Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-08 e-packetCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 4(10 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUII,DING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO [)RIVE DECEMBER 8,, 2004 6:55 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Capital Improvement Financing Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 8th day of December, 2004, at 6:55 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call o Public Comments Motion to approve the minutes of May 28 and December 10, 2003 Adjournment /s/Sylvia M. Payne City Clerk StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 08, 2004 Capital Improvement Financing Authority Members Jim Steele, Director of Finance THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, acting in the .capacity of the Capital Improvement Financing Authority, approve the minutes from last year's agendas dated May 28, 2003 and December 10, 2003. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: From time to time, cities find it expeditious to form non-profit corporations and/or Joint Powers Authorities in order to facilitate various public financing an:angements. Under those circumstances, the City Council acts as a separate body, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies in the same way that it also acts as the Redevelopment Agency Board. On an annual basis, the City Council, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies is required to meet and take action. The purpose of this memo is to facilitate the annual meeting of the Capital Improvement Financing Authority. This Authority was set up as a Joint Powers Authority on September 11, 1991 between the City and the Redevelopment Authority. Its existence allows the City to enter into more advantageous financing arrangements than it otherwise could. For example, in 1991, the Capital Improvement Financing Authority sold bonds to finance the construction of the Conference Center, backed by the newly instituted $2.50 per room night hotel tax, approved by voters in 1989. By selling bonds through the Authority, the City is not liable for payment of the debt service on those bonds. Prepared by: ~ Jim S~eele Finance Director Approved b~: Bai~y/lVI. ~agel City Manager '" .............. ATTACHMENT: Minutes JS/BN:ed INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN[ FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 4()0 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be he, ld at: M[SNICIPAI~ SERVICES BUll,DING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 8, 2004 6:55 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Industrial Development Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 8th day of December, 2004, at 6:55 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call Public Comments Motion to approve the minutes of December 10, 2003 Adjournment /s/Sylvia M. Payne City Clerk StaffReport DATE: December 08, 2004 TO: Industrial Development Authority Members FROM: Jim Steele, Director of Finance SUBJECT: TH2E INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, acting in the capacity of the Industrial Development Authority, approve the minutes from last year's agenda dated December 10, 2003. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: From time to time, cities find it expeditious to form non-profit corporations and/or Joint Powers Authorities in order to facilitate various public financing an:angements. Under those circumstances, the City Council acts as a separate body, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies in the same way that it also acts as the Redevelopment Agency Board. On an annual basis, the City Council, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies is required to meet and take action. The purpose of this memo is to facilitate the annual meeting of the Industrial Development Authority. This authority was set up on March 28, 1984 to allow the City to facilitate the sale of pass through tax-exempt bonds for use by private companies under certain conditions restricted by the Internal Revenue Service. Due to their tax-exempt nature, their use is limited primarily to financing the construction of small manufacturing plants, pollution control facilities, and several other narrowly restricted purposes. There is an annual application process by which the State authorizes projects for these purposes. The State also institutes an annual cap on the total industrial development bonds that can be issued in the State in the upcoming year. Prepared bY:ji 'm~~ Finance Director City Manager ATTACHMENT: Minutes JS/BN:ed SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY 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: MI JNICIPAI. SERVICES BUll,DING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO [)RIVE DECEMBER 8,, 2004 6:55 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Surplus Property Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 8th day of December, 2004, at 6:55 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call o Public Comments Motion to approve the minutes of December 10, 2003 Adjournment /s/Sylvia M. Pavne City Clerk StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 08, 2004 Surplus Property Authority Members Jim Steele, Director of Finance APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, acting in the capacity of the Surplus Property Authority, approve the minutes from last year's agenda dated December 10, 2003. B ACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION: From time to time, cities find it expeditious to form non-profit corporations and/or Joint Powers Authorities in order to facilitate various public financing anrangements. Under those circumstances, the City Council acts as a separate body, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies in the same way that it also acts as the Redevelopment Agency Board. On an annual basis, the City Council, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies is required to meet and take action. The purpose of this memo is to facilitate the annual meeting of the Surplus Property Authority. The General Services Agency (GSA) requires local agencies to establish a Surplus Property Authority when they desire to purchase surplus federal property on an installment plan. The City established this Authority to purchase the GSA site in the Bay West Cove area. That site was subsequently sold to the Hines Corporation. Prepared by: ~ Jim Steele Finance Director Bfi~ M. Nagel City Manager ATTACHMENT: Minutes JS/BN:ed AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2004 7:00 ]?.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 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 Chair JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Vice Chair PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer BARRY M. NAGEL Executive Director RICHARD A. GARBAR1NO, SR. Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEAR1NG 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 November 10, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of December 8, 2004 3. Resolution approving consultant agreement with Pinnacle DB for design of Fire Station 61 in an amount not to exceed $176,425 4. Resolution authorizing agreement with CH2M Hill to prepare remedial action plan for 27 South Linden Avenue in an amount not to exceed $54,227 5. Resolution approving a contract with Public Financial Management for financial advisory services in the amount of $45,000 plus expenses not to exceed $2,000 6. Motion to cancel the regular meeting of December 22, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 7. Resolution receiving and approving the preliminary report for the proposed fiscal merger and plan amendment adding territory to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and authorizing transmittal to affected taxing entities for consultation CLOSED SESSION 8. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 380 Alta Vista Drive, and SF-PUC property located on Mission Road (APNs: 093-312- 050/060); Agency Negotiator: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 8, 2004 PAGE 2 Redevelopment Agency Staff Report RDA ,4 GENDA ITEM #3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Redevelopment Agency Board Marty Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH PINNACLE DB, INC. FOR DESIGN OF FIRE STATION 61 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt a Resolution approving the Consultant Agreement with Pinnacle DB, Inc. for the design of Fire Station 61 in an amount not to exceed $176,425. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City has purchased a 1.94-acre property at 480 North Canal Street (previously the Black Mountain Water site) with the intent of renovating the existing two-story structure to accommodate the City's new Central Fire Station 61. The new station will also accommodate the Fire Department's Administration and Fire Prevention offices as well as future training facilities. On July 14, 2004, the City invited the following firms to submit proposals for the design of the new fire station: John Matthews Architects of San Mateo, CA John A Schlenke, AIA of San Francisco, CA Luster Group of Oakland, CA Marci Li Wong Architects of Berkeley, CA Noll & Tam Architects of Berkeley, CA Pinnacle DB, Inc. of Burlingame, CA A site visit and a meeting with interested firms was schedu][ed and conducted by the City on July 28, 2004. On September 30, 2004, City staff received proposaI[s from two consultants: John Matthews Architects of San Mateo and Pinnacle DB of Burlingame. On October 28, 2004, consultant interviews were conducted by the City. The interview panel consisted of Tom Sparks, Chief Planner, Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official, Ray Razavi, City Engineer and Bob Green, Fire Battalion Chief. The interview panel unanimously recommended Pinnacle DB as the project architect. Staff Report Subject: Page 2 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR FIRE STATION 61 Pinnacle DB, Inc. was established in 1995 as architects, sculptors and builders. In South San Francisco, Pinnacle DB has a demonstrated record of tastefully designed and well-constructed projects as in Terrabay Recreation Center and the Community Learning Center (at Spruce School). As part of the Pinnacle DB's design team, Aztec Construction has extensive experience in fire station design and construction in a number of Bay Area cities such as Berkeley, San Ramon, Moraga and Los Altos. The proposed Consultant Agreement includes Phases I and [[ of the project. Phase I includes the programming, schematics, evaluation of "Essential Facilities" and preliminary cost estimates. Phase Il includes the design development, construction documents and final cost estimates. The fees for Phases I & II are based on time and materials, not to exceed $176,425;. It is anticipated that a Consultant Agreement for Phase llI (construction management) will be executed with Pinnacle DB following completion of Phases I & II. The scope of services for Phase HI will be determined during Phase I/II and will be based on the scope and estimates for the construction contract~ FUNDING The Redevelopment Agency Board has authorized $1,000,000 for the design and construction of the New Fire Station 61 in the 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program. By: ~ Assistant Executive Dir~/or Attachment: Resolution Appr°ved' Ex~ec u l~eNi~igr~ lc~'t~ Standard Contractual Services Agreement RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFOR. NIA A RESOLItTION APPROVING A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH PINNACLE DB, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF FIRE STATION 61 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $176,423 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Agency Board approve a consultant agreement with Pinnacle DB, Inc. for the design of Fire Station 61 in an amount not to exceed $176,425; and WHEREAS, the proposed consultant agreement includes Phases I and 1~ of the project; and WHEREAS, Phase I includes the programming, schematics, evaluation of "Essential Facilities" and preliminary cost estimates; and WHEREAS, Phase 11 includes the design development, construction documents and final cost estimates; and WHEREAS, the fee for Phases I and II are based on time and materials, not to exceed $176,425; and WHEREAS, the Agency Board has authorized $1,000,000 for the design and construction of the New Fire Station 61 in the 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco that the Agency Board approves a consultant agreement with Pinnacle DB, Inc. for the design of Fire Station 61 in an amount not to exceed $176,425. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute the consultant agreement on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco. 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 the __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Current Reso's\ 12-8-04Pinnacle.rda.doc ATTEST: Clerk CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND PINNACLE DB, INC. THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco ("City") and Pinnacle DB, Inc. ("Consultant") (together sometimes referred to as the "Parties") as of. December 9th, 2004 (the "Effective Date"). Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreeme~r~t shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on December 31 st, 2005, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit _A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City's right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consulltant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. ,Consultant shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession. 1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the (;vent that City~-in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons. 1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations hereunder. Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed One Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ('$176,425.00) in accordance with Exhibit B, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained ~in Consultant's proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, attached as Exhibit D, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 1 of 14 payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. 2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices sha~ll contain the following information: · Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.; · The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; · A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion; · At City's option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense; · The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work descriibed in Exhibit A; · The Consultant's signature. 2.2 Monthlv Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant. 2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. 2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 2 of 14 incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additionall service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. 2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the following fee schedule: 1. President $150.00/hour 2. Project Manager $85.00/hour 3. Clerical $60.00/hour 4. All identified Sub-consultants listed on the Fee Schedule of the Proposal dated September 30, 2004. 2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total contract amount. 2.7 Payment of Taxes, Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar' federal or state taxes. 2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date. 2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator. Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set fod:h herein. City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 3 of 14 Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory, in all respects, to the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant :shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. 4.1 Workers' Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutorv Workers' Compensation Insurance and Emplover's Liabilitv Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising frorn work performed under this Agreement. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined sin.qle limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Aqreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. 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, including the use of owned and non- owned automobiles. 4.2.2 Minimum scope of covera.qe. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 4 of 14 4.3 4.2.3 CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8 and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy: The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. Professional Liability Insurance. 4.3.1 4.3.2 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered bv this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Aqreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals' errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per claim. Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form: The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant rnust provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five years after completion of the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 5 of 14 4.4 All Policies Requirements. 4,4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. 4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with complete certified copies of all policies, including complete certified copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. 4.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. A certified endorsement shall be attached to aLII insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or 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. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other' manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4.4 Additional insured; 13rimarv insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating 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. 4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 6 of 14 volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. 4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4.4.7 Variation. The City may approw, a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City's interests are otherwise fully protected. 4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies; City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's breach: · Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or · Terminate this Agreement. Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any arid all losses, 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 Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant 1:o indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 7 of 14 under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT. 6.1 Independent Contractor. At: all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. 7.3 Other Governmental Requlations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 8 of 14 7.4 7.5 Section 8. 8.1 8.2 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City. Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 9 of 14 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Section 9. 9.1 obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties. Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreernent. Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, chads, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 10 of 14 9.2 9.3 Section 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both padies unless required by law. Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Aqreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the A.qreement shall be subiect to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of Citv or as pad of any audit of the Citv, for a period of three (3) vears after final pavment under the A.qreement. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Attorneys' Fees. If a pady to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision 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. Venue. In the event that either pady brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the First District of California. Severabilitv. 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. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 11 of 14 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 Successors and Assiqns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. Consultant shall not employ' any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et. seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California. Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials. Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Ray Razavi, City En.qineer ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to: Larry R. Tarter, President Pinnacle DB, Inc. 1461 Rollins Road Burlingame, CA 94080 Any written notice to City shall be sent to: City Clerk, City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 12 of 14 10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example. Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility. 10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. 10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 13 of 14 The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSULTANT Barry M. Nagel, City Manager Attest: Larry R. Tarter President, Pinnacle DB, Inc. Sylvia Payne, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT is being engaged to perform the work described below at the old Black Mountain Spring Water Facility at 91 South Spruce Street. The building is to be converted to a fire station which will house Fire Station 61. CONSULTANT will approach this project in three phases: Phase 1 Examine the existing building and prepare an evaluation of the seismic resistance to code, recommendations, improvements and upgrades necessary for the existing building to function as a new fire station. CONSULTANT shall provide programming for retrofitting the existing building into a fire station and fire administration facility. The CONSULTANT shall provide schematics, evaluation of "Essential Facilities", and cost estimates. The CONSULTANT shall attend meetings with City staff for input during the programming stage. Phase 2 After approval of the alternate selected by the CITY under Phase 1, the CONSULTANT shall prepare construction drawings, general provisions and technical specifications, cost estimates, and bid documents for the project, which includes all of the items listed in addendum No. 2 to the RFP. The drawings and specifications shall be submitted to the building department for approval and issuance of a building permit. Phase 3 Upon issuance of the building permit, CONSULTANT shall provide construction management services per a separate consultant agreement to be negotiated and approved by the City. Construction shall be competitively bid in increments per City Standards. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit A, Page1Of 1 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT CITY shall pay CONSULTANT an amount not to exceed the total sum of One Hundred Seventy-six Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($176,425) for services to be performed under Phases 1 and 2, and reimbursable costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement. Invoices shall comply with CITY requirements for same. CITY shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices, for services satisfactorily performed. The total sum stated above shall be the total which CITY shall pay for the services to be rendered by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by CONSULTANT in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall make no payment for any extra, further or additional service pursuant to this Agreement unless such extra service and the price therefore is agreed to in writing executed by the CITY Manager or other designated official of CITY authorized to obligate CITY thereto prior to the time such extra service is rendered. The services to be provided under this Agreement may be terminated without cause at any point in time in the sole and exclusive discretion of CITY. In this event, CITY shall compensate the CONSULTANT for all outstanding costs incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice thereof. CONSULTANT shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to date. PAYMENT SCHEDULE Architecture/Engineering Phase I - Programming, schematics, evaluation of "Essential Facilities", cost estimates, meetings Deliverables: Phase I Schedule Programming Review Meetings with City (3) Report Requirements & Cost Estimates Schematic Design Drawings w/Cost Estimates Additional Work at the City Engineer's discretion Subtotal Phase I- $ 840.00 $1,840.00 $1,540.00 $20,690.00 $30,520.00 $ 8,OOO.OO $63,430.00 Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit BPagel of 2 Phase II- Design Development, construction documents, cost estimates, includes underground services Deliverables: Phase II Schedule Design Development Drawings Meetings with City (1) Construction Documents & Cost Estimates Additional Work at the City Engineer's discretion Subtotal Phase II - $ 840.00 $27,110.00 $ 94O.O0 $66,105.00 SI8,000.00 $ 94,995.00 Total Phases I and II: $176,425.00 The City sets the following hourly rates for consultant: 1. President $150.00/hour 2. Project Manager $ 85.00/hour 3. Clerical $ 60.00/hour 4. All identified Sub-consultants listed on the Fee Schedule of the Proposal dated September 30, 2004. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit BPage2 of 2 EXHIBIT C INSURANCE CERTIFICATES {See Attached) Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit C Page 1 of 1 Agency Name and Address: Professional Practice Insurance Brokers, Inc. 10 California Street Redwood City, CA 94063-1513 Pinnacle DB, Inc. 1461 Rollins Road Burlingmne , CA Insureds Name and Address: 94010 Certificate of Insurance 1 of 1 #S87295/M87294 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MA-Iq-ER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW. Companies Affording Policies: A. NIC Insurance Company B. Hartford c. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. D Continental Casualty Company E. F. COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. TYPE OF INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY [] Commercial General Liability [] Claims Made ] Occurrence [] Owner's and Contractors Protective AUTO LIABILITY [] Any Automobile [] All Owned Autos [] Scheduled Autos [] Hired Autos [] Non-owned Autos [] Garage Liability EXCESS LIABILITY [] Umbrella Form [] Other than Umbrella Form WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY POLICY NUMBER EFF.DATE EXP.DATE 1454181 1 Ill 1/04 11111/05 72UECUQ6001 11/01/04 I 1/01/05 BW01934423 11/01/04 11/01/05 PROFESSIONAL DBA114015085 10130104 10/30/05 LIABILITY* POLICY LIMITS General Aggregate: $2,000,000 Products-Cum/Cps Aggregate: $1,000,000 Personal and Adv. Injury: $1,000,000 Each Occurrence: $1,000,000 Fire Dmg. (any one fire): $50,000 Combined Single Limit: $0 Bodily Injury/person: $1,000,000 Bodily Injury/accident: $1,000,000 Property Damage: $0 Each Occurrence: Aggregate: Statutory Limits Each Accident: Disease/Policy Limit: Disease/Employee: Per Claim Aggregate $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $250,00O $500,000 $0 Description of Operations/Locations/Vehicles/Restrictions/Special items: ALL OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED. GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTO LIABILITY ONLY: THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS ARE NAMED AS ADDITIONALINSUREDS BUT ONLY AS RESPECTS LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE NAMED INSUREDS' OPERATIONS. City of South San Francisco Office of the City Engineer 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 *Written at aqgregate limits of liability not less than amount shown. Certificate Holder: THE AGGREGATE LiMiT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED. CANCELLATION: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRI~I'EN NOTIC[-- TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE 10 DAYS NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN. Authorized Representative: ?'/~ . 11/24/04 cc: EXHIBIT D CONSULTANT PROPOSAL (See Attached) Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit D Page 1 of 1 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND PINNACLE DB, INC. THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco ("City") and Pinnacle DB, Inc. ("Consultant") (together sometimes referred to as the "Parties") as of. December 9th, 2004 (the "Effective Date"). Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on December 31 st, 2005, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A_ prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City's right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession. 1.3 Assiqnment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons. 1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations hereunder. Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed One Hundred Seventv Six Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ('$176,425.00) in accordance with Exhibit B, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant's proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, attached as Exhibit D, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 1 of 14 payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. 2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information: · Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.; · The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; · A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion; · At City's option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense; · The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A; · The Consultant's signature. 2.2 Monthly Pavment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant. 2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. 2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 2 of 14 incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. 2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the following fee schedule: 1. President - $150.00/hour 2. Project Manager - $85.00/hour 3. Clerical - $60.00/hour 4. All identified Sub-consultants listed on the Fee Schedule of the Proposal dated September 30, 2004. 2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total contract amount. 2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. 2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date. 2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator. Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein. City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 3 of 14 Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory, in all respects, to the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. 4.1 Workers' Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in th~ discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial qeneral and automobile liability insurance for the term of this A~reement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined sin.qle limit coveraqe for risks associated with the work contemplated bv this A.qreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. 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, including the use of owned and non- owned automobiles. 4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 4 of 14 4,3 CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8 and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. 4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy: ao The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. Professional Liability Insurance. 4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered bv this Aqreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals pedorming work pursuant to this A.qreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals' errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per claim. 4.3.2 Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form: The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five years after completion of the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 5 of 14 4.4 All Policies Requirements. 4,4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. 4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with complete certified copies of all policies, including complete certified copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. 4.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coveraqe. A certified endorsement shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or 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. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4.4 Additional insured; primarv insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating 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. 4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 6 of 14 volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. 4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4.4.7 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City's interests are otherwise fully protected. 4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's breach: · Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or · Terminate this Agreement. Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, 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 Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 7 of 14 under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT. 6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. 7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 8 of 14 7.4 7.5 Section 8. 8.1 8.2 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City. Nondiscrimination and Eclual Opportunitv. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 9 of 14 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Section 9. 9.1 obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties. Assiqnment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 10 of 14 9.2 9,3 Section 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties unless required by law. Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subiect to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Aqreement. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision 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. Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the First District of California. Severabilitv. 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. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 11 of 14 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10,10 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et. seq., the entire Agreement is void and' Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California. Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials. Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Ray Razavi, City Engineer ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to: Larry R. Tarter, President Pinnacle DB, Inc. 1461 Rollins Road Burlingame, CA 94080 Any written notice to City shall be sent to: City Clerk, City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 12 of 14 10,11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example. Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility. 10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. 10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 13 of 14 The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSULTANT Barry M. Nagel, City Manager Attest: Larry R. Tarter President, Pinnacle DB, Inc. Sylvia Payne, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2005 Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT is being engaged to perform the work described below at the old Black Mountain Spring Water Facility at 91 South Spruce Street. The building is to be converted to a fire station which will house Fire Station 61. CONSULTANT will approach this project in three phases: Phase 1 Examine the existing building and prepare an evaluation of the seismic resistance to code, recommendations, improvements and upgrades necessary for the existing building to function as a new fire station. CONSULTANT shall provide programming for retrofitting the existing building into a fire station and fire administration facility. The CONSULTANT shall provide schematics, evaluation of "Essential Facilities", and cost estimates. The CONSULTANT shall attend meetings with City staff for input during the programming stage. Phase 2 After approval of the alternate selected by the CITY under Phase 1, the CONSULTANT shall prepare construction drawings, general provisions and technical specifications, cost estimates, and bid documents for the project, which includes all of the items listed in addendum No. 2 to the RFP. The drawings and specifications shall be submitted to the building department for approval and issuance of a building permit. Phase 3 Upon issuance of the building permit, CONSULTANT shall provide construction management services per a separate consultant agreement to be negotiated and approved by the City. Construction shall be competitively bid in increments per City Standards. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit A, PagelOf 1 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT CITY shall pay CONSULTANT an amount not to exceed the total sum of One Hundred Seventy-six Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($176,425)for services to be performed under Phases 1 and 2, and reimbursable costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement. Invoices shall comply with CITY requirements for same. CITY shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices, for services satisfactorily performed. The total sum stated above shall be the total which CITY shall pay for the services to be rendered by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by CONSULTANT in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall make no payment for any extra, further or additional service pursuant to this Agreement unless such extra service and the price therefore is agreed to in writing executed by the CITY Manager or other designated official of CITY authorized to obligate CITY thereto prior to the time such extra service is rendered. The services to be provided under this Agreement may be terminated without cause at any point in time in the sole and exclusive discretion of CITY. In this event, CITY shall compensate the CONSULTANT for all outstanding costs incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice thereof. CONSULTANT shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to date. PAYMENT SCHEDULE Architecture/Engineering Phase I- Programming, schematics, evaluation of "Essential Facilities", cost estimates, meetings Deliverables: Phase I Schedule Programming Review Meetings with City (3) Report Requirements & Cost Estimates Schematic Design Drawings w/Cost Estimates Additional Work at the City Engineer's discretion Subtotal Phase I - $ 840.00 $1,840.00 $1,540.00 $20,690.00 $30,520.OO $ 8,OOO.OO $63,430.00 Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit BPagel of 2 Phase II - Design Development, construction documents, cost estimates, includes underground services Deliverables: Phase II Schedule Design Development Drawings Meetings with City (1) Construction Documents & Cost Estimates Additional Work at the City Engineer's discretion Subtotal Phase II - $ 840.00 $27,110.00 $ 940.00 $66,105.00 $18,OOO.OO $ 94,995.00 Total Phases I and II: $176,425.00 The City sets the following hourly rates for consultant: 1. President $150.00/hour 2. Project Manager $ 85.00/hour 3. Clerical $ 60.00/hour 4. All identified Sub-consultants listed on the Fee Schedule of the Proposal dated September 30, 2004. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit BPage2 of 2 EXHIBIT C INSURANCE CERTIFICATES (See Attached) Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit C Page 1 of 1 Agency Name and Address: Professional Practice Insurance Brokers, Inc. 10 California Street Redwood City, CA 94063-1513 Insureds Name and Address: Pinnacle DB, Inc. 1461 Rollins Road Burlingame , CA 94010 Certificate of Insurance 1 of 1 //S87295/M87294 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MA-Fl-ER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW. Companies Affording Policies: A. NIC Insurance Company B. Hartford c. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. D.Continental Casualty Company E. F. COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. TYPE OFINSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY [] Commercial General Liability [] Claims Made [] Occurrence [] Owner's and Contractors Protective AUTO LIABILITY [] Any Automobile [] All Owned Autos [] Scheduled Autos [] Hired Autos [] Non-owned Autos [] Garage Liability EXCESS LIABILITY [] Umbrella Form [] Other than Umbrella Form WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY POLICY NUMBER EFF.DATE EXP.DATE 1454181 11/11/04 11/11/05 72UECUQ6001 11/01/04 11/01/05 BW01934423 11/01/04 11/01/05 D PROFESSIONAL DBA114015085 10/30/04 10/30/05 LIABILITY* POLICY LIMITS General Aggregate: $2,000,000 Products-Corn/Cps Aggregate: $1,000,000 Personal and Adv. Injury: $1,000,000 Each Occurrence: St,000,000 Fire Dmg. (any one fire): $50,000 Combined Single Limit: $0 Bodily injury/person: $1,000,000 Bodily Injury/accident: $1,000,000 Property Damage: $0 Each Occurrence: Aggregate: Statutory Limits Each Accident: Disease/Policy Limit: Disease/Employee: Per Claim Aggregate $i,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $250,000 $500,000 $0 Description of Operations/Locations/Vehicles/Restrictions/Special items: ALL OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED. GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTO LIABILITY ONLY: THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS ARE NAMED AS ADDITIONALINSUREDS BUT ONLY AS RESPECTS LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE NAMED INSUREDS' OPERATIONS. City of South San Francisco Office of the City Engineer 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 *Written at aqqregate limits of liability not less than amount shown. Certificate Holder: THE AGGREGATE LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED. CANCELLATION: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRI~EN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE 10 DAYS NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN. Authorized Representative: ~ . ,' 11/24/04 EXHIBIT D CONSULTANT PROPOSAL (See Attached) Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and Pinnacle DB, Inc. December 9, 2004 Exhibit D Page 1 of 1 P P.O PC).SA L NORTH CANAL '.~OU'i"H .SAN F~ANCI3CO PlNJ' ACLI~ DB, INC. AP~C H I'F F CTS/SC LJI. PTC)r~5 J D U I LD E I~ S 09.30.04 DIISCUSSIION OF PI~O~ECT SCOPE DEMONST~ATIION O1~ PI~O~ECT UNDEI~ST/ANDIIN® Discussion oF P~ojec( Scope Demonsuodon of Project Unde~s~andin The City of South San Francisco has purchased the 1.94 acre property at 408 North Canal Street with the intent of renovating the existing two stow structure/warehouse and site to accommodate the city's new Main Fire Station, Station 61. Station 61 will house the Fire Department's Administrative and Fire Prevention Offices, Station 61 fire fighting personnel, and associated engine apparatus. The Fire Departments long term goal is that this facility will also serve as their main training facility. To aid in the planning and execution of the renovations, city staff will partner with a team of architects/engineers and builders. To successfully complete this project, the team must consider and satisfy each of the following essential aspects: Carefully evaluate existing site and structure relative to the final project requirements issued in Addendum No. 2, dated 09.03.04 and discussions held with city personnel regarding their needs. · The building will be designated as an Essential Facility, thus all aspects of the existing and proposed must be evaluated and designed to meet the applicable UBC standards. The city has a limited budget to perform the renovations. The team will be required to use funds efficiently and effectively to accomplish as much of the essential and additional requirements as possible. For fire fighting personnel, Station 61 will be, in a sense, their home away from home, and to a lesser extent, for the administrative staff and fire prevention. It is essential to create a balanced environment. The intent is not to be lavish, but rather to be sensitive with finishes such as natural wood, color, carpeting, acoustic insolation, and feng shui principles to create a balanced and pleasing environment. We believe the City has made an excellent purchase. This property is naturally suited to the proposed use with its location, beauty of the existing structure and expansiveness of the site. The charge of the consulting team shall be to complete the city's vision and improve the property to enhance the lives of those who live and work in the building as well as to create a source of civic pride for the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, city staff, and residents. To satisfy the essential aspects of this project, the consulting team shall follow the outline of services per 3.01, Phase I Scope of Services and 3.02 Phase II Scope of Services, dated 07.14.04, amended with Addendum No. 2, dated 09.03.04. EIJ:~E SYA~ION 6~ Pt~tOPOSAL PINNACLE DB, INC. C,~,IITIiCAL FIFEP~,S TO BE ADDPaES~ED The following key issues and critical items form the structure and basis for successful completion of this project: City Council and Redevelopment Agency Guidance and Vision It is essential that the consultant team understand the City Councils' and Redevelopment Agencies goals for this project - and to meet them. Fire Department Guidance and Vision It is essential that the consultant team understands the living and working requirements the department has and satisfies them. Building Official Key Issues It is essential to meet with Jim Kirkman and identify those key issues & critical items that he believes must be satisfied to efficiently move forward. Budget The consultant team must work within the budget established by the Council, and Redevelopment Agency. Once schematics and options are developed, a construction budget shall be completed to provide the basis for construction documents. Pinnacle DB, Inc., as design/builders and Aztec Consulting are uniquely suited to control budgeting through design and construction. Essential Facility Designation It is essential for the consultant team to begin the process evaluating the existing structure for deviations from structural, mechanical, electrical, and fire protection requirements for Essential Facilities defined by the Uniform Building Code. The evaluation shall catalogue requirements to bring the existing structure up to the higher standards. A budget shall be included with the evaluation to properly understand the minimum that must be spent. Efficiency It is essential that the consultant team meet with the Fire Departments representative to achieve in the design speed and efficiency in the performance of their essential services. Utilize Latest Technology It is important for the consultant team to utilize the latest technology in fire fighting methodology and satisfy Federal and State requirements for the varied activities and reporting required of the Fire Department. Acoustics It is important for the consultant team to fully respond to the varying acoustic isolation requirements associated with fire administration and fire prevention, dormitory, and apparatus room. STATION 61 PROPOSAL P~NNACLE DB, INC Privacy It is important for the consultant team to recognize the need for and suitable response to privacy. Female fire fighters are being integrated into predominantly male fire fighting teams. Harmony Creating an enjoyable working environment results in higher productivity and good health for those working and living in the building. The consultant team shall strive to provide good lighting, good ventilation, aesthetically sensitive color pallets, natural woods, and feng shui principles that support and enhance life. Storage Providing abundant storage for any project is always a challenge. The consultant team shall work with the fire department's representative to design in abundant stora9e. Project Delivery It is essential that the consultant provide seamless support in the programming, design and construction of Fire Station 61. Overseeing construction is as important as quality design in satisfying the City's need for budget restraint and quality. City staff are ultimately relying upon the consultant to interpret their needs and successfully execute the design and construction. ~P.E S~ATJON 61 PD. ODOSAL P~NNACLE DB, ~NC I~ I~0~ ECT T~/A~ ~ ~UAILU F IICATII©I~_~ P~OJECT TEA,P~ Architects/Builders Pinnacle DB, Inc. Larry R. Tarter, AIA Principal Architect and Director Burlingame, CA Fire Station Consultants Aztec Consultants Ed Duarte, President Programming, Cost Estimatin9 and Scheduling Consultant San Ramon, CA Structural Engineer J.E.C. Structural Engineering Jason E. Campbell, P.E. Principal Engineer Oakland, CA Mechanical/Plumbing Engineer Laws and Associates Kent Laws Principal Engineer Burlingame, CA Electrical Engineer Redwood City Electric John Ervin Redwood City, CA Acoustic Engineers Charles Salter Associates Charles Salter, P.E. San Francisco, CA Landscape Architects Dillon Design Associates Mike Dillon Principal Architect Los Gatos, CA Fire Protection Engineer Allied Fire Protection Amie Moston Principal Engineer Oakland, CA Feng Shui Consultant Kenny Yip Mountain View, CA FiP. E STATION 6~i DD. OPOSAL PINNACLE DB, INC Pinnacle DB, Inc. Architects/Builders Pinnacle DB, Inc. was established in 1995 as a vertically integrated organization, upon the philosophy that control over the entire design and construction process assures consistent high quality, thorough design integration, and a single source of responsibility for our clients. This association has its basis in the tradition known as design/build - in the classical sense, its practitioners were known as master builders. As architects, sculptors, and builders, Pinnacle DB, Inc.'s employees and President Larry R. Tarter are devoted to providing our clients with the highest quality of service in upscale commercial and residential projects. Our projects are created with continuous on-site presence. Our experience ranges throughout the Bay Area from bridge building to Iow rise, mid-rise and high-rise construction. We maintain current national and state licenses in architecture and construction. In So. San Francisco, Pinnacle DB has a demonstrated record of tastefully designed and well constructed projects with the Terrabay Recreation and Meeting Facilitiy (3 mil contract), and SSF Learning and Resource Center at Spruce School (2 mil contract). Both projects were completed within budget and on schedule. We have established relationships with the City Council and department heads. To assist Pinnacle DB in fire station design, cost estimating and scheduling, we have retained Aztec Consulting, who have extensive fire station experience. Additionally, we have personal access to San Ramon Valley Fire District's facilities and key personnel for collaboration. Aztec Consulting Fire Station Consultants Aztec Consultants has extensive experience in fire station design and construction, including Alameda Fire Station No. 1, City of Berkeley Fire Station No. 5, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Stations No. 30, 37, 38, and 39, Moraga/Orinda Fire Department Stations 42 & 44, Los Altos County Fire Station No. 1, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority Fire Station No. 2, and others. Based in San Ramon, CA they have established a credible track record of building over $30 million in public works construction contracts and providing professional construction management services on another $200,000,000 worth of various public works engineering and building construction projects since the company was founded in 1986. Aztec Project Managers have a background covering a wide range of commercial, industrial, institutional and public works projects throughout the United States. They are experienced professionals with licenses and degrees in Construction Management, Civil Engineering, and Electrical Engineering. FIP. E 5~A¥1ON 61 PROPOSAL PINNACLE DB, INC. J.E.C. Structural Engineering Jason E. Campbell, principal engineer of JEC Structural Engineering has worked in the Bay Area as a consulting structural engineer since earning a Masters degree in Structural Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley in 1986. JEC Structural Consulting was established in 1994. Their practice is evenly split between commercial and high end residential projects. Their projects include, Market Hall Plaza Retail and Commercial Center in Oakland, Lagunitas Country Club in Ross, Bug Sur Maintenance Facility in Big Sur, and Mono Lake Visitors Center as well as many others. Laws & Associates, Inc. Mechanical and Plumbing Engineers Since 1985 Laws and Associates has been providing engineering services for architectural firms and building owners in the Bay Area and Western US. The firm provides a wide range of services including consultation, engineering, design, and construction review for mechanical systems. The firm has a broad background of experience in projects including commercial, institutional and industrial. Laws and Associates' approach to mechanical engineering is to provide the highest quality service possible and to justify the trust their clients have put in their firm. Redwood City Electric Electrical Engineers Redwood City Electric has provided electrical design and construction services throughout the Bay Area since 1974. They have extensive experience with biotech, high tech, commercial, industrial, residential, and large scale electrical installations for all types of businesses. Redwood City Electric has performed services for many of the most successfully architects, engineers, and general contractors in the community. Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. Acoustical Consultants Charles M. Salter Associates, San Francisco, CA, founded in 1975 and are consultants in acoustics, audio/visual system design, and telecommunications. With a staff of more than 40, they are involved in more than 700 projects per year, including 9 Fire Station projects. Allied Fire Protection Allied Fire Protection is proudly celebrating over 40 years of business in the Bay Area. Owned and Operated is headquartered in Oakland, CA, where it owns and occupies one of the largest fire sprinkler design and fabrication facilities in Northern California. Allied has grown from an organization comprised of several individuals, to our present staff of over 100. Since their founding, Allied has processed thousands of sprinkler jobs throughout the Bay Area ranging in magnitude from a few thousand dollars to jobs in excess of a million dollars. PI~' STATION 61 PP. OPOSAL PUNNACLE D~,, INC. Kennv Yip Feng Shui Consultant Kenny Yip established his Feng Shui Consultancy practice in 1995 after studying with Chinese masters since childhood. He has consulted and guided many homeowners, businesses, corporations, architects and designers around the US and abroad in the application of these ancient principles in contemporary settings. Applying the ancient principles creates harmonious interiors as well as healthy environments for those who live and work in them. His primary goal is to educate people in whole integral virtue and understand the authentic roots, scientific theories, and deeper philosophies guiding our lives. FtD. E SYA~FION 61 P~ODOSAL D~NNACLE DB, INC. IRECENI-1F EXPlEIRIIENCE OIR SII/&II LLLLLAIR DIRO~ECTS [)educated in 2001 to the enric- rnent of the community through learning, this regional center was born in an ~-:bandoned 12,000 sf wa-ehou~ e. Commissioned by South Sari Francisco, this center offers adult and child ~ses in computers, foreign lancj ~age, before and after school activities, a day care (:enter, and an array of other learning pursuits. To enricl' and stimulate, we incorporated five full size sculptures n the Entry Hall. Dedicated in 1998, this region al recreation ancl community center serves South San Francisco and its ~unding communities. Built on ire acres within the Temt Bay Development, its 15,500 sf provides a state of _art gymnasium, weight and ae obic facilities, meeting rooms with bay views, a children s day care facihty a commercial kitchen, administ 'ative offices, and tennis courts with accompanying ~utc:oor fietd areas FIRE STA/rlON 61 PI~OPOSA~i - PlNN^CLE DB, INC Center Plaza in Redwood Ci~ is; built on the Plaza at City Hall. Its 81 affordable apartn~ents s~t atop 20~000 sf retail shops, a parking garage ~nd are clustered around two courtyards with a central paseo connecting Main feet with City Hall As the winn( r of a design competition with eicjhteen other developm~nt teams, this project demonstrates th~ t affordable housing can be bult gracefully in Urbar, Cer ters STATION G1 Di~©D(")S/~L PtNNACILIe Di~, INC Consultants provided coral: ,ete Prograrn and Construction Project Management services for this 8,000 SF ire station with a project bud ~et of $2,400,000. This fire stal:k)n was built on the campus of the Foothill Community Coltege in Los All:os Hills. ,::tee was involved in writing the :ontract for the pre-selected Architect and negotiating the design fee on behalf tlne owner. We provided all ma ;ter planning, schedules, budgel:s, and coordination with the Architect We also tracked all c:o_~rs for the owner and the City Council throughout the pro.~ect. ,~¢~ ::onducted constructability re 4ews, interim budgets arid estimates on the design drawings before they were submitted to the (~fl~ce of the State Architect who had jurisdiction on this building Once the design was compl~.t:ed we managed the entire bid and Contractor selection process During :.m:~truction, we provided daily c )ntact for RFI's, supervised the construction, and h~ndled all of the necessary Contract Administration duties. Construction was completed in April of 1996 FIP.~ STATION 61 PPOPO:i~J - PlNNACI:E DB, INC ~s a Fire and Police emergenc! service dispatch and command center for all 911 calls resulting from major s~-.~;.ters. This $1.2 million new construction of the Alternate Emer!]ency Operations Center utilized steel framing, E;MU Block exterior wails and c ~ay tile roof. The building is approximately 3,300 sq ft and involved extensive and complicated HVAC and el,~c:trical systems, coupled with full-power UPS and emercency generator. C,: qstruction was completed in February 1997. Aztec ConsLllting STATION 61 l)[~r~l'~O'~ - idNN'~(';Li! DB INC SCHEDULE 01~ ©ESiI~N I~OI-R EACIHI I~I~IASE Meet Submit Project with Schedule Staff Phase I Award~ ~ (10 Days) Site Evaluation Condition Visit of Existing Building Program vs. Essential Facility Review Detailed Report w/Cost Estimate I Cost Est. (10 Days) ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS Schematic Floor Plan + Elevations/Graphics Cost Est. ESSENTIAL + ADD SITE WORK Schematic Floor Plan + Elevations/Graphics Cost Est. I ESSENTIAL+ADDITIONAL WORK I Schematic Floor Plan + Elevations/Graphics Present to Staff Phase 1 ~7 (10 Days) ICHANGES PER STAFF I Submit To Phase I Council Complete V (10 Days) V I ACCEPTANCE I & CHANGES PII~E STATION PP. OPO,$AL PINNACLE DB, [NCo Submit Schedule Meet with for Phase ~1 City Staff (10 Days) 60% Submittal 90% Submittal 100% Submittal w/Cost Estimate w/Cost Estimate w/Cost Estimate CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS (30 Days) F~F4E S%A~ION Pt4OPOSAL P~NNACLE~ DB, ~NC. IPI~OPOSED HOUI~S IPEI~ TASII~ CONSULTANTS ~ SUBCONSULTANTS PI~OPOSED I~lOgl~5 PE~ TASK ~¥/CONSULTANTS Note: The following hours are an estimate based upon the documents and information provided to the consultants as of 09.30.04. PHASEI Total Approx. Hrs (All Staff) · initial programming meeting w/Staff Pinnacle DB 4 · Prepare/Submit Phase t Schedule Pinnacle DB 8 · Evaluate condition of existing building vs. "Essential Facility" Requirements Pinnacle DB 24 JEC Structural Engineering 40 Laws Associates 12 Redwood City Electric 12 Allied Fire 4 · Detailed Report- Existing Condition Pinnacle DB 20 · Cost Estimate- Existing Condition to Essential Facility Pinnacle DB 24 Aztec Consulting 36 · Schematic Design- Essential Requirements Pinnacle DB 52 Redwood City Electric 12 JEC Structural Engineering 12 Allied Fire 13 Laws Associates 48 Kenny Yip Flat Fee · Cost Estimate Pinnacle DB 16 Aztec Consulting 8 · See Next Page for Consulting Services Requested Beyond "Typical" Projects · Programming Review Aztec Consulting 16 · Present Phase I to Staff Pinnacle DB 4 · Contingency- changes by staff Pinnacle DB Other Consultants · Study Session with City Council Pinnacle DB 4 T & M per hourly rates T & M per hourly rates Total Approx. Fee (All Staff) 600. 840. 3080. 5000. 1420. 1010. 500. 2720. 2820. 4140. 4480. 1300. 1380. 1000. 4800. 2000. 1880. 920. 1840. 470. 470. ?~l~rC STATION 61 PP. OPOSAL PlNHACL~ DB,, ~NC. · Submit Schedule for Phase II Pinnacle DB · Design Development Pinnacle DB JEC Structural Engineering Laws Associates Redwood City Electric Allied Fire Protection Dillon Design Associates · Meeting with City Staff Pinnacle DB · Construction Documents/Specifications Pinnacle DB JEC Structural Engineering Laws Associates Redwood City Electric Allied Fire Protection Dillon Design Associates Charles M. Salter Associates Underground Services Specifications · Cost Estimate Reviews/Updates Pinnacle DB Aztec Consultants PHASE II 146 4O 62 12 8 21 170 80 83 17 48 30 68 Not Included Flat Fee 840. 12700. 3800. 6090. 1020. 1000. 2500. 940. 19200. 64OO. 8140. 1685. 5500. 3500. 8500. 3500. 32 3760. 8 920. STATION 01 PF~OPOSAL PINNACLE DB, INC. CONSULT~N® SErViCeS I~EC~UEST~D D~YOND A"TffPlICAL' P~O]ECT · Schematic Design - include Additional Outside Site Work Pinnacle DB JEC Structural Engineering Laws Associates Redwood City Electric · Schematic Design- include Additional Work Pinnacle DB JEC Structural Engineering Laws Associates Redwood City Electric · Cost Estimate- (3) Schematic Designs Pinnacle DB Aztec Consulting · Rendering Peter Szasz Associates 16 2 8 4 34 12 32 4 16 8 Flat Fee 1200. 250. 860. 500. 3580. 1380. 3440. 750. 1880. 920. 5000. Fl~E STATION 61 PD, OPOSAL PINNACLF: DB, INC. FEE SCIHIEDULIE 2_004 F~E SCIHI[DULE · Pinnacle DB, Inc. Architectural License # CA 11828 Contractor's License Number # 711860 Principle Architect/Construction Director Field Superintendent CAD Drafting Carpenters - Finish Accounting/Finance Carpenters - Framing/Drywall Laborers Feng Shui Consultant (Flat Fee) Peter Szasz Renderer · Aztec Consulting $150/hr $85/hr $50/hr $75/hr $60/hr $65/hr $55/hr $2,OOO. $5,OOO. California Contractor's/Engineer License # 659133 Project Manager Estimator JEC Structural Engineering $115/hr $65/hr Professional Engineer License # C044501 Structural Engineer CAD Drafting Laws And Associates $125/hr $65/hr Professional Engineer License # M26762 Mechanical/Plumbing Project Engineer CAD Drafting Redwood City Electric $130/hr $85/hr Contractor's License # 318433 Project Manager Electrical Designer CAD Operator Charles M. Salter Associates $125/hr $75/hr $55/hr Acoustic Engineer CAD Drafting $165/hr $75/hr ~i~ STATION 01 PP. OPOSAL PJNNACL~ DB, i~EFEI:~ENCE~ ~'~ ~ rancisco, CA ' !~]~ct Wilson 'ed City Manager ~ 4 J3 5904 !dsburg, CA ' Gibb, Director : of Public Works, SSF th San Francisco, CA ,' v Nagel ', Manager, SSF ~,,vood City, CA ~I:' H. Raiser ~ident Ra,ser Organization 342.9026 Mateo, CA 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Final requkrements and detailed project phasing shall be outlined based on fire station needs and priorities. The said final requirements amd detailed project phasing shall be forwarded to the consultants as written on item no. 1 of this Addendum No. 1 The relocation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is not a part of this project~ therefore no she visit of the EOC area will be conducted. The City shall forward alt available plans, structural calculations, and 'soils report to all consultants if available. As of to-date, the available documents are the grading plans and the soils report. These available documents will be e-mailed to all consultants no later than August 9~"~ 2004. The following three (3) consultants were present during the mandatory site visit and meeting conducted on July 28~', 2004, .therefore the City will only accept proposals from these consultants listed below: Noll and Tam Architects of Berkeley, CA, John Matthews Architects of San Mateo, CA, and Pinnacle DB Inc, of Burlingame, CA. WE HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE ADDENDUM NO. 1 AND ]lAVE REFLECTED THESE CHANGES IN OUR ~.~OPOSAL. Assistant Engineer cc~ Marly Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer File PB-04-1 lrtarter~pinnacledb, com j ack@,matthews architect s. corn O~ProjectsXPB-04-1MlLFP_Adendum No. l(8-2-2004).doe Page 2 of 2 ADDENDUM NO. 2 NEW FELE STATION 61 FINAL PROJECT REQUIRMENTS PAGE 2 OF 2 20.01(a)-3. The third floor plan mhd the tl~h'd elevation plan shall be m detail, with dilnensions, to include all "Essential" Requirements" m~d all items listed in "Additional Work (Arranged per priority)" outlh~ed hq items. I tln'ough IV of the attached "Final Project Requirements". The e-mail sent to the Consultants on August 31, 2004 regarding the final walk- tln-u of the site mhd to discuss the Final Project Reqtfirements shall be part of this addendmn. WE HEREBY ACIrG',IOWLEDGE ADDENDUM NO. 2 AND HAVE REFLECTED THESE CHANGES IN OUR;PROPOSAL. '~'Sign' rare ~ ~lia~ m;~l ~)ate//J¢' Sil~cerely, Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager DenlfiS Chuck, Senior Civil Enghxeer File PB-04-1 iohn~matthewsm'chitects.corn h'tarter~t~im~acldb.com lauren~tfllm~dtam.com  . / CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC ~ORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING DZVZSION 315 ~PLE AVENUE~ SOUTH SAN F~NCZSCO~ CA 94080 Redevelopment Agency Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #4 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Redevelopment Agency Board Marty Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director 27 SOUTH LINDEN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the RDA Board adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency Director to enter into a contract with CH2M Hill in an amount not to exceed $54,227 to prepare a Remedial Action Plan for the closure of the identified hazardous waste site located at 27 South Linden Avenue. BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION The City, in previous actions, came to acquire this property after it was abandoned following the close of the B3/SAPCO battery recycling operation. Those prior site activities contaminated the site with soluble lead that classifies the site as a Class I (hazard), by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The DTSC has demanded that this hazardous materials site be remediated and has requested the City to enter into a voluntary clean up order. The site has been cleared and temporarily paved pending the outcome of the remedial action plan. The primary, permanent, use of this site is intended to be the Lindenville Storm Water Lift Station. DTSC has indicated that the city could install an asphalt cap of the area remaining after the lift station was constructed and the Colma Creek work finished. The City will fence and control access to the site and potentially use portions of the property for public works activities. CH2M Hill is currently working with the DTSC under contract with the City for the remediation of the Gibson Environmental site. DTSC is secure with the representations of CH2M Hill in this matter and is familiar working with their environmental department. FUNDING This project was included in the adopted 2004 Capital Improvement Budget and because it is located within the Downtown-Central Redevelopment area, funded through the Redevelopment Agency. Staff Report Subject: Page 2 27 South Linden Assistant Executive D~rector Attachment: Resolution Contract Approved:~ B~)M. Nagel [ Executive Director'" RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH CH2M HILL IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $54,227 TO PREPARE A REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE CLOSURE OF THE IDENTIFIED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE LOCATED AT 27 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of a contract with CH2M Hill in an mount not to exceed $54,227 to prepare a remedial action plan for the closure of the identified hazardous waste site located at 27 South Linden Avenue; and WHEREAS, funds for this project are included in the 2004/2005 Capital Improvement Program budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco that the Agency Board authorizes a contract with CH2M Hill in an amount not to exceed $54,227 to prepare a remedial action plan for the closure of the identified hazardous waste site located at 27 South Linden Avenue. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute the contract on 'behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco. 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 the .~ day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S :\Current Reso's\l 2-8-04CH2M.Hill.rda.doc ATTEST: Clerk -1- CONSULTING SERVICES AGRF. Ef~ENT BE ,~EEN THE CiTY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CH2M HILL THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco ("City") and CH2M HILL, Inc. ("Consultant") (together sometimes referred to as the "Parties") as of November 2, 2004 (the "Effective Date"). Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as .~xhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manne~~ specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services, The term of this Agreement shall begin or~ the Effective Date and shall end on December 31, 2005 the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by ;:his Agreement shall not affect the City's right to terminate the Agreement, as provided fo~ i~; Section 8. 1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shal! perform ail seF,.,'ices required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is eng~e¢ in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shaii prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class mantlet and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practici:q9 in Consultant's profession. 1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shali assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. in the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons. 1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant:s obiigations hereunder. Section 2, COMPENSATION, City hereby agrees to pay ConsuJYan? ~ sum not to exceed $54,227 notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consu!t~.r}t's proposal, for sen,ices to be performed and reimbursable expenses as described in Section 2.6. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's p~opossl, attached as Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevaii. City s,%!i pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manne:' set foAh herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant fo? se~¥ices rendered pursuant to this Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 1 of 14 2 Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manne~' specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensatior~ required under this Agreement. 2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the 'ioiiowing information: · Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress ~ill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.; The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; · A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion; . At City's option, for each work item in each task, ~. copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense; ,, The total number of hours of work periormed under ti~e Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shait include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A; - The Consultant's signature. 2.2 Monthlv Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that compiies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant. 2,3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within thirty (30) days after completion of the sen;ices and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. 2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 2 of 14 incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any ex~ra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. 2,5 Hourly Fees, Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall be according to the fee schedule contained in the proposai con~:ained in Attachment A. 2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are specified below, and shall not exceed $16,000. Expenses not listed below are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded. Reimbursable expenses are non-labor costs incurred by consultant in performing services for the City, and includes the following: communications charges, computer charges, health & safety program charges, monitoring equipment rentaL, disposable materials used for personal protection equipment and sampling, fleet vehicies or auto mileage & bridge tolls or auto rentals, postage/freight, subcontractor costs (such as laboratory, drilling, or sampling services) and expenses associated with document production. 2.7 Payment of Taxes, Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federai or state taxes. 2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant sha!i maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date. 2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator'. Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein. City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with City.. employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 3 of 14 incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, ion9-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginnin§ any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall .procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons o? damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated hereir~ as Bxhibit Eli indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory, in all respects, to the City. Consultan? shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the .Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein 'ior the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. 4,1 Workers' Coml~ensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive alt rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability insurance, 4.2.1 Genera~ re(:luirements, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MiLLiON DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If 8. Commercial Geperal Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with ~ general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the generai aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. 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, including the use of owned and non- owned automobiles. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 4 of 14 -5- 4.3 4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial generai coverage shall be at least as broad as insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobiie coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8 and 9. No endorsement shall be attached [imiting the coverage. 4.2.3 Additional recluirements, Each of the followin9 shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as'a certified endorsement to the policy: The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and. Professional Liability Insurance, 4.3.1 General re(:luirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($I,000,000) covering the licensed professionals' errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $250,000 per claim. 4.3.2 Claims-made limitations, The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form: The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially availabie st reasonable rates. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five years after completion o',;: the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, a.t the Consultant's sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill - Page 5 of 14 -6- 4.4 A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. All Policies Requirements. 4.4.1 Accel~tabiliW of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:ViL 4.4.2. Prior to beginning any work under the Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with Consultant shall provide Certificates of Insurance indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfacto%', in ali respects, to the City. 4.4.3 Notice of Reductior~ in or Canceliatior~ of Coverage. A certified endorsement shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' p?ior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other manner, Consultant shali provide written notice to City at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4.4 Additional insured; primary insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents, shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities pedormed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consuitant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and aUtomobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of p~'otection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or. A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with.respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and, ,and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. 4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of City for the self-insured reter.,tions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. CH2M HILL's self-insured retention for professional liability is $250,000 and general liability is $500,000. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 6 of 14 During the period covered by this Agreement, onty upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self,insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and. The Contract Administrator may condition approvai of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in ali respects to each of them. 4.4.6 Subcontractors, Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and ce¢.,ified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4.4,7 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City's interests are otherwise fully protected. 4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of tile following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's breach: Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or · Terminate this Agreement. Section 5, INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIB~LITIES, Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of fife, o~' 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 Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality o;~ character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss o? life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or vioiatio,~ of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill - Page 7 of 14 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance cedificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This .indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of corn petent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any emp!oyee and/or employer contributions for PERS. benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT, 6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant'S services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulatior~, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby .agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.2¸ Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent..Consultant shall have no authority, express or impliecl, pursuant to:this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governing Law, The laws of the State of California shali govern this Agreement. 7,2 Compliance with Al~plicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder, 7,3 Other Governmental Requlations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and anY subcontractors Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 8 of 14 -9- 7.4 7.5 Section 8. 8.1 8.2 shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shali, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions, i~3 addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City. Nondiscrimination and Equa~ O~313ortunit¥. Consuitan'! shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexua! orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidde; fo;' a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection ir: any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. TERMINATION AND MODiFiCATION, Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any o; all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretior-,., e~end the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herei~'~. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an. extension, City shal! have no obligation to provide Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 9 of 14 -10- 8,3 8.4 8.5 8,6 Section 9. 9.1 Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties. Assiqnment and Subcontractinc~. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is .based upon a determination of Consultant's umque personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City.for entering into this Agreement was and is the professionai reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Survival. All obligations arising prior to the terminatior~ of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Options upon Breach by Consultant, if Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance, All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, pians, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 10 of 14 -Il- 9.2 9,3 Section 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including be. not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties unless required by law. Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. Inspection and Audit of Records, Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds 'TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as parl of any audit of the City, for a. period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provisior~ 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. Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the First District of California. Severabilitv. 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 othe_~ brea. ch of that term or any other term of this Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between Cib? of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page i 1 of 14 -12- 10,5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. Conflict of interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within · the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et se¢~. Consultant shall not employ any City official in the wori,~ performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et. seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuan'; to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be requireci to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, ir~ addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in th~:. State of California. Solicitation, Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either oralty or through any written materials. Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Marry Van Duyn ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to: Elizabeth Dodge CH2M HILL P.O. Box 12681 Oakland, CA 94604-2681 Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 12 of 14 -12,- 10.11 Any written notice to City shall be sent to: City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination-, of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of desig~'~ specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signec! by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example. 10.12 10.13 Seal and Signature of Registered Profession~J with repoWdesign responsibility. Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, ~,presentations, or agreements, either written or oral. Counterparts, This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 13 of 14 -14- The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Barry Nagel, City Manager Attest: CONSULTANT Udai Singh, Vice President Sylvia Payne, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney 207532_1 Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill- Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT k SCOPE OF SERVICES Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hill--Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Mr. John Gibbs July 13, 2004 Page 4 Compiling a commurd~ mailing list of local residents aha buszn~sses, in addition to public officials and other interested parties, as provided by DTSC. Preparing one fact sheet smmmarizing the site conditions and recommendations from the RAWP. The cost assttmes that only one Eng~h-ianguage version of the fact sheet will be needed and that one draft and one final fact sheet w~ be prepared. Preparing up to two advertisements in major local newspapers an_nouncing the availability of the RAWP for public review and comment. Holding one public meeting to inform the public of the proposed activities and receive public connnents. It is assumed this will involve renting space at a location convenient to the public and that a translator will not be needed. ~l'ds also L-xcludes hiring a court reporter to create a transcript of the meeting. Preparing draft responses to public comments received. It is assumed that public comments will not be extensive and will require no more ,ff~a2,~ five hours to respond to the comments. Task 4 (Optional) - Engineering Assessment of Effects of Soil on Stormwater Structures Previous studies have reported surface water nmoff pH rang4mg from 0 to 2 at the site. Potentially acidic soil may damage the concrete storm drainage sWactures planned for Colma Creek and the stormwater lift station at the site. A_n optional task to further evaluate soils and recommend actions to neutralize the pH and/or mmi~--~xi-ze potential impacts to subsurface concrete structures is suggested. This would/nvoNe coiJecting shallow soil samples using a hand auger in the vicinity of the planned lift sta~on,, along Colma Creek where the new channel is to be constructed and in selected addi~.c.~n~2 surface soil locations. It is assumed up to 16 soil samples wilt be collected and tested in {ine field for pH. This information wilt be used to assess the potential fo:c acidic soils to damage concrete structures in the future and suggest mitigation measures, such as the addit4on of lime to neutralize soils. Should the City of South San Franciso elect to undertake this additional study, the study would be performed concurrently with the groundwater inves~gation using the same health and safety plan and sampling plan. Cost Estimate The total cost estimated for the proposed work is $54,227. The total cost including optional Task 4 is $59,558. The cost breakdown for the individual tasks is as follows: · Task 1: Seek Exemption to MUN Designation for Groundwate~ · Task 2: Removal Action Work Plan · Task 3: Public Participation Total $17,833 $18,519 $!7,875 $54,227 SFO\041950001 -17- Mr. John Gibbs July 13, 2004 Page 5 · Task 4 (Optional): Engineering Assessment of Effects of Acidic Soil on Stormwater Structures $ 5,331 Total with Optional Task $59,558 The cost to perform the work described herein is esthnated on a '~me-and-materials basis. Labor multiplier rates (3.1) and expense markup costs (8 percent) to be used under this contract will be the same as applied under the current contract between CH2M HILL and the City of South San Francisco for Transportation Service. In the event that additional work is required by D%C or RWQC,~, or if non-contemplated field issues arise that will cause the estimated cost to be exceeded, CH2M HILL will notify and obtain the approval from the City of South San Franciso prior to performing the additional work. Schedule The following is the estimated project task and deliverable schedule. This schedule assumes a project start date of November 22, 2004, incorporates the assttmptions presented in this proposal, and assumes no extensive delays due to regulatory' as-rd public review: Groundwater Sampling and Analysis · Groundwater Techrdcal Memorandum to RWQCB · Draft RAWP to DTSC · RAWP Public Review Draft · RAWP Public Review Period · Final RAWP November 22- December 6, 2004 December 13, 2004 janua? 10, 2005 janua~ 24, 2005 Feioruary 21 - March 21, 2005 ApN! 4,, 2005 CH2M HILL is prepared to begin work on this project upon receipt of your authorization. We appreciate this opportunity to provide environmental services to the City of South San Francisco. If you have any questions about this proposal or scope of work, please contact Liz Dodge at 510/587-7669 or Mel Remolador at 510/587-7645. SFO~04~gS000~ - 1 8 - Mr. John Gibbs July 13, 2004 Page 6 Sincerely, CH2M HILL Alexa Stamets, PE Project Manager Liz E odge Vice President Udai SLn~n Vice President ~ Proposal Accepted (without Optional Task 4) [] Proposal Accepted (with Optional Task 4) Signature: Title: Date: SF0\041950001 -19- EXHIBIT B INSURANCE CERTiFiCATES Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco and CH2M Hilk-Exhibit B -20- Page 1 of 1 MARSH PRODUCER M,~ RSH USA, INC. 122 5 17TH STREET, SUITE 2100 DEbYER, CO 80202-5534 ~15114 -00124-A[ L- SFO INSURED CH2M HILL, INC. 155 GP,.'~ND AVENUE, SUITE 1000 OAKLAND, CA 94612 BLKAI 820048 CANC CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE SEA-000820068-01 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CER'i'IFICATE HOLDER OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED IN THE POLICY, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY A ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY COMPANY B COMPANY C COMPANY' D COVERAGES This certificate supersedes and replaces any previously issued certificate for the policy period noted below. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE DESCRIBED HEREIN HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED HEREIN FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING Ah Y REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT Wt3'H RESPECT TO WHICH THE CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURAr, CE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREiN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND EXCLUSIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HA~, E SEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER LTR DATE (MMIDD/YY) OATE (MM/DO~Ft'Y) GENERAL LIABILITY A X [ COMMERClALOENEFALLIABILITY GLO3784726-00 05101/04 05/01/05 j CLAIMS MADE [-"_T~ OCCUR OWNER'S & CONTRACT,-)R'S PROT A AUTOMOBILE UABILITY X ANY AUTO BAP8378516-09 (AOS) 05/01/04 05/01/05 ALL OWNED AUTOS TAP8378560-09 (TX) 05/01/04 05/01/05 SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS LIMITS GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 5,000,000 PRODUCTS - COMP/DP AGG $ 5,000,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 500,000 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 500,000 FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) $ 500,D00 MED EXP (Any one person) . $ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 2,000,000 BODILY INJURY $ (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE GARAGE UABILITY ANY AUTO I EXCESS LIABILJTY' UMBRELLA FORM OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKERS COMPENSATION AND E~PLOYERS' lIABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT AGC~EGATE EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE I WC STATU- OTH- TORYLIMITS f I ER X W C 8378566-10 05101/04 05/01/05 EL EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 THE PROPRIETOR/ ~ INCL WC8378565-09 05/01/04 05/01/05 EL DISEASE. POLICY LIMIT I $ 1,000,000 PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE EL DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE1 $ 1,000,000 OFFICERS ARE: EXCL OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LDCATIONSIVEHICLESIS~'ECIAL ITEMS RE: PROJECT - 27 SOUTH LINDEN STREET; PM; ALEXA STAMETS/SFO 'THE CI-t'Y AND ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES .,~,ND AGENTS ARE NAMED AS ADDn'IONAL INSURED AS THEIR INTEREST MAY APPEAR AS PER THE BLANKET ENDORSEMENT TO THE GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY. COVERAGE PROVIDED BY THE ABOVE GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTO POLICIES SHALL BE PRIMARY AND IS LIMITED TO THE LIABILI'~ RESULTING FROM THE NAMED [NSURED'S OWNERSHIP AND/OR OPERATIONS. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE POLtClES DESCRIBED HERE~N BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAiL .~N DAYS WRFFrEN NOTICE TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFk~TE HOLDER NAMED HEREIN, BUT FAJ-URE TO MAIL SUCH NO33CE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATtON C~. {JABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON ~ INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE, iTS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES, OR THE ~ssuER OF THru CE~'m~CATE. MARSH USA INC. aY: Dor0thyA. Stevens ~ ~ ~'~'r*~tf VALID AS OF: 11/0510~ MM1(3/02) -21- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRODUCER MARSH USA, INC. 1225 17TH STREET, SUITE 2100 DENVER, CO 80202-5534 15114 -O0124-ALL- SFO INSURED CH2M HILL, INC. 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1000 OAKLAND, CA 94612 BLKAI 820048 CANC TEXT CONTINUED FROM DESCRIPTION SECTION: WORKERS' COMPENSATION INCLUDES A WAIVER OF SUBROGATION. COMPANY E COMPANY F COMPANY G COMPANY H DATE (MMIDD/YY) SEA-000820068-01 11/05/04 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE CERTIFICATE HOLDER CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MARSH USA INC. BY Dorothy A. Stevens Page MARSH PRODUCER MARSH USA, INC. 1225 17TH STREET. SUITE 2100 DENVER, CO 80202-5534 -~ 5114 -00005-ALL1-2000 SFO INSURED CH2M HILL, INC. 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1 OAKLAND, CA 94612 COVERAGES CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE CO LTR CERTIFICATE H~M~EP,. SEA-000820069-01 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER OTHER THAH THOSE PROVIDED IN THE POLICY. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEHD OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY A ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY COMPANY B 820069 CANC COMPANY C COMPANY D This certificate supersedes and replaces any previously issued certificate for the policy pedod noted below. 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE DESCRIBED HEREIN HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED HEREIN FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDFFION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE CERTIFICATE MAY BE ~SSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND EXCLUSIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, TYPE OF INSURAHCE GENERAL LIABilITY OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS ~ SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS POLICY NUMBER DATE (MM/DD/Y~ DATE(MM/DD~) GENERAL AGGREGATE PRODUCTS - COMP/DP AGG PERSONAL & ADV INJURY EACH OCCURRENCE FIRE DAMAGE (Any one MHD EXP (Any one person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per acddont) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ A GARAGE UABIUTY AUTO ONLY - F.A ACCIDENT ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY:  EACH ACCIDENT · AGGREGATE EXCESS LIABIUTY EACH OCCURRENCE UMBRELLA AGGREGATE $ FORM I OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM $ WC SYATU- COMPE.SATIO. A.O OTHER PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY* EOC3829621-02 05101104 05/01105 $1,000,000 EACH CLAIM AND TOTAL FOR ALL CLAIMS DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS RE: PROJECT - 27 SOUTH LINDEN STREET; PM: ALEXA STAMETS/SFO *FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY COVERAGE, THE AGGREGATE LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED WITHIN THE POLICY PERIOD FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED. THE LIMIT WILL BE REDUCED BY PAYMENTS OF INDEMNITY AND EXPENSE. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE Wl~. ENDEAVOR TO MAiL ~ DAYS WR¢ITEN NOT'CE TO 1HE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED HEREIN, BUT FAILURE TO M~L SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGA't'[ON OR L~BtLrP( OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE. r~s AGENTS OR REPRESENTATI'~E$, OR THE ISSUER OF THIS CERTIFICATE. MARSH USA INC. m': DorothyA. Stevens ..~L #{'¥t~ /~,~,~," MM¶(3fO2) VALID AS OF: tl/05/04 -:23- Zurich Amcrlcan lnsuranc~ Comic. ndorsement · Named Insured: CH2M t/ii1 .Companies, Ltd. Policy No. .Eft. Date' of Po[':Exp. Date of PoE BAP8378516-09 05101104 05/01/05 i:fL Date of End. 05/01 ~04 ZURICH Producer Aztcl'L Prem Return Prem. 29-2.93-000 '~ : s Typed 5/i/02 BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED ALL PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS OR ENTreES FOR WHOSE PROTECTION AND BENEFITTHE NAMED INSURED HAS AGREED TO NAME THEM AS AN ,oDmoNAL ~NSURED BY CONTRACT DURING THE TERM OF THIS POI. JOY INDICATING SUCH COVERAGE. HOVVEVER, INSURANCE ~JVtTH RESPECT TO EACH PERSON, ORGANIZATION OR ENTIT~ SHALL NOT EXCEED SUCH COVERAGE AND/OR MMITS OF LIABILITY OF THE NAMED INSURED, U-OA-388-A {07-94 -24- Zurich Arnzrican J. nsurancc Co. ENDORSEMENT- P 'ZURICH Named Insured: 'CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd. Policy No. Eft. Date of Poi. Exp. Date of Pok F. ff. Date of End. GLO3784726-00 5/1/04 511/05 511104 The Insured: Mailing Address (Inclading Zip Code): Producer Add't. Pram 29-253-000 $ Typed; THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY, PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd. P.O. Box 22508 Denver, CO 80222. This end~memant modifies Insurance provided by lhe following: COM~F_.