsf, consistent with the City of South San Francisco requirements. ARE now proposes to make changes to the Original Project site plan and parking requirements in order to maximize the open space area and create a more urban campus. 1 213 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2008022094; prepared for the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community Development by Lampier Gregory; May 2008. Adavant Consulting Final Version March 17, 2017 P16011 Page 2 Figure 1 213 East Grand Avenue Original Project Alexandria Real Estate – December 2008 The new proposal, the “Revised Project”, shown in Figure 2 on the next page, calls for the relocation of the parking garage structure to the east side of the project site, along Roebling Road, while reducing the total on-site parking supply to 650 spaces, a reduction of 176 stalls or about 21.5 percent fewer spaces than the Original Project. The Revised Project parking supply would include 524 spaces at a five-level parking structure, and 110 spaces at various surface lots, plus 16 ADA automobile and van accessible spaces located throughout the site. The proposed parking changes for the Revised Project would result in a reduction of the overall parking supply ratio to 2.23 spaces per 1000 gsf. Vehicular access to the site would remain virtually unchanged under the Revised Project, with driveways located at East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road. Adavant Consulting Final Version March 17, 2017 P16011 Page 3 Figure 2 213 East Grand Avenue Revised Project Alexandria Real Estate – January 2017 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS The Final EIR certified by the City Council for the Original Project identified the number of daily vehicle trips that the Original Project would generate, based on the 7th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual2 prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), the most up-to-date source of data available at that time. The results are summarized in Table 1. 2 Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC, 2003. Adavant Consulting Final Version March 17, 2017 P16011 Page 4 Table 1 213 East Grand Avenue – Original Project Weekday Daily Trip Generation Land Use Size (square feet) Daily Vehicle-trip Rate [a] Daily Vehicle-trips Office Use [c] 291,643 11.01 3,212 [b] Total One-Way Daily Vehicles 1,606 Notes: [a] Number of vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet; rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. [b] Total two-way vehicle trips. [c] ITE Land Use 710, General Office Building Source: Table 11-13, p. 11-26, 213 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project EIR, May 2008. As indicated in the table, the Original Project (291,634 sq. ft.) would generate 3,212 daily vehicle trips, representing 1,606 one-way daily vehicles. As also shown in the table, the travel demand estimates for the Original Project were based on office uses rather than R&D, to provide a conservative trip generation estimate for environmental impact analysis purposes, since vehicle trip generation for office has been found to be higher than for R&D uses. Since 2008, the ITE has been updating its Trip Generation Manual report regularly, and in 2012 published the 9th Edition,3 which includes a land use category specific for facilities devoted mostly to R&D activities (LU 760 Research & Development Center). This land use and trip rate category has been used in recent studies performed in South San Francisco, including the environmental analyses conducted for the Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I project,4 and the 328 Roebling Road project.5 Because ARE now proposes to dedicate the project primarily to laboratory, research and development uses, the application of the R&D ITE rate to calculate the trip generation for the Revised Project would be appropriate. 3 Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC, 2012. 4 Table 16.10, p. 16-17, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2010022070, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community Development by Lampier Gregory; January 2011. 5 328 Roebling Road project Traffic Study, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community Development by Crane Transportation Group, October 2011. Adavant Consulting Final Version March 17, 2017 P16011 Page 5 Table 2 summarizes the trip generation for the Revised Project (383,000 sq. ft.) using the R&D land use category as presented in the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Table 2 213 East Grand Avenue – Revised Project Weekday Daily Trip Generation Land Use Size (square feet) Daily Vehicle-trip Rate [a] Daily Vehicle-trips R&D use [c]291,643 8.11 2,366 [b] Total One-Way Daily Vehicles 1,183 Notes: [a] Number of vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet; rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. [b] Total two-way vehicle trips. [c] ITE Land Use 760, Research and Development Center. Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Adavant Consulting. As shown in Table 2, the Revised Project would generate fewer daily trips than the Original Project. Specifically the total number of one-way daily vehicles generated daily by the Revised Project would be about 26 percent lower (1,183 vs 1,606). TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT The implementation of the Revised Project, which would be dedicated primarily to laboratory, research and development uses would not be expected to substantially change the travel conditions in the area, or modify the conclusion reached in the project EIR. Vehicular access to the site would remain virtually unchanged, with driveways located at East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road, similar to the Original Project. The overall reduction in total daily trips (2,366 vs 3,212) would result in similar or better traffic conditions than those presented in the EIR. Similarly, the expected 26 percent decrease in daily vehicles accessing and parking at the site under the Revised Project (1,183 vs 1,606), would result in a corresponding decrease in on-site parking demand. Given that the Revised Project proposes a 21.5 percent reduction in parking supply, no additional parking deficit would be expected compared to the Original Project. Furthermore, if needed during higher parking demand events, ARE could implement attendant parking operations at the garage structure, increasing its supply by approximately 15 percent (about additional 100 spaces). In those instances, the overall parking supply would be about 750 spaces (2.57 spaces per 1000 gsf), 76 fewer spaces than under the Original Project. In summary, the Revised Project would represent an overall 26 percent reduction in the number of vehicles arriving or departing the project site compared to the Original Project, with a corresponding decrease in parking demand. Therefore, its implementation with a 21.5 percent reduction in parking spaces provided would not be expected to create any significant project or cumulative transportation impacts beyond what was identified in the Original Project EIR. Exhibit B –Link to 2007 EIR http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/61806/Page1.aspx City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-546 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6b. Resolution making findings and approving the Use Permit Modification UPM17-0001, Parking Reduction request, Transportation Demand Management Plan TDM17-0002, and Design Review DR17-0007 at 213-221 East Grand Avenue in the Business and Technology Park Zoning District subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted (1) Ordinance No. 1403-2009 approving a Development Agreement with Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (“Applicant”), (2) Resolution No. 114- 2008 approving a Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, and (3) Resolution 113-2008 certifying the 2007 Environmental Impact Report (“2007 EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No 2008022094) for the demolition of four existing one- and two-story buildings, and construction of a single nine-story building, a five-level parking garage, surface parking lot, and related improvements on an approximately 7.027-acre site located at 213-221 East Grand Avenue ("Project" or "213 East Grand Avenue Project"); and WHEREAS, Applicant proposes to move the parking garage to the east side of the Project site and requests a parking reduction for a minimum of 2.0 to a ratio of 2.23 parking spaces/ 1,000 square feet at the Project in the BTP Zoning District, which requires approval of a Development Agreement Amendment, Use Permit, and Design Review; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board reviewed the Project at its February 21, 2017 meeting, and strongly recommended approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis for the proposed Project was conducted, which concluded that the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Project are fully within the scope of the environmental analysis conducted in the 2007 EIR, such that the Project does not meet the criteria under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15164 or 15162 justifying preparation of a subsequent EIR and thus, an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and WHEREAS,pursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15164,anaddendumtothe2007EIRwaspreparedforthe Project (“2017 Addendum”); and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionreviewedtheProjectandrecommendedapprovaloftheDevelopment AgreementAmendment,UsePermitModification,ParkingReductionrequest,TransportationDemand ManagementPlan,andDesignReview,aswellasthe2017AddendumatitspublichearingonApril20,2017; and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilheldaproperlynoticedpublichearingonJune14,2017,atwhichtimeinterested partieshadtheopportunitytobeheard,andtoreviewtheProjectandthe2017Addendum,aswellas supporting documents, prior to the City Council making its decision on the Project; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-546 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6b. WHEREAS,theCityCouncilexerciseditsindependentjudgmentandanalysis,andconsideredallreports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,basedontheentiretyoftherecordbeforeit,whichincludeswithout limitation,theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct,PublicResourcesCode§21000,etseq.andtheCEQA Guidelines,14CaliforniaCodeofRegulations§15000,etseq.;theSouthSanFranciscoGeneralPlan,and GeneralPlanEnvironmentalImpactReport;theSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCode;2007EIR,and associatedMitigationMonitoringandReportingPrograms;2017EIRAddendum;allsiteplans,andallreports, minutes,andpublictestimonysubmittedaspartofthePlanningCommission’sdulynoticedApril20,2017 meeting;allsiteplans,andallreports,minutes,andpublictestimonysubmittedaspartoftheCityCouncil’s dulynoticedJune14,2017meeting;andanyotherevidence(withinthemeaningofPublicResourcesCode §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.TheExhibitattachedtothisResolutionasExhibitA(DraftConditionsofApproval),isincorporatedby reference as if they were each set forth fully herein. 3.Thedocumentsandothermaterialconstitutingtherecordfortheseproceedingsarelocatedatthe PlanningDivisionfortheCityofSouthSanFrancisco,315MapleAvenue,SouthSanFrancisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B.Conditional Use Permit Findings 1.Theproposedusewillnotbeadversetothepublichealth,safetyorgeneralwelfareofthecommunity,nor bedetrimentaltothesurroundingpropertiesorimprovementsbecausetheproposedProjectislocatedinthe BusinessTechnologyParkareaofthecommunityandwillbetransforminganinfillparcelintousesthatare consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning regulations for the area. 2.TheproposedProjectisconsistentwiththeCity’sGeneralPlanbecausetheproposedbuilding(s)and associatedamenitiesandlandscapingareconsistentwiththepoliciesanddesigndirectionprovidedinthe South San Francisco General Plan for the Business & Technology Park land use designation. 3.TheproposedProjectcomplieswithallapplicablestandardsincludedinChapter20.110(“Employment Districts”)aswellastheimplementingpoliciesandguidelinesfoundintheBusiness&TechnologyPark Zoning District. 4.TheproposedProjectcomplieswiththeCity’sdesignguidelineswhichwereusedtoevaluatetheProject by staff and the City’s Design Review Board at their meeting on February 21, 2017. 5.Thedesign,location,sizeandoperatingcharacteristicsoftheproposedactivitywouldbecompatiblewith theexistingandreasonablyforeseeablefuturelandusesinthevicinitybecausetheprojectiscampus- oriented and provides similar amenities in comparison to surrounding office/ R&D sites. 6.Thesiteisphysicallysuitableforthetype,densityandintensityofusebeingproposed,includingaccess, City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-546 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6b. 6.Thesiteisphysicallysuitableforthetype,densityandintensityofusebeingproposed,includingaccess, utilities,andtheabsenceofphysicalconstraintsbecausetheprojectsiteislocateddirectlyadjacenttoother office/ R&D sites with similar connections and physical and topographical characteristics. 7.AnenvironmentaldeterminationhasbeenpreparedinaccordancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmental QualityActinthatthe2017AddendumwaspreparedwhichconcludedthattheproposedProjectisfully within the analysis of the 2007 certified EIR and no further environmental review is necessary. Findings Required in addition to the Conditional Use Permit Findings (SSFMC 20.330.006): 8.Basedonthenatureoftheproposedoperation;proximitytofrequenttransitservice;transportation characteristicsofpersonsworking,and/orvisitingthesite;andbecausetheapplicanthasundertakena transportationdemandmanagementprogram,parkingdemandatthesitewillbereducedandtheparking demand for the proposed use should not exceed the provided parking on-site. 9.BasedontheanalysiscontainedintheTDMplanpreparedfortheProject,theusewilladequatelybe servedbytheproposedon-siteparkingsincethesitewillbemorethanadequatelyservedbytheproposed surface parking and five-story parking garage. 10.ParkingdemandgeneratedbytheProjectwillnotexceedthecapacityoforhaveadetrimentalimpact onthesupplyofon-streetparkinginthesurroundingareasincetheDraftTDMoutlinesprogramsand strategiesthatsufficientlysupportarequestforaparkingreductionfrom2.83parkingspaces/1,000square feet to a minimum of 2.0 2.23 parking spaces/ 1,000 square feet. C.Design Review Findings 1.TheProjectisconsistentwiththeapplicablestandardsandrequirementsoftheZoningOrdinancebecause assubmittedandmodifiedthroughtheDesignReviewProcess,thisProjectmeetsorcomplieswiththe applicable standards included in the Employment Districts (Chapter 20.110). 2.TheGeneralPlanLandUseDesignationforthesiteisBusiness&TechnologyPark(BTP)andthe proposedProjectisconsistentwiththeGeneralPlanbecausetheproposedofficebuildinguseisconsistent withthepoliciesanddesigndirectionprovidedintheSouthSanFranciscoGeneralPlanfortheBusiness& Technology Park land use designation. 3.TheProjectisconsistentwiththedesignguidelinesadoptedbytheCityCouncilinthattheproposeduseis consistent with projects in the East of 101 Area. 4.TheproposedProjectissubjecttoaUsePermitapprovalandthosefindingshaveadequatelybeenmadein support of the Project. 5.TheProjectisconsistentwiththeapplicabledesignreviewcriteriainSection20.480.006(“DesignReview Criteria”)becausetheProjecthasbeenevaluatedagainst,andfoundtobeconsistentwith,eachoftheeight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. D.Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Findings 1.TheproposedtripreductionmeasuresarefeasibleandappropriatefortheProject,consideringtheproposed City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-546 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6b. 1.TheproposedtripreductionmeasuresarefeasibleandappropriatefortheProject,consideringtheproposed use or mix of uses and the Project’s location, size, and hours of operation. 2.Theproposedperformanceguaranteesandconditionsofapprovalwillensurethatthetargetalternative modeuseestablishedfortheProjectbytheZoningOrdinancewillbeachievedandmaintainedsincethe conditions of approval require continuing ongoing developer support to the Project site. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDsubjecttotheConditionsofApproval,attachedas ExhibitAtothisResolution,theCityCounciloftheCityofSouthSanFranciscoherebymakesthefindings containedinthisResolutionandapprovesUsePermitModificationUPM17-0001,ParkingReductionRequest, Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM17-0002), and Design Review (DR17-0007) for the Project. BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthatthisResolutionshallbecomeeffectiveimmediatelyuponitspassageand adoption. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UPM17-0001: DAA17-0002, TDM17-0002, DR17-0007 213 East Grand Avenue (As approved by the City Council on June 14, 2017) A)Planning Division requirements shall be asfollows: 1.The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as otherwise amended by the following Conditions of Approval. 2.The project drawings, comprised of the proposed office building, parking garage,and open space improvements, shall substantially comply with the approved plans prepared by DGA and WRNS Studio dated January 10, 2017, as approved by the Planning Commission in association with UPM17-0001 and DR17-0007, as amended by the Conditions of Approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Chief Planner. 3.The projectis required to comply with applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIR,as addressed as part of the 2017 Addendum. 4.All existing and proposed landscaping shall be maintained in a sufficient manner to the Chief Planner’s satisfaction. A final landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved by the Chief Planner as part of the Building Division permit submittal. 5.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit proof to the Planning Division of Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) clearance/authorization for the height of the proposed structure. 6.All equipment (either roof or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view of public streets and neighboring properties through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and potentially landscape screening. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted and/or finished to match the building. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall review the proposed location, size and screening of all mechanical equipment and utilities infrastructure and obtain Chief Planner approval. 7.Prior to approval of the building permit, the developer shall submit a building signage and monument package, consistent with the approved Master Sign Program for the 213 East Grand Avenue Project, for approval by the City’s Chief Planner. 8.In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.120.070, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan and ongoing monitoring program for review and approval by the Chief Planner. The TDM Plan shall be designed to achieve a minimum 35% alternative mode use target. 9.Prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Encroachment Permit, City Staff shall meet with the Applicant and selected prime contractor for a pre-construction meeting. 10.Per the adopted Climate Action Plan (http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/6186), the following mandatory requirements shall be included in the Building Division permit submittal for review and approval by the Chief Planner: Solar Wiring Installation -Measure 4.1, Action 3: Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar. Planning Division contact: Ryan Wassumat (650) 877-8535 B)Fire Department requirements shall be as follows: 1.Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground. 2.Exterior canopies and overhangs require fire sprinkler protection. 3.Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3. 4.Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit. 5.Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell. 6.Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips. 7.At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in accordance with the CFC. 8.Buildings 4 stories or more will require a modified smoke control system. A rational analysis is required before building plans are approved. 9.Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. 10.Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building. 11.All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications 12.Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of 75,000 pounds. 13.Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by engineering department. 14.Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix III-A. 15.Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined. 16.All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 17.Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined. 18.The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code. 19.Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/prevention/fire_permits.asp 20.Provide HMBP including what chemicals are present andto what quantities. 21.Provide on the plan the control areas, list of hazardous material and quantities that will be present in the laboratories, include all flammable and combustible materials. 22.All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code. 23.This new commercial construction will be assessed anadopted Public Safety Impact Fee. The amount for Office/R & D is$0.13per square foot for the Police Department and $0.31per square foot for the Fire Department. Fire Department contact: Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshal at (650) 829-6645 C)Water Quality Division requirements shall be as follows: 1.Site is subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 2.Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 3.Completed attached forms for Low Impact Development. Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer. Calculations must be submitted with this package. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient A completed copy must also be emailed to rob.lecel@ssf.net 4.Complete attached Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient. A finished copy must also be emailed to rob.lecel@ssf.net Do not sign agreement, as the city will need to review prior to signature, prepare packet and submit with an address to send for signature. 5.Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 6.Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street. Drains in street must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to brakeage from vehicular traffic. 7.No discharge from demolition (knock down water) shall be discharged into the storm drain system. 8.The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 9.Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a.Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. b.Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specificcharacteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. c.Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable. d.Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. e.Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include: i.Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. ii.Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes. iii.Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv.Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants. v.Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi.Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. 10.No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed. 11.A SWPPP must be submitted.Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 12.A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted. 13.Sprinkler test drain must discharge to the sanitary sewer. 14.Areas of parking garage exposed to rain shall be connected to the stormwater bio retention area. 15.If a kitchen/ prep area is to be installed, it shall connect to a grease interceptor at least 1500 gallons (liquid capacity) in size. 16.Grease interceptor shall be connected to all non-domestic wastewater sources in the kitchen. Water Quality Control contact: Rob Lecel at (650) 829-3882 D)Building Division requirements shall be as follows: 1.Compliance will be determined with Building Division permit application. Building Division contact: Phil Perry, Senior Building Inspectorat (650) 829-6670 E)Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: I. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1.The developer shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division’s “Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments”, contained in our “Standard Development Conditions” booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1.The developer shall obtain a demolition permit to demolish the existing buildings. The demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division and the developer shall pay all fees and deposits for the permit. The developer shall provide letters from all public utilities stating all said utilities have been properly disconnected from the existing buildings. 2.The developer shall submit a traffic study to evaluate how the project will affect the Roebling Road/East Grand Avenue Intersection and the Harbor/Forbes/East Grand Avenue Intersection. The traffic study should also identify any off-site related improvements to ensure safe ingress/egress to the project. 3.A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. The developer will be responsible for paying for all fees, bonds, plan checking and all associated fees for the grading permit. The developer will alsoplace a cash deposit of $30,000 to pay for all onsite, SWPPP compliance, grading compliance and dust control inspections. 4.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. The developer shall place a $5,000 cash deposit with the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report. 5.The developer shall remove and replace all sidewalk fronting the project. The new sidewalk shall comply with the City standard detail and shall provide the minimum ADA width around the existing power poles. All work shall be done at no cost to the City. 6.The developer shall underground all overhead utility wires along the frontage of their property at no cost to the City. The developer shall coordinate with all overhead utilities to commence undergrounding of said utilities. 7.The driveway located on East Grand Avenue shall be right-turn in and out of the site. A R1 “Stop” sign with a “Right Turn Only” sign shall be placed at this driveway. 8.The developer shall remove the existing railroad tracks and appurtenances at the end of Roebling. The developer shall replace the railroad crossing with a new pavement structural section in accordance with plans approved by the City. All work shall be done at nocost to the City. 9.The developer shall incorporate bio-grassy swales and other Best Management Practices as stormwater measures within the project and shall be approved by the Engineering Division and the Environmental Compliance Manager. 10.One correctly sized sewer lateral shall be installed to service this site. A sanitary sewer manhole shall be installed onsite, near the property line, to serve as a cleanout for the lateral as it connects to the City’s sanitary sewer system. 11.The developer shall coordinate work with California Water Service for all water utility work. 12.The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work performed in the City’s right-of-way and pay all associated fees, deposit and/or bonds. The developer shall submit an Engineer’s estimate for all work performed in the City’s right-of-way and place a bond or cash deposit for said work. 13.Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the various fees as detailed below. III.OYSTER POINT OVERPASS CONTRIBUTION FEE Prior to receiving a Building Permit for the proposed new office/R&D development, the applicant shall pay the Oyster Point Overpass fee, as determined by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Council Resolutions102-96 and 152-96. The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payment. The estimated fee for the entire subject 291,000 GSF office and R&D development is calculated below. (The number in the calculation, "11,609.44", is the March 13, 2017 Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index, which is revised each month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.) Trip Calculation 291,000 gsf Office/R&D use @ 12.3 trips per 1000 gsf = 3,579 new vehicle trips Contribution Calculation 3,579 trips X $154 X (11609.44/6552.16) = $ 976,583.08 IV.EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the proposed project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of May 23, 2007. Fee Calculation (effective July 1, 2016) 291,000 gsf Office/R&D @ $5.82 per each square foot =$ 1,693,620.00 Traffic Impact Fee = $ 1,693,620.00 V.SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IMPROVEMENT FEE The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the sewer system within the East of 101 area, downstream of the proposed office/R&D development. The existing sewer collection system was originally designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much greater sewage flow. Theseadditional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection capacity constraints. A study and flow model is proposed to analyze the problem and recommend solutions and improvements. The applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, as adopted by the City Council at their meeting of October 23, 2002. The escalated adopted fee is $4.73per gallon of discharge per day. It isdetermined that Office/R&D generate 400 gallons per day per 1000 square feet of development. Based upon this calculation, the potential fee would be, if paid this year: 0.4 g/sf (400 gpd/1000 sq. ft.) x $4.73per gallon x 291,000 sq. ft. = $550,570.00 The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for each phase of the development. Total estimated fees: Oyster Point Overpass Fee $ 976,583.08 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $ 1,693,620.00 East of 101 Sewer Improvements Fee $ 550,570.00 Total$ 3,220,755.08 NOTE: At the time these fees were generated, the applicant did not submit existing square footages for the existing buildings. When the applicant submits the existing square footages, the fees will be re-calculated to reflect the proper credits and the estimated fees may be less. EngineeringDivision contact: Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer (650) 829-6668 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-547 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6c. An Ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between Alexandria Real Estate Equities -San Francisco No. 21 LP, Alexandria Real Estate Equities -San Francisco No. 42 LLC and the City of South San Francisco for the Office/ R&D Campus at 213 - 221 East Grand Avenue. WHEREAS,pursuanttoCityCouncilOrdinanceNo.1403-2009,theCityofSouthSanFrancisco(“City”)and AlexandriaRealEstateEquities(ARE)-SanFranciscoNo.21LP,ARE-SanFranciscoNo.42LLCenteredinto aDevelopmentAgreement(“DevelopmentAgreement”)forthedevelopmentofanOffice/R&DCampusat 213 East Grand Avenue (“Project”), which was effective as of February 13, 2009; and WHEREAS,pursuanttoResolutionNo.114-2008,theCityCouncilapprovedaUsePermit,DesignReview and Transportation Demand Management Program for the Project; and WHEREAS,pursuanttoResolutionNo.113-2008,theCityCouncilcertifiedanEnvironmentalImpactReport (StateClearinghousenumber2008022094)fortheProjectonFebruary13,2009,includingaMitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Consideration; and WHEREAS,onJanuary11,2017,AlexandriaRealEstateEquities(“Applicant”)submittedanapplication proposingtomovetheparkinggaragetotheeastsideoftheProjectsiteandrequestingaparkingreduction for a minimum of 2.0 toaratioof2.23 parkingspaces/1,000squarefeet(sq.ft.)at213EastGrandAvenueforthe ProjectintheBTPZoningDistrict,whichrequiresapprovalofaDevelopmentAgreementAmendment,Use Permit Modification, and Design Review; and WHEREAS,environmentalanalysisfortheproposedProjectwasconducted,whichconcludedthatthe environmentaleffectsassociatedwithconstructionandoperationoftherevisedProjectarefullywithinthe scopeoftheenvironmentalanalysisconductedinthe2007EIR,suchthattheProjectdoesnotmeetthecriteria underCEQAGuidelinesSections15164or15162justifyingpreparationofasubsequentEIRandthus,an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and WHEREAS,pursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15164,anaddendumtothe2007EIRwaspreparedforthe Project (“2017 Addendum”) and approved by a separate Resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS,theDesignReviewBoardreviewedtheProjectatitsFebruary21,2017meeting,and recommended approval of the Project; and WHEREAS,onApril20,2017,thePlanningCommissionfortheCityofSouthSanFranciscoheldalawfully noticedpublichearingtoconsidertheFirstAmendmentandrecommendedthattheCityCounciladoptan City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/14/2017Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-547 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6c. noticedpublichearingtoconsidertheFirstAmendmentandrecommendedthattheCityCounciladoptan ordinance approving the First Amendment (“Ordinance”); and WHEREAS,onJune14,2017,theCityCouncilfortheCityofSouthSanFranciscoheldalawfullynoticed public hearing to consider the First Amendment to the Development Agreement. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITORDAINEDthatbasedontheentiretyoftheRecordbeforeit,asdescribed below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS I.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. 2.TheRecordfortheseproceedings,anduponwhichthisOrdinanceisbased,includeswithoutlimitation, federalandstatelaw;theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct,PublicResourcesCode§21000,etseq. (“CEQA”)andtheCEQAGuidelines,14CaliforniaCodeofRegulations§15000,etseq.;theSouth SanFranciscoGeneralPlanandGeneralPlanEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR);theSouthSan FranciscoMunicipalCode;theProjectapplications;theEIR,includingtheDraftandFinalEIR preparedandcertifiedforthe213EastGrandAvenueProjectandappendicesthereto;the2017EIR Addendum;allsiteplans,allassociateddocuments,andallreports,minutes,andpublictestimony submittedaspartofthePlanningCommission'sdulynoticedApril20,2017meeting;andallreports, minutes,andpublictestimonysubmittedaspartoftheCityCouncil’sdulynoticedJune14,2017 meeting,andanyotherevidence(withinthemeaningofPublicResourcesCode§21080(e)and §21082.2). 3.ThemodificationstotheDevelopmentAgreementasproposedintheFirstAmendmentwillnotcreate anynewsignificantimpactsorsubstantiallymoresevereimpactsascomparedtothosealready identifiedandanalyzedinthe2007EIR.Further,theCityCouncilfindsthatthereisnonewinformation ofsubstantialimportancethatdemonstratesneworsubstantiallymoreseveresignificanteffects,as comparedtothoseidentifiedinthepriorCEQAdocuments.Norareanyneworadditionalmitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project. 4.Accordingly, the City Council finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review, and that the 2017 Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. 5.TheproposedFirstAmendmenttotheDevelopmentAgreement,attachedheretoasAttachment1,is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance, as if it were set forth fully herein. 6.Thedocumentsandothermaterialconstitutingtherecordfortheseproceedingsarelocatedatthe City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/14/2017Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-547 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6c. 6.Thedocumentsandothermaterialconstitutingtherecordfortheseproceedingsarelocatedatthe PlanningDivisionfortheCityofSouthSanFrancisco,315MapleAvenue,SouthSanFrancisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. II.Development Agreement 1.TheOwnerandCityhavenegotiatedaFirstAmendmenttotheDevelopmentAgreementpursuantto GovernmentCodesection65864 etseq andSouthSanFranciscoMunicipalCodeChapter19.60.The FirstAmendment,asproposed,isconsistentwiththeobjectives,policies,generallandusesand programsspecifiedintheSouthSanFranciscoGeneralPlanandanyapplicablespecificplanbecause therevisedProjectwillfacilitatethedevelopmentofthetypeofprojectthattheGeneralPlan contemplates in the Project site area. 2.TheDevelopmentAgreement,asproposedforamendment,complieswithallapplicablezoning, subdivisionandbuildingregulationsandwiththeGeneralPlanandanyapplicablespecificplanbecause undertheFirstAmendmenttheProjectremainscompatiblewiththeusesauthorizedin,andthe regulationsprescribedforthelandusedistrictinwhichtherealpropertyislocated.Thesiteplan modificationsundertheFirstAmendmentdonotinanywayalterthefactthattheProjectsiteis physicallysuitableforthetypeandintensityofthelandusebeingproposed.Thesiteplanmodifications totheDevelopmentAgreementpursuanttotheFirstAmendmentwillfacilitatethetypeofdevelopment thattheGeneralPlancontemplatesintheProjectsitearea.Furthermore,thesuitabilityofthesiteforthe typeofdevelopmentauthorizedintheFirstAmendmenttoDevelopmentAgreementwasanalyzed thoroughlyintheoriginalProjectapprovalsandenvironmentaldocumentationpreparedfortheoriginal Project and the revised Project. 1.TheFirstAmendmenttotheDevelopmentAgreementstatesthattheprojecttobedevelopedonthe PropertypursuanttothisAgreementshallconsistof(i)one(1)office/researchanddevelopment building,withnine(9)floors,containingapproximately291,634squarefeet,includingatwo(2)level ancillarytenantamenityspacecontainingupto8,495squarefeet,(ii)afive(5)levelparkinggarage thatwillaccommodatefivehundredtwenty-four(524)parkingspaces,(iii)surfaceparkingthatwill accommodateuptoonehundredten(110)parkingspaces,and (iv)sixteen(16)accessibleparking spaces, and (v)related improvements. 3.TheFirstAmendmentdoesnotaltertheprovisionsoftheDevelopmentAgreementthatcontainthe previouslyapprovedpermittedusesoftheproperty,thepreviouslyapproveddensityandintensityof uses,thepreviouslyapprovedmaximumheightandsizeofproposedbuildings,northespecific provisionsforreservationordedicationoflandforpublicpurposes.WithadoptionoftheFirst Amendment,theDevelopmentAgreementwillstillstatethepermittedusesoftheproperty,thedensity andintensityofuses,themaximumheightandsizeoftheproposedbuildings,andthereservationor dedicationoflandforpublicpurposes.Furthermore,thedurationoftheDevelopmentAgreementunder the First Amendment will remain ten (10) years. SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. TheCityCouncilherebyadoptsanOrdinanceamendingtheDevelopmentAgreementtomodifythesiteplan City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/14/2017Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-547 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:2 Item #:6c. TheCityCouncilherebyadoptsanOrdinanceamendingtheDevelopmentAgreementtomodifythesiteplan bymovingtheparkinggaragetotheeastsideoftheProjectsiteandreducethenumberofparkingspacesatthe Project,asshownintheFirstAmendmentattachedheretoandincorporatedhereinasAttachment1.Allother areasoftheDevelopmentAgreementthatarenotamendedbythisOrdinancearenotincludedinAttachment1, and shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. IfanyprovisionofthisOrdinanceortheapplicationthereoftoanypersonorcircumstanceisheldinvalidor unconstitutional,theremainderofthisOrdinance,includingtheapplicationofsuchpartorprovisiontoother personsorcircumstancesshallnotbeaffectedtherebyandshallcontinueinfullforceandeffect.Tothisend, provisionsofthisOrdinanceareseverable.TheCityCounciloftheCityofSouthSanFranciscohereby declaresthatitwouldhavepassedeachsection,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,orphrase hereofirrespectiveofthefactthatanyoneormoresections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. PursuanttotheprovisionsofGovernmentCodeSection36933,asummaryofthisOrdinanceshallbeprepared bytheCityAttorney.Atleastfive(5)dayspriortotheCouncilmeetingatwhichthisOrdinanceisscheduledto beadopted,theCityClerkshall(1)publishtheSummary,and(2)postintheCityClerk’sOfficeacertified copyofthisOrdinance.Withinfifteen(15)daysaftertheadoptionofthisOrdinance,theCityClerkshall(1) publishthesummary,and(2)postintheCityClerk’sOfficeacertifiedcopyofthefulltextofthisOrdinance alongwiththenamesofthoseCityCouncilmembersvotingforandagainstthisOrdinanceorotherwisevoting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/14/2017Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ REVISED 6/14/17 Recording Requested by and when Recorded, return to: City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave South San Francisco, CA 94080 EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383 (SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE) FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This First Amendment to Development Agreement (“First Amendment”) is entered into by and between ARE-San Francisco No. 21 LP, ARE-San Francisco No. 42 LLC (collectively known as “Developer”) and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation (“City”) on this _____ day of_________________, 2017. RECITALS A.Pursuant to the adoption of City Council Ordinance No. 1403-2009 (“DA Ordinance”), the City entered into a Development Agreement between City and ARE-San Francisco No. 21 LP, ARE-San Francisco No. 42 LLC (“Development Agreement”) for the development of an Office/R&D project at 213 East Grand Avenue (“Project”). The location of the Project is further described in the attached legal description as Exhibit A. The Ordinance took effect on February 13, 2009. B.On January 11, 2017, the Developer requested a first amendment to the Development Agreement (“First Amendment”) to modify the site plan by moving the parking garage to the east side of the project site, and to request a parking reduction through an advanced Transportation Demand Management Plan. C.On April 20, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No._________ recommending that the City Council (1) adopt an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement , and (2) adopt a resolution approving a use permit modification, parking reduction request, transportation demand management plan and design review to redesign certain Project details including modifying the site plan to move theparking garage to the east side of the Project site (“Revised Entitlements”). D.On June ----, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No._________approving the Revised Entitlements. REVISED 6/14/17 E.On June __, 2017 the City Council considered the proposed First Amendment and adopted Ordinance No.____________approving the First Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties herein contained, the City and Developer agree as follows: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 1.Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated herein. 2.Defined Terms. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Development Agreement. 3.Recital E Recital E of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows with additions in double underlineand deletions in strikethough: WHEREAS, Owner has submitted a development proposal to the City that would permit the development of the Propertyas depicted on the 213 East Grand Avenue City Council plan setdated December 10, 2008, prepared by Dowler-Gruman Architects (the “Original Plan Set”) (a copy of such OriginalPlan Set is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference),as amended by the 213 East Grand Avenue Use Permit Modification and Development Agreement Modification plan set dated January 10, 2017, prepared by WRNS Studio (the “Amended Plan Set”) (a copy of such Amended Plan Set is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1 and incorporated herein by reference) (as amended, the “Plan Set”); and 4.Section 3. Section 3 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows with additions in double underlineand deletions in strikethrough: 3. Project Description; Development Standards For Project The project to be developed on the Property pursuant to this Agreement (the "Project") shall consist of (i) one (1) office / research and development building, with nine (9) floors, containing approximately 291,634 square feet, including a two (2) level ancillary tenant amenity space containing up to 8,495 square feet, (ii) a five (5) level parking garage that will accommodate sixhundred and sixteen (616) five hundred twenty-four (524)parking spaces, (iii) surface parking that will accommodate up to twohundred and ten(210) one hundred ten (110)parking spaces, and (iv) sixteen (16) accessible parking spaces, and (v) related improvements, all as provided in the Plan Set and as approved by the City Council. 5.Section 35. Section 35 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows with additions in double underlineand deletions in strikethough: Exhibit A-1 –Legal Description and Map of Primary Property Exhibit A-2 –Legal Description and Map of Adjacent Property Exhibit B –Use Permit, Including OriginalPlan Set and Conditions of Project Approval REVISED 6/14/17 Exhibit B-1 –Amended Plan Set 6.Exhibits. The Development Agreement is hereby amended to add the Amended Plan Set attached hereto as Exhibit B as new Exhibit B-1 to the Development Agreement. 7.Effect of First Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment, the Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms, and Developer and City hereby ratify and affirm alltheir respective rights and obligations under the Development Agreement, including but not limited to Developer’s indemnification obligations as set forth in Section 13 of the Development Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the First Amendmentor the Development Agreement, the provisions of this First Amendment shall govern. 8.Binding Agreement. This First Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of the parties hereto. Any reference in this First Amendment to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, administrator, executor, or assign of such party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this First Amendment or under law. 9.Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this First Amendment within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. 10.Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute the same document. 11.California Law. This First Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 12.Invalidity. Any provision of this First Amendment that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed severed from this First Amendment, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if the invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part hereof 13.Headings. The headings used in this First Amendment are for convenience only and shall be disregarded in interpreting the substantive provisions of this First Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the date and year first above written. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] REVISED 6/14/17 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: Name: Title: Date: ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 21, LLC, a California Limited Partnership By:ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 21 GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, General Partner By:Alexandria Real Estate Equities, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Managing Member By:ARE-QRS CORP., a Maryland corporation, General Partner By:________________________________________ Name:______________________________________ Title:_______________________________________- Date:_______________________________________ : REVISED 6/14/17 ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 42, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany By:Alexandria Real Estate Equities, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Managing Member By:ARE-QRS CORP., a Maryland corporation, General Partner By:________________________________ Name:_______________________________ Title:_______________________________ Date:________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:_____________________ Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney ATTEST: By:_____________________ City Clerk EXHIBIT A Legal Description ExhibitB Amended Plan Set 2825328.1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-487 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7. ReportregardingordinanceadoptingaBicycleandPedestrianImpactFee,anordinanceamendingthePark LandAcquisitionandConstructionFeeandaresolutionupdatingtheSewerCapacityCharge (RichardLee, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION 1.Waive reading and introduce an ordinance adopting Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee. 2.WaivereadingandintroduceanordinanceamendingParkLandAcquisitionandConstruction Fee. 3.Adopt a resolution amending the Sewer Capacity Charge. Refer to attachment. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Report regarding ordinance adopting a Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee, an ordinance amending the Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee and a resolution amending the Sewer Capacity Fee (Richard Lee, Director of Finance) I. RECOMMENDATION 1. Waive reading and introduce an ordinance adopting a Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee. 2. Waive reading and introduce an ordinance amending the Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee. 3. Adopt a resolution amending the Sewer Capacity Fee. II. BACKGROUND The City is authorized to charge City’s Developer Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, which permits local agencies to establish and collect a fee as a condition of approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying the cost of public facilities required to serve that particular development project. The Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget includes a budget appropriation for a professional consulting services firm to conduct a comprehensive review of the City’s fees. Staff solicited proposals from three qualified firms and entered into a consulting services agreement with NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) based on their qualifications, experience and proposed cost. NBS partnered with Michael Baker International (MBI) to review the City’s Developer Impact Fees (DIF). The Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget includes a budget appropriation for a professional consulting services firm to conduct a comprehensive review of the City’s fees. Staff solicited proposals from three qualified firms and entered into a consulting services agreement with NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) based on their qualifications, experience and proposed cost. NBS partnered with Michael Baker International (MBI) to review the City’s DIFs. MBI is a recognized leader in providing a full range of environmental, planning, and municipal services. Their client base includes over 800 cities, counties, special districts, and public agencies throughout California and the Western United States. The MBI representative that prepared the Development Impact Mitigation Fee Analysis Report, attached herein as Attachment 1, has over 30 years of public infrastructure planning, financing, design, construction management experience, and has conducted numerous impact fee nexus and feasibility studies. III. PARK, SEWER AND BIKE/PEDESTRIAN FEES While the City intends to review all of its currently adopted DIFs over the next year, the DIFs that will be discussed and reviewed first are the Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee, the Sewer Capacity Fee, and a new proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Capacity Fee. A. Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee In 2016, Municipal Resource Group (MRG) prepared the 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees Report for the City of South San Francisco, provided for reference as Attachment 2. Based on this study, and pursuant to the authority provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, the City adopted Chapter 8.67 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), which provides for the imposition of a parkland acquisition and construction fee for residential development projects not subject to the City’s existing Quimby Act fee. Further, the 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees Report also contained analysis that the City used to update its existing Quimby Act parkland dedication fee ordinance (SSFMC Sections 19.24.030–120). Based on the MRG study, MBI recommended the park land acquisition and park construction fee schedule for residential development shown in Table 1.1 below. Table 1.1: Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fees Comparison (Residential) Units in Structure Acquisition Fee per Unit Construction Fee (Increased by CCI) Maximum Park Fees Allowed Current Park Fees Recommend Park Fees Single-family $31,050 $10,556 $41,606 $20,603 $29,124 Duplex to four-plex $26,820 $9,118 $35,938 $17,796 $25,157 5 to 19 $22,770 $7,741 $30,511 $15,109 $21,358 20 to 49 $18,630 $6,242 $24,602 $12,183 $17,221 50 or more $16,020 $5,446 $21,466 $10,630 $15,026 Mobile Homes $23,850 $8,108 $31,958 $15,825 $22,371 The fees in Table 1.1 above are based on a study of market values of land in South San Francisco commissioned by the City to support the findings of the MRG 2016 fee study. The market value appraisal found the weighted average cost of land in the city to be $3.0 million per acre. The other factors involved in the recommended fees are the current park acreage standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, the expected occupancy of the units, and the cost of $981,250 per acre to improve park land (including construction and soft costs) in order to provide the future park needs and level of park amenities as described in the City’s 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Staff recommends amending the park fee ordinance to increase the construction cost by the Engineering Record News Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco area. From October 2015, when the construction costs were last estimated, to December 2016, the index increased by 3.94 percent, which is reflected in Table 1.5 above. It is important to note that the standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents is adopted in the City’s General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan. In addition to the residential fees, MRG’s 2016 study also provided recommended fees for nonresidential development (all fees are stated per 1,000 square feet of building area), as shown in Table 1.2 below. Although the 2016 Municipal Resource Group study justified the adoption of a park fee for nonresidential development, the City did not adopt such a fee at the time. Staff also recommends that the City Council consider amending the park fee ordinance to include fees attributable to nonresidential development. Table 1.2: Nonresidential Park Fees Recommended in 2016 Study Land Use Acquisition Fee per 1,000 Square Feet Park Construction Fee (Increased by CCI) Maximum Park Fees Allowed Current Park Fees Recommend Park Fees Commercial/Retail $3,750 $1,275 $5,025 $0 $3,517 Hotel/Visitor $3,571 $1,214 $4,785 $0 $3,349 Office/R&D $3,333 $1,132 $4,465 $0 $3,126 Industrial $1,571 $530 $2,101 $0 $1,471 The construction cost per acre is the same as residential; the acreage required for nonresidential development is based on 0.5 acre per 1,000 employees, which is a stated policy in the City’s General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan. By Ordinance 1520 (SSFMC Chapter 8.67), the City Council adopted the current fee calculation procedures that apply to residential development not associated with the subdivision of land: • Parkland Acquisition Fee = Units in Development × Average Residents per Unit × 0.003 (3 acres/1,000 people) × Average Fair Market Value per acre × 0.50 • Parks and Recreation Construction Fee = Units in Development × Average Residents per Unit × 0.003 (3 acres/1,000 people) × Average Construction Cost per acre × 0.50 The City of South San Francisco also has a Quimby Act park land dedication ordinance (SSFMC Sections 19.24.030–120). The Quimby Act ordinance applies only to subdivisions and provides for the dedication of 3 acres per 1,000 residents or the payment of an in-lieu fee. The construction cost of park land is not included in the Quimby Act ordinance. SSFMC Chapter 8.67 park fees are charged to building permits for all residential development not subject to the Quimby Act in-lieu fees. The park acquisition component of Chapter 8.67 is based on the average fair market value of land in South San Francisco. The calculation is currently reduced by 50 percent. The park construction component of the Chapter 8.67 fees is also reduced to 50 percent of the recommended amount needed to provide parks at the adopted standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The park fees in cities examined in the comparison survey completed by MBI are calculated in much the same way as South San Francisco, the only differences being the cost of land, the cost of park improvements, park standards, and household occupancy assumptions. Staff recommends that the City Council amend the Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee with the following justifications: 1. Align with the park land goals and policies included in the City’s General Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan and East of 101 Area Plan; 2. Align with the City’s strategic initiatives for financial stability and sustainability; and 3. Align with the priorities articulated by city residents in recent surveys, identifying parks and recreation as a high priority. The MRG study and supplemental MBI analyses support staff’s recommendation to amend the Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee as follows: 1. Broaden the type of developments that are subject to the fee to include all nonresidential developments; 2. Set the fee to a rate that is more closely aligned to acquisition and construction costs, as indicated in Tables 1.1 and 1.2; 3. Clarify that the Park Land Construction Fee applies to subdivision of more than 5 parcels. B. Sewer Capacity Fee The Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis was prepared in 2009 by Bartle Wells Associates. Pursuant to Government Code 66013, which governs local fees imposed for water and sewer connections or capacity charges, the City Council adopted updated sewer capacity fees via Resolution 39-2010 in April 2010. As illustrated in Table 3.1 of the MBI study Citywide Sewer Capacity Demand by Existing and New Development, new development’s share of Sewer Capacity is 37.2 percent of the Total Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), where 1.0 EDU is representative of one single family home. This rate, known as the Fair-Share Allocation Percentage, was used to calculate new development’s fair share of the growth costs. There are two components to the Sewer Capacity Charge: the capital assets valuation charge and the capital improvements charge. The capital assets charge accounts for the existing value of the sewer collection and treatment system. It is calculated using the depreciated replacement cost of the system’s assets. The capital assets charge (also called a “buy-in” fee) assigns a value to the benefit that new development receives from the availability of sewer capacity (which existing development has maintained over the years through the sewer rates). The total depreciated replacement value is $161.6 million of which 37.2 percent is new development’s fair-share or $60.1 million. The second component is the charge for future improvements to the system identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The total cost of these future improvements is $84.6 million, the fair-share allocation to new development is 37.2 percent of that amount or $29.8 million. The total fair-share is $90 million. These funds may be used for capital improvements to maintain capacity in the system. Table 3.4 of the MBI study calculates the overall cost per EDU at $4,785.88, which includes costs for flow, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). Table 3.5 calculates the Justified Sewer Capacity Fee for both residential and commercial land uses. The Sewer Capacity Fee for Multi-Family Residential Units is recommended to increase from $2,997.44 to $3,637.27. Table 1.3 below provides the current and recommended sewer capacity fees for comparison purposes. Table 1.3 Sewer Capacity Rate Comparison Land Use Type Current Fee Study/Staff Recommendation Residential, per unit Single Family $3,944 $4,786 Multi-Family $2,997 $3,637 Mobile Home $2,327 $2,824 Non-Residential, per 1,000 sqft Office $1,065 $1,292 Commercial/Retail $1,065 $1,292 Hotel/Visitor $1,578 $1,914 Industrial $1,065 $1,292 Public/Schools $1,065 $1,292 C. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan impact fee program, which would impose an impact fee on new development for funding bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The City adopted a Bicycle Master Plan in February 2011 via Resolution 23-2011, guided by the General Plan policies adopted in 1999. The Bicycle Master Plan recommends completion of the City’s existing bicycle paths, lanes and routes. The list of improvements provided in the Bicycle Master Plan are listed in Table 4.1, and have been increased from $10.56 million to $11.95 million to account for inflation. New development’s Fair Share of the costs, are based on its proportional share of total Citywide average daily trips (ADT), which is calculated in Table 4.2 of the MBI study to be 13.1 percent, or $1.563 million. Table 4.3 of the MBI study calculates new development’s fair share of the cost per ADT by taking the Fair Share cost of $1.563 million and dividing by new development’s Average Daily Trips from Table 4.2 of 61,767. The result is $25.31, which is the Cost per ADT for new development. Table 4.4 of the MBI study utilizes the Cost per ADT to determine the Justified Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee for each residential and commercial land use type. Table 1.4 below lists the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee for each land use type. Table 1.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee by Land Use Type Land Use Type Study/Staff Recommendation Residential, per unit Single Family $243 Multi-Family $170 Mobile Home $127 Non-Residential, per 1,000 sqft Office $94 Commercial/Retail $364 Hotel/Visitor $239 Industrial $124 The Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency considering an action establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to make the following findings: 1. The purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put; 3. Identify the relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; 4. Determine the relationship between the need for the community facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and 5. Determine the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the community facility or portion of the community facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The above findings and information required to amend SSFMC Section 8.67 pertaining to the Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee and to add the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee are included in the associated ordinances. D. Comparisons With Other Cities NBS compared the proposed impact fee increases with similar fees from other cities to determine whether, as a whole, the fees in South San Francisco are reasonable and consistent with the practice in other cities. The results are shown in Tables 1.5 – 1.7, below, which the City’s total DIFs remain competitive with other agencies, even with the proposed changes and additions to DIFs. Table 1.5 Developer Impact Fee Comparison – Single Family Residential Development Agency Park Land Acquisition and Construction Sewer Capacity Bike and Pedestrian All other DIFs Total DIFs San Mateo $19,105 $5,059 N/A $3,422 $27,586 San Bruno $27,000 $5,828 N/A N/A $32,828 San Carlos $23,250 $10,811 N/A $3,052 $37,113 Menlo Park $26,000 N/A N/A $4,852 $33,991 Half Moon Bay $34,174 $4,559 N/A $6,414 $46,133 Redwood City $17,100 N/A N/A $1,617 $18,717 Belmont $27,089 N/A N/A N/A $27,089 East Palo Alto $45,306 N/A N/A $11,967 $57,273 San Francisco $30,000 N/A $120 $19,680 $49,800 Palo Alto $60,206 N/A N/A $4,590 $64,796 Average $30,923 $6,564 $120 $5,559 $39,533 South San Francisco Current $20,603 $3,944 N/A $3,264 $27,811 South San Francisco Proposed $29,124 $4,786 $243 $3,264 $37,417 Table 1.6 Developer Impact Fee Comparison – Multiple Family Residential Development Agency Park Land Acquisition and Construction Sewer Capacity Bike and Pedestrian All other DIFs Total DIFs San Mateo $14,875 $4,759 N/A $2,101 $21,735 San Bruno $22,500 $3,495 N/A $1,502 $27,497 San Carlos $18,296 $10,811 N/A $3,052 $32,159 Menlo Park $16,000 N/A N/A $6,954 $22,954 Half Moon Bay $28,774 $3,829 N/A $4,485 $37,088 Redwood City $11,128 N/A N/A $992 $12,120 Belmont $33,242 $12,025 N/A N/A $45,266 East Palo Alto $45,306 N/A N/A $15,394 $60,700 San Francisco $18,000 N/A $72 $11,808 $29,880 Palo Alto $41,498 N/A N/A $4,384 $45,882 Average $24,962 $6,984 $72 $5,067 $33,528 South San Francisco Current $10,630 $2,997 N/A $2,414 $16,041 South San Francisco Proposed $15,026 $3,660 $160 $2,414 $21,260 Table 1.7 Developer Impact Fees Comparison – Commercial/Retail Non-Residential Development - Per 1,000 Gross Square Feet Agency Park Land Acquisition and Construction Sewer Capacity Bike and Pedestrian All other DIFs Total DIFs San Mateo N/A $2,320 N/A $5,893 $8,213 San Bruno N/A $3,495 N/A N/A $3,495 San Carlos N/A $5,690 N/A $11,323 $17,013 Menlo Park N/A N/A N/A $5,843 $5,843 Half Moon Bay N/A N/A $1,778 $6,912 $8,690 Redwood City N/A N/A N/A $3,940 $3,940 Belmont $360 N/A N/A N/A $360 East Palo Alto $2,350 N/A N/A $1,710 $4,060 San Francisco $4,340 N/A $40 $7,660 $12,040 Palo Alto $5,038 N/A N/A $14,812 $19,850 Average $3,022 $3,321 $40 $9,988 $8,350 South San Francisco Current N/A $1,065 N/A $1,120* $2,185 South San Francisco Proposed $3,517 $1,292 $344 $1,120* $6,273 *Note – The total reflected in the table above does not include the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee. Non-Residential developments in the East of 101 Area are subject to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, which is currently $24.11 per net new ground square foot. For example, development of 1.1 million square foot commercial building that replaces an existing 1.0 million square foot commercial building would generate a fee of $2.4 million. However, if the new development is the same size or smaller than the existing development, the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee is not assessed. FUNDING City Council adoption of the ordinances and resolutions regarding DIFs will move the City closer to meeting its adopted goals and standards included in the General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan. CONCLUSION The proposed change to the City’s Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee, change to the Sewer Capacity Fee and addition of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee properly account for new developments’ fair share of the costs associated with serving new development and are in compliance with state law allowing local agencies to assess fees to ensure that new development pays for its fair share of impact costs. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the new impact fees as proposed. Attachments 1. Development Impact Mitigation Fee Analysis Draft Report 2. Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees Report 3. Developer Impact Fee PowerPoint Presentation 2822222.1 Development Impact Mitigation Fee Analysis DRAFT REPORT Prepared for the City of South San Francisco Prepared by 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 361-8384 www.mbakerintl.com Draft Report: May 22, 2017 City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................i List of Tables ..........................................................................ii Executive Summary ...............................................................1 Background and Study Objectives ..................................................... 1 Population Projections ....................................................................... 1 Fee Schedules and Revenues .............................................................. 2 Funds Needed to Complement the Fee Program ............................. 4 Fee Comparisons ................................................................................ 4 Additional Considerations .................................................................. 6 1. Introduction ..................................................................8 Public Facilities Financing in California ............................................ 8 Mitigation Fee Act and Required Findings ....................................... 9 Organization of the Report .............................................................. 10 Facility Standards, Level of Service, and Deficiencies ................... 11 2. Growth Projections ................................................... 13 Introduction ...................................................................................... 13 Occupancy Rates ............................................................................... 13 Population, Housing, and Employment Estimates ........................ 14 Land Use Categories ......................................................................... 15 Service Parameters ............................................................................ 15 3. Citywide Sewer Capacity .......................................... 17 Sewer Generation .............................................................................. 17 Sewer System Asset Value ................................................................ 17 Sewer System Improvements ........................................................... 17 Sewer System Cost Allocations ........................................................ 22 Sewer Capacity Charges .................................................................... 22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report ii 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ........................ 24 Bicycle Master Plan Improvements ................................................. 24 Bicycle Master Plan Fee Schedule .................................................... 27 5. Implementation .......................................................... 28 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process .......................................... 28 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP ....................... 28 Funds Needed to Complement Impact Fee Program .................... 28 Inflation Adjustment ........................................................................ 28 Combining Fees ................................................................................ 29 Compliance Requirements................................................................ 29 LIST OF TABLES Table ES1.1: Population, Employment, and Housing Projections .................................................... 2 Table ES.2: Summary of Current Development Impact Fees .......................................................... 3 Table ES.3: Total Proposed Impact Fee Revenues ........................................................................... 4 Table ES.4: Comparison of Impact Fees in Selected Bay Area Communities .............................. 5 Table 2.1: Occupancy Assumptions ................................................................................................ 12 Table 2.2: Population, Housing, and Employment Projections ..................................................... 13 Table 3.1: Citywide Sewer Capacity Demand by Existing and New Development .................. 16 Table 3.2: Sewer System Valuation .................................................................................................. 17 Table 3.3: Sewer System CIP Projects ............................................................................................... 18 Table 3.4: Sewer System Cost Allocation per EDU ......................................................................... 19 Table 3.5: Sewer System Capacity Fee Schedule ......................................................................... 20 Table 4.1: Recommended Bicycle Master Plan Improvements.................................................... 22 Table 4.2: City wide Average Daily trips ......................................................................................... 23 Table 4.3: Bicycle Master Plan Improvement Costs per ADT ........................................................ 24 Table 4.4: Bicycle Master Plan Impact Fee Schedule .................................................................... 25 City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents an analysis of the cost of public facilities to accommodate new development in South San Francisco. This report documents the justifiable impact fee that could be imposed on new development in accordance with state law in the following facility categories: • Citywide Sewer Capacity • Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVES For over 30 years, the City of South San Francisco has used impact fees to assist in funding public improvements that are needed to serve new development in the city. The City adopted its first impact fee program in 1984. All of the fee programs were adopted based on findings established in fee nexus studies over the years. . Like many cities in California, the City of South San Francisco has faced increasing challenges to funding public facilities to accommodate growth. Since the passage of Proposition 13, property tax revenues have been insufficient for capital funding, and federal and state assistance has not replaced the decline in local revenue sources. These funding shortfalls have caused declining facility standards (i.e., the ratio of facility capacity to service population), which has accelerated the rate of physical deterioration, increased operating costs, and reduced the efficiency of many departments. Given these funding difficulties and in the face of continued growth, the City requires new development to pay fees to fund the facilities necessary to provide City services. This study documents the relationship between new development in South San Francisco and the cost of public facilities to serve growth through the year 2040. The study also provides estimates of the cost of facilities necessary for growth and calculates the updated public facilities fees by land use type that would generate revenues equal to these costs. The estimates of public facilities required to serve growth assume that new development will provide facilities that, at a minimum, ensure the City will maintain its current level of service standards for these facilities. The City will rely on its authority to levy public facilities fees under the police powers granted by the California Constitution pursuant to the procedures of the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code Section 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary documentation for the adoption of updated public facilities fees. POPULATION PROJECTIONS The population and employment projections to the year 2040 used in this analysis are summarized in Table ES.1. The projections are based on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) forecasts for the City of South San Francisco. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 2 Table ES.1: Population, Employment, and Housing Projections 2017 2040 Net Growth Average Annual Growth Rate Population a, b 64,585 74,600 10,015 0.63% Employment c Commercial/Retail 3,544 4,361 817 0.77% Office/Professional/Service 21,751 38,937 17,185 7.51% Hotel/Visitor Services 5,157 6,346 1,189 4.2% Public, Government, Schools 1,398 1,622 304 0.39% Manufacturing, Construction, Wholesale 32,170 27,710 (5,000) (1.28%) Others, including home workers 1,965 2,418 453 1.81% Total Employment 65,907 81,100 14,948 Housing d Single-Family Units 14,606 16,942 2,336 Multi-Family Units 5,267 6,107 840 Mobile Homes 304 351 47 Total Occupied Units 20,177 23,400 3,223 0.65% Occupancy 3.20 3.19 3.11 FEE SCHEDULES AND REVENUES Table ES.2 summarizes the schedule of current impact fees charged by the City for new development. Total fee revenues in the year 2040 (in constant 2017 dollars) for all facility categories are summarized in Table ES.3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 3 Table ES.2: Summary of All Current Development Impact Fees Facility Category Single-Family Duplex to Four-plex Medium Density (5 to 19 units or 8.1 to 18 units/acre) High Density (20 to 49 units, or 18.1 units or more/acre) Highest Density (50 or more units) Mobile Home/Other Residential a. Park Impact Fees for construction and acquisition b. Current park-in-lieu fee (Quimby Act fee) based on 0.003 acres per resident required to be dedicated and average household occupancies per the MC 19.24.040: 3.45 per single family home, 2.98 residents per unit in a duplex to four-plex, 2.53 per unit in a structure with 5 to 19 units, 2.04 per unit in a structure with 20-49 units, 1.78 in a structure with 50 or more and 2.65 per mobile home. The acres to be dedicated is multiplied by fthe average fair market value of land in the City. The FMV was given as $3,000,000 per acre in the Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report, by Municipal Resource Group, LLC, March, 2016. Citywide Impact Fees Child Care $1,979.00 N/A $1,858.00$1,851.00 N/A $768.00 Public Safety $1,285.00 N/A $810.00$563.00 N/AN/A Sewer Capacity $3,944.00$2,997.44$2,997.44$2,997.44$2,997.44$2,326.96 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Park Facilitiesa Impact Fee (nonsubdivision)$20,602.97$17,796.19$15,108.84$12,182.63$10,629.94$15,825.47 Park in-lieu (Quimby Act, subdivisions)b $31,050.00$26,820.00$22,770.00$18,360.00$16,020.00$23,850.00 Area Impact Fees Oyster Point Interchange N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Traffic Impact East of Hwy 101 N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Sewer Impact East of Hwy 101 N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Total Impact Fee for Non-subdivision $27,811$20,794$20,774$17,594$13,627$18,920 Total Impact Fee for Subdivision $38,258$29,817$28,435$23,771$19,017$26,945 Fee per Dwelling Unit EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 4 Table ES.3: Total Proposed Impact Fee Revenues Facility Category Projected Revenues from Potential Impact Fees General Fund/Other Sources a Program Total Citywide Sewer Capacity $89,964,937 $96,080,302 $186,045,239 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan $1,563,381 $10,389,072 $11,952,453 Total $91,528,318 $106,469,374 $197,997,691 a. Funds identified under General Fund/Other Sources are a City obligation to the program. FUNDS NEEDED TO COMPLEMENT THE FEE PROGRAM Government Code Section 66000 prohibits using impact fees to remedy an existing facility deficiency. Impact fees imposed on new development may pay for two forms of capital improvements: (1) additional facilities needed to accommodate growth and maintain the current standard of service, or (2) facilities that provide an increase in the level of service or standard, if existing development also pays for its fair share of facilities needed to raise the standard. The analysis contained in this report indicates that for the Parks and Recreation and Citywide Sewer Capacity Impact categories, existing development would derive a more than incidental benefit from the capital improvements included in these categories. Therefore, existing development is obligated to pay for its fair share of the improvements. The impact fee rates presented in this report for these facilities may be imposed on new development only if existing development provides the funding necessary to augment existing facilities from sources other than the impact fee revenues. These funds may come from grants, user fees, taxes, and assessments imposed on current residents. In the sewer categories (Citywide Sewer Capacity and East of Highway 101 Sewer Impacts), substantial funding is expected from the sewer enterprise fund rate revenues for these services. The level of funding required from existing development is listed under General Fund/Other Sources in Table ES.3. If the entire fee program as presented herein is adopted, the total amount the City and its current residents would need to contribute is $106.5 million from sources other than fee revenues in order to provide facilities to existing residents at the same level of service proposed for new development. The great majority of this funding is for the City’s sewer infrastructure and represents the capital replacement costs, including annual depreciation, of the Sewer Enterprise operations and will be funded by the sewer rates. The recommended sewer system improvements funded, in part, with Citywide Sewer Capacity Charge revenues, and the new Bicycle Master Plan improvements will benefit both existing and new development, either improving or maintaining the current level of service in these areas. FEE COMPARISONS The proposed impact fees for similar facilities are compared to the City of South San Francisco’s current fee schedule and selected cities in San Mateo County and the Bay Area in Table ES.4. The fees listed are applicable to detached single-family homes and retail development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 5 Table ES.4: Comparison of Impact Fees in Selected Bay Area Communities City Population Public Safety Parks Acquisition & Development Child Care Traffic/ Transportation Bicycle Facilities Sewer Capacity Water Facilities Total Single-Family Home San Mateo 102,659 $19,105 $3,422 $5,059 $27,586 San Bruno 45,360 $27,000 $5,828 $32,828 San Carlos 29,008 $23,250 $3,052 $10,811 $37,113 Menlo Park 33,863 $26,000 $3,139 $4,852 $33,991 Half Moon Bay 12,528 $986 $34,174 $6,414 $4,559 $46,133 Redwood City 85,992 $17,100 $1,617 $18,717 Belmont 37,834 $27,089 $27,089 East Palo Alto 30,545 $45,306 $11,967 $57,273 San Francisco 866,583 $30,000 $3,720 $15,960 $120 $49,800 Palo Alto 68,207 $1,031 $60,206 $3,559 $64,796 Average Fee $1,009 $30,923 $3,720 $6,141 $120 $6,564 $4,852 $39,533 South San Francisco Current 65,000 $1,285 $20,603 $1,979 N/A N/A $3,944 N/A $27,811 Proposed 74,600 $1,285 $29,124 $1,979 N/A $243 $4,786 N/A $37,417 Commercial/Retail (per 1,000 Gross Square Feet) San Mateo 102,659 $5,893 $2,320 $8,213 San Bruno 45,360 $3,495 $3,495 San Carlos 29,008 $11,323 $5,690 $17,013 Menlo Park 33,863 $4,630 $1,213 $5,843 Half Moon Bay 12,528 $175 $6,737 $1,778 $8,690 Redwood City 85,992 $3,940 $3,940 Belmont 37,834 $360 $360 East Palo Alto 30,545 $2,350 $1,710 $4,060 San Francisco 866,583 $4,340 $1,580 $6,080 $40 $12,040 Palo Alto $576 $5,038 $14,236 $19,850 Average Fee $376 $3,022 $1,580 $6,819 $40 $3,321 $1,213 $8,350 South San Francisco Current 65,000 $440 N/A $680 $22,700 $1,065 N/A $24,885 Proposed 74,600 $440 $3,517 $680 $22,700 $344 $1,292 N/A $28,973 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 6 The fee comparison table gives a general idea of fees charged for similar facilities in nearby cities. Even though each local agency in California, in order to adopt impact fees, must follow the same general principles established by state law, as described in the introduction of this report, fee comparisons, even among neighboring jurisdictions, tend to vary widely due several factors: • The methods used to calculate the impact fees and allocate the fees to types of development differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. • The types of facilities that are covered by impact fees vary. • Cities adopt different standards, or levels of service, for facilities and may calculate those standards in different ways. • Cities may not have kept up with public improvements over the years and, as a consequence, have created deficiencies between adopted or desired levels of service and the levels currently provided. This factor may actually work to reduce the impact fee, since the costs to remedy the existing deficiencies cannot be passed on to new development. In South San Francisco, for example, the current police facilities are not adequate to meet the department’s needs to serve the existing population; the planned facility expansion must be funded by both new development and the City. Furthermore, cities may allow alternatives to impact fees to finance public facilities. Assessment districts and Mello-Roos districts may be used for improvements that serve specific land development projects. District assessments and special taxes levied to provide public improvements sometimes replace impact fees that would otherwise be used for those improvements. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The City at its sole discretion may reduce the recommended impact fees for one or more categories. However, the recommended fees are established based on the infrastructure required by new development. By reducing fees, it is inevitable that, over time, there will be a continued reduction in the levels of service provided by the public facilities funded by the impact fees, unless other funds are used to replace the fee revenues. Alternatively, the City may consider the following ways to reduce the effect the fees may have on land development in the city, while leaving the fee rates and standards of service intact: • Phase in the fee increases over two or more years to provide time for the real estate market to adjust. However, the net loss of revenue during the phase-in period may not be passed on to future development. • Defer the impact fees to a later date. The City may elect to grant a deferral of payment until units are sold or leased. For residential units, impact fees are not payable until the date of the final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first, according to Government Code Section 66007. Notwithstanding state law, it is not uncommon for cities to collect the fees at issuance of a building permit, which they may do if certain facility financing requirements are met. These requirements are explained in Section 11 under Compliance Requirements, Collection of Fees, of this report. If the City chooses to defer impact fees to a point in time after issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy, suitable security should be obtained to ensure future payment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 7 of the fee, through a surety bond, letter of credit, provisions in the escrow agreements, or a lien hold as appropriate. Fee Updates The impact fee revenues projected in this study and the recommended improvements to be funded by the fees assume a given level of development activity over the study period. The development that actually occurs will result in a different level of cumulative impacts and fee revenues than those projected in this study. Consequently, a different set of improvements would be funded than what is described in this report. More or less improvements would need to be constructed consistent with the development that actually occurs. For that reason, regular updates are recommended to adjust the growth impact fee to match the needs created by actual development. City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 8 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents an analysis of the need and related cost of public facilities to accommodate new development in South San Francisco. This section explains the study approach and summarizes results under the following sections: • Public Facilities Financing in California • Mitigation Fee Act and Required Findings • Organization of the Report • Facility Standards, Level of Service, and Deficiencies PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past three decades has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure needed for growth. Three dominant trends stand out: • The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses • Steep reductions in federal and state assistance Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to shift the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers to new development. This funding shift has been partly accomplished by the imposition of development impact fees, also known as public facility, capital facility, and mitigation fees. A key advantage of this approach in an era of voter approval requirements is that impact fees are not taxes and are thus exempt from the requirements of Proposition 218, needing only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. Some fee programs address only a few specific facilities, such as traffic, fire, or storm drainage. Other programs are comprehensive, funding a variety of facility categories, from parks and recreation improvements to expanding or refurbishing city office space to meet the needs of future growth. In most local agencies that have implemented impact fee programs, new development pays close to the full cost required to maintain existing level of service standards as growth occurs. If local agencies do not collect the full amount, the effect is often a decline in facility standards, though some communities are able to increase other revenue sources to compensate. In another rather typical situation, a city’s general plan may state that, as a policy, a certain level of service should be attained for a particular facility. However the current level of service for that facility is less than the stated general plan policy. In that event the city will have, in effect, a deficiency that it must remedy in order to collect fees from new development commensurate with the policy standard. The deficiency must be remedied using funds other than impact fee revenues. New development cannot be required to pay for an increase in the level of service for 1. INTRODUCTION City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 9 the benefit of existing development, unless existing development is committed to paying its share of the cost. MITIGATION FEE ACT AND REQUIRED FINDINGS As a result of the growing use of impact fees after the passage of Proposition 13 and concern over inconsistencies in their application, the State Legislature passed the Mitigation Fee Act, starting with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1988. The act, contained in California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of impact fee programs. The act became law in April 1989 and requires local governments to document the following when adopting an impact fee: 1) Identify the purpose of the fee. 2) Identify the use of fee revenues. 3) Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development paying the fee. 4) Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee. 5) Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee. This report complies with California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. by providing the required documentation for the above findings and determinations that establish the basis for imposition of the recommended fees contained herein. The fundamental premise of the Mitigation Fee Act is that the burden of the impact fees cannot total more than the actual cost of the public facility needed to serve the development paying the fee. Also, fee revenues can only be used for their intended purposes. In addition, the act has specific accounting and reporting requirements, both annually and after every five-year period, for the use of fee revenues. These requirements are covered in more detail in Section 11 of this report. In addition, the impact fee revenues may not be used for staffing, operations, and maintenance 1 of either existing or new facilities. Routine maintenance that is not related to the 1 Government Code Section 66001(g) states: “A fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities, but may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” GC 65913.8 states: ”A fee, charge, or other form of payment imposed by a governing body of a local agency for a public capital facility improvement related to a development project may not include an amount for the maintenance or operation of an improvement when the fee, charge, or other form of payment is required as a condition of the approval of a development project, or required to fulfill a condition of the approval. 1. INTRODUCTION City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 10 level of service of a facility, or does not add the capacity needed for new development should not be funded by the impact fee revenues. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Section 2 presents the population and employment assumptions used for the public facilities fee analysis. Sections 3 and 4are devoted to documenting the maximum justified impact fee for each of the following facility categories: • Citywide Sewer Capacity • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (new category) Citywide Sewer Capacity, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are citywide fee categories. The sections are generally organized as follows to clearly document the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act discussed above. • Each section begins by identifying the purpose of the fee by stating the types of facilities that would be funded. • The existing and where applicable future planned facilities are summarized. The value of the investment that the existing community has in this type of facility and the cost of future planned facilities, if any, are identified. • The Service Population for each facility defines what type of development requires this type of facility, whether (1) only residents, or (2) residents and businesses (measured by employment). It also projects the service population growth or demand for facility capacity anticipated to occur over the planning horizon. • Standards and unit costs are established for each facility category and a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee. This analysis leads to a cost per capita for the facilities which is one of the two factors that determine the fee. • The total facility costs to accommodate growth establishes a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the type of development paying the fee. This analysis estimates the total facilities costs associated with new development over the planning horizon, equal to the revenues that would be collected through the impact fee. • The Fee Schedule establishes a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee. Using a common factor for facility costs per capita, the fee schedule ensures that each development project pays its fair share of total facility costs. Finally, Section 5 summarizes fee implementation procedures and recommendations for the ongoing administration of the fee. The recommendations are provided to ensure compliance with the act and to ensure that fees are updated in the future for construction cost inflation, a change in the standards, or changes in development assumptions. 1. INTRODUCTION City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 11 FACILITY STANDARDS, LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND DEFICIENCIES Throughout this report, the words “standard” and “level of service” are used (at times interchangeably) to describe the level of investment in capital facilities that are needed to serve the community. A standard is defined as the adopted policy or benchmark that the City would like to achieve for any particular facility. For example, the number of acres of parks per 1,000 residents required for new development would be a standard. On the other hand, level of service refers to the actual level of benefit that the current population experiences. Level of service may be different from the standard for a given facility. When the existing level of service is lower than the standard, in other words when the facility is over capacity relative to the stated or policy standard, a deficiency exists for that facility. If the opposite is the case—if there is a surplus of capacity—the City may recoup a portion of its investment in that facility that is available to serve new development. Frequently there is no stated policy standard for a given facility, in which case the existing level of service becomes the de facto “current standard” and the terms may be interchanged. New development alone cannot be asked to improve the level of service provided by those facilities that serve both new and existing development. Additionally, new development alone cannot correct an existing facility deficiency. Either way, facility standards cannot be increased compared to the existing level of service solely by imposing impact fees on new development. By policy, the City of South San Francisco can adopt its own reasonable facility standards to reduce, maintain, or increase the existing facility standard. However, basing an impact fee on a standard that is higher than the existing level of service is fair to new development only if the City were to use alternative funds to increase the capacity in facilities that benefit existing development. This extra funding is needed to correct the existing deficiency. There are two approaches or methodologies used in this study for establishing facility standards and thereby evaluate whether facility deficiencies currently exist. This report follows these methodologies to evaluate current levels of service and in developing the recommendations for fee updates and new fees: • The master plan method establishes the standard based on the ratio of all existing plus planned facilities to total future demand (current and future development). This method is used when the local agency anticipates increasing its facility standards above the existing inventory standard, and planned facilities are part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. This method typically results in existing deficiencies that must be funded outside of the impact fee program. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is most accurately described as a master plan method. • The engineering standard approach is based on standards adopted by the City and/or standard engineering or planning criteria. This method is typically used for infrastructure such as for the sewer Capacity Charge. The basic approach is to maintain the appropriate level of service as defined by accepted planning and engineering practice for all sewer collection and treatment facilities. Any costs related to existing deficiencies are not passed on to new development. The original nexus studies for the Sewer Capacity fee analysis used this methodology. Use of these standards in the study is not meant to label them as the City of South San Francisco’s policy. Indeed, many jurisdictions recognize that their existing levels of service are deficient compared to the policies stated in their general plans. The City of South San Francisco 1. INTRODUCTION City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 12 may, as a policy decision, raise any facility standard and in doing so, possibly create a deficiency relative to the existing level of service. City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 13 2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION Estimates of existing development (number and type of housing) and projections of growth are used throughout the public facility fee sections that follow in this report. Current residential population estimates are based on the latest California Department of Finance county/city estimate dated January 2016. Current employment (jobs in the city as opposed to employed residents who live in the city but may work elsewhere) are from the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) 2012 Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy forecasts for South San Francisco. OCCUPANCY RATES The use of occupancy rates ensures a reasonable relationship between the increase in service population and the amount of the fee. To do this, the fee must vary by the estimated service population generated by a particular development project. Developers pay the fee based on the number of additional housing units or building square feet, so the fee analysis must convert service population estimates to these measures of project size to derive a fee per unit of development. This conversion is done with average occupancy factors by land use category, as shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Occupancy Assumptions Employees per 1,000 Square Feet Land Use Occupancy Rate Residential a Single-Family, detached & attached 3.38 persons per dwelling unit — Multi-Family (overall 2 or more units in structure) 2.54 persons per dwelling unit — Multi-Family Breakdown Duplex, triplex & fourplex 2.89 persons per dwelling unit — 5 to 19 units 2.53 persons per dwelling unit — 20 to 49 2.04 persons per dwelling unit — 50+ 1.78 persons per dwelling unit — Mobile Home 2.00 persons per dwelling unit — Nonresidential b Office/Research & Development 450 building square feet per worker 2.22 Commercial/Retail 400 building square feet per worker 1.67 Hotel Rooms 1,500 building square per worker 0.67 Industrial 1,000 building square feet per worker 1.00 a. Based on the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011–2015, Tenure and Units in Structure, Tables B25033 & B25032, US Census Bureau, adjusted for current occupied units and population. b. Building area per worker factors are based on the Employment Density Summary Report prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by the Natelson Company in 2001. 2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 14 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES The 2040 projections for occupied housing, population, and employment are all based on ABAG forecasts for South San Francisco. The population and housing estimates are summarized in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Population, Employment, and Housing Projections 2017 2040 Net Growth Average Annual Growth Rate Population a, b 64,585 74,600 10,015 0.63% Employment c Commercial/Retail 3,544 4,361 817 0.77% Office/Professional/Service 21,751 38,937 17,185 7.51% Hotel/Visitor Services 5,157 6,346 1,189 4.2% Public, Government, Schools 1,398 1,622 304 0.39% Manufacturing, Construction, Wholesale 32,170 27,710 (5,000) (1.28%) Others, including home workers 1,965 2,418 453 1.81% Total Employment 65,907 81,100 14,948 Housing d Single-Family Units 14,606 16,942 2,336 Multi-Family Units 5,267 6,107 840 Mobile Homes 304 351 47 Total Occupied Units 20,177 23,400 3,223 0.65% Occupancy 3.20 3.19 3.11 a. Current population estimate is from the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Table E-6, 1/1/2016. b. Projected population growth (at build-out) from General Plan Chapter 2 – Land Use (includes 4,800 persons from full build-out of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan) c. Current employment, number of jobs in the City, from 2015 American Fact Finder Economic Census, all NAICS codes for South San Francisco U.S. Census Bureau. . Employment growth is based on South San Francisco General Plan. d. Estimates of households from California Department of Finance, Table E-6; projections of housing type is based on the current housing composition; the number of total projected households is the total 2040 population divided by the assumed overall occupancy of 3.19 persons per household. Much of the employment growth in the city over the next 20 years is expected to occur in the Office, professional services sector and especially in the Research and Development sector in the East of Highway 101 area. The employment growth in the various planning sub-areas of the city is identified in the General Plan. It is noted here that the General Plan forecast of employment is significantly higher than the number reported in the ABAG Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy and may reflect the fact that substantial development is expected to occur in the East of Highway 101 area. Estimates of future growth are used to provide a rough estimate of the total amount of sewer capacity required to accommodate growth over the planning horizon. Population and employment growth estimates are converted into dwelling units and floor area of nonresidential 2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 15 development to generate projections of future vehicle trips used in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan fee. LAND USE CATEGORIES Measuring the impact of growth requires land use types for summarizing different categories of new development. The land use types used in this analysis are defined below. • Single-Family: detached and attached (townhomes and condominiums) one-family dwelling units • Multi-Family: dwelling units such as duplexes and condominiums (unless considered attached townhomes), apartments, and dormitories • Mobile Homes: includes manufactured housing units located in mobile home parks. • Commercial/Retail: all commercial services, including food services and retail stores • Office/Research and Development: all general, professional, and medical office development including business and research parks • Hotel/Visitor: hotel and motel development • Industrial: all manufacturing, fabrication, food processing, motor vehicle repair, warehousing, truck yards and warehousing terminals, and distribution centers, including “back-office” uses, and ancillary employee-serving retail and services Applying the Impact Fees to Development Projects Involving More Than One Land Use Some developments may include more than one land use category, such as a mixed-use development with both residential and commercial uses. In these cases, the impact fee would be calculated separately for each land use category contained within the project. The amount of impact fees payable should be evaluated prior to the issuance of a building permit and be based on the information in the permit application, including the number and type of units, intended occupancy, and floor area per occupancy. In a single-use structure, the total of the fees would be the sum of each of the products of the fee rate for each facility category multiplied by the number of units or the floor area (1,000-square-foot increments) in the structure. For a mixed-use project, wherein more than one use will occupy a single permitted structure, an impact fee calculation would apply the appropriate fee rate to each portion of the structure containing an identified use. For a commercial-residential structure, the applicable residential fee rates would be applied to each residential unit (the unit may be defined as either a single-family unit or a multi-family unit, depending on the type of construction), and the applicable nonresidential rates will be applied to each unit of nonresidential floor area. SERVICE PARAMETERS Different types of development use public facilities at different rates in relation to each other, depending on the services provided. In the succeeding sections of this report, a specific service parameter is identified for each facility type to reflect this. The service parameter is calculated by weighting one land use category against another based on each category’s demand for services. Different service parameters are used to estimate impacts for different types of fees. To measure existing development and future growth, this reports uses • Dwelling units and building square feet to estimate sewer capacity 2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 16 • Vehicle trips to allocate bicycle and pedestrian facilities costs City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 17 3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY This section pertains to the collection, treatment, and disposal facilities required to provide sanitary sewer service to new development in South San Francisco. The City owns and maintains its entire wastewater collection system and shares a water quality control plant (WQCP) with the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame and portions of Colma and Daly City. The total capacity of the WQCP is 13.0 million gallons per day (mgd). The City of South San Francisco owns 73.08 percent of the capacity, approximately 9.5 mgd. The Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis was prepared in 2009 by Bartle Wells Associates. The City adopted updated sewer capacity fees in April 2010 by Resolution 39-2010. The Resolution was adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 66013(b)(3) local fees imposed for water and sewer connections or capacity charges. SEWER GENERATION The average wet and dry weather flow in the sanitary sewer system is currently estimated to be approximately 6 mgd.1 Table 3.1 shows the estimated existing and projected future wastewater generation by land use. The table converts flows for each land use into equivalent dwelling units (EDU), using an EDU factor that represents the sewer demand for each land use in terms of one single-family unit. Average dry weather flow in 2040 is projected to be 9.5 mgd at current generation rates, which roughly corresponds to the City of South San Francisco’s capacity in the WQCP. SEWER SYSTEM ASSET VALUE The 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis conducted a valuation study of the sewer system at the time. The valuation study analyzed the current value of all fixed system assets, including the WQCP, buildings, sewer mains, and manholes. The analysis was conducted using the replacement cost of new assets less depreciation (RCNLD), which is an industry standard approach to determining the “buy-in” cost for new development into a system with sufficient capacity. This method essentially assigns a value in a system that has been maintained by the current population and may provide service to new development. It is a means of obtaining revenue to perform continued rehabilitation and refurbishment in order maintain capacity in the system. The 2009 valuation analysis has been updated for this study and is shown in Table 3.2. SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The City’s 2016–2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) recommends several improvement projects that are needed for reconstruction, replacement, and rehabilitation in a number of areas and to upgrade conditions throughout the system, including the WQCP. Very few of these improvement projects will provide additional capacity to serve growth, since capacity generally exists. However many of the projects are necessary to maintain operating conditions in order to accommodate future development. Table 3.3 lists the CIP projects and costs as estimated in the CIP. Several of the projects were listed in the 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis, and the costs for those have been updated to 2017 dollars. Each project has been assigned a fair-share allocation to new development to represent the project’s benefit to new development. The percentage fair share is either zero or 37.2 percent, which is the projected capacity needed by new development. This allocation methodology ensures that new development pays its 1 Daily flow meter from South San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP. 3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 18 proportionate share of the cost of the system improvements that provide a direct benefit to growth. 3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 19 Table 3.1: Citywide Sewer Capacity Demand by Existing and New Development Land Use Existing Residential, Units/Non- residential, 1,000 Square Feet Growth 2017– 2040 Residential, Units/Non- residential Total EDU Factor EDU 2017 EDU Growth EDU 2040 Estimated Current Gallons per Day (average dry weather flow) Gallons per Day Growth (based on EDUs) Gallons per Day 2040 Residential (in units) Single-Family 14,606 2,336 16,942 1.00 14,606 2,336 16,942 2,745,928 439,168 3,185,096 Multi-Family 5,267 840 6,107 0.76 4,003 638 4,641 752,564 119,944 872,508 Mobile homes 304 47 351 0.59 179 28 207 33,652 5,264 38,916 20,177 3,223 23,400 Subtotal 18,788 3,002 21,790 3,532,144 564,376 4,096,520 Nonresidential (in 1,000 square feet of floor area) Office/R&D 9,788 24,212 34,000 0.27 2,643 6,537 9,180 496,884 1,228,956 1,725,840 Retail/Comm. 1,418 23,582 25,000 0.27 383 6,367 6,750 72,004 1,196,996 1,269,000 Hotel/Visitor 2,192 9,808 12,000 0.40 877 3,923 4,800 164,876 737,524 902,400 Industrial 32,170 (5,000) 27,170 0.27 8,686 (1,350) 7,336 1,632,968 (253,800) 1,379,168 Public 1,318 1,182 2,500 0.27 356 319 675 66,928 59,972 126,900 32,838 15,800 48,638 Subtotal 12,945 15,796 28,741 2,433,660 2,969,648 5,403,308 Total 31,733 18,798 50,531 5,965,804 3,534,024 9,499,828 Percentages of Total EDUs 62.8% 37.2% 3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 20 Sewer Flow Assumptions: Table 3.2: Sewer System Valuation Item Original Cost Replacement Cost (2008) Replacement Cost (2017) Estimated Accumulated Depreciation RCNLD Buildings (SSF share) $16,578,835 $25,719,948 $30,444,308 $7,263,602 $23,180,707 Treatment Facilities $54,997,504 $64,415,995 $76,248,226 $22,076,748 $54,171,478 Infrastructure and Other Improvements $4,115,038 $5,290,189 $6,261,916 $1,505,284 $4,756,632 Subtotal $75,691,377 $95,426,132 $112,954,450 $30,845,633 $82,108,817 Collection System (sewer main & manholes) N/A $92,389,904 $109,360,513 $29,864,200 $79,496,314 Total $187,816,036 $222,314,963 $60,709,833 $161,605,130 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis Valuation: $161,222,000 Residential:Current Growth PPH 2017 population 55.74 gpd/capita Single-family (1 EDU)*188 gpd/du188 gpd/du 56 gpd/capita 3.38 64,585 3,600,000 residential Multi-family 142 gpd/du142 gpd/du 56 gpd/capita 2.54 2,433,660 nonresidential Mobile Home 111 gpd/du111 gpd/du 56 gpd/capita 2.00 6,033,660 total ADWF gallons per day (2016) * Calibrated flow rates based on flow monitoring report 98.88% Nonresidential: Office/R&D Commercial/Retail Hotel/Visitor Industrial/Warehouse Public/Instit. Growth increment Estimated average dry weather flow 50 gpd/1,000 sf 50 gpd/1,000 sf 50 gpd/1,000 sf 50 gpd/1,000 sf 75 gpd/1,000 sf 3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 21 Table 3.3: Sewer System CIP Projects CIP System Improvements (SSF Share) Estimated Project Costs (2008) Estimated Project Costs (2017) a, c Fair-Share Allocation Percentage b Fair-Share Cost to Growth WQCP Facility Plan Update $219,500 $259,819 37.2% $96,653 Seismic Upgrades $365,000 $432,045 37.2 $160,721 Reliability Improvements $18,271,000 $21,627,103 37.2 $8,045,282 Cogeneration $2,339,000 $2,768,638 37.2 $1,029,934 Solar/Wind Program $1,315,000 $1,556,545 37.2 $579,035 Recycled Water Project $5,000,000 $5,918,423 37.2 $2,201,653 WQCP Digester & Wet Weather Improvements N/A $28,679,000 37.2 $10,668,588 Plant-wide Industrial Re-coating Program N/A $1,480,100 0.00% $0 Vactor-Sweeper Receiving Station Improvements N/A $570,000 37.2% $212,040 WQCP Maintenance Building Roof Replacement N/A $500,000 0.00% $0 Pump Station No. 9 Variable Frequency Drive Replacement N/A $150,000 0.00% $0 WQCP Secondary Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 Rehab. N/A $890,000 37.2 $331,080 Pump Station No. 2 Upgrade N/A $2,500,000 37.2 $930,000 WQCP Switchgear and Cogeneration Controls Upgrade N/A $680,000 37.2 $252,960 WQCP Effluent Storage Basin Liner Replacement N/A $530,000 0.00% $0 WQCP Solar Photovoltaic System N/A $1,375,000 37.2% $511,500 Recycled Water Financial Feasibility Study N/A $224,800 0.00% $0 WQCP Turbo Blower #2 N/A $952,900 37.2% $354,479 WQCP Flow Monitoring N/A $150,000 0.00% $0 WQCP Web Based Monitoring Projects N/A $296,800 37.2 $110,410 Pump Station #4 Force Main Contingency Pipes-Utah Ave N/A $7,100,000 37.2 $2,641,200 Sodium Hypochlorite Storage Tank Replacement Project N/A $765,000 0.00% $0 Pump Station Renovation $250,000 $295,921 0.00% $0 Force Main Rehabilitation Pump Station 4 $195,000 $230,819 0.00% $0 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation $4,625,800 37.2% $1,720,798 Total Sewer Collection System Improvements* $27,954,500 $84,558,713 $29,846,331 *All costs include engineering, design, construction management, and inspection. a. Costs are from the 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis and the City of South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program 5-year Summary 2016–2021. b. Fair-Share Cost Percentage is the proportion of new demand on the sewer collection system represented by growth (projected new EDUs divided by total EDUs in 2040). Sewer system improvement costs are shared proportionately between new and existing development. c. Cost inflation factor: ENR Construction 20-City Cost Index San Francisco: December 2008 December 2016 9,781.6 11,578.33 18.37% 3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 22 SEWER SYSTEM COST ALLOCATIONS The total system cost for capacity to convey and treat the city’s sewage is allocated to the parameters of flow (gallons), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and total suspended solids (TSS). The percentage of cost imposed on the capital assets is presented in Table 3.4. The table combines all costs into a single cost per EDU, the cost to convey and treat the sewage demand of one single-family household in South San Francisco. Table 3.4: Sewer System Cost Allocation and Cost per EDU Capital Assets Value/Costs Cost Parameters Flow BOD TSS Buildings (SSF share) $23,180,707 34% 33% 33% Treatment Facilities $54,171,478 50% 25% 25% Infrastructure and Other Improvements $4,756,632 34% 33% 33% Collection System $79,496,314 95% 0% 5% $161,605,131 $112,105,932 $22,762,191 $26,737,007 Fair-Share of Assets (Capacity Buy-in) $60,118,605 Weighted average of cost percentages: 69.37% 14.09% 16.54% 2040 EDUs/Cost per EDU 50,531 $2,218.56 $450.46 $529.12 Fair Share of Sewer System Improvements $29,846,331 $20,704,484 $4,203,876 $4,937,972 New EDUs/Cost per EDU 18,798 $1,101.42 $223.63 $262.69 Total Fair-Share Cost $89,964,937 Total Parameter Cost per EDU $3,319.98 $674.09 $791.81 Overall Total Cost per EDU $4,785.88 SEWER CAPACITY CHARGES The justified citywide sewer capacity charge for all land uses is based on the cost per EDU, which is the fee for a single-family home. The 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis and Resolution 39-2010 provide a methodology to determine the sewer capacity fee for nonresidential development projects based on the anticipated flow volume and the BOD and TSS components of the project’s effluent. The following formula was developed to calculate the EDUs of a proposed project: EDUs = (0.00347 × Flow) + (0.362 × BOD) + (0.589 × TSS) Flow is in gallons per day, and BOD and TSS are in milligrams per liter (mg/l). The coefficients of flow, BOD, and TSS in the formula are based on a single-family flow rate of 200 gallons per day, 0.39 pounds per day of BOD, and 0.28 pounds per day of TSS. The coefficients were determined by dividing the weighted average percentage of the cost of the parameters by the single-family parameters: Flow BOD TSS Weighted Average of Cost Percentages: 0.694 0.141 0.165 Divided by the Single-Family Parameters: 200 gpd 0.39 lbs./day 0.28 lbs./day Coefficients of EDU Formula: 0.00347 0.362 0.589 3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 23 For example, a 10,000-square-foot office building is expected to generate an average of 2,000 gallons of effluent per day and 3 pounds per day and 2 pounds per day of BOD and TSS per day, respectively. The calculated EDUs for this project are: (2,000 × 0.00347) + (3 × .362) + (2 × .589) = 9.204. The fee would therefore be $44,049.24 (9.204 x $4,785.88). The fee schedule in Table 3.5 is given as a comparison as to how the justified EDU fee calculated in this study compares to the current EDU fee for various land uses. It is important to also note that the 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis allocated all capital asset valuations and sewer infrastructure improvement costs up to the full capacity of the treatment plant--9.5 million gallons per day. In other words, it was not a time-horizon analysis, rather the total costs were divided by the number of EDUs representing plant capacity to determine the cost per EDU. Table 3.5: Sewer Capacity Charge Schedule Land Use a Sewer Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factora Cost per EDU Justified Sewer Capacity Charge Current Sewer Capacity Charge b Percent Change Residential, per unit Single-Family 1.00 $4,785.88 $4,785.88 $3,944.00 21% Multi-Family 0.76 $4,785.88 $3,637.27 $2,997.44 21% Mobile Home 0.59 $4,785.88 $2,823.67 $2,326.96 21% Nonresidential, per 1,000 square feet of floor area Office 0.270 $4,785.88 $1,292.19 $1,064.88 Commercial/Retail 0.270 $4,785.88 $1,292.19 $1,064.88 21% Hotel/Visitor Services 0.400 $4,785.88 $1,914.35 $1,577.60 21% Industrial 0.270 $4,785.88 $1,292.19 $1,064.88 21% Public/Schools 0.270 $4,785.88 $1,292.19 $1,064.88 21% a. The EDU factor in this table accounts only for sewer flow rates of various land uses and not the BOD or TSS parameters. b. These “current” charges are shown for comparison only for the land uses indicated. The charges apply the current EDU/single-family rate of $3,944 and the EDU factor to estimate the current charge per unit or per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The City uses the EDU formula above to calculate the actual charge. Application of the EDU formula would result is different fees depending on the given sewage parameters of the project. For example, a restaurant would be expected to have a somewhat higher flow rate and BOD loading than a hardware store, even though both are classified as “Commercial/Retail”. Summary Table 3.5 shows the justified sewer capacity charge based on the pro-rated share of the City’s sewer assets valuation and capital improvements costs attributable to new development. New development’s fair-share is approximately 37.2 percent of the total asset valuation and capital improvement cost based on the difference between current and projected future sewage flows. The justified sewer capacity charge is the product of the fair-share cost per EDU multiplied by the EDU factor for each type of land use. The increase of 21 percent is due to: 1) the 18.4 percent Construction Cost Index increase applied to the replacement costs of existing sewer assets; 2) the CCI applied to the remaining sewer capacity capital improvement projects identified in the 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis; and 3) the current cost of additional sewer CIP projects. The charge is projected to generate approximately $90 million, which may be used for capital improvements and to offset depreciation of the existing sewer collection and treatment infrastructure. City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 24 4. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN The purpose of this section is to provide the necessary findings for the City to adopt a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan impact fee program. The City presently does not impose an impact fee on new development for funding bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The City of South San Francisco adopted a Bicycle Master Plan (Master Plan) on February 9, 2011 by Resolution 23-2011. The Master Plan recommends the completion of the City’s existing network of bicycle paths, lanes and routes. The Master Plan was guided by the policies of the 1999 General Plan Transportation Element, subsequently the General Plan was amended to include the Master Plan recommendations and Bicycle Facilities Map. BICYCLE MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS The adopted Master Plan made recommendations for bicycle improvement projects and estimated the costs. Table 4.1 summarizes the projects and the costs updated to 2017 dollars and calculates new development’s fair-share cost of the improvements. The fair-share is based on the proportion of the total Citywide average daily trips (ADT) generated by new development in 2040. The ADT-based allocation method is used as the best representation of the overall demand for mobility and use of transportation facilities in general. By providing for safer and more convenient biking and walking, the recommended facilities are intended to encourage the choice of alternatives to travel by private motor vehicles, enhance the attractiveness of public transportation, and reduce traffic on the City’s streets. Also, to the extent that a new development project can demonstrate measures are incorporated into the design that will reduce the use of motor vehicles, a reduction in the impact fee may be considered. The Citywide ADT of existing development, growth and the future total are presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.1: Recommended Bicycle Master Plan Improvements Class Project Name Miles Project Cost (2011 Dollars) Project Cost (2017 Dollars)1 New Development Fair-Share Existing Development Share Near Term Projects 13.08% 86.92% III East Grand Avenue Bridge 0.35 $900 $1,030 $135 $895 III Oyster Point Interchange 0.25 $1,600 $1,831 $239 $1,591 I Caltrain Station Undercrossing 0.08 $7,500,000 $8,580,532 $1,122,334 $7,458,199 II Grand Avenue 1.21 $26,200 $29,975 $3,921 $26,054 II East Grand Avenue 1.44 $31,100 $35,581 $4,654 $30,927 II South Airport Boulevard 1.06 $142,900 $163,488 $21,384 $142,104 III Westborough Blvd. at SR 280 0.12 $800 $915 $120 $796 II McLellan Drive 0.23 $4,900 $5,606 $733 $4,873 II Chestnut Avenue 1.07 $23,200 $26,542 $3,472 $23,071 III Mission Road 0.71 $5,900 $6,750 $883 $5,867 I Rail Trail 1.22 $1,464,000 $1,674,920 $219,080 $1,455,840 II Forbes Boulevard 1.5 $32,400 $37,068 $4,848 $32,219 Subtotal 9.24 $9,233,900 $10,564,237 $1,381,802 $9,182,435 1 Cost inflation factor: ENR Construction 20-City Cost Index San Francisco December, 2010: 10120.29; December, 2016: 11578.33, change: 14.41% 4. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 25 Table 4.1: Recommended Bicycle Master Plan Improvements (continued) Class Project Name Miles Project Cost (2011 Dollars) Project Cost (2017 Dollars)1 Fair-Share Existing Development’s Share Mid-Term Projects 13.08% 86.92% I Sister Cities Park Path Extension 0.6 $720,000 $823,731 $107,744 $715,987 II North Access Road 0.2 $4,300 $4,920 $643 $4,276 III Arroyo Drive 0.13 $300 $343 $45 $298 III Arroyo Drive at El Camino Real 0.11 $300 $343 $45 $298 Subtotal 1.04 $724,900 $829,337 $108,477 $720,860 Long Term Projects 13.08% 86.92% III Lawndale Boulevard 0.04 $200 $229 $30 $199 I Veterans Boulevard 0.19 $228,000 $260,848 $34,119 $226,729 I Centennial Connector 0.05 $60,000 $68,644 $8,979 $59,666 III Miller Avenue 0.3 $800 $915 $120 $796 III Baden Avenue 0.46 $4,000 $4,576 $599 $3,978 III South Canal Street 0.33 $3,100 $3,547 $464 $3,083 III Oyster Point Boulevard 0.27 $5,900 $6,750 $883 $5,867 III Marina Boulevard 0.17 $500 $572 $75 $497 III Mitchell Avenue 0.28 $700 $801 $105 $696 III Harbor Way 0.35 $900 $1,030 $135 $895 III Dubuque Avenue 0.75 $2,000 $2,288 $299 $1,989 III Holly Avenue 0.71 $1,800 $2,059 $269 $1,790 III Newman Dr/King Dr/San Felipe Ave 0.74 $1,800 $2,059 $269 $1,790 I Bay Trail 0.06 $72,000 $82,373 $10,774 $71,599 II Oakmont Drive 0.2 $94,300 $107,886 $14,111 $93,774 II Gellert Boulevard 0.54 $11,600 $13,271 $1,736 $11,535 III Alta Loma Drive 0.27 $700 $801 $105 $696 III Hickey Boulevard 0.07 $200 $229 $30 $199 Subtotal 5.78 $488,500 $558,879 $73,101 $485,777 Total 16.06 $10,447,300 $11,952,453 $1,563,381 $10,389,072 1 Cost inflation factor: ENR Construction 20-City Cost Index San Francisco December, 2010: 10120.29; December, 2016: 11578.33, change: 14.41% The nonresidential trips in Table 4.2 were adjusted by a pass-by factor that accounts for primary trips that originate in one location and end at another, while stopping at a location between the origin and ultimate destination. The use of adjusted ADT rates for the nonresidential land uses discounts the trips that are already in the street network and don’t add primary motor vehicle traffic to the system. This method is particularly appropriate where new neighborhood commercial development occurs within a land use context that is walkable and bicycle- friendly—that encourages linking transit with bicycle or pedestrian travel. 10. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 26 Table 4.2: Citywide Average Daily Trips Land Use1 Residential Units/ 1,000 Square Feet (2017) Total 2040 (1,000 sq. ft.) Growth 2017-2040 (Units or 1,000 sq. ft.) Average Daily Trip Rate Pass-by Factor1 Adjusted ADT Rate (AADT) AADT 2017 AADT 2040 AADT Growth Residential (units) Single Family 14,606 16,942 2,336 9.60 - 9.60 140,215 162,639 22,424 Multi-family 5,267 6,107 840 6.70 - 6.70 35,292 40,920 5,627 Mobile Home 304 351 47 5.00 - 5.00 1,519 1,755 236 Subtotal 20,177 23,400 3,223 177,026 205,314 8,287 Nonresidential (in 1,000 square feet or as noted otherwise) Office/R&D 9,788 14,288 4,500 5.30 0.30 3.71 36,314 53,009 16,695 Commercial/Retail 1,418 2,518 1,100 48.00 0.70 14.40 20,414 36,254 15,840 Hotel (rooms) 1,973 4,673 2,700 10.50 0.10 9.45 18,645 44,160 25,515 Industrial 32,170 27,170 (5,000) 5.46 0.10 4.91 158,085 133,515 24,570) Subtotal 45,349 48,649 3,300 233,458 266,938 33,480 Total 410,484 472,252 61,767 New trips percentage of total: 13.08% 1 The Pass-by Factor reduces the ADT rates to account for non-primary trips, that is, trips that are already in the network. For example, 70% of the trips stopping at commercial or retail establishments are continuing to a destination other than where they began. 10. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 27 Table 4.3 calculates the cost per AADT of the Master Plan improvements. The existing development’s cost per trip is determined by dividing existing development’s total share by the current adjusted Citywide AADT. New development’s cost per ADT is determined the same way—by dividing the fair-share amount by the primary trips generated by new development. Table 4.3: Bicycle Master Plan Improvements Cost per ADT Total Estimated Cost (2017 Dollars) Existing Development/Other Funding Sources New Development Fair-Share Master Plan Improvements Costs $11,952,453 $10,389,072 $1,563,381 Average Daily Trips 410,484 61,767 Cost per ADT $25.31 $25.31 The fair-share cost per ADT is the same as for existing development. This reflects the fact that both existing and future travelers benefit equally from the improvements. BICYCLE MASTER PLAN FEE SCHEDULE The fully justified impact fees for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements are presented in Table 4.4 Table 4.4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Fees Land Use1 AADT per Unit or 1,000 sq. ft. Cost per ADT Justified Bicycle and Pedestrian Fee Residential, per unit Single Family 9.60 $25.31 $242.99 Multi-family 6.70 $25.31 $169.58 Mobile Homes 5.00 $25.31 $126.55 Nonresidential, per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, unless noted otherwise Office 3.71 $25.31 $93.90 Commercial/Retail 14.40 $25.31 $364.48 Hotel/Visitor Services (rooms) 9.45 $25.31 $239.19 Industrial 4.91 $25.31 $124.38 Summary The proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan fees, based on a rate of $25.31 per adjusted average daily trip, presented in Table 4.3 will generate approximately $1.56 million that may be used to fund bike paths, bike lanes and other improvements needed to complete the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian network. The revenue generated by the fee is approximately 13 percent of the total cost estimate for the improvements recommended in the Master Plan. This percentage represents the proportion of vehicular trips from new development relative to the total projected citywide trips in 2040. This is a reasonable method of allocating the cost of transportation improvements among the beneficiaries. City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 28 5. IMPLEMENTATION This section identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fee program. IMPACT FEE PROGRAM ADOPTION PROCESS Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures, including holding a public hearing. Mailed notice 14 days prior to the public hearing is required only for those individuals who request such notification. Data, such as this impact fee report and referenced materials, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should inform the City of any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption, there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect, unless an urgency ordinance, valid for 30 days, is adopted making certain findings regarding the urgency being claimed. The ordinance must be re-adopted at the end of the first period (and possibly at the end of the second period, depending on City Council meeting dates) to cover the next 30 days and therefore the entire 60-day waiting period. Fees adopted by urgency go into effect immediately. This procedure must also be followed for fee increases. PROGRAMMING REVENUES AND PROJECTS WITH THE CIP If the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is used in the nexus findings to establish and document facility costs, the City should update the CIP to identify specific projects and program fee revenues to those projects. Use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues. If the CIP is integral to the nexus, updates and revisions to the CIP must be adopted in a noticed public hearing. For the planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all existing fund balances and projected fee revenue to facilities projects. The City should plan its CIP expenditures at least five years in advance and show where all collected development impact fee revenues will be spent. The City can hold funds in a project account for longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient funds to complete a given project. FUNDS NEEDED TO COMPLEMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM In adopting the fees as presented in this report, additional funds will need to be identified to fund the share of costs not related to new development. This nexus study identifies the facilities studied in this report and the funding sources for the facilities. The General Fund/Other Sources column identifies the additional funding that the City needs to obtain for the facilities shown to cover the City’s share related to existing development. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT For the majority of the projects, the costs in this report are shown in 2017 dollars based on the consultant’s experience and actual construction costs where available. To ensure that the fee program stays current with the prevailing cost of construction, the City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and include an automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance for those facilities or systems that have not been completed. In addition, for those facilities for which the City is recouping funds for building excess capacity into the facilities, no annual adjustment factor is recommended. For these projects, the annual 5. IMPLEMENTATION City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 29 adjustment factor is not necessary because the facilities have been constructed and the costs determined. A 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. COMBINING FEES Each facility category has been presented separately for the purpose of analysis and reporting. However, fees may be combined into two or more fee categories at the City’s discretion to facilitate administration. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection, accounting, refunds, updates, and reporting. The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other revenues, the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project. The City’s compliance obligations vis-à-vis the act include but are not limited to the following specific requirements: Collection of Fees. Section 66007 provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first. In a residential development of more than one dwelling unit, the local agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit when it is completed. The local agency may require the payment of those fees or charges at an earlier time if: (A) the local agency determines that the fees or charges will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy; or (B) the fees or charges are to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made. “Appropriated,” as used in this section, means authorization by the governing body of the local agency for which the fee is collected to make expenditures and incur obligations for specific purposes. Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. If a project has characteristics that indicate its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system will be significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly. In some cases, the City may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project to promote goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction may not result in increased costs to other development projects and is allowable only if the City offsets the lost revenue from other fund sources. Credit for Improvements by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been or will be charged, the impact fee imposed on that development project for that type of facility must be 5. IMPLEMENTATION City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 30 adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of facilities or improvements constructed or otherwise provided by the developer. If the reimbursement would exceed the amount of the fee to be paid by the development for that type of facility, the City may seek to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the developer. Earmarking of Fee Revenues. Section 66006 mandates that the City “deposit…fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the City, except for temporary investments.” Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected. Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. The Mitigation Impact Fee Act is not clear as to whether depositing fees “for the improvements” refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., bicycle facilities). Recommended practice is for the City is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category, but not necessarily for individual projects. Reporting. Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the City must make available to the public the following information for each account established to receive impact fee revenues: 1. The amount of the fee. 2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. 3. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. 4. Identification of each public improvement on which fee revenues were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fee revenues. 5. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected financing of an incomplete public improvement. 6. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvements on which the transfer or loan will be expended. 7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f). The above information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public. Findings and Refunds. Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five years thereafter, the City must make all of the following findings for any fee revenues that remain unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: 1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put. 2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 5. IMPLEMENTATION City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update May 2017 Draft Report 31 3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which the impact fees are to be used. 4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited in to the appropriate account of fund. Annual Update of Capital Improvement Program. Section 66002 provides that if the City adopts a CIP to identify the use of impact fees, that program must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. 2816400.1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES QUIMBY ACT AND MITIGATION FEE ACT REPORT MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC 675 HARTZ AVENUE, SUITE 300 DANVILLE, CA 94526 (530) 878-9100 MARCH 2016 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES QUIMBY ACT AND MITIGATION FEE ACT REPORT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... .1 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................... 8 II. QUIMBY ACT PARK LAND ACQUISITION IN‐LIEU FEE ............................................................... 15 III. PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEE – MITIGATION FEE ACT ........................................................... 20 IV. PARK CONSTRUCTION FEE .................................................................................................................... 26 V. PARK ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES SUMMARY ...................................... 31 VI. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................................................... 32 VII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 33 ATTACHMENT 1: DANA PROPERTY ANALYSIS WEIGHTED AVERAGE MARKET VALUES ATTACHMENT 2: GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH + PLANNING INC. PARK CONSTRUCTION BUDGET CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES QUIMBY ACT AND MITIGATION FEE ACT REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ______________________________________________________________________________ The City of South San Francisco adopted an ordinance in 1981 requiring certain residential developments to dedicate land for park and recreation purposes, or to pay a fee in‐lieu of the land dedication. The General Plan, Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan have revised the City’s park and recreation goals to include acquisition and construction of three acres of parks per one‐thousand residents for all new residential development projects, and acquisition and construction of 0.5 acres per one‐ thousand employees for all new commercial development projects. The City has engaged Municipal Resource Group LLC to prepare an analysis and Report with recommendations to update the Park Land Acquisition Fee and to adopt a Park Construction Fee. The fees calculated in this Report are the maximum fees that the City may adopt for Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction. The City may adopt fees as calculated in this Report, or may discount the fees and explore other methods to finance the achievement of its park goals. AUTHORITY TO ADOPT PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEES AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES The City’s goal of three acres per thousand residents can continue to be partially achieved through the authority of the Quimby Act. Generally, Quimby Act land dedication and in‐lieu fee requirements apply to new subdivisions, but not to multifamily residential development projects (rental units) or commercial development projects. To establish fee requirements for these other development projects, cities may adopt a Park Land Acquisition Fee for future residential and commercial development projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act, based on the authority provided in the Mitigation Fee Act. The proposed Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee are intended to provide funds to acquire park land to serve new residents and employees. A separate Park Construction Fee is proposed to pay for the construction of park facilities and improvements to serve new residents and employees, also under the authority of the Mitigation Fee Act. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 2 CURRENT DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AND IN‐LIEU FEES The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (Chapter 19.24) establishes the existing procedures for the Quimby Act dedication of land or the payment of an in‐lieu fee. The Municipal Code requires the City to obtain a separate appraisal for each development project that is subject to the Quimby Act. The City then calculates the in‐lieu fee per residential unit based on each appraisal and other criteria established in the Municipal Code. Under existing Municipal Code procedures, the Quimby Act in‐lieu fees can vary widely based on the appraisals of the subject properties. Instead of these individual appraisals, this Report recommends the use of a single market land valuation for park land acquisition fees for all future residential and commercial development projects and proposes a common fee for similar residential development projects and commercial development projects. PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEES ‐ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS The proposed methodology for calculating both the Quimby Act In‐lieu fees for residential subdivisions and the Mitigation Fee Act fee for all other residential development projects is based on the City’s standard of three acres of park land per one‐thousand residents (.003 acres per resident), the number of residents in each residential classification, and the market value of land. The acres required for each residential classification (Units in Structure) are identified in Table ES‐1 by multiplying .003 acres per resident by the average number of residents in each land use classification. Table ES‐1: Park Land Acres Required per Residential Unit Units in Structure Acres per Resident Residents per Unit Park Land Acres Required per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.003 3.45 0.01035 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.003 2.98 0.00894 5 to 19 0.003 2.53 0.00759 20 to 49 0.003 2.04 0.00612 50 or more 0.003 1.78 0.00534 Mobile home 0.003 2.65 0.00795 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Municipal Resource Group LLC Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 3 To determine the value of land, the City contracted with Dana Property Analysis to prepare an analysis of the average market value of vacant land, estimated at $3,000,000 per acre. Table ES‐2 calculates the Park Land Acquisition Fee per residential unit by multiplying the park land acres required per unit (from Table ES‐1) by the $3,000,000 market value per acre. Table ES‐2: Park Land Acquisition Fee per Residential Unit Units in Structure Park Land Acres Required per Unit Market Value of Land per Acre Fee per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.01035 $3,000,000 $31,050 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.00894 $3,000,000 $26,820 5 to 19 0.00759 $3,000,000 $22,770 20 to 49 0.00612 $3,000,000 $18,360 50 or more 0.00534 $3,000,000 $16,020 Mobile home 0.00795 $3,000,000 $23,850 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal Resource Group LLC PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEES – COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS The South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan establish a standard of 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees. Fees on commercial projects are typically applied per one‐thousand square feet of building space. The number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space varies among commercial uses. Table ES‐3 calculates the park land acreage required per one‐thousand square feet of new commercial building space by multiplying the number of employees per one‐ thousand square feet by the acreage required per employee (0.5 acres per one‐thousand employees is equal to .0005 acres per employee). Table ES‐3: Park Land Acreage Required per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Employees per 1,000 Square Feet Park Land Acres Required per Employee Park Land Acres Required per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 acres.00125 acres Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 acres .00119 acres Office/R&D 2.22 .0005 acres .00111 acres Industrial 1.05 .0005 acres.00052 acres Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Municipal Resource Group LLC Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 4 The Park Land Acquisition Fee is based on the amount of land required to meet the applicable park land standard, and the $3,000,000 market value of land. Table ES‐4 calculates the fee per one‐thousand square feet of commercial space by multiplying the required acres per 1,000 square feet (from Table ES‐3) by the $3,000,000 market value per acre. Table ES‐4: Park Land Acquisition Fee per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Park Land Acres per 1,000 Square Feet Market Value of Land per Acre Fee per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail .00125 acres $3,000,000 $3,750 Hotel/Visitor .00119 acres $3,000,000 $3,571 Office/R&D .00111 acres $3,000,000 $3,333 Industrial .00052 acres $3,000,000 $1,571 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal Resource Group LLC PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES While the Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Park Land Acquisition Fee will provide for the acquisition of park land, the proposed Park Construction Fee provides funds for the construction of park facilities and improvements on the land acquired with the proceeds from the other fees. PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES ‐ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS The acreage to be improved with park facilities to serve residential development is the same as established for park land acquisition: three acres per one‐thousand future residents. The Park Construction Fee is based on the amount of land required to be improved and the cost of constructing park facilities and improvements. The average hard and soft construction cost per acre is $981,250, as estimated by Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. Table ES‐5 calculates the fee per residential unit by multiplying the required acres per unit by the $981,250 construction cost per acre per acre. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 5 Table ES‐5: Park Construction Fee per Residential Unit Units in Structure Park Acres per Unit Construction Cost per Acre Fee per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.01035 $981,250 $10,156 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.00894 $981,250 $ 8,772 5 to 19 0.00759 $981,250 $ 7,448 20 to 49 0.00612 $981,250 $ 6,005 50 or more 0.00534 $981,250 $ 5,240 Mobile home 0.00795 $981,250 $ 7,801 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES ‐ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS The South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan establish a standard of 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees in the City. The acreage to be improved with park facilities to serve commercial development is the same as established for park land acquisition: 0.5 acres per one‐thousand employees. Table ES‐6 calculates the park acreage required to be improved per one‐thousand square feet of new commercial building space by multiplying the employees per one‐ thousand square feet by the acreage required per employee. Table ES‐6: Park Acres to be Improved per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Employees per 1,000 Square Feet Park Acres Required per Employee Acres to be Improved per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 acres .00125 acres Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 acres .00119 acres Office/R&D 2.22 .0005 acres .00111 acres Industrial 1.05 .0005 acres .00052 acres Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal Resource Group LLC Table ES‐7 calculates the fee per one‐thousand square feet of commercial space by multiplying the required acres per employees (from Table ES‐6) by the $981,250 construction cost per acre per acre. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 6 Table ES‐7: Park Construction Fee per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Park Acres per 1,000 Square Feet Construction Cost per Acre Fee per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail .00125 acres $981,250 $1,227 Hotel/Visitor .00119 acres $981,250 $1,168 Office/R&D .00111 acres $981,250 $1,090 Industrial .00052 acres $981,250 $ 514 Source: City of South San Francisco; Parks + Recreation Master Plan; Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC FEE SUMMARY Table ES‐8 presents the proposed Park Land Acquisition Fees (Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act) and the Park Construction Fees for residential units. The City may adopt fees equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table ES‐8. Table ES‐8: Total Park Fees per Residential Unit Units in Structure Park Land Acquisition Fee Park Construction Fee Total Park Fees 1 (single‐family residential unit) $31,050 $10,156 $41,206 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) $26,820 $ 8,772 $35,592 5 to 19 $22,770 $ 7,448 $30,218 20 to 49 $18,360 $ 6,005 $24,365 50 or more $16,020 $ 5,240 $21,260 Mobile home $23, 850 $ 7,801 $31,651 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Group 4 Architecture + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC Table ES‐9 presents the proposed Park Land Acquisition Fees and the Park Construction Fees for commercial development projects. The City may adopt fee equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table ES‐9. Table ES‐9: Total Park Fees per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Park Land Acquisition Fee Park Construction Fee Total Park Fees Commercial/Retail $3,750 $1,227 $4,977 Hotel/Visitor $3,571 $1,168 $4,739 Office/R&D $3,333 $1,090 $4,423 Industrial $1,571 $ 514 $2,085 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Group 4 Architecture + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 7 QUIMBY ACT AND MITGATION FEE ACT REQUIREMENTS; FEE ADJUSTMENTS The Report provides recommended findings to adopt the Quimby Act In‐lieu fees and the Mitigation Fee Act fees. It also provides a summary of the statutory and administrative requirements for both Acts and proposes mechanisms to adjust the fees on an annual basis. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 8 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ______________________________________________________________________________ The City of South San Francisco adopted an ordinance in 1981 requiring certain new residential subdivisions to dedicate land for park and recreation purposes, or to pay a fee in‐lieu of the land dedication. The City subsequently adopted a revised General Plan, an East of 101 Area Plan and a revised Parks + Recreation Master Plan with new park and recreation goals. The purpose of this analysis and Report is to provide recommendations to revise and update the Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu Fee ordinance, and to adopt a Park Construction Fee, to be consistent with and to implement the goals of the General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. The fees calculated in this Report are the maximum fees that the City may adopt for Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction. The City may adopt fees as calculated in this Report, or may discount the fees and explore other methods to finance the achievement of its park goals. GENERAL PLAN GOALS The City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in 1999, contains several Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies regarding park and recreation facilities. The General Plan provides for new park land in South San Francisco by setting a park land acreage standard for new residents and employees. The following policies are articulated in the General Plan:  “Guiding Policy 5.1‐G‐1: Develop additional park land in the City, particularly in areas lacking facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and employees.”  “Implementing Policy 5.1‐I‐2: Maintain park land standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and 0.5 acres of park land per 1,000 new employees, to be located in employment areas.”  “Implementing Policy 5.1‐I‐3: Prefer in‐lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on General Plan Figure 5‐1 and shown in more detail in the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. Opportunities for park dedication with new residential Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 9 development are limited. In‐lieu fees are intended to give the City flexibility to purchase available park land elsewhere in the City.”  “Implementing Policy 5.1‐I‐10: Review the current regulations for the dedication of park land in subdivisions to ensure that requirements are adequate to meet the standards of the General Plan at Plan build‐out.” PARKS + RECREATION MASTER PLAN GOALS The Parks + Recreation Master Plan adopted in July 2015 reiterates park facility goals:  “Goal #1: South San Francisco should provide a minimum of 3 acres of developed park land per 1,000 residents, and 0.5 acres of park land per 1,000 employees.” The Parks + Recreation Master Plan also provides policy guidance regarding the use of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code section 66000 et seq) for the purpose of including all future residential and commercial development projects in a fee program to acquire park land and to construct park facilities. The Parks + Recreation Master Plan states, in part, beginning on page 122: “The improvement and expansion of the Parks and Recreation Facilities as recommended in this Master Plan and the City’s General Plan are policies based a comprehensive needs assessment. Fees exacted under AB1600 (Mitigation Fee Act) would be designated for carrying out the improvements set forth in these documents, which reflect the demands that will result from the increased population of residents and employees resulting from development projects. Whereas the Quimby Act applies only to owner‐occupied development projects, fees may be assessed against other development types, including rental and commercial projects. The City should implement park fees on new development projects. This is particularly important at this time, when the pace of rental and commercial construction is accelerating rapidly, and the increase in the number of new residents and employees will significantly impact the parks system” (underlining added). Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 10 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN GOALS The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted in 1994, and as its name reflects, it establishes policies and goals for the area east of Highway 101. The East of 101 Area Plan discusses the importance of public facilities to serve the area, and states the following policy:  “Policy RE‐2: Developers in the East of 101 Area shall be required to either pay park in‐lieu fees or dedicate park land based on a formula developed by the City which estimates the demand for park and recreational facilities generated by the expected employment of the project.” THE QUIMBY ACT Park land dedication requirements for residential subdivisions are authorized by the Quimby Act, as codified in the California Government Code, beginning with Section 66477. The Quimby Act authorizes a City to require the dedication of a minimum of three acres of land per one‐thousand residents in proposed residential subdivisions, or the payment of an in‐lieu fee. If the amount of existing park land in the City exceeds a ratio of three acres per one‐thousand residents, the City may require the dedication of the existing ratio of park land per one‐thousand residents, up to a maximum of five acres per one‐ thousand future residents. Quimby Act land dedication and in‐lieu fee requirements apply to parcels created by a major residential subdivision (five or more parcels). They also apply to parcel maps created by a minor residential subdivision (a subdivision of four parcels or less) if a building permit is requested within four years of the approval of the parcel map for the minor subdivision. The Quimby Act requirements do not apply to commercial development projects or multifamily residential (rental) development projects, existing single family residential lots that do not require a subdivision to develop, or minor subdivisions that do not seek building permits within four years of receiving parcel map approval. In the event that a proposed residential subdivision is less than fifty parcels, the City may only require the payment of an in‐lieu fee (and not the dedication of land). The in‐lieu fees may only be used for acquiring land and developing new park and recreation facilities, or rehabilitating existing neighborhood parks, community parks and recreational facilities. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 11 The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provides park land inventory data: “South San Francisco currently includes 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents…This includes 70 acres of developed park land (community, neighborhood, mini and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space and 81.2 acres of school lands. While the overall amount of park land appears to meet the community’s needs, closer analysis reveals that only 1.2 acres of developed park land, excluding school parks and open space, is available per 1,000 residents.” (South San Francisco General Plan, Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, 1999). The Parks + Recreation Master Plan updates the current inventory of park land: “Currently, there are approximately 1.4 acres of community, neighborhood and mini‐park per 1,000 South San Francisco residents. Including the linear parks, specialty parks and common greens, the ratio rises to a total of 2.7 acres of developed park land per 1,000. When Open Space is included in this calculation, South San Francisco provides 3.9 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Finally, including school sites that currently have joint use facilities, the acreage increases to 5.4 per 1,000.” (Parks + Recreation Master Plan, page 98) Based on the current inventory of park land, the General Plan and the Park + Recreation Master Plan establish a park land standard of three acres per one‐thousand future residents, consistent with the minimum dedication standard in the Quimby Act. Chapter II in this Report provides the analysis for the calculation of a Quimby Act In‐ lieu Fee based on the three acres per one‐thousand future residents’ standard established in the General Plan and the Parks + Recreation Master Plan. THE MITIGATION FEE ACT Separate from the Quimby Act, authority for establishing development impact fees for residential and commercial development projects is found in the Mitigation Fee Act, also Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 12 known as AB 1600, as codified in the California Government Code beginning with Section 66000. The Mitigation Fee Act permits local agencies to establish and collect a fee as a condition of approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying the cost of public facilities required to serve the development project. The fee may include the cost of refurbishing existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or to achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the General Plan. The public facilities must be identified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, an applicable specific plan or other public documents. The fee may not be used to pay for existing deficiencies in public facilities. Under the Mitigation Fee Act, a local agency considering an action establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project must do all of the following: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. 2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed. 4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed. 5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development upon which the fee is imposed. To establish equal fee requirements for future residential development projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act, cities may also adopt a Park Land Acquisition Fee under authority of the Mitigation Fee Act. Chapter III in this Report provides the analysis required by the Mitigation Fee Act for a proposed Park Land Acquisition Fee for residential development projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act. Under no circumstances would both the Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Park Land Acquisition Fee apply to the same residential parcel. The General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan establish a standard of 0.5 acres of parks per one‐thousand new employees for future Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 13 commercial developments. Chapter III in this Report provides the analysis required by the Mitigation Fee Act for a proposed Park Land Acquisition Fee for commercial development projects. The proposed Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee are based on the cost of acquiring the land required by the City’s three acres per one‐thousand residents’ standard and the 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees’ standard. These park land acquisition fees do not include the cost of constructing park facilities and improvements on the park land. Therefore, a separate Park Construction Fee is proposed to pay for the construction of park facilities and improvements on park land required to serve new residents and employees. Chapter IV in this Report provides the analysis required by the Mitigation Fee Act for a proposed Park Construction Fee. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE The City of South San Francisco currently imposes park land acquisition in‐lieu fees on residential subdivisions that are subject to the Quimby Act. The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 19.24 establishes procedures for the dedication of land or the payment of an in‐lieu fee for Quimby Act park land acquisition. The Municipal Code requires the City to obtain an appraisal for each development project that is subject to the Quimby Act (and for the developer to reimburse the City for the cost of the appraisal). The City then calculates the in‐lieu fee per residential unit based on the appraisal and other criteria established in the Municipal Code. Under existing Municipal Code procedures, the Quimby Act fees for the two most recent projects were $27,522 per residential unit and $22,966 per residential unit (before partial project‐related credits for private recreational space). The fees for both projects were calculated using the existing “multi‐family/high density” formula. Yet there is disparity between the fees for the two projects, due to differences in appraised values for the two projects, even though both projects generate the same demand for park facilities per person and per residential unit. This Report proposes that the Municipal Code be revised by setting an in‐lieu fee that would apply equally to all residential developments with similar population densities, based on a single current land value. By adopting this methodology, the requirement for an appraisal on every residential subdivision will be eliminated. Moreover, potential developers will know what the fee will be in advance of seeking permit approvals. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 14 REPORT OBJECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS This Report is intended to assist the City of South San Francisco in achieving the policies, goals and implementation measures in the General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. The overall objective is to offer procedures to ensure that the City attains its goal of acquiring and constructing three acres of community and neighborhood park land per one‐thousand future residents, and 0.5 acres of park land per one‐thousand new employees, and that fees paid by new development projects contribute proportionately toward these goals. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 15 II. QUIMBY ACT PARK LAND ACQUISITION IN‐LIEU FEE ______________________________________________________________________________ The Quimby Act authorizes the dedication of land or a payment of an in‐lieu fee for three acres of park land per one‐thousand future residents, or up to five acres of park land per one‐thousand future residents if there is an existing inventory of at least five acres of park land per one‐thousand residents. The South San Francisco General Plan and the Parks + Recreation Master Plan identify and establish a City goal of three acres of park land per one‐thousand future residents. This Chapter calculates the Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu Fee based on three acres per one‐thousand future residents. As previously discussed, the Quimby Act in‐lieu fee applies only to parcels created by a major residential subdivision (five or more parcels) and to parcels created by a minor residential subdivision (four parcels or less) if a building permit is requested within four years of the approval of the parcel map for the minor subdivision. CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE REQUIRED PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT Park land acquisition in‐lieu fees are charged on a per residential unit basis, based on the average number of residents who live in a particular type of residential unit. Different types of residential units have different average numbers of residents per unit. The United States Census Bureau publishes annual demographic and population data, known as American FactFinder data. The 2014 American FactFinder data is the most current, credible and verifiable data available. The data is provided per residential unit, based on the number of units in a structure. For all residential units, the average is 3.12 persons per unit. The data indicates that the more units in a structure, the fewer persons live in each unit. Table II‐1 provides 2014 American FactFinder data for residents per unit. Table II‐1: Residents per Residential Unit, City of South San Francisco Units in Structure Residents per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 3.45 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 2.98 5 to 19 2.53 20 to 49 2.04 50 or more 1.78 Mobile home 2.65 Average, City of South San Francisco 3.12 Source: United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124 Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 16 The City's standard of three acres per one‐thousand future residents is equal to .003 acres per resident (three acres divided by one‐thousand residents). The park land acreage required per residential unit is calculated in Table II‐2, below, by multiplying .003 acres per resident by the average number of residents in the residential units indicated previously in Table II‐1. Table II‐2: Park Land Acres Required per Residential Unit Units in Structure Acres per Resident Residents per Unit Park Land Acres Required per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.003 3.45 0.01035 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.003 2.98 0.00894 5 to 19 0.003 2.53 0.00759 20 to 49 0.003 2.04 0.00612 50 or more 0.003 1.78 0.00534 Mobile home 0.003 2.65 0.00795 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124 CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT The in‐lieu fee is based on the amount of land required to meet the applicable park land standard, and the market value of land. To determine the market value of land, the City contracted with an appraisal firm, Dana Property Analysis, to prepare an analysis of the average market value of vacant land in South San Francisco. The Dana Property Analysis is provided as Attachment 1 to this Report. The average market value of vacant land in South San Francisco is estimated by Dana Property Analysis to be $3,000,000 per acre. South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 19.24.090(a) currently requires that the in‐lieu fee include the fair market value of land, plus a factor of twenty percent to provide funding for off‐site improvements required by Municipal Code Section 19.24.080(c). More specifically, Section 19.24.080(c) requires “(1) full street improvements and utility connections, including, but not limited to curbs, gutters, street paving, traffic control devices, street trees, and sidewalks to the land dedicated pursuant to this section; (2) fencing along the property line of that portion of the subdivision contiguous to the dedicated land; (3) improved drainage throughout the dedicated land; and (4) other minimal improvements which the City Council determines to be essential to the acceptance of the land for recreational purposes.” This Report and analysis of the Quimby Act in‐lieu fee proposes Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 17 that the twenty percent factor currently added to the in‐lieu fees be deleted from the South San Francisco Municipal Code, for the following reasons:  The market value of land estimated by Dana Property Analysis is based on comparable sales data for recent sales in the South San Francisco area. Many of the comparable sales already have the public improvements referenced in 19.20.080(c)(1); therefore, the cost of these public improvements is already included in the market value of land.  Fencing along the property line adjacent to the subdivision as referenced in 19.20.080(c)(2) would not be required, because the in‐lieu fees will be used to purchase suitable park land that is not likely to be adjacent to the subdivision.  This Report recommends a separate Park Construction Fee, based on the projected cost of building parks, which would include the improved drainage and other minimal improvements referenced in sections 19.24.080(c)(3) and 19.24.080(c)(4). Table II‐3 calculates the Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐Lieu fee per residential unit by multiplying the required acres per unit (from Table II‐2) by the $3,000,000 market value per acre. Table II‐3: Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐Lieu Fee per Residential Unit Units in Structure Park Land Acres Required per Unit Market Value of Land per Acre Fee per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.01035 $3,000,000 $31,050 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.00894 $3,000,000 $26,820 5 to 19 0.00759 $3,000,000 $22,770 20 to 49 0.00612 $3,000,000 $18,360 50 or more 0.00534 $3,000,000 $16,020 Mobile home 0.00795 $3,000,000 $23,850 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal Resource Group LLC Table II‐3 demonstrates that fees under the proposed methodology would vary only by the difference in expected number of units in a structure and residents per unit, and not by different appraisal values. The City may adopt Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu fees equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table II‐3. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 18 The City will incur costs to administer the fee program and to prepare the compliance analyses and reports required by the Quimby Act. The compliance requirements are identified in Chapter VII of this Report. The City may add an administration cost factor to the fee, to cover the cost of administering the programs and the cost of compliance with statutory requirements. QUIMBY ACT REQUIREMENTS The Quimby Act requires a local agency to address the following key procedural requirements when adopting the dedication requirements and the in‐lieu fee. The Quimby Act contains other requirements as well, which may be found in the California Government Code beginning with Section 66477. 1. Adopt a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities. The City of South San Francisco General Plan and the Parks + Recreation Master Plan establish a standard of three acres of park land for each one‐ thousand residents. 2. Adopt an ordinance requiring the dedication of land or the imposition of a requirement for the payment of a fee in‐lieu of the dedication of land, or a combination of both. The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the in‐lieu fee. The amount of land to be dedicated and the fee must be based upon the density of each residential type. It will be necessary for the City to revise its enabling ordinance to implement the proposed in‐lieu fee methodology. It is also recommended that the City adopt a fee resolution, implementing the proposed in‐lieu fee. 3. The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid must bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 19 The City of South San Francisco has established a standard level of service of three acres of park land for each one‐thousand residents. This standard is based upon the minimum requirement in the Quimby Act. The land dedication requirement and the in‐lieu fees are calculated to maintain this standard for future residents. 4. A schedule must be developed specifying how, when, and where the City will use the land or fees to develop park and recreational facilities. The General Plan and the Parks + Recreation Master Plan identify the location of several of the proposed future parks. It will be necessary for the City to adopt a separate schedule showing how the City will use the land or fees (site acquisition), when the City will use the fees (in five year intervals) and where the City will use the fees (specific sites and locations). Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 20 III. PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEE – MITIGATION FEE ACT (NON‐QUIMBY ACT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) ______________________________________________________________________________ The City of South San Francisco currently collects park land acquisition fees only from residential development projects that are subject to the Quimby Act. Quimby Act land dedication and in‐lieu fee requirements apply to parcels created by a major residential subdivision (five or more parcels) and to parcels created by a minor residential subdivision (four parcels or less) if a building permit is requested within four years of the approval of the parcel map for the minor subdivision. Quimby Act requirements do not apply to an existing residential lot that has not previously paid a park fee, multi‐family residential (rental) development projects or commercial development projects. The General Plan and the Parks + Recreation Master Plan include goals to collect park land acquisition fees from all new residential development projects and all new commercial development projects. Residents who will occupy future residential units that are not currently subject to the Quimby Act in‐lieu fee will nonetheless create demand for park facilities. To address this demand, public agencies may adopt a residential Park Land Acquisition Fee under the authority of the Mitigation Fee Act to collect a similar fee from residential development projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act. Similarly, employees who work in future commercial projects will also impact park facilities (lunch time activity and picnic areas, before and after work activities, outdoor exercise, sports leagues and other recreational activities). To address this demand, public agencies may adopt a commercial Park Land Acquisition Fee under the authority of the Mitigation Fee Act to collect a proportionate fee from commercial development projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act. The City of South San Francisco has established a goal of creating one‐half acre of park land for each one‐thousand employees, and has directed that this Report identify a potential fee to implement this goal for future employees. This Chapter provides the analysis and findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act to collect park land acquisition fees from future residential development projects and commercial development projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act. The analysis and calculation of the Park Land Acquisition Fee in this Chapter parallels the analysis and calculation of the Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu Fee in Chapter II. However, Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 21 under no circumstance would both the Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu Fee and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee apply to the same residential development parcel or project. CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE REQUIRED PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT Park land acquisition fees are charged on a per unit basis, based on the average number of residents who live in a residential unit. As discussed in Chapter II, different types of residential units have different average number of residents per unit. Table III‐1 provides 2014 American FactFinder data for residents per unit. Table III‐1: Residents per Residential Unit, City of South San Francisco Units in Structure Residents per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 3.45 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 2.98 5 to 19 2.53 20 to 49 2.04 50 or more 1.78 Mobile home 2.65 Average 3.12 Source: United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124 The City's standard of three acres per one‐thousand future residents is equal to .003 acres per resident (three acres divided by one‐thousand residents). The park land acreage required per residential unit is calculated in Table III‐2, below, by multiplying .003 acres per resident by the average number of residents in residential units indicated previously in Table III‐1. Table III‐2: Park Land Acres Required per Residential Unit Units in Structure Acres per Resident Residents per Unit Park Land Acres Required per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.003 3.45 0.01035 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.003 2.98 0.00894 5 to 19 0.003 2.53 0.00759 20 to 49 0.003 2.04 0.00612 50 or more 0.003 1.78 0.00534 Mobile home 0.003 2.65 0.00795 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Municipal Resource Group LLC Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 22 CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT The Park Land Acquisition Fee is based on the amount of land required to meet the applicable park land standard, and the market value of land. As discussed in Chapter II, the average market value of vacant in South San Francisco is estimated to be $3,000,000 per acre. Table III‐3 calculates the fee per residential unit by multiplying the required acres per unit (from Table III‐2) by the $3,000,000 market value per acre. Table III‐3: Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee per Residential Unit Units in Structure Park Land Acres Required per Unit Market Value of Land per Acre Fee per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 3.45 $3,000,000 $31,050 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 2.98 $3,000,000 $26,820 5 to 19 2.53 $3,000,000 $22,770 20 to 49 2.04 $3,000,000 $18,360 50 or more 1.78 $3,000,000 $16,020 Mobile home 2.65 $3,000,000 $23,850 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal Resource Group LLC The City may adopt Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fees for residential development projects not subject to the Quimby Act, under the authority of the Mitigation Fee Act that are equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table III‐3. The City will incur costs to administer the fee program and to prepare the compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance requirements are identified in Chapter VII of this Report. The City may add an administration cost factor to cover the cost of administering the programs and the cost of compliance with statutory requirements. CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The South San Francisco General Plan establishes a standard of 0.5 acres per one‐ thousand new employees in the City. The East of 101 Area Plan reaffirms this goal and standard for that particular commercial area. Fees on commercial projects are typically applied per one‐thousand square feet of building space. The number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 23 varies among commercial uses. The City of South San Francisco provided the data for the number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space, as cited in Table III‐4. Table III‐4 calculates the park land acreage required per one‐thousand square feet of new commercial building space by multiplying the number of employees per one‐ thousand square feet by the acreage required per employee ( 0.5 acres per one‐thousand employees is equal to .0005 acres per employee). Table III‐4: Park Land Acreage Required per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Employees per 1,000 Square Feet Park Land Acres Required per Employee Park Land Acres Required per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 acres .00125 acres Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 acres .00119 acres Office/R&D 2.22 .0005 acres .00111 acres Industrial 1.05 .0005 acres .00052 acres Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Municipal Resource Group LLC CALCULATION OF THE COMMERCIAL FEE The commercial Park Land Acquisition Fee is based on the amount of land required to meet the applicable park land standard (Table III‐4) and the market value of land. As discussed in Chapter II, the average market value of vacant land in South San Francisco is estimated to be $3,000,000 per acre. Table III‐5 calculates the fee per one‐thousand square feet of commercial space by multiplying the required acres per 1,000 square feet (from Table III‐4) by the $3,000,000 market value per acre. Table III‐5: Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Park Land Acres per 1,000 Square Feet Market Value of Land per Acre Fee per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail .00125 acres $3,000,000 $3,750 Hotel/Visitor .00119 acres $3,000,000 $3,571 Office/R&D .00111 acres $3,000,000 $3,333 Industrial .00052 acres $3,000,000 $1,571 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal Resource Group LLC Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 24 The City may adopt Park Land Acquisition Fees under the Mitigation Fee Act for commercial development projects that are equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table III‐5. The City will incur costs to administer the fee program and to prepare the compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance requirements are identified in Chapter VII of this Report. The City may add an administration cost factor to cover the cost of administering the programs and the cost of compliance with statutory requirements. AB 1600 NEXUS The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency considering an action establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to address the following procedural requirements. 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. The purpose of the Park Land Acquisition Fee is to provide funding to achieve the City’s goal of maintaining park service levels and to provide adequate recreational services for South San Francisco residents and employees, as established in the General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. 2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. The proceeds from the fees will be used to acquire three acres of park land per one‐ thousand future residents and 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees, as identified in the City’s General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. 3. Identify the relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to residential development projects and commercial development projects that are not subject to the City’s Quimby Act park land dedication or in‐lieu fee requirements. New residents in residential developments and new employees will place an additional demand on park and recreational facilities. The park land acquired with the proceeds of the fee will address and Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 25 mitigate the additional impacts and demands created by these residential and commercial development projects. 4. Determine the relationship between the need for the community facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to residential development projects and commercial development projects, which generate new residents and new employees in the community. The park land will serve the needs of new residents in residential development projects and new employees in commercial development projects. 5. Determine the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the community facility or portion of the community facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee has been calculated by apportioning the cost of park land acquisition to the number of residents generated by each type of new residential unit and the number of employees per one‐thousand square feet in commercial development projects. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 26 IV. PARK CONSTRUCTION FEE ______________________________________________________________________________ City of South San Francisco park goals include the development of three acres of parks for each one‐thousand future residents and 0.5 acres of parks for each one‐thousand new employees. While the Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee will provide funds for the acquisition of park land, the proposed Park Construction Fee discussed in this Chapter would provide funds for the construction of park facilities and improvements on the land acquired with the proceeds from the other fees. This Chapter provides the analysis and findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act to establish a fee for the construction of park facilities and improvements on acquired park land. CALCULATION OF THE PARK ACREAGE TO BE IMPROVED PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT The acreage to be improved with park facilities to serve residential development is the same acreage as established for park land acquisition: three acres per one‐thousand future residents. Table IV‐1, using the same factors as in Table II‐2, calculates the amount of acreage to be improved (park acreage construction) for the benefit of residential units by multiplying the park acres per resident by the residents per unit. Table IV‐1: Park Acres to be Improved per Residential Unit Units in Structure Acres per Resident Residents per Unit Park Acres to be Improved per Residential Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.003 3.45 0.01035 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.003 2.98 0.00894 5 to 19 0.003 2.53 0.00759 20 to 49 0.003 2.04 0.00612 50 or more 0.003 1.78 0.00534 Mobile home 0.003 2.65 0.00795 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Municipal Resource Group LLC CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT The Park Construction Fee is based on the amount of land required to be improved (Table IV‐1) and the cost of constructing park facilities and improvements. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 27 The General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan include a policy to maintain a three acre standard of community and neighborhood parks per one‐thousand residents and one‐half acre per one‐thousand employees, and describes the facilities that should be included in community and neighborhood parks. While individual park construction projects will differ in the type of park facilities and construction costs, a representative per acre construction cost estimate has been prepared by Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., for the purpose of calculating the Park Construction Fee. Attachment 2 identifies the representative park facilities and improvements and the cost per acre. The average construction (hard) cost per acre is $785,000. Soft costs, such as design, construction management and permitting costs, are estimated at 20% to 30% of hard construction costs. This Report assumes a mid‐point of 25% for soft costs. Accordingly, hard construction costs and soft costs are estimated at $981,250 per acre. Table IV‐2 calculates the Park Construction Fee per residential unit by multiplying the required acres per unit (from Table IV‐1) by the $981,250 park construction cost per acre. Table IV‐2: Park Construction Fee per Residential Unit Units in Structure Park Acres per Unit Construction Cost per Acre Fee per Unit 1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.01035 $981,250 $10,156 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.00894 $981,250 $ 8,772 5 to 19 0.00759 $981,250 $ 7,448 20 to 49 0.00612 $981,250 $ 6,005 50 or more 0.00534 $981,250 $ 5,240 Mobile home 0.00795 $981,250 $ 7,801 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC The City may adopt Park Construction Fees under the Mitigation Fee Act for residential development projects that are equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table IV‐2. The City will incur costs to administer the fee program and to prepare the compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance requirements are identified in Chapter VII of this Report. The City may add an Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 28 administration cost factor to cover the cost of administering the programs and the cost of compliance with statutory requirements. CALCULATION OF THE PARK ACREAGE TO BE IMPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The South San Francisco General Plan establishes a standard of 0.5 acres per one‐ thousand new employees in the City. The East of 101 Area Plan reaffirms this goal and standard for that particular commercial area. Fees on commercial projects are typically applied per one‐thousand square feet of building space. The number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space varies among commercial uses. The South San Francisco General Plan provides the data for the number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space, as cited in Table IV‐3, below. Table IV‐3 calculates the park land acreage required to be improved per one‐ thousand square feet of new commercial building space by multiplying the employees per one‐thousand square feet by the acreage required per employee (0.5 acres per one‐ thousand employees is equal to .0005 acres per employee). Table IV‐3: Park Acres to be Improved per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Employees per 1,000 Square Feet Park Acres Required per Employee Acres to be Improved per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 acres .00125 acres Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 acres .00119 acres Office/R&D 2.22 .0005 acres .00111 acres Industrial 1.05 .0005 acres .00052 acres Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Park + Recreation Master Plan; Municipal Resource Group LLC CALCULATION OF THE COMMERCIAL FEE The park construction fee is based on the amount of land required to be improved (Table IV‐3) and the cost of constructing park facilities and improvements. As discussed above, hard construction costs and soft costs are estimated at $981,250 per acre. Table IV‐4 calculates the fee per one‐thousand square feet of commercial space by multiplying the required acres per unit (from Table IV‐3) by the $981,250 construction cost per acre. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 29 Table IV‐4: Park Construction Fee per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Park Acres per 1,000 Square Feet Construction Cost per Acre Fee per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail .00125 acres $981,250 $1,227 Hotel/Visitor .00119 acres $981,250 $1,168 Office/R&D .00111 acres $981,250 $1,090 Industrial .00052 acres $981,250 $ 514 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Park + Recreation Master Plan; Architecture, Research + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC The City may adopt Park Construction Fees under the Mitigation Fee Act for commercial development projects that are equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table IV‐4. AB 1600 NEXUS The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency considering an action establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to address the following procedural requirements. 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. The purpose of the Park Construction Fee is to provide funding to achieve the City’s goal of maintaining park service levels and to provide adequate recreational services for South San Francisco residents and employees, as established in the General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. 2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. The proceeds from the fees will be used to construct park facilities and improvements on three acres of park land per one‐thousand future residents and 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees, as identified in the City’s General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. 3. Determine the relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to residential development projects and commercial development projects. New residents in residential developments and new employees will place an additional demand on park and recreational facilities. The Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 30 park facilities and improvements constructed with the proceeds of the fee will address and mitigate the additional impacts and demands created by these residential and commercial development projects. 4. Determine the relationship between the need for the community facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to residential development projects and commercial development projects, which generate new residents and employees in the community. The park facilities and improvements will serve the needs of new residents in residential development projects and new employees in commercial development projects. 5. Determine the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the community facility or portion of the community facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee has been calculated by apportioning the cost of constructing park facilities and improvements to the number of residents generated by each type of new residential unit and the number of employees per one‐thousand square feet in commercial development projects. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 31 V. PARK ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES SUMMARY ______________________________________________________________________________ Table V‐1 presents the proposed Park Land Acquisition Fees (Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act) and the Park Construction Fees for residential units. The City may adopt fees equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table V‐1. Table V‐1: Total Park Fees per Residential Unit Units in Structure Park Land Acquisition Fee Park Construction Fee Total Park Fees 1 (single‐family residential unit) $31,050 $10,156 $41,206 2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) $26,820 $ 8,772 $35,592 5 to 19 $22,770 $ 7,448 $30,218 20 to 49 $18,360 $ 6,005 $24,365 50 or more $16,020 $ 5,240 $21,260 Mobile home $23, 850 $ 7,801 $31,651 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Group 4 Architecture + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC Table V‐2 presents the proposed Park Land Acquisition Fees and the Park Construction Fees for commercial developments. The City may adopt fees equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table V‐2. Table V‐2: Total Park Fees per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space Classification Park Land Acquisition Fee Park Construction Fee Total Park Fees Commercial/Retail $3,750 $1,227 $4,977 Hotel/Visitor $3,571 $1,168 $4,739 Office/R&D $3,333 $1,090 $4,423 Industrial $1,571 $ 514 $2,085 Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States Census Bureau, 2014 American Fact Finder, Table 25124; Dana Property Analysis; Group 4 Architecture + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 32 VI. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT ______________________________________________________________________________ One of the challenges in administering a mitigation fee program is that the cost of land and the cost of construction may continue to change over time, while the fees remain static, unless reviewed annually by the public agency. Many public agencies address this by including an annual fee adjustment in the resolution adopting the fees. LAND VALUE ADJUSTMENT Several different methods can be used to adjust park land values and park land acquisition fees. Some agencies conduct an annual market valuation of land and apply the percentage change in land costs to the fees. Others conduct an Assessor's Office records research for recent land sales, as compared to prior year land sales. Still others use publicized indices, such as a consumer price index or the Data Quick Information Systems’ change in median purchase prices. This Report recommends the use of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, San Francisco‐Oakland‐San Jose (AUC‐CPI) for an annual adjustment. It is recommended that the Quimby Act In‐lieu Fees and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fees be adjusted annually by the AUC‐CPI It is also recommended that a market valuation of land be prepared every five years to validate and adjust the Quimby Act In‐Lieu Fees and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fees. CONSTRUCTION COST ADJUSTMENT Several different methods can be used to adjust construction costs and Park Construction Fees. This Report recommends that the fees be adjusted by the Engineering News Record ‐ Construction Cost Index (ENR‐CCI) on an annual basis. The ENR‐CCI is a twenty‐city average of construction labor and materials costs. The ENR‐CCI is similar to a consumer price index, but one that is designed to reflect changing construction costs. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 33 VII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ______________________________________________________________________________ The City of South San Francisco may add a factor to the fees to cover the cost of compliance with applicable statutes. The compliance requirements are summarized in this Chapter. THE MITIGATION FEE ACT The Mitigation Fee Act imposes certain administrative requirements on local agencies. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66005(a) of the Act, a City is authorized to recover the full cost of providing services that are funded by the mitigation fees. This includes recovery of administrative fees incurred in compliance with the Act. The procedural and administrative requirements include the following: 1. Analysis required to enact or modify a fee: In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project, the City shall cause a report to be prepared and make findings as follows:  Identify the purpose of the fee.  Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.  Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 2. Notice and conduct a public hearing: Prior to adopting an ordinance, resolution, or other legislative enactment adopting a new fee or approving an increase in an existing fee, the City shall hold a public hearing, at which time oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, shall be published. Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 34 3. Accounting requirements The City shall deposit the fees in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the City, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee is collected. Any interest income earned by money in the capital facilities account or fund shall also be deposited in that account or fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was originally collected. 4. Annual reporting requirements; public hearing For each separate account or fund established, the City shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:  A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.  The amount of the fee.  The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund, the amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.  An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.  An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if it is determined that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement.  A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.  The amount of refunds made. The City shall review this information at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including the address where this information may be Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 35 reviewed, shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting. 5. Five year reporting requirements; public hearing For the fifth fiscal year following the first receipt of fees, and every five years thereafter, the City shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:  Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.  Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.  Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing for incomplete improvements.  Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to above is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.  For purposes of these findings, the City shall hold a public hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, shall be published. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING The Mitigation Fee Act provides that the City may adopt a capital improvement plan to identify the location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees. The capital improvement plan shall be adopted by, and shall be annually updated by a resolution of the City Council adopted at a noticed public hearing. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, shall be published. In addition, mailed notice shall be given to any city or county which may be significantly affected by the capital improvement plan. THE QUIMBY ACT In addition to the analysis, notice, hearing, accounting and reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, the Quimby Act (as codified in the California Government Code, beginning with Section 66477) adds additional requirements that must be addressed by the City. The City must adopt an ordinance meeting the following requirements: Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees 36  The ordinance must be in effect for 30 days prior to the filing of a tentative map for a subdivision subject to the dedication or in‐lieu fee requirement.  The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the in‐lieu fee. The amount of land to be dedicated and the fee must be based upon the density of each residential type.  The park area per one‐thousand residents must be derived from the ratio that the existing amount of park area bears to the existing population. A minimum ratio of three acres per one‐thousand residents is permitted where the existing ratio is less than three acres per one‐thousand residents. The City must also assure that the following conditions are met:  The dedicated land, and the fees, may only be used for developing new parks or rehabilitating existing parks.  The City must have an adopted general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards, and the park and recreational facilities must be in accordance with definite principles and standards.  The amount and location of land to be dedicated and the fees to be paid must bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities for the future inhabitants of the subdivision.  A schedule must be developed specifying how, when, and where the City will use the land or fees to develop park and recreational facilities.  Fees collected must be committed within five years of payment, or the issuance of one‐half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later.  If the fees are not committed within the applicable time frames, they must be distributed to the then owners of record. g:\15463-01 ssf park fees update\m-memos\m21 clt\m002-3 costs 18.docx MEMORANDUM GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH + PLANNING, INC 211 LINDEN AVENUE SO. SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 USA T:6508710709 F:6508717911 www.g4arch.com JONATHAN HARTMAN ARCHITECT DAWN E. MERKES ARCHITECT DAVID SCHNEE ARCHITECT JILL EYRES ARCHITECT ANDREA GIFFORD ARCHITECT WILLIAM LIM ARCHITECT 2 October 2015 Tom Sinclair MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP 675 Hartz Avenue, Suite 300 Danville CA 95602 PROJECT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES UPDATE SENT VIA E-Mail: TOPIC PARK CONSTRUCTION BUDGETS This memorandum describes the methodology and recommendation for capital budgeting for future park construction as part of Municipal Resource Group’s park development impact fee update study for the City of South San Francisco. RECOMMENDATION We are recommending a budget of approximately $18 per square foot, or approximately $785,000 per acre for park construction. As discussed in more detail below, these numbers are for construction only, and do not include soft costs. METHODOLOGY Scope of Park Construction This study considers only future parks in South San Francisco; operations and maintenance costs for current and future parks are ineligible. The City’s 2015 Parks + Recreation Master Plan identified specific future park needs. Of these proposed projects, the only one with any level of documented planning is the proposed expansion of Orange Memorial Park, which is described in the 2007 Orange Memorial Park Master Plan Update. To date, no formal planning has been done for the other projects proposed in the City’s 2015 Parks + Recreation Master Plan. On July 31, 2015, I met with Sharon Ranals and Samantha Haimovitch of the City’s Parks and Recreation Department to review potential development strategies for future parks. The purpose was not to develop a specific construction scope for each park, but to discuss the types of activities that these parks should support and the associated amenities that would be needed to support those activities. Based on this discussion, the following projects were selected as generally representative of the level/intensity of development that South San Francisco anticipates for future parks. These parks and their general scope of amenities/ improvements served as the foundation of the construction budget for future parks. 2 October 2015 Tom Sinclair Memorandum Page 2 Sample Parks Used for Cost Model Park Type Acres 1. Orange Memorial Park Expansion community park 7.6 2. El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Park community park 9.1 3. Downtown Park neighborhood park 2.0 4. East of 101 Park neighborhood park 2.0 5. Sunshine Gardens Elementary playlot (on SSFUSD property) 0.5 6. Linden & Armour Park mini park 0.3 7. Miller Avenue Playlot playlot/mini park 0.4 8. Railroad Avenue Linear Park linear park 7.5 9. Lindenville Linear Park linear park 1.6 10. PG&E Corridor Park linear park 4.0 11. SFPUC/Elkwood Linear Park linear park 0.4 Total Acres Used in Analysis 35.4 Park Construction Cost Model Costs for park construction were generally developed on a per-unit basis. Reference materials included City-provided data on recent park construction projects (such as the 2014-2015 improvements at Buri Buri Park, Clay Avenue Playground, Francisco Terrace Playlot, and Winston Manor #1 Park); anticipated construction costs for development of Brentwood Park (currently in design); and the anticipated costs for projects identified in the 2015 South San Francisco Parks Deferred Maintenance Assessment. These unit costs were adjusted as needed to include contractor overhead and profit and for escalation to 2015 as appropriate. For perspective, we also connected with some of the landscape consultants with whom we work regularly to review the trends they’re seeing in park construction costs in the Bay Area and Northern California. The amenities planned for selected future parks were quantified and totaled, and the unit costs were applied to each, as follows: Amenity Quantity Cost/ Cost Range Extended Cost Diamond fields 2 fields $275,000/each $550,000 Soccer/rectangular fields (including lights) 2 fields $310,000/each $620,000 Basketball/hard courts 1 court $55,000/each $55,000 BBQ area 3 areas $80,000/each $240,000 Play equipment (including base/footing, etc.) 8 structures $350,000/each $2,100,000 Small park building (e.g., restroom, concessions) 5 buildings $200,000/each $1,000,000 Site demolition/preparation ~950,000 SF $4-$5/SF $3,990,000 Site equipment – benches, water fountains, etc. ~950,000 SF $0.5-$1/SF $670,000 Hardscape – parking, walkways, plazas, etc. ~110,000 SF $10-$25/SF $1,590,000 Landscaping (including irrigation, drainage, etc.) ~550,000 SF $4-10/SF $2,120,000 Linear park (inclusive of all developments) ~590,000 SF $15/SF $8,850,000 Subtotal $21,400,000 Design contingency* 15% $3,210,000 Construction contingency** 10% $2,140,000 Construction Budget for 11 sample parks ~$16/SF $26,750,000 * design contingency to allow for development of the program and design at individual future parks ** construction contingency to accommodate unforeseen issues/changes during construction 2 October 2015 Tom Sinclair Memorandum Page 3 The budget model also includes an allowance of $4.5 million for improvements at the Terra Bay, Sign Hill, and Skyline open space amenities proposed in the 2015 Parks + Recreation Master Plan, which represents approximately $2 per square foot in addition to the per-square-foot construction budget for parks. Together, the total amount represents an estimate of what these future parks and open space projects would cost to build today. Dividing the total construction cost by the combined total park development area resulted in the recommended construction cost per square foot and per acre. DISCUSSION These estimates are for construction only. They include allowances for general conditions, contractor overhead and profit, and design and construction contingencies. They do not include design fees or other soft costs (which could be budgeted at 20%-30% of construction), escalation beyond 2015, land acquisition, surveying, geotechnical services, hazardous materials abatement, project management services, construction management services, etc. The absence of detailed scope for most of the proposed future park projects is a factor in this methodology. In some cases, land for the proposed future parks has not yet been identified or acquired. The contingencies we have built into this cost model should accommodate minor variations in project size and development scope as the City moves forward with individual projects. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss our methodology. Jill Eyres Associate JE/s June 14, 2017 1 ◦For capital improvements to accommodate population growth; and ◦Ensures that new development pays its fair share ◦3 DIFs: Park Land Acquisition and Construction Sewer Capacity Charge Bike and Pedestrian Impact 2 Land Use Type Current Fee Study Recommend* Market Average Staff Recommend Single Family $20,603 $41,606 $30,923 $29,124 Multi-Family $10,630 $21,466 $24,962 $15,026 Commercial/ Retail N/A $5,025 $3,022 $3,517 *Adjusted by Cost Construction Index ** Residential land use by unit; Non-residential by 1,000 sq ft 3 Land Use Type Current Fee Study Recommend Market Average Staff Recommend Single Family $3,944 $4,786 $6,564 $4,786 Multi-Family $2,997 $3,637 $6,984 $3,637 Commercial/ Retail $1,065 $1,292 $3,321 $1,292 4 Previous Three Fys: $2.2M Projected Three Fys: $7.8M New Fee Bicycle Master Plan adopted 2011; ◦List of Improvements – $11.9M ◦New development’s share - $1.5M; New development – 13.08% of ADT Cost per ADT $25.31; 5 Land Use Current Study Recommend Staff Recommend Single Family $0 $243 $243 Multi-Family $0 $169 $169 Commercial/ Retail $0 $364 $364 6 Based on Average Daily Trip (ADT) for each land use type; Residential calculated per unit; Non-Residential calculated per 1,000 sq ft Anticipated $418,200 over next three years Description Single Family Multi Family Commercial / Retail Current $27,811 $16,041 $2,185 Market $39,533 $33,528 $8,350 Proposed $37,417 $21,260 $6,273 7 8 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-615 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution updating the Sewer Capacity Charge established pursuant to Resolution 39-2010 to increase the charge for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco (“City") was adopted in 1999 by Resolution No. 139-99, and contains policies requiring that future residents and businesses equitably share the costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development in the City (Policies 5.3-G-5, 5.3-I-5); and WHEREAS, development anticipated under the General Plan would require replacing and upgrading existing sanitary sewer infrastructure facilities and constructing new facilities to adequately serve the community; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which describes all of the City's capital improvement projects, including the infrastructure necessary to adequately serve development anticipated under the General Plan, which CIP is available for review at the City of South San Francisco Public Works Division, 550 N. Canal, San Francisco, CA 94080; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted and enforces a sewer capacity charge, imposed on new development and certain redevelopment, which charge was last updated in 2010; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with Michael Baker International to update the Citywide Sewer Capacity Fee and demonstrate the nexus between the proposed updated charge and the new development that will be responsible for paying the charge (Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update, May 2017, hereafter "Study"); and, WHEREAS, upon adoption, this Resolution supersedes all prior resolutions pertaining to imposition of a Sewer Capacity Charge; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2017, the City Council held a lawfully noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Sewer Capacity Charge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the South San Francisco General Plan; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; the Development Impact Mitigation City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2017Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-615 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7a. Fee Update, prepared by Michael Baker International, dated May 2017; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Budget Standing Committee study session on May 25, 2017; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Councils’ duly noticed public hearing on June 14, 2017, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update, prepared by Michael Baker International, dated May 2017 and attached as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting; the record for these proceedings are located and available for review during regular business hours at the City of South San Francisco City Clerk’s Office, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080. 4.The Sewer Capacity Charge set forth in this Resolution, is a "capacity charge" as that term is defined in Government Code, § 66013(b)(3), the purpose of which is to finance the replacement and renewal of existing sanitary sewer facilities and the upgrade and construction of new sanitary sewer facilities to reduce impacts caused by future development and redevelopment in the City. 5.The Sewer Capacity Charge set forth in this Resolution does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the charge is imposed, because, as demonstrated in more detail in Exhibit A, the charge imposes a proportional share of City’s total sewer system investment, including specified future capital improvement projects, on new development requesting a connection to the sewer system, and redevelopment resulting in an increase in the use of the sewer system. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the Sewer Capacity Charge set forth in this Resolution and the type of development projects on which such charges are imposed in that all development in the City-both residential and non-residential-generates or contributes to the need for the sewer facilities and improvements listed in the Study. Additionally, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and improvements listed in the Study and the type of development projects on which the Sewer Capacity Charges set forth in this Resolution are imposed in that new development in the City-both residential and non-residential-will generate persons who live, work and/or visit the City and who generate or contribute to the need for the facilities and improvements listed in the Study. 6.Based on a recent flow monitoring report, a sewer flow of 188 gallons per day is representative of 1.0 Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The proportional flow rates for higher density residential land use types serve as justification for EDU factors of 0.76 for Multi-Family and 0.59 for Mobile Homes. The Study indicates that anticipated flow volume, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and the total suspended solids (TSS) serve as reasonable cost parameters in calculating the EDU for non-residential land use types. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2017Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-615 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7a. 7.Collection, management, and expenditure of the Sewer Capacity Charge will comply with the requirements of Government Code § 66013, because as demonstrated in this Resolution, the charge and any interest accrued will be deposited in a separate fund, and the City will annually report on the monies collected and expended. 8.In adopting and imposing the Sewer Capacity Charge, the City has complied with the procedures for adoption described in Government Code § § 66016, 66017, and 66018, because 14 days prior to the scheduled public hearing written notice was mailed to all individuals requesting notice of such increases, 10 days prior to the public hearing the data indicating the amount of estimated cost required to provide the service for which the fee is charged and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the services were made available for public inspection at City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, the City held a lawfully noticed public hearing on June 14, 2017, at which oral and written presentations could be made, the proposed capacity charge is to be adopted by resolution, and the proposed capacity charge will not become effective until August 14, 2017, which is more than sixty days from the date of the public hearing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the entirety of the record as described above, and for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, including the incorporated Exhibit, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, hereby adopts the Sewer Capacity Charge, as set forth below: I. Definitions. A. " Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU”) shall mean a unit of measurement, which as described in the Study, is equivalent to 188 gallons of daily flow plus 0.39 pounds per day of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) plus 0.28 pounds per day of total suspended solids (TSS). B. " Facilities" shall mean those facilities that are described in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and the Study, and that are necessitated in whole or in part by new connections to the Sewer Facilities or increased usage of existing connections. “Facilities" shall also include comparable alternative facilities, should future circumstances, including but not limited to changes in projections of development in the region, unforeseen maintenance issues, or infeasibility of certain capital improvement projects, necessitate construction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later determines in accordance with applicable law (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between the development within the City and the need for alternative facilities; (2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities listed in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Study; and (3) that revenue from charges charged pursuant to this Resolution will be used only to pay the charge payors' fair and proportionate share of alternative facilities. C. " Sewer Capacity Charge" shall mean one-time charge imposed at the time a user newly connects to City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2017Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-615 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7a. the Sewer Facilities, directly or indirectly, or upon a user increasing their use of the Sewer Facilities, as described in Section II and further set forth in this Resolution. D. " Sewer Facilities" shall mean the gravity collection lines, pump stations, a wastewater treatment plant, a disposal system, and other related apparatuses and appurtenances, used by the City as a means of collecting, treating, anddisposing of wastewater from residential and non-residential users. II. Sewer Capacity Charge Imposed. A. Effective August 14, 2017, in accordance with California Government Code § 66013, a Sewer Capacity Charge shall be imposed and paid at times and in the amount prescribed in this Resolution, on users that connect to the Sewer Facilities for the first time, and on users that increase their sanitary sewer usage due to: (1) changes in or any improvements to residential uses resulting in an increased Equivalent Dwelling Unit calculation for the use; or (2) changes in or any improvements to nonresidential uses, resulting in an increased Equivalent Dwelling Unit calculation for the use. B. A replacement or reconstruction of a residential or non-residential structure that has been damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity or act of God, shall not be subject to payment of the Sewer Capacity Charge, provided that (1) there is no change in use of the structure; and (2) the number Equivalent Dwelling Units in the replaced or reconstructed structure do not exceed the number of Equivalent Dwelling Units in the damaged or destroyed structure. Any excess Equivalent Dwelling Units shall be subject to the Sewer Capacity Charge. III. Amount of Sewer Capacity Charge. A. For residential users, the amount of the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be equal to four thousand, seven-hundred eighty five dollars and 88 cents per ($4,785.88) per Equivalent Dwelling Unit as adjusted pursuant to Section IX of this Resolution. The number of Equivalent Dwelling Units for a particular residential use shall be determined by the Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent, or his or her designee in accordance with chart with below. For uses that are not clearly identified below, the Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent has the authority to assign a classification based on the most similar use. Residential Land Use EDU Factor Single-Family Home 1.00 Multi-Family 0.76 Mobile Home 0.59 City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2017Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-615 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7a. B. For non-residential users, the amount of the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be equal to four thousand, seven-hundred eighty five dollars and 88 cents per ($4,785.88) per Equivalent Dwelling Unit as adjusted pursuant to Section IX of this Resolution. The number of Equivalent Dwelling Units for a particular non-residential use shall be determined by the Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent, or his or her designee, in accordance with the following formula: EDUs = (0.00347 x Flow) + (0.362 x BOD) + (0.589 X TSS), where "Flow" equals the user's average daily flow measured in gallons per day, "BOD" equals the user's biochemical oxygen demand measured in pounds per day, and "TSS" equals the user's total suspended solids measured in pounds per day. A non- residential user’s Flow, BOD, and TSS shall be determined by the Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent, or his or her designee. C. For mixed-use projects that contain a residential component, the amount of the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be equal to the sum of (i) the Sewer Capacity Charge that would be imposed on the residential portion of the project pursuant to Subsection(A), and (ii) the Sewer Capacity Charge that would be imposed on the non-residential portion of the project pursuant to subsection(B). IV. Time for Imposing and Payment of Sewer Capacity Charge. A. For residential projects and the residential portion of mixed-use projects, the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be imposed and paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. B. For non-residential projects, and the non-residential portion of mixed-use projects, the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be imposed and paid prior to issuance of a building permit, except that the Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent, or his or her designee, may allow for payment of the Sewer Capacity Charge at a later date, provided that in no case shall a final certificate of occupancy be issued prior to payment of the applicable Sewer Capacity Charge. V. Establishment of Sewer Capacity Charge Fund. The existing "Sewer Capacity Charge Fund," shall be the fund into which all monies collected pursuant to the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be deposited. VI. Use of Sewer Capacity Charge Revenue. In accordance with California Government Cade Section 66013(c), the revenues raised by payment of the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be placed in a separate, interest bearing account City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2017Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-615 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7a. to permit accounting for such revenues and the interest which they generate. Such revenues and interest shall be used only for the purposes for which this Sewer Capacity Charge was collected, which are the following: A.To pay for acquisition of the Facilities. B.To pay for design, engineering, construction of and property acquisition for, and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related to, the Facilities. C.To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed or reconstructed by the City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless such funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to lie used for the Facilities. D.To reimburse persons who have designated and constructed or reconstructed any of the Facilities with prior City approval and have entered into a reimbursement agreement. E.To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the Sewer Capacity Charge program, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies, legal costs, and other costs of adopting and updating the Sewer Capacity Charge. VII. Accounting. A.In accordance with California Government Code Section 66013(d), the City shall make available to the public, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, and may include as part of the City's annual financial report, the following information for that fiscal year: 1.A description of the charges deposited in the fund. 2.The beginning and ending balance of the account and the interest earned from investment of moneys in the fund. 3. The amount of charges collected in that fiscal year. 4.An identification of the following: i.Each public improvement on which charges were expended and the amount of the expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost of the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one source of funding was used. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2017Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-615 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7a. ii.Each public improvement on which charges were expended that was completed during the fiscal year. iii.Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the following year. 5.A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the Sewer Capacity Charge Fund. The information provided, in the case of an interfund transfer, shall identify the public improvements on which the transferred money are, or will be, expended. The information, in the case of an interfund loan, shall include the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the fund will receive can the loan. B.The information required pursuant to this Section 7 may be included in the City's annual financial report. C.The information prescribed in this Section 7 shall not apply to: 1.Money received to construct public facilities pursuant to a contract between a local agency and a person or entity, including, but not limited to, a reimbursement agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 66003. 2.Charges that are used to pay existing debt service or which are subject to a contract with a trustee for bondholders that require a different: account of the charges, or charges that are used to reimburse the local agency or to reimburse a person or entity who advanced funds under a reimbursement agreement or contract for facilities in existence at the time the charges are collected. VIII. Master Fee Schedule The City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule shall include the Sewer Capacity Charge, as set forth in this Resolution. IX. Sewer Capacity Charge Adjustments. Annually, beginning January 1, 2018, the Sewer Capacity Charge shall automatically adjust by the percentage change in the San Francisco Construction Cost Index (CCI) as reported in the Engineering News Record for the twelve-month period ending in October of the previous year. The adjusted per EDU Sewer Capacity Charge; for residential users shall be rounded to the nearest hundredth of a dollar. The adjusted per EDU Sewer Capacity Charge for non-residential users shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. X. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Sewer Capacity Charge. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2017Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-615 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7a. The Sewer Capacity Charge set forth herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the record of these proceeding, described above, including the CIP and Study. The City may continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Sewer Capacity Charge should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council may review the Sewer Capacity Charge to determine that the Sewer Capacity Charge amounts are reasonably related to the impact of new or expanded usage of the Sewer Facilities. In addition to the inflation adjustments pursuant to Section IX, the City Council may revise the Sewer Capacity Charge, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies. XI. Severability. Each component of the Sewer Capacity Charge and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Sewer Capacity Charge or any portion of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining Sewer Capacity Charge components and/or Resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those 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, irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase, or other portion mad be held invalid or unconstitutional. XII. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. The Sewer Capacity Charge adopted by this Resolution, however, shall not become effective, and shall not be imposed until August 14, 2017. 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 14th day of June, 2017 by the following vote: 2823207.1 ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2017Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-617 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7b. Ordinance amending Chapter 8.67 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code revising the method of calculation for the Parkland Acquisition Fee and a Parks Construction Fee and expanding application of the fees to nonresidential developments to mitigate the impacts of new developments on park and recreational facilities in the city Refer to attached ordinance. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ REVISED 6-14-17 ORDINANCE NO. ___________ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE AMENDINGCHAPTER 8.67OFTHE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING THE METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR THE PARKLAND ACQUISITION FEE AND A PARKS CONSTRUCTION FEE AND EXPANDING APPLICATION OF THE FEES TO NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTSOF NEW DEVELOPMENTSON PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY ______________________________________________________ WHEREAS, parks and recreational facilities are vital to the health and welfare of a community; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco(“City”) aims to provide sufficientlevels of parks and recreationalfacilities for its residents; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan aim to provide three acres of parks and recreational facilities per 1,000 residents; and WHEREAS, the City General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan also aim to provide one-half acres of parks and recreational facilities per 1,000 employees; and WHEREAS, Guiding Policy 5.1-G-1 of the City’s General Plan provides that the City should “[d]evelop additional parkland in the city, particularly inareas lacking these facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and employees;” and, WHEREAS, ImplementingPolicy 5.1-1-2of the City’s General Plan provides that the City should “[m]aintainparkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees;” and WHEREAS, Goal #1 of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan provides that the City “should provide a minimumof 3 acres of developed park land per 1,000 residentsand 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees”; and WHEREAS, in 2016 the City contracted with the Municipal Resources Group (MRG)to analyze the relationship between new development in the City and the cost of public facilities to serve that growth and determined that there is a reasonable nexus between the proposed Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee and the types ofnew development that will be responsible for paying the fee (Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees Report 2016, hereafter “Study,” attached to the associated staff report, but incorporated by this reference as though set out fully herein); and REVISED 6-14-17 WHEREAS, new residential development projects attract new residentsto the city, which generates increased demand for parks and recreational facilities and impacts existing park service levels; and WHEREAS, new non-residential development projects attract new employees to the city, which generates increased demand for parks and recreational facilities and impacts existing park service levels; and WHEREAS, the City may adopt and impose a parkland acquisition fee and a parkconstruction fee to pay for thecost of acquiring and constructing park facilities needed to support new development under the authority of Sections66000et seq.of the California Government Code (“Mitigation Fee Act”); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 66019 of the Mitigation Fee Act, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the public hearing at which this Ordinance was introduced, notice of the time and place of the hearing was mailed to 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 Section 66019, the Fee Study was available for public inspection, review, and comment for ten (10) days prior to the public hearing at which the Council considered the adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, ten (10) days advance notice of the public hearing at which this Ordinance was introduced was given by publication in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City seeks to adopt this Ordinance to mitigate the impacts caused by new development by providingfor the payment of development impact fees necessaryfor the Cityto acquire property and construct parks and recreational facilities and to maintain desirable levels of parks and recreational facilities for new and existing residentsand employees; and, WHEREAS,the action taken by this Ordinance has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an adoption of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project, and said fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or activities, each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b)(1)). Therefore, approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4); and, even if considered a “project” under CEQA, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the updated fees and/or charges may have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, theCity Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: REVISED 6-14-17 SECTION 1.Amendments The City Council hereby amendsChapter 8.67to the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as followswith additions in double-underlineand deletions in strikethroughand finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the Ordinance by this reference. Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. 8.67.010 Purpose. The City Council finds and determines that in order to provide sufficient funding to achieve the City’s goal of maintaining park service levels and providing adequate parks and recreational servicesand facilitiesto residents of the city,in accordance with the standards established in the General Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan,and other applicable plans and regulations, development projects identified in Section 8.67.050 below shall pay a Parkland AcquisitionFeeand a Park ConstructionFee as outlined in this Chapter, andin orderto mitigate the impacts of these development projects on parks and recreational services and facilities in the city. (a) Thespecificpurpose of the Parkland Acquisition Feeis to mitigate the impact of development projects by collecting sufficient funds to acquire propertyin the city andprovide three acres of parkland per 1,000 residentsand one-half acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees. (b) The specific purpose of the Park Construction Fee is to mitigate the impact of development projects on park facilities by collecting sufficient funds to constructadequate park facilitiesand improvementsin the city andprovide three acres ofimproved parkland per 1,000 residentsand one-half acres of improved parkland per 1,000 new employees. 8.67.020Parkland acquisition fee and parkconstruction fee findings. (a) Parkland Acquisition Fee.The City Councilfinds and determines that: (1)There is a reasonable relationship between the Parkland Acquisition Fee and the type of development projectsto which the fee is imposed because the residential development projects that aresubject to the fee outlined in this chapter will place additional demands on park and recreational facilities in the city. The parkland acquired with the proceeds of thisfee will address and mitigate the additional impacts created by these development projects. (2)There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the additional parkland and the typeof development projects subject to the fees outlined in this chapter because these development projects will attract additional residentsand employeesto the city REVISED 6-14-17 that will place a greater demand on park and recreational land.The parkland acquired with the proceeds of thisfee will serve those new residentsand employees. (3)There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of providing the parkland attributable to the types of development upon which the fee is imposed because,pursuant to Section 8.67.070 below, the fee is calculated by apportioning the cost of acquiring the required additional parkland to the number of residents projected to reside ineach type of new residential unitor by apportioning the cost of acquiringthe additional parklandto the number of employees projected to be generated by non-residential development projects. (b) Parks Construction Fee.The City Council finds and determines that: (1)There is a reasonable relationship between the ParkConstruction Fee and the type of development projects to which the fee is imposed because the residential development projects that are subject to the fee outlined in this chapter will place additional demands on park and recreational facilities in the city and the park facilities constructed with the proceeds of the fee will address and mitigate the additional impacts created by these development projects. (2)There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the additional park facilities and the type of development projects subject to the fee outlined in this Chapter because these development projects will attract additional residentsand employeesto the city that will place a greater demand on parks and recreational facilities and the park facilities constructed with the proceeds of this fee will serve those new residents and employees. (3)There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of thefee and the cost of providing the parks and recreational facilities attributable to thetypeof developmentsupon which the fee is imposed because,pursuant to Section 8.67.070 below, the fee is calculated by apportioning the cost of constructing the additional park facilities to the number of residents projected to reside ineach type of new residential unitor by apportioning the cost of constructing the additional park facilities to the number of employees projected to be generated by non-residential development projects. 8.67.030Relation of parkland and improvements to population and employment density. The City Council findsand determinesthat the public interest, convenience, health, welfare,and safety require that three acres of propertyand improvements, for each 1,000 persons residing within the city, and one-half acres of property and improvements, for each 1,000 persons employed within the city,be devoted to parksand recreational purposes. 8.67.050Application of parkland acquisition fee and parks and recreation construction fee. REVISED 6-14-17 (a) Parkland Acquisition Fee.The following types of developments shall be required to pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and ParkConstruction Feeestablished pursuant to this Chapter: (1a) Subdivisions with fewer thanfive (5)parcels that are not otherwise required to dedicate land or pay in-lieu fees pursuant to Sections19.24.030 through 19.24.110; (2b) Multi-family residential rental development projects; (3c) Existing residential lots that have not previously dedicated land or paid fees pursuant to Chapter 19.24. (4d) Any other residential development project that is not otherwise required to dedicate land or pay an in-lieu fee pursuant to Section 19.24.030 through 19.24.110; (5) Non-residential development projects. (b) Park Construction Fee. All residential and non-residential development projects shall be required to pay the Park Construction Fee pursuant to this Chapter. (c) A development project that has submitted a complete application prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall pay the applicable Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Feein effect at the time the application was filed with the City, at the time specified by Section 8.67.040 of this Chapter. 