The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-05-12 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004 6:45 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 12th day of May, 2004, at 6:45 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: Call to Order Roll Call Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda Interview applicant for Mosquito Abatement District Discussion/appointment to Mosquito Abatement District 6. Adjournment /s/Sylvia M. Payne City Clerk AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer MICHAEL A. WILSON Executive Director KARYL MATSUMOTO Chair JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of April 28, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of May 12, 2004 3. Resolution accepting the preliminary plan and project area for the amendment adding area to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area; directing preparation of the redevelopment plan amendment and fiscal merger for the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans; and authorizing transmittal of required information to taxing entities and officials ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Review of Peninsula Habitat for Humanity's housing project proposal at 440 Commercial Avenue CLOSED SESSION 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 820 Tennis Drive and 178-190 Airport Boulevard; Agency Negotiator: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA MAY 12, 2004 PAGE 2 Redevelopment Agency Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: May 12, 2004 Redevelopment Agency Board Marty Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE AMENDMENT ADDING AREA TO THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND FISCAL MERGER FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL, GATEWAY AND U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PLANS; AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF REQUIRED INFORMATION TO TAXING ENTITIES AND STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency (i) Accept the Preliminary Plan and Project Area for the Amendment Adding Area to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area; (ii) Direct Preparation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger for the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans; and (iii) Authorize Transmittal of Required Information to Taxing Entities and Officials. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION The Redevelopment Agency is proposing to amend the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans to add the Oyster Point Marina Park to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"). The Redevelopment Plans were previously amended in 1994, and the Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Plans again in March of this year, to revise various time limits for project activities. The first step in adopting the proposed Amendment was to have the City Council designate a Survey Area for the purpose of studying whether it was feasible to add territory to the existing Downtown/Central Project Area. The Survey Area consisted of the Oyster Point Marina Park. The Oyster Point Marina is directly east of the fork intersection at Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Road. The main street running through the Oyster Point Marina is Marina Boulevard. The City Council designated this as the Survey Area at its March 10, 2004 meeting. StaffReport Subject: Resolution Accepting the Preliminary Plan and Project Area; Preparing of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger; Authorizing Transmittal of Information to Taxing Entities Page 2 The next step in the amendment process was to have the Planning Commission establish the boundaries of the proposed area to be added ("Added Area") to the existing Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and prepare a "Preliminary Plan" for the Added Area. As required by state law, the boundaries of the Added Area must be within the boundaries designated by the City Council as the Survey Area. The Preliminary Plan must provide a general discussion of the conditions affecting the property in the proposed Added Area and describe how redevelopment can improve this property. The Preliminary Plan is an initial framework document for the Plan Amendment process. In accordance with the requirements of California Health and Safety Code 33324, the Preliminary Plan: (a) Describes the boundaries of the project area. (b) Contains a general statement of the land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities and building intensities, and standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the project area. (c) Shows how the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained by redevelopment. (d) Shows that proposed redevelopment is consistent with the community's general plan. (e) Generally describes the impact of the project upon the area's residents, if any, and upon the surrounding neighborhood. On April 15, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution establishing the Added Area and submitting the Preliminary Plan to the Agency. It is recommended that the Agency accept the Preliminary Plan. In addition to accepting the Preliminary Plan, it is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board direct staff to prepare a Redevelopment Plan Amendment to add the Added Area to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, Gateway and Shearwater Redevelopment Plans. As previously discussed with the Board, the Redevelopment Plan Amendment will provide the Redevelopment Agency with the flexibility to combine revenues and accelerate investment in the Project Areas. In addition, in the Added Area, redevelopment of the Oyster Point Marina will become a catalyst for the commercial and recreational development that may include a new regional convention center, improved public access to the shoreline, recreational and commercial activities, and possibly a new ferry terminal. Directing staff to prepare the Redevelopment Plan Amendment also requires the Agency Board to transmit certain required information to taxing entities and officials. The Amendment will trigger statutory pass through payments to other taxing entities from the Added Area. However, the statutory payments will not create a burden to the Agency or affect its ability to Staff Report Subject: Resolution Accepting the Preliminary Plan and Project Area; Preparing of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger; Authorizing Transmittal of Information to Taxing Entities Page 3 conduct redevelopment activities because the statutory payments are paid from property tax revenues received by the Agency from future growth in assessed value resulting from redevelopment efforts. The Agency already has existing contractual and/or statutory pass through obligations from tax increment received from the current Gateway, Downtown/Central and Shearwater project areas. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency accept the Preliminary Plan submitted by the Planning Commission and direct staff to (i) prepare the Redevelopment Plan Amendment to add area to the Downtown/Central Project Area and fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans and (ii) transmit the required information to taxing entities and officials. These actions will enable the Redevelopment Agency to continue to eliminate blight and achieve desired development and reconstruction in the designated redevelopment areas and the Oyster Point Marina. B pproved: / /~, ~-,.~.~~I-~'~ Marty Van Duyn ;~i \ Michael A. Wilson Assistant Executive i~tor Executive Director Attachments: Resolution Preliminary Plan RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE AMENDMENT ADDING AREA TO THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; DIRECq'ING PREPARATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND FISCAL MERGER FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL, GATEWAY AND U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PLANS; AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITI'AL OF REQUIRED INFORMAl'ION TO TAXING ENTITIES AND STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS WHEREAS, proceedings have been commenced in connection with the proposed amendment of the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans ("Redevelopment Plans") to add the Oyster Point Marina Park to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and to fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans ("Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plans were previously amended in 1994, and the Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Plans again in March of 2004, to revise various time limits for project activities; and WHEREAS, at its March 10, 2004 meeting, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco designated a Survey Area for the purpose of studying whether it was feasible to add territory to the existing Downtown/Central Project Area. The Survey Area consisted of the Oyster Point Marina Park; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also established the boundaries for the proposed area to be added ("Added Area") to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, which as required by State law, are within the boundaries designated by the City Council as the Survey Area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission additionally prepared a "Preliminary Plan" for the Added Area, which in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 33324, provides a general discussion of the conditions affecting the property in the proposed Added Area, describes how redevelopment can improve this property and is an initial framework document for the Amendment process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on April 15, 2004, adopted a resolution establishing the Added Area, submitting the Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency and recommending that the Redevelopment Agency accept the Preliminary Plan; and WHEREAS, in the Added Area, redevelopment of the Oyster Point Marina will be a catalyst for the commercial and recreational development that may include a new regional convention center, improved public access to the shoreline, recreational and commercial activities, and possibly, a new ferry terminal; and WHEREAS, the proposed fiscal merger of the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., will provide the Redevelopment Agency with the flexibility to combine revenues and accelerate investment in the Project Areas; and WHEREAS, the Amendment will enable the Redevelopment Agency to continue to eliminate blight and achieve desired improvement and rehabilitation in the designated redevelopment areas and the Oyster Point Marina; and WHEREAS, although the Amendment will trigger statutory pass through payments to other taxing entities from the Added Area, the statutory payments will not create a burden on the Redevelopment Agency or affect its ability to conduct redevelopment activities because the statutory payments are paid from property tax revenues received by the Redevelopment Agency from future growth in assessed value resulting from redevelopment efforts. The Redevelopment Agency already has existing contractual and/or statutory pass through obligations from tax increment received from the current Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Project Areas; and WHEREAS, in the event the Amendment is approved, the 2004-2005 assessment roll shall be used as the base year assessment role for the purpose of allocation of taxes in the Added Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco as follows: (a) That the Preliminary Plan, formulated and previously approved by the Planning Commission, is hereby approved and accepted by the Redevelopment Agency; and (b) That the Agency directs staff to prepare the Redevelopment Plan Amendment to add area to the Downtown/Central Project Area and to fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans; and (c) That the Agency designates the 2004-2005 tax assessment role as the tax roll to be used for allocation of taxes; and (d) That the Agency directs staff to transmit all of the information and documentation identified in Health and Safety Code Sections 33327, 33328, and 33328.3 to all of those persons and entities listed in said Sections of the Health and Safety Code. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S :\Current Reso's~5-12downtown.rda. DOC ATTEST: Clerk EXHIBIT B PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Apfil15,2004 I. INTRODUCTION The Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan ) was adopted by Ordinance No. 1056-89 of the South San Francisco City Council on July 12, 1989 and the City of South San Francisco ("City") is proposing to amend the Redevelopment Plan to add additional area ("Added Area") to the existing redevelopment project area ("Project Area"). The Added Area is described and depicted in Attachment A to this Preliminary Plan. The purpose of this Preliminary Plan is to provide direction for the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") in the implementation of methods and procedures to satisfy the needs of the residents and business community in the development of a viable and active public and commercial base in the area proposed to be added. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33324, a preliminary plan is sufficient if it: · Describes the boundaries of the area to be added. Contains a general statement of the land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities and building intensities, and standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the added area. · Shows how such purposes would be attained by redevelopment. · Shows that the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the community's general plan. · Describes, generally, the impact of the project upon the area' s residents and upon the surrounding neighborhood. The basic goal of a preliminary plan is to identify a project area and to assist in the replanning or redesign of the area which is presently stagnant or improperly utilized due to a variety of factors. This Preliminary Plan proposes to arrest the decline and decay of blight throughout the Added Area through the restoration and revitalization of former and existing uses and the development of approved new uses. In addition, this Plan outlines the conditions deterring growth and preventing the Added Area from achieving its full potential. It explores the ways to protect and enhance the environment and focuses on the means to redevelop stagnating and blighted areas in such a way as to stimulate and attract private investment, thereby improving the area's economic health, employment opportunities and revenue producing activities. The blighted conditions currently existing in the Added Area include buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work, factors that substantially hinder the economically viable uses o r capacity o fb uildings o r 1 ots, and depreciated o r stagnant property values o r impaired investments including properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of a redevelopment agency's powers. The Preliminary Plan provides the initial framework for the proposed redevelopment and will be adjusted during the review that precedes adoption of the amendment. The review process will include more detailed studies that will target more specific problems as well as 2 propose programs and actions necessary to achieve the goal of eliminating blight in the Added Area. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDED AREA The boundaries of the Added Area are illustrated on the map accompanying this report which area is generally referred to as the Oyster Point Marina ("Marina"). The City owns the Marina property, and the San Mateo County Harbor District operates it under a Joint Powers Agreement with the City. The Marina generally consists of a mixture of commercial and recreational uses. III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED LAND USES All land uses will be in conformance with the City's General Plan, the City's Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable state and local building codes and guidelines and will be subject to all review and procedural requirements in effect as development and redevelopment take place within the Added Area. As required by State law, the Agency will use a minimum twenty percent of its allocated tax increment to increase, improve and preserve the supply of low and moderate income housing. Redevelopment within the Added Area is also expected to revitalize the commercial areas of the Marina and capitalize on the changes resulting from the extension of regular ferry service to South San Francisco. Within the Added Area, uses may include retail, restaurant facilities, business and professional offices, motels, and other uses to the extent and in the manner provided by the General Plan, the City's local ordinances and regulations, and any future specific plan that may include the Added Area or a portion thereof. IV. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STREETS The layout of principal streets will conform to the General Plan Circulation Element. Existing streets within the Added Area may be vacated, widened, or otherwise modified, and additional streets may be created or extended as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation in accordance with the General Plan Circulation Element and the City's ordinances and regulations as they now exist or may be revised hereafter. V. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED POPULATION DENSITIES Within the confines of the General Plan Land Use designations, there will be permitted a range of development. Population densities will conform to permitted levels in the General Plan although certain specified areas may see a net increase or decrease in density dependent upon the development proposed and permitted in that area by the Redevelopment Plan. VI. GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING INTENSITIES Building intensity will be controlled by the procedures and criteria established in the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and the City's ordinances and regulations as they now exist or may hereafter be amended. Such criteria and standards include: (1) the percentage of ground area covered by buildings (land coverage); (2) the ratio of total floor area for all stories of the buildings to areas of the building sites (floor area ratio); (3) the size and the location of the buildable areas on building sites; and (4) the heights of buildings. The land coverage, sizes and locations of buildable areas should be limited, a s is feasible and appropriate, to provide adequate open space, parking, other amenities, and a high level of livability. The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the limits contained in the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. VII. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS Minimum standards for redevelopment shall conform to the building requirements of all applicable State statutes and all applicable local codes and ordinances. VIII. ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW The redevelopment of the Added Area would achieve the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law o f the State o f California. California Redevelopment Law defines a "blighted area" as one which is "predominantly urbanized" and which contains some of the economic and physical conditions described above to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or government action or both without redevelopment. Certain goals and objectives have been identified in connection with the Added Area, the accomplishment of which will attain the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. These goals and objectives include, but are not limited to: · Alleviating adverse physical and economic blighting conditions within the Added Area. · Implementing the goals and policies of the General Plan. · Beautifying and enhancing the Added Area. · Improving transportation and traffic circulation throughout the Added Area through a variety of means. · Providing assistance to encourage rehabilitation of properties. · Preserving and creating civic, cultural, and educational facilities and amenities as a catalyst for area revitalization. · Upgrading and expanding recreational areas and open space. · Expanding and improving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing by using redevelopment project housing set-aside funds. Many aging, obsolescent, or physically deteriorated commercial buildings are located in the proposed Added Area. Many buildings show the effects of deferred maintenance, including outmoded signage, peeling paint, or more serious deterioration such as mold. Deficient or deteriorated buildings and contaminated land are found at various locations in the Marina and the successful reuse of such structures and land is complicated by the need to 4 remove such hazardous materials. Built to accommodate retail and office uses at the time of their construction, many of these business buildings have lost their economic viability. Some are of small size or irregular configuration. Others are poorly located on their sites. Still others 1 ack convenient parking. These buildings m ay not b e readily adaptable t o modern retailing or office use and may present an obstacle to economic use or future development. Benefits will occur to the present and future users and property owners within the proposed Added Area as well as to the residents and taxpayers of the City at large, if the proposed Added area is redeveloped. Redevelopment of the proposed Added Area would potentially be attained through alleviating the adverse physical and economic blighting conditions described herein, the implementation of the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and the mitigation of adverse conditions that contribute to soil and groundwater contamination. It is also anticipated that redevelopment will beautify and enhance the proposed Added Area, improve transportation and traffic circulation throughout the proposed Added Area, create safe and convenient circulation for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles, upgrade, modernize, improve and expand public infrastructure including improvements to expand and facilitate access to the Marina from the San Francisco B ay, as well as access from other parts of the City, and upgrade and expand recreational areas. IX. CONFORMANCE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN The Preliminary Plan conforms to the City's General Plan. The Preliminary Plan proposes a similar pattern of land uses and includes all streets and public facilities indicated by the General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan will include provisions providing that it will remain consistent with the General Plan as it, the General Plan, may be amended from time to time. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS Impact of the Project upon users of the proposed Added Area and residents of the surrounding neighborhoods will, in general, be minimal. There may be impacts upon residents using the circulation system within the Area due to the public works improvements which c an reasonably b e expected t o occur i n t he future. T he impacts, however, w ill, i n general, be positive and revolve around improvements to public facilities and services, transportation including proposed ferry service, parking, environmental quality, employment opportunities, economic development and affordable housing. It is expected that the rehabilitation will result in a safer, more attractive development that will be of lasting benefit to the residents and the community in general. This subject will be discussed in depth by the Redevelopment Agency in its Report to Council which will accompany the Amendment for the proposed Added Area. LEGAL' DESCRIPTION OYSTER POINT MARINA _PARCEL ONE Al1 that certain real property s~tuate in the City oF South San. Francisco, County of San Hateo~ State of California, 'described as BEGINNIN~ at a point on the Northerly line of the Jands desc~Tbed in the Deed fr~ Mary Barrett Carter, a single worn, to South San Francisco Scavenger Co., a partnership, dated June 2, 1959 and recorded June 8, in' Book 3615 Official Records of San ~teo County, pa~e 541 which point bears South 45.19 feet and North 880 27' 14" E~st 538.17 feet Fr~ a 6 ~nch ~ran~te monument set 660 feet South of the corner c~n to Sections 14, l~, 22 and 23, T~nsh~p 3 South Range 5 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, said ~nument be~n~ distant 12 feet North fr~ the South- westerly corner of the lands described in the Deed fr~ South San Francisco Land and Improvement Co. any, a Callforn~a c~rporation, to Irving ~. Wild- berg, Arthur'A. Wiidberg and L~pold Oppenheimer, Co-partners, doing'bus,ness under f~rm name and style of Wildberg Bros., dated ~rch 8,'1923 and recorded ~rch 9, 1923 in B~E 66 Of.fic~al Records of San Mat~ County, page (2569-A); thence fr~ said point of beBinninB North 55© 58" 26" East 197.35 feet; thence North 40° 58' 30" East ]68.65 feet;, thence North 34° 50' 00" 6 t n t , ~t_~66.64 feet; thence North : ........... t 9~.46 feet to a point in the n h r r y corner ot parcel one here~n desc ' . due East along sa~d production 978.6~ f~-, .... . ..... r~be~, thenc~ - ~ ;~ ~,un~ ~ne moss Northerly boundary of Tide Lots 7 and 6 in Section 23, T~nshlp 3 South~ Range 5. West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as sh~n on Map No. I of Salt Marsh and Tide Lands s~tuate In the County of San Nateo, State of California, prepared by Order of the Board of Tide Land Commissioners under the authority and in' accordance w~th the provisions of an Act entitled "an act supplementary to, and amendatory of an Act,.ent~tled an act to survey and dispose of certain salt ~rsh and tide lands belonging to the State of California, approved ~rch thirtieth eighteen hundred and sixty e~ht", approved April ist, 1870 to the most Northeasterly corner of said lot 6, be~n~ also the co~n corner of Tide Lots 5, 6, 27 and 28; thence North 1320 feet to the ~st Nort~esterly corner of Lot 28, being also the corner of Tide Lots 27, 28, 21 and 22; thence East 1320 feet along the ~st Northerly boundary of Tide Lots 28 and 29 to the most Northerly corner of T~de Lot 30, said t~de land lots being in Section 1~ T~n-. ship 3 So~th,. Range 5 West, Mount Diablo Base and Mer~dl. an, as sh~n on the ~p entitled "~p NO. I OF SALT ~RSH AND TIDE ~NDS SITUATE IN THE COUN~ OF SAN ~TEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PR~ARED BY ORDER OF ~E BOARD OF TIDE ~ND COMMISSIONERS UNDER THE AUTHORI~ AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT ENTITLED .'AN ACT SUPPL~ENTARY TO AND AMENDATORY OF AN ACT ~TITLED AN ACT TO SURVEY AND DISPOSE OF CERTAIN SALT ~RSH AND TiDE ~NDS BELONOlNG TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVED ~RCH ' TH1RTI~H EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-EIG~', APPROVED APRIL ~, thence South 45° East, ~33.37 feet to the most Northeasterly corner of Tide Lot 30; thence South ~980 feet alon9 the ~st Easterly boundary of PLATE Iil Page I of 3 Pages TTde Lots 30 and 3 to the most SoUtheasterly corner of Tide Lot 3; thence West~ 321L~.86 feet along the most Southeriy boundary of tide ~anc~ Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Section 23, T~nsh~p 3 South, Range 5 ~est, Mount D~ablo Base and Mcridlan~ as sh~n on the ~p entitled '~p NO. OF 'SALT ~RSH AND TIDE ~NDS SITUATE IN THE COUnTy OF SA~ ~TEO~ STATE OF CALIFORMIA~ PREPARED BY ORDER 0F THE BOARD OF TIDE ~ND CO~ISSi0NERS' U~DER THE A~HORITY AND 1~ ACCORD~E WITH THEPRdVISIONS OF AN ACT ENTITLED ~AN ACT SUPPLEMENTARY TO ~D AMEMDATORy OF AN ACT ENTITLED AN ACT TO SURV~.AND DISPOSE OF CERTAI~ SALT ~RSB AND TIDE ~MDS BELONGING TO THE STATE OF CALIFOR~tlA~ APPROVED ~&RCH T~IRTI~H. EIGHT HUNDR~ AND SIX~-EfGHT~, APPROVED APRIL 1, 1870"~ to th~ m~st Southwesterly corner of Lot 7; thence liort.h 22° lO' 25" East 52.~9 feet, thence liorth 56° I0~ 25~' East 13.78 feet to a point in the Easterly line of t~t certain additional Right of ~ay for sl~es referred to in Parcel I, as "on the left between Statics "A" 10 plus O0 to "A" t7 plus 00~ 80 feet" in ' the Deed from South San Francisco'Land and Improv~ent C~any, a corporation, to South San Francisco Belt Railway, a corporation, ~ate~ October 20~ 1~28 and recorded December 8, 1928 in B~k 38~ of Offi'clai Records of .San ~ateo County at page 289 (23920-B); thence leaving the line of T[~e Land Lot 7 on and along t~.e E~sterly line of t~e Right of Way for sl~es above referred to ~ the arc of a curve to t~e left, raalaI l~ne through the last mentioned ~int Eears Nort~ 85° 04' 53" West, hav~n~ a radius of ~O'.26 fe~t~ and an arc ]~ngth 16.55 feet to a point; t~ence Nort~ 86° 38~ 07" W~t, 55.00 fee~ to a poln~ w~ich bears South 86° 38' 07" East 45.00 feet fr~ Survey .line Station "A" 10 plus O0, as said ~urvey lin~ ls aescr~5e~ in Parce] I of t~at certain Dee~ recorded Dec,her 8, i~28 in Book 38~ of Official Records of San ~t~ County at p~ge 289 (2'3920-B) a ra~ial lin~ t~rough t. Me' last ~ntloned point bears. North 86° 38' 07" West: t~ence o~ t~e arc of a curve ~o [~e.left with a radius of 555.26 fee~, a ~ista~ce of 169.23 feet to the Sout~st~rly corner of the lan~s 8escribea in t~e above mentioned deed from Nar~ B'~rrett Carter to t~e Sou~h San F'ranc[sco ScavenBer Co.; then South 75~ 54' O~"'West along t~e Southerly 1in~ of t~e lands described in the lest mentione8 ae~d, 25.~6 feet to a point in t~e Easterly line of Lot 29, B~ock 16 of "SOUTH S~ FRANCISCO i~DUSTRIAL PARK UNIT N0. as said ~ot and B~ock are S~n on that certai~ map recorae~ in Book 49 of Maps at pa~es 25~ 26, 27, and 28, in the office of t~e Recorder of the County of San ~t~, State-of ~liforn~a; tEenc~ Northerly along said Easterly line of sa~d. Lot 29 and its ~ort~esterly prolon~ati'on, al~B a curve to the l~ft havtn~ a tangent bearing of North' 14o 0~' 32 West, a radius of 530.26 feet a central annie of 41° 3~' 55~: an~ an arc lcngt~ of 385.60 feet to the Northwesterly line of the lands described in Parodi "D" of the Deed fr~ Southern Pacific C~any~ a Del~are corporation, to Utah Construction and ~Inlng ~any, a corporation dated Ju]y 14, ]~58 and recorded July 17, 1958 in ~k 3425 Officia] Records of San ~teo County, p~9e 381 (58567~: thence along t~e North- westerly i in~ of said last mentioned lands a]ong a curve to t~e right h~vin~ a tangent bearln~ of Nort~ ~o ]7'56" E~st, a radius of 195.19 feet, a centra] angle of 6° 1l: 23" and ~n arc length of 2~.O9 feet tangent to t~e preceding curve North 55o 29~ 1~" East 56.~ feet to the l~ortheriy corner of said Parcel "D"; t~ence ~ort~ 35.68 feet to a which is distant South 25.00 feet from t~e Southeaster]y corner of t~e ]ands described in t~e above m~ntioned Dee~ r~orded Farch 9, ]~923 in Book 66 o.f Official Records of San Hateo County, pago 381 (2569-A); thence North 88° 27~ It" East 7.96 feet to the poi'hr of beginning' TUG,HER WITH an Easement for roa~ay purposes, w~th right of ingress and egre~s over a strip of land ~eneralJy 25 fee~ in width lying con- tTguous to an~ adjacent to the Nort~ster.ly llne of Parcel One above' described, sa~d strip of land being ~re particularly ascribed as d ' fol l~s: BEGINNING at the nortl-~westerly corner of Parcel One as herein described; thence from said corner. South 39° 4.5' 00" East 9~..46 feet to a point; thence South I19.67 feet to a point; thence South 46° Ob' DO" West et to.a ?o,.nt~) thence South 34° 50' O0" i/est 93.02 feet to o ~ ,, ~ ~ ":>~ ~oo.ob teat ~o a ~oint; thence South 55 5& 26 West 197.35 feet to a point; tEence South 88° 27~ ~4"' West 7.96 fee% to a point ~n the ~asterly tlne of the ~ands of tbe South Sam Francisco Belt Railway, a corporation; thence a]on~ said North ]4.32 feet to the Southeasterly corner of that O. ]~ acre pmrce~ of land acquired b~ Wildber9 Brothers,'a ~escr~pt;on of which was recorded F~rch 9, 1923 ~n B~k 66 of Official ~ecords of San Hateo County at page 381; thence North 55° 58~ 26" East ]86.77 feet to a point; thence North 40° 58~ 30" East I6~.22 feet to a point; thence North 34° 50 ~st 9~,~4 feet to a Point; thence 'North 46° 04" 00" East 258.47 feet to a point; thence North lO0.O0 feet to a point; thence' North 39° 4~~ 00" Vest 106.22 fe~t to a point ~n the d~vid;n~ line between Tide Lots 7 and 26 produced Westerly~ thence a]on~ sa~d ];ne East 32,52 feet Io the point of beg?nnin~' PARCEL ~0 BEGINNING at a point which bears. West 32.52 ~et fr~ the Northwesterly corner of Parce~ One.above described; thence ~ou~h 39° 65~ 00" East 106.22 feet.to a point; th~ce South lO0.O0 feet %o a point; thence South 46° 0~ 00" West ]38.86 feet to a po;hr; thence North 278;0~ feet to a point in the dividln~ line between TTde Lots 7 and 26 produced Wester'iy; thence alon9 sa~d dividin9 line East 32.08 feet to the point of "SurVey Ar-e-a ,OYSTER '.P~i~;T MARINA PARK Redevelopment Agency Staff Report DATE: May12,2004 TO: Redevelopment Agency Board FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director SUBJECT: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HOUSING PROJECT RECOMMENDATION The City Council's Housing Sub-Committee recommends that the Redevelopment Agency Board review the housing project proposed by Peninsula Habitat for Humanity. No Board action is recommended at this time. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Peninsula Habitat for Humanity is proposing to build four affordable housing units on a 7,000 square foot vacant lot owned by the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency purchased this lot, located at 440 Commercial Avenue, in 2001 with the intent of developing affordable housing. The proposed Habitat for Humanity project meets the Agency's objective and uniquely gives the Agency the opportunity to develop ownership housing for families at or below 50 percent of median income. The proposed site is zoned for multi-family housing and will accommodate four three-bedroom units. Attached for the Board's review are a map showing the location of the development site (Exhibit A) and architectural renderings of the proposed project (Exhibit B). The Design Review Board has reviewed and endorsed the design of the project. Under the proposed plans, Habitat for Humanity intends to sell each of the four condominium units for $206,227 to South San Francisco families earning between 30 and 50 percent of median income. In order to meet this target level of affordability, the City will contribute the land to the project and Habitat for Humanity will sell the condominiums at no profit. In addition, Habitat for Humanity will give the families zero percent interest mortgages. In return for the right to purchase these units, families will invest 500 hours of their own labor--sweat equity--into building their home and enter into a 55-year resale restriction that will ensure the future affordability of the units. The San Mateo County HOME Consortium is also contributing $250,000 in HOME funds to the project. The next step in the development process is for Habitat for Humanity to submit an application for a tentative map and a Planned Unit Development to the Planning Commission. Habitat for Humanity Staff Report Subject: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HOUSING PROJECT Page 2 intends to submit its application for the May 20th Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, Habitat for Humanity will hold a community meeting to receive public input on May 13 at the Magnolia Senior Center. In June the Redevelopment Agency Board will be asked to approve a purchase and sale agreement to transfer the land to Habitat for Humanity. At that time Habitat for Humanity will also be requesting a fee waiver on certain city fees. Groundbreaking for the project is expected to occur in October 2004 and occupancy in February 2006. CONCLUSION The City Councils' Housing Sub-Committee has requested that staff and the developer provide an overview of the proposed project to the Redevelopment Agency Board. This item does not require action at this time. The Board will have an opportunity in June to review the project and approve a purchase and sale agreement as well as consider requests for City fee waivers and/or other contributions to the project. ~sas~sYt aVn ~ xDeUc uY~t i v e D~ctor Approved: ~//~ ~/~/~--~/,~~ Michael A. Wilson Executive Director Attachment: Exhibit A - Site location maps Exhibit B - Architectural drawings for 440 Commercial Avenue PED. BRIDGE FTRE STA. ~5 HILLSIDE /// o A N / (' Area Map 'j ,/ FIRE S TA. "HAR[II$ MITCH WO~DERCOLOI~ .,f S. SAN FRANC SEWAGE TREATMENT PL EXHIBIT "A" TAX CODE ~4'RE,~ ~ ~ ~ . *S.P.R.R..-.CO. s. oz.. ,z~- ~t- tJa ~,qtve~i..~ B,4DEN BRANCH "4 · Assessor's Map PERSPECTIVE FROM COMMERCIAL AVENUE O PENINSULA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TITL~ PER~P- FO~ NEW THREE BEDROOM HOMES ~c,~v~ 440 COMMERCIAL A~NUE, SO~H SAN FRANCISCO, CA. + AFORDABLE H~SlNG AG~EME~ x I-1-1 X ('~WOOD RETAINING WALL / FENCE @ WEST PROP£RTY LINF ~----~- ~ RETAINING WALL / FENCE ~ EAST PROPERTY LiNF EXISTING 2-STORY RESIDENCE ~ EXISTING 2-ETORY BUILDING EXIETING SIT.__[E PLAN EXI$7'ING RESIDENCE EXISTING 2-STORY BUILDING LEGEND; PROJECT DATA (FROM I~AC[( OF LOCATION PLAN SUaMITTED FOR DE,SIGN REVIEW + AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT I PLAN,' X THIRD FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN [---'_~--~ ................. ~---~---~ ........ t ............ :j Lb_.~-~ 7 ~ I ~ I ~ FIR~ FLOOR P~ ROOF PLAN GRAP~C SCAL~ k.__._a_', : 'f SUBMITTED FOR DESIGN REVIEW + AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT LONGITUDINAL SECTION REAR ELEVATION ~I~(NG HOUSE , 50'-0" ~ ~)~ING HOUSE (NOT PART OF HAB~AT PROJECT) -r (NOT PART OF HABITAT PROJECT) COMMERC~L ~ E~ ~:VATION (SECOND ~NE ELEVATION SIMI~R) TOP PL. 3~ FU SIDE E~VA~ON DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS & COLORS: SUBM~ED FOR D~IGN REVIEW + AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEME~ SECTIOI~ Z 2-STORY RESIDENCE EXISTING RESIDENCE SHED EX/STING coo~ ^u~ ~ouuvno~& Z-STORY ~ SUGGESTED P~NT LIST EX/STING 2-STORY BUILDING NORTH 4 HOUSES ON COMMERCIAL AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PENINSULA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROBERT LA ROCCA & ASSOCIATEE iNC. Drawn ChecKed Shee~ Number AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILD1NG COMMUNITY ROOM MAY 12, 2O04 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. KARYL MATSUMOTO Mayor RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RICHARD A GARBARINO, SR. Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Proclamation - Older Americans Month, May 2004 - recipient Geraldine Vickers, President of Senior Club · Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week, May 16-23, 2004 - Susan Kennedy, Fire Department Management Analyst II · Summer Season Celebration at Farmers' Market, May 22, 2004 - Recreation and Community Services Director Sharon Ranals AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of April 21, and 28, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of May 12, 2004 3. Resolution awarding construction contract to G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc., for the Greendale Drive Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $367,529.49 4. Resolution accepting a lease agreement with Summit CFS, Inc. for temporary parking on property located at South Airport Boulevard at North Access Road 5. Motion to accept the 2003-04 Street Dig-Outs Program as complete in accordance with plans and specifications 6. Resolution approving draft transportation expenditure plan for extension of Measure A 7. Resolution approving an agreement with the State Franchise Tax Board to participate in the Local Govermnent Information Sharing Program in an amount not to exceed $1,706 8. Resolution authorizing the execution of agreement with NPT Breast Cancer 3-DAY for the use of Orange Memorial Park from October 14-17, 2004 for an overnight camp site 9. Acknowledgement of proclamations issued: Mike Lappen, Employee of the Year, 4/23/04; Mosquito and Vector Control & West Nile Virus Awareness Week, May 3-9, 2004; GBS Awareness Month, May, 2004 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 12, 2004 AGENDA PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Consideration of an ordinance rezoning property located at 116 Beacon Street from Planned Industrial (P-l) to Planned Commercial (P-C) to conform to current General Plan designation. Consider a mitigated negative declaration and issuance of a use permit that would permit a religious assembly use at 116 Beacon Street; Owner: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem; Applicant: Suheil Shatara; waive reading and introduce an ordinance 11. Consideration of an ordinance rezoning property located at 178 Starlite Street from Planned-Commercial (P-C-L) to Industrial (M-1) to conform to current General Plan designation. Owner/Applicant: Gregory and Jane Ofiesh (Raymond's Sourdough Bakery); waive reading and introduce an ordinance ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Resolution awarding construction contract to Blackbum/RTS for the removal hazardous material generated at the WQCP, Wet Weather Program Phase I in the amount of $450,000 13. Colma Creek Update - Public Works Director John Gibbs COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM CLOSED SESSION 14. Closed Session: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), existing litigation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) v. City of South San Francisco ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 12, 2004 AGENDA PAGE 3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of Public Works GREENDALE DRIVE REHABILITATION PROJECT; ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0402; PROJECT NO. ST-03-4; BID NO. 2342 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to award the construction contract for the Greendale Drive Rehabilitation Project; Engineering File No. 51-13231-0402; Project No. ST-03-4; Bid No. 2342, to the lowest responsive bidder, G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc., of San Carlos, in the amount of $367,529.49. BACKGROUND: The project will repair the structural pavement failure and install a cement treated pavement base using the existing asphalt grindings (commonly called recycled asphalt pavement). The project's major items of work involve the setting up of traffic controls, the removal and replacement of severely damaged sections of asphalt concrete pavement, pavement grinding, the mixing and installation of recycled asphalt pavement, installation and mixing of Portland cement concrete for the new cement treated pavement base, asphalt concrete overlay and related pavement striping. The Engineering Division advertised the subject project and opened 4 submitted bids on April 20th, 2004. The following are the bid results: CONTRACTOR G. Bortolotto Co., Inc. San Carlos, CA Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. South San Francisco, CA BD AMOUNT $ 367,529.49 $ 399,282.00 Staff Report To~ Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Greendale Drive Rehabilitation Project Project No. ST-03-4, Bid No. 2342 May 12, 2004 Page: 2 of 2 CONTRACTOR BiD AMOUNT O'Grady Paving, Inc. Mountain View, CA $ 409,702.00 Granite Rock/Pavex Construction, Company Redwood City, CA $ 481,675.00 Engineer' s Estimate $ 413,000.00 G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. has worked with the City of South San Francisco on previous projects and performed to the City's satisfaction. Staff has reviewed their qualifications and references and found them to be satisfactory. The time allotted for this project is 35 working days. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. in the amount of $367,529.49. The following is a cost breakdown for the project budget: Construction Construction Contingency (15 %) Administration/Inspection (5%) Total $ 367,529.49 $ 55,130.00 $ 18,370.00 $ 441,029.49 FUNDING: This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2003 - 2004 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Sufficient funds are available for this project. ~blic Works Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Location Map Bid Summary RD/JG/ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A I>,ES( )I,[ lTl( )N A\VARI-)IN(; A C( )N STPd }CTI( )N C()NTRACT F()R THE (;REENDAI,E DRIVE REHABII,ITATI()N PR()JECT T() (;. B()RT()I,()TI'() & C()MPANY IN THE AM()[INT ()F $367,529.4.9 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council award the construction contract for the Greendale Drive Rehabilitation Project to the responsible bidder, G. Bortolotto & Company in the amount of $367,529.49; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds for this project are included in the City's Capital Improvement Program budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the Greendale Drive Rehabilitation Project to G. Bortolotto & Company in the amount of $367,529.49. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: A YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Cun-cnt Reso's\5-12Greendalc.drivc.