~CIAIL. ~ ~I_3J~ILD~ CO~rJ~,AGE FOI:LM~ Return Pram. 06/24104 BROAD FORM ADDITIONAL INSURED ALL PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS OR ENTITES FOR WHOSE PROTECTION AND BENEFIT THE NAMED INSURED HAS AGREED TO NAME THEM AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED BY CONTRACT DURING THE TERM OF THIS POLICY INDICATING SUCH COVERAGE. HOWEVER, INSURANCE WITH RESPECT TO EACH PERSON, ORGANIZATION OR ENTITY SHALL NOT EXCEED SUCH COVERAGE AND/OR LIMITS OF LIABILITY OF'I'HE NAMED INSURED. Ail othe~te~ns and conditions of this pol/cy :rm','mi~, unchax~& -25- U-GL-11 ~i4A CW (10/02) Page1 ofl ENDORSEMENT - 0 ZURICH The Insured: Mailing Address (including Zip Code): Policy No. Eft. Date of Po[. Exp. Date of Poi. Eft. Date of End. Producer Add'l. Prem GL03784726-00 05/01,/04 05/01105 5/01/04 29-253-000' $ ,~ Typed: 'THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLJCY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CH2M HiJJ Companies, Ltd. P.O. Box 22508 Denver, CO B0222 This endorsement modl~es Insurance provided by the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. Return Prem. 05/14/04 ADDITIONAL INSURED - PRIMARY COVERAGE 930008 ED. 7-92 · This endorsement modifies ihsurance Provided under the following: COMMERClAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM SCHEDULE Name o'f person or organization: " As per Endorsement C to the policy, AutomaficAdditional Insureds and as per Endorsement P to the policy, Broad Form Additional Insured_ WHO IS AN INSURED (Section !1) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your work for that insured by or for you. Furf. hermore, the following is added to SECTION IV cOMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILi'J-Y' CONDITIONS paragraph 4. Other Insurance: 4. Other Insurance d) This insurance is primary for the person or organization shown In the schedule, but only with respect to liability, arising out of your work fo~ that insured by or for you. Other insurance afforded to that insured wi][ apply as excess and not contribute as primary to the insurance afforded by this endorsement. All o~er terms and conditions of this pollcy remain unchanged. IJ4~L-1114A CW (10/02) - 2 6 ~ Page I of 1 zurich An~ri~n Imur~cc Company Endorsement- C Nmnzd Inmn-c& CH2M ~ Comp~es, Ltd. Policy No. Eft. Date of Poi. Exp. Date of Poi. Eft. Date of End. G LO3784726-00 05/01/04 05101/05 05/01104 ZURICH Producer Add'l. Prem Return Prom. 29-253-000 ~ THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES; THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREPULLY. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART Typed: 5/15/04 IT IS AGREED 3HAT THIS POLICY IS HEREBY AMENI~ED AS INDICATED. ALL OTHER TEPJ~S AND CONDITIONS OF THIS REMAIN UNCHANGED. AUTOMATIC ADDITIONAL INS UREDS THE FOLLOWING PROVISION IS ADDF__D TO (SECTION II) WHO IS AN INSURED. (CG 00 0I) ANY ENTITY YOU ARE REQUIRED IN A WRITTEN "INSURED CONTRACT" {HEREINAFTER CALLED ADDITIONAL INSURED) · TO NAME AS AN INSURED IS AN.INSURED BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF YOUR PREMISES, "YOUR WORK' FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSURED, OR ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE ADDmONAL INSURED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERAL SUPERVISION OF "YOUR WORK" TO THE EXTENT SET FORTH BELOW: (1) THE UM1TS OF INSURANCE PROVIDED ON BEHALF OF THE ADDITIONAL INSURED ARE NOT GREATER THAN THOSE REQUIRED BY SUCH CONTRACT. (2) THE COVERAGE J=ROVIDED TO THE ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT CUSTOMARILY PROVIDED BY THE POLICY FORMS SPECIFIED IN AND REQUIP~CD BY THE CONTRACT. (3) ALL INSUPJNG AGREEMENTS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDrriONS OF THIS POLICY APPLY_ (4) IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COVERAGES OR lIMITS OF INSURANCE 1N THIS COVERAGE FORM BE INCREASED BY SUCH CONTRACT. B. EXCEPT WHEN REQUIRED OTHERWISE BY '*INSURED CONTRACT", THIS INSURANCE DOES NOT'APPLY TO: (1) "BODILY INJURY" OR "PROPERTY DAMAGE" OCCURRING AFTER: (a) ALL WORK ON THE PROJECT (OTHER THAN SERVICE, MAINTENANCE OR REPAIRS) TO BE PERFORMED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) AT THE SITE OF THE COVERED OPERATIONS HAS BEEN COMPLETED; .OR ......... (bi THAT PORTION OF 'YOUR WORIC OUT OF WHICH THE INJURY OR DAMAGE ARISES HAS BEEN PUT TO ITS INTENDED USE BY ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN ANOTHER CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN PERFORMING OPERATIONS FOR A PRINCIPAL AS A PART OF THE SAME PROJECT. (2) "BODILY INJURY" OR "PROPERTY DAMAGE' ARISING OUT OF ANY ACT OR OMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) OR ANY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, OTHER THAN THE GENERAL SUPERVISION OF WORK PERFORMED FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) BY YOU. (3) 'PROPERTY DAMAGE" TO: (a) PROPERTY OWNED, USED OR OCCUPIED BY OR RENTED TO THE ADDITIONAL.INSURED(S) (bi PROPERTY IN THE CARE, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) OR PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) IS FOR ANY PURPOSE EXERCISING PHYSICAL CONTROL; OR (c) "YOLF{ WORK" FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSURED(S}. ANY COVERAGE PROVIDED HEREUNDER SHALL BE EXCESS OVER ANY OTHER VALID AND COLLECTIBLE INSURANCE AVAILABI F TO THE ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) WHETHER PRIMARY, EXCESS, CONTINGENT OR ON ANY OTHER BA~IS UNLESS A CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THAT THIS INSURANCE BE PRIMARY, OR YOU REQUEST THAT IT APPLY ON A PRIMAP. Y BASIS. - 2 7 - U-GL-1114A CW fl0/D2) Page '~o~t CH2M HILL 155 Grand Avenue Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 TEL 510.251.2426 FAX 510.893.8205 November 3, 2004 Mr. Jol'm Gibbs Department of Public Works City of South Sma Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Scope of Work mid Cost Proposal - Remedial ' ~,-,, Plmmmg for Former BASAPCO, Inc. Battery Recycling Facility? 27 South Linden Street, South Sma Francisco, C)~ Dear Mr. Gibbs, This proposal has been prepared in response to the verbal request to support the City of South San Franciso in remediation plmming for the former BASz&?CO, Inc. battery recycling facility at 27 South Linden Street (the site) in a ma?mcr consistent with the storm drah~age improvements plam'~ed for the area. Remediation plm~2zing fo~' the site is being performed at the request a2xd trader the oversight of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Understanding and Technical Approach Based on discussions with DTSC and the City of South San Er,-. nciso, CH2M HILL tmderstands that all existing site data are useable for remedial and risk evaluation purposes and that the project schedule is driven by the planned construction7, schedule for the storm drainage improvements at the site, which commence in mid-November. A tecl'uzical approach has been developed, based on discussions with DTSC, and divided into three proposed tasks: An exemption to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) mtmicipal and domestic water suppt;; (MUN) desigmation will be sought for groundwater at the site. Aax exemption to the MLEN designation will address impacts of past site ttses on potential grotmdwater uses. A removal action work plan (RAWP) will be prepared, in accordance with the Health and Safety Code sections 25323.1 and 25356.1 to address soii contamination at the site. The RAWP will assess risk and recommend an approach to ii. mit risk from exposure to contaminated soil. 3. Concurrent with the P,o~WP, public participation activities will be performed, as required by the California H&S Code sections 25358.7 mxd 252,56.1(e). SF0\041950001 - 2 i~ - Mr. John Gibbs July 13, 2004 Page 2 Scope of Work Task 1 - Seek Exemption to MUN Designation for Groundwater Groundwater along the boundaries of San Franciso Bay is generally not used for potable water supply or any other beneficial uses because the total dissoNed solids (TDS) are too high and the well yields are too low. To determine whether this is the case at the site, CH2M HILL will collect representative groundwater sampies, anatyze the samples for beneficial use criteria, and evaluate existing hydrogeologic data to evaluate potential well yields at the site. Groundwater at the site is reported to be about 8 t ~ , tee[ below grotme~ surface. Three groundwater samples will be collected using hydropunch techx,Jqttes. The samples will be analyzed for naturally-occurring water quality parameters LncludLng TDS and secondary drink~g water quality constituents such as manganese, iron, and ~Jntoride. A brief sampling and analysis plan and health and safety plan '¢d2 be prepared describing this effort. Subcontractors will be retained to conduct the hydropvmch sampling and sampling analysis. Potential well yields for shallow groundwater at the property will be estimated using data from existing soil boring logs from the CoLma Creek improvement project. A technical memorandum that summarizes groundwater anatyficai data and the hydrogeologic evaluation will be prepared and submitted to the RWQCB. The data will be compared to criteria given in the RWQCB Basit~ Plan (RWQCB; t995} for exempting groundwater from MUN designation (i.e., designated as not being suitabte for beneficial use). The memorandum will request an exemption to the/VFON designation for groundwater at the property if the TDS is greater than 3,000 .n-~Miigrams per liter, or if the well yield is less than 200 gallons per minute. Task 2 - Remova Action Workp a Documents provided by the City of South San Franciso and ti,~e ~'TSC will be reviewed, and the information will be used to develop a RAWP. Assmming gromndwater is found not to have beneficial uses that might be impacted by past uses at the site, the RAWP will focus on potential risks posed by surface softs. The RAW-P will contain: · A summary of the site history and background. This informal_on will be obtained from documents from the City of South San Franciso and DTSC ~es. ° A description of the goals of the removal action. · A surface soft risk assessment performed using analyticM restdts from prior sampling. Existing analytical data focus on metals, the cons~tuents most likely to be associated with lead acid batteries formerly recycled at site. Data for metals will be compared to United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), to eliminate metals *2aat clearly do not pose a risk. Metals that exceed PRGs, assumed to be primarily lead, will be included in a risk assessment. Lead risk will be evaluated using the DTSC LeadSpread model. SF0\041950001 -29- Mr. Joln~ Gibbs July 13, 2004 Page 3 An analysis of options to manage risk. An analysis will be prepared to evaluate likely remedial options and recommend a remedy using the criteria of effectiveness, implementability, and cost. It is assumed that no more tlhan fl~ree alternatives will be evaluated, which will include soil removal, treatment, and capping. An administrative records list, which is a listing of documents that were used as a basis to develop the remedy for the property. A schedule for completion of the recommended option. To expedite approval and construction, the City of South San Franciso design documents for the property will be attached to the ILAWFf ir~. lieu of a separate remedial design/implementation plan. A brief operations and maintenance (O&M) plan will also be prepared as an addendum to the document. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentat:~or~. DTSC typically prepares the CEQA documentation but often requests assistance responding to public comments. For the site remediation, a negative declaration is expected. We assume that one draft of the RAWP will be prepared for D~C review, and that review of the draft can be expedited by submitting sections of the F,~W? to DTSC as they are completed. We also assume that one final version incorporating DT$C comments will be prepared for public review. We assume that no changes to the tL~,3;gP will be required, based on public review comments. Task 3 - Public Participation We will work with the DTSC-assigned public participation spedaiist to perform public participation activities as required by the California Health and Safety Code sections 25358.7 and 25356.1(e). These activities will include: · Preparing a community profile describing the local co~nmni~? and level of interest in the site. The community profile wig include: 1) Sttmmary census data on the surrounding communiP/Lrtciuding languages spoken. 2) Nearby land uses including churches, schools, parks; and day care facilities, if any. 3) Local newspapers and television and radio stations favored by the local community. 4) Recommended location for an information reposito~- where documents can be placed for public review. 5) Available information on nearby properties in the site ~rdtigation process to gauge public awareness and interest. We assume that preparation of the commtmib/profile will require up to five telephone interviews with local residents but wig not invoNe face-to-face interviews. SF0\041950001 -30- Redevelopment Agency S taft R ep o rt DATE: December 08, 2004 TO: Redevelopment Agency Board FROM: Jim Steele, Financial Officer SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (PFM) FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Agency Board approve the attached resolution authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Public Financial Management (PFM) for financial advisory services associated with the upcoming potential Redevelopment Bond Sale to finance the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) land purchase, if land acquisition negotiations are successful. No compensation would be owed to PFM unless the Agency Board later decides to authorize the sale of bonds to finance the transaction, and in that case PFM would be paid from the bond proceeds. The contract is for $45,000 plus expenses not to exceed $2,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION: As the Agency Board is aware, the Assistant Executive Director is currently in negotiations with the PUC to purchase land in the E1 Camino Redevelopment Project Area. If those negotiations are successful, a bond sale will be needed to provide funds for the acquisition, for approximately November 2005. Financial Advisory (FA) services are required to assist Redevelopment staff in sizing and preparing the bond sale. PFM has agreed to provide services for a fee of $45,000, plus reimbursable expenses not to exceed $2,000, contingent on the successful sale of bonds. If the PUC transaction does not go through for some reason, or if bonds are not needed, no compensation would be owed PFM. This type of reimbursement arrangement is common for FA services associated with bond transactions. Approving the attached resolution does not commit the Agency to sell bonds. Staff will return to the Board at a later date with a Resolution approving a bond sale, if the site acquisition goes through. PFM's services in the attached contract include: Work with Agency staff and Redevelopment Consultants (Seifel Consulting Associates) to analyze options for financing a land purchase in the E1 Camino Redevelopment Project Area. This includes modeling to determine how much bond capacity the E1 Camino project area has today, and under several build-out alternatives, assuming different future interest rates. (Note, these services were Staff Report Subject: Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director to Sign the Contract with Public Financial Management (PFM) for Financial Advisory Services Page 2 of 3 required up front in order to advise the Board on the cash flow available in the E1 Camino RDA to allow for the PUC land purchase. Staff reviewed the outline of the cash flow and bond sizing options with the Board in closed session on November l0th, in order to give the Board sufficient information to give the Assistant Executive Director the go-ahead for negotiations with the PUC). Consideration of defeasement opportunities for current Gateway Bonds for approximately September 2006, in order to unlock restrictive bond covenants from a prior (1999) Gateway Bond sale that prevents the Agency from tapping into surplus tax increment from the Gateway project area. · Advise Agency staff as to the use of a negotiated or competitive sale mechanism for the bonds. If the bonds are to be sold via negotiated underwriting, as is expected, facilitate the selection of the underwriter and assist in evaluating the underwriters' pricing of the bonds to ensure that the Agency receives the best possible interest rates on the transaction. It is expected that if bonds are sold for the E1 Camino land purchase, they will be sold via a negotiated sale process, because it is unlikely the Agency could sell bonds competitively on the bond market. The E1 Camino area is a relatively small project area with relatively limited tax increment. In a negotiated sale, the FA contacts a number of qualified underwriters and solicits proposals from those underwriters for purchasing the Agency's bonds. The FA then reviews the bond pricing proposals and bond covenant terms from bond underwriters, w.ho will purchase the Agency's bonds and re-sell them in the bond markets. Financial Advisory ~rvices therefore include the critical task of negotiating with the underwriter on behalf of the Agency to ensure the most favorable pricing/interest rates. Work with Redevelopment Consultant, bond counsel, and Redevelopment Agency staff to assist in the preparation of the Official Statement to market the bonds. Develop a credit strategy for the financing, including preparation of presentation materials for and participation in meetings with rating analysis and bond insurers, as appropriate. Evaluate the cost effectiveness of credit enhancement for the financing and provide a recommendation to the Agency with respect to the use of bond insurance. In a bond sale, the underwriter works primarily on behalf of the bondholders, and therefore holds the bond issuer's (the Redevelopment Agency Board) interests only as a secondary concern. Without the qualified services of an independent FA, the Agency staff cannot adequately verify that the prices offered by the underwriter are reasonable or competitive in the marketplace, given similar recent bond sales. Because an FA firm such as PFM is involved in the bond marketplace on a daily basis as an advisor to cities, it is therefore highly qualified to negotiate with bond underwriters on the Agency' s behalf to get a better price for the bonds (in terms of lowered interest rates). An FA also represents the Agency' s interests in other ways, and can advise the Agency, for example, on alternatives that may be available to restrictive bond covenants that may be proposed by the bond underwriter. Staff Report Subject: Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director to Sign the Contract with Public Financial Management (PFM) for Financial Advisory Services Page 3 of 3 Agency staff obtained quotes from three financial advisory firms for the services in the attached contract. Staff chose PFM based on: prior experience working with them on a bond sale; favorable references from both bond counsel and from our Redevelopment consultant (Seifel Associates); and On PFM's ability to provide bond-sizing modeling estimates immediately to support the current PUC land negotiations. Securities Data Corporation (SDC) ranks PFM as the number one Financial Advisor in the nation, based on total transactions managed from 1984-2003. In 2003, PFM completed 898 transactions on behalf of clients with a total par value of over $39.2 billion. PFM has 22 offices nationwide, with its San Francisco office being the one that would serve South San Francisco. Their California clients include the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Anaheim, the City of Newport Beach, the City of Roseville, the City of San Diego, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, among others. PFM has professional liability insurance, covering errors and omissions with a higher upper limit and a higher deductible ($10.0 million limit, $1.0 million deductible) than the City generally requires. Staff consulted with ABAG Plan's Risk Manager, who advised that one way to reasonably mitigate any potential risk to the Agency is for the consultant to carry a letter of credit. PFM has, in fact, had an $8.0 million letter of credit it has never had to draw down on, that would cover it in the event of errors and omissions in its work below its deductible. PFM has recently renewed the letter of credit for two additional years (through June 2006) for $12 million in coverage. Given the letter of credit protection, ABAG Plan's Risk Manager's evaluation, and staff's opinion that the Agency faces minimal risk exposure from the FA's work on the bond sale, staff believes PFM's liability insurance is adequate for their services, which are primarily bond sizing estimates and negotiating with underwriters on the Agency' s behalf to obtain a more favorable price for the Agency's bonds. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Redevelopment Agency sells bonds to purchase the PUC land, it will pay PFM $45,000 plus expenses not to exceed $2,000 out of the bond proceeds for all services rendered. If no bond sale occurs, the contract specifies that the Agency will not owe PFM any compensation. Prepared by: Ji teel~~e Financial Officer Approve~ by.' '~t ~r '-~, Attachments: Resolution Contract JS/BN:ed RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT VVITH PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (PFM) FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of a contract with Public Financial Management for financial advisory services associated with the upcoming potential Redevelopment Bond Sale; and WHEREAS, no compensation would be owed to PFM unless the Redevelopment Agency later decides to authorize the sale of bonds; and WHEREAS, the contract is for $45,000 plus expenses not to exceed $2,000; and WHEREAS, if the Redevelopment Agency sells bonds, it will pay PFM $45,000 plus expenses not to exceed $2,000 out of the bond proceeds for all services rendered; and WHEREAS, if no bond sale occurs, the contract specifies that the Redevelopment Agency will not owe PFM any compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco that the Redevelopment Agency approves a contract with Public Financial Management (PFM) for financial advisory services. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director 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 Redevelopment Agency 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\l 2-8-04public.financial.management.res.doc ATTEST: Clerk CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (PFM) THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") and Public Financial Management (PFM) ("Consultant") (together sometimes referred to as the "Parties") as of September 01, 2004 (the "Effective Date"). Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to Agency the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on March 31,2006, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the Agency's right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession. 1,3 Assiqnment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that Agency, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from Agency of such desire of Agency, reassign such person or persons. 1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations hereunder. Section 2. COMPENSATION, Agency hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed a fixed transaction fee of forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) plus out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant's proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. Payment of these fees is contingent on the successful sale of El Camino Redevelopment Project Area Bonds. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, attached as Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. Agency shall pay Consultant for services rendered Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 1 of 14 pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from Agency to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to Agency in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by Agency, Consultant shall not bill Agency for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant and Agency acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by Agency to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. Agency therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. 2.1 Payment. Consultant shall receive payment out of the Redevelopment Bond Sale proceeds, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. 2.2 Total Payment. Agency shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Agency shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement, except for those reimbursable expenditures mentioned in Section 2.4. Agency shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. 2.3 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses shall not exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000). 2.4 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. Agency shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein. Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 2 of 14 arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory, in all respects, to the Agency. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to Agency. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. 4.1 Workers' Compensation, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the Agency and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 4.2.1 General rec~uirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commemial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. 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, including the use of owned and non- owned automobiles. 4.2.2 Minimum SCOl3e of coveracle. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 3 of 14 4.2.3 Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8 and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. Additional requirements, Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy: a. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. b. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to Agency and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. 4.3 Professional Liability Insurance. 4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals' errors and omissions. 4.3.2 Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form: The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five years after completion of the Agreement or the work. The Agency shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the Agency prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 4 of 14 4.4 All Policies Recluirements. 4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VlI. 4.4.2 Verification of covera.~e. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish Agency with complete certified copies of all policies, including complete certified copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. 4.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. A certified endorsement shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or 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 Agency. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to Agency at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4.4 Additional insured; I~rimarv insurance. Agency and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to Agency or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the Agency and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Agency shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. 4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of Agency for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. Cor~sulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 5 of 14 During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to Agency, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. 4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4,4.7 Variation. The Agency may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the Agency's interests are otherwise fully protected. 4,5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies Agency may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, Agency may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies Agency may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's breach: · Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or · Terminate this Agreement. Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the Agency, and hold harmless the Agency and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, 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 Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Agency or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 6 of 14 employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by Agency of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of Agency, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Agency for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of Agency. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT. 6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of Agency. Agency shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise Agency shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other Agency, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by Agency, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of Agency and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by Agency for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.2 Consultant No Aclent. Except as Agency may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of Agency in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind Agency to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement, Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 7 of 14 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. 7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which Agency is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. 7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to Agency that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to Agency that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from Agency. 7,5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunitv. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. 8.1 Termination, Agency may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to Agency and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; Agency, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to Agency any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 8 of 14 8.2 8,3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the Agency in connection with this Agreement. Extension. Agency may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if Agency grants such an extension, Agency shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, Agency shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties. Assignment and Subcontractinq. Agency and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to Agency for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Survival, All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between Agency and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Options Ul3On Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, Agency's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that Agency would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 9 of 14 Section 9. 9.1 9.2 9.3 Section 10 10.1 10.2 KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the Agency. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the Agency upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the Agency and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. Agency and Consultant agree that, until final approval by Agency, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties unless required by law. Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the Agency under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the Agency. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of Agency or as part of any audit of the Agency, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision 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. Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 10 of 14 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 state courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the First DiStrict of California. 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. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of Agency or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. Consultant shall not employ any Agency official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of Agency shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the Agency. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the Agency in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et. seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the Agency for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California. Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 11 of 14 10.9 10.10 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Jim Steele ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to: Public Financial Management (PFM) Attn: Peter W. Miller 50 California Street Suite #2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 P: (415) 982-5544 F: (415) 982-4513 Any written notice to Agency shall be sent to: City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example. Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility. 10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 12 of 14 10.13 Agency and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM) For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 13 of 14 heParties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. ITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~arry M. Nagel, Executive Director /~ttest: CONSULTANT Name: Sarah Hollenbeck Title: Senior Managing Consultant ~ylvia Payne, City Clerk /~pproved as to Form: ~teven T. Mattas, Legal Counsel ~onsulting Services Agreement between ~ity of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and l~ublic Financial Management (PFM) ~r Financial Advisory Services .t October 26, 2004 Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT A Scope of Services Financial Advisory Services Work with Agency staff and Redevelopment Consultants (Seifel Consulting Associates) to analyze options for financing an $18-22million land purchase in the El Camino Redevelopment Project Area. Recommend financing alternatives to develop a transaction that best meets the Agency's objectives for the Financing. This may include: An initial bond sale in the El Camino RDA for sooner than January 2005; Recommendations for a possible second bond sale either: a) After a proposed fiscal merger of project areas is complete (completion is estimated for approximately June 2005); or b) When El Camino has enough surplus tax increment to warrant a 2nd sale, expected to be in 2006-07, with completion of all of the BART transit village housing and retail. Analysis of and recommendations on defeasance opportunities for current Gateway Bonds, assuming the fiscal merger is completed before this contract expires. This Scope of Services covers all work related to the initial bond sale, including assisting Agency staff, Redevelopment Consultants, Agency Attorney staff, and bond and disclosure counsel(s) in the development and review of legal documentation, which documentation may be used in connection with subsequent bond issuances, as well as development and review of the disclosure document (Official Statement) in connection with the initial bond sale. Preparation and review of the Official Statement related to subsequent series of bonds and other financial services pertaining to subsequent series of bonds are not covered by the payment in this engagement and would be subject to payment terms under a contract amendment. Specific services to be provided by PFM in connection with the initial bond sale include: · Work with the Agency's Fiscal Consultant and review the Fiscal Consultant's Report to be prepared in connection with the transaction. · Advise the Agency as to the use of a negotiated or competitive sale mechanism for the bonds. · If the bonds are to be sold via negotiated underwriting, facilitate the selection of the underwriter and assist with the pricing of the bonds to ensure that the Agency receives the best possible interest rate on the transaction. · If the bonds are sold via competitive sale, advise the Agency regarding bid parameters, coordinate premarketing activities maximize bidder participation, and manage all aspects of the sale process. · Procure other necessary services, including financial printer and bond trustee, via a competitive bid process. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM)--Exhibit A For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 1 of 2 · Assist in the preparation of all legal documents and the Official Statement in connection with the Financing. · Develop a credit strategy for the Financing, including preparation of presentation materials for and participation in meetings with rating analysis and bond insurers, as appropriate. · Evaluate the cost effectiveness of credit enhancement for the Financing and provide a recommendation to the Agency with respect to the use of bond insurance. · Assist with the closing of the Financing. · Prepare a post-pricing analysis that documents the details of the transaction, particularly market conditions at the time of financing and pricing results. · Provide such other services as may be requested by the Agency in connection with the Financing. Personnel: Peter W. Miller, Managing Director, would provide overall project oversight in connection with the proposed Financing. Sarah Hollenbeck, Senior Managing Consultant, would serve as the Agency's day-to-day contact for this engagement and would be responsible for project management on behalf of PFM. Andrew Flynn, Consultant, would provide day-to-day analytical and technical support throughout the Financing. Term 9/1/04 - 3/31/06. Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM)--Exhibit A For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE CERTIFICATES Consulting Services Agreement between City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Public Financial Management (PFM)--Exhibit B For Financial Advisory Services October 26, 2004 Page 1 of 1 ACORD= PRODUCER Commerce Insurance Services 1701 Route 70 East P.O. Box 2060 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 INSURED Public Financial Management, Inc. Two Logan Square Suite 1600 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2770 COVERAGES Client#: 203700 PUBMFINAN CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I1BATE M 1101 4 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MAT~ER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER A: American International Insurance Co. INSURER B: INSURER C: INSURER D: INSURER E: NAIC # THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POUCIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADD'L POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LTR IINSRE, TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE ~MlVl/DD/YY~ DATE ~MM/DD/YY} GENERAL LIABILITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL UABIUTY J CLAIMS MADE [-~ OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRO- -""-~ POUCY ~--~ JECT ~"~ LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABIETY ANY AIJ'I'O ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS GARAGE LIABILITY IANY AU'~ EXCESS/UMBRELLA UABILI'FY I OCCUR ~'-'"] CLAIMS MADE DEDUCTIBLE RETEN'nON $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below A OTHEB Executive 3489751 11/30/03 11/30/04 Risk Package UMITS EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES ('Ea occurrence~ $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRODUCTS- COMPIOP AGG $ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ (Es accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC $ AUTO ONLY: AGG $ EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ $ $ $ WC STATU- IOE'I~- TORY L M TS E.L EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ E.L DISEASE - POLICY UMIT $ $10,000,000. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 ACORD 25 (2001/08) 1 of 2 #S425065/M423961 CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL .~l'} DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. MVP e ACORD CORPORATION 1988 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies)must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. ACORD 25-S (2001/08) 2 of 2 #S425065/M423961 Ciient~: 203700 PUBLIFINAN ACORD., CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE PRODUCER. Commerce Insurance Services 1)'01 Route 70 East P.O. Box 2060 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 INSURED Public Financial Management, inc. Two Logan Square Suite 1600; 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2770 COVERAGES 11101/04 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDrNG COVERAGE NAIC # INSURERA: Great Nor[hem Insurance Company 20303 INSURER E: Federal Insurance Company 20281 INSURER C: Pacific Indemnity Company 20346 INSURER D; INSURER E: THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BYTHE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSR ADD'L LTR IINSRI~ TYPE OF INSURANCE POUCY NUMBER A GENERA~ L~alUTY 35363950 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL Ll~alLrn' ] CLAIMS MADE E~ OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: I PoucY r'~ F.O- 1---] ,o~ { A l JECT .. . B AUTOMOBILE UABlUTY 73248555 ANYAUTO ALt. OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS X HIRED AUTOS X NON-OWNED AUTOS POUCY EFFECTIVE PO.,tJCY EXPIRATION DATE tMIV',JDD,P/'Y! DATE ~MM,~DD..'YYI 1'1130103 11130104 11130t03 11/30/04 GARAGE UABtUTY I ANY AUTO B EXCESS/UMBRELLA UABlUT~ 79774080 . X---'~ OCCUR r--] CLAMS MADE 11130103 11130104 DEDUCTIBLE . X I RE~TIO. B 0 WORKERS COMPENSATiON AND ' 71642435 EMPLO3~ERS' UABlUTY ANY PROPRETO~ART~ECU~VE OFRCE~EMBER ~UDED? If ye~ des~be ~d~ SPEC~ PROVISIONS ~tDw O~ER 11130103 11130/04 UMITS EAcH OCCURRENCE s1,000,000 DAMAGE TO RENTED ~ ~P (~y one ~) S10,000 P~SONAL & ADV INJURY SI ,000,000 GENE~L A~RE~TE S2,000,000 P~DUC~S- CO~P/O~ A~ S COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $1,000,000 {La accidenl) 8ODA.Y INJURY ~er pe~s~n) S BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE [Per accident) AU3'O ONLY - EA ACCIDENT OTHER THAN EA ACC AUTO ONLY: AGO EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE wc STATU. I t%T~R' X TORY [,}MITS I E.L. EACH ACCIDENT El. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE EL DISEASE- POLICY LIM1T $ $ S sl0,O00,O00 si0,000,000 $ $ $ s500,000 sS00,000 s500,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS ! LOCATIONS ! VEHICLES ! EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT ! SPECIAL PROV~E3NS City of South San Francisco its Officers, Employees and Volunteers are included as Additional Insured with respect to work or service that the insured performs for the holder, Employers Liability is included in the Umbrella Underlying Schedule Re: Contract for Consulting Services Agreement CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of South San Francisco P. O. Box 7t 1 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Jim Steele #S425066/M355877 ACORD 25 (2001/08) I of 2 CANCELLA33ON SHOULD ANY OF THE AeOVE- DESCRIBED POUCIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRA~ON DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO ~.IL .~t3 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. BUT ~AILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBUGA'I3ON OR LIABIL}TY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSUREP, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHO RtZE~D REPRESENT..~ATIVE CXH e ACORD CORPORATION 1988 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies)must be endorsed, A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certEicate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in ~ieu of such endorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. ACORD 25..S (21]01/08) 2 of 2 #S425066/M355877 CHUBB Liability Insurance Schedule of Forms Effective Date Policy Number Insured Name of Company Date Issued NOVEMBER 30, 2003 TO NOVEMBER 30, 2004 NOVEMBER I, 2004 3536-39-50 PHI, PUBLIC FINANCIAl, MANAGEM2ENT, INC. GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY NOVEMBER 1, 2004 The following is a schedule of forms issued as of the date shown above: Edition Effective Date Form Number Form Name Date Date Issued 17-02-3020 2-98 GENERAL LIABILITY DECLARATIONS 11/30/03 02/27/04 17-02-3080 4-01 GENERAL LIABILITY 11/30/03 02/27/04 17-02-3140 4-01 EXCLUSION-CONSTRUCTION LOAN 11/30/03 02/27/04 17-02-3308 4~01 EXCLUSION-FORECLOSURE, TRUST, LEASING 11/30/03 02/27/04 17-03-3309 4-95 POLICY EXCLUSION-LEAD 11/30/03 02/27/04 80-02-2012 6-98 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ERRORS OR OMMISSIONS 11/30/03 02/27/04 80-02-2306 4-01 ADD'L INSURED- STATE OR POL. SUBDIV. PERMITS 05/I 1/04 06/15/04 80-02-2373 4-94 CONDITIONS 05/11/04 06/15/04 80-02-2410 2-98 EXCLUSIONS- REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 11/30/04 02/27/04 80-02-2668 8-01 EXCL. BIOLOGICAL AGENTS TOTAL 11/30/03 02/27/04 80-02-6403 1-03 CAP ON CERTIFIED TERRORISM LOSSES 11/30/03 02/27/04 Farm 80-02-2999 (Ed, 6-95) Schedule of Forms last page Page 1 Liability Insurance Endorsement Polio. Period Effective Date Policy Number Insured Name of Company Date Issued NOVEMBER 30, 2003 TO NOVEIVIBER 30, 2004 NOVEMBER 1, 2004 3536-39-50 PI-IL PUBLIC F[I',IANCIAL MANAG~v[ENT, INC. ORE. AT NORTI-iF_.RN INSURANCE COMPANY NOVEMBER 1, 2004 This Endorsement applies to the following forms: GENERAL LIABILITY Under Who is An Insured, the following provision is added: Who is An Insured State Or Political Subdivision Permits Any state or political subdivision designated below is an Insured; but they are Insured only with respect to liability arising out of operations performed by you or on your behalf for which the state or political subdivision has issued a permit, Under Bodily Injury/Property Damage Exclusions, the following exclusion is added: Bodily Injury/Property Damage Exclusions Operations For State Or PolNcal Subdivision This insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage included within the products-completed operations hazard arising out of operations performed for any state of political subdivision designated as in insured. Liability Insurance Additional Insured- Slate or Political Subdivision- Permits continued Form 80-02-2306 (Ed 4-01) Endorsement Page 1 Under Policy Exclusions the following exclusion is added: Policy Exclusions Operations For Sale Political Subdivision This insurance does not apply to bodily injury, property damage, advertising injury or personal injury arising out of operations for any state or political subdivision designated as an insured. De,signation of State Or Political Subdivision City of South San Francisco, Its Officers, Employees and Volunteers are included as Additional Insured. Re: Contract for Consulting Services Agreement All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Authorized Representative Liability insurance Additional Insured- State or Political Subdivision- Permits last page Form 80-02-2306 (Ed, 4-01) Endorsement Page 2 Liability Insurance Endorsement Policy Period Effective Date Policy Number Insured Name of Company Date Issued NOVEMBER 30, 2003 TO NOVElvIBER 30, 2004 NOVEMBER I, 2004 3536-39-50 PI-fi. PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY NOVEMBER I, 2004 This Endorsement applies to the following forms: GENERAL LIABILITY Other Insurance Primary Additional Insured Under Conditions, the following condition is added If you agree, in a wdtten contract, agreement or permit, to provide pdmary insurance for any person or organization included in Who is An Insured, this Other Insurance Primary Additional Insured conditions applies. If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the Insured for loss we would otherwise cover under this insurance, our obligations are limited as follows. Primary Insurance This insurance is primary. We will not seek contributions from any other insurance available to the person or Organization with whom you agree to include in Who is An Insured, except when the Excess Insurance provision applies. Excess Insurance Liability Insurance CONDITIONS continued Form 80-02-2373 (Ed. 4-94) Endorsement Page 1 This insurance is excess over any other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis; this is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builder's Risk, Installation Risk or similar insurance for your work: if the loss arises out of aimraff, autos or watercraft (to the extent not subject to the Aircraft, Autos or Watercraft exclusion); D. this is insurance: provided to you by any person or organization working under contract or agreement for you; or 2. under which you are included as an insured; E. this is insurance under any Property section of this policy. When this insurance is excess, we will have no duty to Defend the insured against any suit if any Other insurer has a dutyto defend such insured against such suit If no other insurer defends, we will undertake to do so, but we will be entitled to the Insured's rights against all those other insurers. When this insurance is excess over other insurance, we will pay only our share of the amount of loss, if any that exceeds the sum of the total: amount that ali other insurance would pay for loss in the absence of this insurance; and of all deductible and self-insured amounts under at1 other insurance. We will share the remaining loss, if any, with any Other insurance that is not described in this Excess Insurance provision and was not negotiated specifically to apply in excess of the Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations of this insurance. Method of Sharing If ali of the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares, we wil~ follow this method also. Under this method each insurer contributes equal amounts until it has paid ils applicable limits of insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first. If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal shares, we wilt contn'bute by limits. Under this method, each insurer's shares is based on the ration of its applicable limits or insurance to the total applicable Jimtts of insurance of ali insurers. Liability insurance CONDITIONS Form 80-02-2373 (Ed 4-94) Endorsement continued Page 2 All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Liabilily Insurance CONDITIONS Form 8~02-2373 (Ed. 4-94} Endorsement last page Page 3 ' last page Redevelopment Agency Staff Rep ort Ire # 7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Redevelopment Agency Board Marry Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RECEWING AND APPROVING PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR PROPOSED FISCAL MERGER OF DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL, EL CAMINO CORRIDOR, GATEWAY AND U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING TERRITORY TO THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt the Resolution Receiving and Approving the Preliminary Report for the Proposed Fiscal Merger for the Downtown/Central, E! Camino Corridor, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans and the Proposed Plan Amendment Adding Territory to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, and authorizing transmittal of the Preliminary Report to affected taxing entities for consultation. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On March 10, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-2004, which designated a Survey Area for the purpose of amending the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, adding territory to the existing area which includes the entirety of the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park. On April 15, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2633, 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. On May 12, 2004, the Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No. 06-2004, accepting the Preliminary Plan and project area for the amendment adding the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment 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. Staff Report Subject: Preliminary Report for Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendment Page 2 The Preliminary Report has been prepared by Seifel Consulting, Inc. the Agency's redevelopment consultant in conformance with the Agency's direction and redevelopment law. The purpose of the Preliminary Plan is to provide certain information to the taxing agencies on the proposed Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendment adding territory to the Downtown/Central Project Area, to give the opportunity to ask questions and make comments if so desired, and to plan for any change brought about by the proposed fiscal merger and plan amendment on their operations and financing. Section 33328 of the Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL") requires the Agency to consult with taxing agencies regarding a proposed plan amendment. Once the Preliminary Report is authorized for circulation, Agency staff and consultant will meet with the affected taxing agencies, the County of San Mateo, the South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo County Community College District, San Mateo County Harbor District and t he County Superintendent o f Schools. Initial meetings have been held with the Unified School District and the Community College District to review existing contractual agreements and pass through payments currently made to those taxing entities. Once the Preliminary Report is circulated, other meetings will be scheduled to continue those discussions and may continue up to the joint public heating before the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. The Preliminary Report does not change the established goals and objectives of the redevelopment plans for each project area, nor does it create new programs or activities not previously anticipated in the existing plans. The Report summarizes and highlights information from the existing redevelopment plans and includes: · Reasons for amending the redevelopment plan to add territory and to fiscally merge the Project Areas. · A description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the territory to be added and the existing Downtown/Central Proj eot Area. · A description of the specific projects proposed by the Agency in the amended area and description of how the proposed projects will improve or alleviate conditions in the Downtown/Central Project Area. · The financial feasibility of the proposed Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger with details of alternative funding resources available to the Agency to accomplish the Redevelopment Program with potential tax increment projections. The Redevelopment Agency's Report to City Council, now scheduled as a joint City Council/Agency public hearing for April, 2005, will contain a summary of the Agency's consultations, or attempts to consult, with each of the affected taxing agencies. This summary will also contain the Agency's response to any written objection or concerns raised by any of the affected taxing agencies with regard to the proposed Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendment to add territory, any proposed mitigation measures dealing with the size and location of the added area, the amended plan's durations, or the proposed uses and other characteristics of the development to be assisted by the Redevelopment Agency. Agency action on this item will allow the redevelopment plan amendment process to continue and provide an opportunity for consultation with the affected taxing entities on the information presented in the Preliminary Report. Staff Report Subject: Preliminary Report for Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendment Page 3 CONCLUSION The Plan Amendments will allow the Agency to combine financial resources fi.om all four redevelopment project areas and facilitate its efforts to better implement its Redevelopment Program, which will eliminate blighting conditions in all four Project Areas. Each of the existing Project Areas will continue to be governed by its own Plan with its respective set of redevelopment goals, time and other fiscal limits. The Redevelopment Plan for each existing Project Area will not be modified. It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt the attached Resolution allowing the plan amendment process to continue and provide an oppommity for consultation with affected taxing entities based on information presented in the Preliminary Report. Marty Van Duyn// Assistant Executi~?irector Approved: '~.~. /' Executive Director BMN:MVD:NF Attachment: Resolution Preliminary Report RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED FISCAL MERGER FOR THE DOWNTOWN/ CENTRAL, EL CAMINO CORRIDOR, GATEWAY AND U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING TERRITORY TO THE DOWNTOWN/ CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT TO AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES FOR CONSULTATION WHEREAS, the Agency has commenced proceedings in connection with the proposed amendment of the Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, GateWay and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plans ("Redevelopment Plans") to add territory to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and to fiscally merge the Redevelopment Plans. WHEREAS, in cormection with such proceedings, the Agency has caused to be prepared a Preliminary Report as required pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33344.5 (the "Preliminary Report"). WHEREAS, Agency action on this item will provide an opportunity for consultation with the affected taxing entities based on the information presented in the Preliminary Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco that it hereby receives and approves the Preliminary Report for the proposed amendment and fiscal merger of the Redevelopment Plans, and authorizes transmittal of the Preliminary Report to affected taxing agencies for consultation. 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: ATTEST: Clerk Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Prepared by South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 400 Grand Avenue 2nd Floor South San Francisco, CA 94080 Seifel CONSULTING INC. 1388 ,Sm'tm Slreet Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel 415.931~q600 w~v.~eifei.com Table of Contents Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency A. B. C. D. E. F. G. II. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Introduction ............................................................................................. I-1 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................................ I-4 Redevelopment Plan Limits .................................................................................................................... .~ ........... I-5 Reasons for Amending and Fiscally Merging the Redevelopment Plans ......................................................... I-5 Conformity with the General Plan ...................................................................................................................... I-8 Preliminary Report Requirements ................................................................................................ ~ ..................... I-9 Overview of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Process ........................................................................... I-11 Public Agency Actions to Date and Anticipated .............................................................................................. 1-12 Existing Conditions ................................................................................ II-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... II- 1 Blighting Factors Affecting the Existing Project Areas and Added Area ........................................................ II-6 Downtown/Central Project Area ...................................................................................................................... II- 18 Downtown/Central Added Area ....................................................................................................................... II-35 El Camino Corridor Project Area (Original and Added Areas) ...................................................................... II-48 Gateway Project Area ....................................................................................................................................... II-61 Shearwater Project Area ................................................................................................................................... II-67 Conclusions for Blighting Conditions ............................................................................................................. II-72 South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table of Contents (continued) III. A. B. C. D. E. IV. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Redevelopment Program Description .................................................. III-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ III- 1 Redevelopment Plan Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... III-2 Relationship Between the Redevelopment Program and Alleviation of Blighting Conditions ...................... III-5 Description of Agency's Non-Housing Redevelopment Program .................................................................. III-7 Description of Agency's Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program ..................................................... III- 10 Proposed Methods of Financing and Feasibility ....................... : ..........IV-1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... IV- 1 Stimulation of Private Investment .................................................................................................................... IV-2 Estimated Funding Requirements .................................................................................................................... IV-3 Potential Sources Other than Tax Increment Financing .................................................................................. IV-4 Tax Increment Financing as the Primary Source of Funding ......................................................................... IV-8 Assumptions Used in Tax Increment Projections ......................................................................................... IV-12 Tax Increment Projections .............................................................................................................................. IV-20 Financial Feasibility of the Redevelopment Program ................................................................................... IV-23 Necessity of Tax Increment Financing and Fiscal Merger ........................................................................... IV-24 South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency ii South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table of Contents (continued) Lists of Tables, Figures and Graphs Tables Table I-1 Summary of Existing Project Area Time and Fiscal Limits ............................................................................. I-6 Table I-2 Summary of Project Area Time and Fiscal Limits ............................................................................................ I-7 Table II-1 Blighting Conditions at the Time of Plan Adoption in the Existing Downtown/Central Project Area ...... II-20 Table II-2 Agency Projects and Activities to Date in the Existing Downtown/Central Project Area .......................... II-21 Table II-3 Age of Housing Units Downtown/Central Project Area .............................................................................. II-24 Table II-4 Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Downtown/Central Project Area ............................................................ II-25 Table II-5 Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups Sites Downtown/Central Project Area .................................... II-26 Table II-6 Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks Downtown/Central Project Area ........................................................... II-27 Table II-7 Historical Sales Tax Revenue Downtown/Central Project Area ......................................................... ~ ........ II-29 Table II-8 Annual Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) from 1999-2003 Downtown/Central Project Area ................ II-31 Table II-9 Annual Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) per Room from 1999-2003 Downtown/Central Project Area .................................................................................... II-32 Table II-10 Residential Overcrowding Downtown/Central Project Area ..................................................................... II-33 Table II-11 Active Alcoholic Beverages Licenses Present in the Project Area by Type Downtown/Central Project Area ....................................................................................................... II-36 Table II-12 Active Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Present on Grand Avenue by Type Downtown/Central Project Area ........................................................................................ II-37 Table II-13 Calculation of the Extent of Urbanization in the Downtown/Central Added Area ................................... II-40 Table II-14 Blighting Conditions at the Time of Plan Adoption in the El Camino Corridor Original Area ............... II-51 Table 11-15 Blighting Conditions at the Time of Plan Adoption in the El Camino Corridor Added Area .................. II-52 Table II-16 Agency Projects and Activities to Date in the El Camino Corridor Project Area ..................................... II-53 Table II-17 Age of Housing Units El Camino Corridor Project Area ........................................................................... II-54 Table II-18 Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks El Camino Corridor Project Area ....................................................... 11-55 Table Iio 19 Annual Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) from 1999-2003 El Camino Corridor Project Area ............. II-58 Table II-20 Annual Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) per Room from 1999-2003 El Camino Corridor Project Area ................................................................................... I1-59 Table 1I-21 Residential Overcrowding El Camino Corridor Project Area .................................................................... II-60 Table II-22 Blighting Conditions at the Time of Plan Adoption in the Gateway Project Area .................................... II-62 Table II-23 Table II-24 Table II-25 Table II-26 Table 11-27 Table III-1 Table 11I-2 Table IV-1 Table IV-2 Table IV-3 Table IV-4 Table IV-5 Table IV-6 Agency Projects and Activities to Date in the Gateway Project Area ....................................................... II-63 Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks Gateway Project Area .......................................................................... II-65 Blighting Conditions at the Time of Plan Adoption in the Shearwater Project Area ................................ II-68 Agency Projects and Activities to Date in the Shearwater Project Area ................................................... II-70 Location of Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups Sites Shearwater Project Area ........................... II-71 How the Redevelopment Program Will Alleviate Blighting Conditions .................................................... III-6 Estimated Net Cost to Agency of Redevelopment Program ..................................................................... III-I 3 Estimated Net Cost to Agency of Redevelopment Program ....................................................................... IV-3 Base Year Assessed Value and Time Limits Under Plan Amendments and Merger ................................ IV-9 New Development Growth Assumptions in the Project Areas ................................................................. IV-14 Pass Through Payment Obligations Under the Plan Amendments And Fiscal Merger .......................... IV-16 Summary of Projected Tax Increments ..................................................................................................... IV-21 Comparison of Estimated Tax Increment Revenues and Agency Funding Requirements ...................... IV-24 South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency iii South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table of Contents (continued) Lists of Tables, Figures and Graphs Figures Figure I-1 Redevelopment Project Area Boundaries ........................................................................................................ I-2 Figure I-2 Proposed Added Area ....................................................................................................................................... I-3 Figure II- 1 Earthquake Probability ................................................................................................................................... II-9 Figure II-2 Areas Included in General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands ................................................. II-12 Figure II-3 100-Year Floodplain Boundaries ................................................................................................................. II-14 Figure II-4 Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks and Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups Sites ........................ I1-17 Figure II-50verconcentration of Active Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Downtown/Central Project Area ................ II-38 Figure II-6 Urbanization in the Downtown/Central Added Area .................................................................................. I1-41 Figure II-7 Waste Sites in the Downtown/Central Added Area .................................................................................... II-44 Figure IV-1 Distribution of Projected Tax Increment through Remaining Life of the Amended Plans .................... IV-22 Al~l~endices Appendix A. Sources Appendix B. Downtown/Central Added Area Legal Description Appendix C. Photographic Documentation of Existing Conditions Appendix D. Potential Funding Sources Appendix E. Tax Increment Projections Appendix F. Report of the County Fiscal Officer Appendix G. Development to Date South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency iv South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 I. Introduction The City of South San Francisco (City) and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (Agency) are considering amendments to the existing four Redevelopment Plans (Plan Amendments). The proposed Plan Amendments include fiscally merging the four South San Francisco Redevelopment Project Areas: Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway, and Sliearwater. The Plan Amendments will combine the current individual cumulative tax increment collection caps and the current individual outstanding indebtedness caps of the existing Project Areas. The caps will be combined without increasing the total tax increment revenues allocated to the Agency or the total amount of outstanding indebtedness the Agency can have at any given time. The time limit on eminent domain authority will be extended by twelve years in the existing Downtown/Central Project Area and the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area. No other fiscal or time limits will be amended. The Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan will be amended to add the Oyster Point Marina (Added Area). The Fiscal Merger will allow the Agency to combine f'mancial resources and facilitate its efforts to better implement its Redevelopment Program, wtfich will eliminate blighting conditions in all four Project Areas. Each of the existing Project Areas will continue to be governed by its own Redevelopment Plan with its respective set of redevelopment goals, and time and other fiscal limits. The Redevelopment Program for each existing Project Area will not be modified. The Agency is preparing the Plan Amendments for consideration by the City Council. This document serves as the Preliminary Report for the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, as required by Section 33344.5 of the California Commumty Redevelopment Law (CRL), a part of the California Health and Safety Code. The Preliminary Report is the first major background document in the process leading to consideration of the proposed Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. The report is a public document designed to provide background information to the Agency and taxing entities affected by the proposed Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. If adopted by the City Council, the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger will accomplish the following: · Fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway, and Shearwater Redevelopment Projects. · Create a combined dollar limit on the amount of tax increment collected and outstanding bonded indebtedness for the Agency's four existing Project Areas. · Extend by twelve years the time limit on eminent domain anthority in the existing Downtown/Central Project Area and the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area) · Add the Oyster Point Marina to the existing Downtown/Central Project Area. Figure I-1 and Figure I-2 show the boundaries of the South San Francisco Project Areas, and the proposed Added Area. ~ The power of eminent domain will not be authorized over properties on xvhich persons reside. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I-1 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 A. Report Organization The Preliminary Report describes the reasons for fiscally merging and amending the Redevelopment Plans, documents the physical and economic conditions in the Project Areas and the Added Area, and summarizes the projects and activities of the Redevelopment Program. The Preliminary Report also provides a preliminary assessment of financing methods and economic feasibility of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Chapter I presents a general overview and background for the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, summarizes the masons for amending the Redevelopment Plans to fiscally merge the Project Areas and add territory, describes the goals of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, outlines the CRL requirements, and presents the process for amending and fiscally merging the Redevelopment Plans. Chapter II summarizes redevelopment efforts to date and describes remaining blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas. It also documents urbanization and blighting conditions in the Added Area. Chapter III presents the Redevelopment Program for the four Project Areas, describes how the. Redevelopment Program will alleviate the remaining blighting conditions, and summarizes the anticipated cost of the Redevelopment Program. The Redevelopment Program projects and activities for each individual Redevelopment Project will not be modified as a result of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Chapter III synthesizes the Redevelopment Program projects and activities planned for the individual Project Areas into one Redevelopment Program for ease of administration and to facilitate implementation. Chapter IV analyzes the financial feasibility of the proposed Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. It details the alternative funding resources available to the Agency to accomplish the Redevelopment Program and shows why the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger are necessary to accomplish the Redevelopment Program. It describes tax increment financing and presents projections of how much tax increment revenue will be generated with the Plan Amendments. The appendices include supporting documentation and background information. Appendix A provides a list of sources used to prepare the PreliminaD.' Report. Appendix B incorporates the legal description of the Added Area. Appendix C contains photographic documentation of the physical and economic blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas and the Added Area, Appendix D includes a matrix of potential funding sources other than tax increment. Appendix E includes supporting tables for the tax increment revenue projections. Appendix F presents the Report of the County Fiscal Officer. Appendix G includes a summary of development to date in the Project Areas. This report lkas been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the CRL.2 2Health & Safety, Code Section 33000 et seq. All Code Section references used in the Preliminary Report refer to the Health & Safety Code unless otherwise specified. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I-4 Prelimina~ Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 B. Redevelopment Plan Limits The Plan Amendments referred to in this Preliminary Report will result in the Fiscal Merger of the Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway, and Shearwater Projects and the addition of the Oyster Point Marina to the Downtown/Central Project Area. Under the Fiscal Merger, each of the Agency's four existing Project Areas will continue to be governed by its own Redevelopment Plan with associated goals and time limits. However, the four existing Redevelopment Projects will have a single combined dollar limit for the collection of tax increment and a single combined dollar limit on the mount of outstanding bonded indebtedness. All other fiscal limits within each Redevelopment Plan will not be combined or modified. The existing time and fiscal limits for the four Project Areas are shown in Table I-1. The proposed time limits for the Added Area, as well as the combined tax increment collection limits and the combined outstanding indebtedness limits for the four existing Project Areas, are presented in Table I-2. Because redevelopment agencies were required to make payments to the Education Revenue , Augmentation Fund (ERA. F) to help balance the state budget, Senate Bill 1045 (Chapter 260, Statutes of 2003) authorized cities and counties to adopt ordinances that would extend certain time limits in their redevelopment plans by one year. At its meeting held on March 10, 2004, fl~e City. Council extended by one year the tixne limits for the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plans and the collection of tax increment by adopting Ordinance No. 133%2004 under SB 1045. C. Reasons for Amending and Fiscally Merging the Redevelopment Plans Although significant progress has been made in alleviating blight and revitalizing the Gate,ray and Shearwater Project Areas, and to a lesser degree the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area and the original Downtown/Central Project Area, the Project Areas continue to exhibit blighting conditions that burden the community.3 The primary reasons for the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger are to: · Achieve the goals of the Redevelopment Plans. · Implement the existing Redevelopment Program. · Alleviate the physical and economic blighting conditions that are present in the Downtown/Central Added Area and accelerate the alleviation of blight in the existing Project Areas. · Provide flexibility to combine and focus revenues from different Project Areas on the needs of a particular Project Area. · Adjust focus over time to other Project Areas so that the community's overall redevelopment needs can be addressed in a more efficient and effective manner. 3 The original Do,vntown/Central Project Area, Redevelopment Plan and Project refer to these respective components as the), exist phor to the proposed 2005 Plan Amendment to add territory. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I-5 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table I-1 Summary of Existing Project Area Time and Fiscal Limits South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Acres Adopted Eminent Domain Time Limit fol' Incun-ing Debta Time Limit for Project Activities" Time Limit for Tax Increment Receiptb Fiscal Limit for Tax Increment Collection Bond Limit Dmvntown/Central El Camino Corridor Original Area 550 175 7/12/89 7/14/93 Expired' 7/14/05a 7/12/09 7/14/13 7/12/30 7/14/34 7/12/40 7/14/44 $248,000,000 $90,000,000 Added Area 79.6 6/28/00 6/28/12 6/28/2O 6/28/31 6/28/46 $300,000,000 $50,000,000 a. Itl March 2004, tile City repealed tile deadline for incurring debt itl Gateway and Sbearwater, as provided by SB 211. Gateway 176.2 6/17/81 Expired None 6/17/22 6/17/32 $80,000,000' $40,000,000 Shearwater 174.5 1/8/86 Expired None 1/8/27 1/8/37 $168,000,000 $52,650,000 b. In March 2004, tile City extended by one year Redevelopment Plan effectiveness and tax increment collection deadlines itl all four Project Areas, as attthorized by SB 1045. c. Tile Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan provides one exemption to eminent domain attthority. d. The El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan provides several exemptions to eminent domain authority. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Phm Amendments and Fiscal Merger I-6 November 2004 Table I-2 Summary of Project Area Time and Fiscal Limits if Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger are Adopted South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Dosvntown/Central Added Areaa Acres 97.1 Adopted 2005 Eminent Domain 2017e Time Limit for Incurring Debts 2025 Time Limit for Project Activitiesb 2035 Time Limit for Tax Increment Receiptb 2050 Fiscal Limit for Tax Increment Collection' None Outstanding Indebtedness' $15,000,000 El Camino Corridor Original Area Original Area 550 175 7/12/89 7/14/93 2017c 7/14/17e 7/12/09 7/14/13 7/12/30 7/14/34 7/12/40 7/14/44 Added Pd-ea 79.6 6/28/00 6/28/17 6/28/20 6/28/31 6/28/46 $796,000,000 $232,650,000 Gateway 176.2 6/17/81 Expired None 6/17/22 6/17/32 Shearwater 174.5 1/8/86 Expired None 1/8/27 1/8/37 a. In March 2004, tile City repealed the deadline for incnrring debt in Gateway and Shearwater, as provided by SB 211. b. Itl March 2004, the City extended by one year the redevelopment activity and tax increment collection deadline in all fonr Project Areas, as anthorized by SB 1045. c. The fiscal limit for tax increment collection would be combined for the Gateway, Shearwater, El Camino Corridor (Original and Added Areas), and Downtown/Central (Original) Projects Areas following Ibc Plan Amendtnents and Fiscal Merger. The amount of outstanding indebtedness would be similarly combined for the four existing Project Areas. d. Actual time limits for the Added Area will correspond to adoption date of the Downtown/Central Plan Amendment. e. Eminent domain authority will not be authorized over properties on which persons reside. Actual time limits for the eminent domain extension will correspond to tile adoption date or' tile Plan Atnendments. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger [-7 November 2004 Many of the blighting conditions identified in each of the existing Redevelopment Plans at the time of adoption persist, and the Added Area is adversely impacted by blighting conditions. The following conditions are present in the existing Project Areas and/or Added Area: · Deterioration and dilapidation · Factors inhibiting the proper use of parcels · Incompatible uses · Inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities · Depreciated values and impaired investments · Overcrowding · Problem businesses D. Conformity with the General Plan The Redevelopment Plan Amendments and the Redevelopment Program projects and activities enabled by the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger have been designed to coordinate with, and directly support, the implementation of the City's General Plan and applicable Specific Plans. The Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger will further all of the General Plan's nine themes: · Neighborhood-oriented development · Economic development and diversification · Increased connectivity and accessibility · Redevelopment of older industrial areas · Land use/transportation correlation and promotion of transit · Reinforcement of Downtown as the center of South San Francisco · Enhancement of community character · Coordinated shoreline development and increased accessibility · Performance based standards for services to ensure sustalnability4 Freeways, railroads and major arterials divide the city into several segments, and connections between the segments are limited. Integration of the various parts of the city is a theme that is reflected in several General Plan policies. The General Plan proposes to improve existing streets and build new streets to link neighborhoods and improve residents' access to every day commercial needs and to the parks and shoreline. The acceleration of Redevelopment Program projects and activities enabled by the Fiscal Merger will facilitate street, intersection and railroad crossing improvements to increase connectivity and accessibility within and among the Project Areas. The Fiscal Merger and the inclusion of the Oyster Point Marina in the Downtown/Central Project Area will help further the General Plan theme of land use/transportation correlation and transit pmmotion~ Redevelopment will continue to facilitate and capitalize on major regional transit improvements that are underway, and the promotion of alternative forms of transit. 4 South San Francisco General Plan, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia for City of South San Frmmisco, adopted October 1999, pp. 12-15. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I-8 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 The recently opened BART station, the proposed Caltrain project and the potential for a feny terminal at Oyster Point Marina are major transportation infrastructure improvements that provide opportunities to connect the City and revitalize stagnating areas. Redevelopment will also help achieve higher intensity, mixed use development near the BART station and improve connections between residential and employment centers and transit hubs. The General Plan seeks to reinforce the Downtown's identity and role as the physical and symbolic center of South San Francisco. General Plan strategies include increased residential development in the Downtown and better connections to surrounding areas. The Redevelopment Program for the Downtown/Central Project Area emphasizes this General Plan theme. The General Plan outlines a strateg5~ to protect selected industrial areas and transform other sites where high technology businesses have located or are iocating into older industrial sites. Redevelopment has helped transform the declining industrial areas into new business centers, and will continue to assist with through-street connections and facilitation of transit, sidewalks and bikeways. The General Plan also seeks to increase the accessibility of South San Francisco's four-mile long shoreline through physical improvements and location of activities near the water. Including the, Oyster Point Marina in a redevelopment area will further this theme. The projects and activities of the Redevelopment Program are consistent with the General Plan and Housing Element. The Project Areas will continue to be subject to the land use designations and standards for development as set forth in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other Ci.ty land use and building ordinances and regulations. E. Preliminary Report Requirements This Preliminary Report is designed to comply with the CRL. Pursuant to Section 33344.5, a preliminary report must demonstrate how a proposed redevelopment plan adoption (or amendment) meets several requirements. These legal requirements and a description of how this Preliminary. Report is organized to meet these requirements follow. Excerpts from the CRL are referenced and italicized. 1. Reasons for the Plan Amendments The reasons for the selection of the project area. Section 33344.5(a) The reasons for amending and fiscally merging the existing Redevelopment Plans are described in Section C above, and in Chapter II. 2. Physical and Economic Conditions in the Project Area A description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the project area. Section 33344.5(b) This report includes a description of the blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas at the time of original adoption, a summary of redevelopment activities to date, and description of the remaining blight in the Project Areas. It also documents blighting conditions in the Added Area. This information is provided in Chapter II. The evidence provided in this Preliminary Report demonstrates that the Project Areas contain adverse physical and economic conditions sufficient to support a finding that significant blight remains within certain portions of the Project Areas and that the Added Area contains substantial and pervasive blight. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I-9 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 3. Project Area Urbanization and Agricultural Land Use A description of the project area which is sufficiently detailed for a determination as to whether the project area is predominantly urbanized in a manner which is either consistent with zoning or is otherwise permitted under law. Section 33344.5(c) The Redevelopment Plan Amendment process does not require an analysis of urbanization in the existing Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway, and Shearwater Project Areas. Nevertheless, these Project Areas are predominantly urbanized. The required documentation on the extent of urbanization in the Added Area is provided in Chapter II. The documentation demonstrates that the Added Area fully complies with the urbanization requirements specified in Section 33320.1. If the project area contains lands that are in agricultural use, the Preliminary Report shall be sent to the Department of Conservation, the county agricultural commissioner, the county farm bureau, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and agricultural entities and general farm organizations that provide a written request for notice. A separate written request for notice shall be required for each proposed Redevelopment Plan or amendment that adds territory. A written request for notice applicable to one Redevelopment Plan or amendment shall not be effective for a subsequent plan or amendment. Section 33344.5(g) ,, This procedural requirement is not applicable to any of the Project Areas because no agricultural land exists in any of the existing Project Areas or the Added Area. 4. Proposed Projects and Blight Alleviation A description of the specificproject orprojects then proposed by the agency. Section 33344.5(e) A description of how the project orprojects to be pursued by the agency in the project area will improve or alleviate the conditions described in subdivision (b). Section 33344.509 Chapter III of this Preliminary Report provides descriptions and preliminary cost estimates of the Redevelopment Program projects and activities to be undertaken by the Agency as a means to alleviate adverse conditions within the four existing Project Areas and tlie Added Area if the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger are adopted. As described earlier, the Redevelopment Program for each of the existing Project Areas will not be modified by this Amendment. For ease of administration and to facilitate implementation, the projects and activities for the individual Project Areas have been synthesized into one Redevelopment Program. Chapter HI demonstrates how the redevelopment activities will help alleviate adverse conditions in the Project Areas and Added Area by linking specific Redevelopment Program components with identified adverse conditions. 5. Proposed Method of Financing A preliminary assessment of the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the project area, inchtding an assessment of the economic feasibility of the project and the reasons for including a provision for the division of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 in the Redevelopment Plan. Sdction 33344. 5(d) Chapter IV of this report describes the proposed methods of financing the proposed projects and activities in the Project Areas if the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger are adopted. It demonstrates the financial feasibility of the Redevelopment Program by comparing available funding sources for the Project Areas with projected costs of the Redevelopment Program. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I- I 0 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 F. Overview of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Process As defined by the CRL, the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger for Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway, and Shearwater are considered "major" amendments, which require an adoption process that parallels the adoption of a new redevelopment plan (CRL Section 33354.6). This process includes the preparation of this Preliminary Report and the report to the legislative body (the Report to Council). Amending a redevelopment plan involves a complex statutorily-mandated process designed to provide a community's legislative body with the necessary analysis and input to make informed decisions about the purpose, scope and content of the Plan Amendments and, ultimately, about whether to adopt the Plan Amendments. The procedures and documentation required in a redevelopment plan amendment are similar to the adoption of an initial redevelopment plan. The following briefly describes the repons and steps in the redevelopment plan amendment adoption process: 1. Survey Area Designation The City Council designates the Survey Area, and the Planning Commission selects boundaries for the proposed Added Area~ 2. Amended Preliminary Plan In cooperation with the Redevelopment Agency, the Planning Commission adopts an Amended Preliminary Plan, incorporating the Added Ama. The Amended Preliminary Plan provides a general description of land uses, redevelopment goals and objectives, and a map and legal description for the Added Area. 3. Project Area Committee Formation The CRL requires that a Project Area Committee (PAC) be formed when the area proposed for redevelopment contains a substantial number of low or moderate income households, and the Redevelopment Plan (or Plan Amendment) will contain authority for the agency to acquire, by eminent domain, property on which these persons reside. A PAC is also required if the Redevelopment Plan (or Plan Amendment) contains one or more public projects that will displace a substantial number of low or moderate income persons, or both. The PAC provides the Agency with community review, input and recommendations on the proposed Redevelopment Plan (or Plan Amendment). A PAC is not required because the Plan Amendments will not extend eminent domain authority over properties on which persons reside, and the Agency will not undertake projects that would displace a substantial number of low and moderate income residents. 4. Preliminary Report The Preliminary Report describes the purpose and impact of the proposed Plan Amendments and the Fiscal Merger. It is the first m~jor background document in the process to the approval of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. The Preliminary Report is designed to provide members of the City Council, other governmental bodies, affected taxing entities, community leaders, and interested citizens with an early statement of comprehensive background information on the proposed Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. 5. Environmental Review The adoption of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger requires California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I-11 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 6. Redevelopment Plan Amendments The Redevelopment Plan Amendments are the lega/documents setting forth the basic goa/s, powers and limitations with which the Agency must conduct its activities over the life of the Redevelopment Projects. Toward the conclusion of the consultation with taxing entities, the environmental review, and the community participation process, the Agency must submit the proposed Plan Amendments to the Planning Commission and the City Council in preparation for the public hearing and consideration of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. 7. Taxing Entity Consultation Agency staff consults with affected taxing entities. 8. Report to Council The Report to Council is a report to the City' Council that describes the proposed Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger and presents the updated information from the Preliminary Report, the Five Year Implementation Plan and additional chapters addressing specific requirements of the CRL. 9. Redevelopment Agency and City Council Hearing The Redevelopment Agency Board (Agency Board) and City Council consent to holding the joint public hearing on the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, and the Agency publicly notices the heating. 10. Redevelopment A~encv Al~proval and Transmittal Agency Board approves the Report to Council and transmits the Plan Amendments to the Planmng Cormnission for its report and recommendation and authorizes transmittal of the Plan Amendments and the Report to Council to the City Council. 11. General Plan Conformitv The Planning Commission considers the Plan Amendments for their conformance with the General Plan and makes a recommendation on approval and adoption of the Plan Amendments. 12. Ordinance Adoption The City Council and the Agency Board hold the joint public hearing on the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger and the City Council makes the required findings and adopts the ordinance amending the Redevelopment Plans. G. Public Agency Actions to Date and Anticipated The following major public agency actions related to the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger have occurred to date or are anticipated: · Survey Area Designation The City Council designated the Oyster Point Marina area as a Redevelopment Survey Area on March 10, 2004 (Resolution No. 25-2004). · Amended Prelimina .ry Plan The Planning Commission adopted an Amended Preliminary Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project to include the Survey Area on May 12, 2004 (Resolution No. 06-2004). · Proiect Area Committee The formation of a Project Area Committee (PAC) is not required for the Plan A~nendments and Fiscal Merger, because the Plan Amendments will not extend eminent domain authority over properties on which persons reside, and the Agency will not undertake projects that would displace a substantial number of low and moderate income residents. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Io 12 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminaw Report November 2004 · Statement of Plan Preparation On September 10, 2004, in accordance with CRL Section 33327, the Agency staff transmitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBE), County officials and affected taxing entities a statement of plan preparation, a legal description and a boundary map. The SBE accepted the documents on September 15, 2004. · Countw Fiscal Officer's Report The Agency requested the Report of the County Fiscal Officer (Section 33328 Report) on September 10, 2004. The SBE reported on state assessed property on September 27, 2004. The Agency received the Report of the County Fiscal Officer on November 12, 2004. · Environmental Review The City intends to prepare a Negative Declaration for the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger as a base document for CEQA compliance because the proposed Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger enable the Agency to accelerate the achievement of the redevelopment goals and implementation. actions of the existing Redevelopment Program without modification. City of South San Francisco Planning staff is preparing the Initial Study, which is expected to be available for public review by the end of 2004. The notice of intent to adopt and the availability of the draft Negative Declaration are anticipated for publication and distribution to public agencies in early 2005. · Redevelovment Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Consideration The City Council consideration of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger is anticipated in the spring of 2005. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I-13 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 II. Existing Conditions This chapter describes existing conditions in the existing Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas and the Downtown/Central Added Area. It presents information on conditions in the existing Projects Areas, including blighting conditions at the time of Redevelopment Plan adoption, redevelopment activities to date and a description of remaining blighting conditions within the boundaries of the existing Project Areas. Physical and economic blighting conditions remain in the existing Project Areas. The most prevalent conditions include aged, obsolescent, deteriorated and dilapidated structures, factors inhibiting the proper use of buildings or lots, impaired investments such as hazardous materials and contamination, and inadequate public improvements and facilities, all of which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without continued redevelopment assistance. For the Added Area, the chapter presents documentation that the Added Area is urbanized and blighted as defined by the CRL. The Added Area is hindered by factors inhibiting the use of buildings or lots, including earthquake hazards, and impaired investments, including toxic contamination. Although the Agency has made progress in mitigating these adverse conditions in the existing Project Areas, blighting conditions necessitate the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger described in this Preliminary Report. Supported by a review of available documents and data, maps, field reconnaissance surveys, surveys of real estate professionals active in the area and discussions with City staff, the description of adverse physical and economic blighting conditions contained in this chapter justify continued redevelopment action and provides substantial evidence for findings necessary for adoption of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. A. Introduction 1. Organization This chapter is organized into the following sections: A. Introduction and summary of the current CRL requirements for the Preliminary Report related to urbanization and blight findings, as well as the methodology used to prepare this chapter. B. Blight factors affecting the existing Project Areas and Added Area, including natural conditions that have contributed to adverse conditions in the area. C. Downtown/Central Project Area blight £mdings at the time of the Redevelopment Plan's adoption, synopsis of Agency activities to date, summary of development to date and analysis of remaining blight. D. Downtown/Central Added Area urbanization and physical and economic blighting conditions. E. E1 Camino Corridor Project Area blight f'mdings at the time of the Redevelopment Plan's adoption and amendment, synopsis of Agency activities to date, summary of development to date and analysis of remaining blight Gateway Project Area blight findings at the time of the Redevelopment Plan's adoption, synopsis of Agency activities to date, summary of development to date and analysis of remaining blight. Shearwater Area blight £mdings at the time of the Redevelopment Plan's adoption, synopsis of Agency activities to date, summary of development to date and analysis of remaining blight. Conclusions for blight findings. Preliminary Report November 2004 South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-1 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger 2. Relevant Provisions of the CRL For plans that use tax increment financing, amendments that add new territory to the project area, increase the limit of dollars to be allocated to the Agency, lengthen the time limit to incur debt or plan effectiveness, merge project areas or add significant additional capital improvement projects, CRL Section 33354.6(a) requires an agency to follow the same procedures as those required for a new plan adoption. CRL Section 33485 through Section 33489 set forth the procedures and requirements for fiscally merging project areas for purposes of pooling the tax increment revenue from separate project areas. CRL Sections 33344.5 and 33354.6(a) require the Preliminary Report for the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger to include a description of the physical and economic conditions in the existing Project Areas. They also require an analysis of the extent of urbanization and a description of the physical and economic conditions in the Added Area. a. CRL Urbanization Requirement As of 1984, the CRL requires a determination that a proposed project area or area proposed to be added to an existing project area is predominantly urbanized. The current CRL requires that at least 80 percent of the area in a redevelopment project be predominantly urbanized. The Preliminary Report must include an assessment of the extent of urbanization for the Downtown/Central Added Area sufficiently d~tailed to determine whether the area is predominantly urbanized. The extent of agricultural land in the Downtown/Central Added Area must also be identified in order to meet the requirements of CRL Section 33344.5(g). Section D. 1 of this chapter presents the urbanization findings for the Downtown/Central Added Area. The Shearwater, E1 Camino Corridor and Downtown/Central Project Areas were adopted after 1984 and found to qualify as predominantly urbanized areas within the meaning of the CRL at the time of Redevelopment Plan adoption or amendment. The Gateway Project Area was adopted in 1981, before the CRL required a determination that a project area (or area added to an existing project area) be predominantly urbanized. No further urbanization finding is required for the existing Project Areas in connection with the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. CRL Requirement for Urbanization Provisions of the CRL Section 33344.5(c) specifically pertaining to the urbanization requirement are as follows (excerpts from the CRL are italicized): (c) A description of the project area which is sufficiently detailed for a determination as to whether the project area is predominantly urbanized. The description shall include at least the following information, which shall be based upon the terms described and defined in Section 33320. !: (1) The total number of acres within the project area. (2) The total number of acres that is characterized by the condition described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 33031. (3) The total number of acres that are in agricultural use. "Agricultural use" shall have the same meaning as that term is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 51201 of the Government Code. (4) The total number of acres that is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. (5) The percent of property within the project area that is predominantly urbanized South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 1I-2 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 (6) A map of the project area that identifies the property described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), and the property not developed for an urban use. CRL Definition of Predominantly Urbanized Provisions of the CRL Section 33320.1 specifically pertaining to the definition of predominantly urbanized are as follows: (b) As used in this section, "predominantly urbanized" means that not less than 80 percent of the land in the Project Area: (1) Has been or is developed for urban uses; or (2) Is characterized by the condition described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 33031; or Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are developed for urban uses. Parcels separated by only an improved right-of-way shall be deemed adjacent for'the purpose of this subdivision. For the purposes of this section, a parcel of property as shown on the official maps of the county assessor is developed if that parcel is developed in a manne'r which is either consistent with zoning or is otherwise permitted under law. Section 33320.1 The requirement that a project be predominantly urbanized shall apply only to a project area for which a final redevelopment plan is adopted on or after January 1, 1984, or to an area which is added to a project area by an amendment to a redevelopment plan, which amendment is adopted on or after January 1, 1984. b. CRL Requirement for Description of Physical and Economic Conditions Thc Preliminary Report must include a description of the physical and economic conditions existing in a proposed project area (or area proposed to be added to a project area). Thc current CRL blight definitions are presented in this subsection, along with thc CRL provision on inadequate public improvements) (excerpts from the CRL arc italicized.) Characteristics of a Blighted Area Section 33030 of thc CRL describes the standards for and the characteristics of blighted areas: (a) It is found and declared that there exist in many communities blighted areas which constitute physical and economic liabilities, requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of these communities and of the state. [33030(a)] (b) A blighted area is one that contains both of the following: (1) An area that is predominately urbanized, as that term is defined in Section 33320.1, and is an area in which the combination of conditions set forth in Section 33031 is so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an ~ As described earlier, this Preliminary Report also includes a description and identification of blight within the existing Project Areas. The CRL blight definitions in effect at the time of each Redevelopment Plan's adoption are presented in the relevant tables summarizing blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas at the time of Redevelopment Plan adoption. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-3 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 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 governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. [33030(b)(a)J (2) An area that is characterized by either of the following: (A) One or more conditions set forth in any paragraph of subdivision (a) of Section 33031 and one or more conditions set forth in any paragraph of subdivision (b) of Section 33031. [33030(b)(2)(A)] (B) The condition described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 33031. [SSOSO(b)(2)(B)J (c) A blighted area also may be one that contains the conditions described in subdivision (b) an'd is, in addition, characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, or utilities. [33030(c)J The City Council adopted the Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway and Shearwater Redevelopment Plans prior to 1994 modifications to the CRL blight del'tuitions.2 In this Preliminary Report, the review of adverse conditions in the existing Project Areas at the time of plan adoption is discussed in terms of the de£mitions in effect at the time of plan adoption. The documentation of remaining blight in the existing Project Areas is discussed in terms of current CRL blight definitions. Conditions that Can Be Used as Evidence of Blight CRL Section 33031 describes both physical and economic conditions that can be used as evidence of blight: Physical Conditions · Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthyfor persons to live or work. These conditions can be caused by serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. [33031 (a) (1)] · Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors. [33031(a)(2)] · Incompatible Uses Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. [33031 (a)(3)] · Substandard Lots in Multiple Ownership The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership. [3 3031(a)(4)J 2 The El Camino Corridor Project Area was amended to add territory in June 2000, under the current CRL requirements. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 1I-4 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Economic Conditions · Depreciated Values/Impaired Investments Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not necessarily limited to, those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified in Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33459). [3 3031(b) (1)J · Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots .~bnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities. [33031(b)(2)J · Lack of Neighborhood Commercial Facilities A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. [33031(b)(3)] · Residential Overcrowding or Problem'Businesses Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. [33031 (b)(4)]~ · A High Crime Rate A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. [33031 (b)(5)] Inadequate Public Improvements Under current blight de£mitions in the CRL, the presence of inadequate public improvements cannot be the sole reason for redevelopment. However, as shown above, CRL Section 33030(c) permits consideration of inadequate public improvements when blighting conditions exist in a project area. Inadequate public improvements may be a contributing factor to blight, and an agency may undertake needed public improvements to alleviate blight. To the extent they are present, inadequate public improvements typically reflect problems that exaggerate the effects of blight. A blighted area also may be one that contains the conditions des. cribed in subdivision (b) and is, in addition, characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, or utilities. [33030(c)_] Prior to 1994, inadequate.public improvements was a factor of blight under the CRL, and the Agency made £mdings that all four of the original Project Areas exhibited this blighting condition. 3. Methodology The description of physical and economic blighting conditions contained in this chapter is supported by: · Field reconnaissance surveys of the existing Project Areas and Added Area to identify adverse physical and economic conditions. · Review of available documents. (Refer to Appendix A.) · Discussions with City and Agency staff. · Analysis of economic and other data. · Surveys of real estate professionals. · Examination of maps. · Extensive field survey and photographic documentation. (Refer to Appendix C). South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-5 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 4. Map of Blighting Conditions The figures throughout this chapter summarize and locate (or map) blighting conditions that are present in the existing Project Areas and the Added Area. The map of blighting conditions has been broken into these separate figures for ease of reading and reference. The individual figures, taken together, demonstrate that blighting conditions are prevalent throughout, and affect properties in portions of the existing Project Areas and the entire Added Area.3 5. Photographs Photographs documenting adverse physical and economic c6nditions in the existing Project Areas and the Downtown/Central Added Area are presented in Appendix C. Not only do these photographs and related figures demonstrate that physical and economic blight is prevalent, they also show conditions and buildings that could benefit from redevelopment sponsored activities such as environmental cleanup, development of vacant or underutilized parcels, and building rehabilitation. The photographs represent conditions in all of the Project Areas and the Downtown/Central Added Area, providing further evidence of the presence of physical and observed economic blighting conditions. B. Blighting Factors Affecting the Existing Project Areas and Added Area Several factors contribute to blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas and the Downtown/Central Added Area, including factors that inhibit proper use of buildings or lots and depreciated values or impaired investments, as defined by the CRL. Infrastructure and public facility deficiencies are also evident in the Project Areas and Downtown/Central Added Area. 1. Historical Influences on Land Use and Development Historic development patterns in South San Francisco have contributed to physical and economic blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas and Added Area. Railroads, freeway and arterial road locations built to serve heavy industrial uses and slaughterhouses influenced land use and ownership patterns, resulted in inefficient and variable property size and configuration and poor accessibility in some portions of the existing Project Areas and Downtown/Central Added Area. These conditions do not serve modern business and service oriented development. The following summary of the city's history is excerpted from the South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia in September 1997. South San Francisco settlement patterns are visible within the existing Project Areas and Added Area. In 1827, the 15,000 acre Rancho Buff Buff was given to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant. In 1856, the town of Baden was founded and was used for cattle grazing and dairy operations. The City's first industrial development, the Gustavus Swift meat packing plant on Point San Bruno, was established in 1888. Additional packing companies joined in the building of community stockyards and packing plants on the point and organized for the development of an industrial town. 3 The Report to Council, to be prepared subsequent to the Preliminary Report, must include a map showing where the blighting conditions exist, as required by CRL Section 33352(b). South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-6 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased 3,400 acres on the site of the former Rancho Buri Buri for development. A land use pattern was established early, with industries to the east, and homes and businesses to the west. Industry and community growth have been closely intertwined throughout South San Francisco's history. Hotels were one of the primary land uses during the city's early days, as workers needed places to live while their homes were being built. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad line between San Francisco and San Jose from 1904 to 1907 expanded opportunities for goods shipping from South San Francisco, and steel mills began to take advantage of the city's abundant land with good transportation access. The City incorporated in 1908. Industries continued to locate and grow in the City in the 1920s and 1930s. In the 1930s, shipping emerged as a major industry. The steel and shipping industries spurred residential growth. During WWII, government housing for military personnel was built on the former marshland between Railroad, South Spruce and San Mateo Avenues, an area known as Lindenville. Between 1940 and 1960, the population increased more than six fold from 6,290 to 39,418. In the 1950s, the government housing in Lindenville was demolished, making way for an area of warehouses, light industry and single family housing. In the 1950s, the city converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, reshaping the shoreline and attracting'light industry. The Downtown/Central Added Area is the site of a former landfill, the Oyster Point Municipal Landfill, which operated from 1957 to 1970.4 As discussed in the following sections, the historic land uses and development resulted in the presence of hazardous waste; earthquake hazards due to artificial fill; irregularly formed, landlocked and fragmented parcels; access problems; and inadequate infrastructure. 2. Factors Inhibiting Proper Use of Buildings or Lots [33031(a)(2)] Factors that inhibit the proper use of buildings or lots in the existing Project Areas and Downtown/Central Added Area include earthquake hazards, poor soil conditions and flood hazards. a. Earthquake Hazards and Poor Soil Conditions Significant earthquake hazards affect the Project Areas, including nearby earthquake faults, the high probability of future earthquakes, earthquake induced inundation, and soil conditions that tend to amplify shaking during a seismic event and have the potential for liquefaction. The Project Areas are susceptible to earthquake-related ground shaking that would be strong enough to damage existing buildings and infrastructure and possibly result in loss of life. Unless otherwise footnoted, the source of the following information is the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), South San Francisco General Plan Update, Dyett & Bhatia, June 1999. Potentially Dangerous Nearby Earthquake Faults The San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Project Areas, is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the City of South San Francisco. It is California's longest and most active fault, and also the San Francisco Bay Area's best defined and most active fault. Figure II-1 shows the known earthquake faults located near the Project Areas and Added Area and the probability of future earthquakes on these faults. The Peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault has a 4 South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, Dyett & Bhatia, September 1997, pp. 2-1 through 2-7. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency . II-7 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 21 percent probability of generating a magnitude 6.7 earthquake by 2032. Most of the city would experience an intensity level of VII (nonstructural damage) or VIII (moderate) from this type of rupture. Adverse Soil Conditions The principal types of earthquake-induced hazards that may occur in the Project Areas and Added Area are ground shaking and liquefaction. The severity of shaking is influenced by a number of factors, including duration and intensity of the earthquake, the proximity of the site to the location of the earthquake, and the type of geologic materials underlying the site. The entirety of the Downtown/Central Added Area and Shearwater Project Area, and portions of the existing Downtown/Central Project Area and Gateway Project Area, are comprised of artificial fill over bay mud. Bay mud is a soft, highly compressible, gray, uniform, silty clay. Its thickness in the Project Areas is up to 80 feet deep. Bay mud provides very little bearing and any small loading applied on this soil would cause a long-term ground settlement. Differential settlement can damage building foundations, disturb underground utilities and cause settlement in streets and roads. This is of particular concern in areas that have not previously supported structures and where new structures would place heavier loads than existed in the past. , Beginning in the mid-1800s, filling of the Bay and tidal marshlands adjacent to the City of South San Francisco was initiated to provide land for industrial development. The primary sources for fill were dune sands, quarried rock, industrial refuse, and debris from the 1906 earthquake. The composition of artificial fill is generally highly variable, ranging from cobble to boulder sized rubble in a loose to medium dense matrix of sand and gravel. The larger sized material includes such items as concrete, bricks, porcelain, glass and wood. Occasionally, areas of plastic clays, presumably dredged from the Bay, are found in fill layers. The engineering properties of artificial fill are highly variable due to the mixture of materials within. As a result, development within portions of these areas could be damaged by instability of the subsurface materials. Associated development hazards on artificial fill include shrink-swell (the change in volume that occurs in fine-grained sediments because of expansion and contraction of clay caused by wetting and drying), settlement and differential settlement and corrosivity. Additionally, earthquake damage could be extreme in buildings constructed on improperly engineered fills or artificial fills at the Bay margin. During an earthquake, these areas would be subject to high to extremely high levels of shaking amplification and liquefaction. The existing Downtown/Central and Gateway Project Areas and the Downtown/Central Added Area are underlain by a mixture of slope wash and ravine fill, Colma Formation (sand, with minor gravel, silt and clay), alluvium, artificial fill underlain by Bay mud and Franciscan sheared rock. The Downtown/Central Project Area additionally has Serpentine and Franciscan sandstone. Lowland zone development hazards include shrink-swell, settlement and differential settlement and corrosivity, and seismic hazards including earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction. Upland zone soils may include moderate potential for shrink-swell and erosion hazard. The E1 Camino Corridor Project Area is underlain by a mixture of Colma Formation and alluvium, which may include moderate potential for shrink-swell and erosion hazard. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-8 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Figure H-1 Earthquake Probability San Francisco Bay Region PETALUM~A C~ © NAPA SONOMA O ANTIOCH LOCATION OF PROJECT AREAS PAC1F1CA HALF MOON BAY 62% probability for one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquakes from 2003 to 2032. This result incorporates 14% odds of earthquakes not on shown faults. SANTA CRUZ Monterey Bay (~ Probability of magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquakes before 2032 on indicated fault. Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger II-9 STOCKTON TRACY Seifel CON~TLT1N6 INC. Preliminary Report November 2004 Groundshaking Amplification As a rule, the greater the earthquake intensity and closer the rupture to an area, the greater the intensity of groundshaking. Violent groundshaking is generally expected at and within three miles of fault rupture, but the land composition responds differently to earthquake waves. The distribution of earthquake wave amplification as related to geologic materials was mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in 1995. The entirety of the Downtown/Central Added Area, most of the existing Downtown/Central and Shearwater Project Areas, and some of the Gateway Project Area would be subject to high to extremely high levels of shaking amplification. Portions of the city with unstable soil conditions, particularly the fill areas in the east would experience particularly strong groundshaking. Seismic groundshaking could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. Groundshaking could potentially expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including localized liquefaction and related ground failure. Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils lose their strength, especially during shaking induced by earthquakes. In the process, the soil acquires mobility sufficient to llermit both horizontal and vertical movements if not conf'med. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are Bay fills, Bay mud and unconsolidated alluvium. The consequences of liquefaction could include damaged foundations, disruption of utility service and damaged roadways. All of the Project Areas have sections that are susceptible to liquefaction during a seismic event. Any substantial development within these areas is required to conform to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which contains standards to prevent hazards associated with liquefaction. Earthquake Induced Inundation The Downtown/Central Added Area is susceptible to inundation from tsunami (tidal waves) or seiche (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) caused by earthquakes. Estimates for wave run-up are approximately 4.3 feet for tsunami with a 100-year recurrence, and 6.0 feet for a 500-year tsunamifi Potentially Hazardous Buildings Unreinforced masonry buildings and buildings constructed in the early to mid-1900s would be expected to incur the greatest structural damage during an earthquake. Unreinforeed masonry buildings are typically constructed of brick, hollow tile, or concrete block. Such buildings have proved to be particularly hazardous during an earthquake. California law now requires towns, cities, and counties to identify unreinforced masonry buildings and take steps to ensure their reinforcement to a level that provides a reasonable level of safety during a seismic event. Recent earthquakes in California have demonstrated that other building types can also be unsafe and hazardous. Such buildings often include aging wood frame structures with inadequate foundation connections, soft story buildings, older poured concrete buildings without adequate reinforcing, badly connected concrete tilt-up buildilags, poorly engineered concrete parking structures, and any informally constructed or poorly engineered building. All structures built prior to the adoption of the 1955 edition of the UBC are of particular concern. 5 South San Francisco General Plan, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia for the City of South San Francisco, adopted October 1999, pp. 250-25 I. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II- 10 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Negative conditions often found in such buildings include inadequate foundations, a lack of adequate foundation connections, weak cripple walls, dry rot or termite damage, poor design, or substandard construction. These conditions make the buildings more susceptible to earthquake damage. Additionally, most buildings constructed prior to 1970 would not meet current design provisions in the UBC for earthquake forces. Cost of Reducing Impact of Earthquake Hazards on Project Areas The cost of addressing the poor soil conditions and earthquake hazards present in many portions of the Project Areas and Added Area could be substantial. The UBC provides building standards that are designed to prevent damage resulting fi:om settlement or unstable surface materials such as fill and to prevent building collapse; however, severe structural damage could still occur. New construction in the city is required to meet the 1994 UBC requirements. Per the General Plan, special occupancy buildings, such as schools, fn'e stations, public buildings, and hospitals are not permitted in seismically sensitive areas in parts of the Downtown/Central, Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas and the entire Downtown/Central Added Areafi See Figure II-2 for the areas included in the General Plan policies for seismically sensitive lands. Settlements or instability can be mitigated by such typical construction methods as pre-loading, deep foundations and improvement of soil conditions. Furthermore, liquefaction potential is typically mitigated by grouting, vibro-floation, stone columns, dynamic deep compaction, deep soil mixing, and removal and re-compaction of loose soil. Compliance with current UBC standards would minimize the risk of injury and damage from structures during groundshaking. These conditions represent significant cost implications for development projects located on the various soil types found within the existing Project Areas and the Downtown/Central Added Area, and may · impede investment. Sections C through G of this report include more detailed information on earthquake hazards and soil conditions in each Project Area. b. Flood and Storm Water Hazards South San Francisco experiences periodic flooding in certain areas along Colma Creek, which carries much of the urban runoff generated by South San Francisco. Since the area is heavily urbanized, runoff levels are high, especially during periods of heavy rainfall. The main flooding problem in the city is a deficient culvert and channel system where Colma Creek passes under the Southern Pacific Railroad line and U.S. 101. Peak flood flows back up along adjacent streets and pool to depths of two to three feet during a 100 year storm. Many homes in South San Francisco may suffer fi:om flood impacts because they are constructed at-grade and lack enough elevation to remain above even shallow flooding. The County is responsible for flood control and stream channel maintenance in South San Francisco. The San Mateo County Flood Control District is in the process of implementing the Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project, which includes charmelization of the creek and construction of levee walls. Improvements have been completed near Orange Park and Mitchell Avenue, in the vicinity of Hickey Boulevard and Kaiser Permanente, and fi:om Spruce Avenue to the South Linden avenue bridge. Improvements are planned between San Mateo Avenue and South Linden Avenue for 2005. 6 South San Francisco General Plan, p. 251. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II- 11 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report · November 2004 Figure II-2 Areas Included in General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands El town/Centrhl Area ~ Included in General Plan Policies for Seis~nically Sensitive Lands ['---I Redevelopment Project Areas Source: South San Francisco General Plan, Dyett & Bhatia with Environmental Science Associates, 1999. Seifel CONSUOING INC, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger II-12 Preliminary Report November 2004 The City received a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board requiring improvements to the wastewater collection system and pump stations to control sewer system overflows by November l, 2007. The City has implemented the Wet Weather Program (WWP) in order to comply with the CDO. The five phase WWP is projected to cost in excess of $52 million. Phase I, which is budgeted at approximately $24 million, was included in the City's FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05 Capital Improvement Program and is currently underway. More than a third of the proposed Phase I through IV improvements is in the Project Areas. These include: · Oyster Point Boulevard 12 inch/15 inch Trunk Sewer · Pump Station No. 2 · Pump Station No. 2 10 inch Force Main · Airport Boulevard 8 inch Sewer · Pump Station No. 8 l0 inch Force Main · DNA Way 10 inch Subtmnk Sewer · Executive 15 inch Subtmnk · East Grand Avenue 21 inch/27 inch Trunk Sewer · San Mateo Pump Station · Effluent Storage Pond Improvements east of U.S. 101 are designed in direct response to the CDO. They include replacing older, leaking facilities with modem sewer lines and other improvements that protect public health, safety and welfare. Improvements will also service new development that would add impervious surfaces and therefore increase storm water runoff. Increased storm water runoff would increase the peak flow during and immediately after storms and decrease the amount of stream recharge from groundwater between storms and during the dry season. This concentrated runoff could cause localized flooding at storm drain connections or areas downstream of the discharge location that lack the capacity to handle the increased flows. As shown in Figure II-3, 100-year flood hazards affect significant portions of the Downtown/Central Project Area and the E1 Camino Corridor Corridor Project Area. 3. Depreciated Values and Impaired Investments [33031(b)(1)] This section documents the presence of blighting conditions described in CRL Section 3303 l(b)(1) in the existing Project Areas and Added Area, which include properties containing hazardous wastes. This section generally describes hazardous waste issues. Specific hazardous waste issues particular to each Project Area and the Added Area are included within the sections documenting blight in each Project Area and the Added Area. a. Hazardous Waste The presehce of hazardous wastes can impair investments for several reasons. The remediation of toxic or hazardous waste is frequently costly and a major financial disincentive to reinvestment or development. In addition, the fear of environmental liability, in particular, uncertainty over changing responsibility standards and costs, and the high price of conducting environmental investigations are some of the leading reasons deterring the beneficial development and use of urban sites. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-13 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Figure II-3 100-Year Floodplain Boundaries Downtown/Central Added Area ~ 100-Year Floodplain Boundaries ~ Redevelopment Project Areas Source: South San Francisco General Plan, Dyett & Bhatia, 1999. San Francisco Bay Seifel CONStJL)'~NG INC. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger I1-14 Preliminary Report November 2004 Developers fear that they will face liability under environmental laws and that the cost of evaluating and remediafing contaminated sites can be so uncertain and so high that it could easily outweigh the market value of the property. In some instances, in order for the development ora contaminated site to be feasible, public agency assistance is necessary. Under federal laws including the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other laws, developers may be held liable for past chemical releases, even though they were not directly responsible for the conditions that gave rise to the liability. Therefore, prior to purchasing or entering into contract to develop a site, a developer must undertake extensive environmental investigations to determine whether hazardous materials are present. In addition, predicting the cost to conduct any potential remediation prior to development is uncertain. Finally, delays are often associated with obtaining governmental approvals before development of contaminated or remediated sites may begin. Evidence of hazardous materials.on properties results in a disincentive to redevelop and invest in properties, given added costs and risks. The redevelopment tools of land assembly and the preparation of land for development would help ensure property redevelopment and the remediation of hazardous or toxic materials. In addition, in redevelopment project areas, the Agency can invoke the Polanco Act, which more readily shift¢ liability of environmental remediation to prior polluting property owners. Sources of potentially hazardous materials and waste that could affect soil or groundwater in the Project Areas are historic uses of hazardous materials, identified environmental cases and spill sites, and fill materials used to reclaim areas of the Bay. Historical Land Uses Contributing to the Presence of Hazardous Materials Known as the Industrial City, the historic industrial land uses in South San Francisco have left toxic contamination in portions of the City and the existing Project Areas. As indicated by the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the General Plan Update, most contaminated and affected sites are situated in the city's key redevelopment and industrial areas.? Considering the historic uses of hazardous materials at these generally poorly regulated sites, it is possible that hazardous materials were released into the soil and groundwater in the existing Project Areas and Added Area. According to the DEIR, historic land uses also contribute to the potential contamination of soil and ground water in Project Areas. Portions of the existing Project Areas have been used for industrial purposes since the early 1900s, including industries such as steel and wire rope production. These land uses are commonly associated with the use of heavy metals, oils and acids. The Added Area is the location of the former Oyster Point Municipal Landfill, which was in operation from 1957 to 1970. As described in Section D.2, this site likely poses potential health risks from elevated levels of landfill gases. Environmental Cases and Spill Sites In addition to reviewing the DEIR for the General Plan Update, the blight analysis included a review of existing environmental cases and spill sites in South San Francisco and specifically in the Project Areas. Several seriously contaminated sites exist in South San Francisco, as well as more than 100 sites with leaking underground storage tanks.8 The State Water Resource Control Board lists 194 reported sites with Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT) within the City of South San Francisco, 61 of which are in the existing Project Areas. Figure II-4 shows the locations of the LUFTs in the Project Areas. As described in the DEIR, the quality of ground water is considered good with the exception of industrial areas or locations with underground storage tanks where high levels of nitrate and manganese have been detected.9 7 DEIR, p. 4-112. 8 Ibid., p. 4-117. 9 Ibid., p. 4-111. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-15 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) through the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Control Board regulates the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups Program (SLIC). Sites in the SLIC program are generally small to medium size industrial sites with non-fuel contamination. Of the 21 sites listed within the City, 6 are within the existing Project Areas and are illustrated in Figure 1I-4. According to the DEIR, the presence of hazardous materials or hazardous waste in soil or groundwater in the city's commercial and industrial areas could constrain development of certain areas due to the actual or perceived threat to human health and the costs associated with site cleanup.TM Contaminated Fill Materials A majority of the land east of U.S. Highway 101 contains artificial fill, which could potentially contain hazardous materials. During the 1950s, the City converted previously unused marshlands on the margins of the Bay into areas usable for industrial redevelopment by utilizing artificial fill.~ The shoreline in the Added Area was filled during the operating years of the Oyster Point Municipal Landfill, from 1957 to 1970. The fill consists of municipal and industrial waste that includes paper, cardboard, organic matter, wood, glass, metal, rocks, concrete, metal cans, bottles, wire, rubber, 55-gallon drums, paints grid other materials.~2 These materials may contain hazardous materials such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), heavy metals, oil and grease and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 4. Public Improvement Deficiencies [33030(c)] Under the current CRL, inadequate public infrastructure and facilities cannot be the sole reason for redevelopment. Pursuant to CRL Section 33030(c), public infrastructure and facilities deficiencies may be a contributing factor to blight, and an agency may undertake needed public improvements to alleviate blight. To the extent that they are present, inadequate public improvements typically reflect problems that exaggerate the effects of blight. Under the CRL prior to 1994, inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities that could not be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment were considered to be a blight factor. Since 1994, the CRL permits consideration of inadequate public improvements when blighting conditions exist in a project area. a. Public Facilities The existing Projects Areas lack sufficient park and open space for its residents. The City overall provides 5.4 acres of open space per 1,000 residents? The national standard is 6 to 10.5 acres of traditional open space per 1,000 residents.14 The city has even less adequate park acreage to serve its residents; only 1.2 acres of developed parkland, excluding school athletic fields and open space, are available per 1,000 residents. The Project Areas with residential populations, Downtown/Central and E1 Camino Corridor, have small play lots but no parks. However, the City's largest park, Orange Park, is adjacent to the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area, and the City plans to expand Orange Park through the creation of a linear park connecting the BART station to Orange Park. b. Public Infrastructure Public infrastructure deficiencies exist in the existing Project Areas and Downtown/Central Added Area. Sections C through G present more detailed information on the deficiencies in each Project Area. 1° Ibid., p. 4-118. 11 Ibid., p. 2-7. 12 Post-Closure Development Standards Report, Oyster Point Landfill, Gabewell with PES Environmental, Inc., 2000, p. 3. 13 South San Francisco General Plan, p. 174. 14 South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, Dyett & Bhatia, September 1997, p. 8-4. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-16 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 ./ Figure II-4 Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks and Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups Sites Project Area ~ Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups Site (6) O Leaking Underground FueITank (61) · Redevelopment Project Areas Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, August 27, 2004. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger 11-17 Seifel CONSULllNG INC. Preliminary Report November 2004 C. Downtown/Central Project Area The Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan was adopted on July 12, 1989. The existing Project Area consists of approximately 550 acres within nine subareas, five of which are non-contiguous. These subareas include the downtown, portions of the shoreline area, the Bayshore freeway overpass and Colma Creek. The land uses at the time of Redevelopment Plan adoption were mixed and included commercial, industrial, residential and vacant. 1. Evidence Provided in Support of a Blight Finding at Time of Plan Adoption The 1989 Report to Council found evidence of blight in the existing Downtown/Central Project Area and concluded that redevelopment was necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the CPL. These conditions included deteriorating properties; buildings of defective and obsolete design; irregularly shaped parcels; incompatible uses; transportation, circulation and parking deficiencies; inoperative railroad tracks, deteriorated streets and other infrastructure; hazardous materials; a high proportion of low income households; a lower skilled labor force; declining and lagging retail market; and a high crime rate. Refer to Table II-1 for a summary of blighting conditions documented in the 1989 Report to Council. 2. Redevelopment Activities and Development from Plan Adoption to Present The Agency has undertaken many redevelopment projects and activities in the existing Downtown/Central Project Area since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1989. These efforts have stimulated private development in the existing Downtown/Central Project Area. a. Agency's Redevelopment Projects and Activities The Agency has undertaken public infrastructure, parking and public facility improvements, economic development, property acquisition and affordable housing activities in the Downtown/Central Project Area since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. These include faqade improvement, seismic retrofit and other rehabilitation of buildings; landscaping, street, circulation and public utility improvements; toxic remediation; property acquisition and disposition; parking development and meter upgrades; fu'e station, day care facility, health clinic and library development; facilitation of biotechnology and office building development; Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel rehabilitation; low income homeowner programs; affordable housing development; plans for the Caltrain Station; and implementation of the Downtown strategy. Refer to Table 11-2 for a summary of the Agency's projects and activities. b. Development to Date in Downtown/Central Project Area Redevelopment projects have been key factors in stimulating the development of research and development and high-tech industrial uses east of U.S. Highway I01. The Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park has played a large role as a biotechnology complex, and has attracted many companies to the area. Appendix G-1 contains a summary of the development to date in the existing Downtown/Central Project Area. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-18 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 3. Remaining Blighting Conditions in the Downtown/Central Area The Downtown/Central Project Area has been improved by public and private actions since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1989. However, recent field surveys and existing conditions analyses determined that blighting conditions persist in several areas. These conditions include dilapidated or deteriorated buildings, earthquake hazards, presence of graffiti and homeless encampments, incompatible uses, substandard lots, stagnant retail sales, overcrowding, and problem businesses. a. Physical Blighting Conditions Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings [33031(a)(1)] Adverse building conditions observed during field reconnaissance surveys at various locations in the. Downtown/Central Project Area include deteriorated or dilapidated commercial and residential structures, neglected buildings, and structures with informal construction. Conditions include deteriorated roofing and siding, dry rot, broken windows, peeling paint and generally rundown buildings. In some cases, deterioration is so extensive that housing units are dilapidated and are considered health and safety hazards. Photographs of deteriorated and dilapidated building conditions are presented in Appendix C. One factor contributing to the deterioration of the housing units is the age of the structures. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the majority of the housing units in the Downtown area is over 40 years old, most of which were constructed prior to the UBC Regulations in 1955. Over 82 percent of the 2,278 housing units in the Downtown/Central Project Area were built prior to 1970. Of these, 858 units were constructed prior to 1950. As discussed in Section B.2 units built prior to the adoption of the 1955 edition of the UBC are of particular concern for potential earthquake damage and most buildings constructed prior to 1970 would not meet current design provisions in the UBC for earthquake forces. In addition, 58.8 percent of the housing in the Project Area was constructed prior to 1960. Given that the typical useful life for single- family homes and apartment buildings is 45 to 55 years, most of these units have reached their normal useful life, unless major renovation has occurred.~5 ~5 Typical life expectancy for normal wood frame construction is 45 years for apartment building and 45 to 55 years for single- family homes. Marshall Valuation Service, Marshall & Swift, 2002, Section 97, pp. 5-11. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-19 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table II-1 Blighting Conditions under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger i i CRL Reference ~ Definition Under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption' } Blighting Conditions Present at Time of Plan Adoption (7/12/1989) Section 33031: A blighted area is characterized by the existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of such uses, which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes and are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, and crime because of any one or a combination of the following factors: Section 33031 (a) Defective design and character of physical construction Section 33031 (b) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing Section 33031 (c) Section 33031 (d) Section 33031 (e) · High density of population and overcrowding Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces, and recreation facilities Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character, or shifting of uses Defective and obsolete design, especially in industrial areas, soch as insufficient space allotted for varkin~, makeshift additions. Irregularly shaped parcels, improperly spaced buildings, faulty interior arrangement based on age of construction and avvarent ~revalence of code inadeauacies and violations. More than half of residential and non-residential (retail, industrial, office, other commercial) properties deteriorated and in need of some type of rehabilitation, inoperative railroad tracks, aging and neglected residential and industrial buildings, incompatible uses such as gas station surrounded by residences, a factory, restaurant and hotel that share one entrance, and residential additions at rear of a bar. Sections 33032: A blighted area is characterized by properties which suffer from economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse because of one or more of the following factors: Section 33032 (a) Section 33032 (b) Section 33032 (c) Section 33032 (d) The subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development The laying out of lots in disregard of the conlours and other topography or physical characteristics of the £round and surroundin£ conditions The existence of inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be retnedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and econotnic maladjustment Predominantly Urbanized per CRL~ a. Ex6erpts from the CRL are in italics. b. This condition was required after January 1, 1984. Layout of land industrial subdivision system that results in extremely fragmented parcelization system with numerous oversized parcels, irregnlarly formed and shaped parcels, landlocked parcels, and access ~roblems. Parcels that have been diagonally intersected by utility easements, freeway and railroad right of ways. Transportation, circulation and parking deficiencies such as trucks on the roadways, high traffic volumes, discontinuous and fragmented street system, deteriorated street conditions, new sewers required, substandard storm drainage and shoreline conditions (soil contamination, industrial waste contaminating waterways, methane gas deposits and mud boils contaminate soil and make shoreline unusable). High proportion of low income households, a lower skilled labor force, a high crime rate, declining and lacking retail and deteriorated housing conditions. At least 80 percent of privately owned property developed for urban uses. Project Area completely surrounded by developed urban uses and served by streets which serve such uses. Source: Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc., Report to City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project, May 1989. Information compiled by Seifel Consulting Inc. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-20 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table II-2 Agency Projects and Activities to Date in Existing Downtown/Central Project South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Added green areas to infill lots surrounding the Downtown. Completed major landscaping and street median improvement project on Airport Boulevard, including adding large box trees and landscaping from Grand Avenue to Hillside to soften the impact of the roadway. Negotiated with Britannia, Inc. to share a portion of the costs of the extensive infrastructure upgrade needed in this area. Resurfaced Airport Boulevard. Obtained new equipment to steam clean downtown sidewalks. Developed plans for the Caltrain Station relocation and transit center. Constructed and/or upgraded curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping and railroad crossings on streets such as Railroad and Grand Avenues. Replaced and upgraded traffic signals and overcrossings. Undergrounding of utilities on East Grand Avenue. Improved Harbor Way area infrastructure, including new sewer and storm drain systems and undergrounding of all utilities. Parking Improvements Worked with adjacent businesses to improve parking. Added approximately 60 additional parking spaces. Completed negotiations on a lease agreement for the City/Agency land at the "finger piers" for at grade parking near the San Francisco International Airport. Developed parking at 124 Linden Avenue. Developed 20 new parking spaces at 616 Linden Avenue. Developed parking at 432 Baden. Developed 12 new parking spaces at 201 Grand Avenue. Collaborated with Public Works Department to construct public parking lot on City owned property at 205 Grand Avenue. Initiated lease arrangements for additional surface parking spaces on properties negotiated for development or acquisition by the Redevelopment Agency Replaced 106 mechanical parking meters with new electronic parking meters. Installed 32 new parking meters in the new parking lots at Linden and Cypress Avenues and at Grand and Cypress Avenues Completed a study to develop a public parking lot structure downtown. Public:FacilitieS': :' :. ' : ': Completed the Grand Avenue library retrofit project. Entered into agreement with San Mateo County Department of Health Services to provide services. Completed interior and exterior remodel of 306 Spruce Building for health clinic operated by San Mateo County Department of Health' Services. Rehabilitated the defunct Spruce School Gym to creme a new Community Learning Center. Completed park improvements for play lot at Cypress/Pine and Pecks. Completed development of day care facility. Converted 905 Linden Avenue to a neighborhood green area. Completed the Terra Bay Recreation Center. Created a summertime public market at Orange Park, which primarily serves the Downtown/Central residents. Facilitated the relocation of the City's Technology Department to 200 Linden Avenue. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-21 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table II-2 (Continued) Agency Projects and Activities to Date in Existing Downtown/Central Project South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Projects and Activities ' Economic DevelOpment: ' ' '~ : Entered into an agreement with Terranomics/Metrovation for the development and implementation of a Downtown Strategy plan. Completed thc seismic retrofit of thc Metropolitan Hotel; Bacchanal Restaurant opened in the Metropolitan Hotel in July 1999. Painted and rehabilitated bank building at 200 Linden Avenue. Provided over $3 million dollars in low interest rate loans for seismic retrofitting of four historic buildings and hotels, enabling the retention of over 100 residential units in the Downtown/Central Area. Provided low interest rate loans for: ~ Retrofitting of Al's Auto Body Shop on Airport Boulevard. ~ Roofing repair on a commercial building at 600 Linden Avenue. ---, Seismic retrofitting and rehabilitation of a URM commercial building at 211 Linden Avenue, adding 2,500 square feet of retail inventory and the restoration of an historic building~ ~ Seismic retrofitting of restaurant at 235 Grand Avenue. Contributed $200,000 for frontage improvements of Trammel Crow's two recently completed biotechnology and E-commerce buildings on Oyster Point Boulevard. Entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with Britannia Point Grande Limited Partnership to replace dysfunctional buildings and develop vacant property in the Harbor Way area (Subarea 4) with new biotechnology buildings. Entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with Giorgi Brothers Furniture and completed construction of a new 45,000 SF furniture store at the corner of Baden and Linden Avenues. Approved Genentech Building 32:125,000 square feet of office space. Approved Stuhlmuller Property Company: 105,000 square feet of R&D/office space. Hired an ombudsman to assist businesses and homeowners. Enacted a Business Assistance/Subsidy Program, including a Rehabilitation Loan Program. Other building facade improvements. Downtown strategy plan and improvements. Facilitated thc review, approval, and development of numerous office and biotechnology research buildings. Provided low interest rate loans to many small businesses for facade and seismic retrofit improvements. Provided low interest rate loans to eight small businesses for facade and seismic retrofit improvements. Property Acquisition, Site Occupant Relocation, Demolition and Site Preparation Acquired 205 and 432 Baden. Acquired 124, 616, 700 and 905 Linden Avenue. Company. Committed funds to acquire a 14,500 square foot three-story office building at 360 Spruce Avenue to house several community health and social service agencies to better serve Downtown/Central area residents. Acquired a Quonset hut building and rel. ocated an auto body shop, demolished obsolete building and created new parking. Acquired new building for Downtown Fire Station. Acquired 201 Grand Avenue. Acquired 212 Baden Avenue in a land exchange with Giorgi Brothers Furniture. Acquired 440 Commercial Avenue for housing purposes. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-22 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table II-2 (Continued) Agency Projects and Activities to Date in Existing Downtown/Central Project South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Projects and Activities Entered into an agreement with the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition requiring that Sundial Apartments to be made available as permanent housing to very low income individuals. Provided funding for substantial rehabilitation for 66 SRO units at 'the Metropolitan Hotel and 16 SRO units at the Grand Hotel (restricted to very low income occupancy through 2029). Provided ftmding for the substantial rehabilitation and retrofit of the Mexico Tipico Restaurant, including one affordable housing unit (restricted to very low income occupancy through 2019). Provided funding to the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition and Bridge Housing Corporation for feasibility analyses of several potential housing sites. Provided CDBG grant and loan funds for rehabilitation and minor home repairs for low income homeowners. Transferred 440 Commercial Avenue to Habitat for Humanity to develop into affordable housing units. , Facilitated the sale of affordable First Time Homebuyer units at Villa Hillspmce, Oak Farms and open market purchases. Began the City's First Time Homebuyer loan program. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-23 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Electrical, plumbing and heating systems have an even shorter service lifespans and require more frequent replacement. Furthermore, the Downtown area contains many older residential units. Downtown accommodates 513 housing units built in 1939 or earlier. Table 1I-3 presents the age of housing units in the Project Area. Table II-3 Age of Housing Units Downtown/Central Project Areaa South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Percent of Housing Year Built Housing Unitsb Units 1939 or earlier 513 22.5% 1940-1949 345 15.1% 1950-1959 482 21.2% 1960-1969 539 23.7% Subtotal 1,879 82.5% 1970-1979 270 11.9% 1980-1989 77 3.4% 1990-1994 15 0.7% 1995-1998 16 0.7% 1999-March 2000 21 0.9% Total 2,278 100.0% a. Census Tracts 6021 (Block Groups 1, 2 and 3) and 6022 (Block Groups 1, 2 and 3) were used for this analysis as they most closely overlay the Project Area. b. Number of housing units does not equal number of buildings. Source: 2000 U.S. Census. Unreinforced Masonry Buildings The Project Area contains several unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs), a building type which has proved to be particularly hazardous during an earthquake. Such buildings are typically constructed of brick, hollow tile, or concrete block and often lack the structural strength to resist a moderate to slxong earthquake. In accordance with state requirements, the City must identify URMs and take steps to ensure their reinforcement to a level that provides a reasonable level of safety during a seismic event. The list of URMs in the Project Area can be seen in Table II-4. Seven buildings still require seismic work while nine buildings have had some level of seismic work completed. Masonry buildings that have been retrofitted are stronger than unreinforced masonry structures during a seismic event; however, they retain a higher risk of collapse than new buildings and other types of construction and buildings that conform to modem building codes, as discussed previously in Section B.2. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-24 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table II-4 Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Address 400 Grand Avenue 440 Grand Avenue 211 Linden Avenue 213-219 Linden Avenue 615 Airport Boulevard 312 Baden Avenue 113-115 Grand Avenue 223-225 Grand Avenue 261-265 Grand Avenue 316-318 Grand Avenue 332 Grand Avenue 336-338 Grand Avenue 381-385 Grand Avenue 409 Grand Avenue 440442 Baden Avenue 201-205 Grand Avenue 473-475 Grand Avenue Railway Station at Dubuque Seismic Work Completed Completed Completed Completed Partially completed Not completed Completed Completed Completed Not completed Not completed Not completed Completed Not completed Not completed Demolished Not completed Demolished Source: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department, November 2004. Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots [33031(a)(2)] Soil Conditions According to the DEIR, the Downtown/Central Project Area is located in the lowland and upland topographic zones, and land composition consists mainly of slope wash and ravine fill with Colma Formation (sand, with minor gravel, silt and clay), alluvium and artificial fill underlain by Bay mud, and other small amounts of Serpentine, Franciscan sheared rock, Franciscan sandstone, and unnamed sandstone at San Bruno Mountain. Lowland zone development hazards include shrink-swell, settlement and differential settlement and corrosivity. Differential settlement can damage building foundations, disturb underground utilities and cause settlement in streets and roads. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction. Seismic groundshaking due to wave amplification could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. The alluvial lowlands surrounding Colma Creek between Magnolia and Linden Avenues are subject to extremely high or very high levels of wave amplification. The consequences of liquefaction could include damaged foundations, disruption of utility service and damaged roadways. Upland zone soils may include moderate potential for shrink-swell and erosion hazard? See Section B.2 for a detailed description of land composition and hazards. ~6 DEIR, pp. 4-146 through 4-t62. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-25 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Hazardous Materials As mentioned in Section B.3 above, in addition to reviewing the DEIR for the General Plan Update, the blight analysis included a review of spill sites and leaking underground fuel tanks in South San Francisco and specifically in the Downtown/Central Project Area. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) through the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Control Board regulates the Spills, Leak, s, Investigations, and Cleanups program (SLIC). As of August 2004, sites in the SLIC program are generally small to medium size industrial sites with non-fuel contamination. Of the 21 sites listed in the City, 5 are within the existing Downtown/Central Project Area, as shown in Table II-5. The sites have contamination issues that are monitored. Table II-5 Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups Sites Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Business Name Street Number Street Name Poetsch Peterson Tanners 325 Maple Avenue Haskins Jamie Court Not available Jamie Court Price Company 479 Airport Boulevard W.C. Properties 250 East Grand Avenue Bacon Property0 499 Railroad Avenue Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, August 27, 2004. The State Water Resource Control Board lists 194 reported sites with Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT) within the City, 53 of which are in the Project Area. Table 11-6 lists the location of the LUFT sites in Downtown/Central Project Area. Figure II-4 shows the LUFT and SLICS locations in the Project Areas. Presence of Trash, Dumping and Transient Encaml~ments The presence of trash, illegal dumping and transient encampments detracts from the area and inhibits the proper utilization of lots and buildings. Furthermore, trash accumulation and illegal dumping visually diminish the Project Area as well as create unpleasant odors. Trash accumulation occurs in commercial and industrial parts of the Project Area, including along Airport Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard Extension, Littlefield Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard, and lanes near Grand Avenue. Illegal dumping occurs on both private and public parcels in the Project Area. In an interview with the Police Department, Police Chief Mark Rafaelli reported that areas along U.S. Highway 101 are often used for transient encampments. Photographs of these conditions are included in Appendix C. Crime According to the Chief Rafaelli, the crime in the Downtown/Central Project Area inhibits the use and enjoyment of central Downtown, especially after dark, and contributes to the economic stagnation of the area. Drug trafficking, abandoned vehicles, and public inebriates foster an intimidating environment, which deters shoppers and negatively affects the businesses in central Downtown. The large number of establishments selling liquor in the Downtown exacerbates these conditions. According to the Chief, gang activity occurs in the Project Area in the section known as "Old Town" along Cypress Avenue. Gang members live in the Old Town, which the Chief reports has a higher rate of crime and violence than the overall city rate and has created quality of life issues and safety concerns for the residents and businesses in the Downtown/Central Project Area. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-26 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table II-6 Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Site Name Street Number Street Name BLANDINI TRUST 545 AIRPORT AIRPORT BLVD SERVICE STN 190 AIRPORT CHEVRON 9-0645 401 AIRPORT EMERY AIR FREIGHT 501 AIRPORT SOUTH CITY FORD 315 AIRPORT SHELL 515 AIRPORT SHELL 899 AIRPORT BUDGET RENT-A-CAR 177 AIRPORT UNOCAL gl 020 221 AIRPORT COLOR CRAFT 255 AIRPORT BOB LEECH'S AUTO RENTAL 435 AIRPORT UNOCAL g4524 901 AIRPORT FIRE STATION gl 201 BADEN ESCHELBACH PROPERTIES 100 BADEN EL CAMINO LINES 428 CANAL BRESSIE & CO. 600-79 DUBUQUE OLYMPIAN GATEWAY 176 GATEWAY BELL ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 208 GRAND SHOPPING STRIP MALL 477 GRAND OLYMPIC EAST GRAND CARDTOL 190 GRAND OLYMPIAN 186 GRAND GEORGIA PACIFIC 249 GRAND CODON (GRAND/ROEBLING INV) 213 GRAND MATTISON & SHIDLER 205 GRAND AVE E TORNBERG ENTERPRISES 1776 GRANDVIEW MIZRAJSETO PROPERTY 165 LINDEN TEXACO, SOUTH CITY (INDEP) 905 LINDEN SOUTH CITY SCAVENGER 69 LINDEN CALEGARI PROPERTY 40 LINDEN U-SAVE PLUMBING HARDWARE 108 LINDEN PRESSURE GROUT COMPANY 125 LINDEN SHELL OIL 123 LINDEN UNION CARBIDE CORP. 7 LINDEN FOUR STAR AUTOMOTIVE, INC. 113 LINDEN DUPONT 160 LINDEN STANDARD ELECTRIC 930 LINDEN LA MARK TRANSPORTATION 26 LINDEN VOLONTE AUTOMOTIVE 616 LINDEN OLYMPIC AUTO SERVICE 401 LINDEN OLYMPIAN 35 LINDEN PENSKE TRUCK LEASING II 62 LINDEN PENSKE TRUCK LEASING II 62 LINDEN CHEVRON 9-7640 124 LINDEN AGUNDIS TIRE SHOP 110 LINDEN SBN PROPERTY 950 LINDEN SUN CHEMICAL 20 LINDEN AVE S HOFFMAN BROTHERS 306 MAPLE BLUE LINE TRANfiFER STATION 180 OYSTER POINT MALCOLM DRILLING 200 OYSTER POINT SOUTH CITY LUMBER 499 RAILROAD BLANKENHORN PROPERTY 517 RAILROAD ALLAN BAKER COMPANY 160 SYLVESTER PONY EXPRESS 108 SYLVESTER Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, August 27, 2004. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger II-27 Preliminary Report November 2004 Incompatible Uses [33031(a)(3)1 The juxtaposition of industrial uses and traditional downtown uses hinders both types of. land uses. As shown in Appendix C, auto shops abut retail and restaurant uses off of Grand Avenue, the central commercial strip. The industrial businesses located in central Downtown cannot expand due to change in planning policy to encourage traditional downtown commercial uses, whereas the retail and restaurant uses adjacent to the auto shops suffer from inadequate parking due to auto shop use. Moreover, several conflicting uses share parking lots, circulation space and entrances. One such example is shown in Appendix C, p. 13 where an industrial warehouse shares an entrance and parking lot with a hotel. This mismatch of uses in central Downtown puts pressure on parking, circulation and land use compatibility. Substandard Lots in Multiple Ownership [33031(a)(4)] Several substandard lots are present in the Project Area, including lots of inadequate size. A number.of small lots exist in the Downtown/Central Project Area on Grand Avenue, 3rd Lane, 4~ Lane and Linden Avenue. Many of the lots are located off alleys like Fourth Lane that lack adequate infrastructure such as sidewalks and curbing. The parcels are slender with limited access and are restricted because they cannot accommodate contemporary economic development. b. Economic Blighting Conditions Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments [33031(b)(1)] This section documents the presence of blighting conditions described in CRL Section 33031(b)(1) in the Downtown/Central Project Area, including the presence of potentially hazardous or toxic waste, poor economic performance of retail businesses, and a stagnant retail and office market. Hazardous Materials As discussed in Section 3.a, hazardous materials and toxic contamination are present within the Downtown/Central Project Area. The potential contamination, the unknown cost to redevelop parcels, and the safety concerns while remediating the parcels impair the value of the 53 properties with LUFTs and 5 parcels with SLICS in the Downtown/Central Project Area. Stagnant Sales Tax Revenue and Business Decline Despite the presence of the commercial core, economic progress is slow in Downtown, as evidenced by the decline in sales tax revenue generated by businesses within the Downtown/Central Project Area. As shown in Table II-7, sales tax revenue has declined in the Downtown Area. Although sales tax revenue has declined for the City as a whole, Downtown appears to be struggling despite its commercial focus. Overall, the sales tax revenue generated within the existing Downtown/Central Project Area has had an average annual decrease of 7.9 percent compared to the City's decrease of 5.9 percent per year. In addition, the number of businesses has declined over the past five years. While other areas of the City are gaining new business, the Downtown/Central Project Area has lost 22 businesses in the last three years. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-28 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table 11-7 Historical Sales Tax Revenue Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Downtown/Central City Total Fiscal Sales Tax Annual Sales Tax Annual Year Revenue ($) Growth Revenue ($) Growth Actual Dollars 2001/02 3,317,869 11,687,816 2002/03 3,032,173 -8.6% 10,753,242 -8.0% 2003/04 2,892,162 -4.6% 10,647,552 - 1.0% Average Annual : , : Growth -6.6% -4.6% Adjusted for Inflationa 2001/02 3,412,195 12,020,099 2002/03 3,061,679 -10.3% 10,857,883 -9.7% 2003/04 2,892,162 -5.5% 10,647,552 -1.9% Average : ~ Annual ': : Growth -7.9% -5.9% a. Adjusted to 2003 dollars by using annual growth of All Urban Consumers Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. Series ID: CUURA422SA0. Source: MBIA MuniServices Company, Seifel Consulting Inc., November 2004. Lodein~ Establishments Transient occupancy taxes (TOT) directly contributes revenue to the City and is one indicator of the value of a lodging establishment. Annual TOT generated by lodging establishments in the Downtown/Central Project Area have decreased significantly over the last five years compared to the City as a whole. Based on data obtained from the City of South San Francisco, for 1999 though 2003, 10 out of the City's 31 lodging establishments were located in the Downtown Project Area. Only 7 out of the 10 lodging establishments located in Downtown reported taxable receipts from 1999 to 2003. (The remaining 3 lodging establishments were excluded from the analysis because they are single room occupancy hotels and therefore collect little or no TOT revenue.) During 1999 through 2003, 7 out of the 28 lodging establishments located in South San Francisco and reporting taxable receipts were located in the Downtown/Central Project Area. These 7 establishments have a total of 584 rooms for calendar year 2003. After adjusting for inflation, annual TOT for the 7 reporting establishments in the Downtown/Central Project Area decreased at an average annual rate of 13.3 percent between 1999 and 2003, nearly twice the City's rate of 6.7 pement, as can be seen in Table II-8. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-29 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Furthermore, the lodging establishments in the Project Area tend to be local motels that are smaller than the major chain lodging establishments outside the Project Area. The total number of rooms in the lodging establishments within the Project Area that report TOT is 584 rooms, with each establishment's number of rooms ranging from 20 to 175 rooms; four have between 20 and 50 rooms while three have 100 rooms plus. The total number of rooms in the Project Area amount to 19 percent of the city's total rooms. However, the TOT generated by the Project Area's motels represent only 17 percent of the City's total TOT revenues in 2003. The annual TOT per room for lodging rooms in the Project Area compared to the City as a whole is shown in Table II-9. The average annual transient occupancy tax per room was notably lower in the Project Area from 2000 through 2003, which indicates the Project Area lodging establishments are not performing as well as many of the City's other lodging establishments. The average annual tax receipts per room has been declining, and in 2003 averaged only $1,074 per room. This amount is equivalent.to $13,420 in average revenue per room in 2003, which is 87 percent of the 2003 citywide average revenue per room of $15,513. Residential Overcrowding or Problem Businesses [33031(b)(4)1 Overcrowding According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an overcrowded housing unit is defined as a housing unit with more than one person per room while severely overcrowded is defined as more than one and a half persons per room. Overcrowded housing can lead to the deterioration of buildings by putting additional wear on the structures. The most recent data is contained in the 2000 U.S. Census. This analysis focused on the central core of the Downtown/Central Project Area, specifically around Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, where residents of the Project Area are concentrated. The total population of the Downtown/Central Area in 2000 was about 8,197 residents living in 2,278 households. Table II-10 shows that residential overcrowding is a significant problem for both renter and owner households in the Downtown/Central Project Area, compared to the city as a whole and San Mateo County. According to the U.S. Census, approximately 40.2 percent of housing units in the Downtown Area were overcrowded or severely overcrowded, more than two times the citywide rate of 17.7 percent and more than three times the County rate of 12.3 percent. Approximately 23.8 percent of the housing units in Downtown/Central Project Area were severely overcrowded, more than 2.5 times the citywide rate of 9.0 percent and three times the County rate of 7.4 percent. In addition, 21.9 percent of the owner occupied housing units and 45.9 percent of the renter occupied housing units in Downtown/Central Project Area are overcrowded or severely overcrowded. These rates are double that of the City as a whole, and more than three times the County rate. The overcrowding issue is particularly problematic for renter housing units as nearly half the renter housing units in the Project Area are overcrowded. Also, the majority of the overcrowding in the central core of Downtown/Central Project Area is due to severe overcrowding where 17.9 percent of all owner's homes and 25.6 percent of all renter's homes are severely overcrowded. These overcrowded conditions contribute to the deterioration of the housing stock in Downtown/Central Project Area, as previously mentioned in Section 3.a above. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-30 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table II-8 Annual Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) from 1999-2003 Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Calendar Year Downtown/Central Total TOT I Annual I Receipts ($)~ Growth Actual Dollars City. Total TOT [ Annual Receipts ($)I Growth 1999 974,637 4,355,488 2000 1,083,554 11.2% 6,173,426 41.7% 2001 847,084 -21.8% 4,911,689 -20.4% 2002 630,932 -25.5% 3,967,812 -19.2% 2003 626,976 -0.6% 3 757.98~ -5.3% Average ~! ~i~ Annual Growth - 10.4% -3.6% Adjusted for Inflationb 1999 1,109,674 4,958,944 2000 1,180,966 6.4% 6,728,417 35.7% 2001 876,078 -25.8% 5,079,809 -24.5% 2002 642,047 -26.7% 4,037,711 -20.5% 2003 626.976 -2.3% 3 757.982 -6.9% Average i~'~ !! :ii! i!~ !~ Annual ~ Growth ~ -13.3% -6.7% a. Excluded Industrial Hotel, Metropolitan Hotel and S & L Hotel from the analysis as they are primarily SROs with little or no TOT revenue. b. Adjusted to 2003 dollars by using annual growth of All Urban Consumers Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. Series ID: CUURA422SA0. Source: City of South San Francisco Finance Department, Seifel Consulting Inc., May 2004. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-31 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table II-9 Annual Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) per Room from 1999-2003 Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Downtown/Central City Average Annual Calendar Total TOT Receipts per Year Receipts ($)a Total Roomsa Room ($) Actual Dollars 1999 974,637 540 1,805 4,355,488 2000 1,083,554 540 2,007 6,173,426 2001 847,084 587 1,443 4,911,689 2002 630,932 584 1,080 3,967,812 2003 626,976 584 1,074 3,757,982 Adjusted forlnflationb 1999 1,109,674 540 2,055 4,958,944 2000 1,180,966 540 2,187 6,728,417 2001 876,078 587 1,492 5,079,809 2002 642,047 584 1,099 4,037,711 2003 626,976 584 1,074 3,757,982 a. Excluded Industrial Hotel, Metropolitan Hotel and S & L Hotel from the with little or no TOT revenue. Total TOT Receipts ($) TotalRooms 2,440 2,638 3,026 3,029 3,029 2,440 2,638 3,026 3,029 3,029 analysis as they are primarily SROs b. Adjusted to 2003 dollars by using annual growth of All Urban Consumers Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. Series ID: CUURA422SA0. Source: City of South San Francisco Finance Department, Seifel Consulting Inc., May 2004. Average Annual Receipts per Room ($) 1,785 2,340 1,623 1,310 1,241 2,032 2,551 1,679 1,333 1,241 South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-32 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Total (Owner + Renter) Overcrowdedb Severely Overcrowded~ Total Overcrowded Total Housing Unitsd Table II-10 Residential Overcrowding Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Downtown/Central' Housing Units Percentage City of South San Francisco Housing Units Percentage San Mateo Count. Housing Units Percentage 364 16.4% 1,716 8.7% 12,226 4.8% 528 23.8% 1,779 9,0?/o 18,906 7,4~/0 892 40.2% 3,495 17.7% 31,132 12.3% 2,2181 100.0% I 19,691l 100.0%o] 254,103l 100.0% Owner Overcrowdedb Severely Overcrowded~ Total Overcrowded Total Owner Housing Unitsd 21 4.0% 818 6.6% 5,335 3.4% 94 .17.9% 533 4.3% 5,136 3,3% 115 21.9°/o 1,351 11.0% 10,471 6.7o/o 5241 100.0%l 12,3221 100.0°/ol 156,2641 100.0% Renter Overcrowdedb 343 20.2% 898 12.2% 6,891 7.0% Severely Overcrowded~ 43__~4 25.6% 1,246 16.9% 13,770 14.1 °A Total Overcrowded 777 45.9% 2,144 29.1% 20,661 21.1% Total Renter Housing Unitsd [ 1,6941 100.0°/ol 7,3691 100.0°/ol 97,8391 100.0% Note: Figures may not total exactly due to rounding. a. Census Tracts 6021 (Block Groups 1, 2 and 3) and 6022 (Block Groups 1, 2 and 3) were used for this analysis as they mostly closely overlay the Project Area. b. Overcrowded is defined as housing units with more than one person per room, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). c. Severely overcrowded is defined as housing units with more than one and a half persons per room, as defined by HUD. d. Excludes vacant units. Source: 2000 U.S. Census. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-33 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Problem Businesses Another factor of economic blight is an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses catering exclusively to adults that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. The presence of so many of these establishments appears to have contributed to public safety and general welfare problems in Downtown/Central Project Area, including loitering, littering, drug trafficking and the presence of other illegal activity, according to Chief of Police Mark Rafaelli. The most problematic businesses are the establishments selling liquor, such as a liquor store or a bar. In order to deter these types of alcoholic beverage licenses, the Police Department is making a concerted effort to oppose any further licenses within the City, particularly non-restaurant uses, due to the oversaturation of licenses in the City. The Police Department has been successful in revoking licenses from four problematic premises with violations over the last 10 years. The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) regulates alcoholic beverage licenses. Several subcategories of licenses exist, but the overarching categories are on-sale licenses and off-sale licenses. On-sale licenses allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, such as a restaurant or bar, while off-sale licenses are for the sale of alcoholic beverages that are consumed off the premises, such as a package store or grocery store? When an applicant applies for an alcoholic beverage license, ABC notifies the City Council and agencies such as the City's police, health, and planning departments. ABC also requires a 30-day posting period for public notification. ABC reviews and investigates the applicant during this time, and also considers whether the license will be used in a problem area or an area with an overconcentration of licensed properties. If an applicant meets the requirements, he/she will be granted a license if the maximum number of licenses allowed has not been reached. However, if the applicant can prove that the license would satisfy a public necessity or convenience, it can be granted regardless of whether the maximum number of licenses allowed has been reached. The number of licenses allowed in an area is determined by population, according to the most recent U.S. Census. The current ratios are one on-sale license per 2,000 residents, and one off-sale license per 2,500 residents. These ratios only guide the licenses issued for selling hard liquor (spirits). No restrictions exist for limiting the number of outlets selling beer and wine only, which can lead to a very high concentration of outlets selling beer and wine despite restrictions on premises selling spirits. In order to assess the number of alcoholic beverage licenses serving the Downtown/Central Project Area, license data was obtained from the ABC. The alcoholic beverage license data was collected for Census Tracts 6022 and 6023. The majority of the Downtown/Central Project Area is within Census Tract 6022, including Grand Avenue. The remaining portion of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard are located in Census Tract 6023 and contribute to the concentration of licenses in the Project Area, and therefore were included in the analysis. According to ABC ratios, while 13 on-sale licenses and 6 off-sale licenses are allowed in Census Tract 6022, 29 on-sale licenses and 13 off-sale licenses are active in the Census Tract. This Census Tract also includes areas and populations located outside of the Project Area. Focusing only on the Downtown/Central Project Area, 26 active on-sale licenses, 90 percent of the licenses in the Census Tract, are in the Downtown/Central Project Area, while 10 of the-13 active off-sale licenses are in the Project Area, or 77 pement. The remaining 6 licenses are just outside the Project Area boundary, and most likely would serve the Project Area as well. ~7 A package store is a term used by ABC to describe an outlet selling primarily alcoholic beverages. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-34 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 In addition, Census Tract 6023 captures the 100-block of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, which exacerbates the overconcentration of alcoholic beverage licenses in the Project Area. In total, 46 licenses are active in the Project Area as can be seen in Table II-11. The 46 licensed premises included 7 package stores selling beer and wine, 7 liquor stores, 7 bars and night clubs, 18 restaurants selling beer and wine, and 7 restaurants selling spirits, beer and wine. The Project Area is a small portion of Census Tracts 6022 and 6023, and this shows that the Project Area has an oversaturafion of licenses due to a multitude of bars, stores and restaurants selling alcohol in the Project Area. One alcoholic beverage license exists per 178 residents,ts Many of the licensed establishments are concentrated along Grand Avenue, which is the hub of activity for the Downtown and is oversaturated with bars and stores selling liquor, beer and wine. Of the 46 licenses in the Project Area, 27 licensed premises exist on Grand Avenue, or 59 percent of the licenses, as can be seen in Table II-12. The 27 licensed premises included 4 package stores selling beer and wine, 4 liquor stores, 5 bars and nightclubs, 11 restaurants selling beer and wine, and 3 restaurants selling spirits, beer and wine. Although licensed restaurant premises are rarely problematic, the sheer concentration of licensed premises on Grand Avenue is a concern. The Project Area only contains approximately four blocks of Grand Avenue. Essentially 6 to 7 licensed premises are situated on each block of Grand Avenue within the Project'Area. The oversaturation along Grand Avenue is cle'arly demonstrated in Figure II-5. c. Public Improvement Deficiencies [33030(c)] The Downtown/Central Project Area is hindered by circulation, infrastructure and public facilities deficiencies: · U.S. Highway 101 separates the Downtown area from the commercial center east of the highway. Hookramps and flyovers are being constructed to provide improved accessibility. · Raikoad Avenue lacks a guardrail and poses safety issues. · Arch culvert is deficient and needs to be replaced to improve storm drainage. · Improvements are needed to the Airport Boulevard sewer bypass. · The Downtown commercial area lacks adequate parking facilities. Railroad crossings impede circulation. D. Downtown/Central Added Area The Downtown/Central Added Area of approximately 97 acres is generally bounded by the San Francisco Bay shoreline to the north, south and east, and Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard to the west. The Added Area is owned by the City of South San Francisco and is the site of the closed municipal landfill. The former landfill has been developed into a public marina, a boat launch, a small yacht club, a boat sales building, a small office and hotel complex and open space. The San Mateo Harbor District operates the public marina on the landfill and is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the former landfill. The Downtown/Central Added Area is proposed to be included as a redevelopment area because of prevalent conditions of physical and economic blight as defined by the CRL. 18 This is based on a total population of the Downtown/Central Project Area of 8,197. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-35 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table II-11 Active Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Present in the Project Area by Type Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Census Tract On/Off Sale Permission to Sell Type 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6023 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6022 On Beer Bar, Tavern 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Club 6022 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6022 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off . Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6022 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6023 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6023 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6023 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6023 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6023 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant 6023 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6023 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant 6023 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant 6023 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant Source: California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, September 15, 2004. Licensed Premises Address 249 Grand Avenue 254 Grand Avenue 303 Grand Avenue 200 Grand Avenue 309 Airport Boulevard 334 Grand Avenue 209 Miller Avenue 211 Spruce Avenue 215 Maple Avenue 240 Grand Avenue 301 Grand Avenue 356 Grand Avenue 369 Grand Avenue 401 Grand Avenue 411 Grand Avenue 479 Grand Avenue 507 Linden Avenue 115 Grand Avenue 1031 Airport Boulevard 451 South Airport Boulevard 35 South Linden Avmue 202 Grand Avenue 203 Linden Avneue 207 Linden Avenue 223 Grand Avenue 224 Grand Avenue 231 Lux Avenue 257 Grand Avenue 265 Grand Avenue 310 Linden Avenue 331 Grand Avenue 348 Grand Avenue 359 Grand Avenue 385 Grand Avenue 394 Grand Avenue 415 Grand Avenue 415 Linden Avenue 419-421 Cypress Avenue 423 Grand Avenue 216 Cypress Avenue 216 Linden Avenue 599 Railroad Avenue 116 Grand Avenue I 0 Airport Boulevard 113 Grand Avenue 1051 Air0ort Boulevard South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger II-36 Preliminary Report November 2004 Table 11-12 Active Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Present on Grand Avenue by Type Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Census Tract On/Off Sale Permission to Sell Type 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Bar, Night Club 6022 On Beer Bar, Tavern 6022 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6022 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off Beer and Wine Package Store 6022 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6023 Off Beer, Wine and Liquor Package Store 6022 ,On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant 6022 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6022 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6023 On Beer and Wine Restaurant 6023 On Beer, Wine and Liquor Restaurant Source: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, September 15, 2004. Licensed Premises Address 249 Grand Avenue 254 Grand Avenue 303 Grand Avenue 200 Grand Avenue 334 Grand Avenue 240 Grand Avenue 30l Grand Avenue 356 Grand Avenue 369 Grand Avenue 401 Gran4, Avenue 411 Grand Avenue 479 Grand Avenue 115 Grand Avenue 202 Grand Avenue 223 Grand Avenue 224 Grand Avenue 257 Grand Avenue 265 Grand Avenue 331 Grand Avenue 348 Grand Avenue 359 Grand Avenue 385 Grand Avenue 394 Grand Avenue 415 Grand Avenue 423 Grand Avenue 116 Grand Avenue 113 Grand Avenue South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-37 Souih San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Figure II-5 Overconcentration of Active Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Downtown/Central Project Area Bar, Club, Package Store Restaurant Downtown/Central Project Area Source: California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, September 15, 2004. Seifel c~um~(a INC South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger II-38 Preliminary Report November 2004 1. Added Area Urbanization The current provisions of the CRL pertaining to urbanization cited in Section A.2 above were carefully considered in assessing the extent of urbanization in the proposed Added Area. Based on field reconnaissance surveys of the Downtown/Central Added Area, more than 80 percent of it is occupied with urban uses such as commercial and public uses. a. Methodology The urbanization analysis set forth below was supported by field reconnaissance surveys, an examination of available maps and aerial photographs, and discussions with City staff. b. Extent of Urbanization in the Downtown/Central Added Area The analysis demonstrates that the Downtown/Central Added Area meets the urbanization requirements of the CRL. The analysis of the extent of urbanization presented below is based upon the three categories used in the definition of predominantly urbanized in Section 33320. l(b) of the CRL (Refer to Section A.2 above). The analysis, summarized in Table II-13, indicates that 97 percent of the proposed Added Area has been developed for urban uses. Thus, the Added Area meets the CRL urbanization requirement of greater than 80 percent. The Added Area is the site of the former Oyster Point Municipal Landfill, which was in operation from 1957 to 1970. The landfill was closed and an initial soil cover was placed on the waste between 1970 and 1975. From 1977 to 1979, a clay cap was constructed on the landfill. The City and the Harbor District then developed public open space, commercial facilities (including the Oyster Point Inn, Oyster Point Yacht Club and boat storage), the Harbormaster's Office and the Harbor District Maintenance building from 1979 to 1981. c. Inclusion of Agricultural Land The CRL requires identification of lands in agricultural use. There are no lands in agricultural use as defined in Section 51201 (a) and (b) of the Government Code within the boundaries of the Downtown/Central Added Area. Table 11-13 and Figure I1-6 present information on urbanization in the Added Area. 2. Added Area Blighting Conditions a. Physical Blighting Conditions Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots [33031(a)(2)] Earthquake Hazards As discussed in Section B, significant earthquake and development hazards exist in the Added Area, which is underlain entirely by artificial fill over Bay mud. The former landfill is located on the western margin of San Francisco Bay, immediately east of San Bruno Mountain. Bedrock belonging to the Franciscan Formation, primarily sandstone and shale, underlies the landfill. Bedrock is near the surface at the western end of the landfill but lies at depth beneath the eastern end. Alluvial units consisting of medium stiff to hard, green, gray-green, and brown sandy and silty clay and medium to dense silt, silty sand, and sand uncomformably overlie the bedrock surface. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-39 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table 11-13 Calculation of the Extent of Urbanization in the Downtown/Central Added Area Part One: Extent of Urbanization Urbanization Categories Acres Percent 1. Area that has been or is developed for urban uses 94.1 97% 2. Area that is characterized by the conditions described in subdivision (a)(4) of Section 33031~ 0.0 0% 3. Area that is an integral part of an area developed for urban usesb 0.0 0% - Total Predominantly Urbanized Area 97.1 100% 4. Unurbanized areas included for planning purposesc 3.0 3% Total Urbanized and Unurbanized 97.1 100% Part Two: Inclusion of Agricultural Land Urbanized and Unurbanized Acres Percent 1. Predominantly urbanized land in agricultural use 0.0 0% 2. Unurbanized land in agricultural use 0.0 O% Total Land in Agricultural Use 0 0% a. No area that meets the description of"subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership" as defined in CRL 333031 (a)(4) has been included for the purpose of urbanization analysis. b. All of the Added Area meets the definition of"area that is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses." However, because it is urbanized, it has been counted under urbanization categoryl above. c. Unurbanized acreage is estimated, because it is not a separate assessor parcel. It is a small portion of Assessor Parcel Number 015-010-060. Source: City of South San Francisco. These alluvial units are absent from beneath the western edge of the landfill, but lap onto the bedrock surface about 300 feet east of the original Bay shoreline. Borings at the eastern end of the landfill penetrate, in aggregate, over 30 feet of these units. The alluvial units are overlain by Bay Mud ranging in thickness from less than 1 foot along the original Bay shoreline to over 90 feet at the eastern end of the landfill. The Bay Mud consists of very soft, dark gray silty clay to clayey silt, with occasional shell fragments and sandy clay zones. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-40 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Figure II-6 Urbanization in the Downtown/Central Added Area I I I D Proposed Added Area ~ Urbanized ['""l Not Urbanized II Breakwater Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger 1I-41 Seifel CO#~L11N6 INK Preliminary Report November 2004 The base of the landfill material has been compressed into, and mixed with, the upper part of the Bay Mud. Bay mud is a soft, highly compressible, gray, uniform, silty clay. Bay mud provides very little bearing and any small loading applied on this soil would cause a long-term ground settlement. The fill consists of up to 45 feet of poorly compacted municipal and industrial waste that includes paper, cardboard, organic matter, wood, glass, metal, rocks, concrete, metal cans, bottles, wire, rubber, 55-gallon drums, paints and other materials? Differential settlement due to these inconsistent artificial fill materials, can damage building foundations, disturb underground utilities, and cause settlement in streets and roads. This is of particular concern in areas that have not previously supported structures and where new structures would place heavier loads than existed in the past. Former Landfill Unless otherwise noted, the following information is summarized from the following documents: · Post Closure Development Standards Report, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California, November 2000, Prepared for City of South San Francisco by Gabewell with PES Environmental, Inc. · Joint Technical Document, Post-Closure Management of the Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California, Volume 1, Text Tables, and Figures, and Volume 2, Appendices, March 2000, Prepared for City of South San Francisco by Gabewell with PES Environmental, Inc. · Report of Waste Discharge, South San Francisco, California, November 2000, Prepared for City of South San Francisco by Gabewell with PES Environmental, Inc. · Work Plan, Phase II Toxics Investigation, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California, Prepared for City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works, Prepared by Gabewell, January 1999. · Environmental Field Investigation Report, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California, Kleindfelder, January 7, 1999. Before 1956, the Oyster Point Landfill location was part of San Francisco Bay. The approximate location of the waste disposal is shown on Figure 1I-7. The Oyster Point Landfill began in 1956 when the City of South San Francisco signed a 15-year contract with South San Francisco Scavenger Company (Scavenger) for rights to operate a tidelands municipal dump. Waste disposal operations conducted between 1956 and 1971 resulted in the extension of the shoreline approximately 3,000 feet to the east of the pre-landfill shoreline. Scavenger collected waste from the Cities of San Bnmo and Millbrae in addition to South San Francisco. The waste dump was also open to the public. Initially, the facility was operated as an open dump where wastes were burned. With the passage of a law banning the open burning of rubbish in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1957, plans were made to establish a solid waste disposal site on the submerged lands just east of the original Oyster Point. The waste was dumped, wetted with Bay water, compacted with a tractor, and covered with dirt that was either excavated from the bluff west of the site or trucked in from nearby construction sites. 19 Gabewell with PES Environmental, Inc., 2000, p. 3. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-42 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 The majority of the reconditioned Bay Mud used in the construction of the landfill cover and dikes was generated during dredging of the west and east basins. Landfilling occurred with minimal engineering controls to p~event leachate generation and migration. Clay dikes reconditioned Bay Mud were originally used to control the migration of water in and out of the waste fill areas. Engineered improvements and repairs to these dikes were made after landfill operations ceased to control the generation and migration of leachate. The landfill was developed in three phases. The first portion of the landfill extended eastward approximately 1,500 feet from the original shoreline. The filling of the first section began in 1957 and was completed by late 1961. By 1962, this portion of the landfill was enclosed by an earthen dike to prevent waste from directly contacting the Bay waters. The second phase of the landfill began in 1962 and included the construction of a small boat harbor and launching ramp along the north shore of the landfill. The second phase of landfilling created the present- day mole, a waste-filled breakwater. The third phase of the landfill began in 1964 with the construction of a dike-enclosed cell formed of Bay Mud. Solid waste was placed into this cell. Solid waste operations ceased in 1971. The 1987 CERCLA Site Inspection report cites a December 1961 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) report that estimated several thousand gallons of liquid waste were dumped on top of the fill. Other information sources, however, refer to the liquid industrial waste being disposed of in one of two unlined sumps. Between 1961 and 1967, the landfill also received liquid industrial waste for disposal into two sumps. The larger of the two industrial waste sumps underlies Marina Boulevard near the present-day guard shack. The smaller sump underlies Gull Drive. Approximate locations of the sumps are shown on Figure 11-7. The fa-st sump location was used from 1962 to 1966. The second sump was reportedly used from 1966 to 1967. The second was 10,000 square feet in area and 22 feet deep. In 1965 and 1967, RWQCB inspection reports noted disposal of drummed industrial wastes outside of the sump area. The wastes disposed in the industrial sumps include paints, thinners, and coagulated solvent sludge. Wastes were reported to be transported to the landfill in drums and in tanker trucks. Drummed wastes were uncovered at the second sump location during the construction of Gull Drive. Based on knowledge of the wastes disposed in the areas, chemicals detected in soil vapor and groundwater during investigation activities at the site, and routes of potential exposure, the chemicals of potential concern to the proposed developments are volatile organic compounds. In 1971, after landfill operations ceased, landfill closure activities included placement of an engineered compacted clay cover, construction of cutoff trenches to control leachate migration, and construction of a landfill gas migration barrier trench. The City contributed to the maintenance of the landfill and marina, including maintenance of the landfill cover and periodic dredging of the marina basins. In 1974, the City initiated plans and studies for the expansion of the marina to the east of the mole. Construction of the expanded marina and an associated park began in 1978 and was substantially completed by 1981. The two sections of the marina are now referred to as the "West Basin marina" and the "East Basin marina." This work included construction of additional remedial measures to control leachate migration. Construction of the office complex, inn, and other structures occurred in the 1980s. The Harbor District operates the marina. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-43 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Figure 11-7 Waste Sites Downtown/Central Added Area · · "~ ........ ...' .t. .............. ," ' ,, ~.'~ · .~, ....... ,,~.:.-,,.: .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' j......,~ .... .::-'.~. '_.~'.~.:..:'<~.'.',.' · ',,x~ ...... /?' ' .............. ) ............ '~..... ,,.' ,,,.?, ,,, · . · . · . ~.~,~,,~,, ...... ..... ... .. ,-.....~. ,.:. ~-...........-.·,:.,.~ ,. . . .... . . . . . . ~ · . · · ¥,,.,.~ ....',':+.,. ....... ~ .... :.,,. .................... , ,, ,, ......... '", ."' ._ . · ~ .. ·. ·. ·. · . ·. ..... ~ .~_...:....'.. ·. ~...,"'~ · . · ../ / Approximate 7~rea of Industrial Ui~id Waste Disposal, 1~6-1967 Approximate Area of Industrial Liquid Waste Disposal, 1962-1966 [~ Approximate Area of Waste Disposal, 1956-1970 ~.. Added Area Boundary Source: Post-Closure Development Standards Report, Oyster Point Landfill, Gabewell with PES Environmental, Inc., November 2000. I Seifel ~ CONSULIING INC, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-44 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Between 1971 and 1976, the landfill was compacted and a 2-foot layer of low-permeability soil was placed on top of the compacted fill. Between 1976 and 1981, several remediation activities were conducted at the landfill. A 2- to 3- foot Bay Mud cap was installed across the site, bentonite-cement trenches were constructed between the landfill and the drainage channel and along approximately 300- foot length of shoreline on the West Basin, a Bay Mud leachate cut-off trench was constructed along the northern landfill boundary, and a gas barrier trench consisting of compacted soil (85 percent) and PVC liner (20 millimeters thick) was installed along the western landfill boundary. In 1977, the City and the San Mateo County Harbor District entered into a joint powers agreement whereby the Harbor District became responsible for the operation and maintenance of the marina and park and the stabilization and maintenance of the closed landfill. Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, improvements were constructed in accordance with RWQCB requirements at that time. In 1995, landfill waste, including drums of hazardous materials and contaminated soil, was uncovered during the City's construction of Gull Drive along the western edge of the landfill. In 1995 and 1996 under the direction of the RWQCB, the City removed the waste material within the Gull Drive right-of-way and associated easements and extended the landfill cap over the area. Industrial waste materials outside of Gull Drive were left in place. To address RWQCB conceh~s about impacts of the former liquid industrial waste sump on ground and surface water quality, the City submitted a groundwater monitoring plan to RWQCB in 1996. The plan proposed the installation ora groundwater monitoring well between the former liquid industrial waste sump and the drainage channel to the southeast. The monitoring plan has not yet been implemented. San Francisco Bay borders the landfill to the north, east and south. A surface water drainage channel that runs east to west and empties into the Bay originates from surface street runoffto the south of the site and forms a portion of the southern boundary of the landfill. On-site surface-water drains through six mn-off pipes that exit the landfill to the south and north. Four drainage pipes exit the south side and drain into the drainage channel and Bay; the remaining drainage pipes empty on the north into the West Basin. Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI) conducted a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the site in ' 1997. The Phase I Environmental Assessment recommended groundwater sampling and analysis to assess potential effects of offsite releases on a proposed development. For a proposed development on a portion of the landfill, Kleinfelder conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in 1997 and field investigations in 1997 and 1998. Kleinfelder assessed the distribution and concentration of methane and other toxic gases in the landfill, assessed the landfill cap thickness, and conducted a vapor extraction test as pan of the design effort for a landfill gas collection system. Results of Kleinfelder's subsurface investigations at the site indicated the presence of methane, benzene, vinyl chloride, and other organic compounds in soil vapor samples. The thickness of the landfill cap was found to range from less than 2 feet to greater than 5 feet. Kleinfelder suggested techniques for mitigating the potential impact of the gases and for remediating other hazardous materials that may be encountered during construction. These mitigation measures have not been undertaken. Flooding Hazards Most of the land adjacent to the shoreline and the Iow lying portion of the Added Area northwest of the Marine Center are within the 100-year flood hazard zone. Refer to Figure II~3 to see specific areas that lie within the Flood Hazard Zone. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-45 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings Deficient or deteriorated conditions inhibit the proper use of some buildings in the Added Area. The Added Area has 5 buildings. The large building located at 671 Marina Boulevard is an underutilized, vacant commercial building on a large lot with vacant public parking. The building shows signs of deterioration and deferred maintenance. The large snack shop is housed in a modular structure that lacks adequate foundation and could be at risk during an earthquake. b. Economic Conditions Depreciated Values/Impaired Investments [33031(b)(1)] Development on the former landfill involves many challenges that could potentially add significant costs to development. The studies discussed above stated that subsurface soils were corrosive to buried steel and portions of the existing landfill cap were deficient in the minimum thickness required for construction. The site continues to undergo significant settlement and special mitigation would be needed for development. The reports cautioned that even with proper mitigative methods, differential settlement may cause distress to pavements, utilities and other subgrade supported structures that would need to be maintained with an ongoing program of repair. The reports cited in Section 2.a above stated that the additional costs associated with these conditions, along with very high initial foundation costs might severely impact the economic viability of the development. Associated development hazards on artificial fill include'shrink-swell (the change in volume that occurs in fine-grained sediments because Of expansion and contraction of clay caused by wetting and drying), settlement and differential settlement and corrosivity. Additionally, earthquake damage could be extreme in buildings constructed on improperly engineered fills or artificial fills at the Bay margin. During an earthquake, these areas would be subject to high to extremely high levels of shaking amplification and liquefaction. Hazardous Waste The 1999 Kleinfelder report documented an environmental field investigation for a proposed development on a portion of the former landfill. The report identified potential health risks from elevated levels of methane, benzine and other landfill gases, which were present at levels above the lower explosive limit (LEL). Nine of the ten gas samples submitted for laboratory analysis contained concentrations of two or more known carcinogenic compounds that are likely to be a health risk concern. The report recommended minimal construction on the area with the highest concentration of benzine, and also indicated that several measures to mitigate health risks would have to take place before construction on the site. Additional closure and post-closure requirements will apply as the area is redeveloped. These would include: improvements to the landfill cap, installation of landfill gas collection systems beneath new structures, and a groundwater monitoring program. In anticipation of future development on the site, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued Order No. 00-0046 on June 21, 2000. The order imposes new closure and post-closure requirements on the City as part of future development. The Order requires that each new development on the landfill submit a Development or Redevelopment Proposal to the RWQCB prior to construction. The Development or Redevelopment Proposal will describe the project, identify key components of the design that may adversely affect the landfill integrity, and document how components of the project-specific design will comply with the Post-Closure Development Standards Report. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-46 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Califomia Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 27 requires that landfill caps meet the following prescriptive standards: · A foundation layer of 2 feet of compacted material. · A low-hydraulic-conductivity layer consisting of I foot of clay or material with a hydraulic conductivity of 10-6 em/sec or less. · A protective erosion-resistance cover layer consisting of 1 foot of vegetated soil or other erosion- resistant material. The existing final cap will need to be upgraded to meet the current CCR Title 27 design standards as new development occurs at the landfill. The CCR Title 27 regulations allow for alternative final cover designs where the lead environmental agency £mds that the alternative provides equivalent protection to the prescriptive cap. A finding of equivalency is based on the cap's ability to isolate the waste in the landfill from infiltration of precipitation and irrigation waters. Areas where site conditions preclude conformance with the CCR Title 27 prescribed landfill cap section will need to be modified, in accordance with the regulations, as appropriate. Site conditions that may be encountered during the development of the site that may require implementation of an alternative section include areas beneath existing structures, utility trenches, areas beneath pavement, foundations and transitions. Utilities Utilities include all subsurface services to and from structure on the landfill, including storm and sanitary sewers and telephone, cable, water, electrical, and gas lines. Utility connections can be damaged if differential settlement of the landfill occurs. In addition utility corridors can act as conduits for landfill gas and can accumulate water and leachate if not properly designed. In a 2003 evaluation of the existing landfill cover on the area, Gabewell, Inc. found that the current irrigated landscaping was suboptimal to protect and maintain the landfill cover.2° Gabewell recommended eliminating irrigation for landscaping and eliminating any deep-rooted trees or shrubs that may compromise the integrity of the landfill cover. Gabewell was unable to determine whether the utility trenches were constructed according to current standards. Gabewell found indications that the trenches were located within the waste, and telephone and electrical utility trenches may make contact with the waste, which could result in a safety issue. The report recommended relocation of the utilities during new development. Utility connections to buildings and structures on the landfill need to be flexible to accommodate settlement at the wall connection. Utilities beneath building foundations need to be suspended from the foundation. The utility trenches need to be designed to account for differential settlement and gravity drainage as necessary. All utility lines and fight-of-ways need to be placed in over-excavated trenches lined with a minimum of two feet of clean, low-hydraulic-conductivity fill where possible. Should site constraints preclude the installation of a 2-foot-thick trench lining, an alternative should be presented to the RWQCB for approval. Trenches need to be precompacted as necessary to mitigate settlement. In addition, geosynthetics and other fabrics need to be used to stabilize the trench as needed. Existing utility trenches need to be modified or upgraded as necessary when repairs or replacement activities are conducted. 20 Evaluation of Existing Landfill Cover Equivalency to CCR Title 27 Requirements, East Basin Parking Area, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California, Gabewell, Inc. with PES Environmental, Inc., June 2003. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-47 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Roadways and Parking Areas Roadways and parking areas include streets, driveways, at-grade parking areas, and pedestrian walking areas. Roadways and parking areas can experience settlement, creating low points where water can accumulate and cracks where water could infiltrate the waste. The effects of settlement are mitigated by strengthening the subgrade and by constructing roadways with a flexible paved surface. In some cases roadways and parking areas may be supported by pile foundations. Strengthening the subgrade can be accomplished by utilizing dynamic compaction methods. Paved roadways and parking areas minimize the potential for erosion of the landfill cap. The roadways and parking areas need to be designed to direct surface water runoff to engineered storm drain systems to minimize potential erosion and ponding to prevent the flow of water across the landfill cap. Foundations Future structures are likely to be constructed with pile foundations to minimize the effects of differential landfill settlement. Piles must meet the RWQCB guidelines. The structure foundations need to be designed to resist differential settlement as the landfill continues to settle under its own weight~ The pile design should also account for the potential downdrag effects of settling Bay Mud and landfill waste. Fill grading needs to be minimized to prevent load-induced settlement. Many existing structures at the site are on shallow foundations. It is possible that some future, lightweight structures will also be constructed using shallow foundations such as spread footings, structural slabs, or mat foundations. Additional settlement analysis needs to be conducted for each proposed structure to be built using shallow foundations. In addition, upgrades to or replacement of existing landfill structures need to be modified to meet design standards when repairs, upgrades, or other modifications to the existing systems are made. All of the conditions and factors described above would likely contribute to site preparation and construction costs, potentially impacting the feasibility of development. Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots [33031(b)(2)1 The north side of Marina Boulevard near West Basin has a large vacant area with informal curbing. c. Public Improvement Deficiencies [33030(c)] As of June 2003, the Harbor District and the City were in the process of installing new light standards and repaying the East Basin Parking Area? These improvements are needed to replace existing outmoded lighting in the parking area and along the surrounding roadway and degraded pavement in the parking area. E. El Camino Corridor Project Area (Original and Added Areas) The E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan was adopted on July 14, 1993 and area was added on June 28, 2000. The original E1 Cam/no Corridor Area consists of 174 acres bounded by Hickey Boulevard to the north, Chestnut Avenue to the south, Grand Avenue to the east and E1 Camino Real to the west. At the time of adoption, the original E1 Camino Corridor Area was generally characterized by vacant and underutilized sites, inadequate parcelization and mixed uses. Additionally, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and SAMTRANS had proposed to extend service with a station at Hickey Boulevard. 21Gabewell with PES Environmental, Inc., 2003, p. 1. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-48 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 The E1 Camino Corridor Added Area consists of two noncontiguous areas, Area A and Area B, totaling approximately 80 acres. Area A is bounded by Chestnut Avenue and Commercial Avenue to the north, the northern boundary of the South San Francisco High School to the south, the BART fight-of-way and Orange Park to the east, and E1 Camino Real to the west. It contains a mixture of uses, including residential, institutional and commercial retail. Area B is a residential area bounded by First Lutheran Church to the north, Nora Way to the South, Susie Way to the east and Willow Avenue to the west. 1. Blight Findings at Time of Plan Adoption a. Original El Camino Corridor Project Area The 1993 Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor was prepared in response to the planned BART extension through South San Francisco. The 1993 Report to Council found evidence of blight in the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area and concluded that redevelopment was necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the CRL. These conditions included defective design and construction, aging and deteriorated buildings, vacant and abandoned structures and lots, incompatible uses, irregular lot sizes and poor parcelization, flooding, hazardous traffic conditions, high traffic accident levels, high crime rates, and lagging secured assessed value. Refer to Table II-14 for a summai-y of blighting conditions reported in the 1993 Report to Council. b. El Camino Corridor Added Area The 2000 Report to Council found evidence of blight in the E1 Camino Corridor Added Area and concluded that redevelopment was necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the CRL. These conditions included deteriorated and dilapidated buildings, faulty or inadequate utilities, substandard and defective design, inadequate parking, lots of inadequate size, hazardous materials, vacant lots, infrastructure deficiencies and depreciated or stagnant property values. Refer to Table II-15 for a summary of blighting conditions reported in the 2000 Report to Council. Redevelopment Activities and Development from Plan Adoption to Present a. Agency's Redevelopment Projects and Activities The Agency has undertaken public infrastructure, public facility, economic development, property acquisition, and affordable housing activities in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area since the adoption of, and amendment to, the Redevelopment Plan. These include traffic and circulation improvements and analysis, street upgrades throughout the Project Area, facilitation of the Costco Wholesale retail development and related improvements, completion of a Transit Oriented Development plan for the BART station area, and assistance with mixed-use and affordable housing developments throughout the Project Area. Refer to Table II-16 for a summary of Agency projects and activities. b. Development to Date in El Camino Corridor Project Area The BART extension and Agency redevelopment activities are beginning to catalyze mixed-use transit oriented development around the BART station. Residential and mixed-use developments have been proposed for this area. Additionally, Costco Wholesale developed a 150,000 square foot retail store on the former Macy's warehouse site, and housing development is taking place at the former McClellan Nursery. Appendix Table G-2 contains a summary of the development to date in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-49 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 3. Remaining Blighting Conditions in the El Camino Corridor Project Area (Original and Added Areas) The E1 Camino Corridor Project Area has been improved by public and private actions since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1993 and the Plan Amendment in 2000. However, recent field surveys and existing conditions analyses determined that many of the blighting conditions originally described in the 1993 and 2000 Reports to Council and recognized under current CRL blight definitions remain. These conditions include deficient buildings, incompatible uses, hazardous materials and contamination, substandard lots, and overcrowding. a. Physical Blighting Conditions Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings [33031(a)(1)] Adverse building conditions observed in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area during field reconnaissance surveys at various locations include deteriorated commercial and residential structures, neglected buildings, and structures with informal construction. Conditions include dry rot, broken windows, peeling paint, unsafe wiring, and generally rundown buildings. Photographs of deteriorated conditions, are presented in Appendix C. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-50 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and F. iscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table 11-14 Blighting Conditions at under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption Original El Camino Corridor Prelect Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger CRL Reference I Definition Under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption' ] Blighting Conditions Present at Time of Plan Adoption (7/14/1993) Section 33031: A blighted area is characterized by the existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of such uses, which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes and are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, and crime because of any one or a combination o£ the followin£ factors: Section 33031 (a) Defective design and character of physical construction Buildings constructed on poorly parcelized lots with difficult driveway access and on-site circulation and little or no open space, structures typically narrow and linear with minimum interior circulation, parking lots inefficiently laid out. Section 33031 (b) Section 33031 (c) Section 33031 (d) Section 33031 (e) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing High density t~f population and overcrowding Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, otgen soaces, and recreation facilities Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character, or shifting of uses 23% of primary structures exhibiting exterior signs of age and obsolescence, deteriorating commercial and residential structures, obsolete architectural styles in commercial areas, lack of large spaces for commercial and industrial tenants. Abandoned and vacant structures deteriorating due to lack of maintenance and upkeep, mixed character, shifting uses and competing uses which are incongruous (i.e. residential units adjacent to a lumber yard), vacant or underutilized lots, and incompatible uses resulting from faulty o[annine. Sections 33032: A blighted area is characterized by properties which st~ffer from economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse because of one or more qf the following factors: ~c~n33~2(a) ~c~n33~2 ~ ~c~n33032 ~ The sttbdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and · shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and develot~ment The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions The existence of inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or govermnental action without redevelopment Section 33032 (d) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment Predominantly Urbanized per CRL~ a. Excerpts from the CRL are in italics. b. This condition was required after January 1, 1984. Poorly parcelized parcels with disproportionate width and depth. Parcels on which future development is likely impaired due to narrow widths and/or shallow depths. Irregular lots that cannot be developed in a manner consistent with modem development standards duc to constraints created by topography, rail line, drainage channel, utility easements, shallow lots (as little as 30 feet from street to back lot line), lots with width that is disproportionate to lot depth, difficult to assemble land. Parcels surrounded by roadways on two or more sides creating awkward development sites, multiple street access points creating awkward site configuration, lack of rear access to some parcels due to utility easements, deficient intersection design (at El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue), inadequate drainage facilities (Mission Road south of Evergreen Avenue), flood-prone area (east of Coitus Creek), flood requirements adding costs and acting as a disincentive to development, lack of adequate sidewalks, curbs and gutters that causes hazardous conditions for pedestrians and motorists and encourages dumping, irregular lots cause limited room for parking, inadequate sewer connections to unincoroorated land. High traffic accident levels, high crime rate (most prevalent crimes vandalism and vehicle thefts), vacant buildings and lots act as a staging area for crime, lagging assessed value, deteriorating lots and buildings act as a disincentive to investment, and no development interest in area. 100 percent urbanized. Source: Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc., Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the El Camino Corridor, Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, April 1993. Information compiled by Seifel Consulting Inc. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-51 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table II-15 Blight Characteristics under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption El Camino Corridor Added Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger I CRL Reference ] Definition Under CRL as Amended by AB 1290' I Blighting Conditions Present at Time of Plan Amendment (6/28/2000) Section 33031 (afro Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These 64% of buildings in Area A and 93% of buildings in Area B deteriorated or conditions can be caused by serious building code violations, dilapidation and dilapidated, 76% of buildings in Area B of defective design. deterioration, defective design or physical construction..faulty or inadequate utilities', or other similar factors Section 33031 (a)(2} Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity Buildings of substandard design, inadequately sized lots, lack of parking. of building or lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards ami market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors Section 33031 (a)(3) Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent economic development of those parcels or other t~ortions of the project area. Section 33031 (a)(4) The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for 14% of parcels in Area A irregularly formed or inadequately sized, 63% of parcels in oroper l~Tefulness ond develqpment [hat ore in multiple 9wnershit~ Area B inadequately sized. Section 33031 (b)(I) Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not Lagging real property values throughout the Added Area, presence of hazardous waste limited to, those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of and materials in Area A. agency authority as specified in Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33~59} Section 33031 (b)(2) Section 33031 (b)(3) Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally Iow lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found itt neighborhoods. including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions Section 33031(b)(4) Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of public safety and welfare Section 33031 (b)(5) A high crime rate constituting a serious threat to public safel~ and welfare - Section 33030 (c) A blighted area may be one that contains the conditions described in [Section 33030] {Added Area in need of improvements to circulation, fire station, community center, subdivision (b) and is, in addition, characterized by the existence of inadequate [Cai-Water Site. public improvements, parkine facilities, or utilities ~ Predominantly Urbanized per CRL [ 100 percent urbanized. a. Excerpts from the CRL are in italics. b. Public improvement deficiencies are not considered a factor of blight, but can be considered when it can be demonstrated that they contribute to p~hysical and economic blight. Source: Katz, ttollis, Caren & Associates, Inc., Preliminary Report on the Proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan lbr the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, February 2000. Information compiled by Seifel Consulting Inc. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-52 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table II-16 Agency Projects and Activities to Date in the E! Camino Corridor Project Area Original and Added Areas South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Negotiated with Costco Wholesale to provide public improvements on development site. Installed traffic signal light and median, and completed improvements at the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Hilton Avenue. Installed traffic signal light and completed improvements at the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Camaritas Avenue. Completed street improvements at the intersection of El Camino Real and Westborough. Upgraded streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks in order to meet City standards, improved access to and within the Project Area, and eliminated visual blighting influences in residential and commercial neighborhoods. Acquired the Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real right-of-way and installed new right turn lane. E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use and Urban Design Plan: Hired a consultant to analyze proposed public improvements~ Completed the study for the extension of North Canal Street. ' Negotiated with BART Station transit village developer to install new street lights and street furniture. Completed street improvements at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Secured CCAG grant of $900,000 for infrastructure improvements around the BART station. Secured $75,000 MTC grant for pedestrian and bike path design and improvements in Linear Park. Flood culvert improvements. Public Facilities Facilitated design, development, and construction of Fire Station. Economic Development Approved 178 market rate housing units on the McClellan Nursery site. Completed Specific Plan for "Transit Oriented Development" zone and development adjacent to the BART station. The plan provides for the development of mixed use commercial up t° 50,000 square feet and 300 residential units in the El Camino Corridor Area. ~ Completed and adopted zoning standards and design guidelines for the BART station area to ensure transit oriented development. ~ In August 2002, Price/Costco entered into an agreement with Fairfield Residential to develop two parts of the original Macy's parcel for a mixed use commercial/residential transit village project. ~ On December 12, 2002, Fairfield Residential submitted revised site and elevation plans for Design Review Board review. The revised mixed-use project comprises 360 units, 556 parking spaces (76 spaces would be adjacent to the future grocery store). Property Acquisition, Site Preparation and Clean,up Acquired, improved, demolished and disposed of the Macy's warehouse property on E1 Camino Real. Affordable HOUSin~ Provided $1.9 million funding, in combination with HUD 202 funds, for construction and lease of 40 units of very low income senior housing (at 40% of median) at the Chestnut Creek site (Mission Chestnut Project). Provided a $960,000 Agency loan for development of 34 affordable housing units by the Mid- Peninsula Housing Coalition at the McClellan site (Greenridge Project). Completed 96 condominium units at E1 Camino Court. Acquired 7 buildings at Willow Gardens. Partnered with the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition to rehabilitate interior and convert units into permanent affordable housing. Negotiated an Affordable Housing Agreement to develop three below market rate rental units at 90 Oak Avenue. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II~53 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 The age of the structures is a factor that adds to the deterioration of housing. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 47 percent of the 2,714 housing units in the E1 Camino Corridor Area were built prior to 1970. Of these, 238 housing units were constructed prior to 1950. (Refer to Table II-17.) As discussed in Section B.2, structures built prior to the adoption of the 1955 edition of the UBC are of particular concern for potential earthquake damage and most buildings constructed prior to 1970 would not meet current design provisions in the UBC for earthquake forces. Table II-17 Age of Housing Units El Camino Corridor Project Areaa South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Percent of Housing Year Built Housing Unitsb Units 1939 or earlier 42 1.5% 1940-1949 196 7.2% 1950-1959 562 20.7% 1960-1969 478 17.6% Subtotal 1,278 47.1% 1970-1979 503 18.5% 1980-1989 524 19.3% 1990-1994 183 6.7% 1995-1998 191 7.0% 1999-March 2000 35 1.3% Total 2,714 100.0% a. Census Tract 6019 (Block Groups 1 and 2) were used for this analysis as they most closely overlay the Project Area. b. Number of housing units does not equal number of buildings. Willow Gardens, a planned unit development of 53 four-plex buildings constructed in 1964, makes up the noncontiguous portion of the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area. Buildings throughout the development are deficient or deteriorated, due to many years of neglect and disinvestment. For over 25 years, the City has received numerous police and code complaints regarding deteriorating conditions and illegal activities. The property has been cited for numerous building code violations. The character of the neighborhood has been defined by vandalism, broken windows, graffiti, trash, inoperable vehicles and buildings in disrepair. The development is also poorly designed, without typical residential amenities such as tree-lined sidewalks, architectural details, private entries or adequate trash enclosures. Between 1991 and 1998, the City organized an interdepartmental task force to address the ongoing problems in the neighborhood, without success. The City established Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District for an eight year period to undertake improvements to the common greens. In 1999, the City Council approved a master agreement with Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation and a budget of $15 million to acquire 16 buildings (64 units), which Mid-Peninsula would rehabilitate and manage as affordable housing for low and moderate income families. It was projected that buildings could be acquired for $400,000 and rehabilitated for $100,000 per structure, within a ten year period. Since approval of the revitalization plan, the cost of building acquisition has risen to $850,000 and rehabilitation is estimated at $184,000 per structure. Mid-Peninsula has only been able to complete interior rehabilitation of 20 units to date and projects the exterior rehabilitation of 28 units. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-54 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Rents have increased while building conditions continue to deteriorate. Leaking roofs, broken windows and accumulated garbage are still present, vandalism has increased and absentee landlords continue to defer property improvements. In the last four years, two buildings had major fires, possibly due to faulty wiring and misuse of electrical outlets. Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots [33031(a)(2)] Soil Conditions The E1 Camino Corridor Project Area is located in the upland topographic zone, and land composition consists mainly of Alluvium, with some Colma Formation (sand, with minor gravel, silt and clay). Upland zone soils may include moderate potential for shrink-swell and erosion hazard? See Section B.2 for a detailed description of land composition and hazards. Hazardous Materials and Contamination As mentioned in Section B.3, the State Water Resource Control Board lists 194 reported sites with Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT) within the City, 3 of which are in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area. Table II-18 lists the location of each LUFT site in E1 Camino Corridor, and Figxire II-4 shows the LUFT locations in all of the Project Areas. Table II-18 Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks El Camino Corridor Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Site Name Street Number Street Name S.F. Garden Mart 1400 E1 Camino Real Broadmoor Lumber & Plywood Company 1350 E1 Camino Real Shell 710 E1 Camino Real Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, August 27, 2004. Presence of Trash and Dumping The presence of trash and illegal dumping is widespread throughout the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area, detracting from the area and inhibiting the proper utilization of building and lots. Furthermore, trash accumulation and illegal dumping create a public nuisance due to their odor and unsightliness. As shown in Appendix C, trash accumulation occurs in both residential and commercial parts of the Project Area. Crime Issues According to the Police Chief Rafaelli, gang activity is prevalent in the Willow Gardens housing development in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area. The gang activity causes disturbances in the neighborhood and encourages drug trafficking and other illegal activity. The crime is exacerbated by the absentee landlords and their neglect of the housing units. The appearance of the neighborhood and the crime negatively impacts the quality of life of the residents in the Project Area and the surrounding community. 22 South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, Dyett & Bahtia, 1997, pp. 10-26 and 10-27. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-55 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Incompatible Uses [33031(a)(3)1 The El Camino Corridor Project Area is focused around E1 Camino Real, a boulevard with a hodgepodge of land uses lining the street. The piecemeal development that has occurred along this central thoroughfare has created a number of incompatible uses, the majority of which involve the intertwining of industrial uses with conflicting uses. One such example is the lumber and landscaping facility sandwiched between a hotel and new multifamily housing. The area is moving toward transit-oriented development near the new BART station, and industrial activities along portions of E1 Camino Real are becoming outdated. The lumber and landscaping business customer entrance and delivery entrance is directly off E1 Camino Real, far from a stop sign or traffic signal. This location creates circulation, pedestrian and vehicular conflicts, and potential safety concerns. Substandard Lots of Multiple Ownership [33031(a)(4)] A number of substandard lots, including lots of inadequate size or irregular shape, are present in the Project Area. Lots of Inadequate Size Several small lots exist in the Project Area along E1 Camino Real south of 1st Street. Because the parcels are both narrow and small, such lots are unable to accommodate modem and economically feasible development. In addition, the location of these inadequately sized parcels are directly off the main thoroughfare, and it would be difficult to develop a commercial development as well as the necessary infrastructure for safe entry into the pai'cel. Lots of Irregular Shape A large and irregularly shaped lot is situated between Mission Road and E1 Camino Real. The large triangular parcel has a culvert that cuts through the parcel as well, which further complicates the potential for development of the parcel. b. Economic Blighting Conditions Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments [33031(b)(1)] This section documents the presence of blighting conditions described in CRL Section 3303 l(b)(1) in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area, including the presence of potentially hazardous or toxic materials, and underperforming lodging establishments. Hazardous Materials As stated in Section B.3, the remediation of toxic materials within the Project Area is a costly venture. The three LUFTs in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area are potentially contaminated, and the additional cost to redevelop the parcels, along with the environmental responsibility, deters investment in the three properties with LUFTs on-site. Lodging Establishments Annual transient occupancy taxes (TOT) in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area have decreased significantly over the last five years compared to the City as a whole. Based on data obtained from the City of South San Francisco, from 1999 to 2003, 6 out of the City's 31 lodging establishments were located in the Project Area. After adjusting for inflation, annual TOT revenues in E1 Camino Corridor decreased at an average annual rate of 15.2 percent between 1999 and 2003, decreasing at more than twice the rate of City of South San Francisco, as can be seen in Table II-19. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-56 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 The lodging establishments in the Project Area tend to be managed by local motel operators and are smaller than the large major chain lodging establishments outside the Project Area. The lodging establishments in the Project Area have a total of 137 rooms, or 5 percent of the city's total lodging rooms. The number of rooms in the Project Area range from l0 to 50 rooms: 5 motels have between l0 and 20 rooms, and one has 50 rooms. However, the TOT generated by the Project Area's motels represent only three percent of the City's total TOT revenues in 2003. The annual TOT per room for lodging rooms in the Project Area compared to the City as a whole is shown in Table I1-20. The average annual transient occupancy tax per room is significantly lower in the Project Area, ranging from 62 percent to 74 percent of the City's TOT per room over the last five years. In 2003, the average annual receipts per room was only $768 per room. This is equivalent to average revenues per room of $9,604 in 2003, which is 62 pement of the 2003 citywide average of $15,513. The Hallmark Hotel is transitioning to a residential hotel by moving to longer leases and residential use. This transition is an indicator that the lodging establishment is struggling in the market place. The marginal operation is further evidenced by its deteriorated building conditions and substandard construction and repairs. ~ Residential Overcrowding or Problem Businesses [33031(b)(4)1 Overcrowding According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an overcrowded housing unit is defined as a housing unit with more than one person per room while severely overcrowded is def'med as more than one and a half persons per room. Overcrowded housing can lead to the deterioration of buildings by putting additional wear on the structures. The most recent data is contained in the 2000 U.S. Census. Residential overcrowding is a problem for owner and renter units in the E1 Camino Corridor Area. As shown in Table II-21, approximately 24.0 percent of housing units in the E1 Camino Corridor Area were overcrowded or severely overcrowded, almost one and a half times the City rate of 17.7 percent, and nearly two times the County rate of 12.3 percent. Of the owner occupied units in E1 Camino Corridor, 18.1 percent are overcrowded versus the 11.0 percent citywide and 6.7 percent countywide. The Project Area's rate of overcrowding is nearly three times the County rate of overcrowding for owner occupied households. Of these housing units, 11.8 percent of the owner units in the Project Area are overcrowded versus 6.6 percent in the City and 3.4 percent in the County. Additionally, renter housing units in E1 Camino Corridor have a slightly higher rate of total overcrowding of 29.3 percent than the city rate of 29.1 percent and county rate of 21.1 percent. In particular, 17.0 percent of all renter households in the Project Area are severely overcrowded. Overcrowding in the E1 Camino Corridor is a significant problem, which contributes to the deteriorating condition of the housing in the area. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-57 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table II-19 Annual Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) from 1999-2003 El Camino Corridor'Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Calendar Year El Camino Corridor City T otaITOT ] Annual T otaITOT I Annual Receipts ($)a] Growth Receipts ($)] Growth Actual Dollars 1999 179,179 4,355,488 2000 208,899 16.6% 6,173,426 41.7% 2001 162,225 -22.3% 4,911,689 -20.4% 2002 122,980 -24.2% 3,967,812 -19.2% 2003 105,259 -14.4% ~ 3,757,982 -5.3% Average ~'~~:'~¢'~.~ ,~, ~ ~; --,. :~, ~. ~;~"'~ '~ ~ ~ Annual - ~ :~:~: ~,:. ~ ~ .~,~, ~ 12.5% <¢ ~;' ~:'~*: ~' 3.6% Adjusted for Inflation~ 1999 204,004 4,958,944 2000 227,679 11.6% 6,728,417 35.7% 2001 167,777 -26.3% 5,079,809 -24.5% 2002 125,146 -25.4% 4,037,711 -20.5% 2003 105,259 -15.9% 3,757,982 -6.9% a. Though the Hallmark House Hotel is transitioning to a residential hotel, it produces a significant amount of TOT and therefore was included in the analysis. b. Adjusted to 2003 dollars by using annual growth of All Urban Consumers Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. Series ID: CUUR. A422SA0. Source: City of South San Francisco Finance Department, Seifel Consulting Inc., May 2004. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-58 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table II-20 Annual Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) per Room from 1999-2003 El Camino Corridor Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger El Camino Corridor City Average ' Annual Calendar Total TOT Receipts per Total TOT Year Receipts ($)a Total Roomsa Room ($) Receipts ($) Total Rooms Actual Dollars 1999 179,179 136 1,317 4,355,488 2,440 2000 208,899 136 1,536 6,173,426 2,638 2001 162,225 137 1,184 4,911,689 3,026 2002 122,980 137 898 3,967,812 3,029 2003 105,259 137 768 3,757,982 3,029 Adjusted for Inflationb 1999 204,004 136 1,500 4,958,944 2,440 2000 227,679 136 1,674 6,728,417 2,638 2001 167,777 137 1,225 5,079,809 3,026 2002 125,146 137 913 4,037,711 3,029 2003 105,259 137 768 3,757,982 3,029 a. Though the Hallmark House Hotel is transitioning to a residential hotel, therefore was included in the analysis. Average Annual Receipts per Room ($) 1,785 2,340 1,623 1,310 1,241 2,032 2,551 1,679 1,333 1,241 it produces a significant amount of TOT and b. Adjusted to 2003 dollars by using annual growth of All Urban Consumers Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. Series ID: CUURA422SA0. Source: City of South San Francisco Finance Department, Seifel Consulting Inc., May 2004. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-59 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table 11-21 Residential Overcrowding El Camino Corridor Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger El Camino Corridor' Housing Units Percentage City of South San Francisco Housing Units Percentage San Mateo Coun .ty Housing Units Percentage Total (Owner + Renter) Overcrowdedb 321 12.1% 1,716 8.7% 12,226 4.8% Severely Overcrowdedc 317 11.9% 1,779 9.0% 18,906 7,4% Total Overcrowded 638 24.0% 3,495 17.7% 31,132 12.3% Total Housing Unitsd I 2,6621 100.0%1 19,6911 100.0%1 254,1031 100.0% Owner Overcrowdedb 149 11.8% 818 6.6% 5,335 3.4% Severely Overcrowdedc 80 6.3% 533 4.3% 5, ! 36 ~,3% Total Overcrowded 229 18.1% 1,351 11.0% 10,471 6.7% Total Owner Housing Unitsa I 1,2661 100.0%1 12,322l 100.0%1 156,2641 100.0% Renter Overcrowded~ 172 12.3 % 898 12.2% 6,891 7.0% Severely Overcrowdedc 237 17.0% 1,246 16.9% 13,770 14.1% Total Overcrowded 409 29.3 % 2,144 29.1% 20,661 21.1% Total Renter Housing Unitsd [ 1,3961 100.0% [ 7,3691 100.0%1 97,8391 100.0% Note: Figures may not total exactly due to rounding. a. Census Tract 6019 (Block Groups I and 2) were used for this analysis as they mostly closely overlay the Project Area. b. Overcrowded is defined as housing units with more than one person per room, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). c. Severely overcrowded is defined as housing units with more than one and a half persons per room, as defined by HUD. d. Excludes vacant units. Source: 2000 U.S. Census. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-60 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amend~nents and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Inadequate Public Improvements [33031(c)] The E1 Camino Corridor Project Area is hindered by circulation, infrastructure and public facilities deficiencies: · Antoinette Lane dead ends into an apartment complex, hindering traffic circulation at the Safeway shopping center. · Parking lots are shared for unrelated uses. · Traffic circulation in the Project Area is impaired because Oak Avenue does not extend to E1 Camino Real. · The Winston Manor sewer is in need of repair. F. Gateway Project Area The Gateway Redevelopment Plan was adopted on June 17, 1981. The Project Area consists of approximately 175 acres of formerly industrial sites, railroads, streets and highways. It is immediately south of the Shearwater Project Area and east of U.S. Highway 101. The industrial parcels include the former Bethlehem Steel and Edwards Wire Rope plant sites. 1. · Evidence Provided in Support of a Blight Finding at Time of Plan Adoption The 1981 Report to Council found evidence of blight in the Project Area and concluded that redevelopment was necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the CRL. These conditions included deterioration and dilapidation of the plant buildings, deficient street, sewage and storm drainage systems, inadequately sized lots, flooding, underemployment, crime, depreciated secured assessed values and loss of tax revenues. See Table II-22 for a summary of the blighting conditions as described in the 1981 Report to Council. 2. Redevelopment Activities and Development from Plan Adoption to the Present The Project Area has been developed as an office park available for commercial deveIopment with stimulus from public improvements and other activities undertaken by the Agency. a. Agency's Redevelopment Projects and Activities The Agency has completed public infrastructure, public facilities and economic development activities in the Gateway Project Area since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. These include numerous traffic and circulation improvements to Oyster Point Boulevard, fire station upgrades and facilitation of childcare facilities, and biotechnology and office facility development. Refer to Table II-23 for a summary of agency projects and activities. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-61 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table I1-22 Blighting Conditions under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption Gateway Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger i i CRL Reference [ Definition Under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption' [ Blighting Conditions Present at Time of Plan Adoption (6/17/1981) Section 33031:,4 blighted area is characterized by the existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of such uses. which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes and are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, and crime because of any one or a combination of the following factors: Section 33031 fa) Defective design and character of physical construction Section 33031 (b) Fault)~ interior arrangement and exterior spacing Section 33031 (c) High densitv of population and overcrowding Section 33031 (d) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open ................. soaces, and recreation facilities Section 33031 (e) Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character, or shifting of uses Bethlehem Steel plant and Edwards Wire Rope buildings exhibiting prolonged deterioration and dilapidation (collapsed walls, resting frames and siding, crumbling foundations, and faded and peeling paint). Edwards Wire Rope facility is an aging facility with a gradual decline in comnetitive cambilitv. Sections 33032:,4 blighted area is characterized by properties which suffer from economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse because of one or more of the following factors: Section 33032 fa) b Section 33032 (b) Section 33032 (c) Section 33032 (d) ~c~n33~2 ~ Section 33032 09 ~ ,4n economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse resulting from faulty olannine The subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadeauate size for t~ro,er usefulness and develooment The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or physical characteristics of the ground and surroundine conditions The existence of inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or eovernmental action without redevelooment ,4 prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment The existence of lots or other areas which are subject to being submerged by water; provided that any ecologically valuable existing features in such areas shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be t~reserved Faulty economic planning that did not foresee the decline of Bethlehem Steel and Edwards Wire Ro,e Comnanies. Bethlehem Steel Plant parcel excessively large and lacking public roadways. Deficient street system within and serving the Project Area. new sewer trunkline required, lack of drainage systems on Bethlehem Steel and Edwards Wire Rope properties. Unemployment due to closures (loss of 1,500 jobs and up to 9,000 related South San Francisco jobs), vacant plant leading to vandalism and crime, decline in assessed values of over $3.1 million, loss of oronertv tax revenue, Flooding problems (significant portion of site filled Bay shoreline, portion of site in flood zone B). a. Excerpts from the CRL are in italics. b. This condition was removed from the definition in 1984 with the adoption of AB 203. Source: Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc., Report to South San Francisco City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project, May 1981. Information compiled by Seifel Consulting Inc. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-62 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table II-23 Agency Projects and Activities to Date in the Gateway Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Entered into and Owner Participation Agreement with area property owner to assist in the joint construction of public improvements. Reconstructed and widened Oyster Point Boulevard to four lanes. Constructed U.S. Highway 101/Oyster Point Boulevard flyover and hook ramps. Other street and circulation improvements. pUblic FaCilities : Negotiated with Boston Properties for site to bc used for construction of a new childcarc facility to be operated by the YMCA. Facilitated the pre-development requirements and construction of a new childcare facility. Assisted with planning and funding for transit oriented facilities. Provided assistance to construct women's restroom and modify disabled access in Fire Station. Economic DeveloPment ' Facilitated the review, approval, and development of numerous office and biotechnology research buildings. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-63 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 b. Development to Date in the Gateway Project Area Several office and high-tech industrial buildings and hotels have been developed in the Project Area, including the Gateway Business Park. A large concentration of biotechnology companies has located to the Gateway Area, occupying complexes such as the Britannia Biotechnology Center and Gateway Technology Center. Appendix Table G-3 includes a summary of the development to date in the Project Area. 3. Remaining Blighting Conditions in the Project Area The Gateway Project Area has been improved substantially by public and private actions since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1981. However, recent field surveys and existing conditions analyses determined that some of the blighting conditions originally described in the 1981 Report to Council and recognized under current CRL blight definitions still remain. These include the presence of graffiti and homeless encampments, circulation and infrastructure inadequacies, and vacant land near the railroad tracks and highway flyover. a. Physical Blighting Conditions , Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots [33031(a)(2)] Factors that inhibit the proper use of buildings or lots in the Gateway Project Area include earthquake and soil conditions; accessibility issues and poor circulation; public improvement deficiencies; and the presence of hazardous materials. These factors are described below. Soil Conditions The project area is located in the lowland and upland topographic zones, and land composition consists mainly of Colma Formation (sand, with minor gravel, silt and clay) with artificial fill underlain by Bay mud, slope wash and ravine fill, alluvium and Franciscan sheared rock. Lowland zone development hazards include shrink-swell, settlement and differential settlement and corrosivity. Differential settlement can damage building foundations, disturb underground utilities and cause settlement in streets and roads. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction. Seismic groundshaking due to wave amplification could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. The consequences of liquefaction could include damaged foundations, disruption of utility service and damaged roadways. Upland zone soils may include moderate potential for shrink-swell and erosion hazard.23 See Section B.2 for a detailed description of land composition and hazards. Hazardous Materials and Contamination According to the DEIR for the General Plan Update, several individual sites East of 101 have major hazardous materials concentrations. One site highlighted is the Gateway Site, an industrial site with a long history of contamination. Bethlehem Steel operated a mill and fabrication plant producing steel from iron ore from 1903 to 1977, and Edwards Wire Rope produced galvanized steel wire and netting from 1916 to 1978. Over the plants' operational lives, slag, oil and debris containing heavy metals, oil and acids were deposited or used as fill material throughout the site.TM 23 DEIR, pp. 4-146 through 4-162. 24 DEIR, p. 4-117. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-64 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Although extensive investigations and remediation efforts have already taken place, both the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Department of Health Services (DHS) require that precautions be taken to inform and protect those excavating soil at this site, and a "Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions" is attached to all future deeds and leases. In addition, the Edwards Wire Rope plant site remains on the SLIC Program list and is monitored by the RWQCB. Also as mentioned previously in Section B.3, the review of leaking underground fuel tanks sites in South San Francisco revealed five LUFTs in the Gateway Project Area. Table II-24 lists the location of the LUFT sites in the Gateway Project Area, and Figure II-4 shows the LUFT locations in the Project Areas. The combination of former industrial uses and the presence of LUFTs greatly hinders the completion of development within the Project Area due to the added expense of remediation. Table 11-24 Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks Gateway Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Site Name Street Number Street Name Ken Funk Property 264 Airport Boulevard Chevron 9-7875 300 Airport Boulevard Grosvenor Airport Inn 380 Airport Boulevard R_PM Rent-a-Car 410 Airport Boulevard Federal Express 900 Gateway Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, August 27, 2004. Accessibility Accessibility to and within the Project Area is limited by factors that include irregular street patterns, inadequate circulation, and the presence of deteriorating defunct railroad lines. Four streets essentially serve the entire Project Area. Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue create the north and south border of the Project Area, Executive Drive runs the length of the Project Area on the west side, while Gateway Boulevard traverses the Project Area. Gateway Boulevard divides the Project Area into two large parcels and provides the primary access road for the entire Project Area. Within the Project Area, access to the parcels surrounding Gateway Boulevard is limited, as no internal network of road exists. Corporate Drive, a private street, is the only way to access the parcels. Furthermore, Executive Drive is difficult to access and is one way for a portion of the road, which creates a confusing circulation pattern. Basically, this street does not provide any additional accessibility to the Project Area. Rather it is an exit for the large commercial buildings located off Corporate Drive. Moreover, the upgrade of the Oyster Point interchange is only partially completed. The northbound flyover is finished; however, the U.S. Highway 101 southbound flyover from U.S. Highway 101 to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard needs to be constructed. This vital interchange has become the principal access to the Project Area. Without the southbound portion, the accessibility of the Project Area is limited. Furthermore, the area has lacked convenient public transit accessibility to the rest of San Mateo County and San Francisco. The single Caltrain station for the City of South San Francisco is located within the Project Area under a freeway flyover. The station and adjacent vacant lot are hindered by the presence of the freeway flyover and its substructure of massive colunms. The flyover limits the height of development on the parcel, and the substantial columns that clutter the site create atypical parcels with restricted area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-65 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 for development. The limited space created by the flyover and its associated substructure negatively impacts the development of the parcel. Moreover, the Caltrain station is difficult to fred, problematic to access, and has poor circulation within the site. It has a single ingress and egress point, informal circulation to the station, no designated way to mm around in order to exit the station, and defunct rail lines that impede traffic flow, all of which contribute to safety concerns for pedestrians. Rail Lines The active and defunct rail lines within the Caltrain station parcel create irregularly shaped parcels and impede traffic flow. As mentioned above, the station is difficult to access and has poor circulation within the site. This condition is magnified by the active rail lines cutting the parcel into an irregular shape that hinders circulation as well as development. The inoperable rail lines further hamper circulation. The Presence of Underutilized Parcels and Homeless Encampments Several parcels surrounding and beneath Highway 101 are underutilized due to the awkward parcels created by the highway's substructure. According to the Chief Rafaelli, areas along Highway 101 are often used for homeless encampments. These conditions detract from the area and inhibit proper utilization of the buildings and lots surrounding the area. Graffiti According to Chief Rafaelli, some of the buildings in the Project Area are frequently defaced with graffiti. The graffiti, the majority of which is gang-related, detracts from the area. b. Economic Blighting Conditions Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments [33031(b)(1)] This section documents the presence of blighting conditions described in CRL Section 3303 l(b)(1) in the Gateway Project Area, including the presence of potentially hazardous or toxic materials. Hazardous Materials and Contamination As mentioned in Section 2.a above, the Project Area is burdened with contamination due to the historic industrial use as a steel plant and wire rope factory. In addition, the Project Area is further impaired with five parcels with LUFTs present. Contamination issues may affect the development of the remaining vacant properties, which could impact the value of the parcels and their potential to be developed. Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots [33031(b)(2)] Vacant and Underutilized Land The presence of vacant and underutilized parcels in an urbanized area is an economic indicator of blight because the private sector on its own has been unable to develop the properties. Many factors may deter private investment on vacant and underutilized parcels, including small or irregularly spaced parcels and configurations, inadequate infrastructure or public improvements, and poor traffic circulation and accessibility. As mentioned previously, the Caltrain station and adjacent vacant lot suffer from poor accessibility and circulation as well as incomplete infrastructure. The vacant lot is unpaved and is underutilized as a parking lot. The large parcel also contains inoperable rail lines, which act as a further disincentive to investment. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-66 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 c. Inadequate Public Improvements [33031(c)] As mentioned previously, Gateway lacks an internal network of streets to access the large parcels that make up the Project Area, and the Project Area requires the completion of the flyover. Gateway also necessitates a number of intersection upgrades in order to accommodate the growth in the Project Area. Sample intersections included are Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue intersection, Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard intersection, and Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue intersection.25 The need for streets in combination with the upgrade of intersections in the Project Area restrains further development of Gateway. G. Shearwater Project Area The Shearwater Redevelopment Plan was adopted on January 8, I986. At that time, the Project Area consisted of three adjoining parcels that lie north of Oyster Point Boulevard, east of U.S. Highway 101, and south and west of the San Francisco Bay shoreline. From 1918 to 1984, a steel manufacturing plant owned two of the three parcels within the Project Area. Increasing energy prices and more restrictive environmental controls forced the plant to close in 1983. Remaining hazardous waste and inadequate public infrastructure improvements prompted the Agency to designate the site a Project Area. 1. Evidence Provided in Support of a Blight Finding at Time of Plan 'Adoption The 1985 Report to Council found evidence of blight in the Project Area and concluded that redevelopment was necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the CRL. These conditions included obsolescence, incomplete demolition and presence of hazardous materials on the U.S. Steel sites and poor access and circulation, polluted groundwater and inadequate public improvements in the Project Area. Additionally, the plant closure caused economic conditions including unemployment, reduced tax revenues and a decline in secured assessed value. Refer to Table II-25 for a summary of blighting conditions described in the Report to Council. e Redevelopment Activities and Development from Plan Adoption to the Present In Febrnary 1986, the Agency entered into an Owner Participation Agreement with Chiltern Development Corporation for the development of the former U.S. Steel Company property. The City adopted a Specific Plan for the Project Area but the project did not move forward due to a delay caused by a lawsuit by San Francisco International Airport over the Envixonmental Impact Report on the project. By the time the lawsuit was resolved in March 1990, the fmancial market had substantially changed, and the financing of the project as proposed was no longer feasible. No new development occurred in the Project Area until 1997. In FY 1996/97, a Disposition and Development Agreement and Owner Participation Agreement with Bay West Cove, LLC was approved and a new Specific Plan for the area was adopted. The new Specific Plan's land uses include hotels, offices, businesses and professional services. 25 Five Year Capital Improvement Program FY 2004-2005, City of South San Francisco, May 24, 2004, Traffic Section. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-67 Preliminary Report SOuth San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table II-25 Blighting Conditions under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption Shearwater Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger CRL Reference ] Definition Under CRL at Time of Plan Adoption' I Blighting Conditions Present at Time of Plan Adoption (1/8/1986) Section 35031:,4 blighted area is characterized by the existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of such uses, which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes and are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, and crime because of any one or a combination of the following.factors: Section 33031 (a) Defective design and character of physical construction Section 33051 (b) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing Section 33031 (c) High densily of population and overcrowding Section 33031 (ti) lnadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces, and recreation facilities Section 33031 (e) Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character, or U.S. Steel facility obsolete, closed in 1983 and all buildings demolished in 1984, incomplete shift, lng of uses building, demolition (remainine foundations, footings and debris]. Sections 33032:,4 blighted area is characterized by properties which suffer from economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse because of one or more of the following factors: Section 33032 (a) Section 33032 (b) Section 33032 (c) Section 33032 (d) The subdividing and sale o flats of irregular form and shape and inadeauate size for larol~er usefulness and deve[ot~ment The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or physical characteristics of the ground and surroundine conditions The existence of inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or eovernmental action without redevelot~ment .4 prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment Predominantly Urbanized per CRLb Inadequate public improvements, lack adequate circulation around and access to the site, substantial upgrade and reconfiguration of Oyster Point Boulevard interchange with U.S. Highway 101, traffic coneestion. Unemployment due to plant closure (loss of 300 jobs), presence of hazardous materials (lead concentrations exceeding the threshold concentration, priority pollutant organic chemicals identified in soil sediments and groundwater, strongly acidic soil and groundwater, high concentration of dissolved lead identified in the acidic groundwater), inadequate public improvements, 67% decline in secured assessed value, loss of property tax revenue. I100 urbanized. percent a. Excerpts from the CRL are in italics. b. This condition was required after January 1, 1984. Source: Katz, Hollis, Caren & Associates, Inc., Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project, May 1985, supplemented June 1985. Information compiled by Seifel Consulting Inc. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11-68 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 a. Agency's Redevelopment Projects and Activities The Agency has completed public in~astructure and economic in the Shearwater Project Area since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. These include numerous traffic and circulation improvements to Oyster Point Boulevard, facilitation of office and biotechnology building development and toxic material clean-up throughout the Project Area. See Table II-26 for a summary of agency projects and activities. b. Development to Date in the Shearwater Project Area The Agency has helped to facilitate new development in the Project Area. In 2001, Marriot completed two hotel developments totaling 350 rooms. In 2003, six office/research and development buildings in the Britannia Oyster Point complex were developed. Appendix Table G-4 contains a summary of the development to date in the Project Area. 3. Remaining Blighting Conditions in the Project Area The Shearwater Project Area has been improved substantially by public and private actions since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1986. However, recent field surveys and existing conditions analyses determined that some of the blighting conditions originally described in the 1985 Rei~ort to Council and recognized under current CRL blight definitions remain. a. Physical Blighting Conditions Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots [33031(a)(2)] Factors that inhibit the proper use of buildings or lots in the Shearwater Project Area include earthquake and soil conditions, accessibility issues and poor circulation, vacant and underutilized lots, public improvement deficiencies, and the presence of hazardous materials. These factors are described below. Soil Conditions The Project Area occupies the lowland topographic zone, which has a land composition entirely o£ artificial fill underlain by Bay mud. Associated development hazards on artificial fill include shrink-swell, settlement and differential settlement and corrosivity, Differential settlement can damage building foundations, disturb underground utilities and cause settlement in streets and roads. The Project Area would also be subject to high to extremely high levels of shaking amplification and liquefaction during an earthquake. Seismic groundshaking due to wave amplification could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. Bay mud and Bay fills are some of the soils most susceptible to liquefaction. The consequences of liquefaction could include damaged foundations, disruption of utility service and damaged roadways. Buildings constructed on improperly engineered fills and artificial fills at the Bay margin could be damaged severely in an earthquake.26 Refer to Section B.2 for a detailed description of land composition and hazards. 26 DEIR, pp. 4-146 through 4-162. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-69 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table II-26 Agency Projects and Activities to Date in the Shearwater Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Projects and Activities Public Infrastruture: :~ Completed the first phase of the Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 overpass. Reconstructed and widened Oyster Point Boulevard to four lanes. Constructed Oyster Point Boulevard hookramps. Other street and circulation improvements. EC6no~icDe~elopm~nt ~ ~ :~ - ~ i.. Adopted new Bay West Cove Specific Plan for the Project Area, which includes proposed and/or under construction projects. Facilitated the review, approval, and development of numerous office and biotechnology research buildings. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-70 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Hazardous Materials and Contamination According to the DEIR for the General Plan Update, the Shearwater site has major hazardous materials concentrations. This site housed steel fabrication at the U.S. Steel facility for over 50 years, which introduced lead, heavy hydrocarbons, poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls in the soil and groundwater. A preliminary site remediation plan dating from 1990 calls for excavation of contaminated soils and encapsulation on-site. However, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) had indicated that groundwater remediation might also be needed.27 As can be seen in Table 11-27, this site is still on the SLIC program list, and the site is monitored by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. Table 11-27 Location of Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups Sites Shearwater Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Business Name IStreet Name U.S. Steel Facility (former) Cross of Oyster Point and Highway 101 Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, August 27, 2004. Inadequate Circulation The Cove, a 20 acre vacant parcel located on the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard at its intersection with Gateway Boulevard, is a large lot with inadequate infrastructure and lacking access points and streets. The lack of infrastructure means added cost to any development. b. Economic Blighting Conditions Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments [33031(b)(1)] Hazardous Materials and Contamination As discussed previously in Section B.3, the presence of hazardous materials discourages development of a property due to the costly nature of cleanup and remediation activities. The contamination issues could deter development within Shearwater. c. Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots [33031(b)(2)] This section documents the presence of the blighting condition of economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots in the Shearwater Area, as defined in CRL Section 3303 l(b)(2). The factor present in Shearwater includes vacant and underutilized parcels. The Cove is a large vacant lot near U.S. Highway 101, programmed for a 600,000 square foot biotech building. Although the development was given planning permission in 2000, the development has not started construction. Genentech has recently purchased 16 acres of the 20 acre site. d. Inadequate Public Improvements [33031(c)] As mentioned previously in Section 3.a, the large vacant site known as The Cove lacks infrastructure and internal streets. 27 DEIR, p. 4-118. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-71 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 H. Conclusions for BHghting Conditions The existing Project Areas and Downtown/Central Added Area suffer from several physical and economic blighting conditions. The following statutorily defined conditions of physical and economic blight hinder the existing Project Areas: · Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. · Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. · Adjacent or nearby incompatible uses. · Irregularly shaped or inadequately sized lots. · Depreciated values and impaired investments. · Economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots. · Residential overcrowding and problem businesses. The following statutorily defined conditions of physical and economic blight are substantial ao.d prevalent in the Downtown/Central Added Areas: · Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. · Depreciated values and impaired investments. · Economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots. Continued redevelopment is necessary for the existing Project Areas, and the Added Area needs redevelopment to reach its full potential. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency II-72 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 III. Redevelopment Program Description A. Introduction This chapter describes the Agency's Redevelopment Program, including the goals, objectives, projects, activities and expenditures to implement the Redevelopment Program. It describes how the Redevelopment Program will alleviate the blighting conditions, and summarizes the anticipated cost for the Redevelopment Program. The Redevelopment Program is designed to meet the objectives of the CRL. and the Redevelopment Plans' goals and objectives, as well as to enable the Agency to accelerate its Redevelopment Program throughout South San Francisco. The Redevelopment Program for each existing Project Area will not be modified. Each of the existing Project Areas will continue to be governed by its own Redevelopment Plan with its respective Redevelopment Program, set of redevelopment goals and objectives, and time and fiscaI limits with the exception of the combined fiscal limits for tax increment collection and outstanding indebtedness. While the Redevelopment Program projects and activities for each individual Redevelopment Project will not be modified as a result of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, this chapter synthesizes the Redevelopment Program projects and activities planned for the individual Project Areas into one Redevelopment Program for ease of administration and to facilitate implementation. Section B of this chapter includes the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plans. Section C describes the relationship between the Redevelopment Program and the alleviation of blighting conditions. Section D describes the Agency's Non-Housing Redevelopment Program, and its projects and activities. Section D also includes summaries of deficiencies to be corrected and cost estimates of the proposed projects and activities. Section E describes the Affordable Housing Program. (Refer to Chapter IV for a description of sources that may be used by the Agency to help fund the proposed projects and activities.) The Agency's costs of implementing the Redevelopment Program in constant FY 2004/05 dollars are $176.4 million for the Agency Non-Housing Redevelopment Program and $76.4 million for the Affordable Housing Program (constant FY 2004/05 dollars).~ Since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plans, the Agency has undertaken a number of projects and activities to alleviate blight in the Project Areas. (Refer to Chapter II for a summary of projects and activities undertaken to date in the existing Project Areas.) The continued presence of adverse conditions warrants continued redevelopment activities. The Agency is currently in the process of implementing redevelopment activities that will facilitate the development of the vacant and underutilized areas of the existing Project Areas and revitalize commercial corridors and residential neighborhoods. ~ Agency Non-Housing Redevelopment Program costs of $176.4 million (constant FY 2004/05 dollars) are the available funds remaining after the deduction of pass through payments to taxing entities, the affordable housing set-aside fund bond debt service obligations, other Agency obligations, and Agency administration costs. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-i Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 The Fiscal Merger will allow the Agency to combine the financial resources of the existing Project Areas in efforts to better implement its Redevelopment Program, which will eliminate blighting conditions in all four Project Areas. The Fiscal Merger will accelerate the alleviation of the physical and economic blighting conditions. It will provide flexibility to combine and focus revenues from different Project Areas on the needs ora particular Project Area and will allow the Agency to adjust that focus over time to other Project Areas so that the community's overall redevelopment needs can be addressed in a more efficient and effective manner. The Redevelopment Program for the Downtown/Central Project Area will be extended to the Added Area. It is integrated and balanced, and addresses the most significant blighting conditions identified in Chapter II. B. Redevelopment Plan Goals and Objectives The Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger will achieve the purposes of the CRL and General Plan of the City of South San Francisco. The following goals and objectives, intended to eliminate physical and economic blighting conditions, were established when the existing Redevelopment Plans were adopted. Together with zoning regulations, these objectives will continue to guide the direction of all fhture development within the Project Areas, including the Downtown/Central Added Area. 1. Downtown/Central The following major goals and objectives will continue to be pursued by the Agency, as set forth in the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan and the 2000 Five Year Implementation Plan:2 · Expand the retail component of the Downtown, provide diversification of offerings and encourage major outlets as a draw to new shoppers. · Continue support of the various cultural and civic uses that provide major anchors, stressing special events that draw new attendees. · Promote the Downtown area as the financial hub, encouraging existing institutions to expand both physically and with related services. · Eliminate blight through abatement or code compliance, reconstruction and assembly of parcels into more developable sites for more desirable uses. · Improve public parking, other public facilities, services, utility lines, lighting, public safety and public transportation. · Create a pedestrian environment to encourage multiple stops by visitors and more frequent visits to the Downtown. · Emphasize and highlight the existing architectural style and scale through rehabilitation and renovation of historic structures and encouraging in-fill development that relates to existing structures. · Expand and upgrade the housing opportunities in the community to eliminate blight and improve housing stock and standards for the present population. · Promote new and continuing private sector investment within the Project Area to prevent the loss of and to facilitate commercial and industrial activity. 2 The goals and objectives for the Downtown/Central Project Area will not be modified under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger; the existing goals and objectives will be applied to the Downtown/Central Added Area. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-2 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 · Achieve an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate to attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. · Retain and expand as many existing businesses as possible by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses and public agencies in the revitalization of the Project Area. · Provide for increased sales, business license, and other fees, taxes and revenues to the City of South San Francisco. · Encourage maximum participation of residents, business persons, property owners, and community organizations in the redevelopment of the Project Area. · Create and develop local job opportunities and preserve the area's existing employment base. · Replan, redesign and develop areas that are stagnant or improperly used. · Reduce the City's annual costs of providing local services to and within the Project Area. · Promote Downtown's vitality and economic well being, and its presence as the City's center. · Encourage development of Downtown as a mixed use activity center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and,'a variety of residential types and densities. · Provide incentives for infill development, intensification and reuse of currently underutilized sites. · Enhance linkages between Downtown and transit centers, and increase street connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. El Camino Corridor The following major goals and objectives will continue to be pursued by the Agency, as set forth in the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the 2000 Five Year Implementation Plan: · Eliminate and prevent the spread of blight, non-conforming uses and deterioration and conserve, rehabilitate and redevelop of the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan, furore specific plans, the Plan and local codes and ordinances. · Achieve an environment reflecting a higher level of concern for architectural, landscape, urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Plan and the General Plan. · Control unplanned growth by guiding revitalization, rehabilitation and new development in such fashion as to meet the needs of the Project, the City and its citizens. · Reduce the City's annual costs for the provision of local services to and within the Project Area. · Increase sales, business licenses and other fees, taxes and revenues for the City. · Promote new and continuing private sector investment within the Project Area to prevent the loss of and to facilitate the increase of commercial sales activity. · Create and develop local job opportunities and preserve the area's existing employment base. · Develop a spectrum of housing types affordable to various segments of the community in a manner consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the provisions of the Redevelopment Law. · Eliminate or ameliorate existing substandard conditions, including substandard vehicular circulation and parking systems, inadequate infrastructure, insufficient off-street parking, and other similar public deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area. · Present and create civic, cultural and educational facilities and amenities as catalysts for area revitalization. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-3 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 · Upgrade and expand recreational areas and open space. · Assist in the revitalization of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. · Develop more east-west crossings on El Camino Real that connect the City's neighborhoods, and a continuous parallel street on the eastside to provide alternative travel routes. · Develop E1 Camino Real as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provide identity to the street. · Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity that provide focus and identity to the different parts of El Camino Real. · Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. 3. Gateway The following major goals and objectives will continue to be pursued by the Agency, as set forth in the Gateway Redevelopment Plan: · Eliminate blight and blighting influences. .. · Replan, redesign and develop a large area suffering from obsolete plant facilities. · Establish and implement performance criteria to assure high site design standards and environmental quality so as to provide unity and integrity to the entire site. · Strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and the community by installing public improvements needed to stimulate new office/hotel and commercial development, employment and economic growth. 4. Shearwater The following major goals and objectives will continue to be pursued by the Agency, as set forth in the Shearwater Redevelopment Plan: · Eliminate and prevent blight and deterioration and redevelop the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan, specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances. · Eliminate or ameliorate certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems; disposal or handling of hazardous materials; inadequate water, sewer and storm drainage systems; and other similar public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area. · Achieve an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, open space, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for the attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. · Replan, redesign and develop undeveIoped/vacant areas that are stagnant or improperly utilized. · Encourage investment by the private sector in the development and redevelopment of the Project Area by eliminating impediments to such development and redevelopment. · Create and develop local job opportunities to replace the Project Area's defunct employment base. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-4 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 · Provide for increased sales, business license, hotel occupancy and other fees, taxes and revenues to the City. · Establish a conference center to serve the needs of San Mateo County and the surrounding areas. · Create increased cultural and recreation opportunities for visitors as well as area residents, particularly maximizing the potential offered by the waterfront. Expand the community's supply of housing, including opportunities for low and moderate income households. · Expand the community's supply of housing including opportunities for Iow and moderate income households. C. Relationship Between the Redevelopment Program and Alleviation of Blighting Conditions The Redevelopment Program aims to continue to alleviate the blighting conditions that interfere with revitalization of the Project Areas by improving economic conditions, stimulating private development, improving public infrastructure, circulation, parking and facilities, and meeting the Agency's affordable housing obligation. The Redevelopment Program meets the CRL requirement that Agency expenditures be linked to the elimination of blighting conditions. Portions of the existing Project Areas suffer from a variety of physical and economic blighting conditions that must be alleviated if these areas are to continue their revitalization. The Added Area will benefit from a coherent revitalization and economic development strategy that is coordinated with the City's overall goals. In general, the Redevelopment Program is designed to: · Revitalize areas that exhibit physical and economic blight. · Stimulate private investment and approphate development. · Improve circulation, public infrastructure and public facilities. · Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate blighting conditions. · Create affordable housing. The Redevelopment Program will alleviate the blighting conditions identified in Chapter II. Table III~1 provides a matrix summarizing the relationship between the blighting conditions described in Chapter II and the projects and activities proposed to alleviate these conditions. Section D includes a summary of the deficiencies to be corrected by the Redevelopment Program. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-5 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 ADVERSE CONDITIONS Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings Factors Inhibiting Proper Use of Building or Lots Incompatible Uses Irregular Lots in Multiple Ownership Depreciated Values/Impaired Investments Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots Residential Overcrowding or Problem Businesses Deficient Public Improvements' Table III-1 How the Redevelopment Program Will Alleviate Blighting Conditions South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Public Infrastructure, Property Acquisition, Circulation and Public Facilities Economic Development Demolition and Site Affordable Housing Parking Preparation · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · a. Although not considered physical or economic blight under the CRL, the existence of deficient public improvements contributes to blighting conditions in the Project Areas. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger III-6 November 2004 D. Description of Agency's Non-Housing Redevelopment Program Thc Agency's Redevelopment Program is organized broadly into five categories that reflect the division of tax increment revenues into funds that can be used for any redevelopment purpose (Non-Housing Redevelopment Program) and those specifically related to thc Agency's affordable housing endeavors (Affordable Housing Program). The order of presentation of the categories is for identification purposes only, and is not intended to indicate the category's relative priority for implementation: · Public Infrastructure, Circulation and Parking · Public Facilities · Economic Development · Property Acquisition, Demolition and Site Preparation · Affordable Housing (Refer to Section E) This section describes the Agency's proposed Non-Housing Redevelopment Program, including the deficiencies to be corrected, project and activity descriptions, and estimated project costs. The projects and activities are intended to reflect the general statement of goals and objectives that are contained in the Redevelopment Plans. As they are implemented, these projects and activities may be modified over time to better serve the purposes of redevelopment. Cost estimates are necessarily preliminary in nature and subject to considerable refinement as the Redevelopment Program planning and implementation proceeds. However, the cost estimates are adequate to provide reasonable orders of magnitude for the financial feasibility evaluation and the need for tax increment financing. Table II1-2, included at the end of this chapter, summarizes the total estimated costs of the Agency's proposed Redevelopment Program. 1. Public Infrastructure, Circulation and Parking a. Deficiencies to be Corrected The blighting conditions described in Chapter II and shown in Appendix C need to be alleviated in order to enhance the Project Areas. Deficient and inadequate public infrastructure exacerbates blighting conditions. In addition, impediments to circulation and a lack of parking deter revitalization in certain areas within the Project Areas. Circulation is impeded by irregular street patterns, shared ingress and egress points, defunct railroad tracks, inadequate internal networks of streets, railroad tracks traversing streets, a lack of sidewalks and deteriorated sidewalks. Portions of the Project Areas are characterized by street deficiencies including deteriorated pavement, surface cracking, unimproved and non-paved roads, defunct and deteriorating raikoad tracks on roadways, and potholes. Such deficiencies contribute to traffic congestion and hazards, and increase the risk of motor vehicle accidents. Street deficiencies also contribute to traffic circulation problems, which ultimately can hinder industrial and commercial development. Curbing and sidewalk deficiencies are present. Furthermore, poorly configured streets and the zigzag of railroad lines create irregularly shaped parcels. Curbs and sidewalks are missing, or badly damaged and deteriorated, particularly in industrial areas. Such deficiencies force pedestrians to walk in active traffic lanes, creating pedestrian hazards and limiting pedestrian movement and accessibility. Infrastructure systems such as sewer and storm drainage systems are deteriorated. During storms, the storm drainage system capacity is exceeded, and in some areas, storm water backs up into the sewer system. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 1II-7 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 b. Projects and Activities The proposed projects and activities in this category address public infrastructure, circulation and parking inadequacies and deficiencies. The activities include: · Improve streets and circulation, including constructing and upgrading streets, intersections, highway access, ovcrcrossings, railroad crossings, streets curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in order to mcct City standards and improve access to and within thc Project Areas. · Create comprehensive pedestrian and transit network. · Remove defunct railroad tracks and create safe railroad crossings. · Construct and/or upgrade strcetscapc, landscaping, traffic signals, and signage. · Underground utilities. · Improve storm drainage, including storm drains and flood culverts and consider relocation of water lines parallel to the flood channel. · Upgrade water quality control treatment plant. · Construct and/or upgrade sanitary sewer lines, and sanitary sewer. · Construct or improve parking lots and/or parking structures. · Make other infrastructure improvements as needed. c. Estimated Program Costs The total Agency cost for the Public Infrastructure, Circulation and Parking projects and activities is $106.8 million (in constant FY 2004/05 dollars). 2. Public Facilities a. Deficiencies to be Corrected .The Project Areas lack adequate public facilities, such as transit facilities, fire stations, community centers, day care facilities, recreation facilities and a cultural arts center. Other public facilities deficiencies identified include a lack of parks and open space. b. Projects and Activities The proposed projects and activities in this category address public facilities deficiencies. The activities include: · Assist with the development of transit oriented facilities and improvements such as train, shuttle, and/or ferry facilities. · Provide a safe, pedestrian friendly environment around Caltrain station. · Improve public facilities, including complete relocation of Downtown Fire Station, develop day care facilities, and develop a cultural arts center. · Provide park, recreation and community facility improvements through repair, rehabilitation, installation, acquisition and improvement of linear and other parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, play lots, and pedestrian plazas. · Design, develop and construct public library. · Design, develop and construct fire station. · Repair, rehabilitate, install, acquire and improve other public buildings and structures. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-8 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 ¢. Estimated Program Costs The total Agency cost for the Public Facilitiesprojects and activities is $14.9 million (in constant FY 2004/05 dollars). 3. Economic Development a. Deficiencies to be Corrected As described in Chapter II, the Project Areas suffer from a variety of physical and economic blighting conditions that need to be resolved in order for the areas to attain their full economic potential. Blighting conditions, such as substandard and underutilized lots and buildings, the presence of hazardous materials and contaminated sites, as well as deteriorated and dilapidated buildings, impede efficient and economically feasible development in the Project Areas. Furthermore, the perception of crime and the ovcrconccntration of cstablisluncnts selling liquor hinder the economic vitality of portions of the Project Areas. The economic development efforts will promote private investment by attracting high quality and appropriately located residential, commercial and industrial development to the Project Areas. b. Projects and Activities The proposed economic development activities include: · Enhance, retain and expand business by providing technical assistance and incentives for investment in commercial areas. · Undertake activities to strengthen office, R&D, industrial and hotel development including supporting retail and restaurant uses. · Strengthen existing commercial enterprises and shopping areas and attract new businesses and shoppers. · Implement a business assistance program to assist commercial and industrial business owners to eliminate code deficiencies and otherwise improve their properties through a rehabilitation loan program and facade improvement program. · Develop and implement a Downtown Strategy Plan focused on new retail, offices and housing, including supporting the construction of office buildings, enhancing housing opportunities, extending the Caltrain station platform to make it more accessible to Grand Avenue. · Creating a pedestrian-friendly connection to Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard. · Provide for participation in the redevelopment process for owners and tenants of property in the Project Areas. c. Estimated Program Costs The total' Agency cost for the Economic Development projects and activities is $5.0 million (in constant FY 2004/05 dollars). South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-9 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 4. Property Acquisition, Demolition and Site Preparation a. Deficiencies to be Corrected Portions of the Project Areas contain large tracts of vacant and underutilized properties. Many properties in the Downtown/Central and El Camino Corridor Project Areas appear on environmental monitoring lists and/or contain leaking underground fuel tanks. Portions of some of the Project Areas are characterized by adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other, which prevents the economic development of those parcels. Concentrations of problem businesses in commercial areas contribute to crime and hinder economic developmem. When substantial negative impacts are created by adjoining facilities or uses, the value and economic viability of properties is adversely affected. These and other blighting conditions such as substandard, deteriorated and dilapidated buildings and inadequately sized or irregularly shaped lots, impede efficient and economically feasible development. Property acquisition, demolition and site preparation activities will help alleviate these blighting conditions. b. Projects and Activities The property acquisition, demolition and site preparation development activities include: · Acquire property for productive reuse and to eliminate blighting conditions. · As appropriate, demolish or remove buildings and/or improvements on acquired property. · Provide relocation assistance to any residents or businesses displaced due to redevelopment activities. · Conduct feasibility analyses of property transactions as opportunities arise. · Conduct toxic remediation testing and provide cleanup assistance where not feasible for the private sector. · Dispose of land for redevelopment by private enterprise and public agencies. · Reconfigure streets, business access, and/or railroad tracks to facilitate development of irregularly shaped parcels or parcels without adequate access. c. Estimated Program Costs The total Agency cost for the Property Acquisition, Demolition and Site Preparation projects and activities is $49.7 million (in constant FY 2004/05 dollars). E. Description of Agency's Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program This section describes the Affordable Housing Program, including project and activity descriptions and estimated project costs. a. Description The Agency will continue to implement a key provision of the CRL, the enhancement of affordable housing opportunities for households earning at or below 120 percent of median income, with particular emphasis on those households earning at or below 50 percent of median income. Section 33334.2 of the CRL requires that an agency utilize 20 percent of all tax increment revenue allocated to the Agency to increase or enhance the community's supply of affordable housing. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-10 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 The Agency may establish a range of housing programs that seek to enhance project design and leverage federal, state and private funding sources to develop high quality, attractive and affordable housing developments serving a diverse population. The funds set aside for the Affordable Housing Program will be used in a flexible manner in order to respond to favorable development opportunities. The Agency will continue to promote the development of a wide variety of affordable housing in the community in order to enhance the vitality of the area and provide much needed housing for the City. In particular, the Agency will continue to encourage mixed use development, development of new and rehabilitation of existing rental and ownership units, infill development, mixed income development and an array of senior housing possibilities. Through its affordable housing activities, the Agency will continue to support and advance the overall Housing Element. In implementing its Affordable Housing Program, the Agency has been guided by the goals and policies of the City's Housing Element, which are incorporated into the Preliminary Report by this reference. South San Francisco has six goals in the Housing Element of the 1999 General Plan. · To promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community. · To conserve and enhance existing residential neighborhoods while maintaining affordabiiity in existing neighborhoods and neighborhoods with low income families. · To provide housing for groups with special needs. · To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of age, race, gender, religion, marital status, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary factors. · To protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards. · To encourage energy efficiency in all new and existing home. In addition to increasing the production of affordable housing, the Affordable Housing Program will help alleviate blighting conditions, including deteriorated buildings and overcrowding. Overcrowded housing generally provides poor quality housing for its residents and can lead to the deterioration of buildings by putting additional wear and use on the structures. b. Projects and Activities As part of the Affordable Housing Program, the Agency will undertake the following types of affordable housing projects and activities: · Encourage the development of affordable housing. - Provide assistance from all departments within the bounds of local ordinances to stimulate affordable housing production. - Provide technical, financial and other redevelopment assistance to nonprofit developers to stimulate affordable housing production. - Help implement the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. · Provide housing opportunities for very low income renters and persons with special needs. - Undertake programs to provide financial assistance for acquisition and/or physical improvements to existing boarding rooms, single room occupancies, and other existing rental units. - Increase the supply of affordable rental units by providing financial assistance to developers for the creation of new multifamily rental units. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III- 11 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 - Provide financing or incentives to preserve affordable housing at risk of reverting to market rate as subsidies expire. - Undertake rehabilitation programs for older rental units posing a health hazard due to lead poisoning. · Provide shelter and transitional housing for homeless persons and families and prevent households at risk of becoming homeless. Stimulate the construction of new shelter and transitional opportunities by: - Provide direct financial support or incentives. - Streamline the permit process. - Provide density bonuses and other forms of assistance within the bounds of local ordinances and policies. - Work with San Mateo County Task Force to locate a new shelter. · Provide opportunities for Iow and moderate income homeowners to maintain and repair their homes and promote neighborhood revitalization. - Provide low interest loans for housing rehabilitation for very low, low and moderate income homeowners to maintain and repair their homes. · Provide homeownership opportunities for first time homebuyers earning less than 120 percent of median income. - Promote the Agency's interest in developing affordable housing. - Provide assistance or incentives to stimulate the creation of new homeownership opportunities. - Provide funds to subsidize the purchase of new housing by qualified buyers. - Support efforts to provide first time homebuyer opportunities by working with other agencies and housing programs, including the Mortgage Credit Certificate and corporate homebuyer programs. c. Estimated Program Costs The Agency cost for the Affordable Housing Program is projected to be $76.4 million (in constant FY 2004/05 dollars). Refer to Chapter IV for further discussion regarding the projection of tax increment to be set aside for affordable housing activities. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-12 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table III-2 Estimated Net Cost to Agency of Redevelopment Program In Constant FY 2004/05 Dollars South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Redevelopment Program Non-Housing Program Public Infrastructure, Circulation and Parking Public Facilities Economic Development Property Acquisition, Demolition and Site Preparation SUBTOTALb Affordable Housing Program¢ TOTAL a. Based on estimates provided by Agency staff. Figures do not add due to rounding. b. Excludes administrative costs related to Non-Housing Program. c. Includes administrative costs related to Affordable Housing Program. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Net Cost to Agencya $106.8 million $14.9 million $5.0 million $49.7 million $176.41 million $76.4 million $252.7 million South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency III-13 South Sa0 Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 IV. proposed Methods of Financing and Feasibility Chapter IV describes the public and private £mancing aspects of the Redevelopment Program. It presents estimated total funding requirements, identifies potential resources and methods of financing available to the Agency, presents projected tax increment revenues, and assesses the general fmancial feasibility of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. This chapter also explains why tax increment financing is a necessary part of the overall financing program to eliminate blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas and Added Area. Blighting conditions persist in the Project Areas, and significant capital investment will be necessary to alleviate them. The Added Area's development has been hindered by blighting conditions. While the Agency continues to pursue other potential funding sources, revenues from these sources will not be sufficient to accomplish the activities needed to alleviate the blighting conditions identified in the Project Areas, including the Added Area. Tax increment financing will be needed. A. Introduction As described in Chapter I, the primary reasons for fiscally merging the four Redevelopment Projects and adding territory are to accelerate the achievement of the goals identified in the existing Redevelopment Plans as expediently as possible and to provide resources to revitalize the Added Area. Due to the cutbacks in federal and state funding since project inceptions and the slower than anticipated growth in tax increment revenues in the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area, the Agency has experienced difficulty in funding some projects and activities to meet the redevelopment goals and stimulate private investment in the Project Areas. The Added Area is a blighted area that has not been fully redeveloped by either the public or private sectors. Continued implementation of the redevelopment projects and activities will require substantial funding. The immediate pressure to provide funding sources for the cost of blight alleviation stems from both the necessity to mitigate the public infrastructure, public facility and environmental deficiencies, and to improve public safety, health, and welfare within the Project Areas. Persistence of unsafe building conditions, underutilization of buildings and lots, impaired investments, overcrowding, the presence o£ problem businesses, and inadequacies in public improvements and facilities can only be addressed through the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, which will enhance the implementation of the Redevelopment Program. City and County general funds are commonly used to supplement redevelopment agency resources at the local level. However, public revenue sources such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) in combination with the City's General Fund and other City Funds are currently insufficient to cover the cost of the projects and activities proposed by the Agency to alleviate blight. The City of South San Francisco has recently experienced major challenges in balancing its budget recently, as a result of the downturn in the economy and the state budget deficit. Although the City and Agency have other sources of funding, such as developer and owner participation and assessment districts, these funds are not sufficient to support the projects and activities identified by the Redevelopment Program. The resources of the public and private sectors alone without redevelopment continue to be insufficient to eliminate blighting conditions in the Project Areas. Tax increment financing continues to be the most reliable source of long term funding'available to the Agency and is the only source of financing that will generate sufficient revenue to meet the funding gap. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV- 1 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 As previously described in Chapter I, the proposed Plan Amendments will fiscally merge the four Redevelopment Projects and combine the current cumulative tax increment collection and outstanding bonded indebtedness caps of each existing Project Area. Specifically, the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger will create a combined dollar limit on the amount of tax increment collected and outstanding bonded indebtedness for the Agency's four existing Project Areas. The combined tax increment collection limit will be $796 million, representing the total of the existing limits of $80 million, $168 million, $300 million, and $248 million in the Gateway, Shearwater, E1 Camino Corridor, and Downtown/Central Project Areas, respectively. The limit on outstanding indebtedness will be $232.65 million, representing the total of $40 million, $52.65 million, $50 million and $90 million in the Gateway, Shearwater, E1 Camino Corridor and Downtown/Central Project Areas, respectively. Fiscally merging and amending the four Redevelopment Projects will offer substantial potential benefits. With more flexibility in funding, the projects and activities needed to address the blighting conditions in the Project Areas as described in Chapter II, would be able to be completed earlier than anticipated. The Redevelopment Program described in Chapter III will enhance the viability and expansion of businesses and continue the revitalization of the Project Areas, thereby creating job opportunities for residents of the Project Areas and for the community as a whole. Finally, the acceleration of tax increment revenues to the Agency resulting from investment that will be stimulated by the enhanced and accelerated redevelopment activities would generate more funds for improving and expanding the supply of affordable housing in the community. Adding the Oyster Point Marina to the Downtown/Central Project Area will provide resources to catalyze further development in this underutilized area, which is the site of a former landfill. This chapter is organ/zed as follows: A. Introduction B. Stimulation of private investment C. Estimated funding requirements D. Potential sources other than tax increment financing E. Tax increment financing as the primary source of funding F. Assumptions used in tax increment projections G. Tax increment projections H. Financial feasibility of the Redevelopment Program I. Necessity of tax increment financing and Fiscal Merger B. Stimulation of Private Investment A major goal of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger is to accelerate private investment in the existing Project Areas and to stimulate investment in the Added Area. Public investment in the form of redevelopment funding will be used to leverage private investment. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-2 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Private investment is anticipated to include new commercial and residential development on vacant or underutilized parcels and the rehabilitation of commercial and residential buildings in many parts of the Project Areas. Over time, such investment could be significant. However, private investment in these areas will depend upon the improvement of public facilities and infrastructure, the elimination of blighting conditions, and the establishment of a positive climate for private participation. Given the extent of blighting conditions and the need for improved public facilities and infrastructure, effective implementation of the Redevelopment Program through the use of tax increment financing provides the most reasonable opportunity for stimulating private investment in the area. C. Estimated Funding Requirements The implementation of the Redevelopment Program will require substantial funding. Chapter III describes the Redevelopment Program, specifically identifying the projects and activities and their associated' costs.~ The Agency cost estimates presented in Chapter III take into account the amount of funds that the Agency anticipates it will leverage under each Redevelopment Program category. The estimated net cost of the Redevelopment Program, as described in Chapter III and shown in Table IV-I, totals approximately $252.7 million (in constant FY 2004/05 dollars).2 The cost of the Redevelopment Program excludes offsetting funding from non-Agency sources that will supplement Agency funds (as described in Section D of this chapter and Appendix D). Table IV-1 Estimated Net Cost to Agency of Redevelopment Program In Constant FY 2004/05 Dollars South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Redevelopment Program Non-Housing Program Public Infrastructure, Circulation and Parking Public Facilities Economic Development Property Acquisition, Demolition and Site Preparation SUBTOTALb Affordable Housing Programc TOTAL Net Cost to Agency $106.8 million $14.9 million $5.0 million $49.7 million $176.4 million $76.4 million $252.7 million a. Based on estimates provided by Agency staff. Figures do not add or subtract due to rounding. b. Excludes administrative costs related to Non-Housing Program. c. Includes administrative costs related to Affordable Housing Program. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. ~ As discussed in Chapters I and III, the Redevelopment Program for each Project Area will not be modified under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. 2 The term FY 2004/05 dollars or constant FY 2004/05 dollars is used to indicate the present value of future dollars discounted back ro FY 2004/05. For more information, refer co discussion on presea~ value assumption in Section F.2 of ~his chapter. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-3 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 D. Potential Sources Other than Tax Increment Financing Thc Redevelopment Plans authorize the Agency to finance the Redevelopment Program using all available funding sources, including local, state and federal sources. Local sources include assessment districts, impact fees, interest income, the lease or sale of Agency-owned property, tax allocation bonds, loans from sponsoring entities and other local public entities as well as the lease and sale of Agency- owned property. The Agency will make every effort to obtain alternative funding sources as a means to accelerate the implementation of thc Redevelopment Program and to minimize the required investment of tax increment revenues. The Agency also will work with thc City and County and use their combined resources to secure federal, state and private funding. As appropriate, the Agency will also pursue available loan programs to maximize the levcraging of its funds. However, tax increment £mancing is the most reliable source of long term funding available to the Agency. It is the only source that will generate substantial revenue to meet the projected funding needs of the Redevelopment Program. Appendix D includes a matrix of a wide range of alternative funding sources that might be available to assist in financing the Redevelopment Program. It lists each potential source, the responsible ,e, ntity, a summary of the source, the type of funding (grant, loan, or other), and an evaluation of the likelihood that the source could generate revenues for use in the Project Areas. Some sources may generate more funds than estimated, while others may generate less. On balance, the estimates of alternative revenues provide an initial assessment of funding availability to determine the need for tax increment revenue to fill the funding gap in the Redevelopment Program costs. Appendix D, Table D-1 groups funding sources by primary, secondary and complementary sources of funding. Funding sources considered to be unavailable or unlikely are listed in Appendix D, Table D-2. Primary sources are the most likely to be available to provide funding for the Redevelopment Program, while secondary sources are less likely to be available or provide a less significant amount of funding. Complementary sources would not provide direct funding for the Redevelopment Program, however, they could be used for economic development, business support and expansion, neighborhood improvements, and community enhancement, which would enhance the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Program. Tax increment financing is the major primary source of funding anticipated to be available. Tax increment revenue is generated by the increase in property values within a designated Redevelopment Project Area, and it is the primary source of financing for the Redevelopment Agency's projects and activities. (See Section £.). 1. Primary Funding Sources Other Than Tax Increment Revenue The following sources are the primary funding sources that the Agency has available to support its activities. These sources by themselves have not been sufficient to fund Agency activities without the use of tax increment in the past, and will not be sufficient to accomplish the Agency's redevelopment program without the use of tax increment funds in the future. All of these funding sources are utilized most effectively in conjunction with tax increment as none of them, separately or together, would generate sufficient new revenues for the Agency's blight alleviation activities described in Chapter III. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-4 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 City of South San Francisco General Fund The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has approximately $22.8 million budgeted to fund capital improvement projects in FY 2004/05. Only a small portion of the CIP is funded by the City General Fund ($237,500 in FY 2004/05) due to the City's fiscal condition. Gas and sales taxes, enterprise fund revenues and development impact fees contribute revenues to the CIP, and about 40 % of the funding is from redevelopment ($9.6 million in FY 2004/05) for CIP projects that alleviate blight in the Project Areas. The fiscal condition of the City of South San Francisco makes any additional ongoing direct financial support of redevelopment activities difficult. State and federal governments have continued to reduce funding and shifted costs and program responsibility to cities and counties. Cities have a limited ability to raise revenues that might offset new costs or replace lost revenues. The City was forced to close the deficit in its FY 2003/04 budget by drawing $752,000 from reserve funds. Other City of South San Francisco Funds Other City Funds besides the General.Fund are potential sources of revenue, including the following: · Downtown Parking Fund: Downtown parking permit and parking meter revenues fund downtown parking lot maintenance, acquisition, and construction. · Sewer Enterprise Fund: Sewer charges to users of the City's sanitary sewer system to improve and increase capacity. In FY 2004/05, the fund is expected to contribute $0.5 million to the CIP, which includes some Redevelopment Program projects and activities. · Storm Water Fund: A levy on the property tax bill pays for improvements to the storm water system. · Development Impact Fees: Impact fees are assessed on new private development to mitigate specific consequences of new growth. Impact fees are used to increase levels of service for future residents and businesses that are needed as a result of new or increased demand on existing services and facilities. During FY 2004/05, impact fees are expected to contribute $0.6 million to the CIP, which includes some Redevelopment Program projects and activities. San Mateo County Measure A Approved in 1988, Measure A authorized a 1/2 cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in San Mateo County. The tax was due to expire in 2008, however, an extension was approved on the November 2, 2004 ballot to extend the tax until 2033. In FY 2004/05, Measure A revenues will contribute $1.19 million in banding to the CIP, which includes some Redevelopment Program projects and activities. 2. Secondary Funding Sources While less significant or less likely to be available than primary funding sources, secondary sources such as CDBG funds, interest income, and developer and property owner participation are potential funding sources. Secondary Funding Sources include: Lease Revenues Broad authority exists to issue revenue bonds secured by sources other than tax increment, such as tenant leases on publicly owned land or in publicly owned facilities. Proposition 40 Proposition 40 provides funds for local assistance grants administered by California Department of Parks and Recreation for open space. Funds may be provided for the city's linear park and other open space and recreational improvements. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-5 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Interest Income Some income will accrue to the Agency from the investment of tax increment revenues and proceeds. However, much, if not all, of the interest income will likely be offset by the need for the Agency to pay interest on indebtedness, including Agency issued bonds. Actual income from this source would also be influenced by the amount of money available for investment, term of the investment, and achievable interest rates. Developer and Prol~erty Owner Participation Funds may be advanced to a city or agency by a developer or property owner in the form of a negotiated fee or grant, or a loan for public improvements that is repaid during the course of project implementation from tax increment revenues. Whenever possible, the Agency will enter into development agreements with developer to contribute funding for specific improvements. Property owners will provide repayment on low interest loans or will be required to provide private funds to match agency rehabilitation grants. However, often the developer cannot afford the entire cost of blight alleviating activities without Agency assistance. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are allocated by HUD to fund activities such as public works; rehabilitation loans and grants; land acquisition, demolition, and relocation for redevelopment; public services; and affordable housing, social services and prbjects for the elderly or disabled. CDBG funded projects and activities must principally benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of blight, or address an urgent need. CDBG funds have provided a limited source of revenue for many redevelopment activities in California. South San Francisco, as an entitlement city under the CDBG Program, will receive $728,000 in FY 2004/05. In the past, the City has used some CDBG funding for redevelopment activities, but the funds have been very limited. In recent years, most of the CDBG funds have been used to construct and rehabilitate housing, and provide needed services and facilities to low income residents. Given the competing needs in the City, very few CDBG funds are available for blight alleviation. Given these factors, coupled with federal budget constraints, it is unlikely that CDBG funds can be counted upon as a significant source of revenue for redevelopment projects and activities. Section 108 is the loan guarantee provision of the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program sponsored by HUD. The objective of the loan funding is to provide communities with a source of financing for economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large scale physical development projects. All projects and activities must either principally benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in the elimination or prevention of slums and blight, or meet urgent needs of the community. The maximum repayment period for Section 108 loan is 20 years. Primarily this program can be relied upon for economic development and rehabilitation efforts. It does not generate new funds; rather it is a loan fund secured by CDBG or other dedicated revenues, such as tax increment revenues. The City of South San Francisco has drawn $1.75 million ($1.5 million in 2001 and $0.25 million in 2002) from its Section 108 loan guarantee. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-6 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 HOME Funds Federal HOME funds provides formula grants to states and localities that communities use often in conjunction with local nonprofit organizations to fund affordable housing activities. HOME funds are awarded annually by HUD to participating jurisdictions. States are automatically eligible and receive funding each year, and local jurisdictions can receive an allocation. This grant funding is dedicated to affordable housing. The City does not anticipate receiving a HOME award in FY2004/05. The City has used HOME funds for its First Time Homebuyers Program, Housing Rehabilitation Program, Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program, and direct funding for developments of housing affordable to low and very low income households. HOME assisted rental housing must comply with certain rent limitations. However, given the number of households requiting housing assistance and the proportion of housing units requiring minor to major rehabilitation work, HOME funds are not sufficient to fund the housing needs in the Project Areas. No other source of funding is anticipated to be available to provide a significant amount of resources needed to fund the Redevelopment Program. 3. Complementary Funding Sources While not providing direct funding for the Redevelopment Program, complementary sources could provide funding for economic development, business support and expansion, neighborhood improvements, and community enhancement. Examples of likely potential complementary funding sources include the San Francisco Bay Trail grants and HELP program. San Francisco Bay Trail Grants These competitive grants are made by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to local governments, special districts and qualified nonprofit organizations to build or design new segments of the Bay Trail. The city has received assistance in opening trail segments in the Oyster Point Marina, which is included in the Downtown/Central Added Area. Housing Enabled by Local Partnership Program (HELP) The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) offers a three percent interest rate loan to local government agencies for their locally determined affordable housing activities and priorities. HELP funds must be used to directly produce affordable housing units; however, virtually unlimited flexibility is given to the local agency to determine the specific housing activity and use of the funds. These loans would likely be repaid using tax increment funds, so they do not represent additional Agency resources. 4. Funding Sources Considered to be Unavailable or Unlikely As permitted by law, the Agency can utilize local, state, and~or federal government funds, and also funds from private sector sources. Over fifty other sources to fund activities in the existing Project Areas and Added Area were evaluated by the Agency for their potential use to fund redevelopment activities. None of these sources provided substantial additional financial resources that the Agency could utilize to alleviate blight, and many were loans that would have to be repaid from tax increment. To a large extent existing resources for improvement projects have been maximized in the existing Project Areas. In addition, other sources have been found to be clearly infeasible or to have little potential of generating measurable revenues. Special taxing districts are also considered unlikely. Tax increment is the primary source, and often the only source, of revenue in the Agency's Redevelopment Projects. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-7 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 E. Tax Increment Financing as the Primary Source of Funding The primary source of financing for the Redevelopment Program has been, and will continue to be, tax increment revenue generated by the increase in property values from the existing Project Areas. It will also be the primary source o£ funding ia the Added Area. Based on the assumptions outlined in this chapter, the tax increment revenues generated over the tax increment collection period are projected to be sufficient to meet the. Agency costs for the Redevelopment Program (for both housing and non-housing activities) that cannot reasonably be f'manced from other sources. The Agency prepares an annual budget each year that sets forth its proposed expenditures. The Agency annually evaluates the projected amount of funds available from tax increment and other revenue sources and sets its annual budget taking into account the level of these funding resources. The Agency will not commit more funds on an annual basis than it projects will be available to fund the Redevelopment Program. Tax increment projections for the existing Project Areas and Added Area are calculated separately. Each area has its own base assessed value and financial and time limits. Additionally, the Added Area will not have a limit on the dollar amount of tax increment collection, because project areas adopted on or after January 1, 1994, or area added to existing project areas on or after January 1, 1994, are not required to have a limit on tax increment collection. " This section presents an overview of the use and calculation of tax increment revenue under the CRL. Section F then describes specific considerations and assumptions relevant to the estimates of tax increment revenue that may be generated, and Section G summarizes tax increment projections. Appendix E includes detailed projections of potential tax increment revenues. 1. Time and Fiscal Limits a. Existing Project Area Time and Fiscal Limits The CRL imposes specific time and fiscal limits on particular redevelopment activities. Refer to Table IV-2 for the base year values and f'mancial and time limits for the existing Project Areas and Downtown/Central Added Area under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. The existing Project Areas have their own base assessed value and financial and time limits. The only limits to be modified under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger are the limits on tax increment collection and outstanding indebtedness. These limits for the four existing Project Areas will be combined. They will not be increased. b. Added Area Time and Fiscal Limits . The Added Area's financial and time limits, which will affect the amount of tax increment revenue the Agency can receive are as follows:3 Time Limit to Ihcur Debt The Agency's ability to enter into new bonded indebtedness is limited to 20 years in the Added Area. Time Limit to Implement Proiects The Agency must complete all project activities within 30 years after adoption of the Plan Amendment. This limit is also referred to as the limit for plan effectiveness. 3 The time limits apply to tax increment revenues generated in the Added Area only. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-8 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table IV-2 Base Year Assessed Value and Time and Financial Limits under Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Added Aread Adopted 2005 Base Year FY 2004/05 Base Year Assessed Value (AV) $0 Statutory Tier One Pass Through Base Year FY 2004/05 Statutory Tier One Base (AV) $0 Time Limit for Incurring Debta 2025 Time Limit for Project Activitiesb 2035 Time Limit for Tax Increment Receiptb 2050 Fiscal Limit for Tax Increment Collection¢ None Outstanding Indebtedness LimW $15,000,000 Downtown/Central El Camino Corridor Gateway Original Area} Added Area Original Area 7/12/89 7/14/93 FY 1989/90 FY 1993/94 $230,960,987 $51,066,100 TBDc TBDf TBDc TBDr 7/12/09 7/14/13 7/12/30 7/14/34 7/12/40 7/14/44 Shearwater 6/28/00 6/17/81 1/8/86 FY 1999/00 FY 1980/81 FY 1985/86 $39,097,325 $14,984,252 $3,443,343 FY 1999/00 FY 2003/04 FY 2005/06 $39,097,325 $648,048,700 TBDg 6/28/20 None None 6/28/31 6/17/22 1/8/27 6/28/46 6/17/32 1/8/37 $796,000,000 $232,650,000 a. In March 2004, the City repealed the deadline for incurring debt in Gateway and Sheanvater, as provided by SB 21 I. As a result, statutory pass through payments will begin in FY 2004/05 in Gateway and FY 2006/07 in Shearwater for taxing entities without contractual pass through agreements. b. In March 2004, the City extended the redevelopment activity and tax increment collection deadline by one year in all four Project Areas, as authorized by SB 1045. Statutory pass through payments are not triggered by SB 1045 amendments. c. The fiscal limit for tax increment collection would be combined for the existing Gateway, Shearwater, El Camino Corridor and Downtown/Central Projects Areas following the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. The amount of outstanding indebtedness would be similarly combined for the four existing Project Areas. d. Actual time limits for the Added Area will correspond to adoption date of the Downtown/Central Plan Amendment. e. In the original Downtown/Central Project Area, statutory pass through payments would begin for taxing entities without contractual agreements in the fiscal year following the fiscal year when the tax increment collection for the Project Area exceeds $248 million. The Statutory Tier One Base AV would be the assessed value for the fiscal year in which the cummulative tax increment collection for the Project Area exceeds $248 million. f. In the original El Camino Corridor Project Area, statutory pass through payments would begin for affected taxing entities without contractual agreements in the fiscal year following the fiscal year when the tax increment collection for both the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area and the El Camino Corridor Added Area exceeds $300 million. The Statutory Tier One Base AV would be the assessed value for the fiscal year in which the cummulative tax increment collection for the Original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area and El Camino Corridor Added Area exceeds $300 millioo. g. The statutory Tier One Base AV will be the Shearwater Project Area's FY 2005/06 AV. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-9 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan A~nendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Time Limit to Receive Tax Increment and Revay Debt The Agency can collect tax increment for 45 years to repay debt. Thus, the Agency has 25 years to repay bonds issued in year 20, the last year for issuance of debt. The Agency can continue to repay debt for 15 years after it has completed all project activities. Limit on Amount of Outstanding Bonded Indebtedness The Redevelopment Plan must include a limit on the total amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness secured by tax increment revenue. The Agency intends to limit the amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness over the life of the Added Area to $15 million. 2. Using Tax Increment Revenue to Eliminate Blighting Conditions The general purpose o£redevelopment is the elimination of blighting conditions. The completion of & redevelopment program results in a project area that is physically enhanced and economically stronger due to the elimination of blighting conditions. Chapter II presents evidence of remaining blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas and blighting conditions in the Added Area. The Redevelopment Program described in Chapter III is specifically designed to stimulate private investment and alleviate physical and economic blighting conditions in the Project Areas. The use of tax increment revenue is the most appropriate means of providing sufficient funding for the Redevelopment Program. 3. Stabilizing and Enhancing the Property Tax Base In many communities, redevelopment projects have led to the stabilization of property tax rolls and tax receipts for taxing entities within project areas. As a result, these communities have avoided declines in tax revenues due to erosion of property values. In most redevelopment project areas, the investment of public redevelopment funds to leverage private investment has resulted in substantial increases in property values over time due to rehabilitation, new construction, and property appreciation. 4. Establishing the Base Year Assessed Value The first major step in the implementation of a tax increment financing program, establishing the base year assessed value ora project area, occurs at the time of redevelopment plan adoption. The base year assessed value includes the total value of taxable property within a project area's boundaries. The tax roll used is called the base year assessment roll or base year assessed value. Under the Fiscal Merger, the base year values for the existing Project Areas remain the same. The base year for the Downtown/Central Added Area will be the fiscal year when the amendment is adopted. Thus, assuming the Redevelopment Plan Amendments are effective before August 20, 2005, the base year for the Downtown/Central Added Area will be FY 2004/05. The San Mateo County Auditor Controller reported the base assessed value of the Added Area in FY 2004/05 to be $0. (Refer to Appendix F). Refer to Table IV-2 for the respective base years and base assessed values. 5. Distribution of Property Taxes During Project Implementation Under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, all of the entities that levy taxes in the Project Areas will continue to receive all property tax revenues derived from the relevant frozen base. Taxing entities will also continue to receive their existing contractual and statutory pass through payments. In addition, the taxing entities may also receive a portion of the property tax revenues generated from the increases in assessed value over a relevant base year assessed value. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-10 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Inflation Allocation Payments For redevelopment projects adopted between January 1985 and December I993, Section 33676 of the CRL allowed affected taxing entities to elect to receive a portion of the total tax increment revenue generated in a project area in addition to their share of the frozen base of the property taxes under certain circumstances.4 This is often referred to as the two percent inflation allocation. Inflationary allocation payments are not considered part of the tax increment revenue, and therefore are not counted against the tax increment collection cap. Contractual Pass Through Payments Prior to 1994, only taxing entities that had entered into contractual pass through agreements with redevelopment agencies were eligible to receive pass through payments. Agencies were allowed at the time of redevelopment plan adoption to negotiate with taxing entities to establish contractual pass through agreements. Section 33401 of the CRL stipulated that a redevelopment agency could enter into an agreement with an affected taxing entity to pay an amount of money in lieu of taxes to alleviate a fiscal detriment from redevelopment. This contractual pass through amount could not exceed the amount the taxing entity would have otherwise received had the project area not been established. Statutory Pass Through Payments Assembly Bill 1290, effective January I, 1994, eliminated the authorization for establishing or amending negotiated contractual pass through agreements, and imposed statutorily determined pass through payments to affected taxing entities for plans adopted or amended January 1, 1994 or later. The CRL provides standard formulas for the calculation of pass through payments for plans adopted or amended after 1993. Each entity receives a payment in proportion to its property tax levy in each project at the time of plan adoption or amendment. The pass through payments constitute the State Legislature's determination of the payments necessary to alleviate any financial burden of a redevelopment program to affected taxing entities. CRL Section 33607.5(/)(1)(B) states that statutory pass through payments are the only payments that are required of a redevelopment agency to affected taxing entities during the term of a redevelopment plan. (The calculation of statutory pass through payments are further described in Section F.5.) 6. Tax Increment Financing The Redevelopment Plans enable the Agency to receive tax increment revenues as defined in CRL Section 33670. Therefore, the method of fmancing commonly referred to as tax increment £mancing is available to the Agency for purposes of implementing the Redevelopment Plans. Furthermore, the Fiscal Merger will provide the Agency with greater flexibility to implement the Redevelopment Program projects and activities. If adopted, the proposed Fiscal Merger would result in a combined limit for collection of tax increment revenues of $796 million and an outstanding bonded indebtedness limit of $232.65 million for the four existing Project Areas. The addition of the Downtown/Central Added Area will allow the Agency to extend Downtown/Central Redevelopment Program activities into the Oyster Point Marina area. The Added Area will not have a limit on tax increment collection and will have a separate outstanding bonded indebtedness limit. 4 Taxing entities could either elect to receive a portion of tax increment revenue via Section 33676 or alternatively were allowed to enter into a contractual fiscal agreement with a redevelopment agency. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-I 1 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 7. Distribution of Property Taxes after Project Completion When a redevelopment project is completed and loans or other indebtedness have been repaid, all property taxes flow back to the respective taxing entitiesfi Taxing entities benefit from increases in property tax revenues resulting from revitalized and redeveloped project areas. In many communities, such increases are substantial. In fact, over time, taxing entities can recoup revenues foliowing project completion sufficient to make up for the property tax revenues that were allocated to tax increment during the redevelopment implementation period. This recovery would occur because the increases in assessed valuation from revitalization of the project areas are greater as a result of redevelopment than the assessed valuation increases that would have occurred without redevelopment. Thus, payments to the affected taxing entities from a redevelopment project area can exceed the property taxes that the taxing entities would reasonably expect to receive from a slow-growing assessed valuation roll without redevelopment. F. Assumptions Used in Tax Increment Projections The tax increment projections in this report are intended only as estimates based on the best available information as of the date of this report. Actual tax increments may be higher or lower than the projections. Refer to the tables in Appendix E for detailed analysis of potential tax increment revenues for the Redevelopment Project. 1. Base Year Assessed Value The base year for the Added Area will be FY 2004/05, assuming the Downtown/Central Plan Amendmeht effective date is on or before August 20, 2005. The FY 2004/05 assessed value of the Added Area is $0 according to the Report of the County Fiscal Officer. (Refer to Appendix F). 2. Present Value Assumptions The analysis below provides estimates of tax increment revenues in both future value (nominal) dollars and present value (constant) dollars. The purchasing power of nominal dollars declines because of inflation and/or the cost of borrowing. Therefore, it is important to convert the annual amounts to the equivalent value in constant FY 2004/05 dollars before making a direct comparison between potential revenues and projected costs. The present value in constant FY 2004/05 dollars is calculated by discounting future tax increment revenues by an annual rate of 5.5 percent. This discount rate represents the average cost of borrowing for the City and the Agency. It accounts for the cost of inflation, as well as the cost of borrowing money (e.g., issuing tax allocation bonds), to approximate the present value of future dollars. Most tax increment will be pledged to the issuance of bonds, and a portion of tax increment will likely be used on a pay-as-you-go basis. Under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger and consistent with the current CRL, tax increment collection would end between FY 2032 and FY 2046 for the existing Project Areas. However, tax increment collection could end sooner if the aggregate tax increment collection cap under the fiscal merger of $796 million is reached prior to one or more of the Plans' individual time limits on tax increment collection. Tax increment collection would end in FY 2050 in the Downtown/Central Added Area. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-12 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 3. Growth Assumptions Tax increment revenues are generated from the growth in assessed value above the base year assessed value (incremental assessed value). Tax increment revenues are projected by applying the effective property tax rate, assumed at one percent, to the incremental assessed value. Growth in assessed property values in the Project Areas is based upon the factors below: Annual inflation rate The annual inflation rate is assumed at two percent per year for properties that remain in the same ownership. Two percent is the maximum annual increase that is allowed by the California State Constitution as a result of Proposition 13 in the absence of certain events that can trigger a reassessment, such as a sale or construction of new improvement. This two percent inflation factor is applied to the total assessed value. Reassessment Adjustment An annual reassessment adjustment represents the increases in assessed value following property reassessment, which is triggered by: (1) the transfer (sale) of real property, (2) upgrading of real property improvements due to rehabilitation or additions to existing buildings, or (3) the reassessments of new development to market value once construction is completed. The reassessment adjustment for secured property is assumed to be one percent per year in the original Downtown/Central and existing E1 Camino Corridor Project Areas. The reassessment adjustment for assessed value is assumed to be zero in the Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas, and the Downtown/Central Added Area. New Develol~ment in the Downtown/Central Added Area Projections for new development in the Downtown/Central Added Area are based on estimates of growth that will occur with new construction and redevelopment of properties in the area. As shown in Table IV- 3, a 300 room hotel and 276,000 square feet of commercial development are anticipated to be developed in the area. These estimates are based on projections provided by the City's planning staff. These development projections are consistent with and lower than the development assumptions used in the EIR buildout analysis for the South San Francisco General Plan. New Development in the Existing Project Areas Projections for new development in the existing Project Areas are based on estimates of growth that will occur with new construction and redevelopment of properties in the existing Project Areas. Table IV- 3 summarizes the anticipated development in the existing Project Areas, based on projections for specific sites as provided by the City's planning staff. These development projections are consistent with the assumptions about total new development used in the Negative Declaration for the proposed Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger and the General Plan. (Refer to Appendix G for summaries of development completed to date and anticipated in the future.) South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-13 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fi.scal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Table IV-3 New Development Growth Assumptions in the Project Areas South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Project Area Downtown/Central Added Hotel Other Commercial Downtown/Central Original El Camino Corridor Residential Other Commercial Gateway Shearwater Total Development Yearsa 300 room hotel 276,000 sq ft commercial 1.2 million sq ft commercial FY 11/12 FY 11/12 FY 04/05 - FY 09/10 540 residential units 75,000 sq ft commercial 125,000 sq ft commercial 715,000 sq ft commercial FY 05/06 - FY 13/14 FY 05/06 - FY 13/14 FY 05/06 - FY 06/07 FY 05/06 -FY 08/09 a. Years are the Fiscal Year(s) during which the value of new development would be added to the property tax assessment roll. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Planning Department. 4. Agency Tax Increment Obligations The Agency must use tax increment revenue to fulfill the following obligations: a. County Fee for Property Tax Administration San Mateo County retains fees for the administration of tax increment revenues. Based on the fee assessed for FY 2003/04, the projections in this Preliminary Report estimate the County administration fee at one percent of the basic one percent incremental tax revenues for all four Project Areas. b. Inflation Allocation Payments The Shearwater, original Downtown/Central and original E1 Camino Corridor Project Areas were adopted within the January 1, 1985 and July 30, 1993 time frame authorizing inflation allocation payments. Thus, taxing entities in these Project Areas were eligible to elect to receive the two percent inflation allocation instead of negotiating a contractual agreement. However, according to Agency records, no taxing entity elected to receive the allocation. c. Contractual Pass Through Payments As discussed in Section E.5 above, the original E1 Camino Corridor, original Downtown/Central, Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas were adopted prior to the introduction of statutory pass through payments in 1994. The Agency negotiated contractual pass through agreements with some of the affected taxing entities in the E1 Camino Corridor, Downtown/Central and Shearwater Project Areas. The Agency and taxing entities did not negotiate contractual agreements for the Gateway Project Area. (Refer to Table IV-4 for a listing of entities with contractual pass through agreements.) Under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, taxing entities with existing contractual pass through agreements will continue to receive their contractual agreement payments. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-I 4 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 d. Statutory Pass through Payments All of the affected taxing entities currently receive statutory payments from the El Camino Corridor Added Area. All affected taxing entities will begin to receive statutory pass through payments from the Gateway Project Area during FY 2004/05. All of the affected taxing entities without contractual agreements will begin to receive statutory pass through payments from the Shearwater Project Area in FY 2006/07. In the Downtown/Central Added Area, all affected taxing entities will receive statutory pass through payments, as required by the CRL for new or added project areas established January 1, 1994 or later.6 Because the Fiscal Merger would not change any time or fiscal limits other than combining the dollar limits on tax increment collection and outstanding indebtedness caps, statutory pass through payments would be triggered by the Fiscal Merger only in the (a) event that a former statutory limit on tax increment collection would have been reached without the Fiscal Merger and (b) an entity does not already have a contractual agreement or receive statutory pass through payments. Statutory payments could only be triggered in the original Downtown/Central and/or original E1 Camino Corridor Project Areas, because statutory pass through obligations already exist for taxing entities without contractual pass through agreements in the Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas, and for all taxing entities in the E1 Camino Corridor Added Area. In the original Downtown/Central Project Area, statutory pass through payments would begin for taxing entities without contractual agreements in the fiscal year following the fiscal year when the tax increment collection for the Project Area exceeds $248 million. In the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area, statutory pass through payments would begin for taxing entities without contractual agreements in the fiscal year following the fiscal year when the tax increment collection for both the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area and the E1 Camino Corridor Added Area exceeds $300 million. Table IV-4 presents the Agency's statutory pass through payment obligation under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Section 5 presents a detailed explanation of the statutory pass through payment calculations. e. . Additional Payments to Basic Aid Entities Basic aid school entities receive annual payments from an agency in addition to their standard statutory pass through payments. The San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCCD) is a basic aid district, and the Agency is obligated to pay SMCCCD annual payments in addition to its statutory pass through payments for the Gateway Project Area and the E1 Camino Corridor Added Area. SMCCCD will also receive additional payments from the Downtown/Central Added Area. f. Housing Set-Aside for Affordable Housing Program Section 33334.2 of the CRL requires that 20 percent of the gross tax increment revenues generated be used for increasing and/or improving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing. In other words, twenty cents out of each tax increment dollar generated during the life of the Amended Redevelopment Plans must be channeled into the Housing Set-Aside Fund to finance the Agency's affordable housing program. Administrative costs related to the implementation of the Affordable Housing Program are typically paid out of the Housing Set-Aside Fund. 6 Refer to Section F.5 for a more detailed description of statutory pass through payments. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-15 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 San Mateo County SSF Unified School District San Marco County Community College District San Marco County Superintendent of Schools Bay Area Air Quality San Marco County Harbor Colma Creek Flood Control Willow Garden Parks/Parkway Ci~ of South San Franciscoh Table IV-4 Pass Through Payment Obligations under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger' South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Downtown/Central Added Area Statutory begin 05/06 Statutory begin 05/06 Statutory begin 05/06 Statutory begin 05/06 Statutory begin 05/06 Statutory begin 05/06 N/A N/A Statutory begin 05/06h El Camino Corridor Original OriRinal Contractual Contractual Contractual Contractual Contractual Contractual Contractual Contractual Statutory in futurec Statutory in futurec Statutory in future' Statutory in future' Statutory in future' Statutory in future' N/A N/A Statutory in future~'' Statutory in future~'' Gateway Shearwater Added Areaa Statutory began 00/01 Statutory begin 04/05 Contractual Statutory began 00/01 Statutory begin 04/05 Contractual Statutory began 00/01 Statutory begin 04/05 Contractual Statutory began 00/01 Statutory begin 04/05 Statutory begin 06/07 Statutory began 00/01 Statutory begin 04/05 Statutory begin 06/07 Statutory began 00/01 Statutory begin 04/05 Statutory begin 06/07 Statutory began 00/01 Statutory begin 04/05 N/A Statutory began 00/01 N/A N/A Statutory began 00/01~ Statutory begin 04/05~ Statutory begin 06/07~ a. The year statutory pass tbrougbs begin (or began) indicates thc first year thc Agency is obligated to make Tier One statutory pass through payments, which arc based on thc incremental growth in assessed value over the previous year. b. The City of South San Francisco may elect to receive Tier One pass through payments. Thc City elected to receive its Tier One payments in the El Camino Corridor Added Area and Gateway and Shearwatcr Project Areas. The City is expected to elect Tier One payments in the Downtown/Central Added Area, as well as thc Original Dowmown/Central and Original El Camino Corridor Project Areas if payments are triggered. c. Thc statutory pass through payments would begin if and when the former dollar limits on cumulative tax increment collection would have been reached if the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger were not adopted (Downtown/Central former dollar limit: $248 million and El Camino Corridor Original and Added Area former combined limit: $300 million). d. Obligation for statutory pass through payments began in 2000/01. However, tax increment was not generated until FY 2002/03, so the statutory payments began in FY 2002/03. N/A: Not applicable as these taxing entitites do not derive property taxes from this Project Area. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger IV-16 November 2004 g. Agency Administration Non-housing Agency administrative costs are estimated to be $732,025 for FY 2004/05 by the Agency, and the projections in this Preliminary Report estimate the Non-Housing Agency administrative costs at four percent of the incremental tax revenues for each Project Area. As noted above, the administrative cost related to the implementation of the Agency's Affordable Housing Program is paid out of the Agency's Housing Set-Aside Fund. h. Bond Debt Service Obligations In 1997, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency refinanced its debt in the Downtown/Central Project Area by issuing $11.6 million tax allocation (TABs) in bonds financed by non-housing tax increment. In 1999, the Agency refinanced its debt in the Gateway by issuing $28 million in TABs financed by non-housing tax increment and $3.7 million in TABs financed by housing tax increment. Debt service on the bonds will be paid through tax increment revenues, to the extent allowable by law. i. Other Agency Obligations In 2001 and 2002, the Agency drew down a total of $1.8 million from its HUD Section 108 loan guarantee for activities in the Downtown/Central Project Area. The loans must be repaid with~ 20 years. j. Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF Obligation) Faced with a budget gap for FY 2003/04, the State enacted legislation, SB 1045, (Chapter 260, Statutes of 2003) requiring all redevelopment agencies receiving tax increment in FY 2001/02 to contribute to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in FY 2003/04. SB 1045 provides that one-half of an Agency's ERAF obligation for all project areas collectively is calculated based on the FY 2001/02 gross tax increment received by the Agency and other half of its ERAF obligation is calculated based on the FY 2001/02 net tax increment revenues after any pass through payments to other taxing entities. The Governor and Legislature enacted SB 1096 (Chapter 211, Statutes of 2004) in an effort to balance the FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06 state budgets. Further legislation, AB 2115 (Chapter 610, Statutes of 2004), clarifies that the ERAF payments made in both years will be calculated based on the most recent published edition of the State Controller's Annual Report. Thus, the FY 2004/05 payments will be based on FY 2002/03 data and the FY 2005/06 payments will be based on FY 2003/04 data. The FY 2004/05 Agency ERAF obligation is estimated by the California Redevelopment Association to be about $1.6 million based on the FY 2002/03 State Controller's Community Redevelopment Agencies Annual Report. The projections in this report assume the Agency's FY 2005/06 ERAF obligation to be the same as in FY 2004/05. The Agency has the authority to allocate the Agency ERAF obligation among its individual project areas at its sole discretion. However, the Downtown/Central Added Area will not generate tax increment in FY 2004/05 or FY 2005/06, so none of the FY 2004/05 or FY 2005/06 ERAF obligations is assumed to be allocated to the Added Area. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-17 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 5. Calculation of Pass Through Payments a. Pass Through Payment Status not Impacted by the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger As described earlier, the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger will not change the pass tlu'ough obligations in the Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas, or the E1 Camino Corridor Added Area, because contractual and statutory pass through payment obligations already exist for all taxing entities levying property taxes in these Project Areas. Contractual Pass Through Payments The Agency has been making annual contractual pass through payments based on the formulas as indicated in the agreements and will continue to pay them accordingly after the adoption of the Plan' Amendments and Fiscal Merger. The Agency has contractual pass through payment obligations in the original Downtown/Central Project Area, the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area, and Shearwater Project Area. Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas In March 2004, the City Council adopted an ordinance enabled by SB 211 to amend the Gateway and Shearwater Redevelopment Plans to repeal the debt incurrence limits. The repeal of the debt incurrence limits formerly specified in the Redevelopment Plans triggered statutory pass through payments to affected taxing entities without contractual agreements starting in the year after the debt incurrence limit would have been reached. Entities that have contractual pass through payments continue to receive them. However, those taxing entities who do not have contractual pass through agreements begin receiving statutory pass through payments beginning the first fiscal year after the year in which the debt incurrence limit was reached or would have been reached. The deadline for incurring debt in the Gateway Project Area was June 17, 2004. Thus, statutory pass through payments begin in FY 2004/05 for all taxing entities levying property taxes in the Gateway Project Area because the Agency does not have contractual pass through agreements with any taxing entities for the Gateway Project Area. Prior to its repeal, the deadline for incurring debt in the Shearwater Project Area was January 8, 2006. Thus, statutory pass through payments will begin in the Shearwater Project Area in FY 2006/07 for all taxing entities who levy property taxes in the Shearwater Project Area and do not have an existing contractual pass through agreements with the Agency. E1 Camino Corridor Added Area The E1 Camino Corridor Added Area was adopted on June 28, 2000, and the Agency has been obligated to make statutory pass through payments in the E1 Camino Corridor Added Area since the project began generating tax increment.7 The statutory pass through payments are calculated using a base year value equal to the assessed value of the E1 Camino Corridor Added Area in FY 1999/00. 7 Statutory pass through payments began in FY 2002/03, the first year the Added Area generated tax increment. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV- 18 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 b. Statutory Pass Through Payments Triggered or Potentially Triggered by the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Statutory pass through payments will be required in the Downtown/Central Added Area and could potentially be triggered in the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area and original Downtown/Central Project Area. Downtown/Central Added Area In the Downtown/Central Added Area, the taxing entities will receive a portion of the property tax revenues generated from the increases in assessed value of the Added Area over the frozen base of FY 2004/05, in the form of statutory pass through payments, as required by the CRL for new or added project areas established January 1, 1994 or later. Oriffinal Downtown/Central and Orieinal E1 Camino Corridor Project Areas In the original Downtown/Central Project Area and the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Areas, taxing entities currently receive either (1) pass through payments that were negotiated when the Redevelopment Plans were originally adopted or (2) no payment because a pass through was not negotiated o{ no two percent inflation allocation was elected. Under the CRL, if the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger are ad. opted, any taxing entities that did not negotiate a contractual pass through agreement at the time of original Redevelopment Plan adoption would be eligible to receive statutory pass through payments if the original limits on tax increment collection would have been reached. The statutory pass through payments would begin in the fiscal year after the tax increment collection limit would have been reached. The payment would be calculated on the assessed value of the Project Area in the fiscal year when the limit on tax increment collection would have been reached without the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Refer to Table IV-4 for a summary of the pass through payments under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. c. Statutory Pass Through Payments Calculation Starting on January 1, 1994, under AB 1290, when adopting a new project area, adding area to an existing project area, or amending a pre- 1994 redevelopment plan to extend or increase a fiscal limit, the agency must begin to make pass through payments to entities that do not have pre-existing pass through agreements. Such amendments must follow the CRL-mandated procedure described below. The mandated pass through is calculated based on the difference between the assessed value in the particular year for which the pass through is being calculated and the assessed value of the relevant pass through base year. The incremental assessed value is multiplied by the effective property tax rate (assumed at one percent) for each entity, times a mandated set of three tiered pass through rates. Over the life of a redevelopment project, each entity will receive its proportionate share of three tiers of pass through payments: Tier One Twenty percent of the gross tax increment from assessed value growth above the relevant Tier One base year value. In the Downtown/Central Added Area, the Tier One base year value will be the FY 2004/05 assessed value and the statutory pass through obligation will begin in FY 2005/06.~ If statutory 8 Actual pass through payments would begin the year the Added Area generates tax increment. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV- 19 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 pass through payments are triggered under the Fiscal Merger, the Tier One statutory pass through base year and payment start date would be based on the year when the former tax increment collection limit would have been reached.9 The City may elect to receive the Tier One pass through, however, it cannot participate in the Tier Two and Tier Three pass through payments. This decision to elect is made before the adoption of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. This report assumes that the City will elect to receive its Tier One pass through, although the City has the option to forego it. Tier Two The Tier Two pass through is equal to 16.8 percent of the gross tax increment generated from assessed value growth above the second tier statutory pass through assessed value base. In the Downtown/Central Added Area, Tier Two pass through payments begin in the eleventh year during which the Agency receives tax increment revenue for the Added Area, projected to be FY 2022/23 and would be based on the incremental growth above the assessed value in the tenth year of tax increment collection. In the original Downtown/Central or original E1 Camino Corridor Project Areas, Tier Two pass through payments would begin in the eleventh year after the original tax increment collection limit would have been reached. This Tier Two pass through is added to the Tier One payment and continues through the remaining life of the Redevelopment Plan(s). Tier Three The Tier Three pass through payment is equal to 11.2 percent of the gross tax increment generated from assessed value growth above the Tier Three assessed value base. In the Downtown/Central Added Area, the Tier Three pass through payments begin in the thirty-first year during which the Agency receives tax increment revenue for the Added Area, projected to be FY 2042/43. This Tier Three pass through is added to the Tier One and Tier Two payments and continues through the life of the Redevelopment Plan(s). In the original Downtown/Central or original E1 Camino Corridor Project Areas, Tier Three pass through payments would not likely occur as the Redevelopment Plans are projected to end before the third tier pass throughs would begin. G. Tax Increment Projections 1. Incremental Tax Revenues Table IV-5 summarizes projected County property tax administration fee, debt obligation, State ERAF payments, other Agency obligations and tax increment revenues available for pass through payments and the Redevelopment Program in nominal (future) and constant FY 2004/05 (present value) dollars. Figure IV-1 illustrates the generation of future tax revenues over the life of the Amended Plans. The tables in Appendix E provide detailed tax increment projections for the Project Areas. 9 As discussed in Section F.5.b above, statutory pass through payment obligations could be triggered in the original Downtown/Central and original E1 Camino Project Areas if the former limit for tax increment collected were to be reached. The Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas and E1 Camino Added Area already have statutory pass through obligations. Refer to Table IV-4. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-20 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table IV-5 Summary of Tax Increments Through Remaining Life of the Amended Plans South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Nominal Dollars Constant FY 2004/05 Dollarsa Incremental Tax Revenues Less: County Property Tax Administration Net Taxes Remitted to Agency Less: Pass-Through Payments to Taxing Entities Less: Debt Obligation Less: State ERAF Payments Less: Other Agency Obligationsb $729,700,000 $7,300,000 $722,400,000 $138,900,000 $55,100,000 $3,200,000 $2,800,000 $381,800,000 $3.800.000 $378,000,000 $68,700,0OO $36,200,000 $3,100,000 $1,900,000 Tax Increment for Housing and Non-Housing Projects Less: 20% Set-Aside for Affordable Housing $522,500,000 $145.900,000 $268,100,000 $76,400.000 Tax Increment Available for Non-Housing Projects Less: Redevelopment Administration $376,500,000 $29.400,000 Net Available for Non-Housing Pro.iects $347,200,000 [ a. Equal to net present value of future revenue stream discounted at 5.5% per year, assuming Agency would issue bonds during the life of the project. b. Includes HUD Section 108 payment paid out Of the original Downtown/Central Project Area Note: Amounts do not precisely match, due to rounding. Source: Seifel Consulting Inc., South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. $191,700,000 $15,400,000 $176,400,000 South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger IV-21 November 2004 Figure IV-1 Distribution of Projected Tax Increment Through Remaining Life of the Amended Plans South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger (Constant FY 2004/05 Dollars) Pass-Through Payments 18.0% ($68.6 Million) Debt Obligation 9.5% ($36.2 Million) TI Available for Non- Housing Projects 46.2% --~ ($176.4 Million) State ERAF Payments 0.8% ($3.1 Million) Other Agency Obligations 05% ($1.9 i~i~i]ion) TI Available for Housing Programs 20.0% ($76.4 Million) Total Projected Tax Increment: $381.8 Million Agency Administration (Non-Housing) "4.0% ($15.4 Million) County Property Tax Admin Fee 1 .O% ($3.8 Million) South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger IV-22 November 2004 2. Cumulative Tax Increment Collection The Agency estimates that it has collected approximately $101.1 million in tax increment through FY 2003/04 from the four existing Projects Areas? These Project Areas are projected to generate approximately $694.9 million in additional incremental tax revenues in nominal dollars over the remaining time periods for collecting tax increment, equal to the combined cap of $796 million. ~ The Downtown/Central Added Area is projected to generate approximately $31.6 million in incremental tax revenues in nominal dollars over the time period for collecting tax increment. H. Financial Feasibility of the Redevelopment Program This section demonstrates why tax increment revenues made possible through the Plan Amendment~ and Fiscal Merger will be a necessary part of the overall fmancing program to eliminate blighting conditions in the Project Areas and why, with such tax increment revenue, the Agency has a feasible plan for financing the Redevelopment Program to eliminate such blight. Together with other public and private revenue sources, tax increment revenues will be a critical funding component in helping the City and Agency to meet the costs required to implement the Redevelopment Program. To evaluate the feasibility of the Redevelopment Program, the following analysis compares its estimated costs and projected tax increment related funding sources. As previously shown in Table IV-Ii the net cost to the Agency to complete the Redevelopment Program (excluding the Agency's administrative costs) is estimated to be $252.7 million in constant FY 2004/05 dollars. Over 45 years, the Agency is projected to receive about $252.7 million (in constant FY 2004/05 dollars in tax increment revenue for the Agency's Redevelopment Program. The Agency is expected to have sufficient funds to support its Redevelopment Program, but no surplus is budgeted, as shown in Table IV-6. Although the estimated project costs and projected revenues will vary over time from those presented in this chapter, it is reasonable to conclude that the Redevelopment Program will be financially feasible over the remaining life of the Redevelopment Plans. The Agency will continue to adopt an annual budget and adopt an Implementation Plan every five years to develop a balanced financial approach to funding the specific action items in the Redevelopment Program. The Agency will assure through its annual budget process that the Redevelopment Projects are financially feasible throughout the remaining life of each. t0 Amount does not include the State ERA}: obligation payments made by the Agency through FY 2003/04 because they do not count against the tax increment collection cap. n Estimate does not include the Agency's FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06 State ERAF obligation payments because they do not count against the tax increment collection cap. Amount does not include the tax increment generated in the Downtown/Central Added Area because it will not have a tax increment collection cap. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-23 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table IV-6 Comparison of Estimated Tax Increment Revenues and Agency Funding Requirements (Constant FY 2004/05 Dollars) Tax Increment Available for Projectsa $268.1 million Less: Agency Non-Housing Programb $176.4 million Less: Projected Administration Expense for $15.4 million Non-Housing Activitiesb Less: Agency Affordable Housing Programb $76.4 million Funding Surplus None Budgeted a. Present value of future tax increment revenues projected to be available for implementation of the Redevelopment Program (includes housing, non-housing and non-housing administration co,sts). See Appendix E for details. b. See Tables 111-2 and VI-I. Source: South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I. Necessity of Tax Increment Financing and Fiscal Merger This section summarizes the extent of physical and economic blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas and Downtown/Central Added Area, and explains why private enterprise and governmental action, working alone or together, cannot reasonably be expected to reverse the blighting conditions without redevelopment. 1. Extent of Physical and Economic Blighting Conditions The physical and economic blighting conditions in the existing Project A/reas and Added Area are so prevalent and substantial that they cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed without redevelopment assistance. The documentation of physical and economic blighting conditions in Chapter II, and the photographs contained in Appendix C demonstrate that substantial blight is prevalent. A substantial number of unsafe and/or unhealthy buildings are located within the existing Project Areas as shown in the photographs in Appendix C. Several factors inhibit the proper use of buildings and lots, such as earthquake hazards and poor soil conditions, limited accessibility to and within certain areas, and the presence of trash and dumping. Incompatible uses are problematic at several locations and inadequate public facilities and infrastructure including sidewalk, curbing and street deficiencies hinder portions of the Project Areas. Several adverse economic conditions cause a reduction or lack of proper use of the Project Areas, including impaired investments such as the poor economic performance of retail businesses and the presence of potentially hazardous or toxic materials. Other factors include economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots, including vacant and underutilized lots and buildings, and low retail lease rates. The E1 Camino Corridor and Downtown/Central Project Areas are also negatively impacted by residential overcrowding. The Downtown/Central Project Area is adversely affected by an excess of bars, liquor stores and other businesses catering exclusively to adults. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-24 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 These conditions are a hindrance to the area that cannot be reversed or alleviated without the continued assistance of the Agency through the authority of the CRL. These blighting conditions have caused a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization in the Project Areas and constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community, which cannot be reversed or alleviated without the assistance of Agency through the authority of the CRL. 2. Significant Burden on the Community Chapter II documented that blighting conditions have become a burden on the community and that portions of Project Areas are not being used to the same potential as properties in other parts of the City. The reduction, or lack, of proper utilization constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community in at least the following respects: · Deprives residents of South San Francisco and surrounding areas of employment opportunities.. · Prevents adequate supply of affordable and other housing. · Deprives property and business owners of a competitive return on their investments. · Hinders the enhancement of the physical environment. · Prevents proper usefulness and development of land. Deprives the City, the County, the education districts, and other affected taxing entities of an expanding tax base. Hinders the development of a stronger economic base for the community. 3. Limitations of Private Enterprise The Redevelopment Program to alleviate blighting conditions is not financially feasible for the private sector acting alone. Without redevelopment, many of the program costs would have to be borne solely by the private sector. This chapter and Appendix D presents a discussion of possible sources of private sector funds for redevelopment. By themselves, these sources would not be able to provide the resources necessary to eliminate blighting conditions and revitalize the area. The private sector's ability to alleviate blight is limited by the following factors: · The remediation of parcels contaminated with toxic of hazardous waste is costly and a financial disincentive to reinvestment or development. · The presence of problem businesses is a deterrent to business located and locating in the area. · Inadequate public facilities and infrastructure deficiencies hinder private sector development. 4. Inability of Private Enterprise or Government to Alleviate Blight Alleviating blighting conditions is not feasible by governmental action alone because governmental action is limited by the lack ora reliable flow of federal, state, or local financial resources available to fund a comprehensive revitalization program, as discussed earlier. Redevelopment assistance in the form of tax increment revenue is the last-resort gap filler that is essential to fund the alleviation of blighting conditions and an effective revitalization effort for the Added Area. As described earlier and in Appendix D, all other feasible sources of non-tax increment revenue will be applied toward Redevelopment Program costs. However, the costs of the Redevelopment Program to alleviate blighting conditions are significant, and the projects and activities of the Redevelopment Program could not be undertaken without redevelopment assistance. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-25 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 5. Why Tax Increment Financing is Necessary Tax increment financing is a necessary f'mancing tool, which will be used to support the Redevelopment Program costs. As discussed in Chapter III, the costs to alleviate documented blighting conditions substantially exceed available funding from public and private sources. Tax increment financing is the only source available to fill the substantial gap between the costs of the Redevelopment Program and other public and private revenue sources. This chapter demonstrates the general economic feasibility of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger pursuant to Section 33670, as required by the CRL. This chapter and Chapter III demonstrate that the proposed Plan Amendments are necessary to eliminate documented blight in the Project Areas. With the Fiscal Merger, the Agency would be able to use tax increment funds generated by the financially stronger Gateway and Shearwater Project Areas to fund activities in each of the Project Areas. This would enable the Agency to accelerate implementation of redevelopment activities and, in mm, catalyze development, renovation, and rehabilitation that would generate tax increment revenue at a faster rate than would be expected without the Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments. In turn with the combination of tax increment revenue, the Agency would also have greater collective bonding capacity than in each Project Area without the Fiscal Merger. ~' Neither the private sector alone, the public sector alone, nor the private and public sectors working together without redevelopment assistance can financially support the costs of the redevelopment efforts in the )~dded Areas. Because these projects and activities are critical to the revitalization of the Added Area, tax increment financing is needed to assist in funding these projects. Tax increment financing will be'the critical funding source that the Agency will use to implement redevelopment in the Added Area. Without redevelopment assistance, neither the private nor public sectors working independently can financially support the substantial costs of the proposed Redevelopment Program. Because these projects and activities are critical to the revitalization of the Project Areas, tax increment financing will continue to be a critical funding source enabling the Agency to implement the Redevelopment Program. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency IV-26 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Appendices South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Sources Downtown/Central Added Area Legal Description Photographic Documentation of Existing Conditions Potential Funding Sources Tax Increment Projections Report of the Fiscal Officer Development to Date Appendix A Sources Sources Information presented in the Preliminary Report was compiled from the following sources: Documents Related to Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger · Resolution No. 25-2004, A Resolution Designating a Survey Area for the Amendment of the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, City of South San Francisco, March 10, 2004. · Interoffice Memorandum to Norma Fragoso, Housing and Community Development Manager, on Proposed Oyster Bay Marina Plan Amendment, Elise K. Traynum, Attorney, January 21, 2003. · Five Year Capital Improvement Program Draft, FY 2004-2005, City of South San Francisco, May 24, 2004. · Interoffice Memorandum to Norma Fragoso, Manager Housing & Redevelopment, on Gateway Plan Amendment - Project Area Committee, Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney, Susan E. Bloch, Associate Attorney, January 9, 2003. · Report of the Fiscal Officer, Office of Controller, San Mateo County, November 12, 2004. Documents Related to Existing Redevelopment Plans · Five Year Implementation Plan for the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Project, City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Seifel Consulting Inc., January 2000. · Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, July 12, 1989. · Report to Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates Inc., May 1989. · Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Area Project, Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, June 9, 1993. · Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, April 1993. · Preliminary Report on the Proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, Katz Hollis, February 2000. · Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, 2000. · Report to the Council on the Proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, Katz Hollis, April 2000. · Supplement to the Report to Council on the Proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, Katz Hollis, June 2000. · Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, June 17, 1981. · Report to South San Francisco City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates Inc, May 1981. Preliminary Report November 2004 South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency A-1 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger · Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, January 8, 1996. · Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates Inc., May 1985. Documents Relating to Adverse Conditions · City of South San Francisco General Plan, Second Printing - Incorporating Amendments, City of South San Francisco, Dyett & Bhatia, December 2003. · Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Sch No. 1993081040, April 2001. · South San Francisco Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Appendix G, Traffix Software Output, City of South San Francisco, April 2001. · City of South San Francisco General Plan, City of South San Francisco, Dyett & Bhatia, October 13, 1999. · Environmental Field Investigation Report, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, C~ilifornia, Kleinfelder, January 7, 1999. · Evaluation of Existing Landfill Cover Equivalency to CCR Title 27 Requirements, East Basin Parking Area, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California, Gabewell Inc., PES Environmental Inc., June 2003. · Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hilton Suites Hotel at Oyster Point Marina, South San Francisco, California, Kleinfelder, January 7, 1999. · Joint Technical Document, Post-Closure Management of the Oyster Point Landfill, Volume 1, Text' Tables, and Figures, and Volume 2, Appendices, South San Francisco, California, City of South San Francisco, Gabewell Inc., PES Environmental Inc., March 2000. o · Letter to Michael Wilson, City Manager, on Oyster Point Landfill/Human Health Risk Assessment, Scott Morrow, San Mateo County Health Officer, February 16, 2000. · Marshall Valuation Service, Marshal & Swift, 2002. · Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for Hilton Hotel at Oyster Point Marina Park and Coporex Oyster Point LLC, City of South San Francisco Planning Division, March 12, 1999. · Post-Closure Development Standards Report, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California, Gabewell, PES Environmental Inc., November 2000. · Report of Waste Discharge, South San Francisco, California, City of South San Francisco, Gabewell Inc., PES Environmental Inc., November 2000. · South San Francisco General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Sch No. 97122080, Dyett & Bhatia, June 1999. · South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR, Final Environmental Impact Report, Dyett & Bhatia, September 1999. · South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, Dyett & Bhatia, September 1997. · Work Plan, Phase II Toxics Investigation, Oyster Point Landfill, City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works, Gabewell, January 1999. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency A-2 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Miscellaneous Documents · Agreement Amending Joint Powers Agreement, San Mateo County Harbor District, City of South San Francisco, October 11, 1979. · Development Proposal, Oyster Point Village - A Mixed Use Development Featuring an Open Air Public Marketplace, Pinnacle DB Inc., Raiser Resources LLC, August 1, 1998. · Ground Lease and Related Amendments, San Mateo County Harbor District, Raiser Resources LLC, 1997- 1999. · Joint Powers Agreement (No. 84111706), San Mateo County Harbor District, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County Court, October 1977. · Joint Powers Agreement, San Mateo County Harbor District, City of South San Francisco, July 6, 1977. · Proposed Breakwater Reconfiguration, Oyster Point Marina, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Harbor District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 20, 2003. · Providing New Transit Options for the Biotech Capital, South San Francisco, San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, No date specified. " · Resolution No. 119-79, A Resolution Authorizing Execution of An Agreement Amending The Joint Powers Agreement Between the San Mateo County Harbor District and the City of South San Francisco - Oyster Point Marina, October 3, 1979. · Resolution No. 124-83, A Resolution Adopting the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan, City Council of South San Francisco, September 7, 1983. City of South San Francisco Staff and Consultants Contacted Norma Fragoso, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Housing and Development Manager Armando Sanchez, Consultant to City's Economic and Community Development Department Barry Nagel, City of South San Francisco, City Manager Marty Van Duyn, City of South San Francisco, Assistant City Manager Jim Steele, City of South San Francisco, Finance Director Mark Rafelli, South San Francisco Police Department, Chief of Police Sydney Oam, City of South San Francisco, Financial Analyst Steve Mattas, Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson, Attorney Sue Bloch, Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson, Attorney David Warner, Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson, Attorney Kim Johnson, Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson, Attorney Susan Kingshill, Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson, Attorney Susy Kalkin, City of South San Francisco, Planner Mike Lappen, City of South San Francisco, Senior Planner Bijon Beigi, City of South San Francisco, Project Manager John Gibbs, City of South San Francisco, Consultant Robert Hahn, City of South San Francisco, Superintendent of Public Works South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency A-3 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Other Organizations and Persons Contacted Andrew D. Gomez, Jr., Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, San Francisco District Office, District Commander Robert Johnson, San Mateo Harbor District, Harbormaster Terry Flinn, San Mateo County, Deputy Assessor Kanchan Charan, San Mateo County, Deputy Controller Vijay Singh, San Mateo County, Senior Accountant Eileen Fanelli, Gabewell Inc. Doug Jensen, MBIA MuniServices, Director of Client Services Industrial/Office/Retail Brokers Contacted John Bergschneider, Project Management Advisors Harms Lee, Hines Jay Leslie, Cornish & Carey Commercial Richard Poletti, Poletti Reality The Preliminary Report was prepared by the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency A-4 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Appendix B Downtown Central Added Area Legal Description OYSTER POINT MARINA PROJECT AREA REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN; MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A PORTION OF THE LANDS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 55 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 61 IN THE RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL MAP ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 7 IN SECTION 23 IN TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN AT THE MONUMENT THE CENTER OF OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 52 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 58 iN THE RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AT ZONE ltl COORDINATES ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 OF NORTH 2069905.62, EAST 6016269.49; 1) THENCE S 89° 28' 33" E ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINES OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 7 FOR 2945.93 FEET; .' 2) THENCE S 0° 31' 27" W ALONG THE EASTERLY LiNE OF LOT 3 FOR 1313.22 FEET; 3) THENCE N 89° 32' 13"W ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 7 FOR 3215.0'6 FEET; 4) THENCE N 22° 42' 47" E FOR 52.49 FEET; 5) THENCE N 56° 42' 47" E FOR 13.78 FEET; 6) THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT AND CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 610.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1° 24' 30" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.00 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 4° 35' 35" E FOR 15.00 FEET; 7) THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE N 86° 6' 40" W FOR 55.00 FEET; 8) THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE WEST AND RADIAL TO THE PREVIOUS CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 555.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 27' 45" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 169.22 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 4" 50' 32" W FOR 168.56 FiEET; 9) THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE 76" 25' 35" W FOR 25.00 FEET; lO)THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE WEST AND RADIAL TO THE PREVIOUS CURVE., HAVING A RADIUS OF 530.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41" 38' 32" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 385.36 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 34° 23' 41" W FOR 376.93 FEET; 11) THENCE FROM A TANGENT BEARING N 49° 49'23" E ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 195.18 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6° 11' 23" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 21.09 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 52° 55' 5" E FOR 21.08 FEET; 12) THENCE N 56° 0' 46" E FOR 56.44 FEET; t3) THENCE N 0° 31' ,2:7" E FOR 35.68 FEET; 14) THENCE N 88° 58' 41" E FOR 7.96 FEET; 15) THENCE N 56~ 29' 53" E FOR 197.34 FEET; 16) THENCE N 41° 29' 57" E FOR 168.64 FEET; 17) THENCE N 35° 21' 27" E FOR 93.01 FEET; 18) THENCE N 46; 35' 27" E FOR 208.33 FEET; 19) THENCE FROM A TANGENT BEARING S 75° 11'47" W ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 204.99 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26" 38' 25" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 95.31 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF S 61° 5~ 34" W FOR 94,46 FEET; 20)THENCE N 0" 31' 27" E FOR 277.31 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 7; 21)THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S 89° 2~' 33" E FOR 81.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES IN THIS DESCRIPTION ARE IN AMERICAN SURVEY FEET ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM 1983, ZONE 111. TO CONVERT TO GROUND DISTANCES MULTIPLY BY 1.00007. THE AREA OF THIS PARCEL IS 97~07 ACRES MORE OR LESS. DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY: KENNETH P. MOORE, L.S. 4918 LICENSE EXPIRES 12130t04 July 14, 2004 Appendix C Photographic Documentation of Existing Conditions Appendix C-1 Photograph Location Map O Approximate Location of Photographs · Redevelopment Project Areas Sonrce: Seifel Consulting Field Survey, 2004. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Seifel CO#SULI1NG INC. Preliminary Report November 2004 Appendix C-2 Photograph Location Map Downtown/Central Added Area Added Area Approximate Location of Photographs Source: Seifel Consulting Field Survey, 2004. Seifel N~ CONSUL]lNG INC, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Appendix D Potential Funding Sources Downtown/Central Added Area, Marina Boulevard west of guard hut: southeast portion of the approximate area of an industrial liquid waste disposal site operating from 1962 to 1966. Downtown/Central Added Area, Marina Boulevard east of turnout: open surface water drainage channel, unimproved drainage system, overgrown. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central Added Area, 671 Marina Boulevard: underutilized, vacant commercial building on large lot (vacant parking), weathered, deteriorating building. Downtoww'Central Added Area, 671 Marina Boulevard: detail of building above, rusting pipes, faded siding, siding pulling away from window frame. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 2 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central Added Area, 671 Marina Boulevard: site of former boat sale lot, underutilized as boat storage, weathered and resting structure. Downtown/Central Added Area, parking lot of 671 Marina Boulevard: underutilized parking lot on site of former landfill, standing water, uneven surface. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 3 Preliminary. Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central Added Area, 925 Marina Boulevard: open storage, deteriorating building, cinder block retaining wall. Downtown/Central Added Area, 925 Marina Boulevard: close up of building above, peeling paint, rusting door, ad hoc repairs, informal construction. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 4 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central Added Area, Marina Boulevard: modular building with inadequate foundation, potential health and safety hazard in the event of an earthquake, lacks gutters. Downtown/Central, Added Area, Marina Boulevard: detail of inadequate support structure of building (above). (Image quality affected by lattice fence obstruction.) South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 5 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 ~~ .:i ': .~.~ ~'~ ~-'-'i. Downtown/Central Added Area, no~h side o£Marina Boulevard near ~Vest Basin; wcan~ lot ~vith in£o~nal curbing. De,ncr appamras previously used m monitor fomaer landfill. Downtown/central Added Area' Gull Drive looking east: demarcation of former landfill, hill indicates the beginning of the former landfill. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 6 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central Added Area, between Gull Drive and Marina Boulevard, looking northwest towards Oyster Point Boulevard: large sloped vacant lot on former landfill site underlain by bedrock. Downtown/Central Added Area, between Gull Drive and Marina Boulevard: former monitoring caps for landfill investigation work done in the 1990s. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 7 Preliminaw Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central Added Area, between Gull Drive and Marina Boulevard: steeply sloped portion of large vacant lot, trash, illegal dumping. Downtown/Central Added Area, between Gull Drive and Marina Boulevard: close up of above. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 8 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central Added Area, Harbormaster's Office: the top of the latticework denotes the original ground level. Lattice covers exposed foundation and gap between building and ground due to uneven settling of the former landfill. Downtown/Central Added Area, Harbormaster's Office: detail of the side of the building above, showing temporary measures to address soil sinking below the building. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 9 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary, Report November 2004 Downtown/Central Added Area, Harbormaster's Office: close up of the back of building, exposed foundation due to the sinking of the soil surrounding the building. Downtown/Central Added Area, Harbormaster's Office: detail of the side of building, bare foundation, extension hoses added to accommodate subsidence in former landfill. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency I0 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Downto~vn/Central. the Escape, north side of Grand Avenue between Maple Avenue and Linden Avenue: rat infested deteriorated building, lacking foundation, boarded up windows, wood rot, peeling paint, water damage (side), former bar/night club condemned for building code violations and alcoholic beverage license violations and slated for demolition. Downtown/Central, 202-204 Grand (rear of above): inadequate parking, only one point of access, deteriorating buildings, building to the right has building code violations. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 11 Prelimina~ Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, 320 Grand Avenue: deteriorated building (former night club) with mold and water damage, hosting a restaurant with a revoked alcoholic beverage license. Downtown/Central, west side of Gateway Boulevard Extension between East Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue: abandoned rail lines with overgrown weeds, piles of dirt and weathered railroad ties. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 12 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, northeast comer of Airport Boulevard and South Airport Road: incompatible uses, hotel and industrial (photo below), poor circulation, hotel and industrial building share parking lot and point of ingress and egress. Downtown/Central, east side of Airport Boulevard, north of South Airport Road: industrial warehouse building, deteriorated siding, peeling paint, missing windows and trash accumulation. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 13 Preliminary. Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, t78 Airport Boulevard: vacant building on non- maintained lot, boarded up window, partially paved lot, trash accumulation, site of leaking underground fuel tank. Downtown/Central, 178 Airport Boulevard: side of building (above), unpaved, trash accumulation, illegal dumping, haphazard utility connections, open security gate. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 14 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Downtown/Central, 190 Airport Boulevard: large non-maintained vacant lot adjacent to active rail lines and highway, site of leaking underground fuel tank. Downtown/Central, 190 Airport Boulevard: alternate view of lot (above) showing trash accumulation, illegal dumping, poor upkeep, deteriorated fence, barbed wire security fence. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 15 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, intersection of Baden Avenue and Airport Boulevard, east side of Airport Boulevard: bus stop adjacent to vacant lot (previous page), uneven, deteriorated pavement, abandoned shopping cart, graffiti, weeds and trash. Downtown/Central, northwest comer of Chapman Avenue and Airport Boulevard: deteriorating residential building, substandard alterations and ad hoc construction, dry rot on door and windows, water damage, cracked masonry, adjacent to underutilized lot, lack of maintenance and evidence of dumping. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 16 Preliminary. Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, Littlefield Avenue, south of East Grand Avenue: defunct rail lines, abandoned vehicle, lack of landscaping in railroad right- of-way. DowntowWCentral, south side of Oyster Point Boulevard: vacant lot, lack of maintenance, overgrown, proposed for development. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 17 Prelimina~ Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown'Central, 700 block of Dubuque Avenue: underutilized, partially vacant commercial strip, formerly Staples, extensive deferred maintenance, peeling paint, missing signage and vacant properties on either side (not shown). 'Downtown/Central, 700 block of Dubuque Avenue: partially vacant commercial strip, deferred maintenance, peeling paint, security bars and torn awning. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 18 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, south side of Oyster Point Boulevard, east of Gateway Boulevard: construction debris on unpaved underutilized lot. Downtown/Central, south side of Oyster Point Boulevard, east of Gateway Boulevard: vacant building on underutilized lot with poor access. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 19 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, end of East Jaime Court to San Francisco Bay: large vacant lot with some grading issues that is proposed for development. Downtown/Central, east of Jaime Court: ad hoc construction. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 20 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Downtown/Central, north side of North Access Road, adjacent to tanks: deteriorated, vacant building with security fence. DowntowWCentral, no~h side of No~h Access Road: vacant overgrown lot in industhal area. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 21 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Prelimina~ Report November 2004 Downtown/Central, North Canal Street and Linden Avenue: vacant lot with security fence, inoperative vehicles, deteriorated curbing. Downtown/Central, 360 North Canal Street: underutilized as storage, unpaved, deteriorated fencing, lack of infrastructure (sideWalks, curbing). South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 22 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtowr~'central, 535 Railroad Avenue: industrial building, exposed wiring, deteriorated siding, incomplete substandard construction. Downtown/Central, 529 Railroad Avenue: adjacent vacant industrial tilt-up building, deteriorated and overgrown pavement, faded paint. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 23 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Prelimina~ Report November 2004 Downtown/Central, 's'oUth Sid~ of Linden Avenue, near Airport Boulevard: deteriorated open storage structure of large vacant warehouse, barbed xvire security fence. Downtown/Central, north side of Linden Avenue near Airport Boulevard: large steeply sloped vacant lot, on-street storage of trailer. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 24 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, 245 Hillside Boulevard: former grocery market, one of two vacant units in a three unit shopping plaza, with security bars and paint over graffiti. Downtown/Central, 247 Hillside Boulevard: former cafe, other vacant unit in three unit shopping plaza above. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 25 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary. Report November 2004 Down to w'n/Central, west of intersection of Randolph Avenue and Airport Boulevard: dilapidated, weathered structure, substandard construction used for storage of equipment, overgrown and underutilized lot. Downtown/Central, 617 Airport Boulevard: informal building numbering, barbed wire security fence, open storage. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 26 Preliminary. Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, southwest comer of Butler Avenue and Airport Boulevard: alcoholic beverage licensed stores one parcel apart (see below), deteriorated building, peeling paint and deteriorated awning. Downtown/Central, 1029 Airport Boulevard: deteriorated alcoholic beverage licensed store with boarded up window. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 27 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, 545 Airport Boulevard: small vacant building, large underutilized lot, cracked pavement. Downtown/Central, rear of 305 Airport Boulevard facing Cypress Avenue: auto shop, broken windows. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 28 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary. Report November 2004 ~)owntown/~entral, northwest comer of Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue: fort*her gas station, leaking underground fuel tank, possibly hazardous materials, informal parking, informal security fencing with security tape. Downtown/Central, east side of Linden Avenue and Tamarack Lane: deteriorated restaurant building, peeling paint, lack of maintenance, underutilized lot. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 29 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, 513 Linden Avenue: residential building, lacking gutters and exhibiting wood rot and broken windows. Downtown/Central, 220 4th Lane: loose roofing materials, substandard balcony, peeling paint, broken windows, dilapidated building. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 30 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Downtown/Central, 216 4t~ Lane: dii'apidated housing, miksing gutters, peeling paint, lot lacks curbing and sidewalk. Downtown/Central, 218 4t Lane: dilapidated building, substandard construction, inoperative vehicles, health, safety and fire hazards. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 31 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Prelimina~ Report November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, 1095 Mission Road: partially paved vacant lot, overgrown. E1 Camino Corridor, 1350 E1 Camino Real: potential incompatible uses with adjacent housing to west and hotel to east, open storage of gravel and dirt, heavy machinery, leaking underground fuel tank, possibly hazardous materials, circulation problems with hazardous traffic conditions. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 32 Preliminary. Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, E1 Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, south of Antoinette Lane: underutilized, unpaved lot used by auto dealer for vehicle storage. E1 Camino Corridor, southeast comer of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue: vacant gas station with security fence. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 33 Prelimina~ Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, Antoinette Lane and Chestnut Avenue: irregularly shaped vacant parcel with poor accessibility and trash. E1 Camino Corridor, detail of location above: evidence of dumping. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 34 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, northwest end of Antoinette Lane: vacant lot, non- maintained, barbed wire security fence lacking a gate. E1 Camino Corridor, northwest end of Antoinette Lane: close up of above, garbage and dumping, possibly hazardous materials. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 35 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary. Report November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, east side of E1 Camino Real between Ponderosa Road and West Orange: vacant lot used for RV parking, deteriorating pavement. El Camino Corridor, 724 El Camino Real: restaurant on small lot, deteriorating siding and roofing, ad hoc ventilation and construction, security bars. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 36 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, 800 E1 Camino Real: motel with substandard design, soft story construction, open storage and poor circulation. E1 Camino Corridor, 800 E1 Camino Real: detail of motel building above, deteriorating building, water damage, potentially hazardous, ad hoc construction. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 37 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary. Report November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, 920 E1 Camino Real: motel, deteriorating siding, broken window, lack of landscaping. E1 Camino Corridor, 920 E1 Camino Real: detail of above, broken window with ad hoc security measure. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 38 Prelimina~ Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, 344 Susie Way: deteriorated cracked fagade, unsafe, peeling paint, ad hoc unpainted repair, potential wood rot. E1 Camino Corridor, 368 Susie Way: dilapidated garage door, informal fencing (chicken wire) on balcony, trash and open storage, security door. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 39 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, 976 Sandra Court: deteriorated, rotting wood, peeling paint. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 40 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary. Report November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, east side of E1 Camino Real adjacent to BART station: piecemeal additions, informal construction, peeling paint, poor upkeep of building, lack of paving, overgrown, railing present but lacks stairs. E1 Camino Corridor, east side of E1 Camino Real adjacent to BART station: back portion of lot above, trash accumulation and dumping, multiple vehicles. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 41 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, 635 E1 Camino Real: decaying mobile home, peeling paint, water damage, rusted frame, crumbling stairs and foundation. Structure appears to be leaning. E1 Camino Corridor, 635 E1 Camino Real: view of back o~'mobile home (above), informal chicken wire fencing to protect underside of structure, ad hoc addition ora window. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 42 Preliminary. Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, 635 E1 Camino Real: deteriorated mobile home, informal stairway construction, cracked pavement, inadequate support structure. E1 Cami~o Corridor, 635 E1 Camino Real: deteriorated mobile home, unstable leaning informal wire fence, extra picket fence leaning against structure. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 43 Prciiminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amcndments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 E1 Camino Corridor, 635 E1 Camino Real: informal construction of an electric pole, unsafe wiring and connections. E1 Camino Corridor, 635 E1 Camino Real: deteriorated mobile home, flaking paint, water damage, informal soldering repairs, small windows, inadequate foundation. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 44 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary Report November 2004 Gateway, Caltrain Station, under and adjacent to Highway I01, off Dubuque Avenue: deteriorated pavement, inoperable rail lines and freight cars. Gateway, Caltrain station adjacent to Higt~way 101, off Dubuque Avenue: underutilized large parcel 'used as Caltrain parking, unpaved and unimproved. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 45 Preliminary. Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Gateway, intersection of Industrial Way (a.k.a Executive Drive) and Corporate Way: graffiti, overgrown and poor circulation. Gateway, southeast comer of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard: deteriorated building, missing roofing materials, incomplete construction, peeling paint above door, dry rot on door and window frames and defunct wiring. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 46 Prelimina~ Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Shearwater, north side of Oyster Point Boulewtrd near the intersection with Gateway Boulevard: large vacant parcel, formei: industrial site, potentially contaminated, not graded. Shearwater, west side of Veterans Boulevard: view of above large vacant parcel from the east. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 47 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Preliminary. Report November 2004 Shearwater, southwestern side of Veterans Boulevard: lack Of sidewalk and landscaping, adjacent to vacant lot, leaning fence posts. Shearwater, southwestern side of Veterans Boulevard: overgown, trash accumulation, deteriorating fence. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 48 Prelimina~ Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Program I Agency Primary Sources Tax Increment South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency City of South San Francisco General Fund City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco Other Funds City of South San Francisco Development Impact Fees N/A San Mateo County Measure A San Mateo County Transit Authority Table D-1 Primary, Secondary and Complementary Funding Sources South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Tax increment revenue generated by the increase in property values within a designated Redevelopment Project Area, and it is the primary source of financing for a Redevelopment Agency's programs. The Agency is obligated to dedicate 20 percent of tax increment O revenue to affordable housing production. Direct support from tbe City. The Capital Improvement Program (C/P) is funded in part by the General Fund. The CIP includes some Redevelopment Pro.am projects and activities. However, the general fiscal condition of the Ci~ of South San Francisco makes any additional ongoing direct financial suppon of redevelopment activities difficult. State and federal govemmenm have continued to reduce O funding and shifted costs and pro.am responsJbili~ to cities and counties. Cities have a limited ability ~o raise revenues that might offset new costs or reolace lost revenue. Other City Funds besides the General Fund are ~otential sources of revenue, including the following: Downtown Parking Fund: Downto~ parking pe~it and parking meter revenues ~nd downto~ parking lot mainten~ce, acquisition, and cons~ction. O Sewer Ente~se Fund: Sewer charges to users of the Ci~'s sanita~ sewer system to improve and increase capaci~. Sto~ Water Fund: A levy on the prope~ tax bill, pays for improvements to the sto~ water system. Fees on new private development to mitigate specific consequences of growth. Impact fees used to increase levels of se~iee for ~re residents and businesses that are needed as a result of new or increased demand on existing se~ices and facilities. The Ci~ cu~ently h~ the following impact fees: East of 101 Traffic: A fee levied to new development in specific east of U.S. 101 areas for the impacts the development will place on the City's ~a~c. East of 101 Sewer: Funds capaci~ improvements for new development east of U.S. 101. O Child Care: Funds childcare, and is levied on new commercial development ci~ide. Oyster Point Trip Reduction: Funds the new freeway interchanges at U.S. 101 and Oyster Point Blvd., levied on new development in specific locations east of U.S. 101. Approved in 1988, Measure A authorized a I/2 cent sales tax to fund transpoflation projects in San Marco Count. The tax was due to expire in 2008, however, an extension was approved on the November 2, 2004 bal}ot to extend the tax until 2033. In FY 2004/05, O Measure A revenues will con~ibute $1.19 million in ~nding to the CIP, which includes some Redevelopment Pro.am projec~ and activities. Lease Revenues N/A 'Broad authority to issue revenue bonds secured by sources other than tax increment, such as tenant leases on publicly owned land or in ' O Prop. 40 - California Clean water, California State Park and Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Recreation Department Park, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 Interest Income N/A Developer and Property Owner N/A Participation a. Key: G=Grant, L=Loan, O=Olher nubliclv owned facilities. Proposition 40 funds for local assistance grants administered by California Department of Parks and Recreation for open space. Funds may be provided for linear park and other improvements. Some income accrues to the Agency from the investment of tax increment revenues and proceeds. However, much, if not all, of the interest income will likely be offset by the need for the Agency to pay interest on indebtedness, including Agency issued bonds. Actual O income from this source would also be influenced by the amount of money available for investment, term of the investment, and achievable interest rates. Funds advanced to a city or agency from a developer or property owner in the form of a negotiated fee or grant, or a loan for public improvements that is repaid during the course of project implementation from tax increment revenues. Some agencies have development O agreements with developers, by which developers contribute funding for specific improvements. Property owners provide repayment on Iow interest loans or are required to nrovide nrivate funds to match a~,encv rehabilitation ffrants. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Table D-I Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Program I Agency ] Description ]Funding] (G/L/o)* Sec6ndary Sources C6nti~ued Community Development Block Housing and Urban Locally administered federal funds allocated for public works, rehabilitation loans and grants, land acquisition, demolition, public Grants (CDBG) Development (HUD) services, affordable housing, social services, etc. CDBG funded projects must principally benefit Iow and moderate income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of blight, or address an urgent need. Section 108 is the loan guarantee provision of the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program sponsored by HUD. The objective of the loan funding is to provide communities with a soume of financing for economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large scale physical development projects. G The maximum repayment period for Section 108 loan is 20 years. Primarily this program can be relied upon for economic development and rehabilitation efforts. It does not generate new funds; rather it is a loan fund secured by CDBG or other dedicated revenues, such as tax increment revenues. The City of South San Francisco has drawn $1.75 million ($1.5 million in 2001 and $0.25 million in 2002) from its Section 108 loan guarantee. HOME funds Housing and Urban Locally administered federal formula grants often used in conjunction with local nonprofit organizations to fund affordable housing Development (HUD) activities. States are automatically eligible for annual funding. Local jurisdictions eligible for at least $500,000 under the formula G ($335,000 in years when Congress appropriates less than $1.5 billion) may receive an allocation. HOME assisted rental housing must com~lv with certain rent limitations. Pro,ram has a maximum per unit subsidy and ~urchase ~rice limit. Assessment District Funds generated by private Assessment Districts enable a city to levy additional taxes on property within designated areas in order to finance improvements directly sector benefiting those areas. Bonds are issued to finance local improvements such as streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities. Typically, an assessment district is formed to undertake a particular public improvement, and bonds are issued under one of two major assessment acts: the Improvement Act of 1911 and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Proposition 218, a 1996 state constitutional amendment, enacted more restrictive requirements for adopting an assessment district and limited the improvements and activities that can be financed through an assessment district. These requirements reduce the likelihood that an assessment district would be a viable financing option for the Redevelopment Program. The City currently has the following assessment districts: O Gateway Assessm¢llt: Funds bonded indebtedness for street and sewer improvements in the Gateway Assessment District. El Camino: Funds bonded indebtedness for sidewalk aud sewer improvements in the El Camino Corridor. Britannia Pointe Gratld¢: Funds bonded indebtedness lbr street and intersection improvements in a portion of the Downtow~ffCentral Project Area. The Agency does not anticipate receiving additional funds above those to fund bonded indebtedness in these districts. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Department of Competitive federal aid program funding a number of safety, finance, highway, environmental, public transportation, planning and Efficient Transportation Equality Transportation administered research agendas. Includes the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, O Act of 2003 (SAFETEA) via Metropolitan Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program, Surface Transportation Program, and Transportation and (formerly TEA-21'~ Transportation AuthoriW Community and Svstem Preservation Pro,am. Pram'am has been extended to May 31. 2005, Per Capita Grant Program California State Parks Funds may be used for the acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation, restoration, enhancement, and the development of (Proposition 12) interpretive facilities for local parks and recreational lands and facilities, including renovation of recreational facilities conveyed to local G agencies resulting from the downsizing or decommissioning of federal military installations. Fuel Tax Department of Public The State of California tax on several types of fuel, of which approximately one third of the revenues are distributed to local Works/MTA jurisdictions. Revenues may be used for street maintenance and construction activities. O San Francisco Bay Trail Grants Association of Bay Area Competitive grants to local governments, special districts and qualified nonprofit organizations to build or design new segments of the Governments (ABAG) Bay Trail. Agency has received assistance in opening trail segments in Oyster Point Marina. G Housing Enabled by Local California Housing Finance A three percent interest rote loan to local government agencies for their locally determined affordable housing activities and priorities. Partnership Program (HELP) Agency (CalHFA) HELP funds must be used to directly produce affordable housing units; however, virtually unlimited flexibility is given to the local L agency to determine the svecific housing activity and use of the funds. a. Key: G=Grant, L=Loan, O=Other South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Table D-I Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Table D-2 Unavailable and Unlikely Funding Sources South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Private Donations Business Improvement District (BID) Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) Technical Assistance Program Small Business Revolving Loan Fund CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantees New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) California Organized Investment Network (COIN) Community Capital Investment Initiative (CCII) Multiple Programs Downtown Rebound Grant Multiple Programs Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Railroad Highway At-Grade Crossing Protection Program (Section 130) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Reeional Fund Transportation Development Act (TDA) Regional Measure 2 Transit Funding Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) a. Key: G=Grant, L=Loan, O=Other N/A Funds generated by private sector City of South San Francisco or South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Economic Development Administration (EDA) Economic Development Administration (EDA'} Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) California Department of Insurance Bay Area Family of Funds Small Business Administration (SBA) Department of Housing and CommuniP/Development Local Initiatives Support Comoration (LISC) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) CalTrans, Office of Local Programs Bay Area Air Quality Mana~,ement District Administered by Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Metropolitan Transportation Com~nission (MTC) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Private donations by individuals, civic booster organizations, or corporate sponsors. O Special type of assessment district that generates revenue to support enhanced services. BIDs either provide for an added fee to annual business licensing charges or an additional assessment of commercial property, which requires petition support from business and the O creation of an advisory committee of property and business owners. A special tax district to finance capital improvement projects or operations and maintenance. Taxes are levied on real property and collected on the county property tax bills. The City or Agency can issue Mello-Roos bonds secured by the special taxes to finance public O infrastructure. Provides funds to finance projects that assist in the long range economic development of areas with severe unemployment and low income GlO families. Aids in the development of public facilities and private entervrise to help create new, oermanent lobs. Provides low interest loans to small businesses in disadvantaged neighborhoods to provide a variety of assistance. L The loan guarantee provision of the CDBG program that provides a source of financing for economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities and large scale physical development projects. All projects must either principally benefit Iow and moderate income L persons, aid in the elimination or prevention of blight, or meet an urgent need. Credits against federal income taxes for making qualified equity investments in designated Community Development Entities (CDE). O Substantially all of the investment must be used bv the CDE to provide investments in Iow income communities. Program certifying Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) that wish to receive qualified investments and certifying tax credits for investors. Provides a comprehensive array of investment products responsive to capital needs of Iow income and/or rural O communities. (l) Bay Area Smart Growth Fund invests equity in real estate developments, (2) Bay Area Equity Fund invests equity in profitable growing businesses capable of generating substantial job and wealth creation, (3) California Environmental Redevelopment Fund invests in O environmental remediation and redevelopment. Programs such as small business loans, special loans and equity investment programs, tailored to small business needs. G/L A grant intended to increase residential housing opportunities in an area that has housing needs and is under pressure due to the lack of G available land. Provide local community based organizations with financing and technical expertise to revitalize distressed neighborhoods. O Offers planning grants, capital grants and the Housing Incentive Program. Planning grants are awarded to help sponsors refine and elaborate on promising project concepts. Capital grants directly support construction activities. The Housing Incentive Program awards grants to cities G and counties that build high density housing within one-third mile of a major transit station or corridor with peak period service intervals of 15 minutes or less. Each year the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) identifies railroad at-grade crossings that need improvement and submits a prioritized list of projects eligible for Section 130 funding to the CalTrans, Office of Local Programs. O Awards grants for transportation projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions. G Funds are generated statewide through a 1/4 cent sales tax in each county. TI21A funds may be used for transit projects, special transit projects for disabled persons, and bicycle and pedestrian purposes. G Revenue is generated by a $1 toll increase (effective July 2004) on the region's seven state-owned toll bridges, excluding the Golden Gate O Brid~e. Funds are used for capital and operatin~ funds for rail, express and local bus and ferry service. Competitive grant program for redevelopment of environmentally contaminated industrial or commercial sites. Must be linked with a new G Section 108-~uaranteed loan commitment. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Table D-2 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Program ] Agency Unavailable oi' :Unlikely Sources Continued: = Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Environmental Protection Loan Fund (BCRLF'} Aoenc¥ (EPA) Public Works Economic Development Administration (EDA) Brownfield Pilots and Demonstrations Rule 20A Program Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Land and Water Conservation Fund San Francisco Bay Area Conselxancy Program (Bay Proeram) Access to Artistic Excellence State-Local Partnership Program (8LPP) Public Library Fund (PLF) Historic Preservation grants-in-aid Environmental Protection A~encv (EPA'} Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) nominated by city, county or municival aeenc¥ California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBANK) National Parks Service, administered by California State Parks Coastal Conservancy National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) California Arts Council (CAC'} California State Library National Parks Service Inner City Ventures Fund (ICVF) National Preservation Loan Fund (NPLF) Preservation Services Fund (PSF) Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits Prop. 40 - CA Clean water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Park, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 Mills Act Property Tax Abatement ProRranl a. Key: G=Grant, L=Loan, O=Othcr National Trust for Historic Preservation National Trust for Historic Preservation National Trust for Historic Preservation Self administered, National Parks Service Self administered, National Parks Service California Cultural and Historical Endowment, located in the California State Library Office. Office of Historic Preservation ] Funding Description (G/L/O)' : Competitive loan fund pilots that enable states and municipalities to make low interest loans for cleanup activities at brownfields sites. L Federal grants to support the construction or rehabilitation of essential public infrastructure and development facilities necessary to generate private sector jobs and investment, Projects must also contribute to the long-term economic development of the area by creating or retaining G oermanent iobs and raisin~ income levels. Competitive project grants awarded through regional offices to address serious contamination issues. G Provides funding for the undergrounding of overhead electrical wires as well as other utilities. Paid for by customers through future electric rates. O Low cost financing to public agencies for a wide variety of infrastructure projects with loan terms of up to 30 years. Eligible applicants include cities, counties, special districts, assessment districts, joint powers authorities and redevelopment agencies. Provides matching grants to states and local governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. L G Provides grants to help protect, restore and enhance natural habitats and olher open space resources and improve public access to the Bay and sun'ounding areas. Fosters and preserves excellence in the arts and provides access to the arts. G G Funds county arts agencies in 51 out of 58 counties. County governments annually approve resolutions of support for the county arts G a~enc¥'s avolication to the state for fundin~ Provides direct state aid to California public libraries for basic public library service. G Provides matching grants-in-aid to states to assist in their efforts to protect and preserve properties listed in the National Register of Historic G olaces. Finances community development projects that result in preserving historic properties that benefit low, moderate, or mixed income L neighborhoods. Provides funding for a variety of preservation projects. Generally more flexible on project criteria than ICVF. Projects must demonstrate a L that imvact will be far-reachin~. Grants for non profit groups or local governments to initiate preservation projects. Funds may be used for technical support, conferences or G curriculum develovment. Two tier tax credit equal to 20% of the cost of rehabilitating certified historic buildings. Credit cannot be claimed on "tax exempt use" or on O federal ~rant funds used for rehabilitation. Tax credit equal to 10% of the costs of substantial rehabilitation of depreciable property. Rehabilitation must meet a specific physical tests O for retention of external walls and internal structural framework. A portion of the Prop. 40 revenue funds component for historic preservation and museums. Dedicated to preserving historic and cultural resources. G Provides eligible historic private properly owners the opportunity to actively participate in the restoration of their properties while receiving oropert¥ tax relief. O South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Table D-2 Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger November 2004 Appendix E Tax Increment Projections Appendix E - Table A-1 Summary of Tax Increment Projections South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Summary of Assumptions Project Area Assessed Values Base Year Assessed Value: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project - Added Area (Base Year:. FY 2004/05) Downtown/Cenlral Redevelopment Project - Original Area (Base Year:. FY 1987/88) El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Original Area (Base Year: FY 1992/93) El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Added Area (Base Year: FY 1999/00) Gateway Redevelopment Project (Base Year. FY 1980/81) Shearwater Redevelopment Project (Base Year: FY 1984/85) FY 2004/05 Assessed Value: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project - Added Area Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project - Original Area El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Original Area El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Pmiect- Added Area Gateway Redevelopment Project Shearwater Redevelopment Project Total Tax Increment Generation Project Adopted between 12/2/04 and 8/20/05 Property Tax Rate: Merged Tax Increment Cap: County Property Tax Admin Fee: Pass-Through Payments and Housing Set-Aside are calculated based on Incremental Tax Revenues. Sponsoring Community City receives pass-through Agency Administration Cost Percent of Incremental Tax Revenues: Present Value Discount Rate Present value discounted to FY 2004/05 at: $o $230,960,897 $49,316,048 $39,097,325 $14,984,252 $3,638,353 $0 $989,087,932 $215,681,496 $49,015,387 $611,181,743 $292.753.101 $2,157,719,659 1.0% 796,000,000 1.0%oflncrementalTax Revenue 4.0% 5.5% Tax Increment Projections From FY 2004/05 Through End of Project Constant TI Available to Agency After Obligations Incremental Tax Revenues Less: County Property Tax Admin Fee Less: Pass-Throughs to Taxing Entities Less: Debt Obligation Less: State ERAF Payments Less: Other Agency Obligations TI Available to Agency After Obligations Projected Use of Tl Funds Agency Administration (Non-Housing) TI Available for Housing Programs TI Available for Non-Housing Projects Total TI Funds Used by Agency Subtotal, TI for Housing & Pro/ects Cumulative TI for Housing Programs 2014/ 15 2024/25 2034/35 2049/50 Cumulative TI for Non-Housing Projects 2014/ 15 2024/25 2034/35 2049/50 Nominal Dollars (in Millions*) FY 2004/05 Dollars (in Millions*) $729.7 $381.8 $7.3 $3.8 $138.9 $68.7 $55.1 $36.2 $3.2 $3.1 $2.8 $1.9 $522.5 $268.1 $29.4 $15.4 $145.9 $76.4 $347.2 $176.4 $522.5 $268.1 $493.1 $252.7 $52.0 $39.4 $119.6 $68.9 $142.9 $76.0 $145.9 $76.4 $112.5 $84.7 $280.4 $157.1 $340.3 $175.5 $347.2 $176.4 *Amounts may not precisely match, due to rounding. Seifel Consulting Inc. TI_SSF_Summ 04 Working.xls:Sumrn 11/17/04 Appendix E - Table A-2 Tax Increment Projections In Nominal or "Future" Dollars All Redevelopment Project Areas South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Incremental Housing Tax Set-Aside Revenue* Revenue 1% 20% Pass YearFiscal Through (N) Year A B C (A.B) D 0 2004/ 05 18,197,2283,639,446 14,557,782 24,318 I 2005/ 06 I 8,954,150 3,790,830 15,163,32027,923 2 2006/ 07 20,282.5584,056.512 16.226.04642.152 3 2007/ 08 21.683.2314.336.646 17.346.58490,342 4 2008/ 0922.736.1354,547.227 18,188,908138,788 5 2009/ 10 23.884,8264.776,965 19,107,860 188.406 6 2010/ Il 24.876,1064.975.221 19.900.885 230,652 7 2011/ 12 25.675.3595.135.072 20,540.288 273.784 8 2012/ 13 27.061.0525,412.210 21.648,842 462.766 9 2013/ 14 27,918.2635,583,653 22,334.610 513.152 l0 2014/ 15 28,800,0695.760.014 23,040,056 584.594 II 2015/ 16 29,639,4075.927,881 23.711.525 657.539 12 2016/ 17 30.501,4036.100.281 24.401,122 732.704 13 2017/ 18 31.386.6876,277,337 25.109.349 809,450 14 2018/ 19 32.295.9066.459.181 25,836.725 887,811 15 2019/ 20 33,229,7276.645,945 26,583,782 967,823 16 2020/ 21 34. i88,833 6.837,767 27.351.066 1.049.519 17 2021/ 22 35.173.9287,034.786 28.139.143 1.132,938 18 2022/ 23 36.185.7377.237.147 28,948.590 1.240.925 19 2023/ 2437.225.0057.445.001 29,780.004 1,351.374 20 2024/ 25 38.292.4967,658,499 30,633,997 1.464,346 21 2025/ 26 39,388,9987,877,800 31,511,199 1,579,898 22 2026/ 27 40.515.3238.103.065 32.412,258 1.698.093 23 2027/ 2830,536.7016,~07.340 24,429.361 1,379,173 24 2028/ 29773.469 154.694 618.775 208,874 25 2029/ 30788.938 157,788 631.151 214.845 26 2030/31 804.717 160,943 643.774 220.934 27 2031/ 32820.812 164.162 656,649 227.146 28 2032/ 33837,228 167.446 669.782 233.481 29 2033/ 34853,972 170.794 683,178 239.944 30 2034/ 35871,052 174.210 696.841 246,535 31 2035/ 36888.473 177.695 710,778 253.259 32 2036/37 906.242 181.248 724.994 260,116 33 2037/ 38924,367 184,873 739.494 267.[11 34 2038/ 39942.855 188.571 754.284 274.246 35 2039/ 40961.712 192.342 769.369 281.524 36 2040/ 41980.946 196,189 784.757 288,947 37 2041/ 421.000.565 200,113 800,452 296.519 38 2042/ 431.020.576 204.115 816.461 306.018 39 2043/ 441.040.988 208.198 832.790 315.707 40 2044/ 451.061.807 212,361 849.446 325,590 41 2045/ 461.083,043 216,609 866.435 335,670 42 2046/ 471.104,704 220.941 883,763 345.952 43 2047/ 481,126.798 225.360 901.439 356.440 44 2048/ 491,149,334 229.867 919,468 367,137 45 2049/ 501.~72.321 234.464 937.857 378.049 Non Pass-through Payments Non-Housing Other Exoenses -Housing Revenue County ERAF Bond Revenue Statutory Contractual Total Remaining after Property ContributionDebt TOTAL 729,744,047 145,948,809 583,795,238 23,772,513 115,085,510 138,858,023 Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 260,068,977 52,013,795 208,055.182 2.576.877 40,077.028 42.653.905165,401.277 To: 2024/ 25 598.188.106 119,637.621 478,550.484 12.871.306 96.446.791 109.318,097369.232.388 To: 2034/ 35 714.379.316 142.875.863 571,503.453 19.120,228 115.085.510 134.205,738 437.297.715 To: 2049/ 50 729.744.047 145,948.809 583.795.238 23.772.513 115.085.510 138.858,023 444.937.215 Pass Pass Pass ThroughTax Through Through Payments Admin Fee E F G(C-F) H 1,064,6451,088,96213,468,820 181,972 2,982,8663,010,78912,t52,531 I89,542 3,195,4993,237,65212,988,395 202,826 3,415,7003,506,04[13,840,543 216,832 3,638,3293,777,11714,411,791 227,361 3,869,3364,057,74215,050,118 238,848 4,078,3214,308,97315,591,912 248,761 4.226.3374,500.12216,040.166 256.754 4.378.1904,840.95716.807.885 270.611 4.533.9835,047.13517.287.476 279.183 4,693,8215,278,41517,761,640 288,O31 4.856.2805.513.81918.197.706 296.394 5.022.9295.755.63218.645.490 305.014 5,193,8786.003.32819,106.021 313.867 5.369,2456.257,05619.579.669 322.959 5,499,1466,466,96920,116,813 332,297 5,683,7036,733,22320,617.844 341,888 5,873.0427.005.98021.133.163 351.739 6,067,2907,308,21521,640,375 361,857 6.266.5807,617.95422.162.050 372,250 6,537,6708,002,01622,631,981 382,925 6,631,1458,211,04323,300,156 393,890 6,726,6048,424,69623,987.562 405,153 5,280.9716,660.14317,769,217 305.367 0 208,874 409.901 7.735 0 214,845 416,306 7,889 0 220.934 422.840 8,047 0 227,146 429,504 8,208 0 233,481 436,301 8,372 0 239,944 443,234 8,540 0 246,535 450,306 8,711 0 253,259 457,520 8,885 0 260,116 464,877 9,062 0 267,111 472,382 9.244 0 274,246 480,037 9,429 0 281,524 487.845 9.617 0 288,947 495.809 9.809 0 296.519 503.933 10.~06 0 306.018 510.443 10.206 0 315,707 517.083 10,410 0 325,590 523.856 10,618 0 335,670 530.765 10,830 0 345,952 537,811 11,047 0 356,440 544,999 11,268 0 367.137 552,330 11,493 0 378.049 559.808 11.723 444,937,215 7.297,440 2,600.690 5.981.881 7.143,793 7.297.440 Set.ce Payments 1,598,631 2,965,305 1,598,631 3,002,535 0 3,039,610 0 3,081,466 0 3,117,920 0 3,158,210 0 3,196,518 0 3,236,793 0 3,278,541 0 3,321,571 0 3,359,219 0 3,406,631 0 3,450,119 0 3,494,300 0 3,202,300 0 757,869 0 756,750 0 759,188 0 760,050 0 759.338 0 757.050 0 758.056 0 757.225 0 759.425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.197.262 55,135,988 3.197.262 34.757.688 3.197.262 52.861.281 3,197.262 55.135,988 3.197,262 55.135,988 · Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (1.0%), cxclusiv¢ of supplemental payment, unitary revenue and bond overrides. Agency Other Administration Agency Obligations K L 732,025 113,278 762,474 113,101 815,912 210.252 872,258 204,664, 914.613 198,845 960,822 192.805 1,000,698186,617 1,032,850180,327 1,088,593173.881 1,123,076167,271 1,158,549160.561 1,192,313153,751 1,226,989146,830 1,262.601139,796 1,299,177132,676 1.336,742125,491 1.375.324118,241 1.414.95214.264 1,455,65413,590 1,497,46122,626 1,540,4030 1,584,5130 1,629,8210 1,228,4090 31,115 0 31,737 0 32,372 0 33,019 0 33,679 0 34,353 0 35,0~0 0 35,741 0 36,456 0 37,185 0 37,928 0 38,687 0 39,461 0 40,250 0 41,055 0 41,876 0 42,714 0 43,568 0 44,439 0 45,328 0 46,235 0 47,159 0 29,355,623 2,768,865 10.4611869 1.901.600 24.063.484 2.768,865 28.737,541 2.768.865 29.355,623 2.768.865 Non-Housing Revenue Remaining after Pass Through and Other Exr, enses Annual Cumulative M (G-H-I.K-L) N 7,877,609 7,877,609 6,486,249 14,363,858 8,719,795 23,083,653 9,465,323 32,548,976 9,953,052 42,502.028 10,499,433 53,001,461 10,959.318 63,960,779 11,333,443 75,294.222 11,996,260 87,290,482 12,396,374 99,686,857 12,795,312 112,482,168 13,148,617 125.630.785 13,516,538 139,147,323 13,895,457 153,042,780 14,622,557 167,665,338 17,564,415 185,229.752 18,025,6'10 203,255.392 18,593,020 221,848,413 19,049,224 240,897.636 19,510,375 260,408,012 19,951,603 280,359,614 20,563,697 300,923,311 21,195,362 322,118,673 15,476,017 337,594.690 371,052 337.965,742 376,680 338,342,422 382.421 338,724,842 388,277 339,113,119 394,249 339,507,368 400,342 339,907,710 406,556 340,314,266 412,894 340,727,160 419,359 341,146,519 425,954 341.572,473 432,680 342,005.t54 439,541 342,444,695 446,539 342,891,234 453,677 343,344,91 459.182 343.804,093 464,797 344,268,890 470,524 344,739,415 476,366 345,215,781 482,325 345,698,106 488,403 346,186.509 494,602 346,681,112 500.926 347 182,037 12 482,168 LC 280359614 ~ 340 3 4.266 347'182 037 Seifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working.xls-AIl I 1/17/04 IncrementalHousing Non Tax Set-Aside -Housing Revenue** Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Year Fiscal (N) Year A B C (A-B) 0 2004/ 05 18,197,228 3,639,44614,557,782 I 2005/ 06 17,966,019 3,593,204 14,372,815 2 2006/ 07 18,222,913 3,644,583 14,578,331 3 2007/ 08 18,465,735 3,693,147 14,772,588 4 2008/ 09 18,352,989 3,670,598 14,682,391 5 2009/ 10 18,275,101 3,655,020 14,620,080 6 2010/ 11 18,041,292 3,608,258 14,433,034 7 2011/ 12 17,650,187 3,530,037 14,120,150 8 2012/ 13 17,632,951 3,526,590 14,~06,361 9 2013/ 14 17,243,136 3,448,627 13,794,509 10 2014/ 15 16,860,441 3,372,088 13,488,353 II 2015/ 16 16,447,218 3,289,444 13,157,774 12 2016/ 17 16,043,174 3,208,635 12,834,539 13 2017/ 18 15,648,168 3,129,634 12,518,534 14 2018/ 19 15,262,056 3,052,411 12,209,645 15 20~9/ 20 14,884,693 2,976,939I 1,907,754 16 2020/ 21 14,515,932 2,903,186 11,612,746 17 202~/ 22 14,155,625 2,831,12511,324,500 18 20221 23 13,803,625 2,760,72511,042,900 19 2023/ 24 13,459,782 2,69t,95610,767,826 20 2024/ 25 13,123,947 2,624,78910,499,158 21 2025/ 26 12,795,972 2,559,19410,236,778 22 2026/ 27 12,475,708 2,495,1429,980,566 23 2027/ 28 8,912,828 1,782,566 7,130,263 24 2028/ 29 213,985 42.797 171,188 25 2029/ 30 206,886 41,377 165,509 26 2030/ 31 200,023 40,005 160,018 27 2031/ 32 193,387 38,677 154,710 28 2032/ 33 186,971 37,394 149,577 29 2033/ 34 180,768 36,154 144,615 30 2034/ 35 174,771 34,954 139,817 31 2035/ 36 168,973 33,795 135,179 32 2036/ 37 163,367 32,673 130,694 33 2037/ 38 157,948 31,590 126,358 34 2038/ 39 152,708 30,542 122,166 35 2039/ 40 147,642 29,528 118,113 36 2040/ 41 142,744 28,549 114,195 37 2041/ 42 138,008 27,602 110,406 38 2042/ 43 133,430 26,686 106,744 39 2043/ 44 129,003 25,801 103,202 40 2044/ 45 124,723 24,945 99,779 41 2045/ 46 120,585 24,117 96,468 42 2046/ 47 116,585 23,317 93,268 43 2047/ 48 112,717 22,543 90,174 44 2048/ 49 108,978 21,796 87,182 Appendix E - Table A-3 Tax Increment Projections In Present Value or Constant 2004/05 Dollars* All Redevelopment Project Areas South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Pass4hrough Payments Non-Housing Revenue County ERAF StatutoryContractualTotal Remaining afte Property Contribution Pass Pass Pass Pass ThroughTax Through Through Through Payments Adman Fee D E F G(C-F) 24,318 1,064,645 1,088,96213,468,820 26,467 2,827,361 2,853,828li,518,987 37,872 2,871,004 2,908,87611,669,455 76,936 2,908,856 2,985,79311,786,795 112,032 2,936,920 3,048,95211,633,439 144,156 2,960,562 3,104,71811,515,363 167,279 2,957,785 3,125,06511,307,969 188,209 2,905,340 3,093,54911,026,600 301,538 2,852,824 3,154,36210,951,999 316,938 2,800,321 3,117,25810,677,251 342,239 2,747,906 3,090,14610,398,207 364,875 2,694,801 3,059,67610,098,098 385,389 2,641,968 3,027,3569,807,183 403,560 2,589,464 2,993,0239,525,511 419,552 2,537,341 2,956,8939,252,752 433,520 2,463,249 2,896,7699,010,985 445,606 2,413,193 2,858,7998,753,946 455,947 2,363,585 2,819,5328,504,968 473,370 2,314,464 2,787,8358,255,065 488,629 2.265,864 2,754,4938,013,333 501,874 2,240,649 2,742,5237,756,635 513,248 2,154,204 2,667,4527,569,325 522,886 2,071,294 2,594,1807,386,386 402,543 1,541,371 1,943,914 5,186,349 57,786 0 57,786 113,402 56,339 0 56,339 109,170 54,916 0 54,916 105,102 53,517 0 53,517 101,193 52,141 0 52,141 97,436 50,791 0 50,791 93,824 49,466 0 49,466 90,351 48,166 0 48,166 87,013 46,891 0 46,891 83,803 45,642 0 45,642 80,717 44,418 0 44,418 77,748 43,219 0 43,219 74,894 42,047 0 42,047 72,148 40,899 0 40,899 69,508 40,009 0 40,009 66,735 39,124 0 39,124 64.079 38,245 0 38,245 61,534 37,373 0 37,373 59,095 36,510 0 36,510 56,758 35,656 0 35,656 54,518 34,811 0 34,811 52,371 Other Expenses Bond Agency Other Debt Administration Agency Service Payments H I ] K 181,972 1,598,631 2,965,305 732,025 179,660 1,515,290 2,846,005 722,724 182,229 0 2,730,945 733,058 184,657 0 2,624,219 742,826 183,530 0 2,516,837 738,291 182,751 0 2.416,455 735,158 180,413 0 2,318,261 725,752 176,502 0 2,225,090 710,019 176,330 0 2,136,294 709,326 172,431 0 2,051,500 693,645 168,604 0 1,966,589 678,250 164,472 0 1,890,375 661,627 160,432 0 1,814,699 645,373 156,482 0 1,742,121 629,483 152,621 0 1,513,309 613,951 148,847 0 339,474 598,771 145,159 0 321,302 583,937 141,556 0 305,532 569,442 138,036 0 289,933 555,282 134,598 0 274,561 541,451 131,239 0 259,463 527,941 127,960 0 246,263 514,747 124,757 0 233,169 501,864 89,128 0 221,655 358,539 2,140 0 0 8,608 2,069 0 0 8,322 2,000 0 0 8,046 1,934 0 0 7,779 1,870 0 0 7,521 1,808 0 0 7,272 1,748 0 0 7,031 1,690 0 0 6,797 1,634 0 0 6,572 1,579 0 0 6,354 1,527 0 0 6,143 1~476 0 0 5,939 1,427 0 0 5,742 1,380 0 0 5,552 1,334 0 0 5,368 1,290 0 0 5,189 1,247 0 0 5,017 1,206 0 0 4,851 1,166 0 0 4,690 1,127 0 0 4,534 1,090 0 ~ 0 4,384 Obligations Non-Housing Revenue Remaining aher Pass Through and Other Expenses Annual Cumulative L M (G-H-]-K-L N 113,278 7,877,609 7,877,609 107.204 6,148,103 14,025,712 188,901 7,834,321 21,860,033 174,294 8,060,798 29,920,832 160,511 8,034,270 37,955,102 147,522 8,033,477 45,988,579 135,343 7,948,200 53,936,779 123,963 7,791,026 61,727,804 113,300 7,816,749 69,544,554 103,312 7,656,364 77,200,917 93,997 7,490,767 84,691,684 85,318 7,296,306 91,987,990 77,230 7.109,449 99,097,439 69,697 6,927,728 106,025,168 62,699 6,910,173 112,935,340 56,211 7,867,682 120,803,022 50,203 7,653,346 128,456,368 5,7407,482,696 135,939,064 5,1847,266,629 143,205,694 8,1817,054,543 150,260,237 0 6,837,992 157,098,229 0 6,680,355 163,778,584 0 6,526,596 170,305,180 0 4,517,026 174,822,206 0 102,654174,924,860 0 98,778 175,023,638 0 95,056 175,118,694 0 91,480 175,210,173 0 88,~44 175,298,218 0 84,744 175,382,962 0 81,573 175,464,535 0 78,526 175,543,061 0 75,598 175,618,658 0 72,783 175,691,442 0 70,078 175,761,520 0 67,478 175,828,998 0 64,979 175,893,977 0 62,576 175,956,553 0 60,033 176,016.586 0 57,599 176,074,185 0 55,269 176,129,454 0 53,038 176,182,493 0 50,902 176,233,395 0 48,857 176,282,251 0 46,897 176,329,149 45 2049/ 50 105.362 21.072 84,290 33.977 0 33,977 50.313 1.054 0 0 4.238 0 TOTAL 381,816,28776,363,257 305,453,030 8,530,92660,124,97168,655,897 236,797,132 3,818,163 3,113,92136,249,35615,359,433 1,882,089 Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 196,907,99339,381,599 157,526,394 1,737,98529,833,52531,571,509 125,954,885 1,969,080 3,113,92126,797,5007,921,074 1,461,626 To: 2024/ 25 344.252,21468,850,443 275,401,771 6,110,30654,358,10260,468,408 214,933,363 3,442,522 3,113,92135,548,26913,848,332 1,882,089 To: 2034/ 35 379,793,51475,958,703 303,834,811 7,923,94160,124,97168,048,912 235,785,900 3,797,935 3,113,92136,249,35615,278,063 1,882,089 To: 2049/ 50 381,816.28776,363.257 305.453.030 8,530.92660,124.97168.655,897 236.797,132 3,818,163 3,113.92136.249,35615,359.433 1,882.089 *Present value discounted to 2~04/05 at: 5.5% * * Baaed on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (10%), exclusive o f supplcmemal payment, unitary revenue and bond ore,Tides. 45,021 176374,170 176,374,170 84 69 684 ~ 3~ -~!~3~, 0 8 2 ':'~¢~; 175 464 535 176.374.170 Scifcl Consuhing Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working.xls-All I 1/17/04 Year Fiscal IN)Year 0 2004/ 05 I 2005/ 06 2 2006/ 07 3 2007/ 08 4 2008/ 09 5 2009/ l0 6 2010/ 11 7 2011/ 12 8 2012/ 13 9 2013/ 14 l0 2014/ [5 II 2015/ 16 12 2016/ 17 13 2017/ 18 14 2018/ 19 15 2019/ 20 16 2020/ 21 17 2021/ 22 18 2022/ 23 19 2023/ 24 20 2024/ 25 21 2025/ 26 22 2026/ 27 23 2027/ 28 24 2028/ 29 25 2029/ 30 26 2030/ 31 27 2031/ 32 28 2032/ 33 29 2033/ 34 30 2034/ 35 31 2035/ 36 32 2036/ 37 33 2037/ 38 34 2038/ 39 35 2039/ 40 36 2040/ 41 37 2041/ 42 38 2042/ 43 39 2043/ 44 40 2044/ 45 41 2045/ 46 42 2046/ 47 43 2047/ 48 44 2048/ 49 45 2049/ 5O TOTAL Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 To: 2024/ 25 To: 2034/ 35 To: 2049/ 50 Appendix E - Table A-4 Tax Increment Projections In Nominal or "Future" Dollars All Redevelopment Project Areas South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment* Downtowlt/Cenlral Added 563,430 574,699 586,193 597,917 609,875 622,073 634,514 647,2O4 660,148 673,351 686,818 700,555 714,566 728,857 743~434 758.303 773.469 788~938 804,717 820,812 837.228 853.972 871.052 888,473 906,242 924,367 942,855 96i,7[2 980,946 1.000,565 1,020,576 1.040.988 1,061,807 1,083.043 1,104,704 1,126,798 1,149,334 1,172.321 El Camlno Corridor Gateway Shearwater Odginal Original Added 7,581.270 1,663,654 99,181 5,961,975 2,891.147 8,077,997 1.728,359 113.885 6,084.211 2,949,698 8,593.625 2.096,925 129,031 6,271.233 3,191,745 9,128,802 '2.503,654 144,631 6.463,865 3,442,279 9,684.196 2.593.558 160,699 6,596,139 3,701,543 10,260.496 2,746,235 177.249 6,731,059 3.969,786 10,858,416 2,904,808 ~94,296 6,868,677 4,049.910 11,253,456 3,069,366 21[,854 7,009.047 4,131,636 11,660.348 3,240,113 229,939 7,152.225 4,214,996 12,079.447 3.417,260 248,566 7,298,266 4.300,023 12,511.119 3.601.025 267,753 7,447,229 4,386.752 12,955.741 3.723,850 287,514 7.599,170 4,475,214 13,413,701 3.850.361 307,869 7,754.150 4,565,446 i3,885.400 3,980,666 328,834 7.912,230 4,657,483 14,371.251 4,114,881 350,428 8,073.472 4.751,360 14,871,677 4,253,122 372,671 8.237.938 4.847.115 15,387,115 4,395,511 395.580 8,405,694 4,944,785 15,918,017 4.542.171 419,176 8.576.804 5,044.408 16.464.846 4.693.231 443,481 8,751.337 5,146.024 17,028,079 4.848,823 468.515 8.929,361 5.249.672 17,608,210 5,009,082 494.299 9,110,945 5,355,394 18.205,744 5.174,150 520.857 9,296,161 5,463,229 18,821,205 5,344,169 548.212 9.485,081 5.573.221 14,160,009 4.017.099 419.512 7.043.769 4.138,009 31,616,858314,780,168 87,512,073 7~34,034 183,060,038105,440,877 1.724,322 111.689.173 29.564,956 1.977,08573,883,927 41,229.514 8,271,344 263,593,209 72,976,655 5,845,452157,235~28 90,266,417 16,252,127314,780,168 87,512,073 7,334,034183,060,038105,440,877 31,616,858314.780,168 87,512,073 7,334,034183,060,038105,440,877 Annual Cumulative Cumulative Tax Increment Tax Increment Tax Increment Revenue Revenue Towards 1% to Agency Merged Cap** 18.197,228 18,197.228 117,668,670 18,954,150 37,151.378 135.024,189 20.282.558 57,433.936 155.306,747 21,683,231 79,117,167 176,989.978 22,736,135 101,853,302 [99,726,113 23,884.826 125.738,128 223,610.939 24.876,106 150,614,234 248,487,045 25.675.359 176,289,593 274.162,404 27,061.052 203.350,645 300,660,026 27,918,263 231,268,908 328,003,590 28,800,069 260,068,977 356,217,466 29,639,407 289,708,384 385,258,956 30,501,403 320,209,787 415,150,484 31,386,687 351,596,473 445.915,098 32,295,906 383.892.380 477,576.490 33,229,727 417,122,107 510,159,013 34,188,833 451,310,939 543,687,697 35,173,928 486.484,868 578,188.274 36.185.737 522.670,605 613.687,193 37.225,005 559,895,610 650,211,643 38,292,496 598,188.106 687.789,573 39,388.998 637,577,104 726,449,714 40,515,323 678,092.426 766,221,602 30,536,701 708,629,127 796,000.000 773,469 709.402.596 796.000,000 788.938 710,191,535 796,000,000 804.717 710,996,252 796,000,000 820.812 7 [I,817.064796,000,000 837,228 712,654,292 796,000,000 853,972 713,508,264 796.000,000 871,052 714.379,316 796,000.000 888.473 715.267,789 796,000,000 906,242 716,174,031 796,000.000 924,367 717,098,398 796.000,000 942,855 718.041.253 796.000,000 961.712 719,002,964 796,000,000 980,946 719,983,910 796,000,000 1,000,565 720,984,475 796,000,000 1,020,576 722,005.051 796,000.000 1,040.988 723,046,038 796,000,000 1,061,807 724,107,846 796,000,000 1,083,043 725,190,889 796,000.000 1.104,?04 726,295,593 796.000,000 1,126,798 727,422.392 796,000.000 1.149,334 728.57i.726 796,000,000 1.172.32i 729.744,047 729.744.047 260,068,977 598,188,106 ii 714,379,316 729,744,047 ~i~ * Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (I ,0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unita~d revcnue and bond ovcnidcs. · * Tmal tax increment net of ERAF contribution from Dowmow~t/Centzal Original Project Area, El Camino Corridor Original and Added Project Areas, Galeway Project Area, and Shearwaler Project Area. Includes cumulative total ofhislorical tax increment. ScifcIConsuRing lac, Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working.xls-AII 11/17/04 Total AV at Beginning of Year Fiscal (BOY) (N) Year a 0 2004/ O5 0 I 2005/ 06 0 2 2006/ 07 0 3 2007/ O8 0 4 2008/ 09 0 5 2009/ 10 0 6 2010/ II 0 7 2011/ 12 0 8 2012/ 13 56,343,032 9 2013/ 14 57,469,893 [0 2014/ 15 58,619,290 II 2015/ 16 59,79[,676 12 2016/ 17 60,987,510 13 2017/ 18 62,207,260 14 2018/ 19 63,45[,405 15 2019/ 20 64,720,433 16 2020/ 21 66,014,842 [7 2021/ 22 67,335,139 18 2022/ 23 68,681,842 19 2023/ 24 70,055,478 20 2024/ 25 71~456,588 21 2025/ 26 72,885,720 22 2026/ 27 74,343,434 23 2027/ 28 75,830,303 24 2028/ 29 77,346,909 25 2029/ 30 78,893,847 26 2030/ 31 80,471,724 27 2031/ 32 82,081,159 28 2032/ 33 83,722,782 29 2033/ 34 85,397,237 30 2034/ 35 87,105,182 31 2035/ 36 88,847,286 32 2036/ 37 90,624,231 33 2037/ 38 92,436,716 34 2038/ 39 94,285,450 35 2039/ 40 96,17L159 36 2040/41 98,094,583 37 2041/ 42 [00,056,474 38 2042/ 43 102,057,604 39 2043/ 44 104,098,756 40 2044/ 45 106,180,731 41 2045/ 46 108,304,346 42 2046/ 47 110,470,432 43 2047/ 48 112,679,841 44 2048/ 49 114,933,438 45 2049/ 50 TOTAL Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 To: 2024/ 25 Appendix E - Table B-I Growth in Assessed Value In Notninal or "Future" Dollars Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project - Added Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Assessed Value Total Growth Rates 2% Projected Assessed Inflation andNew Value Annual AveraRe Reassessment Development End of Year Annual b c d 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 56,343,032 56,343,032 N/A 0.00% 1,126,861 0 57,469,893 N/A 0.00% 1,149,398 0 58.619,290 2.00% 0.00% 1,172,386 0 59,79L676 2.00% 0.00% 1,195,834 0 60,987,510 2.00% 0.00% /,219,750 0 62,207,260 2.00% 0.00% 1,244,145 0 63,451,405 2.00% 0.00% 1,269,028 0 64,720,433 2.00% 0.00% 1,294,409 0 66,014,842 2.00% 0.00% 1,320,297 0 67,335,139 2.00% 0.00% 1,346,703 0 68,681,842 2.00% 0.~)% 1,373,637 0 70,055,478 2.00% 0.00% 1,401,110 0 71,456,588 2.00% 0.00% 1,429,132 0 72,885,720 2.00% 0.00% 1,457,714 0 74,343,434 2.00% 0.00% 1,486,869 0 75,830,303 2.00% 0.00% 1,516,606 0 77,346,909 2.00% 0.00% 1,546,938 0 78,893,847 2,00% 0.00% 1,577,877 0 80,471,724 2.00% 0.00% 1,609,434 0 82,081,159 2.00% 0.00% 1,641,623 0 83,722,782 2.00% 0.00% 1,674,456 0 85,397,237 2.00% 0.00% 1.707.945 0 87,105,182 2.00% 0.00% 1,742,104 0 88,847,286 2.00% 0.00% 1,776,946 0 90,624,231 2.00% 0.00% 1,812,485 0 92,436,7{6 2.00% 0.00% 1,848,734 0 94,285,450 2.00% 0.00% 1,885,709 0 96,171,159 2.00% 0.00% 1,923,423 0 98,094,583 2.00% 0.00% 1,961,892 0 100,056,474 2.00% 0.00% 2,001,129 0 102,057,604 2.00% 0.00% 2,041,152 0 104,098,756 2.00% 0.00% 2,081,975 0 106,180,731 2.00% 0.00% 2,123,615 0 108,304,346 2.00% 0.00% 2,166,087 0 110,470,432 2.00% 0.00% 2,209,409 0 112,679,841 2.00% 0.00% 2,253,597 0 114,933,438 2.00% 0.00% 2,298,669 0 117,232,107 2.00% 0.00% [17,232,107 2,344,642 0 119~576!749 2.00% 0.00% Tax Increment Incremental Potential Assessed Tax Increment Value Revenue* (from BOY} I% e f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,343,032 563,430 57,469,893 574,699 58,619,290 586,193 59,79L676 597,917 60,987,510 609,875 62,207,260 622,073 63,45[,405 634,5[4 64,720,433 647,204 66,014,842 660,148 67,335,[39 673,351 68,681,842 686,8[8 70~055,478 700,555 71,456,588 714,566 72,885,720 728,857 74,343,434 743,434 75,830,303 758,303 77,346,909 773,469 78,893,847 788,938 80,471,724 804,717 82,081,159 820,812 83,722,782 837,228 85,397,237 853,972 87,105,182 871,052 88,847,286 888,473 90,624,231 906,242 92,436,716 924,367 94,285,450 942,855 96,171,159 961,712 98,094,583 980,946 100,056,474 1,000,565 102,057~604 1,020,576 104.098,756 1,040,988 106,180,731 1.061,807 108,304,346 1,083,043 110,470,432 1,104,704 112,679,841 1,126,798 114,933,438 1,149,334 [[7,232,107 1,172,321 * Potential tax increment revenue withoul TI collection cap. Based on rcvenuca from Basic Tax Increment (I 0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unitary rcvenuc and bond ovc~idca. Scifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working.xls-DT-Added 11/[7/04 Appendix E - Table B-2 Tax Increment Projections In Nominal or "Future" Dollars Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project - Added Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Year Fiscal (N)Year 0 2004/ 05 I 2005/ 06 2 2006/ 07 3 2007/ 08 4 2008/ 09 5 2009/ 10 6 2010/ 1[ 7 2011/ 12 8 2012/ 13 9 2013/ 14 10 2014/ 15 11 2015/ 16 12 2016/ 17 13 2017/ 18 14 2018/ 19 15 2019/ 20 16 2020/ 21 17 2021/ 22 18 2022/ 23 19 2023/ 24 20 2024/ 25 21 2025/ 26 22 2026/ 27 23 2027~ 28 24 2028/ 29 25 2029/ 30 26 2030/ 31 27 2031/ 32 28 2032/ 33 29 2033/ 34 30 2034/ 35 31 2035/ 36 32 2036/ 37 33 2037/ 38 34 2038/ 39 35 2039/40 36 2040/ 41 Incremental Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Tax Revenue* Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Pass Pass Pass Pass Through 1% Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative Through Through Through Payments of Annual TI A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA-BA) D E F G (C-F) H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 563,430 563,430 112,686 574,699 1,138,129 114,940 586,193 i,724,322 117,239 597,917 2,322,239 119,583 609,875 2,932,114 121,975 622,073 3,554,187 124,415 634,514 4,188,701 126,903 647,204 4,835,905 129,441 660,148 5,496,053 132,030 673,351 6,169,405 134,670 686,818 6,856,223 137,364 700,555 7,556,778 140,111 714,566 8,271,344 142,9[3 728,857 9,000,201 145,771 743.434 9,743,635 148,687 758,303 1~501,938 151,661 773,469 11,275,408154,694 788,938 12,064,346157,788 804,717 12,869,063160,943 820,812 13,689,875164,162 837,228 14,527,103[67,446 853,972 15,381,075170,794 871,052 16,252,127174,210 888,473 17,140,600177,695 906,242 18,046,842181,248 924,367 18,971,209184,873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112.686 450,744 227,626 459,759 344,864 468,954 464,448 478,333 586,423 487,900 710,837 497,658 837,740 507,6tl 967,181 517,763 1,099,211528,1~9 1,233,881538,681 1,371,245549,455 1,511,356560,444 1,654,26957L653 1,800,040583,086 1,948,727594,747 2.100,388606,642 2,255,082618,775 942,855 19,914,064188,571 961.712 20.875.775192,342 980,946 21,856,721196,189 Pa.ss.through PaymentsNon-Housing Other Exl~nses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agtncy Statutory Contractual Total Remaining after Tax Admin FeeContributionDebt AdministrationOther 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450,744 142,445 142,445 910,503 145,294 145,294 1,379,458 148,200 148,200 1,857,791 151,164 151.164 2,345.691 154,187 154,187 2,843,349 157,271 157,271 3,350,961 160,416 160,416 3,868,724 163,625 163,625 4,396,843 166,897 166,897 4,935,524 170,235 170,235 5,484,979 175.433 175.433 6,045,422 180,734 180,734 6,617,075 186,141 186,141 7,200,16~ 191.657 191,657 7,794,908 [97,283 · 197,283 8,401,551 203,021 203,021 9,020,326 208,874 208,874 2,412,869631351 9,65[,477 214,845 2,573.813 643,774 10,295,251 220,934 214,845 220,934 2,737,975656,649 10,951,900 227346 227,146 2,905,421669,782 I [.621,682 233,481 233,481 3,076,215683,178 12,304,860 239,944 239,944 3,794,242739,494 15,176,967 267,111 267,111 3,982,813754,284 15,931,251 274,246 274,246 4,175,155769,369 16,700,620 281,524 281,524 4,371,344784,757 17,485,377 288,947 288,947 4,571,457800,452 18,285,829 296,519 296,519 4,775,572816,461 19,102,290 306,018 306,018 4,983,770832,790 19,935,080 315,707 315,707 5,196,131849,446 20,784,525 325,590 325,590 5,412,740866,435 21,650,960 335,670 335,670 5,633,681883,763 22,534,724 345,952 345,952 Non. Housing Revenue Remaining after Pass Through and Ser~ce 4% Agency Other Expenses Payments of Annual TI Obligations Aonual Cumulative I I K L M (G-H-I-K-L) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308,299. 5,634 0 0 22,665 279,999 279,999 314,465 5,747 0 0 23,119 285,599 565,599 320,754 5,862 0 0 23,581 291,311 856,910 327,169 5,979 0 0 24,053 297,138 1,154,048 333,713 6,099 0 0 24,534 303,080 1,457,128 340,387 6,221 0 0 25,024 309,142 1,766,270 347,195 6,345 0 0 25,525 315,325 2,081,595 354,139 6,472 0 0 26,035 321,631 2,403,227 361,221 6,601 0 0 26,556 328,064 2,731,291 368,446 6,734 0 0 27,087 334,625 3,065,916 374,022 6,868 0 0 27,629 339,525 3,405,441 379,710 7,006 0 0 28,181 344,523 3,749,964 385,511 7,146 0 0 28,745 349,621 4,099,584 391,429 7,289 0 0 29,320 354,820 4,454,404 397,465 7,434 0 0 29,906 360,124 4,814,528 403,621 7,583 0 0 30,504 365,534 5,180,062 409,901 7,735 0 0 31,115 371,052 5,551,114 416,306 7,889 0 0 31,737 376,680 5,927,794 422,840 8,047 0 0 32,372 382,421 6,310,215 429,504 8,208 0 0 33,019 388,277 6,698,491 436,301 8,372 0 0 33,679 394,249 7,092,741 443,234 8,540 0 0 34,353 400,342 7,493,082 450,306 8,711 0 0 35,040 406,556 7,899,638 457,520 8,885 0 0 35,741 412,894 8,312,532 464,877 9,062 0 0 36,456 419,359 8,731,892 472,382 9,244 0 0 37,185 425,954 9,157,846 480,037 9,429 0 0 37,928 432,680 9,590,526 487,845 9,617 0 0 38,687 4J~541 10,030,067 495,809 9,809 0 0 39,461 446,539 10,476.606 503,933 10,006 0 0 40,250 453,677 10,930,283 510,443 10,206 0 0 41,055 459,182 11,349,466 517,083 10,410 0 0 41,876 464,797 11,854,263 523,856 10,618 0 0 42,714 470,524 12,324,787 530,765 10,830 0 0 43,568 476,366 12,801,154 537,811 11,047 0 0 44,439 482,325 13,283,479 544,999 11,268 0 0 45,328 488,403 13,771,882 552330 11,493 0 0 46,255 494,602 14,266,484 559,808 11,723 0 0 47,159 500,926 14~67,410 16355,439 316,169 0 0 1,271,860 0 14,767,410 943,518 17.243 0 ' 0 69,365 0 856,910 4,515,031 82,713 0 0 332,734 0 4,099,584 8,715,938 162,52l 0 0 653,779 0 7,899,638 16,355,439 316,169 0 0 1,271.860 0 14.767.410~i~ii 37 2041/ 42 1,000,56522,857,286200,113 38 2042/ 43 1,020,57623,877,862204,115 39 2043/ 44 1,040,98824,918,849208,198 40 2044/ 45 1,061,80725,980,657212,361 41 2045/ 46 1,083,04327,063,700216,609 42 2046/ 47 1,104,70428,168,405220,941 43 2047/ 48 1,126,79829,295,203225,360 5,859,041901,439 23,436,162 356,440 356,440 44 2048/ 49 1,149,33430,444,537229,867 6,088,907919,468 24,355,630 367,137 367,137 45 2049/ 50 1.172.32131.,616858234,464 6,323,372937,857 25,293,487 378,049 378,049 TOTAL 31.616.858 6.323372 25,293,487 8.938.048 8,938,048 Cumulative To: 2014/ 151,724,322 435,939 435,939 To: 2024/ 258,271,344 6,617,075 2,102,044 2,102,044 To: 2034/ 3516,252,127 4,285,763 4,285,763 To: 2049/ 5031,616.85 i 25,293,487 8,938.048 8,938,048 * Based on rcvcnucs Bom Basic Tax Increment (1,0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, tmitap/revenue and bond overrides. Seifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_O4_Working.xls-DT-Added I 1/17/04 Appendix E - Table B-3 Tax Increment Projections In Present Value or Constant 2004/05 Dollars* Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project - Added Area Sooth San Francisco Redevelopment Agency lncremenlal Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Tax Revenue** Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Pass Pass Pass Pass Through 1% Year Fiscal Annual CumulativeAnnual CumulativeAnnual Cumulative Through Through Through Pavmems of AnnuaITl (N) Year A AA B BA C (A-B)CA (AA-BA) D E F 0 2004/05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 I 2005/ 06 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 2 2006/ 07 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2007/ 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2008/ 09 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2009/ 10 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2010/ 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2011/ 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2012/ 13 367,131 367,13 i 73.426 73,426 293,704 293,704 92,817 92,817 9 2013/ 14 354,951 722,081 70,990 144,416283,961 577,665 89,738 89,738 lO 2014/ 15 343,175 1,065,25768,635 213,051274,540 852,205 86,761 86,761 Pass-through Payments Non-Housing Other Expenses Non-Housing Revenue Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Remaining after Statutory ContractualTotal Remaining after Tax Admin Fee Contribution Debt Administration Other Pass Through and Service4% Agency Other Ex ~enses Paymentsoi Annual TI Oblieatlons Annual Cumulative 1 K L M (G-H-I-K-L) N II 2015/ 16 331,790 1,397,04766,358 279,409265,432 I,I17,638 83,883 83,883 12 2016/ 17 320,783 1,717.83064,157 343,566256,626 1,374,264 81,100 81,100 13 2017/ 18 310,141 2,027,97162,028 405,594 248,113 1,622,377 78,409 : 78,409 14 2018/ 19 299~852 2,327,82359,970 465,565 239,882 1,862,258 75 808 75,808 15 2019/ 20 289,904 2,617,72757,981 523,545 231,923 2,094,182 73,293 ~ 73,293 16 2020/ 21 280,287 2,898,01456,057 579,603 224,229 2,318,411 70,861 70,861 17 2021/ 22 270,988 3,169,00254,198 633,800 216,790 2,535,201 68,511 : 68,511 18 2022/ 23 261,998 3,430,99952,400 686,200 209,598 2,744,799 66 922 : 66,922 19 2023/ 24 253,306 3,684,30550.661 736,861 202,645 2,947,444 65 350 65.350 20 2024/ 25 244,902 3,929,20848,980 785,842 195,922 3,143,366 63,796 63,796 21 2025/ 26 236,778 4,165,98547,356 833,197 189,422 3,332,788 62,262 62,262 22 2026/ 27 228,923 4,394,90845,785 878,982 183,138 3,515,926 60,748 ~ 60,748 23 2027/ 28 221,328 4,616,23644,266 923,247 177.062 3.692,989 59,256 59,256 24 2028/ 29 213,985 4,830,22142,797 966,044 171,188 3,864.177 57,786 : 57.786 25 2029/ 30 206,886 5,037,10741,377 1,007,421 165,509 4,029,686 56 339 ' 56,339 26 2030/ 31 200,023 5,237330 40,005 1,047,426 160,018 4,189,704 549[6 54,916 28 2032~ 33 186,971 5,617,48837,394 1.123,498149,577 4,493,991 52,141 52,141 29 2033/ 34 180,768 5,798,25736,154 1,159,651144,615 4,638,605 50,791 50,791 30 2034/ 35 174,771 5,973,02834,954 1,194,606139,817 4,778,422 49,466 31 2035/ 36 168,973 6,142,00133,795 1,228,400135,179 4,913,601 48,166 48,166 32 2036/ 37 163,367 6,305,36932,673 1,261,074130,694 5,044,295 46,891 46,891 33 2037/ 38 157,948 6,463,31631,590 1,292,663126,358 5,170,653 45,642 34 2038/ 39 152,708 6,616,02430,542 1,323,205122,166 5,292,819 44,418 35 2039/ 40 147,642 6,763,66629,528 1,352,733118,113 5,410,933 43,219 36 2040/ 41 142,744 6,906,40928,549 1,381,282114,195 5,525,127 42,047 37 2041/ 42 138,008 7,044,41727,602 1,408,883110,406 5,635,534 40,899 40,899 38 2042/ 43 133,430 7,177,84726,686 1,435,569106,744 5,742,277 40 009 40,009 39 2043/ 44 129,003 7,306,85025,801 1,461,370103,202 5,845,480 39,124 39,124 40 2044/ 45 124,723 7,431,57324,945 1,486,31599,779 5,945,258 38,245 38,245 41 2045/ 46 [20,585 7,552,15824,117 1,510,43296,468 6,041,727 37,373 37,373 42 2046/ 47 116,585 7,668,74323,317 1,533,74993,268 6,134,995 36,510 43 2047/ 48 112,717 7.781.46122.543 1,556,29290,174 6,225,169 35,656 44 2048/ 49 108,978 7,890,43921,796 1,578,08887,182 6,312,351 34,811 34,811 45 2049/ 50 105.362 7,995,80121,072 1.599,16084,290 6,396.641 33,977 TOTAL 7,995,801 1,599,160 6,396,641 2,161,457 2,161,457 To: 2014/ 15 1,065,257 : 213,051 852,205 269,316 To: 2024/ 25 3,929,208 785,842 3,143,366 997,247 997,247 To: 2034/ 35 5,973,028 1,194.606 4,778,422 1,554,471 1,554,471 To: 2049/ 50 7,995.801 1.599,160 6,396.641 2,161.457 i 2,161.457 G (C-F) H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 200.887 3,671 194,223 3,550 [87,779 3,432 181,550 3,318 175,527 3,208 169,704 3,101 164,074 2,999 158,630 2,899 153,368 2,803 148,280 2,710 142,677 2,620 137,295 2,533 132,126 2,449 127.160 2,368 122,390 2,289 117,806 2,213 113,402 2,140 109,170 2,069 105,102 2,000 101,193 1,934 97,436 1,870 93,824 1,808 90,351 1,748 87,013 1,690 83,803 1,634 80,717 1,579 77,748 1,527 74,894 1,476 72,148 1,427 69,508 1,380 66,735 1.334 64,079 1,290 61,534 1,247 59,095 1,206 56,758 1.166 54,518 1,127 52,371 1,090 50,313 1,054 4,235, t84 79,958 582,889 10,653 2,146,119 39,292 3,223,951 5%730 4,235,184 79.958 Present value discounted to 2004105 at: 5,5% · * Based on revenues flora Basic Tax Increment (1.0%). exclusive of supplemcnlal payment, unital'y revenue and bond overt'ides. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,769 0 14,279 0 13,805 0 13,347 0 12,904 0 12,476 0 12,062 0 11,662 0 11,275 0 10,901 0 10,539 0 10,190 0 9,852 0 9,525 0 9,209 0 8,903 0 8,608 0 8,322 0 8,046 0 7,779 0 7,521 0 7,272 0 7,031 0 6,797 0 6,572 0 6,354 0 6,143 0 5,939 0 5,742 0 5,552 0 5,368 0 5,189 0 5,017 0 4,851 0 4,690 0 4,534 0 4,384 0 4,238 0 321,649 0 0 0 42,852 0 0 0 158,06{ 0 0 0 240,279 0 0 0 321,649 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182,447 182,447 176,395 358,842 170,543 529,384 164,885 694,269 159,415 853,684 154,126 1,007,810 149,013 1,156,823 144,069 1,300,892 139,290 1,440,182 134,669 1,574,85i 129,517 1,704,368 124,572 1,828,940 119,825 1,948,765 115,267 2,064,033 110,891 2,174,924 106,689 2,281,613 102,654 2,384,267 98,778 2,483,046 95,056 2,578,101 91,480 2,669,581 88,044 2,757,625 84,744 2,842,369 81,573 2,923,942 78,526 3,002,468 75,598 3,078,066 72,783 3,150,849 70,078 3,220,927 67,478 3,288,406 64,979 3,353,384 62,576 3,415,960 60,033 3,475,993 57,599 3,533,593 55,269 3,588,862 53,038 3,641,900 50,902 3,692,802 48,857 3,741,659 46,897 3,788,556 45,021 3,833,577 529,384i 1,948,765 3.833.57~ Stile{ Consulting Inc. TI_SS F_Summ_O4_Working.xls- DT-Added I 1/17/04 Appendix E - Table C-I Growth in Assessed Value In Nominal or "Future" Dollars Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project- Original Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Total AVat Beginning of Yea~ Year Fiscal (BOY) (N) Year a 0 2004/ 05 989,087,932 I 2005/ 06 1,038,760,570 2 2006/ 07 1,090,323,387 3 2007/ 08 1,143,841,089 4 2008/ 09 1,199,380,481 5 2009/ 10 1,257,010,539 6 2010/ II 1,31fi,802,471 7 2011/ 12 1,356,306,545 8 2012/ 13 1,396,995,742 9 2013/ 14 1,438,905,614 10 2014/ 15 1,482,072,782 Il 2015/ 16 1,526,534,966 12 2016/ 17 1,572,331,015 13 2017/ 18 1,619,500,945 14 2018/ 19 1,668,085,974 15 2019/ 20 1,718,128,553 16 2020/ 21 1,769,672,409 17 2021/ 22 1,822,762,582 18 2022/ 23 1,877,445,459 19 2023/ 24 1,933,768,823 20 2024/ 25 1,991,781,888 21 2025/ 26 2,051,535,344 22 2026/ 27 2,113,081,405 23 20271 28 2,176,473,847 24 2028/ 29 2,241,768,062 25 2029/ 30 2,309,021,104 26 2030/ 31 2,378,291,737 27 2031/ 32 2,449,640,489 28 2032/ 33 2,523,129,704 29 2033/ 34 2,598,823,595 30 2034/ 35 2,676,788,303 31 2035/ 36 2,757,091,952 32 2036/ 37 2,839,804,710 33 20371 38 2,924,998,852 34 2038/ 39 3,012,748,817 Assessed Value Total 3% Projected Assessed Inflation andNew Value Reassessment Development End of Year b 29,672,638 31,162,817 32,709,702 34,315,233 35,981,414 37,710,316 39,504,074 40,689,196 41,90%872 43,167,168 44,462,183 45,796,049 47,169,930 48,585,028 50,042,579 51,543,857 53,090,172 54,682,877 56,323,364 58,013,065 59,753,457 61,546,060 63,392,442 65,294,215 67,253,042 69,270,633 71,348,752 73,489,215 75,693,891 77,964,708 80,303,649 '82,712,759 85,194,141 87,749,966 90,382,465 93,093,938 Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 To: 2024/ 25 To: 2034/ 35 To: 2039/ 40 : : ] * Potential tax increment revenue without TI collection cap. Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (1.0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unitary revenue and bond overrides. Tax Increment Growth Rates Incremental Potential Assessed Taz Iocreme~t Annual AveraRe Value Revenue* Annual (from BOY) 1% e d e f 20,000,000 1,038,760,570 758,127,035 7,581,270 20,400,000 1,090,323,387 5.02% 5.02% 807,799,673 8,077,997 20,808,000 I,143,841,089 4.96% 4.99% 859,362,490 8,593,625 21,224,160 1,199,380,481 4.91% 4.96% 912,880,192 9,128,802 21,648,643 1,257,010,539 4.86% 4.94% 968,419,584 9,684,196 22,081,616 1,316,802,471 4.80% 4.91% 1,026,049,642 10,260,496 0 1,356,306,545 4.76% 4.89% 1,085,841,574 t0,858,416 0 1,396,995,742 3.00% 4.61% 1,125,345,648 I 1,253,456 0 1,438,905,614 3.00% 4.41% 1,166,034,845 11,660,348 0 1,482,072,782 3.00% 4.25% 1,207,944,717 12,079,447 0 1,526,534,966 3.00% 4.13% 1,25 I, I 11,885 12,5 [ I,119 0 1,572,331,0~5 3.00% 4.02% 1,295,574,069 12,955,741 0 1,619,500,945 3.00% 3.94% 1,341,370,118 13,413,701 0 1,668,085~974 3.00% 3.87% 1,388,540,048 13,885,400 0 1,718,128,553 3.00% 3.80% 1,437,125,077 14,371,251 0 1,769,672,409 3.00% 3.75% 1,487,167,656 14,871,677 0 1,822,762,582 3.00% 3.70% 1,538,711,512 15,387,115 0 1,877,445,459 3.00% 3.66% 1,591,801,685 15,918,0[7 0 1,933,768,823 3.00% 3.62% 1,646,484,562 16,464,846 0 1,991,781,888 3.00% 3.59% 1,702,807,926 17,028,079 0 2,051,535,344 3.00% 3.56% 1,760,820,99[ 17,608,210 0 2,113,081,405 3.00% 3.54% 1,820,574,447 [8,205,744 0 2,176,473,847 3.00% 3.51% 1,882,120,508 18,821,205 0 2,241,768,062 3.00% 3.49% 1,945,512,950 19,455,129 0 2,309,021,104 3.00% 3.47% 2,010,807,165 20,108,072 0 2,378,291,737 3.00% 3.45% 2,078,060,207 20,780,602 0 2,449,640,489 3.00% 3.43% 2,147.330,840 21,473,308 0 2,523,129,704 3.00% 3.42% 2,218,679,592 22,186,796 0 2,598,823,595 3.00% 3.40% 2,292,168,807 22,921,688 0 2,676,788,303 3.00% 3.39% 2,367,862,698 23,678,627 0 2,757,091,952 3.00% 3.37% 2,445,827,406 24,458,274 0 2,839,804,710 3.00% 3.36% 2,526,131,055 25.261,311 0 2,924,998,852 3.00% 3.35% 2,608,843,813 26,088,438 0 3,012,748,817 3.00% 3.34% 2,694,037,955 26,940,380 0 3,103,131,282 3.00% 3.33% 2,781,787,920 27,817,879 0 3,196,225,220 3.00% 3.32% 2,872,170,385 28,721,704 Sci&lConsul6ng Inc. Tl_SSFJumm_O4_Working.nls-DT.Original {I/17/04 Appendix E - Table C-2 Tax Increment Projections In Nominal or "Future" Dollars Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project - Original Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Year 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2008/ 09 lncrementa[ Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Pass-through Payments Tax Revenue* Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Statutory ContractualTotal Pass Pass Pass Annual CumulativeAnnual CumulativeAnnual Cumulative Through Through Through A AA B BA C (A-B} CA (AA-BA) 7,581,2707,581,270 1,516,2541,516,2546,065,016 8,077,99715,659,2671,615,5993,131,8536,462,397 8,593,62524,252,8921,718,7254,850,5786,874,900 9,128,80233,381,6941,825.7606.676,3397,303,042 9,684,19643,065,8901,936,8398,613,1787,747,357 5 2009/ 10 10,260,496 53,326,3862,052,09910,665,277 8,208,397 6 2010/ I I 10,858,416 64,184,8022,171,68312,836,960 8,686,733 7 2011/ 12 11,253,456 75,438,2582,250,69115,087,652 9,002,765 8 2012/ 13 I 1,660,348 87,098,6072,332,07017,419,721 9,328,279 9 2013/ i4 12,079,447 99,178,0542,415,88919,835,611 9,663,558 10 2014/ 15 12,511,119 i11,689.173 2,502,22422,337,835 10,008,895 Il 2015/ 16 12,955,741 124,644,914 2.591,14824,928,983 10,364,593 12 2016/ 17 13,413,701 138,058,615 2,682,74027,611,723 10,730,961 13 2017/ 18 13,885,400 151,944,015 2,777,08030,388.803 I 1,108,320 14 2018/ 19 14~371,251 166,315,266 2,874,25033,263,053 11,497,001 15 2019/ 2014,871,677 181,186,943 2,974,33536,237,389 I 1,897,341 16 2020/ 2i 15,387.115 196,574,058 3,077,42339,314,812 12,309,692 17 2021/ 22 15,918,017 212,492,075 3,183,60342,498,415 12,734,413 18 2022/ 23i6,464,846 228,956,920 3,292,96945,791,384 {3,171,876 19 2023/ 2417,028,079 245,984,999 3,405,61649,197,000 13,622,463 D E F 6,065,016 0 606,294 606,294 12,527,414 0 2,036,000 2,036,000 {9,402,314 0 2,169,650 2,169,650 26,705355 0 2,307,869 2,307,869 34,452,712 0 2,450,804 2,450,804 42,661,109 0 2,598,609 2,598,609 51,347,842 0 2,751,441 2,751,441 60,350,607 0 2,863,240 2,863,240 69,678,885 0 2,978,086 2,978,086 79,342,443 0 3,096,064 3,096,064 89,35i,338 0 3,217,262 3,217,262 99,715,931 0 3,341,769 3,341,769 110,446,892 0 3,469,679 3,469,679 121,555,212 0 3,601,087 3,601,087 133,052,213 0 3,736,091 3,736,091 144,949,554 0 3,874,793 3,874,793 157,259,246 0 4,017,295 4,017,295 169,993.660 0 4,163,706 4,163,706 183,165,536 21,0i7 4,314,134 4,335,150 196,788,000 42,664 4,468,692 4,511,356 20 2024/ 2517,608,210 263,593,209 3,521,64252,718,642 14,086,568210,874,567 64,960 4,627,498 4,692,459 21 2025/ 26 18,205,744 281,798,954 3,641,14956,359,791 14,564,596225,439,16387,926 4,790,671 4,878,596 22 2026/ 2718,821.205 300,620,159 3,764,24160,124,032 15,056,964240,496,127 111,580 4,958,333 5,069,913 23 2027/ 2814,160,009 314,780,168 2,832,00262,956,034 11,328,007251,82433498,944 3,734,209 3,833,152 24 2028/ 29 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 25 2029/ 30 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 26 2030/ 31 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 27 20311 32 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 28 2032/ 33 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 29 2033/ 34 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 30 2034/ 35 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 31 2035/ 36 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 32 2036/ 37 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 33 2037/ 38 0 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 34 2038/ 39 0 314,780.168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 35 2039/ 40 O 314,780,168 0 62,956,034 0 251,824,134 0 0 0 TOTAL 314,780,168 62,956,034 251,824,134 427,09080,173,275 80,600,365 To: 2024/ 25 263.593,209 52,718.642 210,874,567 128,64066.690,063 66,818,703 To: 2034/ 35 314,780,168 62,956034 251,824,134 427,09080,173,275 80,600,365 To: 2039/ 40 314,780.168 62,956,034 : 251,824334 427,09080373,275 80,600,365 Based on levenucs Bom Basic Tax Increment (1.0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unitaq~ revenue and bond ovemdes. ** The Agency has drawri $1.75 million of iLs $3.7 million }IUD Section 108 loan program guarantee. Non. Housing Other Expenses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Remaining after Tax Admin Fee ContributionDebt Administration Pass Through1% Service 4% Payments ot AnnualTI Payments of AnnuaITI G (C.F) H I 1 K 5,458,722 75,813 666,017758,413 304,974 4,426,397 80,780 681,315758,188 324,956 4,705,250 85,936 0 757,283 345,698 4,995,173 91,288 0 760,695 367,227 5,296,553 96,842 0 758,270 389,569 5,609,788 102,605 0 759,920 412,752 5,935,292 108,584 0 760,560 436,805 6,139,525 112,535 0 759,688 452,696 6.350.193 116,603 0 757,494 469,064 6,567,494 120,794 0 759,381 485,923 6,791,633 125,111 0 760,219 503,288 7,022,824 129,557 0 760,006 521,174 7,261,282 134,137 0 758,744 539,597 7,507,233 138,854 0 761.300 558,572 7,760,909 143,713 0 757,675 578,116 8,022,548 148,717 0 757,869 598,247 8,292,397 153,871 0 756,750 618,982 8,570,708 159,180 0 759,188 640,339 8,836,726 164,648 0 760,050 662,336 9,111,107 170,281 0 759,338 684,993 9,394,109 176,082 0 757,050 708,331 9,685,999 182,057 0 758,056 732,368 9,987.051 188,212 0 757,225 757,126 7.494,855 141,600 0 759,425 569.619 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171,223~69 3,147,802 1,347,331 ! 8,212,784 12,662,752 62,276,020 I,I16,892 1,347,331 8,350,109 4,492,952 144,055,864 2,635,932 1,347,331 15,938,078 10,603,640 i71,223,769 3,147,802 1,347,331 18,212,784 12,662,752 171,223,769 3A47,802 1,347,331 18,212,784 12,662,752 Non-Housing Revenue Other Remaining after Agency Pass Through and Obligations** Other Expenses Annual Cumu~tive L M (G-H-l-K-L)N 113,278 3,540.229 3,540,229 113,101 2,468,059 6,008,288 210,252 3.306,081 9.314,369 204,66~ 3,571,299 12,885,669 198,845 3,853,027 16,738,696 192,805 4,141.?06 20,880,402 186,617 4,442,726 25,323,128 180,327 4,634,280 29,957,408 J73,881 4,833,151 34,79~559 167,271 5,034,123 39,824,682 160,561 5,242,455 45,067,136 153,751 5,458,335 5~525,471 146,830 5,681.974 56,207,446 139,796 5,908,711 62,116,157 132,676 6,148.729 68,264,886 125,491 6,392,225 74,657,111 118,241 6,644,553 81,301,664 14,26~ 6,997,738 88,299,401 13,590 7,236,102 95,535,503 22,626 7,473,870 103,009,373 0 7,752.647 110,762,020 0 8,O13,518 118,775.537 0 8,284,488 127,060.025 0 6,024,211 133,084,236 0 0 133,084,236 0 0 133,084,236 0 0 133,084,236 0 0 133,084,236 0 0 133,084,~36 0 0 133,084,236 0 0 133.084,236 0 0 133,084,236 0 0 133,084,236 0 0 133,084,236 0 0 i33,084,236 0 0 13: 2,768,865 133,084,236 1,901,600 45.067,136 2,768,865 110,762,020 2,768,865 133,084,236 2,768,865 133,084,236 Sei£cl Consulting Inc. TI SSF Summ 04 Working.xls-DT-Original 11/17/04 Appendix E - Table C-3 Tax Increment Projections In Present Value or Constant 2004/05 Dollars* Dowotown/Central Redevelopment Project - Original Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 16 2020/ 21 6,533.078 125.548.517 1.306.616 25.109,7035,226,462100,438.814 17 2021/ 22 6,406,151 131,954,668 1,281,230 26,390.9345,124,921105,563,734 18 2022/ 23 6.280.777 138.235.445 1.256,155 27.647,0895.024.622110,588,356 19 2023/ 24 6.156,997 144.392.442 1.231,399 28.878.4884.925.597115,513,953 20 2024/ 25 6.034.844 150.427,285 1.206.969 30,085.4574.827.875120.341.82822,264 21 2025/ 26 5,914.347 156.341,632 1,182,869 31,268.3264.731.477125,073.30628,564 22 2026/ 27 5,795,532 162.137.164 1,159,106 32,427.4334.636.426129.709,73134,358 Incremental Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Pass-through Payments Tax Revenue** Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Statutory ContractualTotal Pass Pass Pass Yeer Fiscal Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulatiw Annual CumulativeThrough Through Through (N)Year A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA.BA) D 0 2004/ 05 7,581,270 7,581,270 1,5i6,254 1,516,2546,065,016 6,065,016 0 I 2005/ 06 7,656,869 15,238,1391,531,374 3,O47,6286,125,495 12,190,511 0 2 2006/ 07 7,720,963 22,959,1021,544,193 4,591,8206,176,770 18,367,282 0 3 2007/ 08 7,774,212 30,733,3151,554,842 6,146,6636,219,370 24,586,652 0 4 2008/ 09 7,817,245 38,550,5601,563,449 7,710,1126,253,796 30,840,448 0 5 2009/ 10 7,850.658 46,401,2181.570,132 9.280.2446,280.527 37.120,974 0 6 2010/ II 7,875,021 54,276,2391,575,004 10.855.248 6.300,017 43,420.991 0 7 2011/ 12 7,736,040 62,012,2791,547,208 12.402,456 6.188,832 49,609.823 0 8 2012/ 13 7,597,870 69,610,1491,519,574 13,922.030 6.078,296 55,688,119 0 9 2013/ 14 7,460,620 77.070.7691,492,124 15.414.154 5.968.496 61.656.615 0 10 2014/ 15 7,324.392 84.395.1611.464.878 16.879.032 5.859.513 67,516.128 0 II 2015/ 16 7,189.277 91,584,4371.437.855 18.316.887 5.75[,421 73.267.550 0 12 20~6/ 17 7,055,359 98,639,7961.411.072 19.727,959 5.644.287 78.911,837 0 13 2017/ 18 6,922.715 105.562.511 1,384,543 21.112.502 5.538.172 84.450.009 0 14 2018/ 19 6,791,413 112,353.924 1,358,283 22.470.785 5.433,130 89.883,139 0 15 2019/ 206,661,515 119,015,439 1,332,303 23,803,0885,329,212 95,212,351O 0 0 8,017 15,426 2.]2027/ 28 4.132,920 166,270,0114 826,58433.254,0173,306.336/33,016,06728,879 24 2028/ 29 0 166,270.0840 33.254,0170 133,016.0670 25 2029/ 30 0 166,270,0840 33,254,0170 133,016,0670 26 2030/ 31 0 166.270,0840 33,254,0170 133,016,0670 27 2031/ 32 0 166,270,084 0 33,254,017 0 133,016,067 0 28 2032/ 33 0 166.270.084 0 33.254.017 0 133,016.067 0 29 2033/ 34 0 166,270,084 0 33,254,017 0 133,016,067 0 30 2034/ 35 0 166,270,084 0 33,254,017 0 133,016,067 0 31 2035/ 36 0 166,270,084 0 33,254,017 0 133,016,067 0 32 2036/ 37 0 166,270,084 0 33,254,017 0 133,016,067 0 33 2037/ 38 0 166,270,084 0 33,254,017 0 133,016,067 0 34 2038/ 39 0 166,270,084 0 33,254,017 0 133,016,067 0 35 2039/ 40 0 166,270,084 0 33,254,017 0 133,016,067 0 E F 606,294 606.294 1.929,858 1,929.858 1.949.327 1.949,327 1,965.412 1,965,412 1,978,330 1,978,330 1.988,285 1,988,285 1,995,471 1.995.47 I 1,968,297 1.968.297 1.940,518 1,940.518 1.912.220 1.912,220 1,883.483 1.883.483 1.854,383 1.854.383 1.824.987 1.824,987 1.795,360 1,795,360 1.765,562 1,765,562 1,735,648 1,735,648 1,705,668 1,705,668 1.675,669 1,675,669 1.645,695 1,653,712 1,615,786 1,631,212 1,585,978 1,608,241 1,556.305 1,584,869 1.526.798 1.561,156 1,089,913 1,1 {8,792 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 33,254,017 133,016,067 137,50841,495,246 41.632,754 Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 84,395.161 675 6 28 0 20.117,495 20.117,495 To: 2024/ 25 150.427,285 30085457 20341 828 45,707 37.322,230 37,367,937 To: 2034/ 35 166.270,084 33254017 133016067 137,50841.495.246 41,632.754 To: 2039/ 40 166.270.084 33.254.017 133.016.067 137,50841.495.246 41.632.754 *P[esent value discounted to 2004/05 at: 5.5% * * Based on revenues fiom Basic Tax Increment (1.0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unila~/revenue and bond overrides. *** The Agency has draw~ $ [.75 million of ils $3.7 million [IUD Section 108 loan program guarantee. Non-Housing Other Expenses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Remaining a&er Tax Admln Fee ContributionDebt Administration Pass Through1% Ser~ce 4% Payments o{ Annual T[ Payments o{ Annual T[ G(C-F) H I ] K 5.458,722 75.813 666~17 758,413 304,974 4.195,637 76.569 645,796718,661 308.015 4,227,443 77.210 0 680.382 310.593 4,253.958 77,742 0 647.818 312.735 4,275.466 78.172 0 612.088 314.467 4.292.242 78.507 0 581,441 315,811 4.3O4,545 78.750 0 551.593 316.791 4.220,535 77,360 0 522.237 311,200 4,137,778 75,979 0 493.582 305.642 4.056.276 74.606 0 469.016 300,121 3.976,030 73.244 0 445,055 294.640 3.897.039 71,893 0 421,735 289,205 3,819.300 70.554 0 399,085 283,818 3.742.8J1 69.227 0 379,554 278,482 3,667.568 67.914 0 358,054 273,200 3.593,565 66.615 0 339,474 267,975 3,520,795 65,331 0 321,302 262,808 3,449.252 64,062 0 305.532 257,702 3.370,910 62,808 0 289,933 252,659 3.294,386 61,570 0 274,561 247,679 3,219,633 60,348 0 259,463 242,765 3,146.609 59,143 0 246,263 237.918 3.075,269 57.955 0 233.169 233,139 2,187,543 41.329 0 221.655 166,256 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91383,313 1,662,701 1311.812 10,~30.069 6,688.594 47.398,634 843.952 1.311,812 6,480.287 3,394,988 82,973,892 1,504.273 1.311,812 9.828,981 6.051,282 91,383.313 1,662.701 1.311.812 10.530,069 6,688,594 91.383.313 1.662.701 1.311.812 10.530.069 6.688.594 Non-Housing Revenue Other Remaining aker Agency Pass '~rough and Obligations***Other Ex.eases Annual Cumulative L M (G-H-l-K-L} N 113,278 3,540,229 3,540.229 107,204 2,339,392 5,879.62[ 188,901 2.970,357 8.849,978 174.294 3.041,367 11.891,345 160,511 3,110,228 15,001,573 147,522 3.168,962 18.170.535 135.343 3,222,068 21.392,603 123,963 3,185,775 24,578,378 113,300 3,149,275 27,727,654 103,312 3,109,222 30,836,876 93,997 3,069,093 33,905,969 85,318 3,028,887 36,934,856 77.230 2.988,613 39.923,470 69.697 2,945,851 42,869,321 62,699 2,905,701 45,775,022 56,211 2,863,289 48,638,311 50,203 2.821,151 51.459,462 5,740 2,816,215 54,275,677 5,184 2,760,326 57,036,003 8,181 2,702,395 59,738,398 0 2,657~57 62,395,455 0 2,603,284 64,998,739 0 2,551,006 67.549,745 0 1,758,303 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,O48 0 0 69,308,O48 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308,048 0 0 69,308~048 1,882,089 ' i~ 1,461,626 33,905,969 1.882,089 62,395,455 1,882,089 69,308,048 Scifel Consulting Inc. TI_SS F_Summ_04_Working.xls- DT-Original I I/I 7/04 Appendix E - Table D-I Growth in Assessed Value In Nominal or "Future" Dollars El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Original Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Total AVat ~ginoing of Year~ Inflation and Year Fiscal (BOY) Reassessment (N)Year a h 0 2004/ 05 215,681,496 6,470,445 I 2005/ 06 222,151,941 6,664,558 2 2006/ 07 259,008,499 7,770,255 3 2007/ 08 299,681,404 8,990,442 4 2008/ 09 308,671,846 9,260,155 5 2009/ 10 323,939,500 9,718,185 6 2010/ II 339,796,816 10,193,904 7 2011/ 12 356,252,634 10,687,579 8 2012/ 13 373,327,365 11,199,821 9 2013/ 14 391,042,081 [I,731,262 10 2014/ 15 409,418,536 12,282,556 II 2015/ 16 421,701,092 12,651,033 12 2016/ 17 434,352,125 13,030,564 13 2017/ 18 447,382,688 13,421,481 14 2018/ 19 460,804,[69 13,824,125 15 20t9/ 20 474,628,294 14,238,849 16 2020/ 2~ 488,867,143 14,666,014 17 2021/ 22 503,533,157 ~5,105,995 18 2022/ 23 518,639,152 15,559,175 19 2023/ 24 534,198,326 16,025,950 20 2024/ 25 550,224,276 [6,506,728 21 2025/ 26 566,731,004 17,001,930 22 2026/ 27 583,732,935 17,511,988 23 2027/ 28 601,244,923 18,037,348 24 2028/ 29 619,282,270 18,578,468 25 2029/ 30 637,860,738 19,135,822 26 2030/ 31 656,996,560 19,709,897 27 2031/ 32 676,706,457 20,301,194 28 2032/ 33 697,007,651 20,910,230 29 2033/ 34 717,917,881 21,537,536 30 2034/ 35 739,455,417 22,183,663 31 2035/ 36 761,639,079 22,849,172 32 2036/ 37 784,488,252 23,534,648 33 2037/ 38 808,022,899 24,240,687 34 2038/ 39 832,263,586 24,967,908 35 2039/ 40 857,231,494 25,716,945 36 2040/ 41 882,948,439 26,488,453 37 2041/ 42 909,436,892 27,283,107 38 2042/ 43 936,719,999 28,101,600 39 2043/ 44 964,821,599 28,944,648 TOTAL Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 1 To: 2024/ 25 To: 2034/ 35 To: 2049/ 50 Assessed Value Total Growth Rates Projected Assessed New Value Annual AveraRe Develooment End of Year Annual c d 0 222,151,941 30,192,000 259,008,4993.00% 3.00% 32,902,650 299,681,40416.59% 9.580/0 0 308,671,84615.70% 11.59% 6,007,498 323,939,5003.00% 938% 6,139,131 .339,796,816 4.95% 8.48% 6,261,914 356,252,6344.90% 7.87% 6,387,152 373,327,3654.84% 7.43% 6,514,895 391,042,0814.79% 7.10% 6,645,193 409,418,5364.75% 6.83% 0 421,701,0924.70% 6.62% 0 434,352,1253.00% 6.29% 0 447,382,6883.00% 6.01% 0 460,804,1693,00'¼ 5.77% 0 474,628,2943.00% 5.57% 0 488,867,1433.00% 5.40% 0 503,533,1573.00% 5.25% 0 518,639,1523.00% 5.11% 0 534,198,3263.00% 5.00% 0 550,224,2763.00% 4.89% 0 566,731,0043.00% 4.79% 0 583,732,9353.00% 4.71% 0 601,244,9233.00% 4.63% 0 619,282,2703.00% 4.56% 0 637,860,7383.00% 4.49% 0 656,996,5603.00% 4.43% 0 676,706,4573.00% 4.38% 0 697,007,6513.00% 4.33% 0 717,917,8813.00% 4.28% 0 739,455,4173.00% 4.23% 0 761,639,0793.00% 4.19% 0 784,488,2523.00% 4A5% 0 808,022,8993.0~% 4.12% 0 832,263,5863.00% 4.08% 0 857,231,4943.00% 4.05% 0 882,948,4393.00% 4.02% 0 909,436,8923.00% 3.99% 0 936,719,9993.00% 3.97% 0 964,821,5993.00% 3.94% 0 993,766,2473.00% 3.92% Tax Increment Incremental Potential Assessed Tax Increment Value Revenue* (from BOY] I% e f 166,365,448 1,663,654 172,835,893 1,728,359 209,692,451 2,096,925 250,365,356 2,503,654 259,355,798 2,593,558 274,623,452 2,746,235 290,480,768 2,904,808 306,936,586 3,069,366 324,011,317 3,240,113 341,726,033 3,417,260 360,102,488 3,601,025 372,385,044 3,723,850 385,036,077 3,850,361 398,066,640 3,980,666 411,488,121 4,114,881 425,312,246 4,253,122 439,55[,095 4,395,51l 454,217,109 4,542,171 469,323,104 4,693,231 484,882,278 4,848,823 500,908,228 5,009,082 517,414,956 5,174,150 534,416,887 5,344,169 551,928,875 5,519,289 569,966,222 5,699,662 588,544,690 5,885,447 607,680,512 6,076,805 627,390,409 6,273,904 647,691,603 6,476,916 668,601,833 6,686,018 690,139,369 6,901,394 712,323,031 7,123,230 735,172,204 7,351,722 758,706,851 7,587,069 782,947,538 7,829,475 807,915,446 8,079,154 833,632,391 8,336,324 860,120,844 8,601,208 887,403,951 8,874,040 915,505,551 9~155x056 * Potential tax increment I'cvcnuc without T[ collection cap. Ilascdonrcvenues£romSasicTaxIncrcment(LO%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unitary revenue and bond ovemdes. Sci&( Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_O4_Working.xls-EC-Original 11/17/04 Incremental Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Tax Revenue* Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Appendix E - Table D-2 Tax Increment Projections In Nominal or "Future" Dollars El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Original Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Pass-through Payments Non.Housing Other Expenses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Statutory Contractual Total Remaining after Tax Admin Fee ContributionDebt Administration Pass Pass Pass Year Fiscal Annual CumulativeAnnual CumulativeAnnual Cumulative Through Through Through (N) Year A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA-BA) 0 2004/05 1,663,6541,663,654 332,731 332,731 1,330,924 1,330,924 I 2005/06 1.728.3593,392,013 345,672 678,403 1.382,687 2,713,61 I 2 2006/07 2,096.9255.488.938 419,385 1,097.788 1,677,540 4,391.150 3 2007/08 2.503.6547,992,591 500.731 1,598,518 2.002,923 6,394.073 4 2008/09 2,593,55810.586,[49518,712 2,117.230 2.074,846 8,468.920 5 2009/ I02.746.23513,332,384549,247 2,666,477 2396,988 10,665,907 6 2010/ II2,904,80816,237,192580,962 3,247,438 2,323,846 12,989,753 7 201l/ 123.069.36619,306,558613.873 3,861,312 2.455,493 15.445,246 8 2012/ 133.240, II3 22,546,6H 648.023 4,509,334 2,592,091 18,037,337 9 2013/ 14 3,417,26025,963,931683,452 5,192,7862,733,808 20,771,145 10 2014/ 15 3,601,02529,564,956720,205 5,912,9912,880,820 23,651,965 II 2015/ 16 3,723,85033,288,806744,770 6,657,7612,979,080 26,631,045 12 2016/ 17 3,850,36137,139,167770,072 7,427,8333,080,289 29,711,334 13 2017/ 18 3,980,66641,119,833796,133 8,223,9673,184.533 32,895,867 14 2018/ 19 4,114,88145,234,715822,976 9.046,9433,291,905 36,187,772 15 20t9/ 20 4,253,12249.487.837850,624 9,897,5673,402,498 39.590,270 16 2020/ 21 4,395,51153.883.348879,102 10.776,670 3,516,409 43.106.678 17 2021/ 22 4,542,17158.425.519908,434 11,685.104 3.633,737 46,740.415 18 2022/ 234.693,23163,118,750938.646t2.623.750 3.754.585 50.495.000 19 2023/ 244.848.82367,967,573969.76513.593,515 3.879,058 54.374,058 20 2024/ 255,009,08272,976,655 1,001,816 i4,595,331 4,007,266 58,381,324 21 2025/ 265,174,15078,150,805 1,034,830 15,630,161 4,139,320 62,520,644 22 2026/ 275,344,16983,494,974 1,068,834 16,698,995 4,275,335 66,795,979 23 2027/ 284,017,09987,512,073 803,420 17,502,415 3,213,679 70,009,658 24 2028/ 29 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 25 2029/ 30 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 26 2030/ 31 0 87,5~2,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 27 2031/ 32 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 28 2032/ 33 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 29 2033/ 34 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 30 2034/ 35 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 31 2035/ 36 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 32 2036/ 37 0 87.512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 33 2037/ 38 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 34 2038/ 39 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 35 2039/ 40 0 87,512.073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 36 2040/ 41 0 87,512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 37 2041/ 42 0 87,512.073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 38 2042/ 43 0 87.512,073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 39 2043/ 44 TOTAL Cumulative 0 87,512.073 0 17,502,415 0 70,009,658 87.512.073 17,502,415 70,009,658 ;::, To: 2014/ 15 29,564,956 5,9[2,991 23,65t,965 To; 2024/ 25 72,976,655 14,595,331 58,381,324 To: 2034/ 35 87,512,073 17,502,415 70,009,658 To: 2049/ 50 87,512.073 17.502. 70,009,658 * Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (I .{PA), exclusive of supplemental paymeng unitary revenue and bond ovcmdcs. Pass Through 1% Payments of Annual TI D E F G(C-F) H 1 0 163,728 163,728 1,167,196 16,637 146,152 0 174,557 174,557 1,208,130 17,284 145,773 0 190,166 190,166 1,487,374 20,969 0 0 206,551 206,551 1,796,372 25,037 0 0 218,363 218,363 1,856,483 25,936 0 0 231,332 231,332 1,965,656 27,462 0 0 266,506 266,506 2,057,340 29.048 0 0 281,325 281,325 2,174,167 30,694 0 0 296,506 296,506 2,295,584 32,401 0 0 312,059 312,059 2,421,750 34,173 0 0 327,991 327,991 2,552,829 36,010 0 0 342,781 342,781 2,636,299 37,239 0 0 357,894 357,894 2,722,394 38,504 0 0 373,339 373,339 2,811,195 39,807 0 0 389,121 389,121 2,902,784 41.149 0 0 355,250 355,250 3,047,248 42,531 0 0 371,732 371,732 3,144,677 43,955 0 0 388,576 388,576 3,245,160 45,422 0 0 405,791 405,791 3,348,794 46,932 0 0 423,384 423.384 3,455.675 48,488 0 0 507.988 507.988 3,499,278 50,091 0 0 410,055 410,055 3.729,264 51,741 0 0 309,053 309,053 3,966,282 53,442 0 0 463,322 463,322 2,750,357 40,171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,767~69 7,767~6962,242,289 875,121 291,926 0 2,669,084 2,669,084 20,982,881 295,650 291,926 0 6.584.939 6.584,939 51,796,386 729,767 291,926 0 7.767,369 7.767.369 62.242,289 ~ 875.121 291.926 0 7.767,369 7.767,369 62,242,289 875.121 291,926 Non. Housing Revenue Remaining after Pass Through and Ser~ce 4% Other Exr~enaes Paymentsof Annual TI Annual Cumulative ] K M (G-H-l-K-L) N 0 66,924 937,483 937,483 0 69,527 9?5,546 1,913,029 0 84,354 1,382,051 3,295,080 0 100,715 1,670,620 4,965,700 0 104,332 1,726,216 6,691,916 0 110,474 1,827,720 8,519,636 0 116,853 1,911,439 10,431,076 0 123,472 2,020,001 12,451,077 0 130,341 2,132,842 14,583,919 0 137,467 2,250,110 16,834,029 0 144,859 2,371,959 19,205,988 0 149,800 2,449,260 21,655,248 0 154,890 2,529,001 24,184,249 0 160,131 2.611,256 26,795,506 0 165,531 2,696,105 29,491,610 0 171.092 2,833,625 32,325,236 0 176,819 2,923,902 35,249,138 0 182,719 3,017~20 38,266,157 0 188,796 3,113,066 41,379,223 0 195,055 3,212,131 44,591,355 0 201,502 3,24?,686 47,839,040 0 208,142 3,469,381 51,308,421 0 214,981 3,697,859 55,006,280 0 161,597 2,548,589 57,554,870 0 0 0 57~554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 $7,554,870 0 0 0 57,554.870 0 0 0 57.554,870 0 0 0 57,554,870 0 0 0 57.554,870 0 1,189,318 19 205 988 0 2,935,653 47 839 040 0 3,520,373 57 554 870 ~:~i¢ 0 3,520.373 57,554,870 ii~ Scifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working.xls-EC-Original I 1/17/04 Incremental Housing Set. Aside Non-Housing Tax Revenue** Revenue Revenue 1% 2O% Appendix E - Table D-3 Tax Increment Projections in Present Value or Constant 2004/05 Dollars* El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Original Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Pass-through Payments Non-Housing Other Exoenses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Other Statutory Contractual Total Remaining after Tax Admin Fee ContributionDebt Administration Agency Year Fiscal ~'N)Year A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA-BA) D 0 2004/ 051,663,6541.663,654 332,731 332,7311,330,924 1,330,924 i 2005/ 061,638,2553,301,909 327,651 660,3821,310,604 2,641,528 2 2006/ 07 1.883,9875,185,896 376,797 1,037,179 1,507,190 4,148,717 3 2007/ 08 2,132,1467,318,042 426,429 1,463,608 1,705,716 5,854,433 4 2008/ 09 2,093,5639,411,605 418,713 1,882,321 1,674,851 7,529,284 5 2009/ i0 2,101,23811,512,844420,248 2,302,569 1.680,991 9,210,275 6 2010/ Il2,106,70013,619,543421,340 2,723,909 1,685,360 10,895,635 7 20il/ i2 2,109,99515,729,538421,999 3,145,908 1,687,996 12,583,63 I 8 2012/ 13 2,111,25417.840,792422,251 3,568,158 1,689,003 14,272,634 9 2013/ 14 2.110,60019,95i,392422,120 3,990,278 1,688,480 15,961,114 10 2014/ 15 2,108,15022,059,543421,630 4,411,909 1,686,520 17,647,634 11 2015/ 16 2,066,40424,125,946413,281 4,825,189 1,653,123 19,30(I,757 12 2016/ 17 2,025,21926,151,165405,044 5,230,233 1,620,175 20.920,932 13 2017/ 18 1,984,60428,135,769396,921 5,627,154 1,587,683 22,508,615 14 2018/ 19 1,944,56730,080,335388,913 6,016,067 1,555,653 24,064,268 15 2019/ 201,905,tl431,985,450381,023 6,397,090 1,524,09~ 25,588,360 16 2020/ 21 1,866,25133,851,700373,250 6,770,340 1,493,001 27,081,360 17 2021/ 22 1,827,98135,679,681365,596 7,135,936 1,462,385 28,543,745 18 2022/ 23 1,790,30837,469,989358,062 7,493,998 1,432,246 29,975,991 19 2023/ 24 1,753,23339,223,222350,647 7,844,644 1,402,586 31,378,577 20 2024/ 251,716,75840,939,979343,352 8,187,996 1,373,406 32,75~,983 21 2025/ 26 1,680,88242,620,862336,176 8,524,172 1,344,706 34,096,689 22 2026/ 27 1,645,60744,266,468329,121 8,853,294 1,316,485 35,413,175 23 2027/ 28 1,172,48145,438.950234,496 9,087,790 937,985 36,351,160 Pass Pass Pass Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative AnnualCumulative Throueh Through Through 24 2028/ 29 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,35LI60 25 2029/ 30 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 26 2030/ 31 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 27 2031/ 32 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,35i,160 28 2032/ 33 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 29 2033/ 34 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 30 2034/ 35 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 31 2035/ 36 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 32 2036/ 37 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 33 2037/ 38 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 34 2038/ 39 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 35 2039/ 40 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 36 2040/ 41 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 37 2041/ 42 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 38 2042/ 43 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351,160 39 2043/ 44 0 45,438,950 0 9,087,790 0 36,351360 TOTAL 45,438,950 ~ 9,087,790 36,351,160 Cumulative To: 2014/ 1522,059,543 4 411,909 7 647 634 : To: 2024/25 40,939,979 8187996 327519831'; To: 2034/ 3545,438,950 9 087 790 36,35 60 To: 2049/ 5045.438,950 9,087,790 36,351,160 Pass Through 1% Set.ce 4% Payments o{ Annual TI Payments o{ Annu~ TI E F G (C-F) H I 1 K 163,728 163,728 1,167,196 16,637 146,152 0 66,924 165,457 165,457 1,145,147 16,383 138,174 0 65,903 170,855 170,855 1,336,335 18,840 0 0 75,788 175,902 175,902 J,529,815 21,321 0 0 85,770 176,267 176,267 1,498,584 20.936 0 0 84,218 177,000 177,~O0 1,503,991 21,012 0 0 84,527 193,283 193,283 1,492,077 21,067 0 0 84,747 193,393 193,393 1,494,603 21,100 0 0 84,879 193,203 193,203 1,495,800 21.113 0 0 84,930 192,736 192,736 1,495,743 21,106 0 0 84,904 192,016 192,016 1,494,504 21,082 0 0 84,805 190,213 190,213 1,462,910 20,664 0 0 83,126 188,246 188,246 1,431,929 20,252 0 0 81,469 186,132 186,132 1,401,551 19,846 0 0 79,835 183,887 183,887 1,371,767 19,446 0 0 78,225 159,128 159,128 1,364,963 19,051 0 0 76,638 157,830 157,830 1,335,170 18,663 0 0 75,074 156.381 156,381 1,306,004 18,280 0 0 73,535 154,795 154,795 1,277,451 17,903 0 0 72,019 153,087 153,087 1,249,500 17,532 0 0 70,528 174,102 174,102 1,199,304 17,168 0 0 69,060 133,211 133,211 1,211,495 16,809 0 0 67,617 95,165 95,165 1,221,320 16,456 0 0 66,198 135,231 135,231 802,754 11,725 0 0 47,166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,061,247 4,061,247 32,289,913 454,389 284,326 0 1,827,886 1,993,839 1,993,839 15,653,795 22~595 284,326 0 887,396 3,697,640 3,697,640 29,054,344 409,400 284,326 0 1,646,904 4,061,247 4,061.247 32,289,913 454.389 284,326 0 1,827.886 4,061,247 4,061,247 32.289.913 454,389 284.326 0 1,827,886 *Present value discoumed to 2004105 at: 5.5% ** Based on revenues flom Basic Tax Increment (I.0%), exclusive o f supplemental payment, unitary revenue and bond ovenddes. Ob)igatlon$ Non-Housing Revenue Remaining after Pass Through and Other Ex-~enses Annual Cumulative L M (G-H.J.K-L) N 0 937,483 937,483 0 924,689 1,862,17 I 0 1,241,707 3,103,878 0 1,422,723 4,526,601 0 1,393,430 5,920.032 0 1,398,452 7,318,483 0 1,386,263 8,704,746 0 1,388,623 10,093,370 0 1,389,757 11,483,127 0 1.389,734 12,872,861 0 1,388,617 14,261,478 0 1,359,120 15,620,599 0 1,330,208 16,950,806 0 1,301,870 18,252,676 0 1,274,096 19,526,773 0 1,269,274 20,796,047 0 1,241,434 22,037.481 0 1,2i4,189 23.25[,670 0 1,187,528 24,439,198 0 1,161,439 25,600,638 0 1,113,076 26,713,714 0 1,127,068 27,840,782 0 i,138,666 28,979,448 0 743,864 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,31 I 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,31 I 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,31 I 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,31 I 0 0 29,723,31 I 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,31 I 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,311 0 0 29,723,311 0 29,723.31 i ~: ~5.~!~ .~..'~.~)/.~ ! ~' 0 14,261,478 0 26,713,714 0 29,723,31 I 0 29,723,311 Seifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working.xls-EC-Original 11/17/04 Year Fiscal eN) Year 0 2004/ 05 I 2005/ 06 2 2006/ 07 3 2007/ 08 4 2008/ 09 5 2009/ 10 6 2010/ I1 7 2011/ 12 8 2012/ 13 9 2013/ 14 10 2014/ [5 II 2015/ 16 12 2016/ 17 13 2017/ 18 14 2018/ [9 15 2019/ 20 16 2020/ 21 17 2021/ 22 18 2022/ 23 19 2023/ 24 20 2024/ 25 21 2025/ 26 22 2026/ 27 23 2027/ 28 24 2028/ 29 25 2029/ 30 26 2030/ 31 27 2031/ 32 28 2032/ 33 29 2033/ 34 3O 2034/ 35 31 2035/ 36 32 2036/ 37 33 2037/ 38 34 2038/ 39 35 2039/ 40 36 2040/ 41 37 2041/ 42 38 2042/ 43 39 2043/ 44 40 2044/ 45 41 2045/ 46 TOTAL Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 To: 2024/ 25 To: 2034/ 35 To: 2049/ 50 Appendix E - Table E-I Growth in Assessed Value In Nominal or "Future" Dollars El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Added Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Assessed Value Total AV at Total Beginning of3% Projected Assessed Yea~ Inflation andNew Value (BOY) Reassessment Development End of Year a b c d 49,015,387 1,470,462 0 50,485,849 50,485,849 1,5~4,575 0 52,000,424 52,000,424 1,560,013 0 53,560,437 53,560,437 1,606,813 0 55,167,250 55,167.250 1,655,017 0 56,822,267 56,822,267 i,704,668 0 58,526,935 58,526,935 1,755,808 0 60,282,743 60,282,743 1,808,482 0 62,091,226 62,091,226 1,862,737 0 63,953,963 63,953,963 1,918~619 0 65,872,58[ 65,872,581 1,976,177 0 67,848,759 67,848,759 2,035,463 0 69,884,222 69,884,222 2,096,527 0 71,980,748 71,980,748 2,159,422 0 74,i40,171 74,[40,171 2,224,205 0 76,364,376 76,364,376 2,290,931 0 78,655,307 78,655,307 2,359,659 0 81,014,966 81,014,966 2,430,449 0 83,445,4[5 83,445,415 2,503,362 0 85,948,778 85,948,778 2,578,463 0 88,527,241 88,527,241 2,655,817 0 91,183,058 91,183,058 2,735,492 0 93,918,550 93,918,550 2,817,557 0 96,736,107 96~736,107 2,902,083 0 99,638,190 99,638,190 2,989,146 0 102,627,336 102,627,336 3,078,820 0 105,706,156 105,706,156 3,171,185 0 108,877,340 108,877,340 3,266,320 0 112,143,660 112,143,660 3,364,310 0 115,507,970 115,507,970 3,465,239 0 118,973,209 118,973,209 3,569,196 0 122,542,406 122,542,406 3,676,272 0 126,218,678 126,218,678 3,786,560 0 130,005,238 130,005,238 3,900,157 0 133,905,395 133,905,395 4,017,162 0 137,922,557 137,922,557 4,137,677 0 142,060,234 142,060,234 4,261~807 0 146,322,041 146,322,041 4,389,661 0 150,711,702 150,711,702 4,521,351 0 155,233,053 155,233,053 4,656,992 0 159,890,045 159,890,045 4,796,701 0 164,686,746 164,686,746 4,940,602 0 169,627,349 Growth Rates Annual AveraRe Annual 3.00% 3.00% 300% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.OO% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3 00% 3 .{RI% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3 .O0% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.0O% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 300% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3 .OO% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Potential tax increment revenue without TI collection cap. Based on revenues fiom Basic Tax increment ({.0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, tmilary revenue and bond ovemdes, Incremental Assessed Value (from BOY) e 9,918,062 11,388,524 12,903,099 14,463,112 16,069,925 17,724,942 19,429,610 21,185,418 22,993,901 24,856,638 26,775,256 28,751,434 30,786,897 32,883,423 35,042,846 37,267,051 39,557,982 41,917,641 44,348,090 46,851,453 49,429,916 52,085,733 54,821,225 57,638,782 6~540,865 63,530,011 66,608,831 69,780,015 73,046,335 76,410,645 79,875,884 83,445,081 87,121,353 90,907,913 94,808,070 98,825,232 102,962,909 107,224,716 111,614,377 116,135,728 120,792,720 125,58%421 Tax Increment Potential Tax Increment Revenue* I% f 99,181 113,885 129,03 I 144,631 160,699 177,249 194,296 211,854 229,939 248,566 26'/,753 28'/,514 307,869 328,834 350,428 372,671 395,580 419,176 443,48 I 468,515 494,299 520,857 548,212 576,388 605,409 635,300 666,088 697,800 730,463 76~,106 798,759 834,451 8'/1,214 909,079 948,081 988,252 1,029,629 1,072,247 I,I16,144 1,161,357 1,207,927 1,255,894 Seifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working.xls-EC-Added I 1/17/04 Appendix E - Table Tax Increment Projections In Nominal or "Future" Dollars El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Added Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Incremental Housing ~et-Aside Non-Housing Tax Revenue* Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Pass Pass Pass Pass Through Year Fiscal Annual CurauhtiveAnnual CumulativeAnnual Cumulative Through Through Throueh Payments INI Year A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA.BA) D E F G (C-F) 0 2004/ 05 99,181 99,181 19,836 I 2005/ 06 113,885 213,066 22,777 2 2006/ 07 129,O31 342,097 25,806 3 2007/ 08 144,631 486,728 28,926 4 2008/ 09 160,699 647,427 32,140 5 2009/ 10 177,249 824,677 35,450 6 2010/ II 194,296 1,018,97338,859 7 2011/ 12 211.854 1,230,82742371 8 2012/ 13 229,939 1,460,76645,988 9 2013/ 14 248.566 1,709,33249,713 10 2014/ 15 267,753 1,977,08553,551 I1 2015/ 16 287,514 2,264,59957,503 12 2016/ 17 307,869 2,572,46861,574 13 2017/ 18 328,834 2,901,30265,767 14 2018/ 19 350,428 3,251,73170,086 15 2019/20 372,671 3,624,40174.534 16 2020/ 21 395.580 4,019,98179,116 17 2021/ 22 419.176 4,439,15883,835 Pass-through Payments Non-Housing Other Expense.. Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Other Statutory Contractual Total Remaining after Tax Admin Fee Contribution Debt Administration Agency 1% Ser~ce 4% Obligations of Annual TI Paymentsof Annual TI H I I K L 55,027 992 8,713 0 3,990 0 63,185 1.139 9,605 0 4,581 0 71,588 1,290 0 0 5,191 0 80,244 1,446 0 0 5,818 0 89,158 1,607 0 0 6,464 0 98,341 1,772 0 0 7,130 0 107,799 1,943 0 0 7,816 0 117,540 2,119 0 0 8,522 0 125,075 2,299 0 0 9,250 0 132,836 2,486 0 0 9,999 0 140,830 2,678 0 0 10,771 0 149,064 2,875 0 0 11,566 0 157,545 3,079 0 0 12,385 0 166,280 3,288 0 0 13,228 0 175,278 3,504 0 0 14,097 0 184,545 3.727 0 0 14,992 0 194,090 3,956 0 0 15,913 0 203,922 4,192 0 0 16,862 0 214,049 4,435 0 0 17.840 0 224,479 4,685 0 0 18,847 0 235,222 4,943 0 0 19,884 0 246,288 5,209 0 0 2~953 0 257,686 5,482 0 0 22,053 0 196,095 4395 0 0 16,876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,686,169 73,340 18,318 0 295,028 0 1,081,624 19,771 18,318 0 79,533 0 2,986,100 58,455 18,318 0 235,147 0 3,686,169 73,340 18,318 0 295,028 0 3,686,169 73,340 18,318 0 295,028 0 42,613 91,108 170,453 27,923 27,923 68,419 103,225 273,677 31,636 31,636 97,346 115,705 389,382 35,461 35,461 164,935141,800 659,741 43,459 43,459 203,795155,437 815,178 47,638 47,638 246,165169,483 984,662 51,943 : 292,153183,951 1,168,61358,876 58,876 341,866198,853 1,367,46666,017 66,017 395,417214,202 1,581,66873,372 73,372 452,920230,011 1,811,67980,947 80,947 514,494246,295 2,057,97588,750 88,750 580,260263,067 2,321,04296,787 96,787 650,346280,343 2,601,385105,065 105,065 724,880298,136 2,899,521113,591 113,591 803,996316,464 3,215,985122,373 122,373 887,832335,341 3,551,326131,419 131,419 18 2022/ 23 443,481 4,882,63988,696 976,528 354,785 19 2023/ 24 468,515 5,351,15393,703 1,070,231 374,812 20 2024/ 25 494,299 5,845,45298,860 1,169.090 395,439 21 2025/ 26 520,857 6,366,110104,171 1,273,262 416,686 22 2026/ 27 548,212 6,914.522109,642 1,382,904 438,570 23 2027/ 28 419.512 7,334,03483,902 1,466,807 335,609 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 ?,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 ?,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334.034 0 7,334,034 0 7,334,034 0 7334,034 4,280,922150,333 150,333 4,676,362160.217 160,217 5,093,048170,398 170,398 5,531,617180,884 180,884 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 I ~466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,g07 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 ; 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 5.867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 O' 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 i 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 ' 5,867,227 0 : 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1,466,807 0 5,867,227 0 0 0 1.466.807 0 5.867,227 0 0 1,466,807 5,867,227 2,181,058 2,181.058 1,169,090 4,676,362 1,690,262 1,466,807 5,867,227 2,181,058 2,181,058 1,466,807 5,867,227 2,181,058 2,181,058 7.334.034 1,977,085 7,334,034 24 2028/ 29 25 2029/30 26 2030/ 31 27 2031/ 32 28 2032/ 33 29 2033/ 34 30 2034/ 35 31 2035/ 36 32 2036/ 37 33 2037/ 38 34 2038/ 39 35 2039/ 40 36 2040/ 41 37 2041/ 42 38 2042/ 43 39 2043/ 44 40 20441 45 41 2045/ 46 TOTAL Cumulalive To: 2014/ 15 To: 2024/ 25 To: 2034/ 35 To: 2049/ 50 · Based on revenues from Basic Tax [ncremenl (I .0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unitary revenue and bond ovetxides. Non-Housing Revenue Remaining aher Pass Through and Other Expenses Annual Cumulative M (G-HO-K-L}N 41,332 41,332 47.86O 89.192 65,108 154,300 72,979 227.279 fll,087 308,366 89,438 397,804 98,040 495,844 106,899 602,743 113,526 716,269 12~352 836,620 127382 964,002 134,623 1,098,626 142,082 1,240,707 149,764 1,390,471 157,677 1,548,148 165,827 1,713,975 174,221 1,888,196 182,868 2,071,064 191,774 2,262,838 200,947 2,463,785 210,395 2,674,180 220,127 2,894,307 230,150 3,124,457 175,024 3,299,482 0 3,299~82 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299,482 0 3,299A82 964,002 2,674,180 3,299,482 3,299,482 Scifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_O4_Workiog.xls. EC-Added I 1/17/04 Appendix E - Table E-3 Tax Increment Projections In Present Value or Constant 2004/05 Dollars* El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project - Added Area South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Year Fiscal (N) Year 0 2004/ 05 I 2005/ 06 2 2006/ 07 3 2007/ 08 4 2008/ 09 5 2009/ l0 6 2010/ II 7 20l I/ 12 8 2012/ 13 9 2013/ 14 10 2014/' [5 I1 2015/ 16 12 2016/ 17 13 2017/ 18 14 20[8/ 19 15 2019/ 20 16 2020/ 21 17 2021/ 22 18 2022/ 23 19 2023/ 24 20 2024/ 25 21 2025/26 22 2026/ 27 23 2027/ 28 24 2028/ 29 25 2029/ 30 26 2030/ 31 27 2031/ 32 28 20321 33 29 2033/ 34 30 2034/ 35 3l 2035/ 36 32 2036/ 37 33 2037/ 38 34 2038/ 39 35 2039/ 40 36 2040/ 41 37 2041/ 42 38 2042/ 43 39 2043/ 44 40 2044/ 45 4i 2045/ 46 TOTAL Incremental Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Tax Revenue** Revenue Revenue 1% 20% , Pass Pass Pass Pass Through Annual CumulativeAnnual CumulativeAnnual Cumulative Through Throu,zh Through Payments Pass.through Payments Non-Housing Other Exoenses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Other Statutory Contractual Total Remaining after Tax Admin Fee ContributionDebt Administration Agency A AA B 99.181 99.181 19.836 107.948 207.129 21.590 115.928 323.057 23.186 123.170 446.227 24.634 129.719 575.946 25.944 135.620 711.566 27324 140.912 852.478 28.182 145.636 998,114 29,127 149,828 1,147,94229,966 153,522 1,301,46430,704 156,751 1,458,21531,350 159,545 1,617,75931,909 161.933 1.779.69332.387 163.944 1.943.63732.789 BA C (A.B)CA (AA.BA) D E 19,836 79,344 79,344 24,318 4L426 86,358 165,703 26,467 64,611 92,743 258,446 28,424 89,245 98,536 356,981 30,199 115,189103,775460,757 31,805 142,313108,496569,252 33,252 170.496112,730681.982 34,549 199.623116.509798.491 35.708 229.588119.862918.354 38.364 260.293122.8171.041.171 40.774 291.643125.4001.166.572 42.954 323.552127.6361.294.208 44.918 355.939129.5471.423.754 46.681 388.727131.1551.554.909 48.254 165.602 2.109.238 33.120 421.848 132.481 166.931 2.276.170 33.386 455.234 133.545 167.956 2.444.126 33.591 488.825 134.365 168,696 2,612,822 33,739 522,564 134,957 169,173 2,781,994 33,835 556,399 135,338 169.405 2.951.400 33.881 590.280 135.524 169.411 3.120.810 33.882 624.162 135.529 169.207 3.290.017 33.841 658.003 135.365 168.809 3.458.825 33.762 691.765 135.047 122.444 3.581.269 24.489 716.254 97.955 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3,581,269 0 716,254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3.581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3,581.269 0 716.254 0 0 3,581,269 0 716,254 0 1.687.391 49.650 1.820.936 50.881 1.955.300 51.957 2,090,257 52,889 2,225,596 53,686 2,361,120 54,357 2.496.648 54.911 2.632.013 55.356 2.767.060 55.699 2.865.015 40.720 2.865.015 0 2.865.015 0 2.865.015 0 2.865.015 0 2,865,015 0 2.865.015 0 2.865.015 0 2,865,015 0 2,865,015 0 2,865,015 0 2,865,015 0 2,865,015 0 2,865,015 0 2,865,015 0 2,865,015 0 2.865.015 0 2.865.015 0 0 3.581,269 0 716.254 0 2.865.015 0 3.581.269~i!i!;~:;~!??~=ii 716.2.54 !ii~:i~!i?i:~~ 2.865.015 1.026.774 To: 2014/ 151.458.215 .166.572 366.813 To: 2024/ 253.120.810 624.162 874.999 To: 2034/ 353.581.269 716.254 1.026.774 To: 2049/ 503.581.269 716.254 2.865.015 1.026.774 1% of AnnuaI Tl F G(C-F} H 24,318 55,027 992 26,467 59,891 1,079 28,424 64,319 1,159 30.199 68.337 1.232 31.805 71.970 1.297 33,252 75,244 1,356 34,549 78,180 1,409 35.708 80.801 1.456 38,364 81,499 1,498 40.774 82.044 1.535 42,954 82.446 1.568 44,918 82,717 1,595 46,681 82,866 1,619 48,254 82,901 1,639 49,650 82,831 1,656 50,881 82,664 1,669 51,957 82,407 1,680 52,889 82,068 1,687 53,686 81,652 [,692 54,357 81,167 1,694 54,911 80,618 1,694 55,356 80,010 1,692 55.699 79.348 1.688 40.720 57.235 1.224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.026.774 1.838.241 35.813 366.813 799.759 14.58~ 874.999 1.621.649 31.208 1,026,774 1,838,241 35.813 1,026,774 1,838,241 35,813 Non-Housing Revenue Remaining afar Pass Through and Servke 4% O~igafions Other Exoenses Paymcn~ of Annual T1 Annual Cumulative I I K L M (G.H.I-K.L) N 8,7130 3,990 0 41,332 41,332 9,1050 4,342 0 45,365 86,697 0 0 4.663 0 58.496 145.193 0 0 4.955 0 62.150 207.343 0 0 5.218 0 65.455 272,798 0 0 5.456 0 68.432 341.230 0 0 5,669 0 71,103 412,333 0 0 5,859 0 73.486 485.819 0 0 6,027 0 73,973 559,793 0 0 6,176 0 74,333 634,126 0 0 6,306 0 74,573 708,699 0 0 6.418 0 74.704 783.403 0 0 6.514 0 74.732 858.135 0 0 6,595 0 74,666 932,801 0 0 6,662 0 74,5i3 1,007,315 0 0 6,715 0 74,279 1,081,594 0 0 6,756 0 73,971 1,155,565 0 0 6,786 0 73,595 1,229,160 0 0 6,805 0 73,155 1,302,315 0 0 6.815 0 72,658 1,374,973 0 0 6.815 0 72.108 1.447.082 0 0 6,807 0 71,511 1,518,592 0 0 6.791 0 70.869 1.589.461 0 0 4.926 0 51.085 1.640.546 0 0 0 0 0 1.640.546 0 0 0 0 0 1.640.546 0 0 0 0 0 1.64~546 0 0 0 0 0 1.640.546 0 0 0 0 0 1.64~546 0 0 0 0 0 1.640.546 0 0 0 0 O 1,64~546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1,640,546 0 0 0 0 0 1.640.546 0 0 0 0 0 11640,546 17,818 0 144,065 0 1,640,$46 17,818 0 58.660 0 708 699 17.818 0 125.542 0 1.447.082 0 144.065 0 I 640 546~ 17.818 17.818 0 144.065 0 .640.546 ~i~ Seifel Consul0ng Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working.xls-EC-Added 11117/04 Year Fiscal (N)Year 0 20041 05 I 2005/ 06 2 2006/ 07 3 2007/ 08 4 2008/ 09 5 2009/ l0 6 2010/ II 7 2011/ 12 8 20[2/ 13 9 2013/ 14 l0 20[4/ 15 II 2015/ 16 12 20[6/ 17 13 2017/ 18 14 2018/ 19 15 2019/ 20 16 2020/ 21 17 2021/ 22 18 2022/ 23 19 2023/ 24 20 2024/ 25 21 2025/ 26 22 2026/ 27 23 2027/ 28 24 2028/ 29 25 2029/ 30 26 2030/ 31 27 2031/ 32 TOTAL CumnlalJve To: 2014/ 15 To: 2024/ 25 TO: 2034/ 35 TO: 2049/50 Appendix E - Table F-1 Growth in Assessed Value In Nominal or "Future" Dollars Gateway Redevelopment Project South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Assessed Value Total AV at Total Beginning of2% Projected Assessed Yeart Inflation and New Value (BOY) ReassessmentDevelopment End of Year a -b c d 611,18i,743 12,223,635 0 623,405,378 623,405,378 12,468,108 6,234,054 642)07,539 642,107,539 12,842,151 6~421,075 661,370,765 661,370,765 13,227,415 0 674,598,181 674,598,181 13,491,964 0 688,090,144 688,090,144 13,761,803 0 701,851,947 70i,851,947 14,037,039 0 715,888,986 715,888,986 14,317,780 0 730,206,766 730,206,766 14,604,135 0 744,810,901 744,810,901 i4,896,218 0 759,707,119 759,707,119 15,194,142 0 774,90[,262 774,901,262 15,498,025 0 790,399,287 790,399,287 15,807,986 0 806,207,273 806,207,273 16,124,145 0 822,331,418 822,331,418 16,446,628 0 838,778,046 838,778,046 16,775,561 0 855,553,607 855,553,607 17,111,072 0 872,664,679 872,664,679 17,453,294 0 890,117,973 890,117,973 17,802,359 0 907,920,332 907,920,332 18,158,407 0 926,078,739 926,078,739 18,521,575 0 944,600,314 944,600,314 18,892,006 0 963,492,320 963,492,320 19,269,846 0 982,762,167 982,762,167 19,655,243 0 1,002,417,410 1,002,417,410 20,048,348 0 [,022,465,758 1,022,465,758 20,449,315 0 1,042,915,073 1,042,915,073 20,858,301 0 1,063,773,375 Tax Increment Growth Rates Incremental Potential Assessed Tax Increment Annual AveraRe Value Revenue* Annual {from BOY) e f 596,197,491 5,961,975 2.00% 2.00% 608,421,126 6,084,21 I 3.00% 2.50% 627,123,287 6,271,233 3.00% 2.67% 646,386,513 6,463,865 2.00% 2.50% 659,613,929 6,596,139 2.00% 2.40% 673,105,892 6,731,059 2.0~% 2.33% 686,867,695 6,868,677 2.00% 2.28% 700,904,734 7,009,047 2.00% 2.25% 715,222,514 7,152,225 2.00% 2.22% 729,826,649 7,298,266 2.00% 2.20% 744,722,867 7,447,229 2.00% 2.18% 759,917,010 7,599,170 2.00% 2.17% 775,415,035 7,754,150 2.00% 2.15% 791,223,021 7,912,230 2.00% 2A4% 807,347,166 8,073,472 2.00% 2.13% 823,793,794 8,237,938 2.00% 2.12% 840,569,355 8,405,694 2.00% 2.12% 857,680,427 8,576,804 2.00% 2.[i% 875,133,721 8,751,337 2.00% 2.10% 892,936,080 8,929,361 2.00% 2.10% 911,094,487 9,110,945 2.00% 2.09% 929,616,062 9,296,161 2.00% 2.09% 948,508,068 9,485,081 2.00% 2.09% 967,777,915 9,677,779 2.00% 2.08% 987,433,158 9,874,332 2.00% 2.08% 1,007,481,506 10,074,815 2.00% 2.08% 1,027,930,821 10,279,308 Stile1 Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF._Summ_O4_Working.xls-Oateway 11/17/04 Appendix E - Table Tax Increment Projections In Nominal or "Future" Dollars Gateway Redevelopment Project South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Incremental Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Pass-through Payments Tax Revenue* Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Statutorv ContractualTotal Pass Pass Pass P~s Through 1% Year Fiscal Annual CumulativeAnnual Cumulative Annual CumulativeThroueh Tbroueh Through Payments ot AnnualTI (NJ Year A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA-BA) D E F G (C-F) H I 2005/06 6,084,21112,046,186 1,216,8422,409,2374,867,369 9,636,949 0 0 4,867,369 60,842 2 2~06/07 6,271,23318,317,419 1,254,2473,663,4845,016,986 14,653,935 0 0 5,016,986 62,712 4 2008/ 09 6,596,13931.377,423 1,319,2286,275,485 5,276,911 25.101.93966,722~ 66,722 5,210,190 65,961 5 2009/ l0 6,731,05938,108,482 1,346,2127,621,696 5,384,847 30,486,786100,629 100,629 5,284,219 67,311 6 2010/ 11 6,868.67744,977.159 i,373,7358,995,432 5,494,942 35,981,727i35,214 135,214 5,359,728 68,687 7 2011/ i2 7,009,04751,986,207 1,401,80910,397,2415,607,238 41,588,965170,490 170,490 5,436,748 70,090 8 2012/ 13 7,152,22559,138,432 1,430,44511,827,6865,721,780 47,310,745206,472 206,472 5,515,308 71,5~2 9 2013/ 14 7,298,26666,436,698 1,459,65313,287,3405,838,613 53,149,359243,174 i 243,174 5,595,439 72,983 II 2015/ 16 7,599,170 81,483,0971,519,834 16,296,6196,079,336 65,186,478359,150 359,150 5,720,186 75,992 12 2016/ 17 7,754,150 89,237,2471,550,830 17,847,4496,203,320 71,389,798418,883 13 2017/ 18 ?,912,230 97,149,4781,582,446 19,429,8966,329,784 77,719,582479,811 479.811 5,849,973 79,122 14 2018/ 19 8,073,472 105,222,949 1,614,694 21,044,5906,458,777 84,178,359541,958 541,958 5,916,820 80,735 15 2019/ 20 8,237,938 113.460.887 1.647,588 22,692,1776,590,350 90.768,710605,347 i~: 605,347 5,985,003 82,379 17 2021/ 22 8,576,804 130,443,385 1,715,361 26,088,6776,861,443~04,354,708 735,955 735.955 6,125,489 85,768 18 2022/ 23 8,751,337 139.194,722 1,750,267 27,838,9447,001,070111,355,778 803,224 803,224 6, t97,846 87,513 19 2023/ 24 8,929.361 148.124.083 1.785.872 29,624.8177,143,489118,499,266 811.839 871,839 6,271,650 89,294 20 2024/ 25 9.110,945 157,235,028 1.822.189 31.447.0067.288,756125.788.022 941,826 941,826 6,346,930 91,109 21 2025/ 26 9,296,161 166,531,189 1,859,232 33,306.2387,436.928133,224.951 1.013,212 1,013.212 6,423,716 92,962 22 2026/27 9.485.081 176,016,269 1.897,016 35.203,2547.588,065140,813.015 1.086,027 1,086,027 6,502,038 94,851 23 2027/ 28 7,043,769 183.060.038 1,408.754 36.612,0085.635,015146.448,031 844,498 844,498 4,790,517 70,438 24 2028/29 0 183,060,038 0 36,612,008 0 146,448,031 0 0 0 25 2029/ 30 0 183,060,038 0 36,612,008 0 146,448,031 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 183,060,038 36,612,008 146.448,031 10,628,502 10,625,502 135,819.529 1,830,600 Cumulalive To: 2014/15 73,883,927 1,256,768 57,850,373 738,839 To: 2024/ 25 3 447006 125788022 7684,764 7,684,764 118,103,259 1,572,350 To: 2034/ 35 183,060,038 36 6 2 008 146 448 03 10 628 502 :, 10,628.502 135.819,529 1,830,600 To: 2049/ 50 183.060,038 36.612.008 t46.448,031 10,628,502 10,628.502 135,819,529 1,830,600 * Based on tcvc~ucs from Basic Tax Increment (L0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unitary revenue and borid ovci~ides. Non-Housing Other Ex~nses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Remaining after Tax Admin Fee ContributionDebt I 1 523,7612,206,893 513,1552,244,348 0 2,282,328 0 2,320,771 0 2,359,650 0 2,398,290 0 2,435,958 0 2,477,105 0 2,521,048 0 2,562,190 0 2,599,000 0 2,646,625 0 2,691,375 0 2,733,000 0 2,444,625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,036,916 36,923,204 1,036,916 26,407,579 1.036,916 36,923.204 1,036,916 36,923.204 1.036.916 36.923.204 Non-Housing Revenue Agency Other Remaining a4ter Administration Agency Pass Through and Service3% Obligations Other Expenses Payments oi Annual T1 Annual Cumulative K L M (G-H-I.K-L) N 178.859 0 1,800,447 1,800,447 182.526 0 1,866,498 3,666,946 188.137 0 2,~83,809 6,150,755 193,916 0 2,558.286 8,709.042 197,884 0 2,586,694 11,295,736 201,932 0 2,616,686 13,912,422 206,060 0 2,649,023 16,561,445 210,2'/1 0 2,679,281 19,240,726 214,567 0 2,708,171 21,948,898 218,9't8 0 2,741,318 24,690,216 223,4[? 0 2,760,306 27,450,522 227,975 0 2,769,594 30,220,116 232,625 0 2,782,896 33,003,012 237,367 0 2,800.484 35,803,496 242,204 0 3,149,256 38,952,752 247,138 0 5,655.486 44,608,238 252,171 0 5,?18,323 50,326,561 257,304 0 5,782,417 56,108,978 262,540 0 5,847,792 61,956,770 267,881 0 5,914,476 67,871,246 273,328 0 5,982,492 73,853,738 278,885 0 6,051,870 79,905,608 284,552 0 6,122,634 86.028,242 211,313 0 4.508,766 90,537,008 0 0 0 90,537,008 0 0 0 90,537,008 0 0 0 90,537,008 0 0 0 90,537,008 5,49! ,801 0 90,537,008 ,,~ ~ ~,~ 2,216,518 0 27 450,522 -;~,' ,~:?~!?: 4,717,051 0 73 853 738 5,491,801 0 90,537,00S 5,491,801 0 90,537,008 Seif¢l Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_O4_Working.xls-Gateway I 1/17/04 Appendix E - Table F-3 Tax Increment Projections In Present Value or Constant 2004/05 Dollars* Gateway Redevelopment Project South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Incremental Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Tax Revenue** Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Pass Pass Pass Pass Through Year Fiscal Annual CumulativeAnnual Cumulative Annual Cumulative Through Through Through Payments Pass-through Payments Non-Housing Other Expenses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Other Statutory Contractual Total Remaining a~ter Tax Admin Fee ContributionDebt Administration Agency Obligations o 4,769,580 4,613,620 4,507,523 4,375,261 4,205,752 - 4,0A3,137 3,887320 3,737,420 3,593,768 3,455,907 3,311,895 3,174,191 3,042,507 2,916,567 2,796, ~ 08 2,680,881 2,570,648 2,465,182 2,364,267 2,267,697 2,175,277 2,086,819 2,002,144 1,398.221 0 0 0 0 76.441,492 44.500,985 70.954.309 76.441,492 76.441.492 Service 4% Payments of Annual TI 1% of Annual TI H I } K L 59,620 523,7612,206,893 17g,859 0 57,670 486,4022,127,344 173,011 0 56,344 0 2,050,563 169,032 0 55,047 0 1,976,401 165,141 0 53,245 0 1,904,749 159,735 0 5[,502 0 1,835,014 154,505 0 49,815 0 1,766,668 149,444 0 48,183 0 1,702,853 144,548 0 46,604 0 1.642,712 139,811 0 45,076 0 1,582,484 135,229 0 43,598 0 1,521,534 130,795 0 42,169 0 1,468,640 126,506 0 40,785 0 1,415,614 122,356 0 39,447 0 1,362,566 ! 18,342 0 38,153 0 1.155,255 114,458 0 36,900 0 0 110,701 0 35,689 0 0 107,067 0 34,517 0 0 103.551 0 33,383 0 0 100,150 0 32.287 0 0 96,860 0 31,226 0 0 93,678 0 30,200 0 0 90,599 0 29,207 0 0 87,621 0 20,559 0 0 61.677 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,011,226 1,010,164 25,719,288 3,033,678 0 566,704 1,010,164 20,317,213 1,700,112 0 931,260 1,010,164 25,719,288 2,793,781 0 [,011,226 1,010,164 25,719,288 3,033,678 0 1,011.226 1,010,164 25,719,288 3.033,678 0 {N) Year A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA-BA) D E F 0 2004/ 05 5,961,9755,961,9751,192,3951,192,395 4,769,580 4,769,580 0 0 [ 2005/ 06 5,767,02511,729,000 1,153,4052,345,800 4,613,620 9,383,200 0 0 2 2006/ 07 5,634,40417,363,404 1,126,8813,472,681 4,507,523 13,890,723 0 0 3 2007/ 08 5,504,71622,868,120 1,100,9434,573,624 4,403,773 [ 8,294,496 28,512 28,512 4 2008/ 09 5,324,51428,192,634 1,064,9035,638,527 4,259,6J I22,554,10753,859 53,859 5 2009/ l0 5,150,16433,342,798 1,030,0336,668,560 4,120,132 26,674,23976,994 76,994 6 2010/ II 4,981,47938,324,278 996,296 7,664,856 3.985,183 30,659,42298,063: 98,063 7 2011/ i2 4,818,277 43,142,555 963,6558,628,5[ [ 3,854,622 34,514,044117,201 [ 17,201 8 2012/ 13 4,660,382 47,802,937 932,0769,560,5873,728,305 38,242,349134 537 134,537 9 2013/ 14 4,507,623 52,310,560 9oi,52510,462,112 3,606,098 41,848,448 150,191 10 2014/ 15 4,359,835 56,670,395 871,96711,334,079 3,487,868 45,336,316 175,973 II 2015/ 16 4,216,859 60,887,254 843,37212,177,451 3,373,487 48,709,804 199,296 12 2016/ 17 4,078.540 64,965,794 815,70812,993,159 3,262,832 51,972,635 220,325 13 2017/ 18 3,944,727 68,910,521 788,94513,782,104 3,155,782 55.128,417 239,215 14 2018/ 19 3,815,275 72,725,796 763,05514,545,159 3,052,220 58,180.637 256,113 15 20[9/ 20 3,690,045 76,415,84l 738,00915,283,168 2,952,036 61,132,673 271,155 16 2020/ 21 3,568,899 79,984,740 713,78015,996,948 2,855,119 63,987,792 284,471 17 2021/ 22 3,451,705 83,436,445 690,34116,687,289 2,761,364 66,749,156 296,182 18 2022/ 23 3.338,337 86,774,781 667,66717,354,956 2,670,669 69,419,825 306,403 19 2023/ 24 3,228,670 90,003,451 645,73418,000,690 2,582,936 72,002,761315,239 315,239 20 2024/ 25 3,122,585 93,126,036 624,51718,625,207 2,498,068 74,500,829322,791 322,791 21 2025/ 26 3,019,965 96,146,001 603,99319,229,200 2,415,972 76,916,801329,154 329,154 22 2026/ 27 2,920,700 99,066,701 584,14019,813,340 2.336,560 79,253,361334 416 334,416 23 2027/ 28 2,055,884 101,122,585411,17720,224,517 1,644,707 80,898,068246,486 , 246,486 24 2028/ 29 0 101,122,5850 20,224,517 0 80,898,0680 0 25 2029/ 30 0 [01,122,5850 20,224,517 0 80,898,0680 0 26 2030/ 31 0 101,122,585 0 20.224,517 0 80.898.068 0: 0 27 2031/ 32 0 101 122,585 0 20.224.517 0 80 898.068 0 0 TOTAL 101,122,585 20,224,517 80,898,068 4,456,576 4,456,576 To: 2014/ 15 56,670,395 11,334,079 835,331 To: 2024/ 25 93,126,036 18,625.207 3,546.520 To: 2034/ 35 101,122,585 20.224,517 80,898.068 4,456.576 4,456.576 To: 2049/ 50 101.122.585 20.224.517 80.898.068 4.456.576 4356.576 *Present value discounted to 2004/05 al: 5 *° Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (I 0%). exclusive of supplemental payment, unilaly revenue and bond ovenSdes. Non-Housing Revenue Remaining after Pass Through and Other Ex ~enses Annual Cumulative M (G-H-/-K.L) N 1,800,447 1,800,447 1,769,193 3,569,640 2,231,585 5,801,225 2,178,672 7,979,897 2.088,023 10,067,919 2,002,117 12,070,036 1,921,193 13,991,229 1,841,836 15,833,065 1,764,641 17,597,707 1,693.118 19,290,825 1,615,967 20,906,793 1,536,877 22,443,670 1,463,752 23,907,421 1,396,211 25,303,633 1,488,242 26.791,874 2,533,279 29,325,154 2,427,892 3t,753,045 2,327,114 34,080,159 2,230,733 36.310,892 2,138,551 38.449,443 2,050fi73 40,499,816 1,966,020 42,465,836 1,885,316 44,351,152 1,31~,986 45,667,138 0 45,667,138 0 45,667,138 0 45,667,138 0 45,667,138 45,667,138 20,906,793 40,499,816 45,667,138 45,667.138 Seifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_O4_Working.xls-Gateway 11/17/04 Appendix E - Table G-I Growth in Assessed Value In Nominal or "Future" Dollars Shearwater/U.S. Steel Site Redevelopment Project South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Total AV at Beginning of Year~ Inflation and Year Fiscal (BOY) Reassessment (N) Year a b 0 2004/ 05 292,753,101 5,855~062 I 2005/ 06 298,608, l 63 5,972,163 2 2006/ 07 322,812,826 6,456,257 3 20071 08 347,866,233 6,957,325 4 2008/ 09 373,792,650 7,475,853 5 2009/ l0 400,616,978 8,012,340 6 2010/ II 408,629,318 8,172,586 7 2011/ 12 416,801,904 8,336,038 8 2012/ 13 425,137,942 8,502,759 9 2013/ 14 433,640,701 8,672,814 10 2014/ 15 442,3~3,515 8,846,270 Il 2015/ 16 451,159,786 9,023,196 12 2016/ ~7 460,182,981 9,203,660 13 2017/ 18 469,386,641 9,387,733 14 2018/ 19 478,774,374 9,575,487 15 2019/ 20 488,349,861 9,766,997 16 2020/ 21 498,116,858 9,962,337 17 2021/ 22 508,079,196 10,161,584 18 2022/ 23 518,240,779 10,364,816 19 2023/ 24 528,605,595 10,572,112 20 2024/ 25 539,177,707 10,783,554 21 2025/ 26 549,961,261 10,999,225 22 2026/ 27 560,960,486 11,219,210 23 2027/ 28 572,179,696 11,443,594 24 2028/ 29 583,623,290 11,672,466 25 2029/ 30 595,295,756 11,905,915 26 2030/ 31 607,201,671 12,144,033 27 2031/ 32 619,345,704 12,386,914 28 2032/ 33 631,732,618 12,634,652 29 2033/ 34 644,367,271 12,887,345 30 2034/ 35 657,254,616 13,145,092 31 2035/ 36 670,399,708 13,407,994 TOTAL Cumulative To: 2014/ 15 To: 2024/ 25 'fo: 2034/ 35 To: 2049/ 50 Assessed Value Total Protected Assessed New Value Develooment End of Year e d 0 298,608,163 18,232,500 322,812,826 18,597,150 347,866,233 18,969,093 373,792,650 19,348,475 400,616,978 0 408,629,318 0 416,801,904 0 425,137,942 0 433,640,701 0 442,313,515 0 451,159,786 0 460,182,981 0 469,386,641 0 478,774,374 0 488,349,861 0 498,116,858 0 508,079,196 0 518,240,779 0 528,605,595 0 539,177,707 0 549,961,261 0 560,960,486 0 572,179,696 0 583,623,290 0 595,295,756 0 607,201,671 0 619,345,704 0 631,732,618 0 644,367,271 0 657,254,616 0 670,399,708 0 683,807,703 Tax Increment Growth Rates incremental Potential Assessed Tax Increment Annual Average Value Revenue* Annual (from BOY) 289,114,748 2,891,147 2.00% 2.00% 294,969,810 2,949,698 8.1 I% 5.01% 319,174,473 3,191,745 7.76% 5.92% 344,227,880 3,442,279 7.45% 6.30% 370,154,297 3,701,543 7,18% 6~47% 396,978,625 3,969,786 2.00% 5.72% 404,990,965 4,049,910 2.00% 5.18¥o 413,163,551 4,131,636 2.00% 4.77% 421,499,589 4,214,996 2.00% 4.46% 430,002,348 4,300,023 2.00% 4.21% 438,675,162 4,386,752 2.00% 4.01% 447,521,433 4,475,214 2.00% 3.84% 456,544,628 4,565,446 2.00% 3.70% 465,748,288 4,657,483 2.00% 3.58% 475,136,021 4,751,360 2.0(/% 3.47% 484,711,508 4,847,115 2.00% 3.38% 494,478,505 4,944,785 2.00% 3.30% 504,440,843 5,044,408 2.00% 3.22% 5~4,602,426 5,146,024 2.00% 3.16% 524,967,242 5,249,672 2.00% 3.10% 535,539,354 5,355,394 2.00% 3.05% 546,322,908 5,463,229 2.00% 3.00% 557,322,133 5,573,221 2.00% 2.96% 568,541,343 5,685,413 2.00% 2.92% 579,984,937 5,799,849 2.00% 2.88% 591,657,403 5,916,574 2.00% 2.85% 603,563,3 [ 8 6,035,633 2.00% 2.81% 615,707,351 6,157,074 2.00% 2.78% 628,094,265 6,280,943 2.00% 2.76% 640,728,918 6,407,289 2.00% 2.73% 653,616,263 6,536,163 2.00% 2.71% 666,761,355 6,667,614 · Potential tax increment revenue without TI collection cap. Based on revenues fiom Basic 'fax Increment (I.0%), exclusive of supplemcmal payment, nnitary revenue and bond ovcnide~. Seifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_O4_Working. xls-Shearwater 11/17/04 Appendix E - Table G-2 Tax Increment Projections In Nominal or "Future" Dollars Shearwater/U.S. Steel Site Redevelopment Project South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Incremental Housing Set-A~ide Non-Housing Tax Revenue* Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Statutory Contractual Pass Pass Year Fiscal Annual CumulativeAnnual CumulativeAnnual CumulativeThroueh Throueh (NIYear A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA-BA) D E 0 2004/ 05 2,891,1472,891,147 578,229 578,229 2,312,918 2,312,918 0 294,623 I 2005/ 06 2,949,6985,840,846 589,940 1,168,169 2,359,758 4,672,676 0 772,309 2 2006/ 07 3,191,7459,032,590 638,349 1,806,518 2,553,396 7,226,072 10,516 835,684 3 2007/ 08 3,442,27912,474,869688,456 2,494,974 2,753,823 9,979,895 21,401 901,280 Pass-through Payments Non-Housing Other Exoenses Revenue County PropertyERAF Bond Agency Other Total Remaining after Tax Admin Fee Contribution Debt Administration Agency Pass Pass Through1% Service 1% Obligations ThroughPayments of AnnualT1 Paymentsof AnnuaITl F G (C-F) H I [ K L 294,6232,018,295 28,911 253,988 0 28,911 0 772,3091,587,449 29,497 248,783 0 29,497 0 846,2001,707,196 31,917 0 0 31,917 0 922,6811,831,142 34A2~ 0 0 34,423 0 4 2008/ 09 3,701,54316,176,412 5 2009/ 10 3,969,78620,146,198 6 2010/ II 4,049,91024,196,108 7 2011/ 12 4,131,63628,327,744 8 2012/ 13 4,214,99632.542,739 9 2013/ 14 4,300,02336,842,763 10 2014/ 15 4,386,75241,229,514 II 2015/ 16 4,475,21445,704,729 12 2016/ 17 4,565,44650,270,175 13 20171 18 4,657,48354,927,658 14 2018/ 19 4,751,36059,679,018 15 2019/ 20 4,847,11564,526,133 16 2020/ 21 4,944,78569,470,918 740,3093,235,2822,961,234 793,9574,029,2403,175,829 809,9824,839,2223,239,928 826,3275,665,5493,305,308 842,9996,508,5483,371,997 860,0057,368,5533,440,019 877,3508,245,9033,509,401 895,0439,140,9463,580,171 913,08910,054,035 3,652,357 931,49710,985,532 3,725,986 950,27211,935,804 3,801,088 969,42312,905.227 3,877,692 988,95713,894,184 3,955,828 17 2021/ ~2 18 2022/ 23 19 2O22/ 24 20 2024/ 25 21 2025/26 22 2026/ 27 23 2027/ 28 24 2028/ 29 25 2029/ 3O 26 2030/ 31 27 2031/ 32 28 2032/ 33 29 2033/ 34 30 2034/ 35 31 2035/ 36 5,044,408 74,515,3271,008,882 14,903,065 4,035,527 5,146,024 79,661,35[1,029,205 15,932,270 4,116,819 5,249,672 84,911,0231,049,934 16,982,205 4,199,738 5,355,394 90,266,4171,071,079 18,053,283 4,284,315 5,463,229 95,729,6461,092,646 19,145,929 4,370,583 5,573,221 101,302,867 1,114,644 20,260,573 4,458,577 4,138,009 105,440,877 827,602 21,088,175 3,310,407 0 105,440,877 0 21,088,175 0 0 105,440,877 0 21,088,175 0 0 105,440,877 0 21,088,175 0 0 105,440,877 0 21,088,175 0 0 105,440,877 0 21,088,175 0 0 [05,440,877 0 21,088,175 0 0 105,440,877 0 21,088,175 0 0 105.440,877 0 21,088,175 0 12,941,130 32,665 16,116,959 44,319 19,356,886 47,800 22~662,195 51,351 26,034,192 54,973 29,474,210 58,667 32,983,612 62,435 36,563,783 66,278 40,216,140 70,883 43,942,126 75,581 47,743,215 80,372 51,620,907 85,259 55,576,735 90,244 59,612,261 95,329 63,729,081 100,515 67,928,819 105,805 72,213,134 111,201 76,583,717 116.705 81,042,294 122,319 84,352,701 93,195 84,352,701 0 84,352,701 0 84,352,701 0 84,352,701 0 84,352,701 0 84~352,70[ 0 84,352,701 0 84,352,701 0 969,162 1,001,827 1,959,407 37,0i5 0 0 37,0[5 1,039,395 1,083,715 2,092,114 39,698 0 0 39,698 1,060,374 1,108,174 2,131,754 40,499 0 0 40,499 1,081,772 1,133,123 2,172,186 41,316 0 0 41,316 1,103,598 1,158,570 2,213,426 42,150 0 0 42,150 1,125,860 i,184,527 2,255,492 43,030 0 0 43,C~00 1,148,568 1,211,003 2,298,398 43,868 0 0 43,868 1,17i,730 1,238,008 2,342,163 44,752 0 0 44,752 1,195,355 1,266,239 2,386,118 45,654 0 0 45,654 1,219,453 1,295,034 2,430,953 46,575 0 0 46,575 1,244,032 1,324,405 2,476,684 47,514 0 0 47,514 1,269,~03 {,354,363 2,523,329' 48,471 0 0 48,471 1,294,676 1.384,920 2,570,908 49,448 0 0 49,448 1,320,760 1,416,089 2,619,438 50,444 0 0 50,444 1,347,366 1,447,881 2,668,938 51,460 0 0 51,460 1,374,504 1,480,309 2,719,429 52,497 0 0 52,497 1,402,184 1,513,386 2,770,929 53,554 0 0 53,554 1,43~4181.547,124 2.823,460 54,632 0 0 54,632 1,459,217 1,581,536 2,877,041 55,732 0 0 55,732 1,083,441 1,176,636 2,133,772 41,380 0 0 41,380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,610,021 1,054,409 502,772 0 1,054,409 22,266,860 412,295 502,772 0 412,295 47,775,748 902,664 502,772 0 902,664 55,61~021 1,054,409 502,772 0 1,054,409 55.610,021 1,054,409 502,772 0 1,054.409 TOTAL 105,440,877 21,088,175 84,352,701: =', 1.597,81527,144,866 28,742.681 Cumulative To: 2014/ 1541,: 8245903 384,126 10,332,626 10,716,752 To: 2024/ 25 18,053,283 72,213,134 1,265,59623,171,789 24,437,385 To: 2034/ 35105,440,877 21,088,175 84,352,701 1,597,81527,144,866 28,742,681 To: 2049/ 50105,440,877 21.088,175 84,352,701 1,597,81527,144,866 28,742,681 · Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (I,0%), exclusive of s~pp/cmcntal payment, unira~ revenue and bond over, des. Non.Housing Revenue Remaining after Pass Through and Other Expenses Annual Cumulative M (G-H-I-K-L)N 1,706,484 1,706,484 1.279,672 2,986,155 1,643,361 4,629,517 1,762,297 6,391,813 0 1,885,376 8,277,190 0 2,012,719 10,289,908 0 L050,755 12,340,664 0 2,089,553 14,430,217 0 2,129,126 16,559,343 0 2,169,491 18,728,834 0 2,210,663 20,939,498 0 2,252,659 23,192,157 0 2,294,810 25,486,966 0 2,337,803 27,824,769 0 2,381,656 30,206,426 0 2,426~357 32,632,813 0 2,472,012 35,104,825 0 2,518,549 37,623,374 0 2,566,018 40,189,392 0 2,614,435 42,803,827 0 2,663,821 45,467,648 0 2,714,195 48,181,844 0 2,765,576 I50,947,420 0 2,051,012 52,998,431 0 0 52,998,43 [ 0 0 52,998,431 0 0 52,998,431 0 0 52,998,431 0 0 52,998,43 I 0 0 52,998,43 l 0 0 52,998,431 0 0 52,998 431 0 52,998,431 ~.~ ~'"'~ ~ 20,939 52,998,431 SeifetConsuiting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_04_Working. xis-Shearwater 11/17/04 Appendix E - Table G-3 Tax Increment Projections In Present Value or Constant 2004/05 Dollars* Shearwater/U.S. Steel Site Redevelopment Project South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Incremental Housing Set-Aside Non-Housing Tax Revenue** Revenue Revenue 1% 20% Pass P~s Pass Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative Annual Cumulative ThroughThroueh Throueh Pass-through Payments Non-Housing Other Expenses Revenue Count,/PropertyERAF Bond Agency Other Statutory Contractual Total Remaining after Tax Admin Fee ContributionDebt Administration Agency Pass Through 1% Servke 4% Pavmenu of Annual TI Paymentsof Annual TI G(C-F) H 1 I K 2.018,295 28,911 253,988 0 28,911 [,504,691 27,959 235,8i4 0 27,959 1.533.835 28,676 0 0 28,676 1.559.426 29,315 0 0 29,315 1,581.666 29,879 0 0 29.079 1.600.749 30,374 0 0 30.374 1.546.045 29,372 0 0 29.372 1.493,240 28,4B2 0 0 28,402 1.442.266 27,465 0 0 27,465 {.393,058 26,558 0 0 26,558 1,345,553 25,681 0 0 25,681 1,299,691 24,833 0 0 24.833 1.255,054 24,013 0 0 24,013 1.211.977 23.220 0 0 23.220 1.170,405 22,453 0 0 22,453 1.130.283 21.712 0 0 21,712 1,091,559 20,995 0 0 20,995 1,054,184 20,301 0 0 2~301 1,018,109 19,630 0 0 19,630 983.289 18,982 0 0 18,982 949,678 18,354 0 0 18,354 917,234 17,748 0 0 17,748 885.915 17.161 0 0 17,161 622,790 12,078 0 0 12,078 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,608.989 574~076 489,802 0 574,076 17,018.823 312,594 489,802 0 312.594 28,183.051 527,089 489.802 0 527.089 30,608,989 574,076 489,802 0 574,076 30,608,989 574,076 489,802 0 574,076 Year Fiscal (N) Year A AA B BA C (A-B) CA (AA-BA) D E F 0 2004/05 2,891,147 2,891,147 578,229 578,2292,312,918 2,312,918 0 294,623 294,623 [ 2005/ 06 2,795,922 5,687,070559,[84 [,137,414 2,236,738 4,549,656 0 732,047 732,047 2 2006/ 07 2,867.6318.554.701 573.526 1.710.940 2.294.105 6.843,760 9,448 750.822 760.270 3 2007/ 08 2.931.492I 1.486,192 586.298 2.297.238 2.345,193 9.188.954 18,225 767.542 785,768 4 2008/ 09 2,987,94714.474,140597,589 2.894,828 2,390.358 11.579,312 26.368 782.324 808.692 5 2009/ l0 3,037.42017,511.560607,484 3.502.312 2,429.936 14,009.248 33,910 795.277 829,187 6 2010/ I I 2,937,18020,448,740587,436 4.089.748 2.349.744 16,358.9~2 34,667 769,032 803,699 7 2011/ 12 2,840.23823,288.978568,048 4.657,796 2.272,191 18.631.182 35,300 743,650 778,950 8 2012/ 13 2,746.48726,035.465549,297 5.207,093 2.197.189 20.828,372 35,820 719.103 754.923 9 2013/ 14 2,655,82028,691,285531,164 5,738,257 2,124,656 22,953,028 36,234 695,364 731,599 10 2014/ 15 2,568,13931,259,423513,628 6,251,885 2,054,511 25,007,539 36,551 672,407 708,958 11 2015/ 16 2,483,34333,742,767496,669 6,748,553 1,986,675 26,994,213 36,778 650,205 686,984 12 2016/ 17 2,401,34036.144,107480,268 7,228,821 1,921,072 28,915,286 37,283 628,735 666.018 13 2017/ 18 2,322,03838,466,145464,408 7,693,229 1,857.630 30,772,916 37,682 607,971 645,653 14 2018/ 19 2,245,34740,711,492449,069 8,142,298 1,796,278 32,569.194 37,981 587,892 625,873 15 2019/ 20 2,171.18342.882,675434.237 8.576,535 1.736.946 34,306,140 38391 568.473 606.664 16 2020/ 21 2,099,46244,982,138419.892 8,996.428 1,679,570 35,985,710 38.316 549.695 588.011 17 2021/ 22 2,030,10547,012,242406,021 9,402,448 1,624,084 37,609,794 38,365 531,535 569,900 18 2022/ 23 1,963,033 48,975,275392,6079,795,0551,570,426 39,180,220 38,343 513,974 552,317 19 2023/ 24 1,898,172 50~873,447379,63410,174,689 1,518,537 40,698,757 38,257 496,992 535,249 20 2024/ 25 1,835,448 52,708,895367,09010,541,779 1,468,359 42,167,116 38,112 480,569 518,681 21 2025/ 26 1,774,793 54,483,688354,95910,896,738 1,419,835 43,586,951 37,913 464,688 502,601 22 2026/ 27 1,716,138 56.199.826343,22811.239.965 1.372.910 44.959,861 37.665 449,330 486.996 23 2027/ 28 1,207.772 57,407,598241,55411.481.520966.217 45.926,078 27.201 316.227 343,428 24 2028/ 29 0 57,407.5980 11,481.5200 45,926,078 0 0 0 25 2029/ 30 0 57,407,5980 11,481,5200 45,926,078 0 0 0 26 2030/ 31 0 57,407,5980 I 1,481.520 0 45,926.078 0 0 0 27 2031/ 32 0 57~407,5980 11,481,5200 45.926,078 0 0 0 28 2032/ 33 0 57,407,5980 I 1.481.520 0 45,926.078 0 0 0 29 2033/ 34 0 57,407,5980 11,481,5200 45,926.078 0 0 0 30 2034/ 35 0 57.407.5980 11.481,5200 45,926,078 0 0 0 31 2035/ 36 0 57.407,5980 I 1,481,520 0 45,926,078 0 0 0 TOTAL $7,407,598 ~. :~~ 11.481.520 ='i: 45,926,078 748,61214,568.478 15.317.090 To: 2014/ 1531.259,423 6,251,885 25,007,539 266,524 7,722,191 7,988,715 To: 2024/ 2552,708,895 10,541,779 42,167,116 645,833 13,338,233 13,984,065 To: 2034/ 3557.407,598 11,481,520 748,612 14,568,478 15,311,~90 To: 2049/ 5057,407,598 11,481,520 45,926,078 748.612 14,568,478 15,317,090 *Present value dis¢ounled to 2004/05 at: 5.5% ** Based on revenues Bom Basic Tax Increment (I 0%), exclusive of supplemental payment, unilary revenue and bond ovemdes. Obligations Non-Housing Revenue Remaining after Pass Through and Other Ex~enses Annual Cumulative L M (G-H-l-K-L) N 0 1,706,484 1.706,484 0 1,212,959 2,919,443 0 1,476,482 4,395,925 0 1,500,796 5.896,720 0 1,521.907 7,418,628 0 1,540.000 8,958,628 0 1,487,302 10,445,930 0 1,436,436 I 1,882,365 0 1,387,336 13,269,702 0 1,339,941 14,609,643 0 1,294,190 15,903,833 0 1,250,024 17,153,857 0 1,207,027 18,360,885 0 1,165,537 19,526,421 0 1,125,498 20,651,919 0 1.086,859 21,738,778 0 1,049,569 22,788,348 0 1,013,581 23,801,929 0 978,848 24,780,777 0 945,325 25,726,102 0 912,969 26,639,071 0 881,738 27,520,809 0 851,592 28.372,401 0 598.634 28,971,035 0 0 28.971,035 0 0 28,971,035 0 0 28,971,035 0 0 28,971,035 0 0 28,971,035 0 0 28,971,035 0 0 28,971,035 0 0 28,971,035 0 28.97L035 ~ ~ ~ ~ :,~'~;,~?* 0 15,903,833 0 26.639.071 0 28,971,035 0 28,971,035 Seifel Consulting Inc. Tl_SSF_Summ_O4_Working.xls-Shearwater 11/17/04 Appendix F Report of the Fiscal Officer Office of Contronex TOM HU NING CONTROL~.R COUNTy OF SAN MATEO 655 COUNTY CENTER. 4 FLOOR REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94063 November 12, 200~ ROBERT G. ADLER ASSI~,TAIeT CONTROLLER KANCHAN ~ CHARAN DEPUTY CONTROLLER YGI.~I~Hi~/E: (65~) 363.47'77 PAX: (S~) 3~-zM~ w~w.r.o.~mateo.ae.u~/control lerl TO: City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and all taxing agencies locat~ within the project area within the City of South San Francisco As the County official charged with the responsibility of allocating taxes and in compliance with Section 33328 of the Health and Safety Code, the following report is submitted. The total assessed valuation of all the parcels that are to be annexed as amendment to thc SSF Downtown Project is zero. · The taxing agencies in thc project area are indicated on Schedule A attached in Column 1. · The tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from the base year assessment roll from the project area, including state subventions is shown on Schedule A attached in Column 2. The tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from all property within its boundaries, for the base year, inside or outside of the project area is shown on Schedule A attached in Column 3. · No estimate of first year taxes available to the Redevelopment Agency is being presented (due to insufficient information) concerning first year growth of the project area. · The local secured assessed valuation of thc project area, reported by code area, for thc preceding year has not been requested. The total assessed valuation of all taxable property outside of thc project area which is within 300 feet from the boundaries of the project area as shown on the base year asse~ment are no longer required or reported, Very truly yours, . K~fian Charan Deputy Controller ~rn~d~ n~.msRs x .doc SCHEDULE A SSF DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FY:04-05 COLUMN 1 COLULMN 2 COLUMN County of San Mateo City of South San Francisco SSF Unified School Dist San Mateo Jr. College Bay Area Air Pollution County Harbor Dist Coounty Education Tax 138,684,201 10,431,902 38,106,541 66,969,342 2,063,506 2,620,697 34,851,520 Not: Column 2 The parcels that are tobe annexed as part of SSF Downtown/Central Redev. Project have zero assessed valuation pe Assessor, Column 3 Tax revenue derived by each taxing agency from all property within the the taxing agency's boundaries, for the base year. 123DATA/SSFRDA.xls 1 11/17/04 STATE OF CALJFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PROPERTY AND SPECIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT 450 N STREET. NIIC: ~. ~RAMENTO, C. AUFORNIA PO BOX 942~7~, ~ACRAMENTO0 C~UFORNIA ~ TELEPHONE (~18) 322-7188 PAX (~) 327-a2~; September 27, 2004 Mr. Kan~han K. Charon, Deputy Controller San Mateo County Office of the Auditor-Controller County Government Center 555 County Center, 4th FI. Redwood City, CA 94063 Dear Mr. Charen: Pursuant.to Section 33328 et seq. o!.the Health and Safety Code, the 2004/05 assessed values of railroads and the non-operating, non unitary assessed values of state-assessed prol~erty located within the boundaries of the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project are zero. These values will continue to be valid if the project boundaries remain fixed. The ordinance adopting and approving the redevelopment plan for this project becomes effective prior to August ZO, 2005. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please conta=t Mr. Errol F. Tankiamco at (g16) 322-4768. Sincerely, William M. Harris, Supervisor Tax Area Services Section WMH:ah cc: Mr. Barry M. Nagel Values/I/99 Appendix G Development to Date Appendix G-1 Development to Date Downtown/Central Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Genentech Founders Research Center I, 99-103 DNA Way Airport Inn, 751 Airport Black Mountain Water, 91 South Spruce Point Grand Business Park - Sugen, 230 East Grand Point Grand Business Park - Metaxen, 280 East Grand Point Grand Business Park - Rigel, 240 East Grand Alexandria, 347 Oyster Point Boulevard Alexandria, 349 Oyster Point Boulevard Point Grand Business Park - Sugen II, 220 East Grand Point Grand Business Park - Exelixis, 170 Harbor Way Japan Parts, 428 North Canal Ramada Inn, 721 Airport Park & Fly, North Access Road Point Grand Business Park - Sugen III, 220 East Grand Point Grand Business Park - Exelixis, 169 Harbor Way Opus, 6000 Shoreline Court Material Recovery Facility/Transfer Station, 500 East Jamie Court Opus, 4000 Shoreline Court Opus, 5000 Shoreline Court Opus, 7000 Shoreline Court Giorgi Furniture Store (2002) Genentech Founders Research Center II, 107-111 DNA Way Stuhlmuller, 180 Oyster Point Boulevard Malcolm, 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Britannia East Grand, 450 East Grand Alexandria - East Jamie Court 279,000 sf R&D 1992 34 rooms 1995 14,864 s f office 1997 106,368 sf R&D 1998 50,200 sfR&D 1998 60,964 sfR&D 1999 40,000 sfoffice/R&D 1999 65,000 sf office/R&D 1999 48,391 sfR&D 2000 55,737 sf R&D 2000 40,000 sf office/warehouse 2000 45 rooms 2001 1,861 space, 7-level parking garage for airport parking 2001 65,717 sfR&D 2001 40,000 sf R&D 2001 141,706 sf office/R&D 2001 10 acres 2001 68,005 sf office/R&D 2002 141,360 sf office/R&D 2002 141,677 sf office/R&D 2002 44,500 sf 2003 287,444 sf R&D 2003 105,000 sf office Approved 155,000 s f office Approved 9 office/R&D buildings totaling approx. 783,533 sfi an 8,000 sf Approved childcare facility; a 5,000 sf fitness center; 8,000 sf of restaurant/retail use and two 5-7 level oarkine earaees 2 office/R&D buildings totaling 133,000 sfi 2-stories over a parking level (57.700 sfl and 3- stories (75.300 st3 Approved Source: South San Francisco Planning Department. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger G-1 November 2004 Appendix G-2 Development to Date El Camino Corridor Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Greenridge, 1565 El Camino Real Promenade, McLellan Drive (South of El Camino Real) Costco, 1556 E! Camino Real Oak Farms, Oak Avenue at Commercial Chestnut Creek, 65 Chestnut Avenue Fairfield, 1600 El Camino Real Park Station Lofts, 1410 El Camino Real 33 Below Market Rate units (BMRs) 179 single family dwellings 147,000 sf& gasoline station 32 single family dwellings (inc. 5 BMRs) 40 low-income senior apartments 341 apartments, 23,000 sfretail, 20% affordable 99 condominium units, 20% affordable 1999 1999-2001 2001 2003 2003 Underconstructionin 2004 Underreview - not yetapproved Source: South San Francisco Planning Department. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger G-2 November 2004 Appendix G-3 Development to Date Gateway Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger 601 Gateway 232,859 sfoffice 1984 651 Gateway Comfort Suites, 121 East Grand Embassy Suites, 250 Gateway Gateway Business Park #B, 750 Gateway Gateway Business Park #C, 800 Gateway Gateway Business Park #D, 850 Gateway Gateway Business Park #E, 1000 Gateway Gateway Business Park #F, 900 Gateway Britannia Biotechnology Center, 2-4 Corporate Drive Britannia Biotechnology Center, 201-225 Gateway Boulevard Gateway Business Park #A, 700 Gateway 701 Gateway Office Hampton Inn, 300 Gateway Gateway Technology Center, 600 Gateway Gateway Technology Center, 650 Gateway Hilton Gardens, 670 Gateway Larkspur Landing, 690 Gateway 901 & 951 Gateway 801 Gateway Gateway Technology Center, 630 Gateway 611 Gateway Gateway Childcare Center, 559 Gateway 681 Gateway 321,316 sf office 1986 167 room hotel 1987 10-story, 311 room hotel 1988 49,490 sf office/R&D 1989 ~3,590 sf office/R&D 1989 18,720 sf office/R&D 1989 62,046 sf office/R&D 1989 50,000 sf office/R&D 1991 148,000 sf office/R&D 1995 103,000 sf office/R&D 1997-1999 55,098 sf office/R&D 1998 176,000 sf office 1998 100 rooms 1999 50,000 sf office/R&D 1999 50,000 sf offi~e/R&D 1999 169 rooms 1999 111 rooms 1999 170,000 sf office/R&D 2000 & 2002 139,050 sf office/R&D 2001 50,000 sf office/R&D 2002 265,000 sf office 2003 8,300 sfbuilding, 5,000 sfplayground (101 children) 2004 124,425 sf office/R&D Approved Source: South San Francisco Planning Department. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger G-3 November 2004 Appendix G-4 Development to Date Shearwater Project Area South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Marriott Courtyard, 1300 Veterans Marriott Residence, 1350 Veterans Britannia Oyster Point A, 1100 Veterans Britannia Oyster Point B,1120 Veterans Britannia Oyster Point C, 1140 Veterans Britannia Oyster Point D, 1150 Veterans Britannia Oyster Point F&G, 1170-1180 Veterans 195 Oyster Point Boulevard Britannia Oyster Point E, 1130 Veterans Britannia Oyster Point -Veterans Bay West Cove (Genentech), 105-185 Oyster Point Boulevard Source: South San Francisco Planning Department. 198 rooms 152 rooms 98,184 sf office/R&D 79,994 sf office/R&D 67,015 s f office/R&D 80,171 sf officc/R&D 141,964 sf office/R&D 350 room full service hotel 105,000 sf office/R&D; 5,000 sfretail 8,000 sf childcare center; 5,000 sf restaurant 389,000 sfR&D; 223,354 sfoffice 2001 2001 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 Approved Approved Approved Approved South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger G-4 November 2004 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2004 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. RAYMOND L. GREEN Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Mayor Pro Tem RICHARD A. GARBAR1NO, SR. Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Peninsula Family YMCA - Maurice Henry, Sr. Director of Child Care & Community Programs · Holiday Safety Tips - Fire Chief Phil White · 2004 Fire Department Christmas Toy Drive - Fire Captain Travis Nuckolls · Public Safety Awards - Fire Chief Phil White and Police Chief Mark Raffaelli AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of November 10 and 17, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of December 8, 2004 3. Resolution authorizing acceptance of grant from Kaiser Permanente to fund Community Partnership's Community Health Initiative in the amount of $44,000 4. Resolution authorizing acceptance of grants from the South San Francisco Foundation for Youth to support the Library Children's Services Reader Leader program in the amount of $1,000 and the California State Library to support Project Read in the amount of $6,446 5. Resolution authorizing acceptance of a grant from Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to apply towards the purchase of a fire safety house in the amount of $48,000 6. Motion to accept new metal beam guard rail installation project along portions of Junipero Serra and Hickey Boulevards as complete in accordance with plans and specifications 7. Resolution authorizing submittal of grant application to C/CAG Bike/Pedestrian Advisory Committee for TDA Article 3 Funds for FY 2005-06 8. Resolution awarding bid to Pioneer Americas, LLC for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite solution in an amount not to exceed $206,000 DECEMBER 8, 2004 PAGE 2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 9. Resolution authorizing agreement with Placemakers to perform environmental review and prepare a focused supplemental environmental impact report for Terrabay Phase III in the amount of $134,845 10. Resolution authorizing an amendment to the purchase and sale agreement with Action Signs, Inc. for the real property located at 178-190 Airport Boulevard to allow modifications to the existing billboard sign and incorporating state required relocation language 11. Motion to cancel the regular meeting of December 22, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Resolution declaring election results of November 2, 2004 special municipal election LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 13. Resolution approving personnel changes, including classification description and placement for newly developed Community Development Coordinator position; and motion to waive reading and introduce an ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 3.12 COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM CLOSED SESSION 14. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b): conference with legal counsel - existing litigation: Hart v. City of South San Francisco ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG AGENDA DECEMBER 8, 2004 PAGE 3 ADDENDUM TO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 8, 2004 7:30 P.M. The following item is added to the Agenda: ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS · Consideration of approval of resolution of necessity related to 225 Shaw Road, Wet Weather Program Office of the City Clerk, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8518 Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #3 December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Valerie Sommer, Library Director RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $44,000 IN GRANT FUNDING FROM KAISER PERMANENTE TO SUPPORT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP'S COMMUNITY HEALTH INITIATIVE AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2004/2005 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution accepting a grant in the amount of $44,000 from Kaiser Permanente to fund the South San Francisco Community Partnership's Community Health Initiative and amending the Library Department's 2004/2005 budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The South San Francisco Community Partnership (SSFCP) is a partnership between the City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo County Health Services Agency, community-based agencies and community members, and is administered by the Library Department. One of the goals of the Partnership is to plan and implement projects to support "healthy children and families." In May 2004, the Healthy Colnmunities Committee of the Partnership selected childhood obesity prevention as a priority area. Kaiser Permanente has awarded the Partnership $44,000 to work on outcomes related to Kaiser's Healthy Eating - Active Living Initiative. This funding will enable the Partnership to begin work immediately to collaboratively develop a bilingual/bicultural obesity prevention curriculum for a pilot series of classes and presentations to adolescents and families in the Old Town community. At the stone time, this funding will allow the Partnership to apply for additional funding to more widely promote this program in the community. FUNDING The funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. Funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2004/2005 will be carried over into fiscal year 2005/2006. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycle. Valerie Sommer Library Director Approved. 'h~}~ t ,. M. Nag~il--~ -* City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $44,000 IN GPe\NT FUNDING FROM KAISER PERMANENTE TO FUND THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP'S COMMUNITY HEALTH INITIATIVE AND AMENDING THE 2004/2003 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of $44,000 from Kaiser Permanente to fund the South San Francisco Community Partnership's Community Health Initiative; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $44,000 in grant funding from Kaiser Permanente to fund the South San Francisco Community Partnership's Community Health Initiative and amends the 2004/2005 Operating Budget to add $44,000 to the Library Department's budget. 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\l 2-84library.fund.kaiser.doc ATTEST: City Clerk StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #4 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Valerie Sommer, Library Director RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT $1,000 IN FUNDING FROM THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION FOR YOUTH AND $6,446 IN FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY TO SUPPORT LIBRARY PROGRAMS AND AMEND THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2004/2005 OPERATING BUDGET. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $1,000 in funding from the South San Francisco Foundation for Youth to support the Library Children's Services Reader Leader program and $6,446 in funding from the California State Library to support Project Read and amending the Library Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2004/2005. BACKGROUND The Library has been awarded $1,000 from the South San Francisco Foundation for Youth to support the Children's Services' Reader Leader program at the West Orange and Grand Avenue Libraries. In this program, 6th to 12th graders assist elementary school children in practicing reading skills. The funds will help support staff and supplies for this successful program. Project Read has been awarded an additional $6,446 from the California State Library as part of the annual California Library and Literacy Services (CLLS) allotment to support basic adult and family literacy services. FUNDING: The funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. Funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2004/2005 will be carried over into fiscal year 2005/2006. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycles. Valerie Sommer Library Director Appr°ved i~)git~./N agel City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $1,000 IN FIJNDING FROM THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION FOR YOUTH TO SUPPORT THE LIBRARY CHILDREN'S SERVICES READER LEADER PROGRAM AND $6,446 IN FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY TO SUPPORT PROJECT READ AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of $1,000 in funding from the South San Francisco Foundation for Youth and $6,446 in funding from the California State Library to support Library programs; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operation budget of the Library Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $1,000 in funding from the South San Francisco Foundation for Youth to support the Library Children's Services Reader Leader program and $6,446 in funding from the California State Library to support Project Read and amends the 2004/2005 Operating budget to add $7,446 to the Library Department's budget. 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\ 12-84library.funding.doc ATTEST: City Clerk { Staff Xeport AGENDA ITEM #5 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Philip D. White, Fire Chief RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000.00 FROM THE FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO PURCHASE A FIRE SAFETY HOUSE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution accepting a grant in the amount of $48,000.00 from the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to purchase a Fire Safety House and amending the 2004-05 Operating Budget. BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION Fireman's Fund Insurance Company has awarded a $48,000.00 grant to the South San Francisco Fire Department. This money will be used to purchase a Fire Safety House. This Fire Safety House will significantly improve the quality of all public education programs the Department offers by providing hand-on experience in smoke filled environments. FUNDING This funding does not create any ongoing financial obligation for the City of South San Francisco. A rov ~/ ('. J PP -, ..-,- .~ ~ i~_~B~ M. Nagel, ~Manager Attachment: Resolution JAB-12~2~4 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE HREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000 TO PURCHASE A FIRE SAFETY HOUSE AND AMENDING THE 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of a grant in the amount of $48,000 from the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to purchase a Fire Safety House; and WHEREAS, the funding does not create any ongoing financial obligation for the City of South San Francisco. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council accepts a grant from the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company in the amount of $48,000 to purchase a Fire Safety House and amends the 2004-05 Operating Budget to add $48,000 to the Fire Department budget. 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\ 12-8-4fire.safety.house.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk StaffXeport AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council TelTy White, Director of Public Works NEW METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING INSTALLATION PROJECT NO. 51-13231-0502 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the New Metal Beam Guard Railing Installation as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DIS CUSSION: This project installed new metal beam guard railing along segments of the east side ofJunipero Serra Boulevard from King Drive to Hickey Boulevard and a small segment on the south side of Hickey Boulevard from Junipero Serra Boulevard toward Hilton Avenue. The project has been inspected by City Staff and is complete in accordance with Caltrans plans and specifications as required by the contract. Acceptance of the project will provide authorization for staff to file a Notice of Completion and to release the payment of the performance bond. FUNDING: Construction was completed within funds allocated for the 2004-2005 Cfi' budget. By: Terry White/ Director of Public Works Approved b~X)t~lr ~~~'~ 'BmS-y~M. Nagel (,~ City Manager R:\ SM PROJECTS\ \Staff Report Acceptance.doc StaffReport AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATIONS TO C/CAG BIKE/PEDESTRL~N ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR TDA ARTICLE 3 FUNDS FOR: PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CROSSING ON SPRUCE AVENUE;REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PEDESTRIAN HEADS AT 8 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS; CONSTRUCTION OF 360 LINEAR FEET OF BAY TRAIL AT WESTERLY END OF OYSTER POINT MARINA RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) by the City of South San Francisco for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funding for Fiscal Year 2005-06, as made available by Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 99233.3 and 99234, for three separate projects; and that a certified copy of this Resolution and its attachments be forwarded to the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The above referenced PUC Section authorizes the submission of eligible claims to a regional transportation planning agency for pedestrian/bicycle projects. In San Mateo County these applications are coordinated, evaluated, and prioritized as a county-wide claim to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through application to the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The City of South San Francisco plans to submit an application to C/CAG for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the following projects: · Signalized Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing at Spruce Avenue to link segments of the future Linear Park; · Replacement of existing pedestrian heads at 12 signalized intersections with countdown timers; · Construction of a 360 feet key Bay Trail link at the westerly end of Oyster Point Marina, near Oyster Point Boulevard. Staff Report Subject: TDA ARTICLE 3 GRANT APPLICATIONS TO C/CAG BIKE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 2 In order to be eligible for funding, each of these projects must meet the following conditions: There are no legal impediments regarding the project; · The City of South San Francisco has adequate staff resources to complete the project; · There is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or the ability of the City of South San Francisco to carry out the project; · Environmental and right-of-way issues have been reviewed and found to be in such a state that fund obligation deadlines will not be jeopardized; · Adequate local funding is available to complete the project; · The project has been conceptually reviewed to the point that all contingent issues have been considered. 