8.67.060Calculation of the parkland acquisition fee and parkconstruction fee. (a) In calculating the Parkland Acquisition Fee for residential developmentpursuant to subsection (b) and ParksConstruction Feefor residential developmentpursuant to subsection (c)of this section, the City will use the data contained in Formula Table 8.67.060(a) below. In calculating the Parkland Acquisition Fee for non-residential development pursuant to subsection (d) and Parks Construction Fee for non-residential development pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, the City will use the data contained in Formula Table 8.67.060(b) below. Parkland Acquisition andParks and RecreationImprovements Formula for Residential Development Table 8.67.060(a) Units in Structure Acres per Resident Average Residents per Unit Parkland Acres Required per Unit/Parks and Recreation Improvements Required per Unit REVISED 6-14-17 1 (single-family residential unit) .003 3.45 .01035 2 to 4 (duplex to four- plex) .003 2.98 .00894 5 to 19 .003 2.53 .00759 20 to 49 .003 2.04 .00612 50 or more .003 1.78 .00534 Mobile Home .003 2.65 .00795 Parkland Acquisition and Parks and Recreation Improvements Formula for Non- Residential Development Table 8.67.060(b) Land Use Type Employees per 1,000 Square Feet Park Land Acres Required per Employee Parkland Acres Required per 1,000 Square Feet/Parks and Recreation Improvements Required per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 .00125 Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 .00119 Office/R&D 2.22 .0005 .00111 Industrial 1.05 .0005 .00052 (b) Parkland Acquisition Feefor Residential Development.The Parkland Acquisition Fee for residential developmentshall be calculated by multiplying the number of units in a development by the average number of residents per unit as shown in Formula Table 8.67.060(a)above, thenby .003 (equal to threeacres per 1,000 residents), thenby the average fair market value (FMV) per acre of land in the city,reduced by afactorof.350. The average FMV per acre of land in the city shall be determined pursuant to subsection (fd) below. REVISED 6-14-17 Formula 8.67.060 (b) Units in Development XAverage Residents per Unit X.003 (3 acres/ 1,000 people) X Average FMV per acre X.750 =Parkland Acquisition Fee (c) Park Construction Feefor Residential Development.The Park Construction Fee for residential developmentshall be calculated by multiplying the number of units in the development by the average number of residents per unit as shown in Formula Table 8.67.060(a) above, thenby .003 (equal to threeacres per 1,000 residents), thenby the average construction cost per acre, reducedby a factor of .350. The average cost of construction per acre in the city shall be determined pursuant to subsection (fe) below. Formula 8.67.060 (c) Units in Development XAverage Residents per Unit X.003 (3 acres/ 1,000 people) X Average Construction Cost per acre X.750 =Parks and Recreation Construction Feefor Residential Development (d) Parkland Acquisition Fee for Non-Residential Development. The Parkland Acquisition Fee for non-residential development shall be calculated by multiplying the total square feet of the development divided by 1,000, by the average number of employees per 1,000 square feet shown in Formula Table 8.67.060 (b) above, then by .0005 (equal to 0.5 acres per 1,000 employees), then by the average fair market value (FMV) per acre of land in the city, reduced by a factor of .30. The average FMVper acre of land in the city shall be determined pursuant to subsection (f) below Formula 8.67.060 (d) Total square feet /1,000 square feet X Average number of employees per 1,000 square feet X .0005 (0.5 acres per 1,000 employees) X Average FMV per acre of land X .70 =Parkland Acquisition Fee for Non- Residential Development (e) Park Construction Fee for Non-Residential Development.The ParkConstruction Fee for non-residential development shall be calculated by multiplying the total square feet of REVISED 6-14-17 the development divided by 1,000, by the average number of employees per 1,000 square feet shown in Formula Table 8.67.060 (b) above, then by .0005(equal to 0.5 acres per 1,000 employees), then by the average construction cost per acre of land in the city, reduced by a factor of .30. The average construction cost per acre of land in the city shall be determined pursuant to subsection (g) below. Formula 8.67.060 (e) Total square feet /1,000 square feet X Average number of employees per 1,000 square feet X .0005 (0.5 acres per 1,000 employees) X Average Construction Costper acre of land X .70 =Park Construction Fee for Non- Residential Development (fd) Determining Average Fair Market Value per Acre.In order to determine the fair market of land per acre forpurposes of this Chapter, the City will obtain a written appraisal from a qualified appraiser assessing the average fair market value of land per acre in the City of South San Francisco. Such appraisal setting the fair market value of land in the city shall be approved by resolution of the City Council. A new appraisal may be periodically conducted to reflect changes in the real estate market; provided, however, that such appraisal may not be conductedmore than once per year. (ge) Determining Average Construction Cost per Acre.In order to determine the average hard and soft construction costs per acre, the City will obtain an estimate of these costs from a qualified architecture or construction firm. Such estimate setting the average construction cost per acre shall be approved by resolution of the City Council. A new estimate may be periodically conducted to reflect changes in the cost of construction; provided, however, that such estimate may not be conducted more than once per year. (hf) Administrative Fee.The City may collect a reasonable administrative fee to cover the cost of administering the program described in this Chapter, asdetermined by the Finance Director and approvedby resolution of the City Council. (i) Annual Construction CostAdjustment.Fees paid pursuant to this section maywill be adjusted annually by the same percentage as the latest increase or decrease in in accordance with the All Urban Consumers Consumer Price Index, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (AUC-CPI) the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco area. The adjustment shall be based on a comparison of the most recent CCI to the CCI in the month of adoption of the Fee, or the Index used for the prior adjustment of the Fee. The Finance Director shall compute the increase or decrease in such Fee. The first adjustment will take effect on the second July 1st following the adoption of this resolution and each subsequent July 1st.Such annual adjustment shall be approved by resolution of the City Council. 8.67.070Use of parkland acquisition fee and parkconstruction fee. REVISED 6-14-17 The Parkland Acquisition Fee and the ParkConstruction Fee funds shall only be used for the purposes outlined in this Chapter and to further the requirements outlined below: (a) Parkland Acquisition Fee. The Parkland Acquisition Fee shall be used for purpose of acquiring sufficient acreage to provide threeacres of parkland per 1,000residents andone-half acre of parkland per 1,000 new employees of the city. (b) Parks Construction Fee. The Park Construction Fee shall be used for the purpose of constructing parks and recreation facilities and to provide adequate suchfacilities on threeacres of parkland per 1,000residents and one-half acresof parkland per 1,000 new employeesof the city. 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 otherpersons 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 any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 3.Publication and Effective Date Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days from and after its adoption. ***** Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the 14th day of June, 2017. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of theCity Council held the ____day of _________, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: REVISED 6-14-17 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing ordinance this day of , 2017. Pradeep Gupta, PhD, Mayor 2823225.2 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-618 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:7c. Ordinance adding Chapter 8.68 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code requiring payment of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee to mitigate the impacts of new developments on bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the city Refer to attached ordinance. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ ORDINANCE NO. ___________ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 8.68 TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPACT FEE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS ON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY ______________________________________________________ WHEREAS, bicycle and pedestrian improvements are vital to the health and welfare of a community; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) aims to provide sufficient levels of bicycle and pedestrian improvements for residents, employees, and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, which is included in the City’s General Plan Transportation Element, recommends completion of the City’s existing network of bicycle paths, lanes and routes; and WHEREAS, the improvements recommended in the Bicycle Master Plan total 16.06 miles, at a total cost of $11,952,453; and WHEREAS, new development’s fair share was based on the proportion of the total Citywide average daily trips (ADT) generated by new development by 2040; and WHEREAS, new development’s fair share of the Bicycle Master Plan improvement projects is 13.08 percent, or $1,563,381; and WHEREAS, the cost of $25.31 per ADT is based on new development’s share of the Bicycle Master Plan Improvement costs and ADT; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to assess the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee through the Mitigation Fee Act; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with Michael Baker International to analyze the relationship between new development in the City and the cost of public facilities to serve that growth and determined that there is a reasonable nexus between the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee and the types of new development that will be responsible for paying the fee (Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update, May 2017, hereafter “Study,” attached to the associated staff report, but incorporated by this reference as though set out fully herein); and WHEREAS, new development projects attract new residents, employees and visitors to the city, which generates increased demand for bicycle and pedestrian improvements; and WHEREAS, the City may adopt and impose a Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee to pay for the cost of bicycle and pedestrian improvements needed to support new development under the authority of Sections 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code (“Mitigation Fee Act”); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 66019 of the Mitigation Fee Act, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the public hearing at which this Ordinance was introduced, notice of the time and place of the hearing was mailed to 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 Section 66019, the Fee Study was available for public inspection, review, and comment for ten (10) days prior to the public hearing at which the Council considered the adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, ten (10) days advance notice of the public hearing at which this Ordinance was introduced was given by publication in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City seeks to adopt this Ordinance to mitigate the impacts caused by new development by providing for the payment of development impact fees necessary for the City to improve bicycle and pedestrian paths, lanes and routes and to maintain desirable levels of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure for new and existing residents, visitors, and employees; and WHEREAS, the action taken by this Ordinance has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an adoption of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project, and said fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or activities, each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b)(1)). Therefore, approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4); and, even if considered a “project” under CEQA, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the updated fees and/or charges may have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Amendments The City Council hereby adds Chapter 8.68 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows and finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the Ordinance by this reference. Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. Chapter 8.68 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Ordinance 8.68.010 Purpose. 8.68.020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee findings. 8.68.030 Relation of bicycle and pedestrian improvements to population density and employment growth. 8.68.040 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee established/Timing of payment. 8.68.050 Application of bicycle and pedestrian impact fee. 8.68.060 Calculation of the bicycle and pedestrian impact fee. 8.68.070 Use of bicycle and pedestrian impact fee. 8.68.010 Purpose. The City Council finds and determines that in order to provide sufficient funding to achieve the City’s goal of maintaining bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure levels and providing adequate bicycle and pedestrian improvements to residents, employees, and visitors of the city, in accordance with the standards established in the General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and other applicable plans and regulations, development projects identified in Section 8.68.050 below shall pay a Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee as outlined in this Chapter, in order to mitigate the impacts of these development projects on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the city. The specific purpose of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee is to mitigate the impact of development projects by collecting sufficient funds to pay for the bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the city that are listed in the Bicycle Master Plan. 8.68.020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee findings. (a) Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee. The City Council finds and determines that: (1) There is a reasonable relationship between the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee and the type of development projects to which the fee is imposed because the development projects that are the subject to the fee outlined in this chapter will generate additional daily trips that will place additional demands on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the city. The bicycle and pedestrian improvements built with the proceeds of this fee will address and mitigate the additional impacts created by these development projects. (2) There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements and the type of development projects subject to the fee outlined in this chapter because these development projects will attract additional residents, visitors, and employees to the city that will place a greater demand on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The bicycle and pedestrian improvements constructed with the proceeds of this fee will serve those new residents, visitors and employees. (3) There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of providing the bicycle and pedestrian improvements attributable to the types of development upon which the fee is imposed because, pursuant to Section 8.68.070 below, the fee is calculated by apportioning the cost of paying for the required additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the number of trips projected to be generated by each type of new residential unit, and to the number of trips projected to be generated by each new type of non-residential unit. 8.68.030 Relation of bicycle and pedestrian improvements to health and welfare. The City Council finds and determines that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided for residents, visitors, and employees of the City. 8.68.040 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee established/Timing of payment. (a) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee is hereby established, pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (b) Payment of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee shall be imposed as a condition of development for every type of development project specified in Section 8.68.060. (c) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee shall be charged to and paid by each development subject to the fees upon the date of final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the development, whichever is earlier. However, if the fees are to reimburse the City for expenditures previously made, or if the City determines that the fees will be collected for bicycle and pedestrian improvements for which an account has been established and funds appropriated, and for which the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule prior to issuance of the building permit for such development projects, then the fee or fees shall be charged and paid upon issuance of the building permit for such development. However, with respect to a residential development proposed by a nonprofit housing developer in which at least 49 percent of the total units are reserved for occupancy by lower income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 at an affordable rent, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053, the payment procedures described in Government Code section 66007(b)(2)(A)-(B) shall apply. 8.68.050 Application of bicycle and pedestrian impact fee. All residential and non-residential development projects shall be required to pay the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee established pursuant to this Chapter. 8.68.060 Calculation of the bicycle and pedestrian impact fee. (a) In calculating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee pursuant to subsection (b), the City will use the data contained in Formula Table 8.68.060(a) below. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Formula Table 8.68.060(a) Land Use Type ADT per Units or 1,000 square feet Cost per ADT(*) Residential, per unit Single Family 9.60 $25.31 Multi-Family 6.70 $25.31 Mobile Homes 5.00 $25.31 Non-Residential, per 1,000 square feet Office 3.71 $25.31 Commercial/Retail 14.40 $25.31 Hotel/Visitor Services (rooms) 9.45 $25.31 Industrial 4.91 $25.31 * Cost per ADT may be adjusted annually pursuant to subsection (d) (b) Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Formula. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee formula shall be calculated by multiplying the number of average daily trips (ADT) per unit or 1,000 square feet generated by a particular development type by the cost per ADT. Formula 8.68.060 (b) ADT per unit or 1,000 square feet X Cost per ADT = Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee (c) Administrative Fee. The City may collect a reasonable administrative fee to cover the cost of administering the program described in this Chapter, as determined by the Finance Director and approved by resolution of the City Council. (d) Annual Adjustment. Fees paid pursuant to this section may be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco area. Such annual adjustment shall be approved by resolution of the City Council. 8.68.070 Use of bicycle and pedestrian impact fee. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee funds shall only be used for the purposes outlined in this Chapter. 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 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 any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 3. Publication and Effective Date Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days from and after its adoption. * * * * * Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the 14th day of June, 2017. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the ____day of _________, 2017, 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 , 2017. Pradeep Gupta, PhD, Mayor 2823221.1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-595 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:8. ReportregardingresolutionapprovingtheCityofSouthSanFrancisco’scommitmenttotheParisClimate Agreement (Deborah Gill, Special Projects Manager) RECOMMENDATION StaffrecommendsthatCityCouncilapprovearesolutionsupportingtheCityofSouthSanFrancisco’s commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Scientificevidencepresentedinthe2014IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChangeFifthAssessmentReport showsthatwarmingoftheclimatesystemisunequivocal,climatechangeisoccurring,andhumanactivities havebeenthedominantcauseofobservedwarmingsincethemiddleofthe20thcentury.Widespreadand substantialclimatechangeimpactsarealreadyevidentinnaturalandhumansystemsonallcontinentsand across the oceans. Climatechangecanincreasecompetitionforresources,suchasfood,waterandgrazinglands,canexacerbate economichardshipandpoliticalinstability,andcouldbecomethebiggestdriverofpopulationdisplacements, bothinsideandacrossnationalborders,withinthenottoodistantfuture.Theissueofclimatemigrationshould therefore be placed high on the international agenda. Thereareseriousnegative,andoftenirreversible,consequencesofinaction.Climatechangeaffectsallregions aroundtheworldindifferentbuthighlydamagingways,resultinginmigrationflowsandlossoflives,aswell aseconomic,ecologicalandsociallosses.Aconcertedglobalpoliticalandfinancialpushforinnovationin clean and renewable energy is crucial to meeting our climate goals and to facilitating growth. Thewarmingofourclimateisindisputableandhasbeenobservedandproventhroughdecadesofscience.Due tohumaninfluenceoverGreenhouseGasEmissions,Earth’satmospherehaswarmedandwillcontinuetohave widespreadimpactsonourenvironment.Theeffortstomitigateglobalwarmingshouldnotbeseenasan obstacletostrivingforeconomicgrowthbutshouldbeseenasadrivingforceintherealizationofnewand sustainable economic growth and employment. TheParisClimateAgreement,attachedtotheresolutionasExhibitA,callsforallcountriestolimittheincrease intheglobalaveragetemperaturetowellbelow2°Cabovepre-industriallevels,andtopursueeffortstolimit thetemperatureincreaseto1.5°C,aswellastheaimtoachieveabalancebetweenanthropogenicemissionsby sourcesandremovalsofGHGbysinks(‘netzeroemissions’)inthesecondhalfofthiscentury.Itisalandmark achievementincombatingclimatechangeandformultilateralism.Theadoptionoftheagreementmarkeda decisiveturningpointtowardscomprehensiveandcollectiveglobalactionwhich,whenimplemented,will accelerate the transition to a climate-resilient, climate-neutral global economy. TheParisClimateAgreementandoutlinedpathtowardsdecarbonisationwillgivereliableguidancefor decision-making,providecertaintyandpredictabilitytobusinessandinvestors,andencourageashiftfrom fossil fuel investments towards low-carbon investments. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-595 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:8. TheCityofSouthSanFranciscohasundertakensignificanteffortstoreduceGreenhouseGas(GHG)emissions tocreateamoresustainable,andlesscarbon-dependentfuture.PresidentTrump’sdecisiontowithdrawthe UnitedStatesofAmericafromthe2015ParisClimateAgreement,anagreementratifiedbynearly147nations, runscountertotheCity’sproventrackrecordtocombatingclimatechange.Combatingclimatechangeisa priorityandshouldbepursuedworldwidewhileensuringenergysecurityandthedevelopmentofsustainable economic growth and jobs. FUNDING There is no impact to budget. CONCLUSION StaffrecommendsthatCityCouncilstateitssupportofthegoalscontainedintheParisClimateAgreement,to strivingtowardsenvironmentalsustainabilityandtocombatingclimatechange,andencouragesallcountries and cities throughout and outside of the nation to sign on to or adopt similar resolutions. Staffalsorecommendsthat,onJune20th,2017CityHallwillbelitwithgreenlightsinanefforttoraisepublic awareness. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-594 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:8a. ResolutionapprovingtheCityofSouthSanFrancisco’ssupportofthegoalscontainedintotheParisClimate Agreement. WHEREASscientificevidencepresentedinthe2014IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChangeFifth AssessmentReport,warmingoftheclimatesystemisunequivocal,climatechangeisoccurring,andhuman activitieshavebeenthedominantcauseofobservedwarmingsincethemiddleofthe20thcentury;isconcerned thatwidespreadandsubstantialclimatechangeimpactsarealreadyevidentinnaturalandhumansystemsonall continents and across the oceans; and WHEREASclimatechangecanincreasecompetitionforresources,suchasfood,waterandgrazinglands,can exacerbateeconomichardshipandpoliticalinstability,andcouldbecomethebiggestdriverofpopulation displacements,bothinsideandacrossnationalborders,withinthenottoodistantfuture;whereastheissueof climate migration should therefore be placed high on the international agenda; and WHEREASthereareseriousnegative,andoftenirreversible,consequencesofinaction,recallingthatclimate changeaffectsallregionsaroundtheworldindifferentbuthighlydamagingways,resultinginmigrationflows andlossoflives,aswellaseconomic,ecologicalandsociallosses;stressesthataconcertedglobalpoliticaland financialpushforinnovationincleanandrenewableenergyiscrucialtomeetingourclimategoalsandto facilitating growth; and WHEREASthewarmingofourclimateisindisputableandhasbeenobservedandproventhroughdecadesof science;duetohumaninfluenceoverGreenhouseGasEmissions,Earth’satmospherehaswarmedandwill continue to have widespread impacts on our environment; and WHEREAStheeffortstomitigateglobalwarmingshouldnotbeseenasanobstacletostrivingforeconomic growthbutshould,onthecontrary,beseenasadrivingforceintherealizationofnewandsustainable economic growth and employment; and WHEREAScombatingclimatechangeisapriorityandshouldbepursuedworldwidewhileensuringenergy security and the development of sustainable economic growth and jobs; WHEREAStheParisClimateAgreement,includedherewithasExhibitA,isalandmarkachievementin combatingclimatechangeandformultilateralism;theadoptionoftheagreementmarkedadecisiveturning pointtowardscomprehensiveandcollectiveglobalactionwhich,whenimplemented,willacceleratethe transition to a climate-resilient, climate-neutral global economy; and WHEREAS,theParisAgreementandoutlinedpathtowardsdecarbonisationwillgivereliableguidancefor decision-making,providecertaintyandpredictabilitytobusinessandinvestors,andencourageashiftfrom fossil fuel investments towards low-carbon investments; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-594 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:8a. WHEREAStheCityofSouthSanFranciscohasundertakensignificanteffortstoreduceGreenhouseGas (GHG) emissions to create a more sustainable, and less carbon-dependent future; and WHEREASPresidentTrump’sdecisiontowithdrawtheUnitedStatesofAmericafromthe2015ParisClimate Agreement,anagreementratifiedbynearly147nations,runscountertotheCity’sproventrackrecordto combating climate change; and NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,thattheCityCounciloftheCityofSouthSanFranciscohereby affirmstheCity’ssupportofthegoalscontainedintotheParisClimateAgreement,environmental sustainabilityandtocombatingclimatechange,andstronglywelcomesallcountriesandcitiestolimitthe increaseintheglobalaveragetemperaturetowellbelow2°Cabovepre-industriallevelsandtopursueeffortsto limitthetemperatureincreaseto1.5°C,aswellastheaimtoachieveabalancebetweenanthropogenic emissions by sources and removals of GHG by sinks (‘net zero emissions’) in the second half of this century. BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thattheCityCouncildirectsstafftocoordinateandencourageothercities throughout and outside of the nation to sign on to or adopt similar resolutions. BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,onJune20th,2017CityHallshallbelitwithgreenlightsinanefforttoraise public awareness. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ GE.15-21932(E) *1521932* Conference of the Parties Twenty-first session Paris, 30 November to 11 December 2015 Agenda item 4(b) Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (decision 1/CP.17) Adoption of a protocol, another legal instrument, or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties ADOPTION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT Proposal by the President Draft decision -/CP.21 The Conference of the Parties, Recalling decision 1/CP.17 on the establishment of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, Also recalling Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention, Further recalling relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties, including decisions 1/CP.16, 2/CP.18, 1/CP.19 and 1/CP.20, Welcoming the adoption of United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/1, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, in particular its goal 13, and the adoption of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the third International Conference on Financing for Development and the adoption of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions, Also recognizing that deep reductions in global emissions will be required in order to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the need for urgency in addressing climate change, Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect , promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, + United Nations FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 Distr.: Limited 12 December 2015 Original: English FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 2 local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity, Also acknowledging the specific needs and concerns of developing country Parties arising from the impact of the implementation of response measures and, in this regard, decisions 5/CP.7, 1/CP.10, 1/CP.16 and 8/CP.17, Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre- industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre- industrial levels, Also emphasizing that enhanced pre‐2020 ambition can lay a solid foundation for enhanced post‐2020 ambition, Stressing the urgency of accelerating the implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol in order to enhance pre-2020 ambition, Recognizing the urgent need to enhance the provision of finance, technology and capacity-building support by developed country Parties, in a predictable manner, to enable enhanced pre-2020 action by developing country Parties, Emphasizing the enduring benefits of ambitious and early action, including major reductions in the cost of future mitigation and adaptation efforts, Acknowledging the need to promote universal access to sustainable energy in developing countries, in particular in Africa, through the enhanced deployment of renewable energy, Agreeing to uphold and promote regional and international cooperation in order to mobilize stronger and more ambitious climate action by all Parties and non-Party stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other subnational authorities, local communities and indigenous peoples, I. ADOPTION 1. Decides to adopt the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”) as contained in the annex; 2. Requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations to be the Depositary of the Agreement and to have it open for signature in New York, United States of America, from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017; 3. Invites the Secretary-General to convene a high-level signature ceremony for the Agreement on 22 April 2016; 4. Also invites all Parties to the Convention to sign the Agreement at the ceremony to be convened by the Secretary-General, or at their earliest opportunity, and to deposit their respective instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, where appropriate, as soon as possible; 5. Recognizes that Parties to the Convention may provisionally apply all of the provisions of the Agreement pending its entry into force, and requests Parties to provide notification of any such provisional application to the Depositary; FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 3 6. Notes that the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, in accordance with decision 1/CP.17, paragraph 4, has been completed; 7. Decides to establish the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement under the same arrangement, mutatis mutandis, as those concerning the election of officers to the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action;1 8. Also decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement shall prepare for the entry into force of the Agreement and for the convening of the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement; 9. Further decides to oversee the implementation of the work programme resulting from the relevant requests contained in this decision; 10. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to report regularly to the Conference of the Parties on the progress of its work and to complete its work by the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement; 11. Decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement shall hold its sessions starting in 2016 in conjunction with the sessions of the Convention subsidiary bodies and shall prepare draft decisions to be recommended through the Conference of the Parties to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement for consideration and adoption at its first session; II. INTENDED NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONS 12. Welcomes the intended nationally determined contributions that have been communicated by Parties in accordance with decision 1/CP.19, paragraph 2(b); 13. Reiterates its invitation to all Parties that have not yet done so to communicate to the secretariat their intended nationally determined contributions towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 as soon as possible and well in advance of the twenty-second session of the Conference of the Parties (November 2016) and in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended nationally determined contributions; 14. Requests the secretariat to continue to publish the intended nationally determined contributions communicated by Parties on the UNFCCC website; 15. Reiterates its call to developed country Parties, the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism and any other organizations in a position to do so to provide support for the preparation and communication of the intended nationally determined contributions of Parties that may need such support; 16. Takes note of the synthesis report on the aggregate effect of intended nationally determined contributions communicated by Parties by 1 October 2015, contained in document FCCC/CP/2015/7; 17. Notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ˚C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030, and also notes that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by 1 Endorsed by decision 2/CP.18, paragraph 2. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 4 reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ˚C above pre-industrial levels by reducing to a level to be identified in the special report referred to in paragraph 21 below; 18. Also notes, in this context, the adaptation needs expressed by many developing country Parties in their intended nationally determined contributions; 19. Requests the secretariat to update the synthesis report referred to in paragraph 16 above so as to cover all the information in the intended nationally determined contributions communicated by Parties pursuant to decision 1/CP.20 by 4 April 2016 and to make it available by 2 May 2016; 20. Decides to convene a facilitative dialogue among Parties in 2018 to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties in relation to progress towards the long-term goal referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Agreement and to inform the preparation of nationally determined contributions pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Agreement; 21. Invites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways; III. DECISIONS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE AGREEMENT MITIGATION 22. Invites Parties to communicate their first nationally determined contribution no later than when the Party submits its respective instrument of ratification, accession, or approval of the Paris Agreement. If a Party has communicated an intended nationally determined contribution prior to joining the Agreement, that Party shall be considered to have satisfied this provision unless that Party decides otherwise; 23. Urges those Parties whose intended nationally determined contribution pursuant to decision 1/CP.20 contains a time frame up to 2025 to communicate by 2020 a new nationally determined contribution and to do so every five years thereafter pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 9, of the Agreement; 24. Requests those Parties whose intended nationally determined contribution pursuant to decision 1/CP.20 contains a time frame up to 2030 to communicate or update by 2020 these contributions and to do so every five years thereafter pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 9, of the Agreement; 25. Decides that Parties shall submit to the secretariat their nationally determined contributions referred to in Article 4 of the Agreement at least 9 to 12 months in advance of the relevant meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement with a view to facilitating the clarity, transparency and understanding of these contributions, including through a synthesis report prepared by the secretariat; 26. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to develop further guidance on features of the nationally determined contributions for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; 27. Agrees that the information to be provided by Parties communicating their nationally determined contributions, in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding, may include, as appropriate, inter alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage, planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for anthropogenic greenhouse gas FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 5 emissions and, as appropriate, removals, and how the Party considers that its nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious, in the light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2; 28. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to develop further guidance for the information to be provided by Parties in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding of nationally determined contributions for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; 29. Also requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to develop modalities and procedures for the operation and use of the public registry referred to in Article 4, paragraph 12, of the Agreement, for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; 30. Further requests the secretariat to make available an interim public registry in the first half of 2016 for the recording of nationally determined contributions submitted in accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement, pending the adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement of the modalities and procedures referred to in paragraph 29 above; 31. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to elaborate, drawing from approaches established under the Convention and its related legal instruments as appropriate, guidance for accounting for Parties’ nationally determined contributions, as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 13, of the Agreement, for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session, which ensures that: (a) Parties account for anthropogenic emissions and removals in accordance with methodologies and common metrics assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement; (b) Parties ensure methodological consistency, including on baselines, between the communication and implementation of nationally determined contributions; (c) Parties strive to include all categories of anthropogenic emissions or removals in their nationally determined contributions and, once a source, sink or activity is included, continue to include it; (d) Parties shall provide an explanation of why any categories of anthropogenic emissions or removals are excluded; 32. Decides that Parties shall apply the guidance mentioned in paragraph 31 above to the second and subsequent nationally determined contributions and that Parties may elect to apply such guidance to their first nationally determined contribution; 33. Also decides that the Forum on the Impact of the Implementation of response measures, under the subsidiary bodies, shall continue, and shall serve the Agreement; 34. Further decides that the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation shall recommend, for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session, the modalities, work programme and functions of the Forum on the Impact of the Implementation of response measures to address the effects of the implementation of response measures under the Agreement by enhancing cooperation amongst Parties on understanding the impacts of mitigation actions under the Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 6 and the exchange of information, experiences, and best practices amongst Parties to raise their resilience to these impacts;* 36. Invites Parties to communicate, by 2020, to the secretariat mid-century, long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 19, of the Agreement, and requests the secretariat to publish on the UNFCCC website Parties’ low greenhouse gas emission development strategies as communicated; 37. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to develop and recommend the guidance referred to under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Agreement for adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session, including guidance to ensure that double counting is avoided on the basis of a corresponding adjustment by Parties for both anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks covered by their nationally determined contributions under the Agreement; 38. Recommends that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement adopt rules, modalities and procedures for the mechanism established by Article 6, paragraph 4, of the Agreement on the basis of: (a) Voluntary participation authorized by each Party involved; (b) Real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change; (c) Specific scopes of activities; (d) Reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would otherwise occur; (e) Verification and certification of emission reductions resulting from mitigation activities by designated operational entities; (f) Experience gained with and lessons learned from existing mechanisms and approaches adopted under the Convention and its related legal instruments; 39. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to develop and recommend rules, modalities and procedures for the mechanism referred to in paragraph 38 above for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; 40. Also requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to undertake a work programme under the framework for non-market approaches to sustainable development referred to in Article 6, paragraph 8, of the Agreement, with the objective of considering how to enhance linkages and create synergy between, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, and how to facilitate the implementation and coordination of non-market approaches; 41. Further requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to recommend a draft decision on the work programme referred to in paragraph 40 above, taking into account the views of Parties, for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; ADAPTATION * Paragraph 35 has been deleted, and subsequent paragraph numbering and cross references to other paragraphs within the document will be amended at a later stage. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 7 42. Requests the Adaptation Committee and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group to jointly develop modalities to recognize the adaptation efforts of developing country Parties, as referred to in Article 7, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, and make recommendations for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; 43. Also requests the Adaptation Committee, taking into account its mandate and its second three-year workplan, and with a view to preparing recommendations for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session: (a) To review, in 2017, the work of adaptation-related institutional arrangements under the Convention, with a view to identifying ways to enhance the coherence of their work, as appropriate, in order to respond adequately to the needs of Parties; (b) To consider methodologies for assessing adaptation needs with a view to assisting developing countries, without placing an undue burden on them; 44. Invites all relevant United Nations agencies and international, regional and national financial institutions to provide information to Parties through the secretariat on how their development assistance and climate finance programmes incorporate climate-proofing and climate resilience measures; 45. Requests Parties to strengthen regional cooperation on adaptation where appropriate and, where necessary, establish regional centres and networks, in particular in developing countries, taking into account decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 13; 46. Also requests the Adaptation Committee and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, in collaboration with the Standing Committee on Finance and other relevant institutions, to develop methodologies, and make recommendations for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session on: (a) Taking the necessary steps to facilitate the mobilization of support for adaptation in developing countries in the context of the limit to global average temperature increase referred to in Article 2 of the Agreement; (b) Reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of adaptation and support referred to in Article 7, paragraph 14(c), of the Agreement; 47. Further requests the Green Climate Fund to expedite support for the least developed countries and other developing country Parties for the formulation of national adaptation plans, consistent with decisions 1/CP.16 and 5/CP.17, and for the subsequent implementation of policies, projects and programmes identified by them; LOSS AND DAMAGE 48. Decides on the continuation of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts, following the review in 2016; 49. Requests the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism to establish a clearinghouse for risk transfer that serves as a repository for information on insurance and risk transfer, in order to facilitate the efforts of Parties to develop and implement comprehensive risk management strategies; 50. Also requests the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism to establish, according to its procedures and mandate, a task force to complement, draw upon the work of and involve, as appropriate, existing bodies and expert groups under the Convention including the Adaptation Committee and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, as well as relevant organizations and expert bodies outside the Convention, to FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 8 develop recommendations for integrated approaches to avert, minimize and address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change; 51. Further requests the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism to initiate its work, at its next meeting, to operationalize the provisions referred to in paragraphs 49 and 50 above, and to report on progress thereon in its annual report; 52. Agrees that Article 8 of the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation; FINANCE 53. Decides that, in the implementation of the Agreement, financial resources provided to developing countries should enhance the implementation of their policies, strategies, regulations and action plans and their climate change actions with respect to both mitigation and adaptation to contribute to the achievement of the purpose of the Agreement as defined in Article 2; 54. Also decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries; 55. Recognizes the importance of adequate and predictable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, for the implementation of policy approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; encouraging the coordination of support from, inter alia, public and private, bilateral and multilateral sources, such as the Green Climate Fund, and alternative sources in accordance with relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties; 56. Decides to initiate, at its twenty-second session, a process to identify the information to be provided by Parties, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 5, of the Agreement with the view to providing a recommendation for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; 57. Also decides to ensure that the provision of information in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 7 of the Agreement shall be undertaken in accordance with modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 96 below; 58. Requests Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to develop modalities for the accounting of financial resources provided and mobilized through public interventions in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 7, of the Agreement for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-fourth session (November 2018), with the view to making a recommendation for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; 59. Decides that the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility, the entities entrusted with the operation of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, as well as the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund, administered by the Global Environment Facility, shall serve the Agreement; FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 9 60. Recognizes that the Adaptation Fund may serve the Agreement, subject to relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement; 61. Invites the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to consider the issue referred to in paragraph 60 above and make a recommendation to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; 62. Recommends that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall provide guidance to the entities entrusted with the operation of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention on the policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria related to the Agreement for transmission by the Conference of the Parties; 63. Decides that the guidance to the entities entrusted with the operations of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention in relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties, including those agreed before adoption of the Agreement, shall apply mutatis mutandis; 64. Also decides that the Standing Committee on Finance shall serve the Agreement in line with its functions and responsibilities established under the Conference of the Parties; 65. Urges the institutions serving the Agreement to enhance the coordination and delivery of resources to support country-driven strategies through simplified and efficient application and approval procedures, and through continued readiness support to developing country Parties, including the least developed countries and small island developing States, as appropriate; TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER 66. Takes note of the interim report of the Technology Executive Committee on guidance on enhanced implementation of the results of technology needs assessments as referred to in document FCCC/SB/2015/INF.3; 67. Decides to strengthen the Technology Mechanism and requests the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network, in supporting the implementation of the Agreement, to undertake further work relating to, inter alia: (a) Technology research, development and demonstration; (b) The development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies; 68. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to initiate, at its forty-fourth session (May 2016), the elaboration of the technology framework established under Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Agreement and to report on its findings to the Conference of the Parties, with a view to the Conference of the Parties making a recommendation on the framework to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement for consideration and adoption at its first session, taking into consideration that the framework should facilitate, inter alia: (a) The undertaking and updating of technology needs assessments, as well as the enhanced implementation of their results, particularly technology action plans and project ideas, through the preparation of bankable projects; (b) The provision of enhanced financial and technical support for the implementation of the results of the technology needs assessments; FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 10 (c) The assessment of technologies that are ready for transfer; (d) The enhancement of enabling environments for and the addressing of barriers to the development and transfer of socially and environmentally sound technologies; 69. Decides that the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network shall report to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, through the subsidiary bodies, on their activities to support the implementation of the Agreement; 70. Also decides to undertake a periodic assessment of the effectiveness of and the adequacy of the support provided to the Technology Mechanism in supporting the implementation of the Agreement on matters relating to technology development and transfer; 71. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to initiate, at its forty-fourth session , the elaboration of the scope of and modalities for the periodic assessment referred to in paragraph 70 above, taking into account the review of the Climate Technology Centre and Network as referred to in decision 2/CP.17, annex VII, paragraph 20 and the modalities for the global stocktake referred to in Article 14 of the Agreement, for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-fifth session (November 2019); CAPACITY-BUILDING 72. Decides to establish the Paris Committee on Capacity-building whose aim will be to address gaps and needs, both current and emerging, in implementing capacity-building in developing country Parties and further enhancing capacity-building efforts, including with regard to coherence and coordination in capacity-building activities under the Convention; 73. Also decides that the Paris Committee on Capacity-building will manage and oversee the work plan mentioned in paragraph 74 below; 74. Further decides to launch a work plan for the period 2016–2020 with the following activities: (a) Assessing how to increase synergies through cooperation and avoid duplication among existing bodies established under the Convention that implement capacity-building activities, including through collaborating with institutions under and outside the Convention; (b) Identifying capacity gaps and needs and recommending ways to address them; (c) Promoting the development and dissemination of tools and methodologies for the implementation of capacity-building; (d) Fostering global, regional, national and subnational cooperation; (e) Identifying and collecting good practices, challenges, experiences, and lessons learned from work on capacity-building by bodies established under the Convention; (f) Exploring how developing country Parties can take ownership of building and maintaining capacity over time and space; (g) Identifying opportunities to strengthen capacity at the national, regional, and subnational level; (h) Fostering dialogue, coordination, collaboration and coherence among relevant processes and initiatives under the Convention, including through exchanging FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 11 information on capacity-building activities and strategies of bodies established under the Convention; (i) Providing guidance to the secretariat on the maintenance and further development of the web-based capacity-building portal; 75. Decides that the Paris Committee on Capacity-building will annually focus on an area or theme related to enhanced technical exchange on capacity-building, with the purpose of maintaining up-to-date knowledge on the successes and challenges in building capacity effectively in a particular area; 76. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to organize annual in-session meetings of the Paris Committee on Capacity-building; 77. Also requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to develop the terms of reference for the Paris Committee on Capacity-building, in the context of the third comprehensive review of the implementation of the capacity-building framework, also taking into account paragraphs 75, 76, 77 and 78 above and paragraphs 82 and 83 below, with a view to recommending a draft decision on this matter for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-second session; 78. Invites Parties to submit their views on the membership of the Paris Committee on Capacity-building by 9 March 2016;2 79. Requests the secretariat to compile the submissions referred to in paragraph 78 above into a miscellaneous document for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation at its forty-fourth session; 80. Decides that the inputs to the Paris Committee on Capacity-building will include, inter alia, submissions, the outcome of the third comprehensive review of the implementation of the capacity-building framework, the secretariat’s annual synthesis report on the implementation of the framework for capacity-building in developing countries, the secretariat’s compilation and synthesis report on capacity-building work of bodies established under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, and reports on the Durban Forum and the capacity-building portal; 81. Requests the Paris Committee on Capacity-building to prepare annual technical progress reports on its work, and to make these reports available at the sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation coinciding with the sessions of the Conference of the Parties; 82. Also requests the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-fifth session (November 2019), to review the progress, need for extension, the effectiveness and enhancement of the Paris Committee on Capacity-building and to take any action it considers appropriate, with a view to making recommendations to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session on enhancing institutional arrangements for capacity-building consistent with Article 11, paragraph 5, of the Agreement; 83. Calls upon all Parties to ensure that education, training and public awareness, as reflected in Article 6 of the Convention and in Article 12 of the Agreement are adequately considered in their contribution to capacity-building; 84. Invites the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session to explore ways of enhancing the implementation of 2 Parties should submit their views via the submissions portal at <http://www.unfccc.int/5900>. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 12 training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information so as to enhance actions under the Agreement; TRANSPARENCY OF ACTION AND SUPPORT 85. Decides to establish a Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency in order to build institutional and technical capacity, both pre- and post-2020. This initiative will support developing country Parties, upon request, in meeting enhanced transparency requirements as defined in Article 13 of the Agreement in a timely manner; 86. Also decides that the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency will aim: (a) To strengthen national institutions for transparency-related activities in line with national priorities; (b) To provide relevant tools, training and assistance for meeting the provisions stipulated in Article 13 of the Agreement; (c) To assist in the improvement of transparency over time; 87. Urges and requests the Global Environment Facility to make arrangements to support the establishment and operation of the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency as a priority reporting-related need, including through voluntary contributions to support developing countries in the sixth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility and future replenishment cycles, to complement existing support under the Global Environment Facility; 88. Decides to assess the implementation of the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency in the context of the seventh review of the financial mechanism; 89. Requests that the Global Environment Facility, as an operating entity of the financial mechanism include in its annual report to the Conference of the Parties the progress of work in the design, development and implementation of the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency referred to in paragraph 85 above starting in 2016; 90. Decides that, in accordance with Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Agreement, developing countries shall be provided flexibility in the implementation of the provisions of that Article, including in the scope, frequency and level of detail of reporting, and in the scope of review, and that the scope of review could provide for in-country reviews to be optional, while such flexibilities shall be reflected in the development of modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 92 below; 91. Also decides that all Parties, except for the least developed country Parties and small island developing States, shall submit the information referred to in Article 13, paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, as appropriate, no less frequently than on a biennial basis, and that the least developed country Parties and small island developing States may submit this information at their discretion; 92. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to develop recommendations for modalities, procedures and guidelines in accordance with Article 13, paragraph 13, of the Agreement, and to define the year of their first and subsequent review and update, as appropriate, at regular intervals, for consideration by the Conference of the Parties, at its twenty-fourth session, with a view to forwarding them to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement for adoption at its first session; FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 13 93. Also requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement in developing the recommendations for the modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 92 above to take into account, inter alia: (a) The importance of facilitating improved reporting and transparency over time; (b) The need to provide flexibility to those developing country Parties that need it in the light of their capacities; (c) The need to promote transparency, accuracy, completeness, consistency, and comparability; (d) The need to avoid duplication as well as undue burden on Parties and the secretariat; (e) The need to ensure that Parties maintain at least the frequency and quality of reporting in accordance with their respective obligations under the Convention; (f) The need to ensure that double counting is avoided; (g) The need to ensure environmental integrity; 94. Further requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement, when developing the modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 92 above, to draw on the experiences from and take into account other on-going relevant processes under the Convention; 95. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement, when developing modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 92 above, to consider, inter alia: (a) The types of flexibility available to those developing countries that need it on the basis of their capacities; (b) The consistency between the methodology communicated in the nationally determined contribution and the methodology for reporting on progress made towards achieving individual Parties’ respective nationally determined contribution; (c) That Parties report information on adaptation action and planning including, if appropriate, their national adaptation plans, with a view to collectively exchanging information and sharing lessons learned; (d) Support provided, enhancing delivery of support for both adaptation and mitigation through, inter alia, the common tabular formats for reporting support, and taking into account issues considered by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice on methodologies for reporting on financial information, and enhancing the reporting by developing countries on support received, including the use, impact and estimated results thereof; (e) Information in the biennial assessments and other reports of the Standing Committee on Finance and other relevant bodies under the Convention; (f) Information on the social and economic impact of response measures; 96. Also requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement, when developing recommendations for modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 92 above, to enhance the transparency of support provided in accordance with Article 9 of the Agreement; 97. Further requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to report on the progress of work on the modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 14 92 above to future sessions of the Conference of the Parties, and that this work be concluded no later than 2018; 98. Decides that the modalities, procedures and guidelines developed under paragraph 92 above, shall be applied upon the entry into force of the Paris Agreement; 99. Also decides that the modalities, procedures and guidelines of this transparency framework shall build upon and eventually supersede the measurement, reporting and verification system established by decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 40 to 47 and 60 to 64, and decision 2/CP.17, paragraphs 12 to 62, immediately following the submission of the final biennial reports and biennial update reports; GLOBAL STOCKTAKE 100. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to identify the sources of input for the global stocktake referred to in Article 14 of the Agreement and to report to the Conference of the Parties, with a view to the Conference of the Parties making a recommendation to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement for consideration and adoption at its first session, including, but not limited to: (a) Information on: (i) The overall effect of the nationally determined contributions communicated by Parties; (ii) The state of adaptation efforts, support, experiences and priorities from the communications referred to in Article 7, paragraphs 10 and 11, of the Agreement, and reports referred to in Article 13, paragraph 7, of the Agreement; (iii) The mobilization and provision of support; (b) The latest reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; (c) Reports of the subsidiary bodies; 101. Also requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to provide advice on how the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can inform the global stocktake of the implementation of the Agreement pursuant to its Article 14 of the Agreement and to report on this matter to the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement at its second session; 102. Further requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to develop modalities for the global stocktake referred to in Article 14 of the Agreement and to report to the Conference of the Parties, with a view to making a recommendation to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement for consideration and adoption at its first session; FACILITATING IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE 103. Decides that the committee referred to in Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Agreement shall consist of 12 members with recognized competence in relevant scientific, technical, socio-economic or legal fields, to be elected by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement on the basis of equitable geographical representation, with two members each from the five regional groups of the United Nations and one member each from the small island developing States and the least developed countries, while taking into account the goal of gender balance; 104. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to develop the modalities and procedures for the effective operation of the committee referred to in Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Agreement, with a view to the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 15 Agreement completing its work on such modalities and procedures for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session; FINAL CLAUSES 105. Also requests the secretariat, solely for the purposes of Article 21 of the Agreement, to make available on its website on the date of adoption of the Agreement as well as in the report of the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session, information on the most up-to-date total and per cent of greenhouse gas emissions communicated by Parties to the Convention in their national communications, greenhouse gas inventory reports, biennial reports or biennial update reports; IV. ENHANCED ACTION PRIOR TO 2020 106. Resolves to ensure the highest possible mitigation efforts in the pre-2020 period, including by: (a) Urging all Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that have not already done so to ratify and implement the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol; (b) Urging all Parties that have not already done so to make and implement a mitigation pledge under the Cancun Agreements; (c) Reiterating its resolve, as set out in decision 1/CP.19, paragraphs 3 and 4, to accelerate the full implementation of the decisions constituting the agreed outcome pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 and enhance ambition in the pre-2020 period in order to ensure the highest possible mitigation efforts under the Convention by all Parties; (d) Inviting developing country Parties that have not submitted their first biennial update reports to do so as soon as possible; (e) Urging all Parties to participate in the existing measurement, reporting and verification processes under the Cancun Agreements, in a timely manner, with a view to demonstrating progress made in the implementation of their mitigation pledges; 107. Encourages Parties to promote the voluntary cancellation by Party and non-Party stakeholders, without double counting of units issued under the Kyoto Protocol, including certified emission reductions that are valid for the second commitment period; 108. Urges host and purchasing Parties to report transparently on internationally transferred mitigation outcomes, including outcomes used to meet international pledges, and emission units issued under the Kyoto Protocol with a view to promoting environmental integrity and avoiding double counting; 109. Recognizes the social, economic and environmental value of voluntary mitigation actions and their co-benefits for adaptation, health and sustainable development; 110. Resolves to strengthen, in the period 2016–2020, the existing technical examination process on mitigation as defined in decision 1/CP.19, paragraph 5(a), and decision 1/CP.20, paragraph 19, taking into account the latest scientific knowledge, including by: (a) Encouraging Parties, Convention bodies and international organizations to engage in this process, including, as appropriate, in cooperation with relevant non-Party stakeholders, to share their experiences and suggestions, including from regional events, and to cooperate in facilitating the implementation of policies, practices and actions identified during this process in accordance with national sustainable development priorities; FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 16 (b) Striving to improve, in consultation with Parties, access to and participation in this process by developing country Party and non-Party experts; (c) Requesting the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network in accordance with their respective mandates: (i) To engage in the technical expert meetings and enhance their efforts to facilitate and support Parties in scaling up the implementation of policies, practices and actions identified during this process; (ii) To provide regular updates during the technical expert meetings on the progress made in facilitating the implementation of policies, practices and actions previously identified during this process; (iii) To include information on their activities under this process in their joint annual report to the Conference of the Parties; (d) Encouraging Parties to make effective use of the Climate Technology Centre and Network to obtain assistance to develop economically, environmentally and socially viable project proposals in the high mitigation potential areas identified in this process; 111. Encourages the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention to engage in the technical expert meetings and to inform participants of their contribution to facilitating progress in the implementation of policies, practices and actions identified during the technical examination process; 112. Requests the secretariat to organize the process referred to in paragraph 110 above and disseminate its results, including by: (a) Organizing, in consultation with the Technology Executive Committee and relevant expert organizations, regular technical expert meetings focusing on specific policies, practices and actions representing best practices and with the potential to be scalable and replicable; (b) Updating, on an annual basis, following the meetings referred to in paragraph 112(a) above and in time to serve as input to the summary for policymakers referred to in paragraph 112(c) below, a technical paper on the mitigation benefits and co-benefits of policies, practices and actions for enhancing mitigation ambition, as well as on options for supporting their implementation, information on which should be made available in a user- friendly online format; (c) Preparing, in consultation with the champions referred to in paragraph 122 below, a summary for policymakers, with information on specific policies, practices and actions representing best practices and with the potential to be scalable and replicable, and on options to support their implementation, as well as on relevant collaborative initiatives, and publishing the summary at least two months in advance of each session of the Conference of the Parties as input for the high-level event referred to in paragraph 121 below; 113. Decides that the process referred to in paragraph 110 above should be organized jointly by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and should take place on an ongoing basis until 2020; 114. Also decides to conduct in 2017 an assessment of the process referred to in paragraph 110 above so as to improve its effectiveness; 115. Resolves to enhance the provision of urgent and adequate finance, technology and capacity-building support by developed country Parties in order to enhance the level of ambition of pre-2020 action by Parties, and in this regard strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 17 goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation while significantly increasing adaptation finance from current levels and to further provide appropriate technology and capacity-building support; 116. Decides to conduct a facilitative dialogue in conjunction with the twenty-second session of the Conference of the Parties to assess the progress in implementing decision 1/CP.19, paragraphs 3 and 4, and identify relevant opportunities to enhance the provision of financial resources, including for technology development and transfer and capacity- building support, with a view to identifying ways to enhance the ambition of mitigation efforts by all Parties, including identifying relevant opportunities to enhance the provision and mobilization of support and enabling environments; 117. Acknowledges with appreciation the results of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda, which build on the climate summit convened on 23 September 2014 by the Secretary-General of the United Nations; 118. Welcomes the efforts of non-Party stakeholders to scale up their climate actions, and encourages the registration of those actions in the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action platform;3 119. Encourages Parties to work closely with non-Party stakeholders to catalyse efforts to strengthen mitigation and adaptation action; 120. Also encourages non-Party stakeholders to increase their engagement in the processes referred to in paragraph 110 above and paragraph 125 below; 121. Agrees to convene, pursuant to decision 1/CP.20, paragraph 21, building on the Lima-Paris Action Agenda and in conjunction with each session of the Conference of the Parties during the period 2016–2020, a high-level event that: (a) Further strengthens high-level engagement on the implementation of policy options and actions arising from the processes referred to in paragraph 110 above and paragraph 125 below, drawing on the summary for policymakers referred to in paragraph 112(c) above; (b) Provides an opportunity for announcing new or strengthened voluntary efforts, initiatives and coalitions, including the implementation of policies, practices and actions arising from the processes referred to in paragraph 110 above and paragraph 125 below and presented in the summary for policymakers referred to in paragraph 112(c) above; (c) Takes stock of related progress and recognizes new or strengthened voluntary efforts, initiatives and coalitions; (d) Provides meaningful and regular opportunities for the effective high-level engagement of dignitaries of Parties, international organizations, international cooperative initiatives and non-Party stakeholders; 122. Decides that two high-level champions shall be appointed to act on behalf of the President of the Conference of the Parties to facilitate through strengthened high-level engagement in the period 2016–2020 the successful execution of existing efforts and the scaling-up and introduction of new or strengthened voluntary efforts, initiatives and coalitions, including by: 3 <http://climateaction.unfccc.int/>. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 18 (a) Working with the Executive Secretary and the current and incoming Presidents of the Conference of the Parties to coordinate the annual high-level event referred to in paragraph 121 above; (b) Engaging with interested Parties and non-Party stakeholders, including to further the voluntary initiatives of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda; (c) Providing guidance to the secretariat on the organization of technical expert meetings referred to in paragraph 112(a) above and paragraph 130(a) below; 123. Also decides that the high-level champions referred to in paragraph 122 above should normally serve for a term of two years, with their terms overlapping for a full year to ensure continuity, such that: (a) The President of the Conference of the Parties of the twenty-first session should appoint one champion, who should serve for one year from the date of the appointment until the last day of the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-second session; (b) The President of the Conference of the Parties of the twenty-second session should appoint one champion who should serve for two years from the date of the appointment until the last day of the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-third session (November 2017); (c) Thereafter, each subsequent President of the Conference of the Parties should appoint one champion who should serve for two years and succeed the previously appointed champion whose term has ended; 124. Invites all interested Parties and relevant organizations to provide support for the work of the champions referred to in paragraph 122 above; 125. Decides to launch, in the period 20162020, a technical examination process on adaptation; 126. Also decides that the technical examination process on adaptation referred to in paragraph 125 above will endeavour to identify concrete opportunities for strengthening resilience, reducing vulnerabilities and increasing the understanding and implementation of adaptation actions; 127. Further decides that the technical examination process referred to in paragraph 125 above should be organized jointly by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, and conducted by the Adaptation Committee; 128. Decides that the process referred to in paragraph 125 above will be pursued by: (a) Facilitating the sharing of good practices, experiences and lessons learned; (b) Identifying actions that could significantly enhance the implementation of adaptation actions, including actions that could enhance economic diversification and have mitigation co-benefits; (c) Promoting cooperative action on adaptation; (d) Identifying opportunities to strengthen enabling environments and enhance the provision of support for adaptation in the context of specific policies, practices and actions; 129. Also decides that the technical examination process on adaptation referred to in paragraph 125 above will take into account the process, modalities, outputs, outcomes and lessons learned from the technical examination process on mitigation referred to in paragraph 110 above; FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 19 130. Requests the secretariat to support the technical examination process referred to in paragraph 125 above by: (a) Organizing regular technical expert meetings focusing on specific policies, strategies and actions; (b) Preparing annually, on the basis of the meetings referred to in paragraph 130(a) above and in time to serve as an input to the summary for policymakers referred to in paragraph 112(c) above, a technical paper on opportunities to enhance adaptation action, as well as options to support their implementation, information on which should be made available in a user-friendly online format; 131. Decides that in conducting the process referred to in paragraph 125 above, the Adaptation Committee will engage with and explore ways to take into account, synergize with and build on the existing arrangements for adaptation-related work programmes, bodies and institutions under the Convention so as to ensure coherence and maximum value; 132. Also decides to conduct, in conjunction with the assessment referred to in paragraph 120 above, an assessment of the process referred to in paragraph 125 above, so as to improve its effectiveness; 133. Invites Parties and observer organizations to submit information on the opportunities referred to in paragraph 126 above by 3 February 2016; V. NON-PARTY STAKEHOLDERS 134. Welcomes the efforts of all non-Party stakeholders to address and respond to climate change, including those of civil society, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other subnational authorities; 135. Invites the non-Party stakeholders referred to in paragraph 134 above to scale up their efforts and support actions to reduce emissions and/or to build resilience and decrease vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change and demonstrate these efforts via the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action platform4 referred to in paragraph 118 above; 136. Recognizes the need to strengthen knowledge, technologies, practices and efforts of local communities and indigenous peoples related to addressing and responding to climate change, and establishes a platform for the exchange of experiences and sharing of best practices on mitigation and adaptation in a holistic and integrated manner; 137. Also recognizes the important role of providing incentives for emission reduction activities, including tools such as domestic policies and carbon pricing; VI. ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUDGETARY MATTERS 138. Takes note of the estimated budgetary implications of the activities to be undertaken by the secretariat referred to in this decision and requests that the actions of the secretariat called for in this decision be undertaken subject to the availability of financial resources; 139. Emphasizes the urgency of making additional resources available for the implementation of the relevant actions, including actions referred to in this decision, and the implementation of the work programme referred to in paragraph 9 above; 4 <http://climateaction.unfccc.int/>. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 20 140. Urges Parties to make voluntary contributions for the timely implementation of this decision. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 21 Annex PARIS AGREEMENT The Parties to this Agreement, Being Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”, Pursuant to the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action established by decision 1/CP.17 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention at its seventeenth session, In pursuit of the objective of the Convention, and being guided by its principles, including the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances, Recognizing the need for an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, Also recognizing the specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, as provided for in the Convention, Taking full account of the specific needs and special situations of the least developed countries with regard to funding and transfer of technology, Recognizing that Parties may be affected not only by climate change, but also by the impacts of the measures taken in response to it, Emphasizing the intrinsic relationship that climate change actions, responses and impacts have with equitable access to sustainable development and eradication of poverty, Recognizing the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impacts of climate change, Taking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities, Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity, Recognizing the importance of the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of the greenhouse gases referred to in the Convention, Noting the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including oceans, and the protection of biodiversity, recognized by some cultures as Mother Earth, and noting the importance for some of the concept of “climate justice”, when taking action to address climate change, Affirming the importance of education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information and cooperation at all levels on the matters addressed in this Agreement, Recognizing the importance of the engagements of all levels of government and various actors, in accordance with respective national legislations of Parties, in addressing climate change, Also recognizing that sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns of consumption and production, with developed country Parties taking the lead, play an important role in addressing climate change, Have agreed as follows: FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 22 Article 1 For the purpose of this Agreement, the definitions contained in Article 1 of the Convention shall apply. In addition: 1. “Convention” means the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in New York on 9 May 1992. 2. “Conference of the Parties” means the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. 3. “Party” means a Party to this Agreement. Article 2 1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate- resilient development. 2. This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances. Article 3 As nationally determined contributions to the global response to climate change, all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts as defined in Articles 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement as set out in Article 2. The efforts of all Parties will represent a progression over time, while recognizing the need to support developing country Parties for the effective implementation of this Agreement. Article 4 1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. 2. Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions. 3. Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances. 4. Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances. 5. Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 23 6. The least developed countries and small island developing States may prepare and communicate strategies, plans and actions for low greenhouse gas emissions development reflecting their special circumstances. 7. Mitigation co-benefits resulting from Parties’ adaptation actions and/or economic diversification plans can contribute to mitigation outcomes under this Article. 8. In communicating their nationally determined contributions, all Parties shall provide the information necessary for clarity, transparency and understanding in accordance with decision 1/CP.21 and any relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 9. Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years in accordance with decision 1/CP.21 and any relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement and be informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake referred to in Article 14. 10. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall consider common time frames for nationally determined contributions at its first session. 11. A Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition, in accordance with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 12. Nationally determined contributions communicated by Parties shall be recorded in a public registry maintained by the secretariat. 13. Parties shall account for their nationally determined contributions. In accounting for anthropogenic emissions and removals corresponding to their nationally determined contributions, Parties shall promote environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency, and ensure the avoidance of double counting, in accordance with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 14. In the context of their nationally determined contributions, when recognizing and implementing mitigation actions with respect to anthropogenic emissions and removals, Parties should take into account, as appropriate, existing methods and guidance under the Convention, in the light of the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Article. 15. Parties shall take into consideration in the implementation of this Agreement the concerns of Parties with economies most affected by the impacts of response measures, particularly developing country Parties. 16. Parties, including regional economic integration organizations and their member States, that have reached an agreement to act jointly under paragraph 2 of this Article shall notify the secretariat of the terms of that agreement, including the emission level allocated to each Party within the relevant time period, when they communicate their nationally determined contributions. The secretariat shall in turn inform the Parties and signatories to the Convention of the terms of that agreement. 17. Each party to such an agreement shall be responsible for its emission level as set out in the agreement referred to in paragraph 16 above in accordance with paragraphs 13 and 14 of this Article and Articles 13 and 15. 18. If Parties acting jointly do so in the framework of, and together with, a regional economic integration organization which is itself a Party to this Agreement, each member State of that regional economic integration organization individually, and together with the regional economic integration organization, shall be responsible for its emission level as set out in the agreement communicated under paragraph 16 of this Article in accordance with paragraphs 13 and 14 of this Article and Articles 13 and 15. 19. All Parties should strive to formulate and communicate long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies, mindful of Article 2 taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances. Article 5 1. Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests. 2. Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 24 stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches. Article 6 1. Parties recognize that some Parties choose to pursue voluntary cooperation in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote sustainable development and environmental integrity. 2. Parties shall, where engaging on a voluntary basis in cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes towards nationally determined contributions, promote sustainable development and ensure environmental integrity and transparency, including in governance, and shall apply robust accounting to ensure, inter alia, the avoidance of double counting, consistent with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 3. The use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes to achieve nationally determined contributions under this Agreement shall be voluntary and authorized by participating Parties. 4. A mechanism to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable development is hereby established under the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement for use by Parties on a voluntary basis. It shall be supervised by a body designated by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, and shall aim: (a) To promote the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions while fostering sustainable development; (b) To incentivize and facilitate participation in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by public and private entities authorized by a Party; (c) To contribute to the reduction of emission levels in the host Party, which will benefit from mitigation activities resulting in emission reductions that can also be used by another Party to fulfil its nationally determined contribution; and (d) To deliver an overall mitigation in global emissions. 5. Emission reductions resulting from the mechanism referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article shall not be used to demonstrate achievement of the host Party’s nationally determined contribution if used by another Party to demonstrate achievement of its nationally determined contribution. 6. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall ensure that a share of the proceeds from activities under the mechanism referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article is used to cover administrative expenses as well as to assist developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation. 7. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall adopt rules, modalities and procedures for the mechanism referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article at its first session. 8. Parties recognize the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches being available to Parties to assist in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions, in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, in a coordinated and effective manner, including through, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, as appropriate. These approaches shall aim to: (a) Promote mitigation and adaptation ambition; (b) Enhance public and private sector participation in the implementation of nationally determined contributions; and (c) Enable opportunities for coordination across instruments and relevant institutional arrangements. 9. A framework for non-market approaches to sustainable development is hereby defined to promote the non- market approaches referred to in paragraph 8 of this Article. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 25 Article 7 1. Parties hereby establish the global goal on adaptation of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the temperature goal referred to in Article 2. 2. Parties recognize that adaptation is a global challenge faced by all with local, subnational, national, regional and international dimensions, and that it is a key component of and makes a contribution to the long-term global response to climate change to protect people, livelihoods and ecosystems, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of those developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. 3. The adaptation efforts of developing country Parties shall be recognized, in accordance with the modalities to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session. 4. Parties recognize that the current need for adaptation is significant and that greater levels of mitigation can reduce the need for additional adaptation efforts, and that greater adaptation needs can involve greater adaptation costs. 5. Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate. 6. Parties recognize the importance of support for and international cooperation on adaptation efforts and the importance of taking into account the needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. 7. Parties should strengthen their cooperation on enhancing action on adaptation, taking into account the Cancun Adaptation Framework, including with regard to: (a) Sharing information, good practices, experiences and lessons learned, including, as appropriate, as these relate to science, planning, policies and implementation in relation to adaptation actions; (b) Strengthening institutional arrangements, including those under the Convention that serve this Agreement, to support the synthesis of relevant information and knowledge, and the provision of technical support and guidance to Parties; (c) Strengthening scientific knowledge on climate, including research, systematic observation of the climate system and early warning systems, in a manner that informs climate services and supports decision- making; (d) Assisting developing country Parties in identifying effective adaptation practices, adaptation needs, priorities, support provided and received for adaptation actions and efforts, and challenges and gaps, in a manner consistent with encouraging good practices; (e) Improving the effectiveness and durability of adaptation actions. 8. United Nations specialized organizations and agencies are encouraged to support the efforts of Parties to implement the actions referred to in paragraph 7 of this Article, taking into account the provisions of paragraph 5 of this Article. 