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LOCATION MAP GREENDALE DRIVE REHABILITATION PROJECT PROJECT NO. ST-034, BID NO. 2342 CITY OF SOUTII SAN FRANCISCO GREENDAI, E DRIVE REHABILITATION PROJECT BID NO. 2342 APRIl, 20, 2004 2:00 PM, MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM BID SUMMARY Interstate Grading & Paving, Pavex Construction, dba O'Grady Paving, Inc. Estimated Engineer's Estimate G. BortolottOsan Carlos, & CO.,cA Inc. Inc. South San Mountain View, CA Granite Rock, Bid Item Description Unit Francisco, CA Watsonville, CA Item Quantity Bid Unit Bid Total Bid Unit Bid Total Bid Unit Bid Total Bid Unit Bid Total Bid Unit Bid Total Price Price Price Price Price 1 Traffic Control& Mobilization LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 17,322.00 I $ 17,322.00 $ 17,400.00 $ 17,400.00 $15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 34,300.00 $ 34,300.00 2 Asphalt Concrete Overlay TN 2,900 $ 58.00 $ 168,200.00 $ 55.55 $ 161,095.00 $ 51.00 $ 147,900.00 $ 50.00 $ 145,000.00 $ 55.00 $ 159,500.00 3 AC FullWidth Planin9 SY 8,040 $ 3.00 $ 24,120.00 $ 1.50 $ 12,060.00 $ 2.00 $ 16,080.00 $ 2.60 $ 20,904.00 $ 3.50 $ 28,140.00 4 Milling/Pulverize ExistingAC SY 13,567 I $ 4.55 $ 61,729.85 $ 4.47 $ 60,644.49 $ 6.00 $ 81,402.00 $ 3.00 $ 40,701.00 $ 5.00 $ 67,835.00 Pavement & Cement Treated Native 5 >CC for Cement Treated Native TN 156 $ 140.00 $ 21,840.00 $ 123.00 $ 19,188.00 $ 120.00 $ 18,720.00 $ 125.00 $ 19,500.00 $ 125.00 $ 19,500.00 6 Curin9 Seal TN 12 $ 350.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 400.0O $ 4,800.00 $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 7 Adjust Storm Manholeto Grade EA 26 $ 250.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 500.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 9,100.00 $ 700.00 $ 18,200.00 8 Adjust Monument Boxto Grade EA 32 $ 250.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 350.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 150.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 500.00 $ 16,000.00 9 3CC ADA Ramps EA 48 $ 1,750.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 1,491.00 $ 71,568.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 67,200.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 86,400.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 81,600.00 10 Excess Recycled Materials TN 1,410 $ 8.00 $ 11,280.00 $ 7.00 $ 9,870.00 $ 12.00 $ 16,920.00 $ 40.00 $ 56,400.00 $ 30.00 $ 42,300.00 11 Detail 4 Stripin9 LF 4,200 $ 1.25 $ 5,250.00 $ 0.87 $ 3,654.00 $ 0.80 $ 3,360.00 $ 1.00 $ 4,200.00 i $ 1.00 $ 4,200.00 12 12" Limit Line LF 600 $ 3.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 2.73 $ 1,638.00 $ 2.50 $ 1,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 3.00 $ 1,800.00 13 "STOP"Lefilend EA 10 $ 115.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 109.00 $ 1,090.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 110.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 110.00 $ 1,100.O0 Total Bid (Bid Items 1 - 13) $4'13,069.85 $ 367,529.49 $ 399,282.00 $ 409,705.00 $ 48'1,675.00 A2 Adjust Sanitary Manholeto Grade 26 $ 330.00 $ 8,580.00 $ 301.00 $ 7,826.00 500.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 9,100.00 700.00 18,200.00 G. BORTOLOTTO & CO., INC. ~ LISTED SUB-CONTRACTORS I CONCRETE - GOLDEN BAY, SAN CARLOS, CA CEMENT TREATMENT - GRIFFIN SOIL, SUNOL, CA STRIPING - STRIPING GRAPHICS, PETALUMA. CA StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of PuNic Works WET WEATHER PROGRAM-PHASE I SHORT TERM LEASE WITH SUMMIT CFS FOR ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES AGENDA ITEM #4 PARKING OF SIEGER RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a Resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a short term lease with Sumnfit for parking of Sieger Engineering employees during construction of improvements for the Wet Weather Program. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council adopted Resolutions of Necessity to initiate condemnation proceedings against property owners holding property in which improvements for the Wet Weather program are to be constructed. One such proceeding involves acquisition of a permanent easement from Sieger Engineering. Construction of the improvements will require relocating a portion of the parking lot for Sieger employees. Therefore, staff has negotiated a 4 month lease for parking purposes with Summit, CFS to permit Sieger employees to park on property held by Summit. The City will pay Summit CFS five thousand dollars per month and improve the parking area to accommodate the additional Sieger employees. In the event construction is delayed, the lease may continue on a month-to-month basis based on the original lease amount of $5,000 per month. The rent will be paid out of the funds for the Wet Weather Project as a relocation cost incurred as a result of the condemnation of Sieger's property for the construction of necessary public improvements. John G Direct~ r of Public Works Approved: Mich ae~t A.~Wil s~°n~ City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A I~,I"~S ( )Ii !TI( )N At 7i'tI()l~,lZIN(; A I.IL,XSI'~ A(;I~,I'~EM EN'1~ \¥iTH SI ~MYlI~I' CFS, INC. F< ~1~ TI,SMP()RARY PARKIN(; ()N I'i~()PERTY I,()CNI'I'~D A'I' S()liTlt AIRP()R'F B()tIIJ';VARD AT N()RTH ACCI'~SN R( )AD WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of a lease agreement with Summit, CSF, Inc. for temporary parking on property located at Soutln Airport Boulevard at North Access Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that tine City Council hereby authorizes a lease agreement with Summit CFS, Inc. roi' temporary parking on property located at South Airport Boulevard at North Access Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is lmreby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of tine City of South San Francisco. I Inereby certi fy that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on tine __ day of ..... 2004 by tine following vote: AYES' NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Ctu'rcnl P, eso's\5 12summil rcs doc ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of Public Works 2003 - 2004 STREETS DIG-OUTS PROGRAM, ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0403, PROJECT NO. ST-03-5, BID NO. 2341 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the 2003 - 2004 Streets Dig-outs Program as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project involves the removal and installation of 6-inch asphalt concrete dig-outs pavement repairs and pavement crack sealing operations. Attached are the lists of streets that received the pavement dig-outs repairs and crack sealing. During the dig-outs and re-marking process, staff discovered additional dig-outs areas that need to be corrected. These areas became visible after winter and have impacted the previously marked areas. The following streets received the most increase in the dig-outs area: Item No Street Name Beginning End Treatment 1 Newman Dr King Dr Alta Mesa Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 2 Alta Mesa Dr Newman Dr Intersection 6-inch AC Dig-outs 3 Rowntree Way Radbum Dr. Geller Blvd. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 4 Orange Ave. Grand Ave Miller Ave 6-inch AC Dig-outs 5 Clay Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Longford Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 6 Clay Ave Longford Dr Clay Park (End) 16-inch AC Dig-outs 7 Kent Way Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 8 Kent Way Greendale Dr King Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 9 Stein Ct Greendale Dr King Dr 16-inch AC Dig-outs The project has been inspected by City staff and completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The project has a one-year warranty period that takes effect upon acceptance by the City Council. Staff will file a Notice of Completion and release the payment performance bond and retention at the end of the thirty-day lien period. Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council 2003 - 2004 Streets Dig-outs Program Engineering File No. 51-13231-0403 Project No. ST-03-5, Bid No. 2341 May 12, 2004 Page: 2 of 2 The following is the actual construction cost breakdown: Original Contract Add Change Orders for additional asphalt tonnage (due to additional dig-outs areas) Actual Construction Cost $159,159.59 $ 44,256.00 $ 203,415.59 Total funding for this project is $203,415.59.00 and is reflected in the City of South San Francisco's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Sufficient funds are available for this project. By: Directc r bs ' i of Public Works Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Dig-outs Area Street List & Map Crack Sealing Street Area & Map RD/JG/ed DIG-OUTS PROJECT AREAS Item Street Name Beginning End Treatment No 1 Newman Dr King Dr Alta Mesa Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 2 Alta Mesa Dr Newman Dr h~tersection 6-inch AC Dig-outs 3 Sunnyside Dr Miller Ave (West) Forestview Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 4 Smmyside Dr Holly Ave Forestview Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 5 Emerald Court Sunnyside Dr End 6-inch AC Dig-outs 6 Orange Ave. Grand Ave Miller Ave 6-inch AC Dig-outs 7 Orange Ave Park Way Miller Ave 6-inch AC Dig-outs 8 Bnmswick Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 9 S avmmah Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 10 Kern Way Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 11 Kent Way Greendale Dr I King Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 12 Baldwin Hills Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 13 Bassett Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 14 Gilbert Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 15 Stein Ct Greendale Dr King Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 16 Rowntree Way Radburn Dr. Gellert Blvd. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 17 Longford Dr Hickey Blvd Clay Ave. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 18 Clay Ave Jrmipero Serra Blvd Longford Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 19 Clay Ave Longford Dr Clay Park (End) 6-inch AC Dig-outs l ii. MAP OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 0 500 I0(~2000 3000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN' FRANCISCO LOCATION MAP 20{)3 - 2{)04 STREETS DIG-OUTS PROGRAM PROJECT NO. ST-03-5, BID NO. 2341 DIG-OUT P. ROJECT AREAS/LOCATIONS . It m CRACK SEALING PROJECT AREAS Item Street Name Beginning End Treatment No 1 Del Paso Dr ,Camaritas Ave iDel Monte Ave Crack Sealing Work 2 Del Paso Dr Del Monte Ave Indio Dr Crack Sealing Work 3 Del Paso Dr Alta Loma Dr ; Cmnaritas Ave Crack Sealing Work 4 Capay Cir. Arroyo (South) Verano Dr Crack Sealing Work Capay Ck.(Road ,105 feet from Arroyo 5 Split) Verano Dr !(North) Crack Sealing Work Capay Cir. (Road 105 feet from Arroyo 6 Split) Verano Dr i(North) Crack Sealing Work 7 Capay Cir. Road Split Arroyo (North) Crack Sealing Work 8 Indio Dr Arroyo Dr E1 Campo Dr Crack Sealing Work Susie Way North 9 Loop Susie Way North Loop End Crack Sealing Work Susie Way South 10 Loop Susie Way South Loop 'End Crack Sealing Work 11 Brusco Way Susie Way Willow Crack Sealing Work 12 Nora Way Susie Way South Loop End Crack Sealing Work 13 Palm Ave Eucalyptus Ave i Orange Ave Crack Sealing Work 14 Orange Ave Grand Ave ~Miller Ave Crack Sealing Work 15 Orange Ave Park Way Miller Ave Crack Sealing Work 16 Reston Ct. King Dr iEnd of Street. Crack Sealing Work 17 Kent Way Greendale Dr End of Street. Crack Sealing Work 18 Kent Way Greendale Dr 'King Dr Crack Sealing Work 19 Radbum Dr. Galway Dr King Dr Crack Sealing Work 20 Wren Ct Galway Dr End of Street. Crack Sealing Work Serra Vista School 21 Longford Dr Hickey Blvd (End) Crack Sealing Work 22 Clay Ave Jmfipero Serra Blvd Longford Dr Crack Sealing Work 23 Clay Ave !Longford Dr Clay Park (End) Crack Sealing Work 24 Dundee Dr i Longford Dr (North) Clay Ave Crack Sealing Work MAP OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 0 500 1000 2000 3000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LOCATION MAP 2003 - 2004 STREETS DIG-OUTS PROGRAM PROJECT NO. ST-03-5, B1D NO. 2341 CRACK SEAL PROJECT AREAS/LOCATIONS DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #6 May 12, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Barry Nagel, Assistant City Manager APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR THE EXTENSION OF MEASURE A RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, to extend Measure A for a 25-year term beginning January 1, 2009. SIGNIFICANCE The Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, recommends the extension of the Measure A half-cent sales tax for a 25-year term, beginning January 1, 2009, and defines the distribution of the extended tax revenues. It embodies a balanced strategy that is consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan and will meet the transportation needs of San Mateo County now, and in the future. The Draft Plan establishes a number of objectives including reducing commute corridor congestion, making regional connections, enhancing safety, meeting local mobility needs for seniors and people with disabilities, and meeting the unique transportation needs of the cities and County. It provides for funding in six program areas including transit, highways, local streets/transportation, grade separations, pedestrian and bicycle, and alternative congestion relief projects to meet these objectives. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) prepared the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan based upon a process that sought input from: A Countywide Technical Advisory Committee · Public Workshops hosted by the TA Comments from presentations to elected officials Available polling information Comments from the February 28, 2004 Public Heating hosted by the TA and League of Women Voters BUDGET IMPACT A 25-year extension of the half-cent sales tax is estimated to generate $1.5 billion in current dollars, which would be distributed as described in the enclosed Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan. 22.5%, or $337.5 million dollars, will be allocated to the cities and County to fund local transportation needs. Based on the current formula, South San Francisco is projected to receive $25,815,375 in 2004 dollars over the life of the extended Measure. Honorable Mayor and City Council Approval of the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for the Extension of Measure A May 12, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In accordance with California Public Utilities Code Section 131000 et seq., the TA has prepared this Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan at least one year prior to the date of the last general election in which the current measure will be in effect (2008), and held a public hearing on February 28, 2004. The City and County Association of Governments unanimously supported the extension of Measure A and approved an initial draft plan at their March 11, 2004 meeting. As a result of comments received during both the public comment period and the formal public hearing, two substantive amendments were made to the plan: 1) changing the term of the extension from 20 to 25 years, and 2) increasing the percentage distribution to the Local Streets and Transportation Program Category from 20% to 22.5 %. The TA Board adopted the amended plan on March 18, 2004. On April 28, 2004, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission unanimously approved the plan. In accordance with Califomia Public Utilities Code Section 131055, the Draft Plan will be brought before each of the cities in San Mateo County for approval. The Draft Plan must be approved by a majority of cities representing the majority of the population of the incorporated area of the County by a majority vote of their respective councils. The Board of Supervisors, currently scheduled to hear this item at their July 6, 2004 meeting, must also approve it. At that time, the Board of Supervisors will recommend whether or not the .approved Plan and the extension of the local sales tax be placed on the ballot for voter approval in the next general election (November 2004). Over the last year, TA staff has been soliciting input from multiple sources on the elements of the Draft Plan. Communities and agencies throughout the County were invited to identify projects and programs for inclusion in the Draft Plan. Interim progress reports were made to the Authority, C/CAG, and CMAQ, which resulted in feedback from elected officials. The general public was also invited to provide input through a series of Authority-sponsored workshops throughout the County. Additional insight into voter perspectives has been obtained from available polls. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, to extend Measure A for a 25-year term beginning January 1, 2009. Respectfully submitted, "-Ba~ M. Nagel (v Assistant City Maflager Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR EXTENSION OF MEASURE A WHEREAS, on June 7, 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure known as "Measure A," which increased the local sales tax in San Mateo county by V2 percent with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan that included a provision for the creation of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority; and WHEREAS, in order to extend the local sales tax, California Public Utilities Code Section 131000 et seq. requires the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to prepare a new Transportation Expenditure Plan at least one year prior to 2008, hold a public hearing on the Draft Transportation Plan and submit the Draft Plan to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for review and approval; and WHEREAS, upon approval by MTC, the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan must be submitted to the Cities m~d County of San Mateo prior to being submitted for voter approval at the next general election (November 2004); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutory requirements, San Mateo County Transportation Authority prepared a Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, reflecting input from the public, elected officials and technical committees, and conducted a duly notice public hearing on the Plan on February 28, 2004; and WHEREAS, the recommended Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, attached as Exhibit A, provides for a balanced program of transportation projects and includes implementation guidelines to ensure flexibility to meet the current and future transportation needs of San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, attached as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, attached as Exhibit A, for the extension of Measure A for a twenty-five year term beginning January 1, 2009. 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 ~ day of ,2004 by the following vote: meeting held on the AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: S:\Current Reso's~5-12draft.transportation.expenditure.plan.res.doc City Clerk DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN San Mateo County Transportation Authority March 18, 2004 Transportation Authority DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Summary 2 II. Goals and Objectives 5 III. Expenditure Plan Summary 7 iV. Project Descriptions 10 V. Governing Board/Organization Structure 17 VI. Implementation Guidelines 18 I. SUMMARY Measure A: Effective and Essential The 1988 voter approval of Measure A, San Mateo County's half-cent transportation sales tax, adopted under provisions of the California Public Utilities Code commencing at Section 131000, has provided the County with a resource to meet its multi-faceted transportation challenges during the past 16 years. The measure also marked the development of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (hereafter referred to as the TA), the agency created to administer the sales-tax funds. Because the measure ends in 2008, its extension is at the heart of the County's ability to continue meeting its growing transportation needs. Growth in employment during the 1990s has increased traffic congestion along several highway segments in the County. Significant progress has been achieved in the County through investments in Caltrain and highway improvements; however, the task is not yet complete. As the economy rebounds and then continues to grow, we need to maintain our infrastructure to accommodate the accompanying traffic congestion in commute corridors and on local streets and roads. Continuing traffic growth also has underscored the importance of additional safety measures, particularly grade separations along the Caltrain rail line and safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Local transit service, especially for the elderly and people with disabilities, has become increasingly important in communities throughout the County. The extension of Measure A will provide San Mateo County with the resources to continue shaping the transportation program to best meet the needs of County residents. In nearly 20 years since the drafting of the current Transportation Expenditure Plan, the County has seen the emergence of a new set of challenges, which must be met if the quality of life in the County is to be preserved. Developing the Next Transportation Expenditure Plan The draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for the extension of Measure A began with a blank sheet of paper and was assembled through a process which embraced the many and varied constituencies that make up San Mateo County. Beginning in the Spring of 2003, we embarked on a process that included melding technical evaluations with the feedback from the public and elected officials throughout the County. The TA provided an important forum for public input into the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan by sponsoring focus groups, three public workshops and hosting more than 30 outreach events to civic organizations, service groups and neighborhood associations. Through this public process, the TA gained perspectives of residents 2 representing both the general public and groups with special needs. The opinions and suggestions heard at these public outreach events were evaluated by professional staff from the TA, cities and local agencies who worked together to recommend a program which addresses both current and anticipated congestion needs. While all projects were considered for the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, not every project could be included because the total estimated cost of all the suggested projects was more than the current estimated income of an extended Measure A. The draft Transportation Expenditure Plan reflects programs and projects identified by cities and local agencies plus additions from public workshops. When creating the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, the TA focused on building a balanced plan, consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan, reflecting the wants and needs of the public combined with the recommendations of engineers and the support of elected officials. Plan Vision Through this multi-party process, a strategy has emerged. Target key, congested corridors for highway and transit improvements · Continue to improve connections with regional transportation facilities Enhance safety in all aspects of the transportation system. · Meet local mobility needs, especially those of seniors and people with disabilities · Meet the Cities' and County's unique local transportation needs · Leverage local, state and federal funds · Encourage transportation projects that support transit-oriented development These broad themes have been. translated into a balanced plan which provides for the multi-faceted needs of San Mateo County. Specific programs and projects have emerged as components in a countywide strategy. 3 Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan Program Categories The draft Transportation Expenditure Plan provides for investment in six program categories. Each program category receives a percentage share of sales tax revenues, currently estimated at $1.5 billion (in 2004 dollars) over a 25-year period. Program Category. Percent Share 25-Year Estimated Revenue 1. Transit 30% $450 Million 2. Highways 27.5% $412.5 Million 3. Local Streets/Transportation 22.5% $337.5 Million 4. Grade Separations 15% $225 Million 5. Pedestrian and Bicycle 3% $ 45 Million 6. Alternative Congestion Relief Programs 1% $ 15 Million Up to one percent of the revenues is allocated for TA staff salaries and benefits. Further detail on the specific program within each category is provided in the Transportation Expenditure Plan Summary and Project Description sections of this plan. Oversight and Administration The implementation of the Transportation Expenditure Plan will be the continuing responsibility of the ct,~rrent San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The TA is composed of seven elected officials representing the Cities in the County, the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Transit District. The TA will be responsible for developing and updating a strategic plan to guide allocation decisions. The TA will develop the initial strategic plan by December 31, 2008, and prepare and update it at least every five years during the term of the Measure. The Citizens Advisory Committee established under the original Measure A will continue to advise the TA. The TA also will work closely and cooperatively with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the San Mateo City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) on the programming of grant funding for Transportation Expenditure Plan programs and projects. 4 II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The programs and projects contained in the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan are based upon the Countywide Transportation Plan and are essential to meeting the mobility requirements of San Mateo County. Four broad goals for the plan are supported by 15 more specific objectives, many of which are reflective of public feedback heard in workshops and at outreach events. Taken together, these Goals and Objectives are the strategy through which San Mateo County can shape its transportation future. Goal 1. Reduce Commute Corridor Congestion Ao Improve mass transit serving the County through investments in Caltrain, BART, ferries and local shuttle services. Bo Construct key highway projects which remove bottlenecks in the most congested commute corridors as indicated by engineers and confirmed by public opinion. Co Provide funding for supplemental countywide highway projects determined to be critical for congestion reduction. Do Implement information technologies to optimize the efficiency of the transportation system. Provide incentives for employers to continue and expand their financial support for commute alternatives. Goal 2. Make Regional Connections Improve Caltrain's Baby Bullet service as an alternative to driving on Highway 101 along the Peninsula. Bo Provide San Mateo County's station and route improvements for the Dumbarton rail line connection with Alameda County. Co Provide financial assistance as SamTrans' local match for capital investments and operating expenditures associated with the existing San Mateo County/SFO BART Extension. Provide financial assistance as local match funds for cost-effective ferry service to South San Francisco and Redwood City. 5 Goal 3. Enhance Safety A. Construct roadway under and overcrossings (grade separations) along the Caltrain and Dumbarton rail lines in San Mateo County. B. Provide safe paths for bicyclists and pedestrians. C. Improve or maintain local streets, roads and other transportation facilities. Goal 4. Meet Local Mobility Needs A. Provide adequate paratransit service for eligible seniors and people with disabilities through the Redi-Wheets and other accessible services administered by SamTrans. B. Improve local shuttle services to provide a viable option to the private automobile for local trips, and to meet the needs of transit dependents. C. Provide an assured source of funding to Cities and the County for local street and road irnprovement and maintenance and to meet the unique transportation needs of each cornmunity. 6 III. TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN SUMMARY The draft Transportation Expenditure Plan contains six transportation program categories providing a balanced approach to meeting the mobility needs of San Mateo County. This summary lists the six program categories along with the major projects within each category. The percentage distribution of Measure A sales tax funding for each program category and project is listed along with the estimated dollars of Measure A, other funding and total cost. All dollar estimates are in 2004 dollars. Estimated Estimated Estimated Percent Measure A Other Total Share Funding Funding Cost Ao Transit Improve Caltrain service through a combination of capital investments and operational expenditures. 7Provide local shuttle services to meet local mobility needs and access to regional transit services. Annually, 4 percent of the total revenue will be allocated to meet the special mobility needs of county residents through paratransit and other accessible services. 16% $240M $250M $490M 4% $60M $60M $120M 4% $60M $228M $288M o Provide financial assistance as local match funds for cost-effective ferry service to South San Francisco and Redwood City. Provide financial assistance as SamTrans' local match for capital investments and operating expenditures associated with the existing San Mateo County/SFO BART Extension. 2% $30M $92M $122M 2% $30M $120M $150M Provide station facilities and enhancements for the Dumbarton rail corridor through East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Redwood City. 2% $30M $415M $445M Transit Total 30% $450M $1,165M $1,615M 7 Highways Funding for projects in key congested corridors throughout the County. Funding for supplemental roadway projects throughout the County. Highway Total C. Local Streets/Transportation Annually, 22.5 percent of the total revenue will be allocated to the 20 Cities and the County for the improvement and maintenance of local transportation, including streets and roads. Percent Share 17.3% 10.2% 27.5% 22.5% Estimated Measure A Funding $260M $153M $413M $338M Estimated Other Funding $260M $65M $325M $527M Estimated Total Cost $520M $218M $738M $865M D. Grade Separations Construction or upgrade of underpasses or overpasses at key road crossings along the Caltrain and Dumbarton rail lines. 15% $225M $125M $350M E. Pedestrian and Bicycle Fo Provide safe paths for bicyclists and pedestrians. Alternative Congestion Relief Programs One percent of the total revenue will be allocated to fund traffic management projects and creative congestion relief programs. 3% 1% TOTAL $45M $15M $1,486M $25M $15M $2,182M $70M $30M $3,668M 8 Although the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan contains projects with inter-county implications, seeking the support of adjacent counties, as outlined in Section 131051(i) of the California Public Utilities Code, is unnecessary because Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties all have approved Transportation Expenditure Plans, which have been coordinated, with San Mateo County. 9 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS A. Transit Each Of these projects is deemed to be of equal importance and they are not expressed in any priority order. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: 1. Caltrain hnprovements $490 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $240 million, Federal $125-million and State $125-million. SamTrans, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Continue the current program to rebuild and upgrade Caltrain. Funding would be provided for San Mateo County's share of the capital cost of system wide improvements, including conversion of the line from diesel to electric operation. Funding would also be provided for existing stations upgrades, including expanded parking. Up to one-half of the available funding may be utilized to support operating costs. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: 2. Local Shuttle Service $120 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $60 million. Other public and private $60 million. SamTrans This project sponsored by SamTrans would provide matching funding for the operation of local shuttle services. Priority will be given to shuttle services which include a portion of the funding from businesses, employers and other private sector sources. Priority shall also be given to local services which connect with Caltrain, BART and future Ferry Terminals. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: 3. Accessible Services for Eligible Seniors and People with Disabilities $288 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $60 million. Other funding of $228 million from existing sources and fare revenues. SamTrans Annually, 4% of the tax revenue will be allocated to support the operating and capital needs of providing paratransit or other accessible services to eligible seniors and people with disabilities. lO Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: 4. San Mateo County Ferry Service $122 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $30 million, $91 million from bridge tolls, $1 million from federal grants. South San Francisco and Redwood City Provide financial assistance as local match funds for cost-effective ferry service to South San Francisco and Redwood City. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: 5. Existing San Mateo County/SFO BART Extension $150 million. Sales tax contribution estimated $30 million, $120 million from federal grants. SamTrans Provide financial assistance as SamTrans' local match for capital investments and operating expenditures associated with the existing San Mateo County/SFO BART Extension. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: 6. Du~nbartou Rail Corridor $445 million. Sale tax contribution estimated at $30 million, $415 million from bridge tolls and existing sales tax funding in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. SamTrans Funding provided for station facilities and rail corridor improvements in the communities of Redwood City, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in conjunction with the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. B. Highways Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: The Highway Program is divided into two components; funding for highway projects in key congested areas as designated by city, county and TA engineers and confirmed by public input; and funding for supplemental projects for all types of roadways (local-collector- arterial-state route) anywhere in the County. 1. Key Congested Areas Each of these projects is deemed to be of equal importance and they are not expressed in any priority order a. Highway 280 North hnprovements $154 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $77 million. State $77 million. Caltrans, Daly City 1) Reconstruct 1-280/Route 1 Interchange; 2) Construct Auxiliary Lanes between 1-380 and Hickey Blvd.; 11 Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: b. Coastside Highway Improvements $48 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $24 million. State $24 million. Pacifica, Caltrans, Half Moon Bay 1) Route 1/San Pedro Creek Bridge Replacement; 2) Route 1/Manor Drive overcrossing improvement and widening; 3) Route 1 and 92 safety and operational improvements within and in the proximity of Half Moon Bay c. Highway 92 hnprovements $100 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $50 million. State $50 million. City of San Mateo, Caltrans, Foster City Auxiliary lanes and interchange improvements between 1-280 and the San Marco Hayward Bridge. d. Highway 101 Mid-County Improvements $98 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $49 million. State $49 million. Caltrans, Burlingame, San Mateo 1) Reconstruction of the Highway 101-Broadway Interchange; 2) Modification of the Highway 101/Peninsula Avenue Interchange; 3) Operational improvements on Highway 101 from Hillsdale to Route 92. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: e. Highway 101 South Improvements $120 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $60 million. State $60 million. Caltrans 1) Reconstruct the Highway 101/Woodside Road Interchange; 2) Highway 101 improvements between Highway 84 and the Santa Clara county line and access improvements to the Dumbarton Bridge. 2. County-wide Supplemental Roadway Projects $218 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $153 million. State $65 million. Caltrans, Cities and San Mateo County This project provides funding for supplemental roadway projects critical for congestion reduction in addition to those identified in the key congested areas. Supplemental roadway projects may include any type of roadway (local-collector-arterial-state route) anywhere in the County. A partial list of Candidate Projects is included below. Additional Candidate Projects may be submitted to the TA for 12 consideration to account for changing needs during the 25-year term. Funds will not be adequate to construct all Candidate Projects. The TA will determine Candidate Project selection criteria and prioritization in the Strategic Plan as provided in the Implementation Guidelines. PARTIAL LIST OF CANDIDATE SUPPLEMENTAL ROADWAY PROJECTS Route 35 (I-280-Sneath Lane) widening US 101/Produce Avenue Interchange Route 92 (I-280-Route 35) truck climbing lane Willow Road adaptive signal control system US 1.01 (Sierra Point Parkway - SF/SM County Line) auxiliary lanes Geneva Avenue extension 1-280/John Daly Boulevard-Overcrossing (north side) widening Junipero Serra Boulevard Improvements in Daly City, Colma and South San Francisco US 101/Candlestick Point Interchange US 101 (Sierra Point Parkway - San Bruno Avenue) auxiliary lanes 1-280/I-380 local access improvement Highway 101/Sierra Point Pkwy Interchange replacement and Lagoon Way extension Triton Drive widening (Foster City) Sand Hill Road signal coordination Woodside Road Widening (US 101-El Camino Real) C. Local Streets/Transportation Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: 1. Local Streets/Transportation $865 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $338-million, Local and State sources $527 million. Cities and County of San Mateo Annually, 22.5% of the tax revenue will be allocated to Cities and the County to fund the improvement or maintenance of local transportation, including streets and roads. The County and Cities may use funding to: maintain or improve local streets and roads by paving streets and sidewalks and repairing potholes; promote or operate alternative modes of transportation, which may include funding shuttles or sponsoring carpools, bicycling and pedestrian programs, and develop and implement traffic operations and Safety projects including signal coordination, bike/pedestrian safety projects, eliminating hazardous conditions or acquiring right-of-way. The annual distribution shall be based 50% on population and 50% on road miles, whicln will be adjusted annually. 13 Estimated annual distribution percentage (based on 2004) and dollars to each City and the County are shown below: Allocation Percentage Estimated Funding Atherton 1.886 $ 6,365,250 Belmont 3.543 $ 11,957,625 Brisbane 0.818 $ 2,760,750 Burlingame 4.206 $ 14,195,250 Colma 0.299 $ 1,009,125 Daly City 10.413 $ 35,143,875 East Palo Alto 3.215 $ 10,850,625 Foster City 3.364 $ 11,353,500 Half Moon Bay 1.596 $ 5,386,500 Hillsborough 3.000 $ 10,125,000 Menlo Park 4.851 $ 16,372,125 Millbrae 2.917 $ 9,844,875 Pacifica 5.174 $ 17,462,250 Portola Valley 1.488 $ 5,022,000 Redwood City 9.612 $ 32,440,500 San Bruno 5.034 $ 16,989,750 San Carlos 4.271 $ 14,414,625 San Mateo 11.797 $ 39,814,875 South San Francisco 7.649 $ 25,815,375 Woodside 1.683 $ 5,680,125 County of San Mateo 13.184 $ 44,496,000 County Total 100.000 $337,500,000 Do Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Grade Separations 1. Rail Grade Separations $350 rnillion. Sales tax contribution estimated at $225 million, State $125 million. SamTrans, San Mateo County, Cities and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board This project provides funding for the construction or upgrade of overpasses and underpasses (grade separations) along the Caltrain and Dumbarton rail lines. The Candidate Projects are listed below. Funds will not be adequate to construct or upgrade all Candidate Projects. The TA will determine Candidate Project selection and prioritization in conjunction with the project sponsors, based upon the California Public Utilities Commission formula and the desire of the City involved. 14 CANDIDATE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS City South San Francisco San Bruno San Bruno San Bruno San Bruno Millbrae Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo Street Linden Avenue Scott Street San Bruno Avenue San Mateo Avenue Angus Avenue Center Street Broadway Oak Grove Avenue North Lane South Lane Howard Avenue Bayswater Avenue Peninsula Avenue Villa Terrace Bellevue Avenue '1~ Avenue 2'~ Avenue 3'''~ Avenue 4th Avenue 5t~' Avenue 9th Avenue City San Mateo Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Atherton Atherton Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park East Palo Alto Street 25th Avenue Whipple Avenue Brewster Avenue Broadway Maple Street Main Street Chestnut Street Middlefield Road 2® Avenue 5"' Avenue Fair Oaks Lane Watkins Avenue Encinal Avenue Glenwood Avenue Oak Grove Avenue Ravenswood Marsh Road Chilco Street Willow Road SR 84 University Avenue CANDIDATE UPGRADE OF EXISTING GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS San Mateo San Mateo Poplar Avenue Santa Inez Avenue San Mateo San Mateo Menlo Park Mt. Diablo Ave. Tilton Avenue Highway 101 E. Pedestrian and Bicycle Project: Cost: Sponsors: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities $70 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $45 million. State $25 million. Cities and County of San Mateo 15 Description: This project provides funding for the construction of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Eligible projects include paths, trails and bridges over roads and highways. A partial list of Candidate Projects is included below. Additional Candidate Projects may be submitted to the TA for consideration to account for changing needs during the 25-year term. Funds will not be adequate to construct all Candidate Projects. The TA will determine Candidate Project selection criteria and prioritization in the Strategic Plan as provided in the Implementation Guidelines. PARTIAL LIST OF CANDIDATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS Route 1/Santa Rosa Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing Route 1 pedestrian/bike trail from Montara through Half Moon Bay Route 35/Route 1pedestrian/bike overcrossing Millbrae Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Hillcrest Blvd./US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing to Bay Trail US 101 near Hillsdale pedestrian/bike overcrossing Ralston Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Willow Road/BayfrontExpressway pedestrian/bike tunnel upgrade Willow Road/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Portola Road pedestrian/bike path paving F. Alternative Congestion Relief Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: 1. Altentative Congestion Relief Projects $30 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $15 million. $15 million from local sources. Cities and San Mateo County This program category provides 0.8 percent of the tax revenue to encourage efficient use of the transportation network through ride sharing, flexible work hours and other commute alternatives. It also provides 0.2 percent of the tax revenue for the planning and design of information systems and Intelligent Transportation Systems, which facilitate more efficient use of available highway and transit capacities. 16 V. GOVERNING BOARD/ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The Transportation Expenditure Plan recommends: ao That the voters authorize the Transportation Authority to continue administering the funds. The make up of the Transportation Authority shall continue to be as follows: Two members of the County Board of Supervisors. Four representatives selected by the City Selection Committee (one representative from each Judicial Division and one at-large representative). One member of San~tTrans (elected city official) selected by SamTrans prior to City Selection Committee selections. All representatives shall be elected officials. Bo That the Transportation Authority be authorized to continue to contract its administrative duties to SamTrans or to the County, MTC, or other qualified agency. Co That the Citizens Advisory Committee shall continue to advise the Transportation Authority on the administration of the Transportation Expenditure Plan. The membership of this committee will reflect a broad spectrum of interests and geographic areas of the County. 17 VI. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Ao Bo The duration of the tax will be 25 years, beginning on January 1, 2009 and expiring on December 31, 2034. Environmental reporting, review and approval procedures as provided for under the National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, or other applicable laws will be adhered to as a prerequisite to the implementation of any project. Upon expiration of the 1988 Measure A tax, the Transportation Authority will bear responsibility for any outstanding debt incurred under the 1988 Measure A program and all remaining assets under that program will remain assets of the Transportation Authority to be administered under this Transportation Expenditure Plan. In the event that any funds from the 1988 Measure A program remain unexpended as of the expiration of the 1988 Measure A tax, the Transportation Authority will reallocate such funds to complete any project that was commenced under any category in the 1988 Measure A program. If any funds remain unexpended after reallocation to complete projects under the 1988 Measure A program, the funds will be allocated in accordance with the percentage distributions to the Program Categories contained in this Transportation Expenditure Plan. Do Use of the retail transactions and use tax under this Transportation Expenditure Plan will be subject to the following restrictions: The tax proceeds must be spent for the purposes of funding the transportation programs and projects as allowed in this Transportation Expenditure Plan and may not be used for other purposes. o In accordance with California Public Utilities Code Section 131100, the tax proceeds will be used to supplement, and may not be used to replace, existing local property tax or other local revenues used for transportation purposes. ° The tax proceeds will be expended in San Mateo County, except that any expenditure for the Caltrain Improvement Project under the Transit Program Category may be made for systemwide costs and expenditures for the Highway Program Category may be made for projects that reasonably include project costs that minimally extend into adjacent counties. 18 The Transportation Authority is charged with a fiduciary duty in administering the tax proceeds in accordance with the applicable laws and this Transportation Expenditure Plan. Receipt of tax proceeds may be subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by the Transportation Authority in its reasonable discretion, including, but not limited to, the right to require recipients to execute funding agreements and the right to audit recipients' use of the tax proceeds. no Actual tax proceeds may be higher or lower than estimated in. this Transportation Expenditure Plan over the 25-year term. This Transportation Expenditure Plan is based on the percentage distributions to each Program Category and Project and the dollar values included are estimates only. Actual tax proceeds will be programmed annually in accordance with the percentage distributions in this Transportation Expenditure Plan. The Transportation Authority will prepare a Strategic Plan prior to January 1, 2009, which will identify funding prioritization criteria consistent with the goals and objectives of the Countywide Transportation Plan and this Transportation Expenditure Plan. The Strategic Plan will include general procedures for project sponsors to initiate a project and identify an implementation schedule and the programming of funds for each listed project. Criteria will include priority for transportation projects which support transit-oriented development. For those projects which include a list of Candidate Projects (the County-wide Supplemental Project under the Highway Program Category, the Grade Separation Program Category, and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Category), the Strategic Plan will also include the evaluation criteria and prioritization for selection of Candidate Projects. Once a Candidate Project is selected, it will become a listed project in the Strategic Plan. Lastly, the Strategic Plan will include the evaluation criteria for reallocation of tax proceeds that become available pursuant to Section VI.G below. The Strategic Plan will be updated at least every five years during the term of the Measure. Go The ability to fully fund or complete all programs or projects in this Transportation Expenditure Plan may be impacted by changing circumstances over the duration of the tax. Tax proceeds originally allocated to a listed project may become available for reallocation due to any of the following reasons: 1. a listed project is completed under budget; 19 a listed project is partially or fully funded by funding sources other than tax proceeds; a Project Sponsor requests deletion of a listed project because of unavailability of matching funds; a listed project cannot be completed due to an infeasible design, construction limitation or substantial failure to meet specified implementation milestones; Upon a finding that tax proceeds are available for reallocation due to one of the conditions above, the Transportation Authority may reallocate such tax proceeds subject to the following guidelines: 1. Available tax proceeds can be reallocated only to project(s) within the same Program Category as the original listed project. Reallocation of tax proceeds within a Program Category will be based on criteria specified in the Strategic Plan, which may include impact on congestion, cost-effectiveness, availability of matching funds, project readiness and schedule adherence as determined by the Transportation Authority; provided, however, that in the case of the Highway Program, proceeds made available from any County-wide Supplemental listed project must be reallocated within the County-wide Supplemental component and may not be reallocated to the listed projects in the Key Congested Areas component of the Highway Program Category. Reallocation of tax proceeds within the Transit Program Category only will also require the approval of a majority of the County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the County by a majority vote of their respective City Councils. Ho The Transportation Authority may take the following actions administratively in accordance with these Implementation Guidelines and such actions will not be considered an amendment to the Transportation Expenditure Plan, which adds or deletes a project or is of major significance under California Public Utilities Code Section 131304: 1. The reallocation of tax proceeds. 2O The addition of a new project to the list of Candidate Projects in the County-wide Supplemental Roadway project or Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Category. The Transportation Authority is authorized to bond for the purposes of advancing the commencement of or expediting the delivery of transportation programs or projects. The Transportation Authority may issue limited tax bonds, from time to time, to finance any program or project in this Transportation Expenditure Plan as allowed by applicable law and as approved by the Transportation Authority, and the maximum bonded indebtedness shall not exceed the total amount of proceeds of this retail transactions and use tax, estimated to be $1.5 Billion in 2004 dollars. Such bonds will be payable solely from the proceeds of the retail transactions and use tax and may be issued prior to the collection of such taxes beginning January 1, 2009. 21 StaffReport AGENDA ITEM # 7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jim Steele, Director of Finance APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SHARING PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution that authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with the California Franchise Tax Board to participate in their Local Government Information Sharing Program. Through that program, the City will gain access to limited taxpayer information for South San Francisco businesses. The total cost is not to exceed $1,706, and funds are available in the Finance Department budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Through the Local Government Information Sharing Program, the Franchise Tax Board provides a listing of South San Francisco businesses that file state tax returns for income taxes and other business taxes. The information the City would receive under this program is limited to names, addresses, taxpayer identification numbers and business codes. Confidential revenue or tax information will not be obtained. By comparing this information with the City's business license tax files, businesses operating in South San Francisco without a valid City business license can be identified for follow-up inquiries. The Franchise Tax Board requires Council approval of this agreement. By: Jim ~eele Dire~'tor of Finance Attachments: Resolution Agreement Michael A. Wilson City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCH/SE TAX BOARD IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,706 TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SHARING PROGRAM WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of an agreement with the State of California Franchise Tax Board to participate in the local government information sharing program, under which the City will gain access to limited taxpayer information for South San Francisco businesses; and WHEREAS, the City will use this information to compare with the City's business license tax files to determine which businesses in South San Francisco are operating without a business license; and WHEREAS, funds for this program are available in the Finance Department budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves an agreement with the State of California Franchise Tax Board in an amount not to exceed $1,706 to participate in the local government information sharing program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of ., 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Current Reso's\5 - 12agree.state.of. cal.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD AGREEMENT STD 213 (Rev 06103) I ' AGREEMENT NUMBER C2323122 REGISTRATION NUMBER 1. This Agreement is entered into between the State Agency and the Contractor named below: STATE AGENCY'S NAME Franchise Tax Board CONTRACTOR'S NAME City of South San Francisco 2. The term of this Agreement is: January 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005 3. The maximum amount $1,706.00 of this Agreement is: ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIX AND NO/100 DOLLARS 4. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits, which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement. Exhibit A - Scope of Work Exhibit B - Budget Detail and Payment Provisions Exhibit C* - General Terms and Conditions Exhibit D - Special Terms and Conditions Exhibit E - Confidentiality Statement 1 page 1 page GTC304 3 pages 1 page. Items These documents can be viewed at w"ww.dqs.ca qov/contracts IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. shown with an Asterisk (*) are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this agreement as if attached hereto. CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR'S NAME (if other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, elc.) City of South San Francisco BY (Authorized Signature) DATE SIGNED (Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING ADDRESS P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY NAME Franchise Tax Board BY (Authorized Signature) I DATE SIGNED (Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING Titus S. Toyama, Chief Financial Officer ADDRESS ~.O. Box 2086, Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-2086 California Department of General Services Use Only [] Exempt per: SCM 404.B.5.b. City of South san Francisco Agreement #C2323122 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK This Agreement is entered into by and between the Franchise Tax Board, herein referred to as (FTB) and the City of South San Francisco, herein after referred to as the City. 1. FTB will provide to the City the following records obtained from the FTB Taxpayer Information System (TI) and Business Entity Tax System (BETS) files: a. Taxpayer name b. Taxpayer Address c. Taxpayer Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number d. Principal Business Activity Code o The records will be extracted from information in the FTB files obtained from the 2003 tax year. 3. The records will be identified by zip codes located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. A database of the identified records will be transmitted to the City. 4. Information will be transmitted to the City project coordinator by way of a 3 ½ inch diskette, or CD-Rom. 5. The records will be transmitted to the City no later than January 31, 2005. 6. The project coordinators during the term of this Agreement will be: Franchise Tax Board· Robert Bisho Architecture and Data Management Bureau P.O. Box 1468, MS-B-40 Sacramento, CA 95812-1468 Phone: (916) 845-4762 Fax: (916) 845-0412 City of South San Francisco John Neal Finance P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Phone: (650) 877-8505 Franchise Tax Board Business Acquisitions Unit Attention: Nel Bohling P.O. Box 2086, MS B-27 Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-2086 Phone: (916) 845-7870 Fax: (916) 845-3599 City of South san Francisco EXHIBIT B BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISION Agreement #C2323122 PAYMENT: The City agrees to pay FTB $1,706.00 for 2003 data. Upon the receipt of executed agreements, the FTB will invoice the City for its share of the cost for 2003 data. The total cost reimbursable agreement shall not exceed $1,706.00 2. INVOICING: FTB shall render an invoice in triplicate to: City of South San Francisco John Neal Finance P.O. Box 711 Sebastopol, CA 94083 Upon receipt of the agreement executed by the FTB and an accompanying invoice, the City agrees to remit payment of the amount shown on the invoice, within 10 days. City of South san Francisco Agreement #C2323122 o EXHIBIT D SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The Franchise Tax Board has tax returns and their data in its custody, which is confidential data. Unauthorized inspection or disclosure of State returns or other confidential data is a misdemeanor (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 19542 and 19542.1, and Government Code Section 90005). The City and each of the City's employees who may have access to the confidential data of the Franchise Tax Board will be required to sign a statement attesting to the fact that he/she is aware of the confidential data and the penalties for unauthorized disclosure thereof. USE OF INFORMATION: The City agrees that the information furnished or secured pursuant to this Agreement shall be used solely for the purposes described by this section. The information obtained shall be used exclusively to administer the city business tax program established by the City. The City further agrees that information obtained under this agreement will not be reproduced, published,, sold or released in original or in any other form for any purpose other than identified in this section. EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO INFORMATION: The City agrees that the information obtained will be kept in the strictest confidence and shall make information available to its own employees only on a "need to know" basis. Need to know are those authorized employees who need information to perform their official duties in connection with the uses of the information authorized by this agreement. The parties recognize their mutual responsibilities to protect the confidentiality of the state tax return information as provided by law and ensures such information is disclosed only to those individuals and of such purpose, as authorized by the Revenue and Taxation Code. DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: Any unwarranted disclosure or use of tax return information or any willful unauthorized inspection of the return information is an act punishable as a misdemeanor. Inspection is defined to mean any examination of confidential information. No one other than city business tax license department employees may have access, use, and view or manipulate the data being transmitted to the City under this agreement. The city, in recognizing the confidentiality of State Tax Return information, agrees to take all appropriate precautions to protect from unauthorized disclosure of the confidential information obtained pursuant to this agreement. The City will conduct oversight of its users with access to the confidential information provided under this agreement, and will promptly notify the FTB of any suspected violations of security or confidentiality by its users by contacting the Franchise Tax Board Contact Robert Bisho of the Architecture and Data Management Bureau at (916) 845-4762. City of South san Francisco Agreement #C2323 t22 EXHIBIT D SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (continued) o o o 10. NON-IRS INFORMATION: This agreement does nOt allow for the release of any confidential tax return information in the FTB files that may have been obtained from sources other than the taxpayer. No confidential Federal Tax Return information will be provided to the city. This agreement does not provide for the exchange of confidential federal tax returns or confidential tax return information obtained from the Internal Revenue Service by the FTB. INFORMATION SECURITY: Information security is defined as the preservation of the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity and utility of information. A secure environment is required to protect the confidential information obtained from the FTB pursuant to this Agreement. The City will store information so that it is physically secure from unauthorized access. The records received by the city will be securely maintained and accessible only by employees of the city business tax department who are committed to protect the data from unauthorized access, use or disclosure. DESTRUCTION OF RECORD,g: All records received by the agency from FTB and any database created, copies made, or files attributed to the records received will be destructed within one year of receipt. The records shall be destructed in a manner to be deemed unusable or readable and to the extent that an individual record can no longer be reasonable ascertained. Upon destruction of the records, the City will notify FTB of the completed destruction. INDEMNIFICATION: The City agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting from any breach of confidentiality by the City and or its employees. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES: In the event of a dispute, the City shall file a "Notice of Dispute" with the Assistant Executive Officer, of the Franchise Tax Board within ten (10) days of discovery of the problem. Within ten (10) days the Assistant Executive Officer, or his/her designee shall meet with the City and Project Manager for purposes of resolving the dispute. The decision of the Assistant Executive Officer shall be final. SAFEGUARD AUDITS: The FTB retains the right to conduct on site safeguard review audits to the receiving city. The receiving city will be provided a minimum of seven (7) days notice prior to a safeguard review being conducted by the FTB Disclosure Office. The safeguard review will examine the adequacy of information security controls established by the City in compliance with the confidentiality requirements pursuant to this Agreement. The City will take appropriate disciplinary actions against any user determined to have violated security or confidentiality requirements. City of South san Francisco Agreement #C2323122 EXHIBIT D SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (continued) 11. LIMITED WARRANTY: The FTB does not warrant or represent the accuracy or content of the material available though this agreement, and expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty, including any implied warranty of fitness for a specific purpose. 12. CANCELLATION: The City may terminate this Agreement, in writing to the FTB for any reason, upon thirty days (30) prior written notice. In the event of a voluntary termination, the City agrees it will not be entitled to a refund. This Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of any breach of the terms of this Agreement. 13. INCIDENT REPORTING: All unauthorized or suspected unauthorized access (es); uses and/or disclosures (incidents) of FTB data shall be reported to the FTB Contact, Robert Bisho of the Architecture and Data Management Bureau immediately upon discovery of the incident. The incident report shall contain the following: date, time, employee name, description of the incident or circumstances, and means of discovery. ~ The City agrees to submit a completed FTB Security and Disclosure Questionnaire for each confirmed unauthorized access within 10 days of the confirmation of the incident. Upon discovery of any such incident(s), FTB will make the appropriate notification to affected California Resident(s) pursuant to the requirements of Civil Code Section 1798.29. Staff A GEND.4 ITEM #8 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Shat'on Ranals, Director of Recreation and Community Services NPT Breast Cancer 3-DAY RECOMMENDATION: It is reconm~ended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement between the City of South San Francisco and the NPT Breast Cancer 3-DAY, LLC, October 14 - 17, 2004 in Orange Memorial Park. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The subject of this report is an application that has been received for the use of Orange Memorial Park fi'om October 14 - 17, 2004, as an over-night camp site for the NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day. This is a 60 mile walk sponsored by the National Philanthropic Trust (NPT) and the Susan G. Komen Foundation as a fundraiser for breast cancer initiatives, including research, education, screening, and treatment programs. As the City Council may recall, guidelines to handle requests for South San Francisco parks as sites for large regional events were developed several years ago. The Orange Memorial Park Group Permit Application Guidelines and Policies regulates that applications will only be considered for Orange Memorial Park. Not more than one non-city event is reco~nmended per calendar year. The policy provides that applications need to be sub~nitted at least one year in advance of the event. Once completed, applications are to be routed and reviewed by all relevant city departments for input and evaluation, and determination of potential costs and impacts to the city. Upon evaluation and recommendations from each of the relevant departments, staff may forward one or more applications to the City Council for further review and selection of the proposed event, not later than by the end of May. In the event that more than one request is received for a given year, Council has the discretion to select and approve the event. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: NPT Breast Cancer 3-DAY Date: May 12, 2004 Page 2 In June of 2003 a request was received for the use of Orange Memorial Park in November of the same year as a campsite for the participants in the annual Breast Cancer 3-DAY walk. The request was administratively denied due to the late timing of the application and the short time- frame in which the impact of the event could be evaluated and addressed. The group was advised that consideration would be given to allowing the event in 2004 if all conditions of use could be met, which they have been working with staff to do. This is the only request for a large group event that has been submitted for 2004, and the deadline to submit applications has passed. The event will involve delivery of equipment, set-up and mobilization on Thursday and Friday October 14-15; arrival of the walkers beginning in the afternoon of Saturday, October 16 with dinner and sleep-over that evening; breakfast on site and departure early on Sunday morning with clean-up and de-mobilization completed by the end of the day on October 17. Attached to this report is a Fact Sheet about the event for your review, in addition to a proposed map of the park showing the location of the various event components, which includes a large dining tent in the baseball quadrant; sleeping tents on the soccer and picnic quadrants; and portable showers and port-a-lets in the large parking lot on the tennis quadrant. Recreation, Maintenance Services, Police, and Fire Department staff have met with the event's production coordinator to discuss logistics and reimbursable costs to the city. The group has agreed to the charges, and the conditions outlined in a draft of an agreement with the city, as attached. Upon approval by the City Council, the formal written agreement with the group will be finalized. If this event is approved, staff will coordinate with the Farmer' s Market to either cancel or re- locate the market within the park on Saturday, October 16. The Bocce Ball club has a tournament scheduled for this weekend, which can be coordinated. It is anticipated that the swimming pool and tennis courts will remain open to the public, with advance notice to the community that parking will be impacted. As required in the policy, the surrounding neighborhood will be noticed well in advance of the event. It should be noted that the parameters of this event are beyond the limits of the type of event that the policy was developed to address, with regard to the fact that it involves using the park as a campsite. In addition, the policy is aimed at allowing the use of Orange Park by one "South San Francisco" group per year, with priority going to a non-profit. This applicant is not a local community group with 51% South San Francisco residents. However, Council has the discretion to approve an "outside" group use, as they are not prohibited from applying. This is the only application submitted for 2004, so priority is not an issue. It is anticipated that a significant number of South San Francisco residents will participate as walkers in the event. Clearly many individuals in the community are affected by breast cancer and would be beneficiaries of research and advances in treatment. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: NPT Breast Cancer 3-DAY Date: May 12, 2004 Page 3 FUNDING: Estimated costs for city services are: Police, $2,970; Parks, $1,567; and Recreation, $1,654. In addition, a $400 non-refundable group application fee is to be charged for processing. Charges include fees from lost revenue because use of the picnic areas will be cancelled for the weekend. The group will be assessed a refundable damage and clean-up deposit of $2,000. Total estimated charges to the group are $8,191. Full payment will be required prior to the event, with scheduled payments as identified in the agreement. Unused staff time, if any, will be refunded to the group after the event. SUMMARY: Execution of this event requires assembling a temporary village for an estimated 3,000 participants and 600 staff and volunteers, complete with meal service, showers and restrooms, tents for sleeping, fn'st aid and medical preparedness, communication, and security. Clearly there will be a significant impact to the park, neighborhood, and community. However, the group is well organized, is willing to cover the direct cost of city resources, and has a good track record of producing these events and returning the host site in good condition. The cause is an important one that affects the lives of many of our residents. Staff recommends approval of this event in the larger interest of a public agency contributing to the public good. Mr. Matt Yoder, event production coordinator, will attend the City Council meeting to answer questions. By: ~.,';~7'd'),"'? /~d//"?~dC--7-~('--].~ Approved: Sharon Ranals Director of Recreation and Community Services Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Event Fact Sheet and Site Diagram 3. Draft Agreement Between the City of South San Francisco and the NPT Breast Cancer 3- DAY, LLC RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT ~rlTH NPT BREAST CANCER 3-DAY, LLC FOR THE USE OF ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK FROM OCTOBER 14-17, 2004, AS .M'q OVER- NIGHT CAMP SITE FOR THE NPT BREAST CANCER 3-DAY WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of an agreement with NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC for the use of Orange Memorial Park from October 14-17, 2004, as an over-night camp site for the NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day. WHEREAS, estimated costs for city services are: Police, $2,970; Parks, $1567; and Recreation, $1,654; and WHEREAS, the group will be assessed a refundable damage and clean-up deposit of $2,000; and WHEREAS, total estimated charges to the group are $8,191. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes an agreement with NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC for the use of Orange Memorial Park from October 14-17, 2004, as an over-night camp site for the NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S :\Current Reso's\5-12brest.cancer.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk NPT Breast Cancer 3-DAY Fact Sheet Sponsored by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the National Philanthropic Trust; the "Charity Navigator" site on the internet indicates an overall rating of 3 out of 4 stars possible for this charity, which is above average for similar foundations; the percentage of event proceeds that will actually go to breast cancer research will depend upon actual event costs and the number of participants; 10 cities will sponsor 3-Day Walks across the nation, an increase from 3 events that were held in 2003; A San Francisco event was held in 2003; approximately 1500 walkers participated; staff contacted San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Department to confirm that they had a positive experience with the group last year, which they did; they have approved the event again for 2004 for an over-night at Coyote Point; Each walker must pledge or collect $2,000 in donations to participate; organizers hope to sign up 3,000 walkers this year; entourage includes 60 event staff and 300 volunteers who serve as crew; the distance to be walked is 60 miles over 3 days; Event will begin at Bay Meadows race track in Foster City; the first day participants walk about 20 miles to Coyote Point for first over-night; second day they walk 20 miles to Orange Park, if approved, for second over-night; final day is a walk to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco for conclusion; last year the second overnight was held at Skyline College; organizers stated they are looking at Orange Park as a better, warmer site; The event would occupy most of Orange Park, including the soccer field, picnic area, baseball fields, and several parking lots; logistics include setting up many rows of small sleeping tents on the soccer field and in the picnic area; many vehicles in the park, including portable shower trucks,; a dining tent with a small entertainnaent area; the park would remain "open" to the public, however security at night would not permit unauthorized entry; a draft site plan for Orange Park is attached; The schedule for the event includes delivery of equipment and set-up beginning on Thursday, October 14 and completed on Friday, October 15; walkers would begin to arrive at the park by 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 16, and depart by 8:00 am on Sunday, October 16; the sponsors would vacate and clean the area by 3:00 pm; The sponsors appear to be well organized and self-sufficient for most needs; no alcohol will be served; set-up includes a command center, medical tent, dining tent with tables and chairs; walkers have their sleeping bags and other gear transported and distributed to assigned tents by the sponsors so they do not have to carry it with them; If approved, it would be necessary to cancel or re-locate the Farmer's Market on Saturday, October 16th; permits for group permits would not be issued; other activities such as tennis, bocce, and swimming could take place, however parking and traffic could be congested. Orange Memorial Park Q 11- ........ . t Service tents trucks Sleeping tents (tent grid) Showers Kitchen trucks AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC This agreement is entered into between the City of South San Francisco ("City") and the NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC as of this 12th day of May 2004. RECITALS WHEREAS, the NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC desires to use City-owned Orange Memorial Park soccer field, two baseball fields, picnic areas and related on-site facilities ("Property") for the 3 Day Breast Cancer Walk with Day 2 sleepover on Saturday, October 16th; and, WHEREAS, the City will permit the use of the Property for said event subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: FACILITIES AND CONDITIONS FOR USE mo The City hereby authorizes NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC to use the following facilities from Thursday, October 14 through Sunday, October 17, 2004: Orange Memorial Park soccer field, including the entire picnic areas, two baseball field areas, two picnic parking lots, Memorial Drive parking lot adjacent to softball field area for the entertainers, food tent areas, public restroom facilities and two parking lots adjacent to the tennis court area including the road parking area across from the Recreation Building. Prior to using the property, the NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC shall provide a final scale layout of the location of the dining and service tent areas, sleeping tent areas, performers and related structures. Said plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City and shall be submitted no later than Wednesday, August 4, 2004. The event on Saturday, October 16 will continue with set-up no earlier than 6:00 am and end no later than 9:30 p.m. The picnic grass areas, baseball field areas and soccer field grass areas are used for sleeping quarters. At the conclusion of the event, the NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC shall ensure that the areas are clean and free of debris and is returned to its original condition. Entertainment and dining areas is set-up on the softball field. d. Breast Cancer Foundation Timeline on set-up and clean-up: Thursday October 14th Friday October 15th Saturday October i 6th Sunday October 17th 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm group set-up 6:00 am - 9:00 pm group set-up 4:00 am - 9:00 pm event day 9:00 pm - 5:00 am camp closes (sleep over) 2:30 am - 5:00 pm commander center departs 5:00 am - 3:00 pm preparation & clean-up for groups departure eo See attached Orange Memorial Park Timeline for further details. Estimated attendance: 3,000 participants plus 350 volunteers and staff See attached walk route on Saturday, October 16, 2004. Propose route is pending approval from the Police and Park Maintenance Divisions. The NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC (NPTBC) shall provide the following: A minimum six (6) port-o-lets of which two (2) must be available for disabled individuals. Port-o-lets shall include wash stations. Two (2) 14-yard debris dumpsters at locations to be determined by City. Any required staging, sounds systems, bleachers and display booths. NPTBC shall be solely responsible for assembling and disassembling said equipment. Ensure that all ground cords, wiring or related items are secured to the ground with duct tape. Ensure that items (2) through (4) are removed from the Property no later than 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 17th. Item 1, the Port-o-let Company and South San Francisco Scavenger Company will pick up their dumpsters and port-o-lets on Monday, October 18th. II. PARKING The shower truck units and tracks may use the designated parking lots adjacent to the sculpture garden and the parking lot next to Colma Creek plus the two parking lots in the picnic areas and the parking spaces along the softball field on Memorial Drive. Bo The NPTBC shall establish a means of reserving the required number of spaces and allocating said spaces to the mobile kitchen and shower tracks, equipment vehicles, vendors and performers. Said plan shall be subject to review and approval by the South San Francisco Police Department. 2 III. Co CITY A. Do The NPTBC shall monitor the parking of vehicles in the above referenced lots such that the number of mobile kitchen and shower trucks, eqnipment vehicles, vendors and performers that require a parking space does not exceed the total number of parking spaces available. The NPTBC shall coordinate parking with the South San Francisco Police Department and shall defer to the Department's recommendations as to the number of mobile kitchen and shower trucks, equipment vehicles, vendors and performers allowed to park in the lots and requirements for monitoring. If additional parking facilities are required, the NPTBC shall obtain written approval from the South San Francisco Unified School District prior to using the parking facilities at South San Francisco High School. PROVIDED SERVICES AND COSTS The NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC (NPTBC) shall reimburse the City for the following City provided services: 1. Police Department Services: $ 2,970.00 2. Parks and Maintenances Services: $ 1,567.00 3. Recreation Division: ao Softball Lights Rental: $ 62.00 Picnic Area Rental $ 1,092.00 Notices to Residents $ 500.00 Insurance: (provide own) 0 Damage/Clean-Up Deposit: $ 2,000.00 (refundable) The total estimated costs of providing said services including damage and clean- up deposit are eight thousand one hundred ninety one dollars ($ 8,191). NPTBC must post a non-refundable deposit of one thousand dollars ($1,000) to reserve the property and services for the event and shall be deducted from the total City provided services. Such deposit is due upon one month of approval by City Council meeting on May 12. NPTBC shall pay the City the remaining balance in two installments of three thousand five hundred ninety five dollars and fifty cents ($3,595.50) on or before Friday, August 13, 2004 and second installment on or before Friday, September 17, 2004. Checks made payable to the "City of South San Francisco". City Police Department and Parks and Maintenance Services Department will be charged at the rate incurred. Any unused employee time will be refunded to the group no later than Friday, November 19, 2004. City shall provide maintenance staff to ensure the City owned public restrooms are clean and in working order. Maintenance staff will also pick up debris and empty trash receptacles from 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on the day of the event. IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS mo PERSONNEL: The NPTBC shall ensure that Matt Yoder, the NPTBC Production Coordinator, is available at all times during the event to meet with City staff and address contemporaneous issues. The NPTBC shall also ensure that it has sufficient staff available to protect the Property from damage by vehicles, vendors, performers, NPTBC staff and event attendees. Bo COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS: The NPTBC shall ensure compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations. The NPTBC shall ensure that all food vendors have obtained the required state and local permits and that no alcoholic beverages are sold or given away on the Property. All provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code will be enforced by the South San Francisco Police Department. INSURANCE: The NPTBC shall provide Comprehensive General Liability insurance coverage. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement. Minimum scope of coverage. Cormnercial general coverage shall be in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 (ed. 11/88) or Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (ed. 1/73) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as an endorsement to the policy: City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the NPTBC, including the insured's general supervision of the NPTBC; products and vendors used by the NPTBC; premises owned, occupied, or used by the NPTBC; and vendors, performers, sponsors and volunteers performing activities on the NPTBC's behalf for and during the event. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis and not on a claims-made basis. 4 An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. Any failure of the NPTBC to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to CITY and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. INDEMNITY: The NPTBC shall indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of NPTBC or its employees, vendors, volunteers, performers. The NPTBC shall be responsible for any and all damages to the Property caused or occurring as a result of the event held on the Property. City shall conduct an inspection of the Property no later than Monday, October 17 and shall provide the NPTBC notice of any damage to the Property and the estimated cost to repair said damage. City shall be entitled to repair any damage to the Property that occurs as a result of the NPTBC's activities thereon. City shall charge said costs against the damage deposit. If no damage to the Property is noted, City shall refund the damage deposit to the NPTBC no later than Friday, November 19, 2004. Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement. 5 H. Notices. Any written notice to the NPTBC shall be sent to: Any written notice to City shall be sent to: City of South San Francisco, City Clerk 400 Grand Avenue, City Hall South San Francisco, CA 94080 DEFAULT: If the NPTBC fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement, City shall be entitled to revoke all permits to use the Property and the NPTBC shall forfeit all deposits. In the event of default, City shall be entitled to recover all its costs, including administrative staff time and attorneys' fees, incurred in performing its obligations under this Agreement. Said costs may include staff time and administrative expenses incurred from the date of application and staff time for any and all meetings with the NPTBC. Integration. This Agreement, including exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. Executed as of the date first written above. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The NPT Breast Cancer 3-Day, LLC Michael A. Wilson, City Manager Howard Sitron, Chief Operating Officer Attest: Sylvia Payne, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney 6 THE SUSAN G. KOMEN BREAST CANCER FOUNDTION DEADLINE DATES Monday Wednesday Wednesday Friday Friday Friday Friday Friday May 10 May 12 August 4 August 13 September 17 September 17 September 17 September 17 Payment of $1,000 non refundable deposit City Council Approval of Breast Cancer 3 Day Walk Final submittal of site layout plan 1st installment due: $ 3,595.50 2nd installment due: $ 3,595.50 Provide Certificate of Insurance Comprehensive General Liability naming the City of South San insure with evidence of insurance coverage Francisco as additional Meet with city representatives to discuss any final details of the event Food vendors have obtained required state and local permits Monday October 25 Process refundable deposit and any unused employee time DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CONVERSION OF A 23,062 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING INTO A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY WITH ON- SITE PARKING OF 85 VEHICLES AND LANDSCAPING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. RECLASSIFICATION OF 116 BEACON WAY (APN 015- FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-I) ZONE DISTRICT TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL (P-C) ZONE DISTRICT. USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE CONVERSION OF A 23,062 SQUARE FOOT VACANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING INTO A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE WITH ON-SITE PARKING FOR 85 VEHICLES AND LANDSCAPING. DESIGN REVIEW OF THE CONVERSION OF A VACANT 23,062 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING INTO A CHURCH WITH AN ON-SITE PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING. PROPERTY LOCATION: 116 BEACON STREET [APN 015-171-020] IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-I) ZONE DISTRICT. SSFMC: SECTIONS 20.32.030 (B), 020.32.070 & 20.08.050 AND CHAPTERS 20.81, 20.85 & 20.87 OWNER: SAINT GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM APPLICANT: SUHEIL SHATARA OF SHATARA ARCHITECTURE CASE NOS.: LIP 02-0047, DR 02-0047 & ND 02-0002 RECOMMENDATION That the Cit3~ Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of the conversion of a 23,062 square foot building into a religious assembly faciliB~ with on-site parking of 85 vehicles and landscaping, in accordance with California Environmental Qualit3~ Act, 2) Reclassification of 116 Beacon Way (from Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District to Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone Staff Report Subject: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 116 Beacon Street Page 2 District, 3) Use Permit allowing the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial building into a religious assembly use with on-site parking for 85 vehicles and landscaping, and 4) Design Review of the conversion of a vacant 23,062 square foot industrial building into a church with an on-site parking lot and landscaping, subject to making the required findings of approval and adopting conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION PLANNING COMMISSION MEET1NG The Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meetings of March 18 and April 15, 2004. The Planning Commissioners supported the proposed use, but initially had questions regarding the possibility of on-site living quarters, localized street flooding on Beacon Street and the number of cruciforms to be placed on the roof. The applicant's legal representative expressed concern regarding the wording of condition of approval #5 requiring a deed recordation prohibiting day care due to the presence of toxics in the ground. After some discussion the Commissioners revised the condition to require recordation of a memorandum referring to the presence of the conditions of approval rather than requiring a deed restriction. PROJECT The 1.68 acre site is comprised of a vacant 23,062 SF one-story building formerly utilized as a ball bearing manufacturing plant. The application was submitted three times over the last year and has undergone significant design and use modifications. The project involves the conversion of an existing building to a church able to accommodate a parish currently numbering 278 persons, 11,155 square foot recreation rooms with upgrades to the landscaping and a new parking lot accommodating 85 vehicles. The Church would operate primarily on Sunday from 9 AM to 1 PM but would be utilized for other associated functions on Saturdays. The recreation rooms are intended for the use of the parish members and would operate at the same times as the church. The site is in an area that is transitioning from industrial to commercial uses. The project site's General Plan land use designation, Business Commercial, allows religious assembly. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. However, the site's present zoning of Planned Industrial Zoning District (P-I) is inconsistent with the General Plan. The proposed site zoning of Planned Commercial (P-C) is consistent with the General Plan. The PC District allows the proposed religious use subject to an approved use Permit by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Section 20.24.030). Several of the properties along Beacon Street have already transitioned to commercial uses that would be conforming to the future zoning. The proposed development complies with the City's standard development standards of the PC District as displayed in the following table and continued on the next page: Staff Report Subject: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 116 Beacon Street Page DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Total Site Area: 1.38 acres [60,113 SF] Floor Area: 23,062 SF Assembly Area: 7,507 SF Support Area: 4,400 SF Recreation Rooms: 11,155 SF Maximum: 65 FT Automobile Parking Minimum: 85 Existing: FT Proposed: Existing: N/A Proposed: 38 FT 85 Lot Coverage: Maximum: Landscape Setbacks: Minimum: Minimum Front 20 FT Side Left 0 FT Right ll0FT Rear 15 FT 60% Existing: 38% Proposed: 10% Existing: 5 % Proposed: Existing: Proposed 14 FT 14 FT 0 FT 0 FT 110 FT 120 FT 25 FT 25 FT 38% 11% Notes: 1. Parking is based on the following rates: Sanctuary 278 persons @ 4/car and Area 1/300 SF. 2. Bldg also complies with future P-C District standards. Support The proposed development will increase landscaping and significantly upgrade the building appearance. The provision of on-site parking for 85 vehicles should be adequate for the current congregation. The proposed development is not anticipated to increase demand for on-street parking and because it will use the existing driveway apron will not result in the loss of any parking spaces. Should the on-site parking for the church prove to be occasionally insufficient due to a wedding or funeral service overflow parking exists in the form of on-street parking. Since the other neighboring businesses are not open on the weekends, no adverse parking impacts will occur to other businesses. DESIGN REVW~W BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meetings of June 18, 2002, August 20, 2002 and February 17, 2004. At the first meeting the Board suggested that the applicant revise the plans to accomplish the following: 1. Reconfigure the parking lot spaces, aisle widths and handicapped facilities to bring them into compliance witk, c~'.rrent City and ADA codes. Staff Report Subject: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 116 Beacon Street Page 4 2. Prepare a lighting plan for the parking lot. 3. Replace India Hawthorn trees with a larger species such as sycamore or metrosideros. 4. If an angled parking configuration is used, the curb adjacent between the parking lot and the building can be pushed out to make room for additional landscaping or a sidewalk running along the side of the church. 5. Replace the flat canopy over the side entry of the church with an arched canopy similar to that proposed over the front entry. 6. Consider adding more direct walkways from the street-front entry to the parking lot. The applicant revised the plans per the Board's suggestions. At the August meeting the Board offered the following comments: 1. Increase the number ofmetrosideros trees in the parking lot. There is room for nearly twice as many trees as are being proposed. 2. Change the design and material of the fence to make it both more durable and compatible with the architecture of the building. The applicant revised the plans in accordance with the Board's comments. Subsequently, due to an environmental issue associated with the previous use of the site, the applicant deleted the proposed day care. The applicant revised the plans and resubmitted. The revised plans were reviewed by the DRB at their meeting of February 17, 2004. The Board supported the proposed redesign and had no comments. Copies of the Design Review Board minutes are attached to this staff report. BCDC REVIEW Because the site is located within 100 feet of the average high tide line of an unnamed slough, a tributary to San Francisco Bay, it is subject to review and approval by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission [BCDC]. The applicant has reviewed the proposed development with BCDC representatives. BCDC has determined that shoreline access in not required with the proposed development, but that the applicant will be required to pay a fee to improve the bay front in the South San Francisco area. The applicant has agreed to pay the fee. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant will need to secure a permit from BCDC. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City staffprepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The document was circulated for 30 days commencing on July 25, 2003 and ending on August 25, 2003. The document focused on a few key concerns including storm water runoff and street flooding, toxic materials, noise and construction impacts. The site is situated in the Zone B of the Colma Creek 100 year flood plain [Flood Insurance Rate Map Community - Panel Number 065062 008 B dated September 2, 1981]. Flooding potentially occurs to a depth of less than one foot. In the recent past, Beacon Street has flooded to a depth of a few inches. The development will not increase storm water runoffbecause most of the site is already covered by the building and asphalt parking area. To protect the project site, the applicant will be required to install storm water improvements to convey water to the CiTy's storm dra!nage facilities and construct a s~allow berm across the property frontage to prevent any street flooding from reacLing the parking area Staff Report Subject: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 116 Beacon Street Page 5 or building and the building will be required to be made flood resistant. The City has studied the drainage in the project vicinity and plans to implement the storm drainage facihties along Beacon Street to prevent street flooding are underway. The property was formerly used for ball bearing production. A Facility Closure Report was prepared for the project site by Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., dated April 28, 2000. The closure consisted of two phases. The first phase consisted of facility cleaning operations, including complete removal of all machinery and equipment, chemicals associate with the former business and cleaning of the interior and exterior areas. The second phase of the facihty closure consisted of post-cleaning soil, grab groundwater, and building materials sampling. Soils, groundwater and building samples were collected and analyzed. The chemical compounds found were determined by the consultant to be at low concentration levels. San Mateo County Heath Services Agency issued a Closure letter regarding the above ground hazardous materials. Further on-site environmental work is required in order that the County may issue a closure letter regarding the groundwater concentrations and a separate 'Clearance letter' allowing the use of the existing site and buildings for the proposed assembly functions. The hazardous materials are generally required to meet much lower concentrations in order that the site may be reused for the intended functions. Small quantities of unregulated household-type hazardous materials will be stored within the Project building to be used for maintenance activities. As a mitigation measure prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant will be required to obtain a clearance letter from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency. The site is subjected to noise emanating from US 101 and over flights from San Francisco Airport. Given the nature of the proposed uses, the building interior will be required to be insulated to provide an interior acoustic level of no greater than 45dBA. Construction of the facility will result in short term impacts potentially including noise, storm water runoff and fugitive dust. As required Mitigation Measures the applicant will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance [SSFMC Chapter 8.32], implement an approved Storm Water Prevention Plan, and frequently water the site to suppress dust. Mitigation Measures, are required to reduce the impacts to a level less than significant. With implementation of the mitigation measures the impacts will be reduced to a level less than significant. No substantive public comments were received. After the review it was determined that the toxics present in the ground would likely preclude the use of the site for day care unless significant remediation efforts were undertaken. The applicant revised the plans to delete the day care. Condition of approval #4 requires that day care or similar operations are not allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate that the site has been remediated and can meet the Federal and State thresholds standards. Condition of approval #5 has been added to require that the conditions of approval be recordec! with the San Mateo County Recorder. Staff Report Subject: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 116 Beacon Street Page 6 ZONING RECLASSIFICATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The reclassification of the site from Planned Industrial Zone District to Planned Commercial Zone District is a step necessary to implement the General Plan amendments of 1999. The impacts associated with the General Plan were documented in the EIR certified by the City Council in 1999. The reclassification itself will not cause any environmental impacts, is consistent with the General Plan, and was adequately analyzed by the General Plan EIR. CONCLUSION: The proposed conversion of the former industrial building to a church is consistent with the City's General Plan and subject to zoning reclassification of the site to the PC District with all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning (SSFMC Title 20). Therefore, the City Council should follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of the conversion of a 23,062 square foot building into religious assembly with on-site parking of 85 vehicles and landscaping, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act, 2) Reclassification of 116 Beacon Way (from Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District to Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District, 3) Use Permit allowing the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial building into a religious assembly use with on-site parking for 85 vehicles and landscaping, and 4) Design Review of the conversion of a vacant 23,062 square foot industrial building into a church with an on-site parking lot and landscaping. By: ~ ~ ~ Approved: M Assistant City Manag'~ M~cha~l A. W~lson City Manager Attachments: Draft Reclassification Ordinance General Plan Land Use Diagram Exhibit #A Existing Zoning Exhibit #B Proposed Zoning Planning Commission Resolution #2631 Draft Findings of Approval Recommended Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Staff Reports March 18, 2004 April 15, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes March 18.2004 April i5, 2004 Staff Report Subject: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 116 Beacon Street Page 7 DRB Minutes June 18, 2002 August 20, 2002 February 17, 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Supplement [Due to the bulk of the environmental document the Initial Study Supplement is available to the public on request] Plans ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 116 BEACON WAY FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-I) TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL (P-C) ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco held a duly noticed public hemdng and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been determined to be "Categorically Exempt" under the "General Rule" (CEQA Section 15061 (b) (3)) that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a si:maificant effect on the environmem. WHEREAS, the findings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The 5_ridings and detem,Xnations constipate the b~ependent f~mdings and determinations of the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the staff report submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on April 15 2004 thereto. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION: 1. AIvlENDMENTS The City Council hereby anaends the City of South San Francisco Zoning Map for 116 Beacon Way by changing the zoning designation from Planned Industrial (P-l) to Planned Commercial (P-C). SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or ckcumstance is held invalid, 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, invahd, or unenforceable. -1- SECTION 3. PUBLICATION A_ND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days fi:om and after its adoption. Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the __ day of ,2004. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of, 2004 by the following vote: AY-ES: NOES: ABSTAIN: A_BSENT: As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of ,2004. Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor 687445-1 -2- GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGtCAM Mixed Induslriai Site / / EXHIB IT #A EXISTING ZONING -4- RESOLUTION NO... 2631 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SA_N FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF TI-1-E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SO~i'l:[ SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI:rF, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AMEND Tl:l]r, CITY OF SOUTH SA_N FRANCISCO ZONLNG MAP TO CIIANGE TI:I-F~ LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 116 BEACON ~zAY FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-l) TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL (P-C) ZONE DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held a duty noticed public hearing on April 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed Zoning Amendment to change the land use designation of 116 Beacon Way from Planned Industrial (P-l) to Planned Commercial (P-C) is consistem with the General Plan Land Use Element. The site is in an area that is transifioning from industrial to commercial uses. The project site's General Plan land use designation, Business Commercial, allows rehgious assembly. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. However, the site's present zoning of Planned Industrial Zoning District (P-l) is inconsistent with the General Plan. The proposed site zoning of Planned Commercial (P-C) is consistent with the General Plan. The PC District allows the proposed reli~ous use subject to an approved use Permit by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Section 20.24.030). Several of the properties along Beacon Street have already transitioned to commercial uses that would be conforming to the future zoning. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, as required by the Use Permit Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.], the foilov~_ug findings are made in approval of the Zoning Amendment to change the land use designation of t 16 Beacon Way from Planned Industrial (p-l) to-Planned Commercial (P-C)i), subject to making the findings of approval and, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Plan~ing Commission which include, but are not limited to: Plans prepared by Shatara Architecture, dated February 9, 2004; Facility Closure Report prepared by Erler & Kalinowsld, Inc., dated April 28, 2000; Design Review Board meeting of June 18, 2002; Design Review Board meeting of August 20, 2002; Design Review Board meeting of February 17, 2004; Design Review Board minutes of June 18, 2002; Design Review Board minutes of August 20, 2002; Design Review Board minutes of February 17, 2004; Planning Commission staff report, dated March 18, 2004; Plan~ing Commission staff report, dated April 15, 2004; Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 18, 2004; Planning Commission Staff Report of April 15, 2004; and Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 2004; and: 1. The proposed rezoning will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or unreasonably delrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. Resolution 116 Beacon Way April 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 2. The proposed conversion of the building to rehgious assembi% situated in the Planned Commercial Zone-District~P-C-) adj acent~aother-commercial and industrial uses, complies-with all applicable standards and requirements of SSFMC Title 20. The 8SFMC Chapter 20.24 allows religious assembly with a Use Permit approved by the Plannlng Commission. Conditions of approval are required to ensure compliance with the Zoning requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council change the land use desi~mxation of 116 Beacon Way from Planned Industrial [P-l) to Planned Commercial (P-C) and ti:ds Resolution is effective immediately upon its passage and adoption I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco on the 15th day of April 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Romero Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Zemke, Commissioner Romero and Chairperson Ochsenhim NOES: Comm i ssioner Honan ABSTAIN: None ABSENWl': None Thomas C. Sparks FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P02-0047 ST. GEORGE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM (Recommended by Planning Commission May 26, 2004) As required by the Use Permit Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.], the following findings are made in approval of 1) Use Permit allowing the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial building into a religious assembly use with on-site parking for g5 vehicles and landscaping, and 2) Design Review of the conversion of a vacant 23,062 square foot industrial building into a church with an on-site par ~king lot and landscaping, subject to m ~aldng the findings of approval and, based on public testimony and the mater/als submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, bur are not limited to: Plans prepared by Shatara Architecture, dated February 9, 2004; Facility Closure Report prepared by Erler & Kalinows -ki, Inc., dated April 28, 2000; Design Review Board meeting of June 18, 2002; Design Review Board meeting of August 20, 2002; Design Review Board meeting of February 17, 2004; Design Review Board minutes of June 18, 2002; Design Review Board minutes of Augnst 20, 2002; Design Review Board minutes of February 17, 2004; Planning Commission staff report, dated March 18, 2004; Planning Commission staff report, dated April 15, 2004; Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 18, 2004: Planning Commission Staff Report of April 15, 2004; and Planning Commission meeting of Apr/1 15, 2004; and: 1. The proposed church will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of ~,~mmmm[>,, or unreasonably den-:nn~ental to surrounding properties or improvements, t ne subject site is physically suitable for the proposed development. The developmen*~ complies with the City Design Guidelines and is compatible with the surrounding buildings. The City's Desig-n Review Board recommended approval of the proposed development at their meeting of February 17, 2004. Conditions of approval require that the development of the site follow the recommendations contained in the reports and conform to the City's development standards. A Facility Closure Report prepared by the applicant's consultant and the San Mateo County Health Services Agency concluded that the site is cleared for closure. The City will require a clearance letter issued by the County Health Services Agency prior to the issuance of any permit for the church. A deed restriction prohibiting day care will ensure that day care cannot operate until the site has been adequately remediated. 2. The proposed church is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element desig-nation of the site of Business Commercial. 3. The proposed conversion of the building to reli~ous assembly, situated in the Planned Commercial Zone District (P-C) adjacent to other commercial and industrial uses, complies all apphcable standards and requirements of SSFMC Title 20. The SSFMC Chapter 20.24 allows reli~ous assembly with a Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission. Conditions of approval are required to ensure compliance with the Zoning requirements. PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SAINT GEROGE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM P02-0047 (Recommended by Planning Commission on May 12, 2004) PLANNING DIVISION requirements: I. STANDARD CONDITIONS The owner shall comply with the apphcable requirements of the Planning D/vision's "Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Fmn/ly Residential Projects" dated February 1999. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as conta/ned in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. o The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the revised plans prepared by Shatara Architecture, dated February 9, 2004 in association with P02-0047. SPECIAL The final landscape plan shall include mature shrubs, trees shall have a minimum size of 24 inch box and 15% of the total number of proposed trees shall be a mJ_nimum size of 36 inch box. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Planner. Prior to the issuance of any building perm/t, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. o The apphcant shall prepare a Mitigation Monitoring plan to comply with all mitigation measures associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration 02-0047. The mitigation monitoring shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Planner. The site shall not be utilized for day care or any similar purpose. The restriction may be allowed to be removed by the Planning Commission if the apphcant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the environmental restrictions prohibiting the use o£ the site for day care have been remedimed to the threshold levels established by Federal and State environmental regnlations. Prior to issuance of any permit the owner will provide a memorandum of the conditions of approval associated with P02-0047 to the Chief Planner and the City Attorney. The memorandum shall be subject ro the review and approval by the Chief Planner and City Attorney. The owner shall record the memorandumw_9_--:~ 'he San Mateo CounW. Recorder's Office in a manner satisfactory with the City Attorney. The owner shall provide evidence of the recordation to the City's Chie£Planner. (Planning Contact: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION requirements: FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall install a new, City standard, 4' wide sidewalk, along the entire street frontage of the subject site, in accordance with the Engineering D/vision's Standard Conditions of approval. The sidewalk construction will require the removal of the existing tree within the street right-of-way, at the southeast corner of the site. The sidewalk will need to have a 4' clearance around existing utility poles and other obstructions. Existing driveway drop curbs, which do not conform to current City driveway approach standards, shall be reconstl'ucted to conform to the latest City standard commercial driveway approach desig-n, in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 1. Upon completion of the building alterations and site improvements, the applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, the existing curb, gutter and driveway approaches, along the entire frontage of the applicant's parcel, as may be required by the City's Senior Construction Inspector to conform to City public h'nprovement safeB." and dra: ~age standards, prior to receiving an occupancy permit for the proposed church. All new improvements to be constructed within the street right-of-way shall be approved by the City Engineer and installed to City standards. An Encroacinnent Permit shall be obtained from the En~neering Division for all public in~provement work, prior to receiving a Building Permit for the church improvements. The cost of all work and repairs shall be borne by the applicant. Any existing driveway approaches, or portions of approaches, that will not be reused by the project, shall be removed and replaced with new City standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. II. ON-SITE/MPROVEMENTS The applicants shall design, construct and install a drainage system within the site that will prevent runoff from the paved areas of the property from overflowing into adjacent private property or surface fJowing into the Beacon Street =-,utter. The drainage system shall connect, by reinforced concrete pipe, to an existing drainage inlet located in front of the site. Alternately, it may drain into the adjacent slough, provided that applicant cm~ obtain the appropriate permits from any agencies having regulatory jurisdiction within the slough. All existing drainage facihties that are proposed to be re-used shall be inspected by a competent consultant and cleaned, repaired, or improved, as required to conform to City Engineering Division site drainage standards. A report shall be prepared by the applicant's drainage consultant and submitted to the Ci~, En~neer for review and approval. The report shall describe the condition and adeouacv of any existing storm ~}"jO-_-tge facilities tha~ will 'r;e re-used an,_ shal'_ justify the desig-n of all proposed new improvements to the site's drainage system. The system may require a backflow preventing device to keep storm water from flowing into the site, during heavy rains and/or high tide conditions. The applicant shall desig-n and install the drainage improvements described in the approved report and construct them in accordance with the a?roved site improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the City's En~4neering Construction Coordinator, prior to receiving an occupancy permit for the new church building. The applicant shall submit on-site pavement repair, striping, signing and traffic control plans for the parking lot and driveway isles within the site. R1 "Stop" signs shall be installed at each exit from the site. The traffic control sig-ns shall be mounted on 2" diameter, galvanized steel poles. New storm water pollution control devices mud fikers shall be installed within the existing and new site drainage system, as required to prevent pollutants deposited on the impervious surfaces within the site from entering the public storm drains. Plans for these facilities shall be prepared by the applicant's consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division and to the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, for review and approval. (Engineering Contact Person: Richard Harmon, 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT requirements: Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code. "M~imum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The applicant can obtain this information free of charge by contacting the South San Francisco Police Department. 2_. Lighting a. Parking lots, (including parking lots with carports) driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and gounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with high intensity discharge lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of business darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on site. Such lighting shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers. A lighting level of .50 to 1 foot- candles minimum, maintained at ~ound level is required. b. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the pre~rfises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. c. The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently ho~hted by use of interior ni~ht-lights. d. Extefio~~ door, perimeter, parld-Z 7--~,, and e, anopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of dartauess or diminished lighting. e. Parking tot lights shall remain on anytime there are employees in the building. £ Prior to issuance of a buiidin~ permit., the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Lighting plans shall include photometric and distribution data attesting to the required illumination level. Special Conditions: a. Applicant shall provide a detailed description of the type ofborder, fence, wall and landscaping they intend to erect along the Beacon Street frontage of the ~den- to ensure it will proxdde sufficient separation and protection for the staff from the sidewalk and roadway. b. Applicant shall meet with the police department to review their security and safety procedures related to the daytime operations. c. If renting out the facilities (multi-purpose rooms) for private parties, the applicant may be required to notify the Police Department and comply with all provisions of SSFMC Chapter 6.48, "Public Rental Halls, Dance Premises and Dancing. Applicant will meet with the South San Francisco Police Department Community Relations Sergeant, (650) 877-8922, m d/sc~s if the ~t~mded '~se of the multi-propose roo~ would require compliance with Chapter 6.48. (Police Contact: Sgt. Normandy PH: 650/877-8729) D. WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT requirements: That the applicant pays an additional Sewer Connection Fee based on the mount of people employed, number of church services and auxiliary functions held on a daily, wee~y, or monthly basis. Applicant to contact Ray Honan at Water Quality. Existing onsite drainage system catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent, in addition, a maintenance schedule for the inserts is to be submitted to the Environmental Coordinator. 3. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San. Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo. (~:ater Quality Control Plant contact: Ray Honan, 650/877-8634) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS DATE: TO: SUBYECT: March 1g, 2004 Planning Commission ]Vfitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of the conversion o£ a 23,062 square foot building into a reii~ous assembty with on-site par-king o£ 85 vehicles and landscaping, in accordance with Cah£ornia Environmental Quai/~ Act. Use Permit allowing the conversion of' a 2.3,062 square foot vacant indusrr/aI building into a reiig-ious assembly use with on-sire pm'ring £or 85 vehicles and landscaping. Design Review o£the conversion o£ a vacant 25,062 square, foot industrial building into a church with an on-sire paddng tot and landscaping. SSFMC: Sections 9~ ~ ~ - _u..~,.0.~0 (b), 020.32.070 & 20.08.050 ancl Chapters 20.81 & 20.85 Owner: Saint George Orthodo>: Church of Jerusalem Applicant: Suhei! Shatara of Shatara A '2ahitecture Case Nos.: ~ 02-0047, DR 02-0047 & I~fND 02-0047 RECOMIvrflENrDATtON: That the Planning Commission approve !) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmentaI impacts of the conversion of a 23,062 square foot building into a reRgious assembly faciliq, with on-site parking of 85 vehieies and landscaping, in accordance witi~ California Environmental Qualiq' Act, 2) t0-se ?ermit allowing the conversion of a 2~,062 square foot vacant industrial building into a religious assembly use with on-site nar'king for g~ vehicles and landscaping, and 3) Design Review of the conversion of ~ vacant~5,062 square foot industrial buiiding into a church with an on-site laarking lot and lands Japing, subject to making the required findings of approval and adopting conditions of approval BACKGROUND: The i .68 acre sire is co ~mprised of a vacant -~ _,,,,o.~': n~ SF on~-sro~= bmlams"" formerly utilized as a ball henri_rig manufacturing pimnt. The appiicarion was subnzined three rimes over the last year Date: March 15, 2004 To: Planning Commission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jemsalem Page 2 of 7 and has undergone significant desig-a and use modifications. The project involves the conversion of an existing building to a church able to accommodate a parish currently numbering 2 78 persons, 1 i, 155 square foot recreation rooms with upN'ades to the landscaping and a new parking lot accommodating 85 vehicles. The Church would operate primarily on Sunday from 9 AIvi to i PM but would be undoff0tedty be utilized for other associated ffmctions on Saturdays. The recreation rooms are intended for the uss of the parish members and would operate at the same times as the church. The site is in an area that is transitioning from industrial to connnercial uses. The project site's General Plan land use designation, Business Commercial, allows reti~ous assembly. The project =~nemh> ,,ompn~s with the General Plan goals and polL~. The site's present zoning of Piarmed Industrial Zoning District (P-~) that is inconsistent with the General Plan. Ti~e future site zon_ing will likely be Planned Commercial (P-C) thru allows the proposed reiig~ous use subject to an approved use Permit by the Planning Commission. Several of the properties along Beacon Street have already rransifioned to commercial uses that would be conforming to the furore zoning. Because the site will be rezoned by the Ciq~ in the near furors, rather than require the applicant to request a one lo~ rezoning, Ciw staff has determined that the proposed use could be allowed as a Uss Permit ~ accordance with the SSFMC Section 20.08.050. The proposed development com~,iies with the Ciu?s standard development standm'ds as displayed in the following table and continued on the next page: DEX~LOPMiEN ,~ ST.~N~)ARDS Total Site Area: 1.38 acres [60,1~3 SF] Floor Area: 23,062 SF Assembh, ~ea: 7.507 SF Support Area: 4.400 SF Recreation Rooms: i 1 ~'5 ,1_._ SF Maximum: 65 F1 Automobile Parking Minimum: 85 Existing: Existing: N/A Proposed: Proposed: 38 FT 85 Date: March 1 S, 2004 To: Planning Commission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Page 3 of 7 Lot Coverage: Maximum: Landscape Setb ackg: Mmirnmx~ Front 20 FT Side Left 0 FT Right l 10 FT Rear 15 FT 60% Existing: 38°/5 Proposed: 38% 10% Existing: 5 % Proposed: 11% Existing: Proposed t4 FT 14 FT 0 FT 0 FT 110 FT 120 FT 25 FT 25 FT Notes: 1. Parldng is based on the follouing trees: Sanctuary 278 persons ~ 4/car and Support .'Azea t/300 SF. 2. Bldg also complies with furore P-C Dis~ct standards. The proposed development will increase landscaping and si=m~ificantty up~ade the buitdh~g appearance. The provision of on-site pafiring for 85 vehicles should be adequate for the cm-ren~ con~egation. The proposed developmem is not anticipated to increase demand for on-street pafmng and because k will use the existing dr/veway apron will not result in the loss of any pm'king spaces. Should the o~-site paridng for the church prove to be occasionally insufficient due to a weddm~_~, or funeral service overflow parldng exists in the form or' on-srrem' varmng._ ~ ' Since the other neighbofi~g businesses are not open on the weekends, no adverse parking impac*~s will occur ro other businesses. The proposed use does not trigger a requirement of the pa.vmem of childcare impact fees even though it is an intensification of an industrial site because both the previous use and the proposed church are categorized by the Chfldcare Ordinance as non-residenria! uses. DESIGN REneW BOAP,,.D The project was reviewed by the Desi_~ Review Board ar their meetings or Jun~ August 20, 2002 ~d Febm~' 17 2004. At the ~sr ~" ~ _ , me,tm= the Board suggested ~at ~spiicant revise the plans to accomphsh ~e follow,g: I. P~eco~,Jlgure the parking iol- spaces, aisle widths and hand/capped facilities to bring them into compliance with current Cin/and AI)A codes. 2. Preoare a iighring plan for the partdng lot. ~.~- Rerfiace_ india Hawthorn trees with a larger species such as sycamore or m~rrosmeros.=~ ' ' 4. h~an angled parkin7 co~zfi=mJ, rarion is used, ths cure adjacen~ benveen the parking lot and the building can be pushed ou~ to make room for addkional landscaping or a sidewall: Date: March 18, 2004 To: Planning Commission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Page 4 of 7 running along the side of the church. 5. R,,p~a,,~ tn,, fiat canopy over the side entry of the church with an arched canopy similar that proposed over the front 6. Consider adding more direct walkw~ays from the street-front entry to the pafidng The applicant_ revised the plans per the Board's suggestions. At the Aura,ts:_ m,,,,tm_'~'~" 5 tn~' ~ Board offered the following comments: 1. Increase the number ofmetrosideros trees in the parkhng lot. There is room for nearly mSce as many trees as are being proposed. 2. Change the desi~ and material of the fence to make i~ both more durable and compatible with the architecture of the building. The applicanr revised tlne plans ~ accordance with the Board's comments. Subsequently, due to an environmental issue associated with the previous use of the site, the appiicanr deleted the proposed day care due to. The applicant revised the plans and resubmitted. The revised plans were reviewed by the DR.B at their meeting of February 17, 2004. The Board supported the proposed redesign and had :no commems. Copies of the Desig~ Review Board minutes and the DR_B letter are attached to th/s staff report. BCDC RE~,KEW Because the site is located within 100 feet of the average high fideline of sm unnamed sloug/m a rriburaD~ to San Francisco Bay, ir is subject to review and approYa] by the Bay Conservation and Deveiopmenr Commission [BCDC]. The appiicanz has reviewed the proposed development with BCDC representatives. BCDC has determined tha~, shoreline access in not recuired with the proposed deveiopmem, but that the apphcanl wflI be required to pay a fee to in, prove the bay fron! in the South Sm~ Francisco area. The appiicam has a~eed to pay the fee. Prior to the issuance ofbuiiding permits the KCpiicant will need to secure a pmmfit from BCDC. E N~ '~.. R O NrlvIE N Tg~,__~ P~XrIEW The CiD~ staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development in accordance with the Caiifomia Environmental Qualin/Act. The document was circulated for 30 daw commencing on July 25,200S and ending on August 25. 2002-. The document focused on a few key concerns including storm water runoff and street flooding, toxic materials, noise and const~mction impacts. The site is situated in fne Zon~ B of the Coima Creek 100 year flood plain [Flood Insurance ~are Map Communi'0/- Pane'~ Number 065052 008 B dated September 2, 1981]. Flooding potentially -i7- Date: March 1 ~, 2004 To: ~qannm= Commission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Page 5 of 7 occurs to a depth ofiess than one foot. h2 the recem past, Beacon Street has flooded to a depth of a few inches. The deveiopment will not increase storm water runoff because mosz of the site is already covered by the building and asphalt parking area. To protect the project site, the applicam will be required to install storm water improvements to convey water to the Ci~:'s stom~ drainage facilities and construct a shallow berm across the property frontage to prevem m'2y streer flooding front reaching the partd_ng area or building and the building wili be required to be made flood resistant· The City has studied the drainage in the projecr vicmiw mhd plans to implement the storm drainage facilities along Beacon Street to prevent street flooding are madenvay. The property was formerly used for ball bearing production. A Faciiis, Closure Report was prepared for the prqjeot site bY Erter & Kalinowsid, inc., dated _~z)ri! 2~, 2000. The closure consisted of two phases. The fLrst phase consisted of faciliQ, cleaning operations, including complete removal of ali machined~ and equipment, chemicals associate with the i%rmer business and ~ ' ~ cLarnn_ of the interior and exterior areas. The second phase of the faciiiD~ ciosure consisted o~ t)os. ~Larnn_ soil. ~ab _o-roundwater. and building, materials sampiing. Soils, g`roundwater and building, samples were collected and analyzed. The chemical compolillds found were determined by the consultanl to be az iow concen=ation levels. San Mateo Counts~ Heath Services Agency issued a Closure letter regarding the above ~ound hazardous materials. Further on-site environmental work is required in order that the CounD,' may issue a closure letter regarding the ~oundwater concentrations and a separate 'Clearance '~ ,-' ~ ,~,,~snn_ site l~tte, atiowin~ the use of the and buildings for the proposed assembly functions. The hazardous materiais are generally recruited to meet much lower concen~ations in order that the site may.. be reused for th~,. functions. Small quantities of unreg`vlated household-type hazardous materials wili be stored withfl: the Project building to be used for maintenance activities. As a mitigation measm-e odor to the issuance of any permit the applicant will be required to obtain a cLaran~ letter ~om the San Mateo Counny Heakk S~r~ ~s Agency. The site is subjected to noise emanating from US 101 and overflights from Sm2 Francisco .Zdrpox. Given the nature of the proposed uses, the building interior will be required to be insuiated to provide an interior acoustic level of no ~eater than 45dBA. Construction of the facihB~ will result m short term impacts potemialiy including noise, stom2 water rmnoff and fug`itive dust As required Mitigation Measures the applicant will be required to comply with the Cin."s Noise Ordinance [SSFMC Chapter 8.32], implement an approved Store: Water Prevention Plan, and frequently water the site to suppress dust. lv'ziti_~ation~ Measures.~ are required to reduce the imoacts, to a level less than s~m-nncam.'_. '~' ' ~' -18- Date: March 18, 2004 To: Planning Commission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Page 6 of 7 Iviitigation Monitofi_ng Plan will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that the Mitigation Measures are implemented. With impiementation of the mitigation measures the impacts will be reduced to a level less than siD2ificant. No substantive public comments were received. After the review it was detemained that the toxics present in the ~ound would likely preclude the use oi' the site for day care unless si~ma/ficant remediafion efforts were undertaken. The applicant revised the plans to delete the day care. A condition has been added tha: day care or similar operations are not allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate that the site has been remediated and can meet the Federal and State thresholds standards. CONCLUSION/RE, CO~NI)ATION: The proposed conversion of the former industrial building to a church and day care are consistent with the CiB~'s General Plan and wifn all applicable reqairements of the CiD?s Zoning (SSF. MC Title 20). Therefore, the Planning Comrrfission should approve 1) Mitigated Negative Deziaration assessing environmental impacts o£the conversion o£ a 23,0~2 square foot building into rei/~ous assembiv with on-site partd2g of 85 vehicles and iandscaping, in accordance with California Environmental Qual/~: Act, 2) Use Permit allowing the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial build/ng into a reii~ous assembly use ~dth on-sire paridng for 85 vehicles and landscaping, and 3) Design Review of the conversion o£ a vacant 23,062 square foot industrial bu/lding into a church with an on-ske park/rig ion and landscaping. AT TA CI-E\IElqT S: Proposed Conditions of,~r~proval Draft Findings of ~r~proval DRB Minutes Jun,~ 1 g, 2002 Aug-as~ 20, 2002 Februau, 17, 2004 -!9- Date: March 18, 2004 To: Planning Commi ss/on Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem of 7 Letters June 20, 2002 August 23, 2002 Mitigated Negative Declaration [The Initial Study Supplement is available on request. Copies of both documents were previously distributed to the Planning Commissioners] Plans -20- Pkznning Commission Stc /'/ epor DA~E: April 15, 2004 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing envirorm~entai impacts oft he conversion of a 23,062 square foot building into a reli~ous assembly with on-site parking of 85 vehicles and landscaping, in accordance 'afith Califonfia Environmental Quatiry Act. Reclassification of 116 Beacon Way (APN 015- from Plan_ned industrial (P-I) Zone District to Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District. Use Permit allowing the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial building into a reli~ous assembly use wi~ on-site parking for 85 vehicles and landscaping. Design Review of the conversion of a x. acam .