9. Each Party shall, as appropriate, engage in adaptation planning processes and the implementation of actions, including the development or enhancement of relevant plans, policies and/or contributions, which may include: (a) The implementation of adaptation actions, undertakings and/or efforts; (b) The process to formulate and implement national adaptation plans; (c) The assessment of climate change impacts and vulnerability, with a view to formulating nationally determined prioritized actions, taking into account vulnerable people, places and ecosystems; (d) Monitoring and evaluating and learning from adaptation plans, policies, programmes and actions; and (e) Building the resilience of socioeconomic and ecological systems, including through economic diversification and sustainable management of natural resources. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 26 10. Each Party should, as appropriate, submit and update periodically an adaptation communication, which may include its priorities, implementation and support needs, plans and actions, without creating any additional burden for developing country Parties. 11. The adaptation communication referred to in paragraph 10 of this Article shall be, as appropriate, submitted and updated periodically, as a component of or in conjunction with other communications or documents, including a national adaptation plan, a nationally determined contribution as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 2, and/or a national communication. 12. The adaptation communications referred to in paragraph 10 of this Article shall be recorded in a public registry maintained by the secretariat. 13. Continuous and enhanced international support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of paragraphs 7, 9, 10 and 11 of this Article, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 9, 10 and 11. 14. The global stocktake referred to in Article 14 shall, inter alia: (a) Recognize adaptation efforts of developing country Parties; (b) Enhance the implementation of adaptation action taking into account the adaptation communication referred to in paragraph 10 of this Article; (c) Review the adequacy and effectiveness of adaptation and support provided for adaptation; and (d) Review the overall progress made in achieving the global goal on adaptation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Article 8 1. Parties recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage. 2. The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts shall be subject to the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement and may be enhanced and strengthened, as determined by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 3. Parties should enhance understanding, action and support, including through the Warsaw International Mechanism, as appropriate, on a cooperative and facilitative basis with respect to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. 4. Accordingly, areas of cooperation and facilitation to enhance understanding, action and support may include: (a) Early warning systems; (b) Emergency preparedness; (c) Slow onset events; (d) Events that may involve irreversible and permanent loss and damage; (e) Comprehensive risk assessment and management; (f) Risk insurance facilities, climate risk pooling and other insurance solutions; (g) Non-economic losses; (h) Resilience of communities, livelihoods and ecosystems. 5. The Warsaw International Mechanism shall collaborate with existing bodies and expert groups under the Agreement, as well as relevant organizations and expert bodies outside the Agreement. Article 9 1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention. 2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily. 3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 27 through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts. 4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation. 5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis. 6. The global stocktake referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance. 7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so. 8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement. 9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans. Article 10 1. Parties share a long-term vision on the importance of fully realizing technology development and transfer in order to improve resilience to climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Parties, noting the importance of technology for the implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions under this Agreement and recognizing existing technology deployment and dissemination efforts, shall strengthen cooperative action on technology development and transfer. 3. The Technology Mechanism established under the Convention shall serve this Agreement. 4. A technology framework is hereby established to provide overarching guidance to the work of the Technology Mechanism in promoting and facilitating enhanced action on technology development and transfer in order to support the implementation of this Agreement, in pursuit of the long-term vision referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. 5. Accelerating, encouraging and enabling innovation is critical for an effective, long-term global response to climate change and promoting economic growth and sustainable development. Such effort shall be, as appropriate, supported, including by the Technology Mechanism and, through financial means, by the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, for collaborative approaches to research and development, and facilitating access to technology, in particular for early stages of the technology cycle, to developing country Parties. 6. Support, including financial support, shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, including for strengthening cooperative action on technology development and transfer at different stages of the technology cycle, with a view to achieving a balance between support for mitigation and adaptation. The global stocktake referred to in Article 14 shall take into account available information on efforts related to support on technology development and transfer for developing country Parties. Article 11 1. Capacity-building under this Agreement should enhance the capacity and ability of developing country Parties, in particular countries with the least capacity, such as the least developed countries, and those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, such as small island developing States, to take FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 28 effective climate change action, including, inter alia, to implement adaptation and mitigation actions, and shoul d facilitate technology development, dissemination and deployment, access to climate finance, relevant aspects of education, training and public awareness, and the transparent, timely and accurate communication of information. 2. Capacity-building should be country-driven, based on and responsive to national needs, and foster country ownership of Parties, in particular, for developing country Parties, including at the national, subnational and local levels. Capacity-building should be guided by lessons learned, including those from capacity-building activities under the Convention, and should be an effective, iterative process that is participatory, cross-cutting and gender-responsive. 3. All Parties should cooperate to enhance the capacity of developing country Parties to implement this Agreement. Developed country Parties should enhance support for capacity-building actions in developing country Parties. 4. All Parties enhancing the capacity of developing country Parties to implement this Agreement, including through regional, bilateral and multilateral approaches, shall regularly communicate on these actions or measures on capacity-building. Developing country Parties should regularly communicate progress made on implementing capacity-building plans, policies, actions or measures to implement this Agreement. 5. Capacity-building activities shall be enhanced through appropriate institutional arrangements to support the implementation of this Agreement, including the appropriate institutional arrangements established under the Convention that serve this Agreement. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall, at its first session, consider and adopt a decision on the initial institutional arrangements for capacity-building. Article 12 Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information, recognizing the importance of these steps with respect to enhancing actions under this Agreement. Article 13 1. In order to build mutual trust and confidence and to promote effective implementation, an enhanced transparency framework for action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’ different capacities and builds upon collective experience is hereby established. 2. The transparency framework shall provide flexibility in the implementation of the provisions of this Article to those developing country Parties that need it in the light of their capacities. The modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 13 of this Article shall reflect such flexibility. 3. The transparency framework shall build on and enhance the transparency arrangements under the Convention, recognizing the special circumstances of the least developed countries and small island developing States, and be implemented in a facilitative, non-intrusive, non-punitive manner, respectful of national sovereignty, and avoid placing undue burden on Parties. 4. The transparency arrangements under the Convention, including national communications, biennial reports and biennial update reports, international assessment and review and international consultation and analysis, shall form part of the experience drawn upon for the development of the modalities, procedures and guidelines under paragraph 13 of this Article. 5. The purpose of the framework for transparency of action is to provide a clear understanding of climate change action in the light of the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2, including clarity and tracking of progress towards achieving Parties’ individual nationally determined contributions under Article 4, and Parties’ adaptation actions under Article 7, including good practices, priorities, needs and gaps, to inform the global stocktake under Article 14. 6. The purpose of the framework for transparency of support is to provide clarity on support provided and received by relevant individual Parties in the context of climate change actions under Articles 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11, and, to the extent possible, to provide a full overview of aggregate financial support provided, to inform the global stocktake under Article 14. 7. Each Party shall regularly provide the following information: FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 29 (a) A national inventory report of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases, prepared using good practice methodologies accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement; (b) Information necessary to track progress made in implementing and achieving its nationally determined contribution under Article 4. 8. Each Party should also provide information related to climate change impacts and adaptation under Article 7, as appropriate. 9. Developed country Parties shall, and other Parties that provide support should, provide information on financial, technology transfer and capacity-building support provided to developing country Parties under Article 9, 10 and 11. 10. Developing country Parties should provide information on financial, technology transfer and capacity-building support needed and received under Articles 9, 10 and 11. 11. Information submitted by each Party under paragraphs 7 and 9 of this Article shall undergo a technical expert review, in accordance with decision 1/CP.21. For those developing country Parties that need it in the light of their capacities, the review process shall include assistance in identifying capacity-building needs. In addition, each Party shall participate in a facilitative, multilateral consideration of progress with respect to efforts under Article 9, and its respective implementation and achievement of its nationally determined contribution. 12. The technical expert review under this paragraph shall consist of a consideration of the Party’s support provided, as relevant, and its implementation and achievement of its nationally determined contribution. The review shall also identify areas of improvement for the Party, and include a review of the consistency of the information with the modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 13 of this Article, taking into account the flexibility accorded to the Party under paragraph 2 of this Article. The review shall pay particular attention to the respective national capabilities and circumstances of developing country Parties. 13. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall, at its first session, building on experience from the arrangements related to transparency under the Convention, and elaborating on the provisions in this Article, adopt common modalities, procedures and guidelines, as appropriate, for the transparency of action and support. 14. Support shall be provided to developing countries for the implementation of this Article. 15. Support shall also be provided for the building of transparency-related capacity of developing country Parties on a continuous basis. Article 14 1. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall periodically take stock of the implementation of this Agreement to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of this Agreement and its long-term goals (referred to as the “global stocktake”). It shall do so in a comprehensive and facilitative manner, considering mitigation, adaptation and the means of implementation and support, and in the light of equity and the best available science. 2. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall undertake its first global stocktake in 2023 and every five years thereafter unless otherwise decided by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 3. The outcome of the global stocktake shall inform Parties in updating and enhancing, in a nationally determined manner, their actions and support in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Agreement, as well as in enhancing international cooperation for climate action. Article 15 1. A mechanism to facilitate implementation of and promote compliance with the provisions of this Agreement is hereby established. 2. The mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall consist of a committee that shall be expert-based and facilitative in nature and function in a manner that is transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive. The committee shall pay particular attention to the respective national capabilities and circumstances of Parties. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 30 3. The committee shall operate under the modalities and procedures adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session and report annually to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. Article 16 1. The Conference of the Parties, the supreme body of the Convention, shall serve as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement. 2. Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to this Agreement may participate as observers in the proceedings of any session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement. When the Conference of the Parties serves as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, decisions under this Agreement shall be taken only by those that are Parties to this Agreement. 3. When the Conference of the Parties serves as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, any member of the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties representing a Party to the Convention but, at that time, not a Party to this Agreement, shall be replaced by an additional member to be elected by and from amongst the Parties to this Agreement. 4. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall keep under regular review the implementation of this Agreement and shall make, within its mandate, the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. It shall perform the functions assigned to it by this Agreement and shall: (a) Establish such subsidiary bodies as deemed necessary for the implementation of this Agreement; and (b) Exercise such other functions as may be required for the implementation of this Agreement. 5. The rules of procedure of the Conference of the Parties and the financial procedures applied under the Convention shall be applied mutatis mutandis under this Agreement, except as may be otherwise decided by consensus by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 6. The first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall be convened by the secretariat in conjunction with the first session of the Conference of the Parties that is scheduled after the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Subsequent ordinary sessions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall be held in conjunction with ordinary sessions of the Conference of the Parties, unless otherwise decided by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 7. Extraordinary sessions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall be held at such other times as may be deemed necessary by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement or at the written request of any Party, provided that, within six months of the request being communicated to the Parties by the secretariat, it is supported by at least one third of the Parties. 8. The United Nations and its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as any State member thereof or observers thereto not party to the Convention, may be represented at sessions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement as observers. Any body or agency, whether national or international, governmental or non-governmental, which is qualified in matters covered by this Agreement and which has informed the secretariat of its wish to be represented at a session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement as an observer, may be so admitted unless at least one third of the Parties present object. The admission and participation of observers shall be subject to the rules of procedure referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. Article 17 1. The secretariat established by Article 8 of the Convention shall serve as the secretariat of this Agreement. 2. Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the functions of the secretariat, and Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention, on the arrangements made for the functioning of the secretariat, shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Agreement. The secretariat shall, in addition, exercise the functions assigned to it under this Agreement and by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 31 Article 18 1. The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation established by Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention shall serve, respectively, as the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation of this Agreement. The provisions of the Convention relating to the functioning of these two bodies shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Agreement. Sessions of the meetings of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation of this Agreement shall be held in conjunction with the meetings of, respectively, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation of the Convention. 2. Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to this Agreement may participate as observers in the proceedings of any session of the subsidiary bodies. When the subsidiary bodies serve as the subsidiary bodies of this Agreement, decisions under this Agreement shall be taken only by those that are Parties to this Agreement. 3. When the subsidiary bodies established by Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention exercise their functions with regard to matters concerning this Agreement, any member of the bureaux of those subsidiary bodies representing a Party to the Convention but, at that time, not a Party to this Agreement, shall be replaced by an additional member to be elected by and from amongst the Parties to this Agreement. Article 19 1. Subsidiary bodies or other institutional arrangements established by or under the Convention, other than those referred to in this Agreement, shall serve this Agreement upon a decision of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall specify the functions to be exercised by such subsidiary bodies or arrangements. 2. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement may provide further guidance to such subsidiary bodies and institutional arrangements. Article 20 1. This Agreement shall be open for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Convention. It shall be open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017. Thereafter, this Agreement shall be open for accession from the day following the date on which it is closed for signature. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary. 2. Any regional economic integration organization that becomes a Party to this Agreement without any of its member States being a Party shall be bound by all the obligations under this Agreement. In the case of regional economic integration organizations with one or more member States that are Parties to this Agreement, the organization and its member States shall decide on their respective responsibilities for the performance of their obligations under this Agreement. In such cases, the organization and the member States shall not be entitled to exercise rights under this Agreement concurrently. 3. In their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, regional economic integration organizations shall declare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by this Agreement. These organizations shall also inform the Depositary, who shall in turn inform the Parties, of any substantial modification in the extent of their competence. Article 21 1. This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 2. Solely for the limited purpose of paragraph 1 of this Article, “total global greenhouse gas emissions” means the most up-to-date amount communicated on or before the date of adoption of this Agreement by the Parties to the Convention. 3. For each State or regional economic integration organization that ratifies, accepts or approves this Agreement or accedes thereto after the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of this Article for entry into force have been fulfilled, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 32 this Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit by such State or regional economic integration organization of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 4. For the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Article, any instrument deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by its member States. Article 22 The provisions of Article 15 of the Convention on the adoption of amendments to the Convention shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Agreement. Article 23 1. The provisions of Article 16 of the Convention on the adoption and amendment of annexes to the Convention shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Agreement. 2. Annexes to this Agreement shall form an integral part thereof and, unless otherwise expressly provided for, a reference to this Agreement constitutes at the same time a reference to any annexes thereto. Such annexes shall be restricted to lists, forms and any other material of a descriptive nature that is of a scientific, technical, procedural or administrative character. Article 24 The provisions of Article 14 of the Convention on settlement of disputes shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Agreement. Article 25 1. Each Party shall have one vote, except as provided for paragraph 2 of this Article. 2. Regional economic integration organizations, in matters within their competence, shall exercise their right to vote with a number of votes equal to the number of their member States that are Parties to this Agreement. Such an organization shall not exercise its right to vote if any of its member States exercises its right, and vice versa. Article 26 The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be the Depositary of this Agreement. Article 27 No reservations may be made to this Agreement. Article 28 1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary. 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal. 3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement. Article 29 The original of this Agreement, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. DONE at Paris this twelfth day of December two thousand and fifteen. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized to that effect, have signed this Agreement. City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-536 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:9. Staffreportregardingaresolutionapprovingapurchasepriceofsevenmilliononehundredeightythousand dollars($7,180,000)andretentionbytheCityofSouthSanFranciscoofcertainformerRedevelopmentAgency realpropertyassetspursuanttotheapprovedLongRangePropertyManagementPlanandHealthandSafety Code Section 34191.5.(Marian Lee, Assistant City Manager and Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION StaffrecommendstheCityCounciladoptaresolutionapprovingapurchasepriceofsevenmillionone hundredeightythousanddollars($7,180,000)andretentionbytheCityofcertainformerRedevelopment Agencyrealpropertyassets(FormerPUCParcels:APN093-312-050,APN093-312-060,APN011-326- 030,APN011-322-030)pursuanttotheapprovedLongRangePropertyManagementPlanandHealth and Safety Code Section 34191.5 for the Community Civic Campus project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION ConsistentwiththeapprovedLongRangePropertyManagementPlan(LRPMP),onFebruary8,2017,theCity adoptedResolution16-2017approvingthetransferofcertainRedevelopmentPropertiesfromtheSuccessor AgencytotheCity.Subsequently,onFebruary21,2017,theOversightBoardadoptedaresolutionapproving thetransferoftheRedevelopmentPropertiesfromtheSuccessorAgencytotheCity.Subsequently,the SuccessorAgencyandCityexecutedgrantdeedstransferringallremainingtheRedevelopmentPropertiesto the City in order to carry out the terms of the LRPMP. TheCityisinterestedinretainingfourofthenineteenRedevelopmentPropertiesinordertoconstructthe City’sproposedCommunityCivicCampusprojectatthecornerofElCaminoRealandChestnutAvenue. ThesefourpropertiesarepartoftheformerPUCparcelsandareidentifiedintheLRPMPaspropertynumbers #2,#3,#6,&#7,andtheAssessorParcelNumbersare:APN093-312-050,APN093-312-060,APN011-326- 030,andAPN011-322-030.TheCity’splanindevelopingthepotentialCommunityCivicCampusprojectis alsoconsistentwiththeLRPMP’sstatedgoalforthePUCpropertiesbyadoptingastrategymostlikelyto maximizethelong-termrevenuetothetaxingagencieswhilealsomaintainingthevisionexpressedinthe formerRedevelopmentAgency’sElCaminoCorridorProjectPlan,theElCaminoReal/ChestnutAvenueArea Plan and the City’s General Plan. AppraisalspreparedbyWatts,CohnandPartnersInc.inDecember2016determinedthatthefairmarketprice ofthesubjectPUCPropertiesbasedonthehighestandbestusescontemplatedintheLRPMP,afterreasonable deductions,issevenmilliononehundredeightythousanddollars($7,180,000).Theofferofthesaidamount waspresentedtotheOversightBoardoftheSuccessorAgencytotheRedevelopmentagencyandwasaccepted with the following two conditions: 1.TheCitywillcommittoincludingtheOakAvenueextensionprojectintheCity’sCapitalImprovement Plan,makingbestreasonableeffortstoprepareafullfundingplan(includingafivemillion,three hundredandseventythousanddollars($5,370,000)setaside)forthetotalcostoftheextensionwhichis estimatedatfifteenmillionfivehundredthousanddollars($15,500,000)in2017dollars,andbuilding theprojectsubjecttonecessaryprocessesandapprovals,includingenvironmentalandpublic City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-536 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:9. discussions. 2.IfthefinalcostsofenvironmentalremediationundertakenbytheCityonthePUCPropertiescostsless thansevenhundredandninetythousanddollars($790,000),thecostestimateforsoilremediation,the Citywilldistributethedifferencebetweenthesevenhundredandninetythousanddollar($790,000) remediation estimate and the final remediation costs to the taxing entities. PerSenateBill107,CaliforniaHealthandSafetyCodesection34191.5(f),actionstoimplementthedisposition ofpropertypursuanttoanapprovedLRPMPdoesnotrequirereviewbytheDepartmentofFinance(DOF). AdoptionofthisresolutionwouldbeconsistentwiththeLRPMP.Theassociatedresolutionapprovesthe retentionofcertainformerRedevelopmentAgencyassetsbytheCityofSouthSanFranciscoatfairmarket value based on the highest and best use contemplated by the LRPMP. FUNDING Fundsof$7,180,000foracquisitionofthelandfromtheSuccessorAgencywillcomefromthefollowing sources: ·Measure W: $2,440,861 ·Asset Seizure: $2,000,000 ·Library developer contribution: $236,224 ·Infrastructure Reserves: $2,502,915 SubjecttothecompletionofenvironmentalreviewpursuanttotheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA)andapprovaloftheappropriateenvironmentaldocument,theCitywillpaythepurchasepriceof$7.18 milliondollarstothetaxingentitiesaccordingtoSection5oftheAmendedandRestatedMasterAgreementfor TaxingEntityCompensation.Aspartofthatdistributiontothetaxingentities,theCitywillreceive17percent, or $1,220,600. The City’s share will be used to repay the Infrastructure Reserve for its share of the funding. CONCLUSION Staffrecommendsapprovingtheapurchasepriceofsevenmilliononehundredeightythousanddollars ($7,180,000)andretentionbytheCityofcertainformerRedevelopmentAgencyrealpropertyassets(APN093 -312-050,APN093-312-060,APN011-326-030,APN011-322-030)pursuanttotheapprovedLongRange PropertyManagementPlanandHealthandSafetyCodeSection34191.5fortheCommunityCivicCampus project.ThisactionisacriticalnextstepbeforeprocuringtheMasterArchitectandmovingforwardwith design and public outreach. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-538 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:9a. Resolutionapprovingapurchasepriceofsevenmilliononehundredeightythousanddollars($7,180,000)and retentionbytheCityofSouthSanFranciscoofcertainformerRedevelopmentAgencyrealpropertyassets pursuant to the approved Long Range Property Management Plan and Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5. WHEREAS,onJune29,2011,theLegislatureoftheStateofCalifornia(the“State”)adoptedAssemblyBillx1 26(“AB26”),whichamendedprovisionsoftheState’sCommunityRedevelopmentLaw(HealthandSafety Code sections 33000 et seq.); and WHEREAS,pursuanttoAB26andtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtdecisionin CaliforniaRedevelopment Association,etal.v.AnaMatosantos,etal.,whichupheldAB26,theformerRedevelopmentAgencyofthe City of South San Francisco was dissolved on February 1, 2012; and WHEREAS,theCityofSouthSanFrancisco(“City”)becametheSuccessorAgencytotheRedevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Successor Agency”); and WHEREAS,theCaliforniaLegislaturesubsequentlyamendedAB26bythepassageofAB1484andAB107, and these statutes are collectively referred to as the “Dissolution Law”; and WHEREAS,pursuanttoHealthandSafetyCodeSection34191.5(c)(2)(C),propertyshallnotbetransferredto asuccessoragency,city,countyorcityandcounty,unlessaLongRangePropertyManagementPlan(LRPMP) has been approved by the Oversight Board and the California Department of Finance (“DOF”); and WHEREAS,pursuanttotheDissolutionLaw,theSuccessorAgencypreparedanLRPMP,whichwasapproved byaresolutionoftheOversightBoardfortheSuccessorAgencytotheRedevelopmentAgencyoftheCityof SouthSanFrancisco(“OversightBoard”)onMay21,2015,andwasapprovedbytheDOFonOctober1,2015; and WHEREAS,pursuanttotheDissolutionLawandtheLRPMP,certainrealpropertieslocatedintheCityof SouthSanFrancisco,werepreviouslyownedbytheformerRedevelopmentAgencywastransferredtothe Successor Agency (“Agency Properties”); and WHEREAS,theLRPMPestablishesaplanfortransferringnineteen(19)AgencyPropertiesfromtheSuccessor AgencytotheCityfordevelopmentconsistentwithanapprovedredevelopmentplan(the“Redevelopment Properties”)pursuanttoHealthandSafetyCodesection34191.5(c)(2)andinaccordancewiththerequirements set forth in the LRPMP; and WHEREAS,onOctober18,2016,theCityofSouthSanFranciscoenteredintoanAmendedandRestated MasterAgreementforTaxingEntityCompensation(“CompensationAgreement”)withthevariouslocal agencieswhoreceivesharesofpropertytaxrevenuesfromtheformerredevelopmentprojectarea(“TaxingCity of South San Francisco Printed on 6/16/2017Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-538 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:9a. agencieswhoreceivesharesofpropertytaxrevenuesfromtheformerredevelopmentprojectarea(“Taxing Entities”); and WHEREAS,theCompensationAgreementprovidesthatuponapprovalbytheOversightBoardofthesale price,andconsistentwiththeLRPMP,theproceedsfromthesaleofanyoftheAgencyPropertieswillbe distributedtotheTaxingEntitiesinaccordancewiththeirproportionatecontributionstotheRealPropertyTax Trust Fund for the former Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS,onFebruary8,2017,theCityadoptedResolution16-2017approvingthetransferofthe RedevelopmentPropertiesfromtheSuccessorAgencytotheCityandinaccordancewiththerequirementsset forth in the LRPMP; and WHEREAS,onFebruary21,2017,theOversightBoardadoptedaresolutionapprovingthetransferofthe Redevelopment Properties from the Successor Agency to the City; and WHEREAS,consistentwiththeLRPMPandtheOversightBoardresolution,theSuccessorAgencyandCity executed and recorded grant deeds transferring the Redevelopment Properties to the City; and WHEREAS,four(4)ofthenineteen(19)RedevelopmentProperties,whicharecommonlyknownastheformer PUCproperties,areidentifiedintheLRPMPforredevelopmentactivitiesconsistentwiththeRedevelopment Plan and the LRPMP, and more specifically identified in Exhibit A (“PUC Properties”); and WHEREAS,theCity,inpartnershipwiththeGrandBoulevardInitiative,conductedamarketanalysisforthe siteandpreparedadevelopmentprogramthatwouldbeconsistentwiththeRedevelopmentPlanandtheEl Camino Real Chestnut Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,atthetimeofLRPMPpreparation,theCityandtheconsultantsdeterminedthatamaster- developer approach would yield the highest and best uses of the PUC Properties; and WHEREAS,theCityisinterestedinretainingthePUCPropertiesinordertoconstructtheCity’sproposed Community Civic Campus Project; and WHEREAS,theCity’sgoalofdevelopingaCommunityCivicCampusProjectonthePUCPropertieswould achievethesamegoalsasthemasterdeveloperapproachidentifiedintheLRPMP,whichisto,“adopta strategymostlikelytomaximizethelong-termrevenuetothetaxingagencieswhilealsomaintainingthevision expressedintheformerRedevelopmentAgency’sElCaminoCorridorProjectPlan,theElCamino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and the City’s General Plan; (LRPMP p. 68)”; and WHEREAS,theLRPMPalsocontainsthefollowingadditionalstatementsregardingtheobjectivesforthePUC Properties: ·“TheCityofSouthSanFranciscohasidentifiedtheintersectionofElCaminoRealandChestnut Avenueasakeyopportunitysitefornewdevelopmentandeconomicrevitalization.TheElCamino Real/ChestnutAvenueAreaPlan,adoptedin2011,establishesacompellinglong-termvisionforthe areaasanewmixed-useneighborhoodwithresidential,retail,andcivicusesatarangeofdensities, along with public plazas and open space that benefit the broader community.” (LRPMP, p. 68) ·“StrategicEconomicsworkedwithSuccessorAgencystafftodeviseadevelopmentprogramthatis City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/16/2017Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-538 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:9a. ·“StrategicEconomicsworkedwithSuccessorAgencystafftodeviseadevelopmentprogramthatis bothmarketdrivenandconsistentwiththecommunity’sgoalsforthestudyareaasexpressedintheEl CaminoReal/ChestnutAvenueAreaPlanandthegoalsoftheElCaminoRealProjectPlan.The developmentprogramassumesredevelopmentofallSuccessorAgency-ownedparcelsinamanner consistentwithamasterdeveloperapproach.Inthisapproach,thepropertyisredevelopedwiththegoal ofmaximizingthecombinedpotentialofalloftheparcels”…1)economiesofscale;2)moreefficient site design; 3) development of all properties. (LRPMP, pp. 71-72) ·IntheeventtheSuccessorAgencyelectedtosellindividualproperties,SiteCistheonlysitethatwould bedevelopedconsistentwiththeAgency’sElCaminoCorridorProjectPlan,theElCamino Real/ChestnutAvenueAreaPlanandtheCity’sGeneralPlan.SiteA1wouldmostlikelybepurchased byabusinessthatwouldretaintheexistinguse.SiteA2wouldnotbedevelopedorsoldgiventhesite’s developmentconstraintsandenvironmentalcondition.ThesizeandaccessibilityconstraintsofSiteA3 andSiteBwouldmostlikelyprecludethedevelopmentandsaleofthesepropertiesaswell.Such outcomeswasteatremendousopportunitytodevelophundredsofhousingunitsinatransitoriented area.” (LRPMP, pp. 71-72) WHEREAS,thedevelopmentoftheCommunityCivicCampusProject,whichwouldincludeanewjoint libraryandrecreationcenter,policestation,andothercivicuses,wouldbeconsistentwiththestatedgoalsof the LRPMP and maximize the development of all properties; and WHEREAS,appraisalscompletedinDecember2016byaqualifiedcommercialrealestateappraiser determinedthatthetotalfairmarketvalueofthePUCPropertiesbasedonthehighestandbestuses contemplatedintheLRPMP,afterreasonabledeductionsforenvironmentalcleanupandinfrastructurecosts,is seven million one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($7,180,000); and WHEREAS,thedeductionforanallocableshareofinfrastructurecostsfortheplannedextensionofOak Avenueisbasedonprojectedtripgenerationfromthesubjectparcels,whichisanacceptedandreasonable allocation methodology; and WHEREAS,thedeductionforenvironmentalcleanupisbasedonestimatesofsoilremediationcostsforthe PUC Properties; and WHEREAS,theCityhasofferedtopaysevenmilliononehundredeightythousanddollars($7,180,000)in order to retain the PUC Properties for use as the City’s Community Civic Campus Project; and WHEREAS,theretentionofthepropertiesandtheimplementationoftheamendedLRPMPthroughthis ResolutionitselfdoesnotcommittheCitytoanyactionthatmayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment andthusdoesnotconstitutea“project”subjecttotherequirementsoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDthattheCityCounciloftheCityofSouthSanFranciscodoes hereby take the following actions: (1)Findsanddeterminesthattheaboverecitalsaretrueandcorrectandtheproposedactionsareconsistent with the Long Range Property Management Plan. (2)SubjecttothecompletionofenvironmentalreviewpursuanttotheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/16/2017Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-538 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:9a. (2)SubjecttothecompletionofenvironmentalreviewpursuanttotheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act(CEQA)andapprovaloftheappropriateenvironmentaldocument,theCityCouncilauthorizestheCityto payatotalpurchasepriceofsevenmilliononehundredeightythousanddollars($7,180,000)fortheAgency PropertiesidentifiedintheLRPMPasproperties#2,#3,#6,and#7,andasalsodescribedinExhibitA (the “PUC Properties”). (3)ApprovestheretentionbytheCityofSouthSanFranciscooftheAgencyPropertiesidentifiedinthe LRPMPasproperties#2,#3,#6,and#7,andasalsodescribedinExhibitA.TheretentionofthePUC Properties by the City is conditioned on the following terms: (A)PendingcompliancewithCEQA,theCitywillpayatotalpurchasepriceofsevenmillionone hundredeightythousanddollars($7,180,000)forthePUCProperties.Thesaleproceedswillbe distributedtothetaxingentitiesaccordingtoSection5oftheAmendedandRestatedMaster AgreementforTaxingEntityCompensation.NothinginthisResolutionshallbedeemedtopre- committheCityCounciltoretainingthePUCPropertiesuntiltheCityCouncilformallyapproves theissuanceofaNoticeofDecisionoranyotherappropriateenvironmentalreviewrequiredunder the CEQA. (B)PendingcompliancewithCEQA,theCitywillcommittoincludingtheOakAvenueextensionproject intheCity’sCapitalImprovementPlan,makingreasonableeffortstoprepareafullfundingplan (includingafivemillion,threehundredandseventythousanddollars($5,370,000)setaside)forthe totalcostoftheextensionwhichisestimatedatfifteenmillionfivehundredthousanddollars ($15,500,000)in2017dollars,andbuildingtheprojectsubjecttonecessaryprocessesand approvals, including environmental review and public discussions. (C)IfthefinalcostsforanyenvironmentalremediationundertakenbytheCityonthePUCPropertiesis lessthansevenhundredandninetythousanddollars($790,000),thecostestimateforsoil remediation,theCitywilldistributethedifferencebetweenthesevenhundredandninetythousand dollar($790,000)soilremediationestimateandthefinalremediationcoststothetaxingentities accordingtoSection5oftheAmendedandRestatedMasterAgreementforTaxingEntity Compensation. (D)PriortotheretentionofthePUCPropertiesandthedistributionofthenetunrestrictedproceedsfrom thesalepricetothetaxingentities,theCityshallbegiventheopportunitytoobtainatitlefreeand clearofallliens,encumbrances,conditions,covenants,andrestrictionsthatwouldaffectthe marketabilityorvalueoftheProperty.ThisconditionmayonlybewaivediftheCityexpressly agreestoacquiretitletothepropertysubjecttocertainexceptionswhichmayappearonthetitle report. (E)IntheeventthattheCityretainsthePUCPropertiesandpaysatotalpurchasepriceofsevenmillionone hundredeightythousanddollars($7,180,000),upondistributionofthesalepricetothetaxing entities,thePUCPropertieswillnolongerbesubjecttotheprovisionsoftheAmendedandRestated MasterAgreementforTaxingEntityCompensation,andtheCitywillbeentitledtoretainanyfuture revenuereceivedfromanyofthePUCProperties.TheCitywillacceptthepropertiessubjecttoany existing leases as of the date of this resolution. (4)AuthorizesanddirectstheCityManagerandanydesigneestoexecuteandrecordanyandall documents,andtakeallactionsnecessarytoimplementthisintentofthisResolution,includingwithout City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/16/2017Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-538 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:9a. documents,andtakeallactionsnecessarytoimplementthisintentofthisResolution,includingwithout limitationtheexecutionofGrantDeeds,QuitclaimDeeds,CertificatesofAcceptance,andallothernecessary instruments, as applicable, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. (5)FindsthattheadoptionofthisResolutionitselfdoesnotcommittheCityofSouthSanFranciscotoany actionthatmayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironmentandthusdoesnotconstitutea“project”subjectto therequirementsoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(“CEQA”),pursuanttoCEQAGuidelinessection 15061(b)(3). ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/16/2017Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Exhibit A PUC Properties LRPMP Property # Address APN 2 Former PUC Properties 093-312-050 3 093-312-060 6 011-326-030 7 1 Chestnut Avenue 011-322-030 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-455 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:10. ReportregardingaresolutionconfirminganincreaseinsolidwastecollectionratessubmittedbytheSouthSan Francisco Scavenger Company effective July 1, 2017.(Richard Lee, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION ItisrecommendedthattheCityCounciladoptaresolutionconfirminganincreaseinsolidwaste collection rates submitted by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company effective July 1, 2017. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION OnJuly9,1997,theCityCouncilapprovedafranchiseagreementforcollectionanddisposalofsolidwaste withtheSouthSanFranciscoScavengerCompany(FranchiseAgreement).UnderthetermstheFranchise Agreement, the solid waste rates are adjusted based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI). TheSouthSanFranciscoScavengerCompany(Scavenger)submittedatimelynoticeofintenttoadjustitsrates forsolidwasteandsludgehaulingforFiscalYear2017-18.Scavenger’sproposedrateadjustmentisconsistent withthetermsoftheFranchiseAgreementinthattheproposed2.62%increaseisan8)percentoftheCPI. CitystaffhasreviewedtheproposedrateincreaseandhasconfirmedthatthedatafromtheUnitedStates BureauofLaborStatisticsindicatesthattheCPIinFebruary2016was257.141,andchangedto265.569in February2017,whichamountstoanincreaseof3.28percent.Staffhasalsoconfirmedthatthecalculationof 80 percent of the change in the CPI equals 2.62 percent. Inthepastyear,SouthSanFranciscoresidentshaveincreasedtheirhouseholdrecycling,whichhasresultedin areductionintheamountofsolidwastecollected.Overthelastyear,thepercentageofresidentsusing20- gallontrashcollectioncanshasincreasedslightlyfrom18.5percentto18.6percent,whilethoseusing32- gallon cans has decreased from 73.3 percent to 72.2 percent. In2013,theCityenteredintoanamendmentwiththeScavengersthatprovidesforarolling20yearfranchise term.ThelongertermwasimplementedtoallowtheScavengerstohavealongerperiodtoobtainfinancingfor theirinvestmentincapitalimprovements.Aspartoftheirapprovalofthatamendment,theCouncilaskedthe Scavengerstoprovideanannualupdateonthestatusoftheircapitalprogram.Representativesofthe ScavengerswillbeatthemeetingonJune22ndtopresentthisinformation,asummaryofwhichisinthe PowerPoint attached to this report (Attachment 2). FISCAL IMPACT Basedonthe3.28%changeintheCPIoverthelastyear,80%ofthatincreaseequals2.62percent,whichis accuratelyreflectedinSouthSanFranciscoScavengers’rateproposal.Theratesforresidentialcustomersusing the20-galloncansizewillincreasefrom$24.52to$25.16permonth.Ratesforresidentialcustomersusingthe 32-gallonwillincreasefrom$31.01to$31.82permonth.Acopyofthefullrateproposalisattachedfor Council’s information (Attachment 1). CONCLUSION CertifyingtheScavenger’ssolidwasteproposalwillsatisfythetermsoftheFranchiseAgreementwiththe City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-455 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:10. City. Attachments: 1.LetterfromSouthSanFranciscoScavengerCompanydatedMarch28,2017,includingCPICalculation and Rate Schedule 2.South San Francisco Scavenger Company PowerPoint Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVENGER COMPANY 2017 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE CREATING ENERGY WITH ORGANICS AND THE SUN New solar panels on our Dry Anaerobic Digestion Facility increase our ability to reduce our carbon footprint and power our facility ONGOING CAPITAL INVESTMENTS •Added five more CNG- powered trucks for a total of 32 ONGOING CAPITAL INVESTMENTS Added 19 more slow- fill fueling stalls for a total of 39 Updated 4R Learning Center We challenge visitors to properly sort: Food waste, food-soiled paper and yard trimmings belong in the green cart. Junk mail, newspapers, magazines, catalogs and paper packaging belong under the gray lid on the blue cart. Aluminum, glass and plastic containers belong under the blue lid on the blue cart. Only garbage belongs in the gray cart.. Worked With Parks and Recreation Staff to Implement Organics Collection and Expand Recycling Efforts Working to ensure legislative compliance Additional Diversion Programs Continuing to Minimize Our Carbon Footprint Questions? City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-620 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:10a. ResolutionconfirminganincreaseinsolidwastecollectionratesassubmittedbytheSouthSanFrancisco Scavenger Company, effective July 1, 2017. WHEREAS,theCityCouncilapprovedafranchiseagreementonJuly9,1997withtheSouthSanFrancisco Scavenger Company for collection and disposal of solid waste (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS,Section6.2oftheAgreementstipulatesthatratesforresidentialcollectionanddisposalofsolid waste may increase by 80 percent of the yearly increase in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI); and WHEREAS,basedonthecalculationsetforthinSection6.2oftheAgreement,theacceptablerateincreasefor this year is 2.62 percent; and WHEREAS,Section5.9oftheAgreement,asamendedonMay9,2002,stipulatesthatsludgehaulingfeesmay increaseannuallyby80percentoftheBayAreaConsumerPriceIndex(CPI),andbasedonthatcalculation,the acceptable rate increase for this cycle is 2.62 percent; and WHEREAS,thecalculationshavebeenverifiedbyFinanceDepartmentstaff,andacompletefeescheduleis attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDbytheCityCounciloftheCityofSouthSanFranciscothattheCity Councilherebyconfirmsthatthe2.62%rateincreasebytheSouthSanFranciscoScavengerCompanyforthe solidwastedisposalandcollectionfees,effectiveJuly1,2017,andasshowninExhibitA,areconsistentwith the terms of the Agreement. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/3/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ EXHIBIT A City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-619 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:11. Motion to approve the Minutes from the meetings of February 8, 2017, February 22, 2017 and March 8, 2017. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-589 Agenda Date:6/14/2017 Version:1 Item #:12. Motion confirming payment registers for June 14, 2017.(Richard Lee, Director of Finance) Thepaymentsshownintheattachedpaymentregisterareaccurateandsufficientfundswereavailablefor payment (payroll items excluded). Attachment: Payment Register City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/9/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™