~.06~ square mo~ industrial building imo a church w/th a~ on-sire parking lot and landscaping. ProperD~ Location: 116 Beacon Sweet [APN 015-17 ! -020] in the Ptarmed indusmiai (P-I) Zone District. SSFMC: Sections 20.32.030 (b), 020.32.070 & 20.08.050 and Chapters 20.81, 20.85 & 20.87 Owner: Saim George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Applicant: Suheil Sharara of Shatara Architecture Case Nos.: U?' 02-0047, DR 02-0047 & _NrD 02-0002 P~ECO~~ATION: That the Planning Commission recommend that the Ci~~ Counc~i approve I) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing emdronmental impacts of the conversion of g 2~,062 square foot building into g religious assembly faeiliD' with on-site parldn~ of 8~ vehicles and landscaping, in- accordance with California Environmental QuaIiw Act, 2) Reclassification of 116 Beacon Way (APN 015- from Planned Industrial (P-t) Zone District to Planned Commercial ¢-C) Zone District, 3) Use Permit allowing the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial building into ~ reiigious assembly use w~th on-sire parking for 85 vehicles and iandscaping, and 4) Design Review of the conversion of a vacant 2~%.062 square Date: April 15, 2004 To: Planning Commission Su'~iect: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Page 2 of 7 foot industrial bu/iding into a church with an on-site parking lot and ~ ' ' ~ .anescapm~,. subject to making the required findings of approval and adoptin~ conditions of approval. BACKGROUNrD: PLA_N~ING CO~$SION IvI[EETtNG The Piam~mg Commission reviewed the matter ar their meeting of March 18. 2004. The Planning Commissioners appeared to generally suppon the proposed use, bm asked several questions including the on-s/ts tiring qum-ters, localized stree: flooding on Beacon Street and the number of cruciforms to be placed on the roo£ The applicam raised a concern re~ardine~ . the wo,'din¢. = of condition of approva]_~ ~ 4 requiring a deed resrr/ction prohibiting da).' cm'e..After some discussion the Commissioners concun'ed and directed staff ro work the applicant to revise the condition ro require recorfiarion of the conditions rather than a deei restriction. CiD: staff advised the Conxnissioners that it should include a zonm_ recmsmncanon since the site has not vet been rezoned ro comply with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Eiemem. The matter was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of.April 15, 20C)4 ~ order that thru CiD' staff could work with the applicant to revise Planning Division condition of approval #4 and that CiD' staff could add a. zoot/rig reclassification to the project and re-adve'.xise the application. Cin,. staff has discussed condition of approval #4 with the apphcan~'s legal, r~pr~s~manve" =" + ' have reached a~eement on the lan~m~ag~ and has revised the ' ' ' ~ · o-,~ condinon #4 and added condition #5 per the Commission's direction. Cin, staff has added the zoning reclassification and re-advertised the proposed project. PROJECT ~ ~' ,~.~,,,~ arm SFone-sto~b ' 'q * ~ ~ - ~'; ,,~, The i .68 acre site ~s comofised o~ a ........ ,~ ml~= zo~}, uuLz~u as a ball bem~g m~ufac~ng pl~t. The a~hcation was subdued ' ~ ~; ~ ~. ~e~ ~m~s over the last v~ ~d has ~dergone si~ficam desi~ ~d use modifications. The proj sc~ involves the conversion of an =" ' f ~x~s~m_ building to a church gsie to accommodate a parish currendv nunfr~ermg 272- persons, ± t. ~.~ squm'e foot recreation rooms with up~ad~s to the landscaping and a new par ~ldng lot accommodaring 85 vehicles. Date: _April 15 2004 7o' Planning Commission Subjec:: samt George Orthodox Church of Jepasalem Page 3 of 7 The Church would operate primm,-ily on Sunday from 9 .~',f to I PM but would be madoubtediy be utilized for other associated functions on Saturdays. The recreation rooms are intended for the use ot thy parish members and would operate at the same times as the church. The sire is in an area that is rransitioning from industrial to cormnercial uses. The pr~ect she's General Plan land use desigmation, Business Commercial, allows ret/Dous assembly. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and poi/cies. However, the site's present zoning of Planned industrial Zoning District (P-I) that is inconsistent with the General Plan. The proposed sire zoning o£Plamaed Cormmercia! (P-C) is consisrem with the General Pimp. The PC District allows the proposed reiig-/ous use subject ro an approved use Permit by the Planning Commission (SSFMC Section 20.24.030). Several of the properties along Beacon Street have already rranskioned to commercial uses that would be cop_forming to the futllre zoning. The proposed development complies with the CiD~'s standard development standards oz tn~ PC Disrricz as displayed in the folio~ing table and conzinued on the nexr page: DE. VELOPIvr~NT S ~ _~.~NrD_,. Total Site .4~-ea: 1.38 acres [60,1!3 SF] F]oor Area: 2~.062 SF Assemoty Area: 7.507 SF Support Area: 4,400 SF Recreation Rooms: 11,!55 SF Maximum: 6:; FT Automobile Paridng Mfirfimum: 85 Existing: Existing: FT Proposed: Proposed: 38 FT 85 Lot Coverage: Maximum: Landscape Setbacks: Front 20~'~ Side Left 0 FT Right t 10 FT Rear i 5 FY 60% i 0% Existing: Existing: Exisdng: i4 FT 0 FT 110FT 25 FT 38% Proposed: Prooosed: Proposed 1~ FT 0 F1 120 FT 25 FT 38% 1 I% -23- Date: April 15, 2004 To: Plmming Commission Subject: Saint George Orflaodox Church of Jerusalem Page 4 of 7 Notes: 1. Part~3ng is based on the following rates: Sancmau, 278 persons IX 4/car and Support .Area 1/300 SF. 2. Bldg also complies with future P-C Dismict standards. The proposed development ~dll increase landscaping and si~m~_ificant!y up~ade the building appearance. The provision o£ on-site parking for 85 vehicles should be adequate ~%r the currenl con~egation. The proposed development is not anticipated to increase demm~d for on-street partgng and because it will use the ex/sting driveway apron will nor result in the loss o£ any par'king spaces. Should the on-site parking for the church prove to be occasionally insufficient due to a wedding or funeral semdce overflow parking exists in the form o£ on-streer t~arkin_% Since the other neighboring businesses are not open on the weekends, no adverse p~king - impac~ts will occm- to other businesses. DESIGN P~E'~W BOA_RD The project was reviewed by the Desi=on Review Board ar their meetings of June i g, 2002, Au,o'usr 20. 2002 andrem-uaD 17,2004. Arthe' ' =*' ~ ~ . nrs,~ men,m= the Board suggested that the apptiaam revise the plans to accomplish the i01iowing: !. Reconfigure the parking lot spaces, aisle widths and handicapped r%cilities to bring them 5nm compliance with currem CiD, and ADA codes. 2. Prepare a lighting plan for the paridng lot. ~. Remace india Hawthorn trees with a larger species such as sycamore or metrosideros. 4. Van angled partdng configuration is used, the cur', adjacent between the parking io~ and the building can be pushed our re make room £or additional landscaping or a sidewalk running along the side o£the church. 5. R~tace the tim canopy eve:' the side enup' of the church with an arched canopy similar to that proposed over the from entn.,. 6. Consider adding more cm'ecc walk-ways from the sn:eei-front entry to the paddng lot The apphaant revised the clans r~er the Board's su_~esrions. At the August m~=,4,,~, the Board offered the following comments: I. increase the number ofme~osideros trees in the parking lot. There is room for nearly mdce as many trees as are being proposed. 2. Change the desto, and maregai o£the fence to make it bolt_ more durable and compatible with the arcm~ecrare o~ tia~ t~mlamg. The applicant revised the plans L~ accordance with the Board's comments. Subseouently, due, to an envko~ental issue associated with ~e previous use of ~e sire, the ~nphc~t ~eleted the proposed day, c~e. The an~tic~t~ revised the p!~s ~c' resus~ea.' ' ~ ~'~zn~. r~v~sea~ ' ' plans' were Dare: April 15.2004 7o: Planning Commission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Page 5 o£ 7 reviewed by the DRB at their meeting ofFebrumq~ 17. 2004. The Board supported the proposed redesi~m: and had no comments. Copies of the Design Review Board minutes and the DP~B letter are attached to this staff report. BCDC R.E'~.~EW Because the site is located within 100 feet of the average higxh tideifne of an unnamed slouf_zh, a tributary to San Francisco Bay, it is subject to review and approval by the Bay Consen~arion and Development Cormnission [BCDC]. The applicant has reviewed the proposed development with BCDC representa:ives. BCDC has determined that shoreline access in not requ/red with the proposed development, but that the applicam will be required to pay a fee to/reprove the bay front in the South San Francisco area. The applicant has a=m-eed to pay the fee. Prior to the issuance of building pemzirs the applicant will need to secure a permit from BCDC. £_ Nq[RON1V[EN TAft_, REVIEW The CiD~ staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed deveiopmem in accordance with the Cali~%m_ia Environmemal QualiD; Act. The documem was circulated for 30 days ~ "' ~ July 25, ~ , . ~ommen~m= on 200_~ and ending on August 25.2003 The document focused on a few key concerns including storm water runoff and street flooding, toxic materials, noise and construction flnpacts. The site is situated in the Zone B of the Colma Creek t 00 year flood plain [Flood insm-ance Rate Map Commm~/ty-Panel Number 065062 008 B dated September 2, 1981:. Flood/rig potentialiy occurs to a depth o£iess than one foot. tn the recent past, Beacon Street has flooded to a depth of a few inches. The development wili not increase storm water nmoffbecause most of the site is already covered by the building and asphalt parldng area. To protect the prQect site. the apphcant wilt be required to install storm, water improvements to convey warer to the Ci~,'s storm drainage facilities and construct a shaliow be~ across the property, frontage to prevem an); street flooding from reaching the parldng area or building and the build/ng will be required to be made flood resistant. The Cib; has studied the drainage in the project vicinin/and plans to implement the storm drainage facilities along Beacon Street 'to prevent street flooding are underway. ine propemy was formerly used for ball ~ ' ~ , ~ b~,ann, production. A Faciiin~ Closure. Report was prepared for the project, site by Efler & Kaimowsid, Inc., dated April 28, 2000. The closure consisted of nvo phases. The ~' '~+ . d,,amns operations, inciudinz n: ~ phase consisted of ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~, ra~mn ~ ~ compiere removal of ali macizinem~ and equipment, chemicals associate with the former business and ciearmxg of the interior and exterior areas. The ' ' = secona puss,, of the faciiin~ closure consisted ofpost-cieanmg soil, ~ab ~oundwarer, and building materials sampling. Soils, g'oundwater and building samples were collected and analyzed. The chemical com¢ounds rotund were dete~wn~ned Dare: April 15, 2004 To: Planning Cornmission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Page 6 of 7 by the consultant to be at low concentration levels. San Mateo CounB? Heath Services Agency issued a Closure letter regarding the £r~ove ground hazardous materials. Fm-ther on-site environmental work is requfl'ed in order that the Coun~ may issue a closure !etter regarding the g-rotmdwater concentrations and a separate 'Clearance letter' alloudng the usc. of the existing site and buildings for the proposed assembly functions. The hazardous materials are generally required ro meet much lower concentrations in order tliat the site may be reused for the intended functions. Small quantities of tmre=o-ulated household-q~pe hazardous mate;-iais will be stored within the Projecr building to be used for maintenance activities. As a mitigation measure prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant will be required to obtain a clearance letter fi'om the San Marco Coun~ Health Se~Sces Agency. The site is subjected ro noise emanating from US I01 and overflights ~om Sa~ Francisco ,ZJr-oon. ~;~ven the nature of the proposed ~,~e~ ~h~ h~;~ ~*~fio~ wi~ be ..... ;~ -~ b~ msuia'~ed ro provide an interior acoustic, leve[ of no ~earer ~ ~5~A. Construction of the facii/D, will result m short term impacts potemia!iy including noise, storm water runoff and fu~,itive dus* ~ s recruited Mitigation. Measur = "~ ' ~ .... . . . =. . . ~. - ~ _ . = - es th~ appn~an~ u ~1i be reqmre~ to corn_my w~th the C~D?s No:se Ordinance [SSFMC Chapter 2.32], implement ar~ approved Storm Water Prevention Plan, and frequently water the site to suppress dust. Mitigation Measures, are required to reduce the/mpacts to a level less than si~,mifican;. With maplementation of the mitigation measures the impacts wil~ be reduced to a level less than si~zrfificant No substantive public comments .... ' ~ w,~r, r,~,~e~vec~. After the review i~ was determined that the toxics presem in the ground would likely preclude the use of the site for day care unless ' '" ~ "' ' ' s~gnmcan~ rememat~on erYorts were undertaken. The a~¢iicant revised the plans ro delete the day care Condition of approva] #4 requires that day care or similar operations are no: allowed urt!es~ the appiicanr can demonstrate that the site has been rernediated and can meet the Federal and Stare thresholds standards. Condition o£ approval #5 has been added to require that the conditions of approval be recorded with the San Marco Co,ann, Recorder. Date: Apti] 15, 2004 To: Planning Connnission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Page 7 of 7 ZONING RECLASSIFIC_&TION EN~rfRONIvfENT_4J_. l~rfE~~ The reclassification of the site fi-om Ptm~ned h~dusrr/al Zone District to Planned Commercial Zone District is a step necessau to implement the General Plan amendments of 1999. The impacts associated with the General Plan were documented in the E/P, certified by the CiD, Council in 1999. The reclassification itself will not cause any emdronmental impacts, is consistent with the General Plan, mhd was adequately analyzed by the General PI~_ EIR. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: The proposed conversion oi7 the fom~er industrial building to a church and day care are consistent with the CiD~'s General Plan and sfft~j ect to zomng reclassification of the site to the PC Disrr/c~ witi~ ali applicable requirements of the CiD~'s Zoning (SSFMC Title 20). Therefore, the Planning Commi ss-ion should recommend thar the Cim- Council approve 1) iv'fitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of fne conversion of a 23,0~2 square foot building rotc reii~ous assembly witl~ on-site p~,ing of 8,'-. vehicles and landscaping, in accordance with Caiifomia Enviromnentat Quali~? Act, 2) Reclassification of ! 16 Beacon Way (A?N 015- from Plan_ned tndust~4al (?-I) Zone District to Plamxed Corem erciai (P-C) Zone Dis'Mc*., 3) Use Pe~xnit aliowmg the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial building into a rei/~ous assembly use with on-site parl~g for 8-5 vehicles and landscaping, and 4) Desi~.2m Review of the conversion o:f a vacant 23,062 square foot industrial building into a church, with ap. on-site parking io~ and landscaping. ATTACIn2vfiENTS: next page Dats: April 15, 2004 Te: Planning Commission Subject: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Pao~ 8 of 7 Az ~ A~HlvEEN ~ S: Draft Findings of Approval Proposed Conditions of Approval Draft Planning Commission Resolution Draft Reclassification Ordinance DP,_B Minutes June 18, 2002 Au~st 20, 2002 Februau., !7, 2004 Letters June 20, 2002 Augas[ 2.~, 2002 Planning Conmzission Minutes March 1 g. 2004 Mitigated Negative Deciararion [The in/rial Stud), Supplement is available on requesz. Copies of both documents were previously disrr/bu~ed to the Planning Commissioners] Plans PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ptanning Commission Meeting of March 18, 2004 David Newman, General Manager, noted that they are present to answer any questions from the Commission. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission commended the applicant for working with the City on relocating and improving the commercial space at 337 Grand Avenue. Motion Tegiia / Second Sim to approved P0~,-0020 and UP04-0006. Approved by unanimous voice vote. St. George Orthodox Church of .lerusalem/Owner Continued to Suheil Shatara Architecture/Applicant April :LS, 2004 2:!.6 Beacon St. P02-0047 and Negative Declaration ND02-000::L Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 23,062 sq. ft. manufacturing facility to a religious assembly generating 100 ADT in the Planned industrial (P-}') Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.32 and 20.81. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff overlooked the need for a rezone on the site and the Public Hearing would need to be continued to April 15, 2004 to allow for adequate noticing. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked if the Commission could take action pending on a rezone of the property. Assistant City Attorney 3ohnson noted that it has not been decided under the General Plan if religious assembly would require a Use Permit. The Commission needs to make a policy determination with regard to the zoning prior to taking action on the Use Permit. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Honan questioned when the City is planning on replacing the storm drains; in the area. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Public Works Director has mentioned that it is going to be undertaken in the summer. Suheil Shatara, Architect, noted that they proposal has been before the Design Review Board several times and the last time the Board was satisfied with the outcome. He noted that they have added landscaping to mitigate flooding and are in the process of working with the neighbors for potential overflow parking. Public Hearing opened. Anich Shamiyeh, Attorney for St George Church, was concerned with the Condition of Approval #4, which is asking that a deed restriction be recorded specifying that there will not be Childcare facilities at the site. He noted that they have no intentions of starting a daycare center at the site and asked that the condit:ion be removed. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the condition could be left as is requiring recordation of a deed restriction or recording the Conditions of Approval that would run with the land and will give notice that no day care facility is allowed on the site unless a modification of a Use Permit is issued. Commissioner Sim asked Suheil Shatara, architect, to explain how they responded to the Design Review Boards (DRB) comments. Mr. Shatara stated that the color, canopies, and landscaping were addressed. He added that the landscaping was increased to address flooding issues. Commissioner Giusti questioned if there would be living quarters at the site? Mr. Shatar8, noted that there would not be any living quarters at the site, Commissioner Honan asked Development Review Coordinator Harmon to give a brief history of floodino in the area. Development Review Coordinator Harmon noted that the site is within the 500 year flood zone a~nd is not a designated flood area. He noted that the storm drains are undersized and will be replaced when the sewer Planning Commission Meeting of March 18, 2004 improvements are done on this street. Commissioner Honan questioned why the Cib, closes Beacon off during storms. Assistant City Attorney .lohnson noted that the storm drains are technical issues that are confronting the City with potential litigation and if there are any questions on potential areas of flooding the Commission can contact the City Attorneys offices. Commissioner Honan questioned if building will be converted before the storm drains are replaced. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the conversion would likely be completed long after the storm drains are installed. Notion Sim / Second Teglia to continue P02-0047 and Negative Declaration ND02-0047 to April :25, 2004. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMTNTSTRATZVE BUSTNESS 5. Ztems from Staff None 6. [terns from Commission None 7. [terns from the Public None 8. Adjournment Notion Honan / Second Giusti to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 8:[9 P.M. /s/Thomas C. Sparks Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco /s/Rick Ochsenhirt Rick Ochsenhirt, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting April 1, 2004, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA TCS/bla Planning Commission Meeting of April 15, 2004 There currently is not any stealthing technology at the site. Pictures of Avalon Drive and Canyon Court were submitted into the record because the neighbors were concerned that large trucks would be accessing the site would create traffic congestion, Chief Planner Sparks responded to the issues on AT&T installing equipment without permits and addressing the violation. He noted that because there is a lack of resources and the caseload that Code Enforcement currently has it is difficult to monitor the illegal aspects of this application. He added that the applicant and staff do acknowledge that AT&T should not have done any modification without permits and are trying to correct it. Public Hearing closed. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that the site has a long history. Noticing has improved since the first application. He added that he preferred alternative number 2 and leaving condition number 4 as is without the height increase. He questioned if there is a way to restrict access to the site to certain times Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Commission could add a condition of approval to achieve this. He added that during construction there would be large vehicles there, but after that is complete a technician come out once a month in a passenger size vehicle. Mr. Yee added that the technicians would arrive at the site with their own vehicle. Commissioner Honan asked that AT&T apologize to the City Councit, neighbors and the Planning Commission for allowing this illegal modification to the current cell site. She asked what the City could do to require this apology. Mr. Yee noted that the he had expressed AT&T's regrets to the Commission and neighbors. He stated that AT&T contracts out to several agencies, which then subcontract other companies, and this particular subcontractor did not request the proper permits. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the Commission can require an AT&T employee address the Commission on this issue. Commissioner Zemke noted that AT&T should inform the City what procedures and measures are being taken to prevent another incident such as this one. Chief Planner Sparks suggested that the Commission require as part of the Conditions of Approval that AT&T submit the apology letter prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The Commission agreed that regardless of the subcontractors involved in this issue the responsible party is AT&T because it is their antenna and further agreed to invite them to a Planning_ Commission meeting in order to receive the information requested directly from the AT&T Corporation. Motion Teglia / Second Zemke to continue the item to June 3, 2004. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Suheil Shatara Architecture/applicant St. George Orthodox Church of/owner 116 Beacon St. P02-0047, UP02-0009, RZ02-0003 & Negative Declaration ND02-0002 Resolution 2630 Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of the conversion of a 23,062 square foot building into a religious assembly with on-site parking of 85 vehicles and landscaping, in accordance with California Environmental Quality ACt. Reclassification of 116 Beacon Way (APN 0~.5- from Planned industrial (P-Z) Zone District to Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District. Use Permit allowing the conversion of a 23,062 square foot vacant industrial building into a religious assembly use with on-site parking for 85 vehicles and landscaping. Design Review of the conversion of a vacant 23,062 square foot industrial building into a church with an on-site parking tot and landscaping, in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.32.030 (b), 020.32.070 & 20.08.050 and Chapters 20.8:~, 20.85 & 20.87 Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Planning Commission Meeting of April ::[5, 2004 Anick Shamiyeh, St. George Orthodox Church of.Jerusalem, requested that the Commission make less restrictive Special Condition number 5 because all other conditions will be met prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The recordation is not a benefit because it will preclude the applicant from refinancing the property. He requested that condition #5 be removed. Public Hearing opened. Suheil Shatara, Architect, noted that the plans have been before the Commission and is available for any questions. Public Hearing closed. Assistant City Attorney 3ohnson noted that with regard to changing Special Condition ¢5 the Commission can revise the condition and require that a memorandum of understanding be recorded rather than recording the Conditions of Approval. She added that the recordation of such a document will provide notice to any potential buyer that there are Conditions of Approval to comply with and will prevent that any Childcare Center be initiated without the consent of the City. When the applicant complies with the conditions a Certificate of Compliance can also be recorded. Mr. Shamiyeh noted that they do not have any problem with a memorandum of understanding. The Commission noted that they would leave Special Condition number 4 as it stands and that the performance date of "_July ::[, 2004" contained in Special Condition #5 would be changed to state "prior to issuance of a building permit" and that a memorandum would be recorded rather than requiring the Conditions of Approval to be recorded. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve P02-0047, UP02-0009, P, Z02-0003 & Negative Declaration ND02-0001 with the stated changes to the Conditions of Approval. Approved by majority voice vote with Commissioner Honan voting against the proposed project. Raymond's Sourdough Bakery Ofiesh, Gregory & 3ane owner / applicant i78 Starlite St. P04-0012, RZ04-0001 & ETR-99-61 Certified October 1999 Resolution 2631 Rezone prope~f located at 178 Starlite Street from P-C-L to N-:L, (consistent with underlying Nixed Tndustrial General Plan Designation), Design Review of a new 6,453 square foot warehouse addition with related landscaping and site improvements in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFIVlC 20.85, 20.87 8, 20.:[01. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the Staff Report Gregory Ofiesh, applicant, noted that he will answer any questions that the Commission has and added that staff has been very helpful. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Motion Honan / Second Sim to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve RZ04-0001 & P04-00:22. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINTSTRAT:[VE BUS]:NESS 7. Items from Staff a. City of South San Francisco/applicant City of South San Francisco/owner Downtown Central Redevelopment Area Resolution 2632 Resolution Establishing the Boundaries for the Area Proposed to be Added to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and Adopting the Preliminary Plan for the Third Amendment to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINK.ITES MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting of June 18, 2002 TIME: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS AB SE/'~rl': STAFF PRE SEINr-i': 4:00 P.M. Nelson, Nilmeyer, Ruiz, and Williams Hams Tom Sparks, ChiefPlarmer Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner 1. ADMIkN~STRAT1VE BUSLNESS OWNER: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: St. George Orthodox Church of Suheil Shatara Architecture 116 Beacon St P02-0047 and Negative Declaration ND02-0047 (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem DESCRIPTION: Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 23,062 sq. ft. manufacturing facili~ to a religious assembly and dayeare facility generating i00 ADT in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District. The Boai'd had the following comments: !. Reconfigure parking lot spaces, aisle widths and handicap facilities to bring them into compliance with CtLw_ent Ci~' codes. The cross-hatched loading area adjacent to the accessible van parking space must be 8 feet wide. 2. Prepare a lighting plan for the parking lot. 3. Re.niace India Hawthorn trees w/th a larger species such as syoamore or metrosideros. 4. If an angled parking configuration is used, the curb adjacent between the parldng tot and the building can be pushed out to make room for additional landscaping or a sidewalk running along the side of the church. 5. Replace the fiat canopy over the side entry to the building with an arched canop:: similar to that proposed over the front entry. 6. Indicate where the trash area ,aSll be located and show how it will be enclosed and accessed by collection vehicles. 7. Look at adding more convenient walk-ways from the streetfront entry to the parking lo~. Re~Sse plans and resubmit to the DRB for further review. O~rNER: ,APPLICANT: ADDRE S S: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: Miguel A. Ruiz Miguel A. Ruiz 450 2nd Lane P02-0048 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301, Minor Addition to an Existing Facility (Case Planner: Steve Kowalski) Ruiz Residence DESCRIPTION: Use Permit to allow a residential addition in the D-C-L (Downtown Commercial) Zoning District. The Board had no comment on 'this item. -35- MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting of August 20, 2002 T/ME: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSEN~: STAFF PtLESEN~: 4:00 P.M. Hams, Nilmever and Williams Nelson, Ruiz Tom Sparks, Ch/efPlarmer Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Patti Cabano, Office Specialist 1. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS OX~rNER: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: City of South San Francisco CiB~ of South San Francisco 599 Gateway Blvd. P02-0059 (Case Planner: Susy Kalkin) Gateway Childcare Facility DESCRIPTION: Precise Plan and Variance for an 8,300 sq. ft. childcare facility with shared parking. The Board had the' following comments: 1. Change the color scheme of the building accents to someth/ng brighter and more cheery, and tie it m w/th the color o£the pla)?ound fence. 2. Consider redesigning the windows ro make their appearance more play_ful on the elevation facing the parking lot. 3. Create a direct line from the outdoor play area to Preschool Room 121. 4. Double-check landscape plan to ensure that ~nkgo biloba trees will survive given the high water table and salty condition o£the soil. 5. Ensure thar the design o£ the play areas meet ADA and CPSC. Revise plans to address these directions and resubmit ro the Planning Division for further review. o OWNER: _APPLICANT: ADDRESS: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem (Resubmittal) Suheil Shatara Architecture 116 Beacon St. P02-0047 and Negative Declaration ND02-0047 (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem DESCRIPTION: Resubmittal of Use Permit to aliow the conversion of a 23,062 sq. ft. manufacturing faeiliD? to a religious assembly and daycare faeiliD, generating 100 AI)T in the Planned Industrial (P-I) 2~oning District. The Board had the iollowing corn_merits: 1. Increase the number ofmen*osideros trees in the parking lot. There is room for nearly re,ice as many n'ees as are being proposed. 2. Change the design and material of the fence to make it both more durable and compatible with the architecture o£ the building. Work with the Planning Div/sion on these changes. Iren~ does not need ~o come back ro the DRB. -36- TIME: MEMBERS PRESENT: MElvIBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW' BOARD Regular Meeting of February 17, 2004 4:00 P.M. Harris, Netson, Nilmeyer, Ruiz and Williams None Tom SparEs, Chief Plarmer Steve Kowalsld, Associate Planner Patti Cabano, Admin. Asst. I ADMLNISTRATIVE BUSINESS 925 Linden Avenue - Embassy Christian Center landscaping recommendations 1. Utilize Fragaria chiloensis-Beach Strawberry or Gazania hybrids 'Mitzua Yellow'-Trailing Gazania and 2" shredded walk-on bark mulch as ground cover in the new planters. Plant Hemerocallis Hybrids 'Stella de Oro' (1-gallon size) 24" on center in the entry island on the street side of the island. OWN-ER: APPLICANrT: ADDRESS: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: McCord, John L. & Mirtha S. McCord, Jtmn L. & Mirtha S. 831 Second Lane P03-0121/DR03-0059 (Case Planner: Steve Kowals 'ki) New SFR on Second Lane DESCRIPTION: RI;SUBMITTAL Design Review of a new single-family dwelling behind 830 Commercial Avenue in the Medium Density Residential (R-2-1t) Zoning District in accoraanee with SSFMC 20.18 and 20.85. The Board had the following comments: 1. Lay out a 3' wide walk"way leading alongside the carport to the front door using pavers or some other textured paving materials. 2. Remove the two center arches from the outside of the carport on the east elevation. 3. Insert windows into the living room wall on the east elevation. 4. Insert a window into the front bedroom wall on the west elevation. 5. Plant a tree (minimum 15-gallon size) on each comer of the driveway and show these trees on the site plan (Item 3 from November comments'). Rexdse the plans and resubmit one set to the Planning Division before applying for building permits. Og, _~,TER: APPLICANrT: ADDRESS: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem Suheil Shatara Architecture 116 Beacon St. P02-0047/UP02-0009 and Negative Declaration ND02-0047 (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem DESCRIPTION: RESUBMITTAL Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 23,062 sq. ft. manufacturing faciliB, to a religious assembly generating 100 ADT in the Planned Industrial (P-l) Zoning District. The Board had no comments. 4. OV~rNER: APPLICANT: Ofiesh, Gregory & Jane Ofiesh, Grego~? & Jane INITL~L STUDY AND PROPOSED lh([ITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Application Number P02-047 CITY OF SOUTH SAN' FRANCISCO SAINT GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM PREP.~dS;D BY CITY OF SOUTH S_~N FtL&NCISCO 315 ~/[-_~_PLE AVENUE S · ~ OETH SAN FtL~NCISCO, CA 94080 JULY 23, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS _Page MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5 APPLICATION' 5 APPLIC_3_NT 5 PROJECT OBJECTIVE 5 LOCATION- 5 PROJECT DESCKIPTION 5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIYlC)2xW J2vI:PAC~S I:(EQLrltUNG MITIGATION' MITIGATION' MEASURES FOR POTENTL~LLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ENVIRONB/iENTAL FACTORS POTF_NWIALLY AFFECTED 10 CHIEF Pr~.N.r~zR'S DETERMINATION 10 11 PUBLIC REVIEW LF_~D AGENCY 11 DETERMLNATION 12 INITIAL STUDY 13 GENERAL INTORMATION 13 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION' 13 Location and Setting 13 Cirodation Cbaracwrimcs 14 Site Owno'ship 14 PI~OJECT CONTEXT,~D DESCRIPTION Required ~, AITmvaJs a 4 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 15 14 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Agriculture Resources ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 Air Quali~-. ...................................................................................................................................................................... !8 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ Geolo~- and Soils ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 34 l~vdrolo~? and Water QualiD-. .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................................................................... 43 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 45 Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Population and Homing ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................. 51 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE T~L~ o~ CONTraS (con~) Page LIST OF FIGURES 1. PROJECT LOCATiON ........................................................................................................................................... 11 2. PROJECT SITE PLAN..., ........................................................................................................................................ 12 LIST OF TABLES 1. AIR QUAL1TY D^TA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD C1TY, 1998 - 2000 ................................... 31 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE iii VICINITY MAP $~D Bruno Caf iai 'C';" :: ::T:Z :: :~ ::: : :%. Bay Bay SR 280 SR 380 SFIA 20' HIGH LIGHT · '· BERM BERM HIGH UGHT = ~$CALLONIA 'J ~ METROSIDERO$ -- M~RO.SlDEROS ? .BN-TR'ANCE '~,. 7 VICTORIAN BOX ,./ BEACON STREET DAYCARE AR~ MULTi-PURPOSE AREA SHARED AUXiLiARY AREA L~,NDSCAPED SPACE @ 7,080 SQ. FT. = i 1% COVERAGE PERMEABLE PAVING ,-.-.,~ SI~ - 1.38 ACRES: 60,113 SQ. FT,,. 0 I 10 ~4 0 2 10 2O 40 FT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAPOkTION APPLICATION This Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application Number 02-047) is for the proposed St. George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. APPLICANT The Project Applicant is Suheil Shatara of Shatara Architecture. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The Project objective is to convert an existing 23,062 square foot industrial building at i 16 Beacon Street to a church sanctuary able to accommodate a parish numbering 278 persons, a 11,155 square foot area containing two recreation rooms, a day care for 49 children and upgrades to the landscaping and parking lot. LOCATION The Project site is located in the southeasterly portion of South San Francisco, at 116 Beacon Street adjacent to South Airport Boulevard and near S.R 380 and US 101 and abuts a slough that is a tributary to San Francisco Bay. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would involve the conversion of a 23,062 square foot industrial building, formerly utilized as a ball beating plant, to a church and day care facility. Parking for 85 passenger vehicles and one loading area will be provided on-site in the existing parking lot. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION The following is a summary of potential Project impacts. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist and/or Appendix A of this docmnent for a more detailed discussion of these impacts. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 5 The proposed Project would require interior demolition of an existing building and some exterior demolition, as well as reconstruction of the parking lot. The physical demolition of existing structures is a construction activity with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during demolition, substantial dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. o Further on-site environmental work is reqttired in order that the County may issue a closure letter regarding the goundwater concentrations and a separate 'clearance letter' allowing the use of the existing site and buildings for the proposed assembly' functions. The latter letter is especially important ~ven that the proposed use includes a day care operation. The hazardous materials are generally required to meet much lower concentrations in order that the site may be reused for the intended functions. While k is not likely that greater concentrations of goundwater concentrations of hazardous materials will be discovered, k cannot be known without further research and analyses. The site closure report prepared by EKI determined that hazardous materials were present in the on-ske ground water in the vicinity of the floor &ain. The report determined that further research and remediadon would be needed. The applicants have not yet obtained a site closure letter from San Mateo County Health Services Agency. regarding hazardous materials in the on-site groundwater. 7"nis is a potentially, significant effect considering the proposed uses and proximity to a slough tha~ empties into San Francisco Bay. The Project site is located within the 100-year flood hazard zone. The majority of the site is situated in Zone B that is defined as subject to flooding of a depth of 1 foot or less. A small portion of the site adjacent to the creek channel is situated in Zone A defined as subject to flooding to depths greater than 1 foot. Based on City records and filed experience, flooding is apparently due to inadequate storm drainage capacity in Beacon Street. The storm drains back up and consequently cause water to back up onto the site. The Cie- intends to upgrade the storm &ainage facilities in the as early as 2005 to prevent flooding of the street and adjacent properties. Development of the proposed Project would expose people and the existing structure to a minor flooding hazard. In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise-impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of g-rearer than 65 dBA (CNEL) are not acceptable acoustic levels for noise sensitive land uses. The Project site is located in an area subjected to traffic noise from US Highway 101 in the range from 60 dB Clx,VEL to 65 dB CNEL. The ske is also subject to airplane overflights from SFL& resulting in CNEL levels ranging from 65 dB CNEL to 70 dB CNEL INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 6 The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is currently zoned "Planned industrial (P-I)" but in keeping with the CitT's adopted General Plan it is proposed to be zoned "Planned Commercial (P-C)." and the noise level standard for this zone is 60 to 65 dBA (Ls0). Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifica~y, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The site is and future occupants will be subjected to a fairly high noise levels. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 A24. to 8:00 P2Vi. on weekdays, 9:00 AA4. to 8:00 P2~i. on Saturdays, and 10:00 AA4. to 6:00 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. Without mitigation the impact would be temporary, but significant. it is not expected that a day care nor religious facility would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. However, the project is located in an area subjected to traffic noise from US Highway 101 in the range from 60 dB CNEL to 65 dB CNEL. The site is also subject to airplane overflights from SFIA resulting in CNEL levels ranging fi:om 65 dB CNEL to 70 dB CNEL. Thus the site is and future occupants will be subjected to a fairly high noise levels, which if left unchecked will likely interfere with their proposed operations and result in an potentially adverse impact. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most .wpes of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of ea_mhmomg and impact equipment. The South San Francisco Noise Element (adopted in 1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport noise contours assodated with San Frandsco International Airport, located south of the ske. These contours indicate the Project site is located within the 65 dB CNEL to 70 dB CN-EL of existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road noise is also inclu&d in the Noise Element as previously describe& Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's day care and reIi~ous uses would be exposed to noise levels in the Project viciniw of no less than between 65 dB CNEL to 70 dB CNEL. INITIAL STUDY ] MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 7 10. The project will be required to install catch basins and/or retrofit the existing catch basins in the parking lot. To minimize flooding, the project will include the construction of a berm across the property,- frontage parallel to Beacon Street and install backflow preventers. With the retrofit of the catch basins and since the proposed Project would be implemented at an already built out site connected to storm water &ainage infrastructure, the Project would have potential impacts related to the construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities. The City's proposed future project to improvement the Beacon Street storm drainage facilities will further improve the conveyance of storm water runoff and reduce the threat of flooding. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following is a summary of mitigation measures for potentially significant Project impacts. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist and/or Appendix A of this document for a more detailed discussion of these mitigation measures. Rather than focus on a quantification of Project related emissions, the B~T Area Air Quality Management District (B?O_QMD) has developed a menu of mitigation options to control construction activity dust emissions. The BAAQMD considers implementation of all applicable dust control measures (which vary according to Project mag,nitude) as reducing Project related particulate (PM~0) emissions to less than si=mfificant levels. 2flqe mitigation measures appropriate for the proposed Project are described in detail in the ./kit Quality chapter of this document. These measures would reduce the Project's air quality impacts to a less than si=maificant level. Prior to the issuance of an>, permit the applicant shall obtain a clearance letter from the San Mateo Count), Health Services Agency allowing the day care and religious assembly use of the project site. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall conduct further research and analyses of the presence of hazardous materials in the groundwater and obtain a clearance letter from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency.. allowing the day care and religious assembly use of the project sire. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall conduct further research and analyses of the presence of hazardous materials in the groundwater and obtain a clearance letter from the San Marco Counw Health Services Agency allowing the day care and religious assembly use of the project ske. o Federal and local laws require that with the proposed change in use the building be made flood resistance. The final plans shall include the construction of an on-site berm near the street frontage of sufficient height to prohibit water from enter/ng the site. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 8 o 10. The applicant's building permit plans shall include measures to provide an interior acoustic level of 45 dB CNEL. The building permit plans shall be required to be reviewed by a qualified acoustical engineer and include recommendations to reduce the interior acoustic level to 45 db CNEL. Prior to the final inspection, the acoustic engineer shall conduct field measurements in the completed structure to determine if the insulation measurements are performing as anticipated. The acoustic engineer shall prepare a written report that shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall submit a construction plan that includes measures to reduce construction noise impacts. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. To provide an interior acoustic level of 45 dB CN'EL, required for residential interiors and appropriate for the proposed uses, the project will be required to have a qualified acoustical en~-dneer revi~' the proposed plans and make recommendations to reduce the interior acoustic level to 45 db CNEL. Prior to the final inspection, the acoustic engineer shall conduct field measurements in the completed structure to determine if the insulation measurements are performing as anticipated. The acoustic engineer shall prepare a written report that shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. The Medical Clinic siruateci on Beacon Street is an existing noise-senskive receptors in the Project vicinity.- that would be affected by Project-generated construction noise. Neighboring businesses would also be subjected to high noise levels during ske preparation and construction. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. Construction noise levels are required to comply with the 90-dBA noise limit and hoarly restrictions specified in the Ci~ Noise Ordinance. To provide an interior acoustic level of 45 dB CNEL, required for residential interiors and appropriate for the proposed uses, the project will be required to have a qualified acoustical en~4neer review the proposed plans and make recommendations to reduce the interior acoustic level to 45 db CNEL. Prior to the final inspection, the acoustic engineer shall conduct field measurements in the completed structure to determine if the insulation measurements are performing as anticipated. The acoustic engineer shall prepare a written report that shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. The applicant sixall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Pian (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the Ci~ Engdneer prior to the commencement of any gading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP shall include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm di'ain ~stem and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the C~ Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 9 The Project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures, and for the implementation of such measures. Failure to compb-with the approved construction Best Management Practices (BM:Ps! will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Project stop order. Plans for the Project shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm &ain system, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors, which may be affected by a project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block (,,) were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact", as indicated in the Initial Study Checkli~ and related discussion that follows. Factors which are unmarked (,~) were determined to not be si=m~ificantl,v affected by the Project, based on discussion also provided in the Checklist. ,3 Aesthetics ~ Agriculture Resources ~ Air Quality ~ Biological Resources · Cultural Resources u Geology and Soils · Hazards and Hazardous Materials · Hydrology and Water Quality ~ Land Use and Planning u Mineral Resources ~ Mineral Resources · Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems CHIEF PLANNER'S DETERMINATION After due consideration, the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco has found that with the implememation of mitigation measures identified in this Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed Project will not have a si=maificant effect on the environment. Therefore, the Project will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be met by the preparation of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. This decision is supported by' the following findings: The Project does not have the potential to degade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or ~dldlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elLminate a plant or animal community. It does not reduce the number or restrict the range o£ a rare or endangered plant or animal, it does not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histoo,' or pre- history because: th-;e is no identified area at the Project site which is habitat for rare or endangered specie~, or which represents unique examples of California history, or prehistory. In addition, the Project is within the scope of use contemplated in the General Plan; and the Project does not have an)- significant, unavoidable adverse impacts. Implementation of INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 10 specified mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on the environment and thereby avoid any si=m-fificant impacts. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term emdronmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The Project does not involve impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, because the described Project will incorporate both Project-specific miugation measures and cumulative mitigation measures to avoid sigrfificant impacts of the Project in the context of continued growth and development in the City of South San Francisco. d. The Project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ekher directly or indirectbT, because the proposed development will enhance the existing agricultural uses within the immediate area, provide the county ~dth additional habkat area, and all adverse effects of the Project will be mitigated to an insi=m4ficant level. PUBLIC REVIEW The Initial Smd>., and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 30-day public review period. Written comments may be submitted to the following address: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Ci~' of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Communiu~ Development 315 MapL Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Telephone: 650.877.8535 Fax: 650.829.6639 Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the Project itself, which is a separate action to be taken by the Planning Commission anc~ the South San Francisco City Council. Approval or denial of the Project can take place only after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted. LEAD AGENCY The Lead Agent- for this 2Vfitigated Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Communiw Development. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE DETERMINATION On the basis of the evaluation in this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Inidal Study: X t find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the env/ronmem, and a NEGATTx~ DECLZLRATION will be prepare& ! find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environmem, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED _~GATIVE DECLAK&TION will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a si~m4ficant effect on the env/~-onmem, and an E_NW-iRO_NMENTAL IM~PACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant Lmpact" or "potentially sigrfificant unless mitigated" impact on the emdronment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately an .alyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been ad&essed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anak?sis as described on attached sheets. An EN~rlRONME_NrFAL EMPACT REPORT/s required, but k must an~ze only, the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the pr3posed Project could have a significant effe= on the environment, because ali potentially si~icant effects (a) have been anab~zed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECL&RATION, including rexdsions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing furd2er is required. Tho~r~4s C. Sparks, Chief Planne~*' - Date INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 1 2 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SOUI-I-I SAN FRANCISCO Department of Economic and Communky Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 GENERAL INFORMATION A. Application Number: P02-0047 B. Applicant: Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION LOCATION AND SETTENG As shown in Figure 1, the Project ske is located in the southerly portion of South San Francisco, adjacent to Beacon Street. The Project site is located in a commercial/industrial area that is in transition to commercial uses. The site is occupied by an existing high single-story building and a paved open at-grade parking lot for approximately 78 vehicles. The building floor area is 23,062 square feet. The sire is relatively fiat and abuts North Channel, a tributaa~,? to San Francisco gay. Vegetation consists of very sparse landscaping around a potion of the existing building, in the parking lot and on the Channel bank. Landscaping consists of small to medium trees, shrubs and ground cover and both native and introduced plant species. iNITiAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 13 CIR~ON ~--HAP&CTERISTICS The Project site is accessible from the north and south via Highw~ 101 or DR 380, via South Airport Boulevard. ZONLNG The Project site is currently zoned Planned Industrial (P-I) but is scheduled to be rezoned to Planned Commerdal (P-C) to implement the site's General Plan desi~ation of Business Commercial. SITE OWNERSHIP The Project site is owned by Saint George Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 2. The Project would involve demolition of the interior of the existing industrial tenant space at the Project site and conversion of the building for a reli~ous faciliT with accessory uses including a day care faciliT and a recreational room. At gade-open parking for 85 vehicles will be provided on-site. REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS The Project would require a Rezoning and Use Permit SSFMC Section 20.32.030 (b). A permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission will also be required because the property is adjacent to a slough that empties into San Francisco Bay. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 14 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The Checklist portion of the Initial Stu4, begins below, with explanations of each answer. A "no impact" response indicates, for example, that no displacement of existing housing would occur due to the Project, because no housing units now exist within the Project site that might need to be removed to enable the Project to proceed. A "less than significant" response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental impact, there are standard procedures or r%malations in place, or other features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of "less than significant." Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be "less than significant with mitigation" indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval in order to effectiveb: reduce potential Project-related environmental effects to a level of "less than significant." Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation AESTHETICS -- Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which woutd adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ x] [ ] ix] [ ] Setting~ South San Francisco's urban chara~er is one of contrasts within a visually well defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the Ciw with distinctive edges. The Ciu, is contained in almost a bowl like ~ Dyett & Bhada, South San Frandsco GeaeraJ Plar~' ExistingCondizionsandPlarvafnglssues, 1997, p.4-2, 4-10, 4-15. INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 1 5 fashion by hills on three sides. The terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the Civ, and Si~ Hill and San Bruno Mountain (which is outside City limits) in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is r JllLng, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately- two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing USES. The Project site is located in the East of 101 Planning Sub-area of South San Francisco. The Project site is located at 116 Beacon Street. An industrial ball bearing manufacturer previously existed on the ske for many-years. a) Scenic Vistas Impact Threshold of Si~ificav~: For the purpose o£ assessing impacts of a proposed Project on scenic vistas, the threshold of sigrdficance is exceeded when a Project would result in the obstruction of a desi~ated public vista, or ;m the placement of an ar~abb~ offensive or negative-appearing object within such a vista. Any dear conflict with a General Plan poiiq~ or other adopted planning poli~ regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. The Project site is not located within any formally desigxaated scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on a scenic vista. b) Scenic Resources Impact Threshold of Signfiraraz: Any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, ro& outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway), would be regarded as a sig-nificant environmental impact. The Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway since k is not located on a state scenic highway. c) Visual Character Impact Threshold of Sign~am~: The Project would have ~ sigrfificant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 1 6 The proposed Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics primarily consist of commercial and industrial uses. The Project, consisting primarily of an interior remodel, would have no effect on the visual character of the site or its surroundings. It would update the building and provide additional landscaping. Therefore, the Project would have no negative impact on visual character. d) Light or Glare Impact Threshold of Signficance: The Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. The South San Francisco Police Department will require that the lighting levels meet City standards for parking lots. Lighting designs should employ fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials should not be sources of substantial glare. If this were done, the amount of light and glare emanating from the Project site would be considered less than significant. It is not expected that sources of daytime glare would be associated with the Project. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact AGRICULTURE 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. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewids Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 1 7 a) Converting Prime Farmland The Project area is in the midst of an urban area that has alreads.- been developed in a mix of industrial and commercial uses. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide importance have been identified at the Project site. Project development would not result in the conversion of any Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. b) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning There are no areas in the vicinity of the Project site that have been zoned for agricultural uses and no parcels near the Project site are current~ under W~lliamson Act contracts. Project development would not result in the conversion of any land currently zoned for agricultural use or in Williamson Act contra~s to non-agricultural uses. c) Non-Agricultural Use Farmland Conversion The Project involves no activities that would result in conversion of farmland or other land in aga4cultural to non-agricultural uses. Ill. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation 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 determinations1 Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the[ ] applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial [ ] pollutant concentrations? e) Ci'eate objectionable odors affecting a [ ] substantial number of people? [ ] IX] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ~,'][ ] [ ] [x] [ ] INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 1 8 Setting The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the ra~e of release and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downx~dnd. XX~mds are lightest on the average in fall and wn2ter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are ve~- light and local pollutants can build up. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection AgengT and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air qualig? standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quah~, Management District (BAAQIV~). The B3~'AQMD enforces rules and re~ttations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the re~onal air quality plans mandated under ~ate and federal law. The BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Bav,~rea Air Qualig, Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood Cig- to the south. Table 1 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites. The table shows that most of the ambient ak' qualiu; standards are met in the Project area with the exception the state standard for PM~0. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Bay Area is considered as having attained all federal ambient air quality standards except for ozone. Under the California Clean Air Act the Bay Area is considered non-attainment for ozone and PM~0. TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD CITY ;998-2000 Pollutant Ozorle Standard Federal 1-Hour Monitoring Site i 1998 I 1999 San Francisco 0 J 0 Redwood City 0 J 0 Days Standard Exceeded 2000 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ' PAGE 1 9 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Ozone Federa! 8-Houri San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 PM~0 Federal 24-Hour San Francisco r. 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 PM~o State 24-Hour San Francisco 1 6 1 Redwood City 0 3 1 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometnc Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2001. Sign'.z&ar~ Thresho~. The CEQA environmental checklist provides five questions regarding air quality impact significance. Where available, the sigmificance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to ma2,:e the determinations of significance. BAAQMD CEQA Gui&lines2 provide the following definitions of a significant air quality impaa: A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hotu' would be considered to have a si=maificant impact. A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMI) annual or daib, thresholds would be considered to have a si=maificant aJ: quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides 0NOx) or PM~0. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air qualiu, impact. Any project with the potential to frequentb, expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a siamaificant impact. An); project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general pubiic to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. The term "substantial levels" is further defined as an exposure associated with an excess cancer risk of 10 in one million. The BAAQMI) sigrdficance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQM]D gx~idelines provide feasible control 2 B%, Area ASr Qua~ry Management District, BAAQMDCEQA Guzhie/fi-~, 1996 (revised 1999). INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 20 measures for construction emission of PM~0. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan Setting The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and PM~0 (state ambient standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PM~0. The Prop2sed Final San Frandzco Bay Area Ozone Attabr-ae2t Plan, for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard is the current ozone air qualigr plan required under the Federal Clean Air Act. The state-mandated re~onal air qualiv plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air P/w:? These plans conta4n mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the re,on to attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. Impact A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the re~onal air quality plan if ~ would be inconsistent with the gowth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Milles Traveled. The Project would have no impact on an3"- of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans nor obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans. b) Air Quality Standards IMPACT 1: Construction Dust. The proposed Project would require demolition of a portion of the interior to the existing building. The physical demolition of structures is a construction activity with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during demolition, substantial dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. This would be apotentially significant impact of the Project. The California Health and Safety.' Code requires local agencies not to issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding asbestos, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous building materials. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is vested by the California Le~slature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Proposed Final San Frandsco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, June 2001. Bay Area A_ir Quality Management District, Bay Area 2000 CleanAir Plan and Triomid Assesenent, December 20,2000. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 21 both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition and must provide information on the amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature of planned work and methods to be employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. The purpose of BAAQMD regulations is the minimization of potential hazards to the public and surrounding land uses. The Project must also complywith California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Gal/OSHA) regulations, standards and procedures and California Department of Health Services (DHS) Lead Work Practice Standards. These re=m~dations are designed to minimize worker and general public exposure to hazardous building materials. The above regulations and procedures, alrea~, established and enforced as part of the permit review process, would ensure that any potential impacts due to asbestos, lead or other hazardous materials would be reduced to a level of insi=mfificance. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air qualit3~. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally midgatible. BAAQMD CEQA Guideline~ provide thresholds of sigrfificance for air qualit?.' impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~0. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. MITIGATION MEASURE 1: Dust Suppression Procedures. The following measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control fugitiv, e dust emissions. Dumg DemoFwion of Existing S~aaxre Watering should be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. Cover all trucks hauling &molition debris from the site. Bay Area Air Qualit3~Management District, BAAQIVID CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999). INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 22 Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. Duozg Consmagon Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown b.~ the win& Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Sweep dait),, (preferably' wkh water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, impacts on sensitive receptors related to construction emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level. Operation. Development projects in the Bay Area are most likebT to violate an air qualiu; standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air qualiU, violation through vehicle trip generation. '-~ vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets that provide access to the site. The B%; Area Air Quali~ Management District's BAAQMD CEQA Gufdelkws recommends estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where Project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F; or where Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby road~'ays by 10% or more (if the increase is at least 100 vehicles per hour). Peak hour net new trip generation from the Project would be less than 70 trips during the weekday P24. peak hour (40 mbound/3O outbound) and 30 less trips during the Samrd&v peak hour. This trip generation is well below the BAAQMD threshold trigger level for estimating carbon monoxide concentrations, Considering that the proposed Project is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide (the state and federal ambient standards are met) and that South San Francisco has relatively low backgound levels of carbon monoxide compared to other parts of the Bay Area, the proposed Project could not have a sigr~ficant impact on local carbon monoxide concentrations. Therefore, Project carbon monoxide impacts would be less than significant. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 23 c) Cumulative Air Quality Effects Impact Threshold of Sign~.. The Project's impact would be significant if it would 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 quali~T standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentiall~v si=mxificant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily vehicle trips be used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts. Net new daily trip generation is below this threshold for quantification. Project emissions therefore would be below the B_~&QMD thresholds of significance for regional pollutants. T~nerefore, Project impacts on regional air qualiu, would be less than significant. d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations Setting The BAAQNiD defines exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and risk of accidental releases of acute~,' hazardous materials (AHMs) as potential adverse environmental impacts. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, residend$ areas with children, and convalescent facilities. Impact The B%~ Area Air Qualit7 Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor populador ~oups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are like~; to be located. These land uses include residences, schools play~ounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors are a private emergen~, medical clinic located on Beacon Street, and the proposed day care and religious assemble associated with the proposed project. The proposed Project could expose the facilities to on-site emissions during construction. The Project's small size and that most of the on-site demolition and construction work will occur inside the building greatb, reduces the potential for exposure to pollutants released from the site. Any Project occupant who would potentially release toxic air contaminant emissions would be subject to rules, rebmlations and procedures of the Bay Area Air Qua_lit); Management District. As part of its progam to control toxic air contaminant emissions, the District has established procedures for estimating the risk associated with exposure. The methods used are conservative, meaning that the real risks from the source may be lower than the calculations, but it is tmlikeb; the)., will be higher. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 24 In the first step of a two-step process, the District estimates how much of a contaminant would be found in the aL- at a specific location. The estimate depends upon the type of source, its rate of production and its location.. The second step involves determining if the estimated amount of contaminant is hazardous to those exposed to it. This determination includes an evaluation of both carcinogenicity (tendenc3T to cause cancer) and non-cancer health effects. Chemical toxicity is based on animal study, results and in some instances, on the results of human exposure. After a new Project's risk level is determined, a decision must be ma& as to the sigmJficance of this risk level. If a new source has a cancer risk of one in a million or less over a 70-year-lifetime exposure period, and will not result in non-cancer health effects, it is considered to be a less than si=mxificant risk and no further review of all health impacts is required. If a project has a risk greater than one in a million, it must be further evaluated in order to determine acceptability. Factors that affect acceptability inclu& the presence of controls on the rate of emissions, the location of the ske in relation to residential areas and schools, and contaminant reductions in other media such as water. In general, projects with rLsks greater than one in a million, but less than 10 in a million, are approved if other determining factors are acceptable. In general, projects with risks greater than 10 in a million are not approved. Non-approved projects max be re-evaluated if emissions are reduced, thereby reducing their risks. District Regulation 2-1-412 provides for spedal noticing requirements prior to approval of toxic air contaminant sources with one-quarter mile of a sensitive receptor The above regulations and procedures, already, established and enforced as part of the air quality permit review process for any future occupant of the Project, would ensure that any potential impacts due to hazardous or toxic air contaminant emission would be reduced to a level of less than significant at the closest sensitive receptor and other receptors closer to the Project site. e) Odors Impact Threshold of Signficane: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific ~es of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project boundaries. The potential for diesel odors impacts is less than significant. The Project would not generate an>, odors and therefore would not have any impacts. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 25 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than ~ess Than Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Mitigation IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] Items a) through d) Impact The Project site is located in a largely industrial and commercial area, on a site that has already been developeck The Project would have: no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 26 Items e) and f) Setting The Proi~ :t site is surrounded by little landscaping except that associated with the creek channel at the rear of the site. This vegetation consists of native and introduced species including tow ground covers, and shrubs. Impact Threshold of Signfir. ar~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biolo~cal resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordhaance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community- Conservation. The Project eke is not landscaped. The Project involves in adding landscaping to the street frontage, the parking lot area and maintaining the creek channel. The applicant has meet with representatives of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. They have ageed to leave the creek channel undisturbed. Therefore, no impact would occur. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, includin§ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [ ] [ I ix] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] a) Historical Resources Impact ThresboldofSi~artce: The Project would have a si~ificant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse :hange in the sig'nificance of a historical resource as defined in ~150645. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the sigrfificance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5, since the existing building shell on site has no historical value. The Project would have no impact. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 27 b) Archaeological Resources Impact ThresholdqfSign~araz: The Project would have a significam environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the si=onificance of an archaeolo~cal resource as defined in ~15064.5. The Project site is a previously disturbed, developed site where no known archaeological sites are located. Because the Project involves no excavation any potential archaeolo~cal remains on site v, dll not be disturbed. Therefore, no impact on an?, archaeoloocal remains will occur. c) Pale ontological Resources/Unique Geologic Features Impact Thresho/dofSignficane: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to directb, or indirectly destroy a unique paleontolo~cal resource or site or unique geologic feature. No unique paleontolo~cal or geologic features have been nor are expected to be identified at the Project site. Therefore, the Project would be expected to have no impact on paleontotog-ical resources and unique geologic features. d) Disturbance of Human Remains Impact Threshold of Signifiar~: The Project would have a siamaificant environmental impact if it were to result in the disturbance of an?- human remains. No human remains have been identified at the Project site. However, if such re.'mains are encountered during site preparation associated with the construction at the Project site, all work shall be halted in the vicinity, and the San Mateo County- Coroner shall be informed to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is required, and to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. If such remains are of Native American origin, the nearest tribal relatives as determined by the state Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted to obtain recommendations for treating or removal of such remains, including grave goods, with appropriate di=m~i~,, as required under Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. This would reduce the potential impact associated with the discove .fy of human remains at the Project site to a ],evel of less than significant. It is expected that there would be no impact from the Project related to the disturbance of human remains. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitiqation VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-- Would the Project: iNITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 28 Environmental Factors and r-ocused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [ ] liquefaction? iv) Landslides? [ ] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of [ ] topsoil? 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, laterai spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 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? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting [ ] the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? [ ] ix] [ ] r ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] Setting6 The relative stability and composition of different ,types of soils can contribute to hazard risks by ampli ,~fTing earthquake waves, increasing susceptibility to liquefaction and landsiides, and affecting flood levels. South San F~uacisco occupies three general topographic zones: the lowland zone, the upland zone and the hillside zone.: The Project site is located within the lowland Zone, a few feet above mean sea level. The site is occupied by an existing high single-story building consisting of industrial space. Asphalt paved parking and access areas surround the building on the easterly side that serves as a parking lot for the building. ? Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco Geaerad Plar~' Existing Condigor~ andPlanrdng Issuez, 1997. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 29 The building and access areas are essentially fiat and at a similar grade as Beacon Street on the site's frontage. The northerly edge of the site is bordered by an open creek channel. 'Vegetation consists of landscaping at the rear of site and encompassing the creek channel. The Project would include upgrading and repairing the parking lot portions of which are severely disaggregated. The existing building would be remodeled and converted to a day care and assembly area. A soils report was not prepared for the project. Other soils reports prepared for other developments in the project vicinity indicate that free groundwater may be encountered in a few feet of the surface. In addition, fluctuations in the grounck, ater level could occur due to a change i~n seasons, rainfall variations and other factors. a)(i) Exposure of People or Structures to Known Earthquake Fauk Setting According to the United States Geologic Survey Geologic Map of the South San Francisco Qua&angle, the site is likely underlain by sandstone, shale and greenstone of the Franciscan Formation. The Project site is located N the San Frandsco Bay Area, which is considered on of the most seismically active repons in the United States. Significant earthquakes have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area and are believed to be associated with crustal movements along a system of subparallel fault zones that generally trend in a northwesterly direction. The site is located appro ~ximately 3 miles northeast, 9 miles northeast and 15 miles southwest, respectively, of the active San Andreas, San Gregorio and Hayward fault zones. In 1868 an earthquake with an estimated Moment magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale occurred on the southern segment of the Hayward Fault between San Leandro and Fremont. Since 1800, four major earthquakes have been recorded on the San An&cas Fault with Moment ma~m~imdes rang4mg from 6.25 to 7.9. in 1999, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities at the United States Geologic Sm, eT- predicted a 70 percent probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area by 203Z Impact 73resholdofSi~fia_m~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated v&h the rapture of a known earthquake fault. The Project site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alqnist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially, active faults exist on the site. The INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 30 closest Special Study Zone is the San ~mdreas Rift Zone located 3.75 miles southwest of the Project site. Therefore, the risk of surface faulting is considered to be less than significant. a)(ii) Exposure of People or Structures to Strong Seismic Shaking Impact Tbreshdd§tSign~we: The Project would have a sig2ificant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic gound shaking. Impact The proposed building's occupants could be ~xposed to adverse effects related to seismic ~ound shaking. Conformance to the Uniform Building Code would result in minimizing damage to the building and occupants. Tkfis measure would reduce the impact of seismic gound shaking to people who would occupy the buildings at the Project site to a level of less than significant. a)(iii) Seismic-Related (;round Failure, Including Liquefaction Impact 7bresholdofSignificane: The'. Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related gound failure, including liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is typically caused by strong vibratou~ motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that: soil liquefaction occurs in saturated, loose ganular soil (primarily fine to medium gained clean sand deposits) during or after strong seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction is typified by a near total loss of shear stren~h in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. The potential hazards associated with soil liquefaction below or near a structure are loss of foundation suppon:, lateral spreading, sand boils and area and differential settlements. Saturated, cohesionless soil can liquefy as it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength due to a transient rise in excess pore pressure generated by strong gound morion. Because the site is adjacent to a creek and consists of fill over former bay marshland a potential exists the liquefaction can occur. Adherance to the Uniform Building Code will minimize damage to the building and injury to the occupants in the event of and earthquake. Therefore, it is liketv that the impacts will be minimal related to liquefaction at the Project site. a)(iv) Exposure of People or Structures to Landslides Impact Threshold of Signficance: The Project would have a sigv2ficant environmental impact if it were located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 3'1 and potentially result in on- or off-ske landshde, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Project ske is located on land that is relatively- flat. The risk of landsliding .on the Projec: ske is nonexistent, therefore no impact will occur. b) Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Impact T~esholdofSign~car~.: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the toss of topsoil. Site soils are covered wkh either asphalt paving or concrete and have no exposure to water or wind erosion forces, though temporary erosion may occur during construction. However, standard erosion control measures can be employed to reduce this erosion to negh~ble leveis during construction. Local jurisdictional rules governing erosion protection should be followed during construction in order to ensure no impact from the Project. c) Unstable Geological Conditions Impact Thresholdq£Signi&av~: The Project would have a significant environmental inpact if located on a geolo~c 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. The existing building was constructed in 1956 and has weathered two si=m~ificant earthquakes, 1957 and 1989 with no apparent damage. Therefore, there would likely be no impact. d) Expansive Soils Impact Toresho/dofSi~araw,: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or propertT. The Project ske soils composed of fill underlain by bay mud may be susceptible to expansion. However, there does not appear to be any evidence of expansion effects on th,..' ske and therefore no impact is anticipated. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 32 e) Soils Unsuitable for Septic Tanks Impact Threshold of Sign~rm~ne: The Project would have a sig'nificant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic ~stems in soils incapable of adequately- supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal ~stems. The proposed Project does not include a proposal for septic systems at the Project site, representing no impact. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ' PAGE 33 VII. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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 PrOlect result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wiidland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] IX] Setting The property was formerly used for ball bearing production. A Facility Closure Report was prepared for the project site by Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., dated April 28, 2000. The closure consisted of two phases. The firs: phase consisted of facility cleaning operations, including complete removal of all machinery; and equipment, chemicals associate with the former business :and cleaning of the interior and exterior areas. The cleaning operations was conducted by DECON Environmental INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 34 Services, Inc. the second phase of the facili~; closure consisted of post-cleaning soil, gab =orounctwater, and building materials sampling. Soils and ~oundwater samples were collected by Precision Sampling, inc. EKI performed observation and documentation of soil boring installation and soil and goundwater s;mapling activities, characterization of subsurface soil conditions. Collection of building materials samples and handling and preparation of samples for chemical analyses. A Subsurface geophysical survey was completed at the site by Subdynamic Locating Services, Inc. The report determined the following materials present concentrations: Concrete Floor Chip Antimony, copper, tin and zinc- Range Antimony 4.39 mg/kg to Tin 689 mg/kg Lead 26.1 rog/kg Wall Swipe Antimony, copper, tin and zinc - Range Antimony 276 ug/SF to Tin 4,450 mg/kg Lead 617 ug/kg Soil Concentrations PCE 162 ug/kg TCE 394 ug/kg Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel 1,100 mg/kg Heavy 2,790 mg/kg Copper 18.9 to 50.4 mg/kg Lead 8.45 to 10.4 rog/kg Zinc 43.5 to 2,180 mg/kg Groundwater Concentrations C-1,2 DCE 2065 ug/L Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel 80.6. to 278 ug/L Heavy 840 ug/L Based on these concentrations the San Mateo ComaU' Heath Services Agency issued a Closure letter regarding the above gound hazardous materials. Further on-site environmental work is reqtfired in order that the County may issue a closure letter regarding the g-roundwater concentrations and a separate 'clearance letter' allowing the use of the existing site and buildings for the proposed assembly functions. The latter letter is especially important ~ven that the proposed use includes a day care operation. The hazardous materials are generalb- required to meet much lower concentrations in order that the site may be reused for the intended functions. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ' PAGE 35 Small quantities of unregulated household-type hazardous materials will be stored within the Project building to be used for maintenance activities. a) Hazardous Materials Impact Tr~esholdofSignfirwTm.. The Project would have a si~m'zificant environmental impact if k were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. It is not expected that a reli~ous facilky and day care would utilize an); si~ficant quantity of hazardous materials. Provided that the business conforms to Uniform Building Co& r%m.tladons applicable to the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials no impact wotfld occur. b) Upset and Accident Conditions Impact Threshold 9~Signfiraraz: The Project would have a sit,mfificant environmental impact if it were to create a si~mzificant hazard to the pubiic or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Normal operations at the Project site could involve use, transport and disposal of small quantifies of cleaning supplies that would be considered hazardous if not handled appropriateb~. In such an environment, there is some potential for accidents to occur. Adherence to Uniform_ Building Code regulations pertaining to hazardous materials would help prevent such an occurrence, limiting the impact of the Project to a level of less than significant. c) Hazardous Materials and Schools Impact Thresholdq;Signfiranm: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if ir were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acute .ty hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. IMPACT 2: Hazardous Materials: Further on-site environmental work is required in order that the County may issue a closure lette:' regarding the gounck-:arer concentrations and a separate 'clearance letter' allowing the use of the existing site and buildings for the proposed assembly functions. The ta~er letter is especially important ~i'¢en that the proposed use includes a da~ care operation. The hazardous materials are generally required to meet much lower concentrations in order that the site may be reused for the intended fimctions. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 36 MITIGATION MEASURE 2: Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall obtain a clearance letter from the San Mateo CountyHeakh Services Agency allowing the da>- care and religious assembly use of the project site. d) Cortese List of Hazardous Materials Sites Impact Threshold of Signifw_ane: The, Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). The City has no record of its own of any hazardous materials or underground storage tanks at the subject property (source: SSFFD). Considering the historic t~uad use of the properc3; k is tmlikely that ske characterization or remedial activities due to soil or groundwater impact by offsite sources would be required by' the reb:mtato~ agencies. This opinion is based upon the following: The analysis prepared by EKI for the site, telephone conversations with representatives of and closure letter of the industrial facility issued by the San Mateo County Health Services Agency and EPA Final Policy Towards Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers Memorandum written Bruce M. Diamond, Director of the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement in May, 1995. The EPA memorandum states: subject to certain conditions, "]t is the [Environmental Protection_] Agency's position that where hazardous substances have come to be located on or in a properO' solely as the result of subsurface migration in an aqu~fer.fi'om a source or sources outside the property, the EPA will not take enforcement action against the owner of such proper0, to require the performance of response actions or the pa.vmem of response costs. Further, EPA may consider de minimis settlements under Section 122(g)(])(B) or CERCLA where necessa~T to protect such landowners from contribution suits "; and Management Memo No. 9~-11, written by John J. Kearns, Deputy Director of the California Toxic Substances Control Prograxn in 199~ states: "As a general policy, the Toxic Substaravss Control ISvgram v~ not pursue or er?orce actior~ agairtst a person who is a responsible parr), sole~. , on the basis of tramership of iard om g contamimted " IMPACT 3: Hazardous Materials: While k is not likely that greater concentrations of groundwater concentrations of hazardous materials will be discovered, k cannot be known without further research and analyses. MITIGATION MEASURE 3: Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall conduct further research and analyses of the presence o£ hazardous materials in the groundwater and obtain a clearance letter from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency allowing the da,' care and reli~ous assembly use of the project site. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 37 e/f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Impact Thres/~ldofSign~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were 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) if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project site is located within about 0.5 miles from San Francisco International Airport. The site is current]?- developed and has been used for an industrial production facility since 1956. Conversion of the building to the proposed uses would not create any inordinate aviation-related safety hazard above and beyond that which currentb, exists in the City of South San Francisco in the area around San Francisco International ?drport. Therefore the Project would represent no impact for people working at the site. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Impact Threshold of Sign~&atnce: The Project would have a si=mxificant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or ernergen~ evacuation t~lan. Development of the proposed Project would not interfere with and therefore ihave no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergent7 response plan or emergency- evacuation plan provided it conforms to the specifications found in applicable emergency, response or evacuation plans. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Impact Threshold of Sign~car~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a si=m-fificant risk of loss, injury or death invoiving wildland fires. The Project would have no impact related to wildland fires since the site is located in a built out industrial area and not close to wildtand areas. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact impact Mitigation HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 38 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination o'I Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact 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 (eg., the production rate of pre-existin!; nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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 woutd result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 s~ manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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? j) Inundation by seici~e, tsunami, or mudflow? LeSS Than Significant with Mitigation [ ] Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] Setting Colma Creek, the Ci~'s m;~n natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a water shed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly' direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three larges: in the Counu~. The basin is bounded on INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 39 the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Sks. 4ine $oulevar& Dominant topographic features of the &ainage basin include two relatively stnfight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the non!hem boundary of the area. The valle), enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where k ddrain~ into San Francisco Bay. a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Impact Threshold of Sign~,m: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any- vioiation of existing water quality- standards or waste discharge requirements. Provided that the company occupying the site adheres to existing waste discha~:ge regulations, the Project would present no impact. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Impact Threshold of Sign~: The Project would have a sigrfificant environmental impact if it substantiall)., depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with goun&-ater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed Project would be located in an urban area and would receive its 'water suppb; from existing local infrastructure, thereby not depleting the local goundwater supply. The existing building structme and paved parking are impervious surfaces over the land that would .continue to some degree impede recharging of local groundwater. However, since groundwater resources are not used in the Project area, this impact would be less than significant. c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects Impact Threshold of Sign~: The Project would have a sibmificant environmental impact if it were to substantially- alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The proposed Project would be built on an alread0' developed ske in an urban area. There would be no impact related to altered &ainage patterns or siltation at the Project site. d) A!ter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects Impact Threshold of Signifrance: The Project would have a si~m4ficant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantialiy increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 40 It is not expected that the proposed Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, nor would it increase the amotmt of surface runoff, since the site is currently developed with impervious surfazes. Because the Project would not be constructed on an undeveloped, pervious surface there would be no impact related to increased surface runoff. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff Impact Threshold of Sign~a~e: The Project would have a si~fificant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The site drains into the City's storm drainage system. The project will require upgrading the on-site storm drainage facilities to comply with the Clean Water Act. Because the site is relatively fiat the soils at the Project site will not be susceptible to erosion during construction activities. Therefore, no impact is associated with the proposed Project. f) Otherwise Decade Water Quality Impact 7hresholdofSignfia_ar~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The proposed Project would not increase the amount of impervious surface area on the Project site, since the site is already developed. The site drains into the City's storm drainage .system and abuts a slouhg that is a tributary to San Francisco Bay. The project will require upgading of the on-site storm drainage facilities to comply with the Clean Water Act and a permit from the B%~ Conservation and Development Commission. IMPACT 4: Ground Water De~adation The site closure report prepared by' EKI determined that hz2ardous materials were present in the on-site ~ound water in the vicinity of the floor drain. 'The report determined that ft~ther research and remediation would be needed. Tlae applicants have not yet obtained a site closure letter from San Mateo County Health Services Agency regarding hazardous materials in the on-site groundwater. This is a potentially signific:mt effect considering the proposed uses and proximity to a slough that empties into San Francisco Bay. MITIGATION MEASURE 4: Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall conduct fio_rther research and analyses of the presence of hazardous materials in the goundwater and obtain a clearance letter from the San Mateo County Health Services Agen~ allowing the day care and reli~ous assembly use of the project sire. INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGA'i'IVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ' PAGE 41 g) Place Housing Within A 100-Year Flood Hazard Area Impact Threshold of Sign'.,kawe: The Project would have a si=m4ficant environmental impact if it were tc place any housing units within a desig, nated lO0-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur from placing housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area, since the Project does not entail the construction of any housing units. h) Place Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows Impact Thres~gofSi~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it placed any structures in a manner, which would impede or redirect flood flows. The Project site is located ~4thin the lO0-year flood hazard zone, Zones A and. B, and would have no impact related to the placement of a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows. i) Expose People or Structures to Flooding Hazards Impact ~sresho/dofSignificane: The Project would have a si=maificant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. IMPACT 5: Flooding. The Project site is located within the 100-year flood hazard zone. The majority of the site is situated in Zone B that is defined as subject to flooding of a depth of 1 foot or less. A small portion of the site adjacent to the creek charmel is situated in Zone A defined as subject to flooding to depths greater than 1 foot. Based on City records and filed experience, flooding is apparently- due to inadequate storm drainage capacity in Beacon Street. The storm drains back up and consequently cause water to back u~ onto the site. The City intends to upgrade the storm drainage facilities in the as early as 2005 to prevent flooding of the street and adjacent properties. Development of the proposed Project would expose peopie and the existing structure to a minor flooding hazard. MITIGATION MEASURE 5: Federal and local law require that with the proposed change in use the building be made flood resistance. The final plans shall inclu& the construction of an on-site berm near the street frontage of sufficient height to prohibk water from entering the site. With mitigation the Project would have no iNITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 42 j) Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow Impact Threshold of Signfizar~: The Project would have a si~m2ficant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or stru~m~res to hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Devdopment of the proposed Project would not expose any people or structures to hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow and therefore would have no impact. IX. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with impact Impact Mitigation LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? [ ] 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 ptan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effe. ct? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] plan or natural community conservation plan? [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ x] [ ] [ ] ix] Setting8 South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San B]amo. Another development trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas aLmo~ entire~T developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Frandsco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple famitT housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. The General Plan, adopted in 1999, is intended to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional commercial areas. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the Plan. in addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, inte. nsities, and transportation, the Plan includes a Desi~ Element to help achieve high standard devdopment. ~ City of South SanFrandsco., Sou3San£ranciscoGo'm'adPlan, 1999. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 43 Commercial and industrial related land uses of the 1950s and 1960s vintage are located near the Project site. a) Dividing an Established Community The proposed Prc)iect would have no impact related to the division of an established community, because the project is consistent ~4tL the City's adopted General Plan desig-nating the site for Business Commercial Uses. Reli~ous facilities and da3; care are allowed uses in the Business Commercial land use categoD;. b) Conflict with Land Use Plan The Project site is currendy zoned Planned Industrial (P-I) and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's General Plan desi~ation is Business Commercial. This desi~ation accommodates both reli~ous and day care uses. All development is subject to high desig-n and landscape standards? The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies: Poli.cy 2-G-5 Facilitate development of childcare centers and homes in all areas, and encourage inclusion of childcare centers in non-residential development. Policy 2-I-12 Undertake comprehensive efforts to promote development of child care facilities. Efforts should include: Permitting childcare centers in all districts Developing criteria for incentives for childcare facilities, as pan: of bonuses for specified TDM programs Exploring the feasibility of assisting child care providers and developers to identify and develop potential sites; and, Preparing a childcare start-up =re.fide. Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a d/verse range of non-residential uses. Policy 3.5-I-9 Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, support commercial establishments such as do-cleaners, to meet the needs of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integated into office parks or technoloD- campuses. The proposed da.v care and relig/ous assembly uses are consistent with and help to fulfill the South San Francisco General Plan land use policies, thereby constituting no adverse impact.. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan 9 Ib~, p.43. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 44 Construction at the Project site would not require cutting down and trees. More information on this topic is included in the Biological Resources section of this report. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource l:i~at would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Setting No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a locall.,, important mineral recovery site on the Ci~~ of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Impact Tv/resholdofSign'~zfica'we: The Project would have a sibmificant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availabili~; of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or ii: it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recove~ site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. The proposed development at the Project site would not affect the availabili~- of and would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recove ,fy site. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XI. NOISE -- Would the Project: 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? b) Exposure of persoP, s to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 45 Environmental FacTors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation e) [ ] [ ] [ X] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 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? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Setting No,se is generally: defi~.ed as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is tmwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irreb~dariT) and how intrusive it ils above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally, lower than day,-ne levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. Reti~ous uses and day care among other uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. IMPACT 6: In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise-impacted areas. These critena define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of greater than 65 dBA (CNEL)~ are not acceptable acoustic levels 10 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensiw. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to ali sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response'is factored into sound descriptions ~ a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". O4EL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because communi ,w receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise iEqu.ivalent Level (CNEL). INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOr! ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 46 for noise sensitive land uses. The Project site is located in an area ~ubjected to traffic noise from US Highway 101 in the range from 60 dB CNEL to 65 dB CNEL. The site is also subject to airplane overf'fights from SFIA resulting in CNEL levels ranging from 65 dB GNEL to 70 dB CNEL The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regzttations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is currently zoned "Planned Industrial (P-I)" but in keeping with the C:i~'s adopted General Plan it is proposed to be zoned "Plarmed Commercial (P-C)," and the noise level standard for this zone is 60 to 65 dBA (Ls0).TM Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but o~v for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more th~m 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The site is and future occupants will be subjected to a fairly high noise leYels. Without mitigation the impact to future occupants would be potentially significant impact. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 A2¢L to 8:00 PAd. on weekdays, 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 PAd. on Saturdays, and 10:00 AAd. to 6:00 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. Without mitigation the impact would be temporary, but significant.. MITIGATION MEASURE 6: The applicant's building permit plans shall include measures to provide an interior acoustic level of 45 dB CNEL. The building permit plans shall be required to be reviewed by a qualified acoustical engineer and include recommendations to reduce the interior acoustic level to 45 db CNEL. Prior to the final inspection, the acoustic engineer sha~ conduct field measurements in the completed structure to deterrnine if the insulation measurements are performing as anticipated. The acoustic eng-ineer s]hall prepare a written report that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Cit.?s Chief Planner. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall submit a construction plan that includes measures to reduce construction noise impacts. The plan shall be subject to the review and approv;d of the City's Chief Planner. The noise limit that ,cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any ~ven hour). INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 47 With implementation of the mitigation measures it is expected that the Project would have less than a significant impact. a) Exposure of Persons To or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Impact Threshold of Sign~caTm: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if k were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local streets due to Project-generated traffic. It is anticipated that traffic related noise increases associated with the Project would be less than significant due to the low level of Project-related traffic increases on local roadways. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would be required to result in a 3 dBA noise increase in a traffic-dominated noise environment, and a 3 dBA noise increase is barely percepdbie to most people. Project-related traffic increases on local roadways (~Tell below a 100 percent increase) woulc~ result in traffic noise increases well below 3 dBA. The projected traffic associated with the operation of the day care and relioous facilit3, is estimated at over 75 vehicle trips per day. Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful mechanical ventilation equipment than currently function at the Project ske. The impact of the new HVAC system however would be considered less than significant provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. b) Exposure of Persons To or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibrations or Groundborne Noise Levels Impact T~resholdofSi~~: The Project would have a si~m~ificant environmental effect if it were to expose people to, or generate, excessive goundborne vibrations or goundborne noise levels. IMPACT 7: It is not expected that a day care nor religious facilit?,; would generate excessive goundborne vibration or groundborne noise. However, the project is located in an area subjected to traffic noise from US Highw~' 101 in the range from 60 dB C2N-EL to 65 dB CNEL. The site is also subject to airplane overflights from SFIA resulting in CNEL levels ranging from 65 dB CNEL to 70 dB CNEL. Thus the ske is and future occupants wili be subjected to a fairl,v high noise levels, which if left unchecked will likely interfere with their proposed operations and result in an potentially adverse impact. MITIGATION MEASURE 7: To provide an interior acoustic level of 45 dB CNEL, required for residential interiors and appropriate for the proposed uses,, the project will be INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 48 required to have a qualified acoustical engineer review the proposed plans and make recommendations to reduce the interior acoustic level to 45 db CNEL. Prior to the final inspection, the acoustic en=4neer shall conduct field measurements in the completed structure to deternfine if the insulation measurements are performing as anticipated. The acoustic engineer shall prepare a written report that shall be subject to the review and approval of the CloT's Chief Plarmer. With implementation of the mitigation measures it is expected that the Project would have less than a significant impact related to exposure of occupants to excessive goundborne (and airborne) noise levels. c) Substantial Pe~xnanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact Threshold of Signifiaane: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the: Projecz. Although site preparation and the implementation of the proposed Project would be expected to result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity.; it is not expected that on-going-operations at the Project site associated with the proposed day care and reli~ous uses would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, thereby representing no impact. d) Substantial Tempora: .fy or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact Threshold of Signficance: The.. Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. During site preparation and construction at the Project ske, operation of hcaW equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicmit~, of the Project site. IMPACT 8: Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in temporat9' Short-te:ma noise increases due to the operation of heaW equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slight ,ly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain .types of earthmoving and impact equipment. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 49 MITIGATION MEASURE 8: Limkation of Construction Hours/Noise Abatement. The Medical Clinic situated on Beacon Street is an existing noise-sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity that would be affected by Project-generated construction noise. Neighboring businesses would also be subjected to high noise levels during site preparation and construction. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the ~type of equipment. Assuming construction noise levels compb, with the 90-dBA noise limit and hourly restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance, construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation. e/f) Location in Vicinity of a Public Airport or Private Airstrip Impact Threshold of Signficanm: The Project would have a sigrfificant environmental impact if it were 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) if it would expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. IMPACT 9: The South San Frandsco Noise Element (adopted in 199c)) contains existing and 5ature (2006) aL-port noise contours associated with San Francisco International _~drporr, located south of the site. These contours indicate the Project site is located w/thin the 65 dB ~xTEL to 70 dB CNEL of existing and ~ture airport noise contours. Projected contours for road noise is also included in the Noise Element as previousb; describecL Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's day care and religious uses would be exposed to noise levels in the Project -dcinity of no less than between 63 dB CNEL to 70 dB CNEL, thereby representing a potentially significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE 9: To provide an interior acoustic level of 45 dB CNEL, required for residential interiors and appropriate for the proposed uses, the project will be required to have a qualified acoustical en~.4neer review the proposed plans and. make recommendations to reduce the interior acoustic level to 45 db CNEL. Prior to the final inspection, the acoustic engineer shall conduct field measurements in the completed structure to determine if the insulation measurements are performing as anticipated. The acoustic engineer shall prepare a written report that shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. ~]th implementation of the mitigation measures k is expected that the Project would have less than a significant impact related to exposure of occupants to potentially excessive airborne noise levels. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 50 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Xll, POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housi~ng elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] (a, b, and c) Impact 7hresholdofSignfiaavaz: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce substantial population growth, or if k were to result in the displacement of substanda! numbers of existing housing units, or in the displacement of substantial numbers of people living at the Project site. The proposed Project would not entaii the extension of infrastructure that could support additional residential or commercial development. It would not involve the construction of any new housing, and would not require the .displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on-site. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on population and housing in the area. Environmental Factor..; and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmenta! Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -- a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or ohysically 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? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 51 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Ti]an Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation ii) Police protection? [ ] [ iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] v) Other public faciiities? [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] Impact Threshold of Sign~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse ph)~ical impacts associated with the provision of 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 fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. Based on its small size and previous use, the proposed Project would place a small incremental demand for local services that can be accommodated bT the City. The new ser'¢ice demand will result in a less than significant impact. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XIV. RECREATION -- 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? 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? [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [x] Impact Thresholdq£Sign~zca'az: The P,'oject would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilitie~ could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment.. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 52 The Project would have little impact on parks or recreational facilities due to the nature of the proposed uses. The day-caa:e will be provided with on-ske usable recreation area space for use by the children. The San Francisco Bay Trail is nearby and would provide a major recreation feature for the on-ske employees. The relS.~ous facilities are intended to be utilized principally on weekends thereby resulting in at most temporary recreational demands that can be adequately served by the Ci~'s many parks and the SF Bay Trail. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less %an Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] in retation to the existing traffic icad 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Setting A traffic studywas :not prepared for the Project because the project generated traffic is estimated to be less than 100 vehicles iz~ the peak traffic hours. ROADWAYS The Project site is served directly by Beacon Street and South Airport Boulevard, while regional access is provided by the 'U.S. 101 and S.R. 280 freeways. Access to the freeways is provided by South Airport Boulevard. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ' PAGE 53 Freeways. U.S. 101 and S.K 380 are multi-lane freeways respectively, that provide access to the Project area. Both extend from downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. Streets. In me project viciniV South Airport Boulevard is a major arterial street. It has two (2) travel lanes in each direction with a combination of median islands and left-turn-lanes in the median and no on-street parking along both sides of the street. At the north intersection of Beacon Street and South Airport Boulevard the intersection is of a "T" shape with a median that prohibits left turns across South ,3drport Boulevard. At the south intersection of Beacon Street and South Airport Boulevard the intersection allows left, turns across South Airport Boulevarck The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. In between the two intersections is a signal controlled intersection of Belle Air Road and South A_h.'port Boulevard. Beacon Street is appro 'ximately 40 feet wide including two (2) travel lanes and on-street par '14ng on both sides and has a speed limit of 25 mph. It is stop controlled on its approaches to South Airport Boulevard. a) Cause an Increase in Traffic, Which is Substantial in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Capacity of the Street System Impact ThreshddofSignfiamm: Project impacts would be significant if th~- result in an~.- of the following conditions: · The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system. · Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F. · Movements or approaches at unsioonalized intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an intersection by- two percent or more with a signalized or all-way stop operation alreaOT at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is a stop sign controlleci and already operating at LOS F. The proposed Project would increase in traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria levels. The Project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 54 All of the k~ intersections in the project vicinity identified in the preceding section are now operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS), either _& or C, during the AM and PM commute peak traffic hours. Total volume along South Airport Boulevard averages to 6,000 vehicles per day. No counts are available for Beacon Street. The previous industrial use, in the 23,062 square foot building generated an estimated average daily vehicle trips [ADT] of 35 and 16 trips in, the peak PM hour rate [Trip Generation 6~h edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers, publishec~ 1998]. The d~,~ care operation with a maximum of 49 children and 4 staff members is estimated to add 120 ADT during the weekday a~ad a 53 PM peak hour trips. The proposed Project will net estimated 85 ADT and 37 trips in the pc. ak PM hour. The vehicle trips associated with the day care use can be accommodated by the existing streets and will generate a ver~' minor impact. The use of the reli~ous sanctuary and multi-purpose room will occur on weekends. The congegation, comprised of 278 parishioners, will restrict their activities to the weekends when most of the other neighboring businesses are closed. The multi-purpose room will not generate any vehicle trips since it will be utilized b~ the parishioners' chil&en for a play az'ea. The weekend use would result in 140 ADT. [Trip Generation 6~h edition, Institute of Traffic Eng4neers, published 1998]. ~ne previous industrial use was not open on the weekends. Therefore, the Project would result in a net increase of 1.40 ADT on the weekends. However, the streets and intersections are able to accommodate the increased traffic without a degradation in the existing levels of service. Therefore, the impact would be minor. b) Direct or Cumulative Increase in Traffic Which Causes a Congestion Management Agency Standard to be Exceeded Impact ThresholdofSign~qa_az~: The Project would have a si=m~ificant environmental impact if it were to result in a direct increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency' standard to be exceeded, or contribute substantially to a cumulative increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded. The Project would nave no impact related to an exceedance of a Congestion Management Agen~ level of service standard since it generates less than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips. c) Change in Air Traffic Patterns Impact Threshold of Signfia_ar~: The Project would have a si=-mificant environmental impact if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns that results in substantial safeu, risks. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 55 The Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Hazards Due to Design Features Impact Threshold of Sign'.z&ar~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially increase hazards due to a desi~ feature or incompatible uses. The proposed development dopes not have any features, which are considered hazardous, therefore no impact would occur. e) Emergency Access Impact Threshold of Sign~ficance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to provide inadequate emergency access to the Project site. The proposed Project would involve construction in a manner consistent with Ci~~ of South San Francisco building codes. There would be no impact related to inadequate ernergency access to the site. f) Parking Capacity Impact Threshold of Sign~am~e: The Project's impact on parking shall be considered significant if the Project does not meet the City of South San Francisco's parking space requirements and/or the proposed parking plan is not adequate in number or desi~ to serve the proposed Project. Tlqe Project will provide 85 on-site parking spaces. This will be adequate for the proposed uses. The parking demand for the day care is based on the number of children and staff resulting in a requirement for 53 parking spaces. The religious use is based on a rate of 1 parking space Der each four parishioners resulting in a requirement of 70 spaces [SSFMC Chapter 20.;'4]. Should ~[emand exceed supply on the weekend, adequate overflow street parking is available and will not adverseb~ affect the needs of other businesses. The project will not cause any impacts since the Project will utilize the on-site parking lot and the other businesses in the vicinity are closed on the weekends. g) Alternative Transportation Setting Transk service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and re~onal rail service. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERtJSALEM · PAGE 56 Bus Service. The San Mateo Coun~ Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service in the studv area along the following routes: Route : operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the sm& area. It operates with 30- minute peak period headw%~s and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Linden Avenue and Baden Avenue in the study, area. This route operates during midd%, only on weekdays with headways of about two hours. Route 130: D~, Ciw BAKT-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headw%,s on Sun&ys. Route 131: Tanforan Shopping Center-Colma BART operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. This route operates with 12- to 30-minute peak period headways and 60- minute non-peak headways on the weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Caltrain. Caltraln provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the comer of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Trains operate eveu? 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. Bicycle Lanes. Sidewalks are in place along both sides of Beacon Street and South Airport Boulevard in the Project vicinity. There are no bicycle routes striped or posted along these same streets. However, South Ah;port Boulevard is identified in the City's General Plan as eventually having Class III route. Impact Threshold of Significw~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project is not in conflict with the Ci~.~'s adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian plan and would not interfere with ira: implementation. Therefore, no impact would occur. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 57 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Mitigation XVI, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of [ ] the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve [ ] the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ] capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes [ ] and regulations related to solid waste? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ x] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Impact T/~sholdofSign~a~ne: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quali~ Jontrol Board. The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quali .ty Control Board. b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Setting INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST, GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 58 Water. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo County by the California Water Service Cornpany (CWSC), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). In 1999, average water use throughout CWSC's South Sar_ Francisco District was approximately 8.39 million g~ons per day (mgd), with a five year average of 7.85 mgd. For the last few years, total water use in this District has exceeded C-~rSC's "average demand" scenario)2 The City's 1994 East of 101 .Krea Plan estimated that water use east of the freeway alone would increase by 2.675 mgd by 2010. This is more than four times CWSC's average demand projection for total growth in water use throughout the South San Francisco District from 1994 to 2010. The Water Company's estimates are based on past water use, A_BAG growth predictions and a combination of commercial, industrial and residential development that differed from some of the Ci~, desi~ated land uses h2corporated into the ~rea Plan. In addition, the Area Plan's projections included an allowance for the potentially higher water demand associated with the R&D facilities and pharmaceutical-manufacturing firms that were bebdnning to move into South San Francisco. This ran counter to CWSC's actual records, which indicate that industrial water use in the South San Francisco District declined, by 57 percent from 1981 to 1999, falling from 35 percent to 13 percent of District-wide demand. In spke of these differences in land use assumptions and resulting water demand estimates, CWSC cm~ently feels it has sufficient resources to accon-anodate continued growth witk&n ks service area. The Water Company's contract with the SFWD calls for a maximum delivery rate of 42.5 mgd, so approximateb~ 8mgd should be available to meet unanticipated water supply needs that exceed its 2010 projected demand of 34 mgd. As a result, there are currently no restrictions on service connections for new development. Wastewater. All wastewater produced within the Cit-), of South San Francisco is treated at the Ci~-'s Water Qualiu,~ Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay.. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and k treats all wastewater generated ~dthin the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. These two municipalities have a combined dry. weather allocation of 700,000 gallons per day (gpd) at the WQCP.~' To accommodate continued development udthin the WQCP's service area, and also to allow plant operators to discontinue the use of expensive chemical additives in the treatment process, the plant is being upgraded to a dO-'weather capacity of 13 mgd. Construction is currently underway, and is scheduled for completion this ).'ear. Of the 3.5 mgd of additional do.' weather capacity this will make available (above current flow rates), 0.5 mgd is reserved for San Bruno and for Colma/Daly City. This will leave approximately 2.5 mgd available above current dry weather flow rates to support continued growth in South. San Francisco. When this upgrade was designed in 1995, the City's ~2 Morehouse Associates, Britaa~aia Easz Gra~/Projbct Ew.6mmm~/mpact Re/xxrt, p. 14-1, October 2001. :3 Ibk~., p.14-11. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 59 wastewater consultants projected it would meet the service area's needs until 2015. However, development and wastewater flows have been increasing more rapidly than expected in recent years, so additional improvements may be needed before that date. ~4 Impact ThresholctofSi~cane: The Project would have a sigv~ficant environmental impact if it were to require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment faci!ities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. A consultant under contract to the City of South San Francisco is currently completing a study of the sewage collection and transport system for the area, and will proxqde input for sewage treatment plant upgrades. The results of this study will help provi& definitive information about any required improvements to utility infrastructure that would be required for the Project. When this information is available, k will be possible to determine if the Project would have a significant impact on the Ciw's infrastructure. Any infrastructure improvement requirements shall be paid for on a pro rata basis by the proponents of the development in order to reduce their impact to a less than significant level. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Impact 7bresho~ofSign~: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. IMPACT 10: The project will be required to install catch basins and/or retrofit the existing catch basins in the parking lot. To minimize flooding, the project will include the construction of a be~Tn across the propert7 frontage parallel to Beacon Street and install backflow preventers. With the retrofit of the catch basins and since the. proposed Project would be implemented at an already built out site connected to storm water drainage infrastructure, the Project would have potential impacts related to the construction or expansion of storm water &ainage facilities. The City's proposed future project to improvement the Beacon Street storm drainage facilities will further imDrove the conveyance of storm water runoff and reduce the threat of flooding. MITIGATION MEASURE 10: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Eng4neer prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP shall include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 60 The Project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water qua. lity measures, and for the implementation of such measures. Failure to comply-with the approved construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Project stop order. Plans for the Project shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm &ain system, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay- Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. d) Water Supply Impact ThresboldofSi~e: The Project would have a si=m'fificant environmental impact if it were to require additional water suppb- beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. The Project would utilize existing water entitlements and resources, having no impact on other water resources. e) Wastewater Treatment Facility. Capacity Impact Threshold of Si~fia_ane: The Project would have a siga'fificant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which mA,,- serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The City's water qualit3~ control plant has capacity to serve the proposed use. The Project would place a less than significant demand on the area's wastewater treatment provider and would not prevent k from fulfRling its; existing commitments. f) Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Impact Threshold of Sign~qa_ane: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would generate a less than significant amount of solid waste. INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ' PAGE g) Compliance With Solid Waste Regulations Impact ThresholdofSignficane: The Project would have a significant environmental impaa if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Operation of the proposed Project would be expected to be in full complia: ce with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, thereby having no impact. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-- 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? 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? ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] ix] [ ] [ ] a) Quality of the Environment Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to degade the quakitT..7 of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause', a fish or wildlife population to &op below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elLminate a plant or animal communi~;, reduce the nmmber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. T'nere are ne, Project- related emdronmental impacts that would not be reduced to a level of less than significant through the implementation of the mitigation measures i&ntified above. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM ° PAGE 62 b) Cumulative Impacts The Project does not involve env/ronmental impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. There are no Project-related cum ulati,oe impacts. c) Adverse Environmental Effects on Human Beings The Project would not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirect.ly, because the Project is consistent and compatible with a=oricultural land uses in the surrounding area. The implementation of the mitigation measures identified above would reduce potentially si=ma/ficant Project-related environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGA-FIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 63 REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY Bay Area Air Quality. Management District, BAA QMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quali9, Impacts of Projects and Plans, .April 1996. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p.23,24. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "BayArea Attainment Stares" April 1999 (obtained at BA_A_QMD webske: w~'.baaqm&go~). Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Sg~ary of Ab' Pollution in the BO, Area, ind/vidual sheets for 1995-1999; and 'various Press Releases, Office of Public Information, Education Division, Au~st 1997 through Jantt~, 2001. Brady and Associates, East oflO1 Area Plan, adopted July 1994. City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal, Coch: Tree Preservation, adopted June 28, 2000. Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Frandsco General Plan, adopted October 1999. Dyett & Bhatia, South. S, vz £rwrisco Go,oral Plan: Existing ~ ard Planning Issues, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, September 1997. Facility Closure Report for Pioneer Motor Bearing Company, prepared by Kalinowski, Inc., dated 28 April 2000. Letter of May 12, 2000 from Beverly Baldwin Hazardous Materials Speciaii~, San Mateo County Health Services Agenqy. REPORT AUTHOR Steve Carlson, Serdor Plamaer INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JERUSALEM · PAGE 65 20' HIGH ,-- METRI]SIDERD'. LIGHT 20' EIGHT BERM 20' HIGH LIGHT ERI]S LESCALLDNiA ] Z-- METROSiDERDS STREET ~?~ SANCTUARY AREA ~','",,': DAYCARE AREA i..:~"! MULTI-PURPOSE AREA Em--LL./ ./_/.~'rXN'cE X.. ! ~ELL-~- STABL--~SHE]] VICTORIAN BOX LANDSCAPED SPACE ~ 7,080 SQ, FT, = 11% COVERAGE PERMEABLE PAVING LOT SIZE - 1.38 ACRES = 60,113 SQ FT, /0 s$co 0 PBMH X XX" TREE DATUM ELEV ........... -10 SECTION A SCALE HORIVONTAL: 1"=10" VERTICAL: 1" =10' SANITARY SEWER sANITARY SE~R E~cmmc AND ~PHONE/ WA~E VAL~ WATER METER VICINITY MAP BOLLARD NO SCALE CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN FIRE HYDRANT JOINT POLE TREE, SIZE AND TYPE AS NOTED GAS LINE WATER LINE CONCRETE LOT 3 47 RiS.M. IZNDS OF POLETTI GM GAS METER ~ A SURVEY MONUMENT BENCHMARK U.S COAST ANO CEOOE~C ?~,vFz2p?~ DiSC 'TRENCH CON~-- CURB CARPORT AC PARKING AREA N54'25'50'E 240100' x ? ? TOP OF BANK BUILDING PROPERTY BY o.of WAREHOUSE FF:7.1 6' CYCLONE FENCE AC DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY APN: 015-171-020 1.38 ACRES BUILDING AREA 23,010 sq. ft. ± . x -- x ONE--STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND WAREHOUSE NIGHT DROP BOX 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1" = 20' AND WAREHOUSE //// ~//~ ~'// ~ ,, PROPER~ MNE- ~ ~ .~ ~ ANCHOR EASEMENT ~ BRICK ~NG / DRIVEWAY ~ ~~G~ -- ~ ~ -- ~ -- -- -- INV=2.5 CB -iGC' % CONCRE~ RIM=3.4 % CO~ / ~- / D=20~8'2O" ~ tl t ~AsT ~ S ffRp ta e ort AGENDA ITEM iii 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO: May 12, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager RAYMOND'S SOURDOUGH BAKERY - REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 178 STARLITE STREET FROM P-C-L TO M-l, (CONSISTENT WITH UNDERLYING MIXED INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION), ANT) DESIGN REVIEW OF A NEW 6,453 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE ADDITION WITH RELATED LANDSCAPING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 20.85.020 AND 20.87.030. Father Gregory Ofiesh P04-0012:DR04-0012 & RZ04-0012 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1) waive reading and introduce an ordinance to rezone 178 Starlite from P-C-L Planned Commercial to M-1 Industrial; and 2) approve Design Review application DR04-0012 based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. BACKGROUND/DIS CUS; SION M complete discussion q£ the proposed project is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report &tted April i5, 2004.) The subject site presently contains warehousing operations for a wholesale bakery business located on an adjacent property at 172 Starlite Street. The applicant has proposed to add a new 6,453 square foot warehouse on tlhe site to accommodate his expanding business needs. Although the property is designated "Mixed Industrial" in the 1999 General Plan, the zoning desi~onation has not yet been changed to reflect this designation. Consequently, in order to process this Design Review approval. a Rezonin7 approval is necessary to bring the Zoning into compliance with the General Plan Rezoning Request The land use designation fi3r the subject property was changed in the 1999 General Plan Update from Planned Commercial to Mixed Industrial. Consistent with this action, the applicant requests a Staff Report Subject: Raymond's Sourdough Bakery P04-0012 Page 2 rezoning of the site to M-1 Industrial. The land use change was analyzed in the 1999 General Plan EIR, adopted by the City Council in October 1999 (EIR-99-061). Design Review Request The owner proposes to construct an 88' by 74' warehouse addition at the rear of the site (northwesterly side) to allow for improved operations. Site landscaping and parking are also to be improved consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements. The Design Review Board considered the proposal at its February' 2004 meeting and found the project acceptable with only minor comments which have been included in the proposed conditions of approval. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Comnfission discussed the matter at its April 15, 2004 meeting and unanimously adopted a resolution, attached, recommending the City Council approve the subject rezoning and design review applications. CONCLUSION The requested rezoning fm'thers the goals of the General Plan by bringing the zoning into compliance with the new General Plan land use designation. Subject to the zone change the proposed project is consistent with the M-1 Industrial Zone District use regulations and development requirements. Additionally, the Design Review Board has reviewed the project and found the proposal, subject to minor modifications, to comply with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Consequently, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council introduce the attached ordinance to rezone the property and approve the Design Review application. Many Van Duyn/,'}' Assistant City Man~r Approved: Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachment: Draft Ordinance Proposed Findings of Approval DR04-0012 Proposed Conditions of Approval DR04-0012 Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 15, 2004 Planning Commission Resolution No.2632 Plans ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING MAP 'TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 178 STARLITE STPG:,ET FROM PLANNED COMMERCIAL (P-C-L) TO MIXED INDUSTRIAL (M-l) ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, on April 15, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco held a duly noticecl public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendrnent; and, WHEREAS, the subject site presently contains warehousing operations for a wholesale bakery business located on an adjacent property at 172 Starlite Street; and, WHEREAS, the property is designated "Mixed Industrial" in the 1999 General Plan; and, WHEREAS, this re-zone is necessary to implement the General Plan use designation approved in 1999; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report analyzing the impacts of the General Plan update was prepared and ,certified by the City Council of South San Francisco on October 13, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendment was fully addressed in the General Plan EIR and no further environmental review is necessary in order to adopt this implementing regulation; and NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby amends the City of South San Francisco Zoning Map for 178 Starlite Street by changing the zoning designation from Planned Commercial to Mixed Industrial, as shown on Exhibit A. SECTION 2. SEVERABILJTY If any provision o:[this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, 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, para~aph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of 633101-1 - 1 - the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, para~aphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIATE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the __ day of ,2004. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of, 2004 by the following vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSTALN: ABSENT: As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of ,2004. Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor 623101-1 RAYMOND'S SOURDOUGH BAKERY- RZ04-0012 Change Zoning fi-om PCL Zone District to M-I Zone District Exi sting Zone iDistrict Boundary l ~, SOUTH CANAL ST * 1_ ,,,, I e e PCL Zone District ~ STARLITE 2! /7z- I I '1 /2 I~ // ~2: , _ , ® M-1 Zone e_District ~X PARCEL MAP VOt 17/$4 /X RECEIVED JUN 0 8 2001 PLANNING 14-8 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL Raymond's Sourdough Bakery DR04-0012 (As recommended by the Planning Commission - May 12, 2004) As required by the "Design Review Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.85), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings in support of a Design Review application for a 6,453 square foot warehouse with related parking and landscape improvements on the subject property, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco which include, but are not limited to: the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; Plans dated 1/24/04 prepared by Shatara Architecture Inc.; the minutes from the February 2004 Design Review Board meeting; testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on April 15, 2004; and testimony and materials submitted at the CiU, Council meeting on May 12, 2004: Subject to approval of the rzzoning request the proposed warehouse expansion complies with the provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20 (Zoning Ordinance). The proposed warehouse project complies with the use regulations outlined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Sectio13 20.30.020 (Permitted Uses). The proposed project complies with all general development standards and criteria of the M-1 Industrial Zone District as contained in South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20.68 through 20.74. Subject to minor modifications, included as conditions of approval, the proposal complies with the City's Design Guidelines. The proposed development will not be unreasonably adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably det~dmental t,o the surrounding properties or improvements. The site has been used continually since the 1960s for similar types of warehouse use without notable impact on the surrounding properties. The subject warehouse construction is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Class 3, Section 15303: new construction of small structures not exceeding 10,000 sf in urbanized areas.) -4- PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Raymond's Sourdough Bakery DR04-0012 (As recommended by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2004) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: The project shall1 be constructed substantially as indicated on the attached plans dated 1/24/04 prepared by Shatara Architecture Inc., except as otherwise modified by the following conditions: The addition shall not exceed 6,453 square feet. The handicap accessible parking space shall be relocated closer to the building entrance in accordance with ADA path of travel requirements. Final landscape and ilxSgation plans shall be submitted with the building permit and shall incorporate the following recommendations of the Desig-n Review Board: a. Choose a species of trees that will grow tall and narrow and groundcover that will be able to spread and self-regenerate. 5. Landscape Maintenance a. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times. b. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance pro,am and shall be maintained weed free. c. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. d. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless ollherwise approved by the Chief Plmmer. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be permanently maintained. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of the Chief Plmmer. 8. No outside storage of materials shall be permitted unless a use permit is granted to allow it. Proposed Conditions Of Approval DR04-0012 - Ra.vmond' s Sourdough Bakery May 12, 2004 Page 2 of 3 The applicant shall comply with all standard conditions as outlined in the City's "Standard Conditions And Limitations For Commercial, Industrial And Multi-Family Residential Projects", dated February 1999. [Planning Division contact: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner (650) 877-8535] Engineering Division requirements shall be as follow: STANDARD CONDITIONS The developer shall comply with all of the applicable conditions of approval detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments", contained in our "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant fi'om the Engineering Division. -~ crmr-~ ^ T CONnDiTIONS Upon completion of the building alterations and site improvements, 'the applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, the existing sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway approaches, along the entire frontage of the subject parcel, as may be required by' the City's Construction Manager, to conform to current City public improvement safety and drainage standards, prior to receiving a "final", or occupancy permit,, for the proposed renovated development, or new tenant improvements. All new improvements to be constructed within the street right-of-way, or City owned easements, shall be approved by the Engineering Division and installed to City standards. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for all public improvement work, prior to receiving a Building Permit for the renovation project. The cost of all work and repairs shall be borne by the applicant. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.74.150, paragraph 2b, tlhe drive way shall be no less than twenty-five feet in width for two-way traffic. The back-up distance from the parking spaces shall be widened to 25 feet per South San Francisco lVlunicipal Code Section 20.74.160. 3. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS The applicants shall design, construct and install a drainage system within the site that will prevent runoff from the paved areas of the project from overflowing into Starlite Street. or on to adjacent private property. Any existing drainage facilities tlhat are Proposed Conditions Of Approval DR04-0012 - Raymond's Sourdough Bakery May 12, 2004 Page 3 of 3 proposed to be re-.used shall be inspected by a competent consultant and cleaned, repaired, or improved by the applicant's contractor, in order to conform to City Engineering Division site drainage standards. A report shall be prepared by the applicant's drainage consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The report shall describe the condition and adequacy of any existing storm drainage facilities that will be re-used and shall justify the design of all proposed new improvements to the site's drainage system. The applicant shall design and install the drainage improvements described in the approved report, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Construction Manager, prior to receiving an occupancy permit for the particular development for which the building permit has been issued. bo The applicant shall submit on-site pavement construction, pavement repair, striping, signing and traffic: control plans for all interior parking lots and driveway isles within the site. R1 "Stop" signs shall be installed at each exit from the site. All traffic control signs shall be mounted on 2" diameter, galvanized steel poles. The applicant shall install new storm water pollution control devices and filters with the existing an.d new site drainage system, as required to prevent pollutants deposited on the impervious surfaces wifnin fne site from entering the public storm drains. Plans for these facilities shall be prepared 'by the applicant's consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division and to the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, for review and approval. Storm drain pipes, shall not connect to each other at a "blind" connection. All storm drains shall begin and end at a manhole, catchbasin, inlet, or junction box, in order to provide access for cleaning and maintenance. [Engineering Division contact: Dennis Chuck, Senior Engineer (650) 829-6652] C. Fire Prevention requirements shall be as follow: 1. A fire sprinkler system shall be required in accordance with NFPA 13 and SSF Fire Department. 2. The sprinkler system shall be monitored off-site if over 100 sprinklers. ,3. 2A, 10B:C fire extinguishers required per 75 feet of travel. 4. The applicant slhall comply with all other Fire Code requirements. [Fire Prevention contact: Maurice Dong (650) 829-6671] Planning Cornmission DATE: TO: SUBJECT: April 15, 2004 Planning Commission Raymond's Sourdough Bakery - Rezone property located att 178 Starlite Street from P-C-L to M-1, (consistent with underlying Mixed Industrial General Plan Designation), and Design Review of a new 6,453 square foot warehouse addition with related landscaping and site improvements, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.85.020 and 20.87.030. Applicant: Case No.: Father Gregory Ofiesh P04-0012:DR04-0012 & RZ04-0012 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve Rezoning RZ04-0012 and DR04-0012 subject to the Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: The subject site presently contains warehousing operations for a wholesale bakery business located on an adjacent property at 172 Starlite Street. The applicant has proposed to add a new 6,453 square foot warehouse on the site to accommodate his expanding business needs. Although the property is designated "Mixed Industrial" in the 1999 General Plan, the zoning designation has not yet been changed to reflect this designation. Consequently, in order to process this Design Review' approval, a Rezoning approval is necessary to bring the Zoning into compliance with the General Plan DISCUSSION: Rezoning Request The land use designation for the subject property was changed in the 1999 General Plan Update from Planned Commercial to Mixed Industrial. Consistent with this action, the applicant requests a rezoning of the site to M- 1 Industrial. Staff fully supports this request as it is Staff Report Subject: Raymond's Sourdough Baker3,, P04-0012 Date: April 15, 2004 Page 2 of 3 consistent with and furthers the goals of the General Plan. The land use change was adequately analyzed in the 1999 General Plan EIR, adopted by the City Council in October 1999 (EIR-99- 061). Design Review Application Building - The owner proposes to construct an 88' by 74' warehouse addition at the rear of the site (northwesterly side) to allow for improved operations. Presently there is outdoor storage occurring in this location which would be relocated inside the building. While constructed of metal, the new warehouse will include a stucco finish and detailing to tie in with the existing concrete tilt-up warehouse on the site. Landscaping - Presently the site includes minimal landscaping. The proposal includes replanting of these areas as well as installation of additional planting areas to meet the City's minimum 10% site landscaping requirement (3,250 sf). Parking - The project requires a total of eight off-street parking spaces; ten spaces have been accommodated. Desi~,on Review Comments - The Design Review Board discussed this project at its February 2004 meeting and found the project acceptable with only the following minor comments which have been included in the proposed conditions of approval. 1. Relocate the handicapped parking space closer to the entrance in accordance with ADA path of travel requirements. 2. Choose a species ,of trees that will grow tall and narrow and groundcover that will be able to spread and self--regenerate. Zoning Consistency- Subject to approval of the rezoning, the warehouse use is consistent with the M-1 Industrial Zone District and the project meets all general development standards as outlined below: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS M.-1 Industrial Proposed Project Setbacks Front 10 feet minimum (no parking in 15 feet setback) Side None None Rear None None Staff Report Subject: Raymond's Sourdough Bakery, P04-0012 Date: April 15, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Height 60 feet, additional height allowed subject to obtaining a use pem~it 30 feet Parking Office - 300sf~ 1:300 sq. ft. = 1 spaces 10 parking spaces Warehouse- 16,500 sf~ 1:2,000 sf (for the first 10,000 sf) and 1:5,000 sf for remaining = 6.3 spaces Landscaping 10% minimum 10% Lot Coverage 60% maximum 60% FAR 0.6 maximum 0.6 CEQA - The proposed warehouse is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Envirommental Quality Act. (Class 3, Section 15303: new constraction of small structures not exceeding 10,000 sf in urbanized areas.) CONCLUSION: The requested rezoning furthers the goals of the General Plan by bringing the zoning into compliance with the new General Plan land use designation. Su~ect to the zone change the proposed project is consistent with the M-1 Industrial Zone District use regulations and development requirements. Additionally, the Design Review iBoard has reviewed the project and found the proposal, subject to minor modifications, to comply with the City"s Design Review Guidelines. Consequently. staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt 'the attached resolution recommending that the City Council rezone the property and approve the Desig-n Review application. Susy Kalkin Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution w/Proposed Conditions of Approval Plans -10- RESOLUTION NO. 2632 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TI:W~ CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 178 STARLITE STRF, ET FROM P-C-L PLANNED COMMERCIAL TO M-1 INDUSTRIAL AND TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW OF A 6,453 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE WHEREAS, the .75 acre parcel that constitutes the proposed project site is presently developed with an industrial warehouse building built in the 1960s; and, WHEREAS, the surrounding properties to the north, south and east are developed with industrial structures; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco adopted a General Plan Update on October 13, 1999, which changed the land use designation on the subject property at 178 Starlite Street fi:om Planned. Commercial to Mixed industrial; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report analyzing the impacts of the General Plan update was prepared and certified by the City Council of South San Francisco on October 13, 1999, in accordance: with the provisions of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, rezoning the subject site from Planned Commercial (P-C-L) to Industrial (M-l) will bring the site into compliance with the General Plan land use designation; and, WHEREAS,, the apphcant has proposed to expand the existing warehouse space on the site to better utilize the property for a related manufacturing business; and, WHEREAS, on April 15, 2004 the Plarming Commission held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Rezoning request and Design Review application; and, WHEREAS, as required by the "Amendment Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.87) and the "Design Review Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.85), the Planning Commission o£the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings in support of the request to rezone a .75 acre parcel at 178 Starlite Street (Assessor's Parcel No. 014-080-280) fi:om P-C-L Planned Commercial to M-1 Industrial, and in support of a Design Review application for a 6,453 square foot warehouse witl:~ related partdng and landscape improvements on the subject property, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission wkich :include, but are not limited to: the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan Env/renmenta! Impact Report; Plans dated 1/24/04 prepared by Shatara -12- Resolution Raymond's Sourdough Bakery Case No: P04-0012 (RZ04-0012 & DR04-0012) Date: April 15, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Architecture Inc.; the minutes from the February 2004 Design Review Board meeting; and testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on April 15, 2004: The proposed rezorfing and project are consistent with the Genera2 Plan which designates the site Mixed Industrial. A rezoning of the property from P-C-L Planned Commercial to M-1 Industrial would bring the zoning of the site into comphance with the General Plan. The Mixed Use land use desig-nation specifically provides for warehousing, storage and distribution uses, such as the proposed project, up to a maximum FAR of 0.6. Subject to approval of the rezoning request the proposed warehouse expansion complies w/th the provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20 (Zoning Ordinance). The proposed warehouse project complies with the use regulations outlined in South San Francisco Mun/cipal Code Section 20.30.020 (Permitted Uses). The proposed project complies with all general development standards and criteria of the M-1 Industria2 Zone District as contained in South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20.68 through 20.74. Subject to minor modifications, included as conditions of approval, the proposal complies with the City's Design Guidelines. The proposed development will not be unreasonably adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding properties or improvements. The site has been used continually since the 1960s for similar types of warehouse use without notable impact on the surroundk~g properties. An Environmental Impact Report analyzing the impacts of the General Plan update was prepared and certified by the City Council of South San Francisco on October 13, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. That document adequately analyzed the impacts of the land use change on the site from Planned Commercial to M/xed Industrial. The subject warehouse construction is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quarry Act. (Class 3, Section 15303: new construction of small structures not exceeding 10,000 sfin urban/zed areas.) -12- Resolution Raymond's Sourdough Bakery Case No: P04-0012 (RZ04-0012 & DR04-00t2) Date: April 15, 201)4 Page 3 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does ihereby: Bo Recommend that the City Council approve rezoning request RZ04-0012 to Rezone property at 178 Starlite Street i~om P-C-L Planned Commercial to M-1 Industrial as shown on the attached Exhibit A. Recommend the City Council approve Design Review Apphcation DR04-0012 based on the Conditions of Approval attached as Exh/bit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Planning Comm/ssion of the City of South San Francisco on the 15th day of April 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Cornm:[ssioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero Commissioner Sim, Comm/ssioner Zemke, Commissioner Romero and Chairperson Ochsenhirt NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Thomas C. Sparks -13- RAYMOND'S SOURDOUGH BAKERY- RZ04-0012 Existing Zone District Boundary Change Zoning from PCL Zone District to M-1 Zone District ~, SOUTH CANAL ST. A dd7 457 tJ~Sr '"~/~ "9'2'7 R E C E I V E D ~' JUN 0 8 2~Of ~ ~ PLANNING PCL Zone District / M-I Zone District I sT. ~ MAP VOL 1~/$4 m~ Draft Resolution No. 1362 E,'d'libit B PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR04-0012 (As recommended by City staff on April 15, 2004) A. Planning D~vision requirements shall be as follow: The project shall be constructed substantially as indicated on the attached plans dated 1/24/04 prepared by Shatara Architecture Inc.. except as otherwise modified by the following con,ditions: The addition shall not exceed 6,453 square feet. The handicap accessible parking space shall be relocated closer to the building entrance in accordance with ADA path of travel requirements. Final landscape and irr/gation plans shall be submitted with the building penrtit and shall incorporate the following recommendations of the Design Review Board: a. Choose a species of trees that will ~ow tall and narrow and ~oundc~ver that will be dole to spread and self-regenerate. 5. Landscape Mainte~n_ance a. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in ~lly operable condition at all times. b. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional: the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance progam and shall be maintained weed free. c. Plant mater2als shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive, cutting-back shall be pe~xnitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to deYelop. d. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. All parking spaces, dr/veways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas shall be kept ~5ee of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement marldngs and all other facilities shall be permanently maintained. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened fi'om view from adjacent properties and streets to the satisfac, tion of the ChiefPlarmer. 8. No outside storage of materials shall be permitted unless a use pem2it is ~m-anted to allow it. -15- Proposed Conditions of Approval Subject: Raymond's Sourdough Bakery DR04-0012 Date: April 15, 2004 Page 2 of 3 The applicant shall comply with all standard conditions as outlined in the City's "Standard Conditions And Limitations For Commercial, Industrial And Multi-Family Residential Projects", dated February 1999. [Planning Division contact: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner (650) 877-85351] B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follow: 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS The developer shall comply with all of the applicable conditions of approval detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments", contained in our "Standard Conditions for SUbdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. 2. SPECLa~I CONDITIONS Upon completion of the building alterations and site improvements,, the applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, the existing sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway approaches, along thc: entire frontage of the subject parcel, as may be required by the City's Construction Manager, to conform to current City public improvement safety and drainage standards, prior to receiving a "final", or occupancy perm:it, for tlhe proposed renovated development, or new tenant improvements. All new improvements to be constructed within the street right-of-way, or' City owned easements, shall be approved by the Engineering Division and installed to City standards. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for all public improvement work, prior to receiving a Building Permit for the renovation project. The cost of all work and repairs shall be borne by the applicant. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.74.150, paragaph 2b, the dlSve way shall be no less than twenty-five feet in width for two-way traffic. The back-up distance from the parking spaces shall be widened to 25 feet per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.74.160. 3. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS The applicants shall design, construct and install a drainage system within the site that will prevent runoff from the paved areas of the project from overflowing iinto Starlite Street, or on to adjacent private property. Any existing drainage facilities that are Proposed Conditions of Approval Subject: Raymond' s Sourdough Bakery DR04-0012 Date: April 15, 2004 Page 3 of 3 proposed to be re-used shall be inspected by a competent consultant and cleaned, repaired, or improved by the applicant's contractor, in order to conform to City Engineering Division site drainage standards. A report shall be prepared by the applicant's drainage consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The report shall describe the condition and adequacy of any existing storm drainage facilities that will be re-used and shall justify the design of all proposed new' improvements to the site's drainage system. The applicant shall design and install the drainage improvements described in the approved report, to the satisfaction of the City' s Engineering Construction Manager, prior to receiving an occupancy permit for the particular development for which the building permit has been issued. The applicant shall submit on-site pavement construction, pavement repair, striping, signing and traffic control plans for all interior parking lots and driveway isles within the site. R1 "Stop" signs shall be installed at each exit from the site. All traffic control signs shall be mounted on 2" diameter, galvanized steel poles. Co The applicant shall install new storm water pollution control devices and filters with the existing and new site drainage system, as required to prevent pollutants deposited on the impervious surfaces 'Mtb2n the site from entering the public storm drains. Plans for these facilities shall be prepared by the applicant's consultant and submitted to the En~neering Division and to the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, for review and approval. Storm drain pipes, shall not connect to each other at a "blind" connection. All storm drains shall begin and end at a manhole, catchbasin, inlet, or junction box, in order to provide access for cleaning and maintenance. [Engineering Division contact: Dennis Chuck, Senior Engineer (650) 829-6652] Ce 3. 4. [Fire Prevention contact: Fire Prevention requirements shall be as follow: A fire sprinkler system shall be required in accordance with NFPA 13 and SSF Fire Department. The sprinkler system shall be monitored off-site if over 100 sprinklers. 2A, 10B:C fire extinguishers required per 75 feet of travel. The applicant shall comply with all other Fire Code requirements. Maurice Dong (650) 829-6671 ] .! StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 2{)04 The; Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of iPublic Works AGENDA ITEM WET WEATHER PROGRAM-PHASE I REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS AT THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN"I' #12 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Cotmcil adopt a Resolution to amend the construction contract awarded to Blackburn Construction and Management and Remedial Transportation Solutions (RTS) for the removal of hazardous materials encountered during construction at the Water Quality Control Plant. BACKGROUNDLDISCUSSION: On April 14, 2004, the City Council awarded a contract to Blackburn Construction to oversee the removal of contaminated soils encountered during construction activities at the Water Quality Treatment Plant. The contract contained a provision requiring Blackburn Construction to obtain a comprehensive environmental pollution liability policy naming the City as additional insured. The intent was to provide coverage to the City in the event 1) an accident or other "release" of contaminated soils, occun'ed during transport to the disposal facility and 2) a remedial action was initiated at the disposal site by state or federal regulators. If such a remedial action were to occur, the City, as a contributor of hazardous materials to the site, could potentially be liable for all or a part of the clean up if so ordered. The contract originally named Blackburn Construction Management/Remedial Transportation Solutions (otherwise known as Remedial Transportation Services, a subsidiary of Denbense Transportation) as a Joint Venture. Due to the nature of the contract and the respective responsibilities of the entities involved in the disposal of the soils, staff has worked with the City Attorney's office to revise the contract to more clearly define Blackburn and Remedial Transportation Solutions roles. Under the revised contract, Blackburn Construction is responsible for jobsite management of the excavation and loading of the soils and securing permits for the transport and disposal of soils. Mitchell Engineering, under an existing contract awarded in October 2003, will excavate tlne soils and load them onto trucks owned and operated by Remedial Transportation Solutions. Remedial Transportation will transport and deposit of soils at the disposal site. Neither entity will perform testing to determine the appropriate disposal site; testing will be done by Kleinfelder Engineering under separate contract. Therefore, the contract has been revised in tine following respects: 4. 5. 6. Blackburn Construction Management and Remedial Transportation Solutions are named as individual entities rather than a "joint venture." The responsibilities of Blackburn, Remedial Transportation Services, Mitchell Engineering and Kleinfelder are set forth in the contract. Blackburn and Remedial Transportation Solutions are jointly and severally liable. Both Blackburn and Remedial Transportation Solutions will sign the contract. Blackburn will obtain a General Commercial Liability policy naming the City as additi on al insured. Remedial Transportation Solutions will name the City as additional :insured on its Transportation policy, which policy includes coverage for polluting events, including releases during transport of contaminated soils. The contract has been finalized and will be subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. The City Attorney has also reviewed the insurance policy provided by Remedial Transportation Solutions and found it acceptable for coverage during transport of the contaminated soils. Public Works, Finance and City Attorney staff has been investigating the available policies that would provide coverage at the disposal site in the event an action triggering City liability were to occur at those sites. Based on numerous conversations between the Director of Public Works and Zurich International Insurance, stafl has determined that requiring the contractors to obtain disposal site coverage would be prohibitively expensive. Therefore, the Director of Public Works will obtain a "clean-up/cost cap" owner liability policy for the City in the amount of $2,000,000 for this contract only. The premium will be paid out of the funds for the Wet Weather Project as a necessary and appropriate cost to ensure: the proper disposal and treatment of soils removed from City property required to permit construction of the Wet Weather Program improvements. Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CAL~ORNIA A RES()I271'I()N APPR()VIN(; AN AMENDED AGREEMENT AYI()N(; BI.ACKBIiRN C()NSTRITCTI()N AND YlANA(;EMENT, REMEDIAL TRANSP()RTATION SOI. UTI()NS AND THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FOR THE REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ENCO[lNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT WHEREAS;, staff recommends approval of an amended construction contract among Blackburn Construction and Management, Remedial Transportation Solutions and the City of South San Francisco for the removal of hazardous materials encountered during construction at the Water Quality Control Plant. NOW, TIq~.REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves the amended construction contract among Blackbm'n Construction and Management, Remedial Transportation Solutions and the City of South San Francisco for the removal of hazardous materials encountered during construction at the Water Quality Control Plant. This amended agreement supercedes in all aspects the prior agreement approved by the City Council, but never executed by the parties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the: City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: A YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 690602-1 ,4 GEND.4 ITEM I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, The Director of Public Works COLMA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - CONSTRUCTION UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: No Action Required. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Colma Creek Flood Control District is in the final phases of construction completion. Under Administration Business at this Council meeting, an update on the construction progress to date will be presented to Council by City and San Mateo County Staff. By: Joh~~~ Director f Public Works 1Vfichael A:'W~son ' City Manager JG/ed