2. The project is for construction and/or engineering of a capital project; is to maintain a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; 3. South San Francisco is eligible to claim TDA Article 3 funds under Section 99233 of the Public Utilities Code; If it is a Class I, II, or llI bikeway project, it meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual, or if it is a pedestrian facility, it meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter l~00 of the California Highway Design Manual; 5. The project is ready to implement within the next fiscal year; o The project meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the City of South San Francisco has submitted Categorical Exemptions for these projects that have been stamped for filing by the County Clerk; 7. The City of South San Francisco agrees to maintain the projects; 8. The projects are included in one or more of the following: a detailed bicycle circulation element or plan included in a general plan or an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan. The projects identified in this staff report above meet these conditions, and are eligible for funding. Staff is working on obtaining letters of support for the project. A video tape of the Spruce Avenue site and the other two locations will also be submitted with the application for this project. Staff Report Subject: TDA ARTICLE 3 GRANT APPLICATIONS TO C/CAG BIKE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 3 FUNDING Although there is no required local match for the grant funds, some local funding may improve the probability of funding. Proposed matches for each project are: Project Total Estimated Match % Local Request Source Match 1. Spruce Ave. Signalized Crossing For Linear Park 150,000 50,000 33% Developer Fees 2. Replacement of existing pedestrian heads at 12 signalized intersections 22,000 5,720 26% Gas Tax 3. Bay Trail Link Oyster Pt. Marina 36,000 18,000 50% General Fund By: Attachment: Resolution TDA Article 3 Applications Approved: City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3 PRQ|ECTS AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF ClxklMS WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act, Article 3 provides funds for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian projects in San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, applications must be submitted to the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County by December 1, 2004 for the fiscal year 2005-2006 TDA funding cycle; and WHEREAS, the Bikeway and Pedestrian Advisory Committee will review and prioritize the applications received; and WHEREAS, staff is requesting the Bay Trail Improvements and Bicycle Route Signage Project be approved for submission; and WHEREAS, although there is no required local match for the grant funds, some local funding improves the probability of funding; and WHEREAS, the project cost for the Spruce Avenue Signalized Crossing for Linear Park is $150,000 with $50,000 requested from the TDA grant; and wHEREAs, the project cost for the replacement of existing pedestrian heads at 12 signalized intersections is $22,000 with $5,720 requested from the TDA grant; and WHEREAS, the project cost for the Bay Trail Link is $36,000 with $18,000 requested from the TDA grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that .the City Council hereby approves the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA) projects and authorizes submittal of claims. 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\ 12-8-4transportation .res .doc ATTEST: City Clerk BAY TRAIL LINK AT OYSI"ER Point MARINA C/CAG BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TDA ARTICLE 3 APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 Agency: City of South San Francisco Project Description: Funds Requested: $36,000.00 Construction of 200 feet key Bay trail link at the westerly end of Oyster Point Marina, near Oyster Point Boulevard. PROJECT SCREENING a. CALTRANS Standards Explain how the project meets CALTRANS Standards. Not applicable. The Bay Trail meets development requirements established by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission [BCDC]. b. CEQA approval? Yes Date of approval: November 4, 2004. Note: CEQA document must be submitted with the application. STATE OF READINESS Make sure that the project proposal is complete and contains all required documentation. The more complete the application will result in a higher project score. Right-of-Way cedification required? N/A If required, Right-of-way Cert. completed? Yes No Comments: Land is owned by the City of South San Francisco. Permits/Agreements approved? Yes List al! permits and/or agreements approved/obtained to date: Document Date approved/obtained BCDC Permit 1-99 March 1999 Page 1 of 4 Attachment 2 Comments: The trail was approved by the City Council and BCDC as part of small office and hotel development that will not be constructed for many years. The public use of the site has created an informal path linking two portions of the Bay Trail on adjoining sites. This is the only uncommitted and uncompleted link on the northerly area of the trail in South San Francisco. Two other uncompleted segments, along the southerly portion of the Bay Trail are either approved or in the design stage and are to be privately funded. Completion of this trail segment will provide a safe and functional route for many nearby workers and City residents. do Comment on the status of design of the project, and indicate the percentage of design completed. Contractor will install the path. Specification drawings are required. Project is 10% ready. COMMUNITY SUPPORT a. Listed as "priority project" in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan or a recognized pedestrian plan. Yes C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan Page: 47 b. Local approval by bicycle/pedestrian (BPAC) organization? Yes Comment on level of support. Attach approval documentation and show composition of relevant committee. City of South San Francisco BPAC meeting of October 1,2004. Funds requested: $ 36,000.00 Local match to be provided: $18,000.00 Local match percentage = Local match provided Funds requested = $18,000.00 / $ 36,000.00 = 50% MEETS PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Page 2 of 4 Attachment 2 a. Does the project eliminate or mitigate the effects from an identified problem? Yes Explain: The path will improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, and provide one of three final segment connections in the Bay Trail. The area is actively utilized by the growing adjacent employment centers especially along the Bay Front. b. 1. Bicycles: b.2.Pedestrians: Does the project provide access to bicycle or pedestrian facilities in high use activity centers? Yes Explain: The Bay Trail segment is adjacent to growing employment centers, a major water oriented recreation area and a future water transit terminal. Completion of the trail segment will provide a safer connection to the adjacent trail segments that link up with other employment and water oriented recreation centers. Bicycle and pedestrian access is a vital component of the many Transportation Demand Management Plans approved as part of the growing employment centers. c. Is commute use improved by the project? Yes Explain: The project is designed in part to provide safe, flat and convenient access for cyclists from the Cai Train station and regional bicycle routes. Bicycle and pedestrian access is a vital component of the many Transportation Demand Management Plans approved as part of the growing employment centers. d. What is the relationship of the project to more significant bicycle or pedestrian routes? Explain: The Bay Trail segment is a part of a larger trail connecting to the adjacent communities of Brisbane and San Bruno, and is linked to other local pedestrian and local and regional bicycle routes. e. The project is consistent with or included in the following: 1. County or City facilities plan - No 2. Circulation element of general plan - Yes 3. C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan - Yes 4. Pedestrian Plan equal to e.3. above - No General Plan Circulation Element Pages: 157 & 162 General Plan Parks and Recreation Element Pages: 175 & 186 C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Page: 47 Page 3 of 4 Attachment 2 f. Comment on the level of local support: City Council Resolution. General Plan Policies urge completion of the Bay Trail. On-going citizen requests for Bay Trail completion. Note: A resolution of support from the relevant jurisdiction is to be submitted with the application. SAFETY How is safety improved because of the project? Explain: Paving the path will provide a smooth surface useable during dry and inclement weather and improved safety for both pedestrian and bicyclists. PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION Primary Contact Person Dennis Chuck- Engineering Division Telephone Number [650] 829-6652 email address dennis.chuck@ssf.net Secondary Contact Person Steve Carlson - Planning Division Telephone Number [650] 877-8535 email address steve.carlson@ssf.net Page 4 of 4 Attachment 2 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: County Clerk County of San Mateo County Government Center Redwood City, CA 94063 From: City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711- 3t5 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Project Title: Bay Trail Project Location-Specific: Oyster Point Marina Project Location - City: South San Francisco Project Location- County: San Mateo Description of Project: Construction of an asphalt bicycle and pedestrian trail along a 200 foot fi'ontage of the westerly edge of Oyster Point Marina near Oyster Point Boulevard connecting two existing Bay fi'ont trails replacing an informal path, on City owned land, in the Open Space Zoning District. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of South San Francisco, City Council Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Exempt Status: (check one) City of South San Francisco, Engineering Division [] Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); [] Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080Co)(3); 15269(a)); [] Emergency Project (Sec. 21080¢)(4); 15269(b)(c)); [XICategorical Exemption. State type and section number: [] Statutory Exemptions. State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: Class 1, Section 15301 (c) ENDORSED FILED COUNTY CLERK RE. COA, DER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY CAL~F Lead Agency NOV 1 7 ZDD4 Contact Person: Thomas C. Sparks, Chie£Planner Area Code/Teleph_k~"flgxtensio_n: (65_..0) 877-8.J35 WARREN SL(ZO~d~o~}~L~ Signatur Date: November 2, 2004 Thomas -C. Spa~~ - [] for Lead Agency Title: Chief Plarmer Date received for filing at OPR: Revised October 1995 Cost Estimate for Oyster Point Marina Bay Trail 363 linear feet of multiuse trail. 10 feet wide with 1 foot shoulders. Clear/grub: LS $ 450 Excavation: 363tfx 12ftx 1 ftx $2/cf= $ 8,715 Base course: 363 if x !2 ft x .75 ftx $3/cf = $ 9,801 AC: 363 if x 12 ftx .25 ft x $6/cf = $ 6,534 Trail Connections: 2 @ $1000= $ 2,000 Fence relocation: LS $1,500 Mobilization/Demobilization: $ 3,000 Design: $i0,000 Inspection: $ 7,000 Administration: $ 5,000 Total $54,000 C/CAG BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TDA ARTICLE 3 APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 Agency: City of South San Francisco Funds Requested: $22,000.00 Project Description: Replacement of existing pedestrian heads at 12 signalized intersections with countdown timers. PROJECT SCREENING a. CALTRANS Standards Explain how the project meets CALTRANS Standards. Not applicable. All locations are within the City right-of-way. b. CEQA approval? Yes Date of approval: November 4, 2004. Note: CEQA document must be submitted with the application. STATE OF READINESS ao Make sure that the project proposal is complete and contains all required documentation. The more complete the application will result in a higher project score. Right-of-Way certification required? N/A If required, Right-of-way Cert. completed? Yes Comments: No Permits/Agreements approved? N/A List all permits and/or agreements approved/obtained to date: Page 1 of 4 Attachment 2 Document Date approved/obtained Comments: Comment on the status of design of the project, and indicate the percentage of design completed. City crews will install all devices. No specification drawings are required. Project is 100% ready as soon as devices are received. COMMUNITY SUPPORT a. Listed as "priority project" in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan or a recognized pedestrian plan. No Plan Page b. Local approval by bicycle/pedestrian (BPAC) organization? Yes Comment on level of support. Attach approval documentation and show composition of relevant committee. City of South San Francisco BPAC meeting of October 2004. Funds requested: $22,000.00 Local match to be provided: $ 5,720.00 Local match percentage = Local match provided Funds requested = $5,720.00 / $22,000.00 = 26% Page 2 of 4 Attachment 2 MEETS PROGRAM OBJECTIVES a. Does the project eliminate or mitigate the effects from an identified problem? Yes Explain: The devices will improve crossing safety for pedestrians, especially the young and the old. b. 1 .Bicycles: b.2.Pedestrians: Does the project provide access to bicycle or pedestrian facilities in high use activity centers? Yes Explain: Selected locations are in congested areas, near public schools, senior citizen centers or housing, the BART station, Cai Train station and the Downtown area. c. Is commute use improved by the project? Yes ExPlain: The project is designed to provide safer access. d. What is the relationship of the project to more significant bicycle or pedestrian routes? Explain: The devices are located on existing pedestrian routes to schools, senior citizen housing complexes, the Downtown area, and the BART and Cai Train stations. e. The project is consistent with or included in the following: 1. County or City facilities plan - No 2. Circulation element of general plan - Yes 3. C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan - No 4. Pedestrian Plan equal to e.3. above - No Plan General Plan Circulation Element Pages 158 & 162 f. Comment on the level of local support: City Council Resolution. On-going citizen requests for pedestrian crossing improvements. Note: A resolution of support from the relevant jurisdiction is to be submitted with the application. Page 3 of 4 Attachment 2 SAFETY How is safety improved because of the project? Explain: Pedestrian timers are designed to heighten both pedestrian and driver awareness of the allotted crossing time. Greater awareness will lead to improved safety. PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION Primary Contact Person Dennis Chuck - Engineering Division Telephone Number [650] 829-6652 email address dennis.chuck@ssf.net Secondary Contact Person Steve Carlson - Planning Division Telephone Number [650] 877-8535 email address steve.carlson@ssf.net Page 4 of 4 Attachment 2 Cost Estimate for Pedestrian Signal Heads Intersection Number of pedestrian heads Westborough Blvd. & Callan Blvd. 8 Westborough Blvd. & Galway Dr. 8 Westborough Blvd. & Gellert Blvd. 6 Westborough Blvd. & Camaritas Ave. 10 Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 6 Airport Blvd. & Linden Ave. 6 Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. 8 Chestnut Ave. & Mission Rd. 4 Chestnut Ave. & Antoinette Ln. 6 Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. 8 Mission Rd. & Lawndale Dr. 8 Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. 8 Total pedestrian heads = 88. Material cost: $250/pedestr/an head x 88 heads = $22,000. Labor cost: 2 persons x .5 hour/head x $65/hr x 88 heads = $5,720. Total Cost: $27,720. G:kM/scellaneouskDennis\04 11 19 TDA Cost Estimate 2004.dmc.doc NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: Coun~ Clerk County of San Mated County Government Center Redwood City, CA 94063 From City of South San Francisco Planning Div/sion P.O. Box 711- 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Project Title: Pedestrian Timers Project Location-Specific: Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, Baden Avenue and Airport Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard and Camaritas Avenue, Mission Road and Lawndale Boulevard, Mission Road and Chestnut Boulevard, Antoinette Lane and Chesmut Boulevard Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, Westborough and Gellert Boulevard Project Location - City: South San Francisco Project Location - County: San Mated Description of Project: Installation of pedestrian timers at existing signalized crosswalks, in the public right-of-way, at various locations. Name of Pubhc Agency Approving Project: City of South San Francisco, City Council Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of South San Francisco, Engineering Division Exempt Status: (check one) [] Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); [] Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); [] Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); Fx-lCategorical Exemption. State type and section number: [] Statutory Exemptions. State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: Class 2, Section 15302 (c) F,, ...~ ENDORSED [J['"H IN THE O&~F:iOE OF THE I ~ 1,.d~,~ COUNTY CLI~RK RECORDER OF SAN MATED COUNTY CALIF Lead Agency NO[/ 1 ? 2004 Contact Person: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Area Code/Telephonefl~xtension: (65_~_~,877-8535 W ' ' ARR E~¢.S,',,t.¢,,O,,.~M,_Oocn~ Clerk DEPUTY CLERK Signatu Date: November 2, 2004 Thomas C.- r ~.,__~ ' "~ for Lead Agency Title: Chief Planner Date received for filing at OPR: Revised October 1995 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: County Clerk From: County of San Marco County Government Center Redwood CID', CA 94063 City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 71t- 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Project Tiff e: Pedestrian Timers Project Location-Specific: Westborough & Callan Boulevards, Westborough Boulevard & Galway Place, Westborough & Gellert Boulevards, Westborough Boulevard & Camaritas Avenue, Grand & Airport Boulevards, Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue, Spruce & Miller Avenues, Chestnut Avenue & Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue and Antoinette Lane. Project Location - City: South San Francisco Project Location - County: San Mateo Description of Project: Installation of pedestrian timers at existing signalized crosswalks, in the public fight-of-way, at various locations. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of South San Francisco, City Council Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out project: city of South San Francisco, Engineering Division Exempt Status: (check. one) [] Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); [] Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080Co)(3); 15269(a)); [] Emergency Project (Sec. 21080¢)(4); 15269Co)(c)); []Categorical Exemption. Slate type and section number: [] Statutory Exemptions. State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: Class 2, Section 15302 (c) ENDORSED FILm I~.g~ COUN"P¢ CLER SAN ~AI'EO COUN'~' Lead Agency Contact Person: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner NO V I 7 2004 Area Code/TelephonefExtension~77-8535 WARREN SLO~UM, DEPUTY CL~RK Signatu Date: November 10, 2004 Thomas-'-ETSfl~e?~s' [] for Lead Agency Title: Ch/el Plander Date received for filing at OPR: Revised October 1995 Cost Estimate for Pedestrian Signal Heads Intersection Number of pedestrian heads Westborough Blvd. & Ca]lan Blvd. 8 Westborough Blvd. 8,: Galway Dr. 8 Westborough Blvd. & Gellert Blvd. 6 Westborough Blvd. & Camaritas Ave. 10 Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 6 Airport Blvd. & Linden Ave. 6 Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. 8 Chestnut Ave. & Mission Rd. 4 Chestnut Ave. & Antoinette Ln. 6 Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. 8 Mission Rd. & Lawndale Dr. 8 Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. 8 Total pedestrian heads = 88. Material cost: $250/pedestrian head x 88 heads = $22,000. Labor cost: 2 persons x .5 hour/head x $65/hr x 88 heads = $5,720. Total Cost = $27,720. GSMiscellaneous'tDennis\04 11 19 TDA Cost Estimate 2004.dmc.doc Transportation Development Act Article 3 Application.for Spruce Avenue Intersection Improvements prepared by the City of South San Francisco December 10, 2004 Parks, Recreation and Maintenance Department City of South San Francisco Table of Contents City Council Resolution ......................................................................... 2-5 Application For Fiscal Year 2005-06 ..................................................... 6-10 South San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee ......................... 11-12 Bicycle Facilities Plan ~from ss~ General Plan, aaoptea October, 1999).i .................. 13 Site Photos ............................................................................................... 14 Project Limits Diagram ......................................................................... 15 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 16-17 Exemption from Environmental Review .......................................... 18-21 Letters of Support ................................................................................................ 22+ Spruce Avenue Intersection Improvements City of South San Francisco C/CAG BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TDA ARTICLE 3 APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 Agency: South San Francisco Park, Recreation, and Maintenance Services Department Funds Requested: $150,000 Project Description: The BART SFO Extension project of 2003 connected the cities of Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae and the San Francisco International Airport to the regional BART train system. BART set the tracks underground with the city limits of South San Francisco, allowing for the development of a 3+ mile Class I bikeway and linear park along the vacated land above the BART tunnels. This bikeway and linear park will connect the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART train stations, effectively linking schools, retail and recreational areas with these major transportation hubs. Substantial efforts must be taken to ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians follow a direct and safe route, especially at road croSSings. The Spruce Avenue Intersection Improvement Project focuses on key safety measures for trail users crossing Spruce Avenue, which currently has two lanes of mixed residential and industrial traffic in either direction. Proposed improvements for this intersection are a push-button, pedestrian-activated overhead signal that is timed with adjacent signals to minimize traffic impacts, a highly visible colored concrete crosswalk, and an expanded sidewalk on the north side of the intersection to provide a safe bicycle connection to a major trailhead with trail maps, interpretive signage and other amenities. PROJECT SCREENING a. CALTRANS Standards Explain how the project meets CALTRANS Standards. All applicable Caltrans bikeway design standards will be met. The provisions for curb ramps, highly visible crosswalks, warning signs, and pedestrian activated traffic signals directly respond to Caltrans Class I bikeway intersection guidelines. b. CEQA approval? Yes itl..., Date of approval: October 17, 2002(more recent cat. exemp, to be provided) Note: CEQA document must be submitted with the application. STATE OF READINESS a. Make sure that the project proposal is complete and contains all required documentation. The more complete the application will result in a higher project score. b. Right-of-Way certification required? Yes- No .NIA If roquirod, Right of way Ccrt. complctod? Ycs No Comments: Area of improvements is completely within City-owned street right- of-way. c. Permits/Agreements approved? Y-es No N/A List all permits and/or agreements approved/obtained to date: Document Date approved/obtained N/A Comments: N/A d. Comment on the status of design of the project, and indicate the percentage of design completed. The City has completed an extensive community outreach and master planning process from which the City's preferred bikeway alignment was developed, key intersections improvements recommended (including Spruce Avenue), and preliminary cost estimates completed. The conceptual designs of the proposed Spruce Avenue intersection improvements are 100% complete. The city will also be preparing a detailed traffic analysis to determine the exact location of the crossing. The overafl trail master plan received City Council approval in March 2003. Awarding of the grant would allow construction documents to be prepared within six months of award followed immediately with construction. COMMUNITY SUPPORT a. Listed as "priority project" in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan or a recognized pedestrian plan. The Spruce Avenue intersection improvements are part of the greater Colma to Millbrae Bikeway Project listed in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan on page 56 and recommended as a top recommended project in the executive summary. b. Local approval by bicycle/pedestrian (BPAC) organization? Yes No Comment on level of support. Attach approval documentation and show composition of relevant committee. The SSF Bicycle Advisory Committee, comprised of members of the Planning and Engineering Departments, reviewed and approved the inclusion of the SFO BART Linear Park in the City's 1999 General Plan Update, and reviewed and approved the Spruce Avenue Intersection Improvements on(date to be provided). c. Funds requested: $150,000 Local match to be provided: $50,000 Local match percentage = Local match provided Funds requested = $50,000/$150,000 = 33% MEETS PROGRAM OBJECTIVES a. Does the project eliminate or mitigate the effects from an identified problem? Yes No Explain: The Spruce Avenue intersection, upon the completion of the BART/SSF bikeway and linear park, would be an unsafe road crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians. Spruce A venue is not wide enough for a Class II bike lane that could route bicyclists to the nearest existing light for safe crossing. The proposed improvements to this intersection provide a direct and safe crossing for users of this bikeway by increasing their visibility and coordinating their crossing with traffic. b.l.Bicycles: Does the project provide access to bicycle or b.2.Pedestrians: pedestrian facilities in high use activity centers? Yes Explain: The Spruce Avenue intersection improvements will greatly enhance access to the greater bikeway project, which is slated for construction in spring of 2006 and links schools, retail, residential and recreational areas of South San Francisco to the BART regional train system. The Spruce Avenue intersection is especially critical because it provides a safe crossing between bikeway segments and is in close proximity to a major trailhead with trail maps, interpretive signage and other amenities. c. Is commute use improved by the project? Yes ,No Explain: When the BART bikeway is completed, it will successfully link commuters and communities with the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae BART stations through a continuous non-motorized transportation route for bicyclists and pedestrians. The safer and more direct that route is will increase commuter use. The proposed improvements to the Spruce Avenue intersection will greatly increase the safety of a difficult crossing without redirecting the bikeway, minimizing crossing times and maximizing commuting potentiaL d. What is the relationship of the project to more significant bicycle or pedestrian routes? Explain: The intersection improvements are directly related to the planned BART bikeway project as described above. The improvements will also increase access to and from the Spruce Avenue bike route noted in the C/CAG Bicycle Transportation map. From the Spruce Avenue and BART bike routes, many other designated bike paths/routes will be connected throughout the City (see attached context map). e. The project is consistent with or included in the following: 1. County or City facilities plan 2. Circulation element of general plan 3. C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan 4. Podcstrian Plan equal to c.3. abovc Yes No Yes No Yes ~ ~ Yes No Plan: City of South San Francisco Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Update, Page 23 Plan: General Plan- Transportation Element, Page 160 Plan: C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan, Page 56 Plan: South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, Page 50 f. Comment on the level of local support: The recently completed master plan, which included alignment review of the BART bikeway and the SSF Linear Park component (including the Spruce Avenue intersection), was developed in large part through a series of well attended community workshops. Participants in these workshops have overwhelmingly supported the project and upgrades at critical intersections. As a result, the master plan was unanimously approved in March 2003. Note: A resolution of support from the relevant jurisdiction is to be submitted with the application. SAFETY How is safety improved because of the project? Explain: Current site conditions prohibit a safe street crossing for the BART bikeway at Spruce A venue. By coordinating this crossing with traffic through a push-button, pedestrian-activated overhead signal, accommodating bicycles with an expanded sidewalk, and increasing visibility through a colored concrete crosswalk, the proposed intersection improvements will create a safer crossing for children, pedestrians, and future recreational/commuter bicyclists along the BART bikeway. PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION Primary Contact Person: Sharon Ranals, Director of Recreation and Community Services Telephone: (650) 829-3800 Email: sharon.ranals@ssf, net Secondary Contact Person: Terry White, Director of Public Works, City of South San Francisco Telephone: (650) 829-3837, or (650) 877-8553 Email: terry.white@ssf, net The South San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee The City of South San Francisco's Bicycle Advisory Committee is comprised of people who live or work in South San Francisco and are appointed by the City Council. The Committee reviews and comments on bicycle and pedestrian issues, development proposals and projects. The Committee participated in the San Mateo County Bicycle Master Plan Project Review, Bike Lane installation on Westborough Boulevard and Callan Boulevard, Comprehensive General Plan Amendments, City's Capital Improvements Program, and San Mateo County Flood Control District Improvement Plans along the bayfront. Committee members strive to keep informed of current bicycle policy and programs by attending courses and conferences on Bicycle Planning. Current Member Profiles: Steve Carlson. An avid cyclist, Steve has attended training courses on bicycle facilities. He is thoroughly experienced in reviewing plans and evaluating cyclists requests. He has participated and completed 4 of the 5 Death Rides. Dennis Chuck: Also an avid cyclist, Dennis commutes regularly to South San Francisco by bicycle. His round trip distance of 30 miles enables him to experience first hand the problems with bicycle commuting. He has also taken seminars in installation and design of bicycle facilities. He has also completed the Death Ride five times. Barry Mammini: A lifetime resident of South San Francisco, Barry understands the pedestrian needs of the City. G:WliscellaneouskDennisXBAC meeting minutes 10 1 04.doc C:kDocuments and Settings\jhillkLocal SettingskTemporary Intemet Files\OLK2D7kBAC meeting minutes 10 1 04.doc Page 3 of 2 o~ < © © 3. ITEMS FROM COMMITTEE a. (not on agenda) Ferry Test Run courtesy of the Water Transit Authority PBAC member Dennis Chuck reported that he took the demonstration ferry trip from the Oyster Point Marina in South San Francisco to the Ferry Building in San Francisco on Saturday, October 9th, and said it was a very pleasant experience. The WTA has estimated the travel time to be 31 minutes. The actual trip did take 31 minutes. Docking and access to the Ferry Building was easy and convenient. 5. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 2:30. Steve Carlson Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee City of South San Francisco C:kDOCUMENTS AND SETTINGSUHILLkLOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK2D7kBAC MEETING MINUTES 10 1 04.DOC Page 2 of 2 Site Photos Spruce Avenue 10/12/02 Spruce Avenue 10/12/02 Spruce Avenue 10/12/02 Spruce Avenue 10/12/02 Spruce Avenue 10/12/02 Spruce Avenue 10/12/02 prepared for the City of South San Francisco Item # A Description Project Start up 1. Mobilization 2. Bonding 3. Traffic control 4. Staking Demolition 1. Sawcut 2. Clearing and grubbing 3. AC paving 4. Concrete sidewalk 5. Curb and gutter 6. Miscellaneous removals Electrical 1. Pedestrian activated signal, intemonnect, signage and point of connection D Site Construction 1. AC paving 2. Crosswalk paving 3. Concrete accent paving 4. Concrete sidewalk 5. Curb and gutter 6. Curb ramps 7. Striping 8. Utility and signage adjustments E Site Furnishings 1. Benches F Subtotal G Contingencies 1. Design period 2. Construction period H I Total of Construction Professional Services 1. Topographic survey (supplemental to BART) 2. Design development 3. Construction documents 4. Bidding and construction administration Qty Allow Allow Allow Allow Unit Estimate of Probable Construction Costs SSF BART Linear Park Concept Plan - Spruce Avenue Intersection prepared on: 11/16/04 prepared by: RG/BF Cost Item Total Subtotal 1% $1,237.00 $1,237.00 1.5% $1,855.50 $1,855.50 1% $1,237.00 $1,237.00 1% $1,237.00 $1,237.00 234 LF $3.00 $702.00 250 SF $0.25 $62.50 950 SF $2.50 $2,375.00 850 SF $2.50 $2,125.00 150 LF $8.00 $1,200.00 Allow LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 450 65O 470 720 150 2 Allow Allow LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 SF $3.00 $1,350.00 SF $20.00 $13,000.00 SF $12.00 $5,640.00 SF $10.00 $7,200.00 LF $25.00 $3,750.00 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 EA $1,200.00 $3,600.00 10% $12,927.00 $12,927.00 10% $12,927.00 $12,927.00 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3% $4,653.60 $4,653.60 15% $23,268.00 $23,268.00 5% $7,756.00 $7,756.00 Allow Allow Allow Allow Allow Allow $5,570.00 $9,460.00 $75,000.00 $35,640.00 $3,600.00 $129,270.00 $25,850.00 $155,120.00 $40,680.00 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 04059CESprucelntersecfionl 1-16-04.xls Page 1 of 2 prepared for the City of South San Francisco Item # Description J Total Estimated Cost of Project Qty Unit Estimate of Probable Construction Costs SSF BART Linear Park Concept Plan - Spruce Avenue Intersection prepared on: 11/16/04 prepared by: RG/BF Cost Item Total Subtotal $195,800.00 Based on drawing entitled "Project Limits Diagram - TDA Article 3" dated 12/10/04 The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on CA's judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. CA has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices. Ca[lander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 04059CESpruceIntersecfionl 1-16-04.xls Page 2 of 2 NOV i 2004 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: County Clerk County of San Mateo County Government Center Redwood City, CA 94063 From: WARREN SLOCUM, County Clerk DEPUTY CLERK City of South San Francisco' Planning Division P.O. Box 711- 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Project Title: South San Francisco BART Linear Park, South Spruce Intersection Project Location-Specific: South Spruce Avenue Project Location - City: South San Francisco Project Location- County: San Mateo · Description of Project: Construction of a bicycle and pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of South Spruce Avenue and the South San Francisco Linear Park, with street furniture and improvements to the crosswalk. Name of Pubhc Agency Approving Project: City of South San Francisco, City Council Name of Person.or Agency Carrying Out Project: Exempt Status: (check one) City of South San Francisco, Parks & Recreation Department [] Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 152.68); [] Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); [] Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); [~Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: [] Statutory Exemptions. State code number: Class 1, Section 15301 (c) Reasons why project is exempt: Class 1 consists of operation, repair, maintenance, permit-ting, leasing, licens/ng, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time the lead agency's determination. The project consists of physical improvements to the existing street and preparation of an entryway to the approved Linear Park. The improvements include new street furniture, new pavement, and improvements to the crosswalk over the existing street and sidewalk. The project does not widen the existing street. As part of the South San Francisco BART Linear Park project, the project was previously assessed in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report, prepared by the City of South San Francisco, and the BART Bikeway Negative Declaration, prepared by BART. Lead Agency City of South San Francisco Contact Person: Thomas C. Sparks, ChiefPlarmer Area Code/Telepho~n~e/Extension:/(~-~0) 877;~535 Signamre.~----¢~-.~ ( . :c-~,.~.,,/f~.~-,::!!./~-~ Date: Thomas C. Spa¢~~'''' [] for Lead Agency Title: Chief Planner November 15, 2004 Date received for filing at OPR: Revised October 1995 SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER WARREN SLOCUM 555 COUNTY CENTER REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 Finalization 2004135502 11/19/2004 10:56am 022 009 Item Title 1 EIRA EIR Administrative Fee Document ID Amount DOC# 2004-000398 25.00 Time Recorded 10:55 am 2 CLC ~ Clerk Copy Document ID Amount DOC# n/a 1.00 Time Recorded 10:56 am Total 26.00 Payment Type Amount Check tendered 25.00 # 1938 Check tendered 1.00 # 1012 Amount Due 0,00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS WARREN $ LOC.U.M 'Web http:J/www: care.co.sanmatee, ca. us 2200 Broadway, Reciwood City, CA 94063 :(415) 363-4501 Fax ~41S'~ 363-4843 .Fee.Notification Request .Name and Address of Applicant or Lead.Age='cy City 5'f So. San Francisco Applicable Fees must be paid at the time 0ffiling an Environmental Documen. t with the San Mateo County Clerk's Office. In review, of the documents received, we are missing the. appropriate fees. for the following Environmental DoCUment(s). 'Please submit the appropriate f~s from the checked box below.to insure.proper filing. Make all checks payable to: San Mateo County Clerk ,.ClasSification of EnVironmental Document(s) 1. Notice ofExern~tion/Statement of Exemmion :~. '(A)StatutorJly or'Categoricaily Exempt .$25 ~00-(Twenty-F~ve Dollars)-C ounty Handling Fee 2. Notice of Deterrninati0n-Fee Required :'[--] ' (A.) Negative Declaration $1,250.00 (Twelve'Hundred Fii%y Dollars)-State'Filing ~Fee $25.00.(Twenty-Five Dollars)-County Handling Fee' ' [--] .03)'Environmental Impact.Keport $850.00 (Eight.Hundred Fifty Donars)-State Filing Fee $2!00..(Twenty-Five D011ars)-County Handling Fee [-'] (C) De Ivfmknus Impact.Keport :'$25.00 (Twenty-Five Dollars)-County Handling Fee * Each prqiectpr°Ponenrshall remitW the.county clerk on or.be3bre the filing of No#ce of Determination ~ublic Resottrces. Code, Section: 2 ] ] 52) the fee. required.under Fish and'Game Code Section ..TI1. 4 (d)O. " *The county clerk is authorized pursuant~to Fish arM: Game. Code, Sec#on 7I ]. 4 (e) to 'charge a documentary handing fee for each environmental document received by the Clerk pursuant, to Pub#c Resources Code'Section, 21152 (a) or 2J]52. (b). · E'~ Filing Proc~dur~ Notification Letter a:/enviro/f~notL doc. 1:~, mmr~* '"'~' '! O0'~ ']:~_%- I of1 Assessor-County CI~-R~order Sau Mamo Couaty To: Office of the San lVla~eo Coamy Clezk 401 Mamhall, 6'~ laloor mflwood CAy, CA 94063 From: San Francisco Ba7 Area Rapid Tramit 80~ Madison Sr. ree~/P.O. Box 12688 Oakla~ CA ~4604-2688 Subject: p,~ing of Notim of Detm'mimfion in Compliance with Sections 2I 108 or 21152 of the Public It, esourc~ Code and T'~e 14 of the Call'mia Code of l~gulatiom. Project Title: BAE.T/$~Tmm BikewayProiect State Cleating Fmge Jilw n Lead Agency Gonrac~ Permn Project Location: No~Oaera San Mateo Coumy fi:om Colma to bfillbrae 650-689-8395 Code/Telephone Nmber Projm Tim proposed Bikeway Pmje~ cond~r~ of ~e~ ~ o~ 1. ~ I: ~e P~ b~ o~sep~ ~om ~ ~c lmm, 3. ~s ~: B~ ~e ~ ~h~ ~c ~m ~ ~. ~s ~ r~ ~e g~ ~ ~e not ~e to~ ~ of ~e ~op~ ~ ~ ~ 733 ~, 0.~ ~ ~e ~ ~ b~ ~, ~ 4.47 ~ ge ~s ~ This is to advi~e rh~r r. he Sm Frax~co Ba7 Area Rapid Tzamk (BART) ~ approved r. he abo~ dvaeribed projecz on Oczober 10, 2002 and re,a, the following d~enninafions regarding ~e above d~ribed 1. An Initial Smdy/2vlitipmd Negative Declaration and a lvhtigafio- Monkoring and Reporting Pla~ were prepared pursuit to the provisions of CEQA and adopted by rJae BART Board on October 10, 2Cf:a, Z TI~ proje~ w~l no~ have fi~d~cant effec~ becaase rmdfiom ha the projec~ have been made to mitigate the ~ m a point where dearlyno 41~qc~nt effect would occur. 3. 1VfiHl~O~ measm-es were made a cond~'~ of r~ apla'ovd of the project, 4. A st~temem of Overriding Considerations ~ras not adopted for rJais project. ~ is to cerdf7 ~ the Inidal Study/Mid. ed N%,ative Dechration with comme~ and respo~es and record of proiec~ approval are avalabh m ~he General Public ~. S=. Fr~ndsco gay A~ea l~pid Tr~,~ - West BtM Fx-a~ons at 979 Rroa~v~y Strt~ Millhrae. CA 94030 received for gU~g g~¢ Off~ of'he W~st R~r l~.xr~dop.~ Existing Btke Lane Future Bike Lane Bike_ Route Existing Bike Path Future Bike Path South San FranciScO' BART Station City Colma Pacifica ? ,rf SSF BART Linear Spruce Avenue Intersection Improvements Bicycle Facilities Plan TRANSPORTATION San B~uno .= .......... Figure 4-3 Bicycle Facilities Spruce Avenue Intersection Improvements City of South San Francisco SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 398 B Street, South San Francisco, CA 94080-4423 (650) 877-8700 Fax: (650) 583-4717 www.ssfusd.k12.ca.us SUPERINTENDENT Barbara Olds BOARD OF TRUSTEES Romolo J. Braschi Emanuele N. Damonte Shirlee Hoch Raymond Latham Philip J. Weise December 10, 2004 City/County Association of Governments 555 County Center, 5th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 To Whom It May Concern I am submitting this letter in support of the City of South San Francisco's application to obtain Transportation Development Act Article 3 Funds for Spruce Avenue Intersection Improvements. The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) is a major stakeholder in the Linear Park project. When the City received a planning grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in 2002 to prepare a Linear Park Master Plan, School District staff participated in a series of stakeholder meetings, and residents were invited to participate in public meetings, to ensure that the needs of the public schools were included in the design. Safe bicycle and pedestrian intersections where the linear park must cross city streets such as Orange Avenue and Spruce Avenue were identified as a top priority. Completion of the Orange Avenue intersection improvements in 2003 has been very much appreciated by Los Cerritos Elementary School and South San Francisco High School. SSFUSD strongly supports the construction of a pedestrian-activated signal and very visible crosswalk on Spruce Avenue to link sections of the Linear Park to the north and south of Spruce. We expect that many students and families will use the Linear Park to commute as well as for recreation. A safe crossing at Spruce Avenue is essential. We hope that the collaborative community effort that has been building momentum will bring this exciting and innovative project to reality. Thank you for your consideration of funding for this important element of the future Linear Park. Sincerely Barbara Olds Superintendent December 10, 2004 Mr. David Alfano, Chair Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) 555 County Center, Fifth Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Subject: SPRUCE AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Dear Mr. Alfano: The South San Francisco Friends of Parks and Recreation strongly endorses the concept of the Linear Park, and places a very, lfigh priority on safe crossings at each location where the Linear Park will intersect city streets. We are pleased to submit this letter of support for the city's application for 2005/2006 Transportation Development Act Article 3 grant funds for intersection improvements at Spruce Avenue. The Friends of Parks and Recreation is a non-profit organization that supports the provision of recreation programs and the improvement of parks in the community. We were one of many groups invited to attend the public workshops conducted during the Linear Park Master Plan process. A number of residents attended the workshops, and many ideas and suggestions were incorporated into the Master Plan. The strategy of constructing this ambitious project in phases is a good one, as it would be impossible'to accomplish at one time. It was a fortunate start to have grant funds awarded through C/CAG for the construction of a safe intersection across Orange Avenue. Similar improvements at Spruce Avenue would be a significant step toward phased construction of this project. The city has demonstrated a strong commitment to this project, and has a proven track record for effective management of funds previously awarded. We hope that you will favorably review their application. Sincerely, Mary O'Nyon, Chair DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (650) 829-3800 FAX (650) 877-5378 December 10, 2004 Mr. David Alfano, Chair Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) 555 County Center, Fifth Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Re: Letter of Support for the City of South San Francisco's Application to C/CAG's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee for TDA Article 3 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Funds for Intersection Improvements at Spruce Avenue to Link Sections of the Linear Park Dear Mr. Alfano: Please consider this letter of support for the City of South San Francisco's application for construction of a safe crossing at Spruce Avenue for the future Linear Park. The Beautification Committee was invited to participate in the planning process during preparation of the Linear Park Master Plan, which was adopted in March of 2003. The Committee is a diverse group of 12 community members appointed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Our purview is to sponsor and support the beautification of the community, focusing primarily upon public spaces. Members of the Committee attended several of the public workshops conducted during the Master Plan process, and offered suggestions for landscape, safety lighting, and amenities we would like to see incorporated into the park. The property proposed for the Linear Park looks abandoned and is overgrown with weeds. Many individuals already use the property to walk through town; however it is not very attractive or accessible. Construction of an asphalt pathway along this property would open access to bicyclists, families with strollers, joggers, wheelchairs, and walkers such as seniors who need an even surface to walk on. The Committee strongly agrees that a satb crossing must be provided where the pathway will intersect city streets. Completion of the Orange Avenue crossing has been a great improvement; a similar improvement at Spruce Avenue should be the next phase of the project' construction. 33 ARROYO DRIVE MAILING ADDRESS: RO. BOX 711 · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 The Linear Park is an outstanding project that will enhance the "livability" of South San Francisco, and hope that it is appropriate for funding. Thank you for your consideration. (~/~l~'ea~tific~tion Committee Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Terry White, Director of Public Works AWARD OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SODIUM HYPOCHLORiTE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, adopt a resolution, to award the bid for Sodium Hypochlorite Solutiou purchase to Pioneer Americas, LLC, of Walnut Creek, California, who submitted the lowest responsible bid in the amount of $0.667 per gallon. BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION On October 8, 2004, the Finance Department received three bids in response to a Request for Bids (Bid No. 2345) for the purchase of 12.5 % sodium hypochlorite solution used at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) in its disinfection process. Sodium Hypochlorite is used to process utc cm~ent pr or tu xt~ u~ac~ta~gc tu thc ay to ":" ' ....... :~: ........ ~ ........ :"- - : .... ' '~' ..... Quality Control Board requirements. The following is a tabulation of the bids received: BIDDER BID AMOUNT Pioneer Americas, LLC, Walnut Creek, CA Basic Chemical Solutions, [ '~ ~L,~, Santa Fe Springs, CA Sierra Chemical Company, Sparks, NV $0.6670 per gallon $0.7490 per gallon $0.7615 per gallon Due to the supply and demand conditions in the market, the price for sodium hypochlorite recently has increased. Up until September 30, 2004, when the prior purchasing agreement with Sierra Chemical expired, the price was $0.4606 per gallon. (30% per gallon increase) This will have a negative impact on WQCP operating costs for the remainder of FY 2004-2005 to accommodate the purchase of this chemical at the awarded price. The contract is for one year only as we hope future prices will drop. FUNDING The WQCP's budget is funded through the Sewer Enterprise Fund 71. The WQCP's budget for FY 2004-2005 has an allocation of $206,000 for the sodium hypochlofite. South San Francisco's share is [)raft Staff Report Subject: Award of Sodium Hypochlorite Bid Page 2 (73%) at $150,380 and San Bruno's share is (27%) at $55,620. The end-of-year additional cost over budget, due to the increased price of the low bid, is projected to be approximately $33,000. No adjustment is currently required, although, as the year's budget progresses, it is possible that staff may require an adjustment in the budget to satisfy this need. This will be determined later as necessary. By: Terry White [ ] Director of P~dic Works Approve Mg,a'rr y/M. Nagel City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTIt SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RES()I,I r'FION A\VARDING A BID T() PI()NEER AMEI~ICAS, F()R THE 1)[ JRCHASE OF S()I)II JM HYP()CHIJORITE S( )I ,1 !TI()N IN 'X('E: $20(;,000 AN AM()[ JNT N()T TO ~,, 1,1) WFIEREAS, staff recommends the purchase of sodium hypocblorite solution from thc lowest responsible bidder, Pioneer Americas, LLC in an amount of $0.667 per gallon; and WHEREAS, tine soctium hypochlorite is used to process tine et'fluent prior to its discharge to the bay to kill bacteria in accordance with tine Regional Water Quality Control Board; and WHEREAS, the WQCP's budget is funded tlnrough tine Sewer Enterprise Fund 71; and WHEREAS, fine WQCP's budget for fiscal year 2004/2005 lnas an allocation of $206,000 fk~r tine purchase of the sodium lnypochlorite; and WHEREAS, Soutln San Francisco's slnare of thc cost is (73%) at $150,380; San Bruno's share is (27%) at $55,620. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco tlnat thc City Council hereby awards a bid to Pioneer Americas, LLC for the purchase of' sodium lnypoclnlorite solution in an amount not to exceed $206,000. I hereby certify that tine foregoing Resolution xvas regularly introduced and adopted by tine City Council of tlne City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Cleric S:\Current Rcso's',l 2-8-04award.ccmt.sodium.hypochlorite,res.doc Staff Xeport AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 DATE: TO: FROM: SU-BJECT: December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE CONTRACT FOR ENA;IRONMENTAL SERVICES-TERRABAY PHASE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with PLACEMAKERS to perform environmental review and prepare a focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Focused SEIR) for Terrabay Phase III. BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION Myers Development Company is applying for re-entitlement of the Phase 151properties of Terrabay. The property is located at the intersection of Bayshore and Sister Cities Boulevard. City Council conducted a joint study session with the Planning Commission on October 20, 2004. The condominium tower and 70 units of paired housing are adjacent and to the southwest of the Phase site. Bayshore Boulevard flanks the sites eastern boundary of the Phase Ill site. The proposal will need an amendment to the development a~eement, a specific, precise and general plan amendment, an amendment to the zoning ordinance and HCP certification. The project will go through the planning process as before, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. As Council is aware, the application for re-entitlement constitutes a different land use mix than that approved in 1999 and 2000. Staff has determined at a focused SE/P, is required for the proposed project. The focused SEIR is anticipated to address traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, geology, light and glare, schools, storm drain capacity and sanitary sewer line and plant capacity and three alternatives. Certification of the Final focused SEI~R is anticipated to occur in May 2005. Staff distributed a Request for Proposals to four environmental firms on October 21, 2004 and requested a response by November 18, 2004. The four firms that were requested to propose are: Impact Sciences, El:P, Environmental Science Associates, and Placemakers. All four firms have strong qualifications and experience and are well known and regarded by staff. Three firms submitted proposals and include Placemakers, EIP and Impact Sciences. Placemakers bid for services is $134,845, EIP's is $212,110 and Impact Science's is $323.265. Staff recommends awarding the contrac~ to Placemakers. Staff Report Subject: Contract for Terrabay Environmental Services-PLACEMAKERS Page 2 Placemakers cost for services came in the lowest for several reasons. The principal of the firm, Ms. Patricia Jeffrey, is a sole practitioner and as such has a lower over-head than the other firms. Additionally Placemakers does not levy an administrative overhead on its sub-consultant contracts, another cost saving practice. Placemakers has over 24 years of environmental planning experience and has assembled a strong team to conduct the environmental work. Staff has confidence and familiarity in the firm's qualifications and ability to conduct the work in the: requested time frame. FUNDING The entire cost of the environmental services is a developer pass through. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending that Placemakers be retained by the City to conduct environmental review on the re-entitlement of Terrabay Phase 1II. Assistant City Managbf ~,,[la~ ]~i. Nag~ city Manager Attachment: Resolution Proposal from Placemakers Ali son/l~hasellI Staff Reports EIR Contract to Council RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH PLACEIVL~ERS TO PERFORM AN' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEYV AND PREPARE A FOCUSED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TERRABAY PHASE III WHEREAS, staff is recommending that PLACEMAKERS be retained by the City of South San Francisco to conduct an environmental review on the re-entitlement of Terrabay Phase 15I; and WHEREAS, the entire cost of the environmental services is a developer pass through. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council authorizes a contract with PLACEMAKERS to perform an Environmental Review and prepare a focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay Phase 1II. 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: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S :\Current Reso's\ 12-8-04placemakers.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk I)rohosa~or Terrab~ Focused Supplemental EIR PL~C~V~R~ovember 78, 2004 1.0 Introduction This proposal presents PLACEMAKERS's response to the CitT of South San Francisco's request to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). for Phase III Terrabay. It includes our qualifications, scope of services work, team organization and cost estimate. Our work scope is based on our understanding of the project and kev environmental issues and was developed with efficiency and cost savings in mind. UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT The Terrabay project proposes an amendment to the Terrabay Specific and Precise Plan to allow a mix of retail, office and residential development.. It will be necessao~ to evaluate a "flexible" development program to account for the possible need to eliminate the proposed office tower and replace it with residential development based on marker, conditions. Extensive environmental review has been undertaken for the Terrabay lands and the proposed project site. To maximize efficiencies, existing data on the proiect sire and project area will be utilized to the greatest extent possible. However, the change in land use program for the site will require that new environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project are fully evaluated; resulting in the need to collect and analyze new data tied ro the land use changes. We understand the project has a tight schedule: and will require a responsive team to complete the environmental review in a timely manner. KEY ISSUES We anticipate the key issues and tasks will be to: Maintain a Fastrack Schedule to Expedite the Entitlement Process for the Proposed Project - The project imfiation meeting is a key meeting to determine project schedule and identi~7 potential critical path tasks that could jeopardize project schedule. As necessary, the project schedule should be updated and distributed to the team ro keep all informed of their responsibilities and deliverables to keep the project on track. Clearly Identify Potential Impacts of Land Use Changes to Phase III of Terrabay The change in land use program for the project site will result in new rrnpacts not previously addressed in the previous CEQA document prepared on the project site. Thus, it is necessa~ that any new potentially significant impacts be identified and fully analyzed in the SEIR. To the extent feasible, however, existing data and analyses still applicable to the proposed project evaluation and adequate under CEQA will be used in this analysis and inco~orated by reference. This will minirmze redundant analyses and lead to a more efficient environmental review. Provide a Detailed Analysis for Project Land Use Scenarios - The project sponsor requires a flexible land use program responsive to market conchtions. To ensure the adequacy of the SEIR it will be necessau, ro provide a detailed environmental analysis for the proposed mixed use retail, residential and office development as well as a development scenario that proposes only retail and residential use. The environmental document must organize the information ro clearly identify potential impacts for each -1- land use scenario and as necessary identify rmdgadon measures appropriate to each of the scenarios. Maintain On-going Communication - The project will result in the need to maintain close coordination with the Ciw. Regular communication with the Ciu; and other consultants will mimmize potential redundancies in work and delays in work products that could slow down the environmental analysis. This will result in cost savings and ensure the project remains on schedule. 2.0 Firm Qualifications PLACEMAI~d~RS is well suited to the needs of the Te=abay Focused Supplemental EIR. We have extensive experience preparing EIRs in full compliance with CEQA. We have participated in a variety of analyses that address plan amendments, traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, public service and utilities and aesthetics issues. We are highly experienced in analyzing the potential impacts of mixed use development. We also are familiar with the environmental planning issues in South San Francisco and team members have experience working in South San Francisco. Our qualifications and experience are discussed in Appendix B. 3.0 Scope of Services The Scope of Services presented below is based on our understanding of the project at this time. TASK 1 PtLEPARE INITLAL STUDY After contract negotiations are complete, PLACEMAKERS will meet with City staff (project initiation meeting) to discuss environmental issues. Available project information and background data will be collected from the City. Relevant data available :from other public agencies also will be collected. A strong Initial Study wi~] be prepared to focus the environmental topics for evaluation in the SEIR. Based on the City's understanding, it is anticipated the Inidal Study will idend~; the following environmental topics to be addressed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR): traffic and circulation; noise; air qualitT; schools; light and glare; storm dram capacit7 and sanitary sewer line and plant capacity. The following environmental topics are anticipated to be focused out and will not require analysis in the DSEIR: agriculture, biological resources; cultural resources; geology/soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology/water qualitT; land use/planning; mineral resources; population and housing; and recreation. Eight copies of the Administrative Draft Initial Study will be submitted to the Ciw for staff review and comment. The Initial Study will be revised based on staff comments and eight copies of the Final Initial Study will be submitted to the: City along with a CD containing an electronic version (pdf file) of the document. -2- ?roposa~for Terrabqy F~ocused 5uppkmenta/ 251R PL~tCEg4MKEiL~ ~%'ovember 18, 2004 TASK 2 ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS Patricia Jeffery, Project Manger, will attend the mimmum seven meetings identified in the RFP including: the project initiation/scoping meeting; three meetings before the Planning Commission; one meeting before the Ciu~ Council and up to two working meetings with City staff. Ms. Jeffery will work with City, staff to identify agenda items, handouts, and other aids to maximize the success of the meetings. If additional PLACEMAKERS team members are requested to attend project meetings, this will be charged on a time and expense basis. TASK 3 PREPARE PROJECT SCHEDULE A comprehensive project schedule will be prepared in coordination with Ciw staff and the Terrabay planning consultant. A list of key contacts will be identified including phone numbers and email addresses so that the project team can be kept informed on scheduling changes. TASK 4 PREPARE ADMINISTRAT1-VE DRAFT SUrPPLEMENTAL EIR (ADSEIR) An ADSEIR will be prepared in full compliance with CEQA. It will pro,ride a comprehensive analysis of project impacts. Presented below is a description of the sections included in the ADSEIR. Eight copies of the ADSEIR will be provided to the Ciw. 4.1 Executive SummaU' An executive summa2?' will be prepared and w/il include: a project overview and a table that presents project impacts, their significance before mitigation, mitigation measures and significance of project impacts after mitigation. 4.2 Introduction The introduction will include a discussion of the project purpose and objectives, intended uses of the SEIR and a description of the CEQA process. The background on Terrabav lands and enddements w/il be summarized. 4.3 Project Description A project description will be prepared that describes the project history and background of Terrabay, a description of the physical characteristics of the project site, the Specific and Precise Plan amendment process. A project location map will be prepared and included. The project site plan and other drawings provided by the project sponsor also w/il be incorporated into the project description. A draft project description will be submitted to the Ciw for review and approval prior to imfiation of project impact analysis. 4.4 Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures A comprehensive discussion describing the setting, potential project impacts and feasible mitigation measures w/il be prepared for each environmental topic. -3- Proposa~ ~or Terrabay ?oc~sed X~pp/ementa7 E]R PL~CE~RX November 18, 2004 4.4.1 Traffic and Circulation Crane Transportation Group will prepare the traffic and circulation section of the SEIR. PLACEMAKERS will reviexv the section and coordinate with Crane Transportation Group and the CiD' regarding revisions to this section. It is understood that all tasks and options may ultimately not be included in the final scope for the traffic analysis, however, for purposes of this proposal, all of the tasks and options identified by Crane'. Transportation Group are included in our cost estimate. Our air qualit7 and noise experts ~vill coordinate with Crane Transportation Group ro obtain traffic volmnes and other pertinent transportation informat/on to complete their environmental analyses. 4.4.2 Air Quality Don BM/anti mi//pm~are the air qua/i[y ana~sis for the Issues: Temporary air quality impacts resulting from construction activities may affect off- sire residential development (identified as sensitive receptors). This could expose nearbv residents to an increase in fugitive dust. Additionally, the change in the land use program ma}, affect the vehicular volumes at the project site, which could result irt changes to future operational air quahU, at the project site. Describe Existing Conditions Update the description of the climate and meteorolo~, of the project area, historicaI air qualit7 data, and current efforts to attain and maintain the State and federal air quahty standards. Document existing sources of air pollution in or near the study area, including mobile sources, stationary sources and sources of toxic air pollutants. Identi~ any sensitive receptors for air pollutants such as hospitals, convalescent homes and schools near the project or roads providing access to the project site. Identify Air Quality Impacts · Review grading and construction plans. Idenfif7 potential nuisance impacts dtmng the construction period for neighboring properties. Evaluate the potential for wind blown dust or other construction impacts based upon prevailing wind patterns, surrounding land uses, and the soils of the area. The potential for adverse health effects or nuisance will be assessed. Perform microscale modeling of carbon monoxide levels near major intersections that would be affected by project traffic using the CALINE-4 computer model and updated traffic information provided by the project transportation consultant. · Compare predicted carbon monoxide concentrations with state and federal standards. · Identi~ construction-phase controls and practices to reduce dust impacts associated with construction that were not identified by the earlier EIR but are now recommended by -4- Proposal for Terrabqy ~bcused S~lemental E[I~ 2)L~CEMMKI~K~ November 18, 2004 the Bay Area Air QualiU, Management District. Prepare an updated analysis of regional changes in emissions due to vehicular travel from the proposed project and alternatives using the URBEMIS-2002 computer program. · Identify air qualiU, mitigation measures or programs included within the project and mitigation measures incorporated in the project design. Develop Mitigation Measures Review mitigation measures contained in the Terrabay EIR. If impacts warrant, develop mitigation measures to reduce air qualitT impacts such as transit and :ddeshare incentives, bicycle and pedestrian incentives and site planning to reduce travel. Evaluate the effectiveness of these measures. Where appropriate, new mitigation measures will be developed to reduce potentially significant impacts. These would be based on previous mitigation measures, which are intended to reduce automobile traffic and congestion. The effectiveness of the mitigation measures will be evaluated based on published data presented by d~e Bay Area Air Quality Management Dismct and other agencies. 4.4.3 Noise Rosen Go/dberg and Der wi// prqoare the noise ana~sis for the SElL Issues: The compafibiliu' of furore development with existing development and land use activities within the project site as well as compatibility with adjacent land use activities outside of the project area is a key issue. The focus of the noise analysis will be to assess the noise and land use compatibility of the proposed project against the Noise Element of the Ciu"s General Plan and California State Building Code standards. Emphasis will be made on identifying appropriate mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts from traffic and aircraft. Describe Existing Conditions · Review previous studies that have been prepared for the project. Based on that review and our understanding of the issues we will perform an on-site survey to document existing noise levels from traffic on US 10t, local roadways, aircraft and any nearby industrial/commercial uses. The survey will include two continuous 24-hour noise measurements and up to four short term (i5 minute) measurements on the project site and at adjacent noise sensitive receptors. Identify Noise Impacts · Future noise levels using the measured noise data, available traffic projections and operational data for other identifiable sources will be calculated. If the project is in proximity to existing uses we would also evaluate the potential for the project to impact adjacent uses as a result of increased traffic, construction or other noise generating operations. -5- hroposa/lbr Terraba~v Focused Supplemental E?_R ]~L~C~M_AK~R~ November 18, 2004 Develop Mitigation Measures · If future noise levels are expected to exceed apphcable City or State standards or increase noise levels significantly at adiacent uses, feasible noise mitigation measures will be recommended. Mitigation features typically include preliminary recommendations on the location of any buildings requiring sound rated construction as well as the height length and location of any recommend noise barriers. 4.4.4 Aesthetics Issues: The proiect sire fronts on Highway 101 and Bay Shore Boulevard and is near San Bruno Mountain Count3T Park. The proiect would include extensive new development on the site that would increase the potential for light and glare in the project area. This could present visibility issues affecting safety for drivers along Highway 101 and d/romish the qualit~f of the outdoor experience for park users if excessive glare is caused bv building architecture. Describe Existing Conditions The visual characteristics of the project site and vicmita; will be described. The extent to which excessive light and glare currently exists in the project area will be reported. Identify Light and Glare Impacts Potential visual impacts resulting from development within the project site will be identified. This will include an assessment of impacts from within the project site as well as impacts within the project vicinity. Develop Mitigation Measures Feasible mitigation strategies will be developed to reduce or eliminate potential light and glare significant impacts. 4.4.5 Public Services Issues: New residential development in the project area will result in additional demand on public schools. It will be necessary to determine if current and planned capacities are adequate to serve the proposed new residential development ar the project site. Describe Existing Conditions South San Francisco Unified School District will be contacted to identify existing school enrollment, enrollment forecasts and facility capacities. The schools most likely serving the project site will be identified. Identify Public School Impacts The estimated number of students that could be generated by the proposed residential component of the project will be identified. The South San Francisco Unified School District will be consulted ro identiff potential need:s and impacts resulting from the proposed project. -6- Proposal. for Terrabqy Focused Su~opkmental EIR PL~tC]~3L4~R~ ~*ovember 78, 2004 Identify Mitigation Measures Appropriate mingafion measures will be recommended to offset potentially significant impacts to public schools. 4.4.6 Public Utilities and Service Systems Issues: Development at the proiect site will increase impervious surface areas and thus increase the amount of storm water runoff, which could adversely affect storm water capacity in the proiect vicinity.. New development will aisc) increase wastewater flows. This must be evaluated to assess pipeline and treatment capacity. Describe Existing Conditions · Existing and future capacities of pipelines and treatment facilities will be identified and described. Identify Utilities and Service Systems Impacts · Potential impacts to udlities and services will be assessed based on information provided by the project sponsor. The information needed will include utilities maps, wastewarer flow calculations, storm water runoff calculations and proposed conservation measures. Based on this information and discussions with City staff potential adverse impacts to these systems will be identified. Identify Mitigation Measures · Appropriate mitigation measures will be developed to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 4.4.7 Consultation with Earlier Project Consultants It may be necessary to confer with consultants that previously worked on the Terrabay development, for example the biologist, to ensure the hfitial Study accurately represents current conditions and mitigations. Adequate information must be presented in the Initial Study to support focusing out the anticipated emdronmenral topics. Om~ cost estimate includes a small budget to account for this coordmatioc.. 4.5 Alternatives Up to three alternatives x~4ll be developed in coordination with the Ci~T. The alternatives will include the CEQA-required No Proiect akernative and up ro two other alternatives to be developed in coordination with Cit3~ staff. 4.6 Other CEQA Required Sections Impact analyses will be prepared for the following topics: cumulative impacts, growth- inducing impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts, short-term versus long-term productivity, significant irreversible environmental changes and effects found not to be significant. TASK 5 PREPARE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 0DSEIR) Based on City comments on the ADEIR, the DSEIR wi_Il be prepared and a camera-ready copy of the DSEIR will be submitted to the Ci~T for review and approval prior to document -7- Proposa/ for Terraba~ Focused Suppkmental ~IR PL~4CEfi/L4KE2~S ~-ovember 78, 2004 production. The NOC will be prepared and filed with OPR. Fifteen copies of the DSEIR will accompany the NOC. The City will be provided with 100 copies of the DSEIR. Additional copies of the DEIR will be provided at an additional cost. TASK 6 PREPARE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (FSEIR) Responses to oral and written comments on the DSEIR xvilI be prepared and incorporated into a Response to Comments document. An Administrative FSEIR will be prepared and eight copies will be provided to the City for review and comment. A total of 40 technical hours are estimated to prepare responses to public comtnents. If additional time is necessary, to respond to public comments, this will be billed on a time and expense basis. The Response to Comments document combined with the DSEIR will constitute the FSEIR. The Ci~ will be provided with 75 copies of the FSEIR. Additional copies of the FSEIR will be provided at an additional cost. TASK 7 PREPARE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MM-P) for the project in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a). The MMP will incorporate commenting agencies recommendations for monitoring activities received during the public rexfiew period for the EIR. TASK 8 PUBLIC NOTICING PLACEMAI-2ERS will prepare the following notices for the public noticing and review process for the EIR: Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, newspaper ad noticing pubhc hearings on the project and the Notice of Determination. The City will be responsible for submitting ad noticing to newspapers. 4.0 Team Organization PLACEMAICERS has assembled an experienced team tailored to the issues of importance for the Terrabay Focused Supplemental EIR. The project team has successfully worked together on other CEQA projects and. continues to mamram close working relationships. The qualifications of key team member and their project role are briefly described below. Full resumes for all team members are included in Appendix A. PLACEMAICERS Patricia Jeffery, AICP Project Role: Project Manager responsible for overseeing schedule, budget, subconsultants, direction and completion of all work products and overall review and qualiu, control of documents. Ms. Jeffery will attend ali staff meetings and public hearings on the project. Overall project management and prepare sections on Aesthetics, Public Services and Utilities and Service Systems. Ms. Jeffery is an urban planner with more than 24 years of professional planning experience. She has extensive experience preparing and managing environmental documents in compliance with CEQA. Ms. Jeffery has managed or prepared technical sections for more than 150 CEQA and NEPA documents. She is experienced analyzing mixed use projects, -8- Proposal for Terraba~ ?ocused Supplemental EIR PL~4CELVL4K~&~ November 18, 2004 particularly along major transportation corridors and roadways. Ms. Jeffery was the project manager for the Pacifica Village Center EIR a complex project located in a redevelopment area along Highw%, 1 and near the Pacific Ocean. Other recent mixed use projects managed by Ms. Jeffery include Tralee and San Ramon Village Plaza; both projects are located in Dublin, Califorma. Ms Jeffery has extensive experience managing EIRs and has demonstrated her abilitT to effectively manage projects on dine and within budget. She is particularly expezSenced in managing multi-disciplinary teams. Ms. Jeffery maintains a hands-on management s~le that results in close coordination and on-going communication with the client. DON BALLANTI Don Ballanfi Project Role: Prepare air quality analysis. Mr. Ballanti has 31 vears experience in air qualitT, meteorology, climatology and building aerodynamics. He has extensive experience preparing ak quahU' analyses for CEQA documents and has experience working in South San Francisco. He prepared the air quality analyses for the Brittania East Grand EIR and 333 Oyster Point R&D Project EIR. ROSEN GOLDBERG & DER Alan Rosen Project Role: Project Manager overseeing preparation o£ noise section of SEIR. Mr. Rosen has 20 years of experience as an acoustical consultant. He has a de~ee in electrical engineering from the UniverhU~ of Illinois at Urbana-Champai&m. His mare areas of expertise are environmental noise and multi-family/mixed use housing. He has prepared environmental impact studies on a wide range of public and privately funded projects. Mr. Rosen has been a guest lecturer at Sonoma State Universiw. Harold Goldberg, P.E. Project Role: Project Engineer and assist with field work and computer modeling. Harold Goldberg, P.E. has 19 years of experience as an acoustical consultant. He has a degree in mechanical engineering from UC Berkeley. He has experience in mechanical noise control and environmental noise studies. He has particular expertise in the area of roadway and rail noise. Mr. Goldberg is a licensed mechanical engineer in the State of Califorma. 5.0 Cost Estimate Our total estimated cost to complete project environmental review through the Final SEIR is $134,845. This includes the $66,000 cost estimated submitted by Crane Transportation Group. A breakdown of costs is, shown following proposal assumptions. ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THIS PROPOSAL IS BASED Our proposal is based on the following assumptions: -9- Proposal for Terraba~ ~ocused Suppkmental EIR PL~CE2~(~R~ ~ovember 18, 2004 The City will provide relevant information on the project description in a timely manner so as not to adversely affect the project schedule to complete the analysis. The City and/or Planning Consultant for Terrabay will provide copies of plan maps and other available information including photo aerials and technical studies undertaken for the project. Up to three alternatives will be evaluated in the alternatives analysis. An estimated 40 technical hours are proposed to respond to public comments on the DEIR. Additional time needed to respond ro pubhc comments will be billed on a time and expense basis. The consultant team will have access to the project site within a reasonable time period after contract negotiations are complete so as not to delay site recormaissance. It may be necessar7 to confer with prior project consultants to confirm previous survey work and its completeness during preparation of the Initial Study. Proposa/ for Terrabqy Focused oC ui~ kmenta/ H IR PL~t C~Z/L 4J~ tL; iN-ovem ber 7 & 2004 COST BREAKI)OWN TASK STAFF 1. Initial Study ]effery Graphics Staff 2. Attendance at Meetings (7) ]efferv 3. Project Schedule Jefferv 4. ADSEIR 4.1 Executive Summa~7 ] efferv 4.2 Introduction ] efferv 4.3 Project Description Jefferv 4.4 Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.4.1 Trafficand Circulation 4.4.2 AJz Quality 4.4.3 Noise 4.4.4 _aesthetics 4.4.5 Publ/c Servsces 4.4.6 Udliaes and sermce Svs tern s I efferv 4.4.7 Consukations 4.5 Alternatives J efferv 4.6 Other CEQA Required Sections J efferv Project Management J efferv YVord Processing Staff Graphics Staff Expenses 5. DSEIR Project Management J efferv Word Processing Staff Graphics Staff Expenses 6. FSEIR Technica2 Project Management J effery 'O~'ord Processm~ Staff Graphics Staff Expenses - indudes NOD filing fees 7. MXX~P ] efferv 8. Public Noticmg I efferv TOTAL HOURS 32 16 28 3 RATE COST 125.00 $ 4.000,0O 80.00 S 1,280.00 125,.00 S 3,500.00 125.00 $ 375.00 6 S 125,.00 S 750.00 4 $ 125.00 $ 500.00 4 $ 125;.00 $ 500.00 Crane Trans. Grp. I efferv 24 $ 125.00 Don Ballanti Rosen Goldberg & Der J effery 16 S 125.00 ] effen- 8 $ 125.00 16 S 125.00 20 $ 100.00 18 S 125.00 8 $ 125.00 32 $ 125.00 24 $ 45.00 24 S 80.00 24 $ 125.00 24 $ 45.00 16 $ 80.00 40 $ 140.00 16 $ 125.00 24 $ 45.00 10 $ 80.00 125.00 125.00 66,000.00 3,000.00 3,600.00 9,800.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,250.00 1,000.00 4,000.00 1,080.00 1.920.00 500.00 3,000.00 1,080.00 1,280.00 3,050.00 5,600.00 2,000.00 1,080.00 800.00 3,900.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 134,845.00 -11- taff Report AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Martv Van Du,vn, Assistant City Manager AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ACTION SIGNS, INC. AND THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Action Signs, Inc. allowing modifications to the existing billboard sign and incorporating State required relocation language. B ACKGROUND/DIS CUSS ION On January 14, 2004, the City executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Action Signs, Inc. fi>r the acquisition of that real properly located at 178-190 Airport Boulevard. Currently existing on the site is a billboard sign which Action Signs, Inc. would like to modi~ by changing to a single pole structure and a new back to back sign configuration. Billboard signs and any proposed modifications are subject to permits issued by the State of California, Department of Transportation (DOT), Outdoor Advertising Program. The Planning Commission o£ the City of South San Francisco, at their meeting of Janua~ 15, 2004, voted unanimously to approve the T5qpe "C" Sign Permit to allow modifications to the sign as proposed, subject to the required permit from the State and other conditions of approval. The Purchase and Sale Agreement, Section 15, Conditions of Closing, (a), Sign Relocation Agreement, anticipates modifications to the sign and intends that the City shall assist in facilitating the issuance of all required permits as a condition to close escrow. The State DOT, has required that the Purchase and Sale Agreement be amended to include a compensation clause stipulating that in the event the State is required to relocate the sign (due to modifications to Highway i01) the State shall only be required to compensate the sign owner in an amount equal to the current value of the existing sign prior to the proposed modifications. Action Signs, Inc. has agreed to this requirement if they will be allowed to relocate the sign, should it become necessary. Staff Report Subject: Page 2 Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement for Action Signs, Inc. CONCLUSION The City would like to move forward with the close of escrow for this property and has facilitated an agreement between the State and Action Signs, Inc. which will secure the required permit allowing the proposed modifications to the existing sign. The new sign will change to a single pole structure which is believed to be more attractive than the existing four legged structure that exists today. The close of escrow for this acquisition had been held up by the State; however, once this Amendment is executed the State has agreed to issue the modification permit. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution allowing this acquisition to move forward. Once escrow closes, the City will undertake the necessary remediation of the site in order to develop an interim parking lot to alleviate the shortage of parking spaces in the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project ,~rea. By:/ Assistant City Mankg~r Approved: '~,~,;~ ,/~,~ ~ .... -~garby ~. Nagel/' City Manager (, BMN:MVD:NF Attachment: Resolution Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFOt:LNIA A RESOLUTION AI;THORIZING :UN ~MENDMENT TO THE PURCHASE .%'ND SALE AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE CITY OF SOUTII SAN FRANCISCO AND ACTION SIGNS, INC. ALI~OWING MODIFICXI"IONS TO THE EXISTINC, BILLBOARD SIGN AND INC()RPORATING STATE REQUIRED RELOCATION L~XNGUAGE WHEREAS, staffrecommends an. Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Action Signs, Inc. allowing modifications to the existing billboard sign and incorporating State required relocation language. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of' the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes an Amendment to the Purchase and Sale A~eement between the City of South San Francisco and Action Signs, Inc. allowing modifications to the existing billboard sign and incorporating State required relocation language. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the ~'M-nendment to the Purchase and Sale 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: AYE S: NOES: ,ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :~,Current Reso's'xl 2-8-04action.signs.res. doc AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND ACTION SIGNS, INC. This Amendment is to the Agreement dated January 14, 2004 between the City of South San Francisco and Action Signs, Inc. regarding the Purchase and Sale of that certain real property known as APN Nos. 012-338-060 and 012-338-070, located at 178-190 Airport Boulevard, in South San Francisco, California, 94080. This Amendment pertains to: Section 15. Seller's Conditions to Closin~, (a). Sign Relocation Agreement Section 15 shall be amended with the addition ora new clause as Follows;: (a). (8) Compensation Clause In consideration of the State Department of Transportation, Outdoor Advertising Program granting a permit to Action Signs Incorporated to modify the configuration of a display, located on the west side of State Route 101 in San Mateo County, 400 feet South of Grand Avenue at Post Mile 22.00 in the City of South San Francisco. The configuration from the existing single panel 12' x 42' advertising display constructed on four metal I-beams, covered by State Outdoor Advertising Permit No. 27804, will be modified to a 14' x 48' two sided back to back display mounted on a single steel mono-pole. In consideration of being granted a relocation permit in a landscaped freeway area, Action Signs Incorporated, for itself, its shareholders, successors, lessors, and/or advertisers waives any present or future claims for a ny type o f compensation for i ts outdoor advertismg display and/or state permit from t he State of California, including, but not limited to, claims based on eminent domain, relocation assistance, and/or business goodwill, and agrees to indemnif,v, defend and hold the State of California harmless from any claims brought by any person for any compensation for said outdoor advertising display or state permit. For example, Action Signs Incorporated understands, and expressly acknowledges, if this outdoor advertising display must be removed to facilitate state highway construction, ~t will removed said outdoor advertising display without receiving any compensation for said display. Nothing herein precludes the sign owner from applying for a relocation it' the State requires removal of the subject outdoor advertising display; any future relocation would be subject to all laws and regulations in effect at the time of the request. In all other respects the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated January 14, 2004, between the City of South San Francisco and Action Sign, Inc., remains in effect as originally executed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of November 24, 2004. Buyer: City of South San Francisco Seller: Action Signs, Inc. Marty Van Duyn Assistant City Manager Andy Morocco Bill Morocco Approved as to Form: Attest: Kimberly Johnson City Attorney Sylvia M. Payne City Clerk Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #12 DATE: December 8, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sylvia M. Payne, City Clerk SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 2, 2004 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution declaring the election results of the Special Municipal Election consolidated with the Presidential Election held on November 2, 2004. DISCUSSION In accordance with Government Code Section 10264, the following certification of election results for the November 2, 2004 Special Municipal Election is submitted: The number of registered voters: The number of votes cast: Percentage of turn-out: Votes cast for Measure I: Votes cast for Measure J: Yes Yes 27,954 20,660 73.91 12,554 (69.96) 5,391 (30.04) 11,841 (65.89) 6,129 (34.11) Measure I was approved by the voters and Measure J was rejected. The certificate of results from the San Mateo County Clerk and a tabulation of votes for the 37 precincts in South San Francisco are attached. Sylvia M. Payne City Clerk city Manager Attachment: Resolution Precinct Tabulation San Mateo County Clerk Certificate of Results RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE ELECTION RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CONSOLIDATED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 10264, the following certification of election results for the November 2, 2004 Special Municipal Election is submitted: The number of registered voters: 27,.954 The number of voters cast: 20,660 Percentage of turn-out: 713.91 Votes cast for Measure I: Yes 12..554 (69.96) No 5,391 (30.04) Votes cast for Measure J: Yes 11,841 (65.89) No 6,129 (34.11) WHEREAS, Measure I was approved by the voters and Measure J was rejected. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby declares the election results of the Special Municipal Election consolidated with the Presidential Election held on Novenaber 2, 2004. 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\l 2-8-04municipal.election.res.doc ATTEST: Clerk 5OUI H bAN FRANCISCO COMPREHENSIVE ELECTION RESULTS PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION 11/2/04 OFFICIAL RESULTS ~ REGISTERED VOTERS CAST PERCENTAGE PRECINCT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 WEST SUNSHINE GARDENS UPPER SUNSHINE GARDENS -EAST SUNSHINE GARDENS LOWER SUNSHINE GARDENS ORANGE PARK AREA PARKWAY ESTATES UPPER PARKWAY/OLD TOWN OLD TOWN/MARTIN SCHOOL HILLSIDE PECKS LOTS LOWER OLD TOWN BADEN/MILLER/GRAND BADEN/MILLER/GRAND 13 BADEN/MILLER/GRAND FRANCISCO TERRIA,B,C STREETS MAYFAIR VILLAGE BURl BURl/ALTA LOMA & MESA BURl BURl/ALTA MESA/CUESTA BURl BURI/CAPAY CIRCLE BURl BURI/JOAQUIN WINSTON MANORJLONGFORD/DUNDEE WINSTON MANOR/ARLINGTON/HICKEY ALTA LOMA/ROMNEY/NEWMAN/KIPLING WESTBOROUGH/CARTER WESTBOROUGH/OLMSTED WESTBOROUGH/KENT WESTBOROUGH/GELLERT/WREN WESTBOROUGH/TARA WESTBOROUGH/TIPPERARY WESTBOROUGHANEXFORD WESTBOROUGH/APPIAN WAY BRENTWOOD BRENTWOOD FAIRWAY/HAVEN PISA COU RT/ALIDA/DAN-A AVALON 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 TOTAL 677 652 9O8 7O9 738 9O5 711 705 1235 763 77O 656 891 953 686 746 735 1315 579 882 823 724 738 938 844 778 72O 65O 577 583 859 549 760 69O 712 793 511~ 513; 648i 543i 490! 7ooi 568! 5401 956: 488 429i 596! 613i 480i 5441 5501 10191 4741 710 643 558 568 667 58O 564 497! 465I 406J 451i 645! 436i 607 529i 549 653 27,954 i 20,660 75.481 78.68~ 71.37i 76.591 66.40! 77.35 79.89 76.60 77.41 61,73 63.38 65.40 66,78 64.32 69.97 72.92 74.83 77.49 81.87 80.50 78.13 77.07 76.96 71.11i 68.72 72.49! 69.03i 71.54i 70,36¢ 77.36i 75.09i 79.42[ 79.87! 76.671 77.11; 82.35i 73.911 MEASUREI YES NO 3~5', 115i 32~8~ 127~ 378i 180! 2801 1281 447] 184i 3501 1531 335! 13311 5971 275i 265 144: 299 129i 329 185 367; 158i 281 1311 344 139I 336¢ 137i 6391 2441 294i 111 4601 176 382i 182 358i 130 3561 142 3731 192 336! 146 3O3: 156 286! 142 276~ 140 252¢ 103 255! 135 3961 162 285i 84! 364! 1421 3291 117,~ 319 139i 425 1541 12,554 MEASUREJ YES NO 307i 293i 367! 311¢ 2661 4061 3311 309i 565~ 286i 272i 235~ 305~ 351! 2631 3251 2941' 592 260 432 376 326 319~ 399 324 321 300 275 245 253 4O3 236 325 295 282 392 147 161 192 175 144 222 171 160 3O4 122 155 149 212 175 151 155 177 298 150 196 192 159 186 162 158 147 133 137 112 146 150 136 185 153 174 183 6,!29 CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER In the Matter of the CANVASS OF VOTES CAST at the PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION held on NovembeF 2, 2004 I, WARREN SLOCUhl, Chief Elections Officer of the County of Sam Mateo, State of California hereby certify; THAT an election was held within the boundaries of the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, for the purpose of submitting Measure I to the qualified electors and; I caused to have processed and recorded the votes from the canvass of all ballots cast at said election within the boundaries of the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. I HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that the record of votes cast at said election are set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my hand and seal this 30th day of November, 2004 and file this date with the City Clerk of the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. Wa rre~q Slocum Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder FINAL OFFICIAL CANVASS 36 PRECINCTS COU~FFY TOTAL 12TH CONGRESSIONAL CONGRESSIONAL TOTAL 8TH SENATORIAL SENATORIAL TOTAL 19TH ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY TOTAL 1ST SUPERVISOR~AL 5TH SUPERVISORtAL SUPERVISORIAL TOTAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TOTAL BOARD OF EQUALIZATION RV EO GT IE SR TS E R E D 27954 27954 27954 27954 27954 27954 27954 12705 15249 27954 27954 27954 27954 BC AA LS LT 0 T S 20660 20660 20660 20660 2066O 20660 20660 9O89 11571 20660 20660 20660 20660 TP UE RR NC OE UN TT A G E 73.91 73.91 73.91 73.91 73.91 73.91 73.91 71.54 75.88 73.91 73.91 73.91 73.91 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION COUN~FY OF SAN MATEO NOVEMBER 2, 2004 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MEASURE I ( 2/3 vote req,) Y E N S 0 12554 5391 12554 5391 12554 5391 12554 5391 12554 5391 12554 5391 12554 5391 5530 2457 7024 2934 12554 5391 12554 5391 12554 5391 12554 5391 PAGE 052.053.001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MEASURE 3 ( 2/3 vote req.) Y E N S 0 11841 6129 11841 6129 11841 6129 11841 6129 11841 6129 11841 6129 11841 6129 5192 2795 6649 3334 11841 6129 11841 6129 11841 6129 11841 6129 FINAL OFFICIAL CANVASS PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION COUNFFy OF SAN MATEO NOVEMBER 2, 2004 PAGE 052.053.002 36 PRECINCTS 1801 So San Fran O1 1802 So San Fran 02 1803 So San Fran 03 1804 So San Fran 04 1805 So San Fran 05 1806 So San Fran 06 1807 So San Fran 07 1808 So San Fran 08 1809 So San Fran 09 1810 So San Fran 10 1811 So San Fran 11 1812 So San Fran 12 1813 So San Fran 13 1814 So San Fran 14 1815 So San Fran 15 1816 So San Fran 16 5817 So San Fran 17 0 5818 So San Fran 18 0 581!) So San Fran 19 5820 So San Fran 20 5822 So San Fran 22 5823 So San Fran 23 5824 So San Fran 24 0 5825 So San Fran 25 5826 So San Fran 26 0 5827 So San Fran 27 0 5828 So San Fran 28 0 5829 So San Fran 29 0 5830 So San Fran 30 0 5831 So San Fran 31 0 5832 So San Fran 32 0 5833 So San Fran 33 5834 So San Fran 34 0 5835 So San Fran 35 5836 So San Fran 36 0 5837 So San Fran 37 0 GRAND TOTALS RV TP EO UE GT RR IE BC NC SR AA OE TS LS UN E LT TT R 0 A E T G D S E 677 511 75.48 652 513 78.68 908 648 71.37 709 '543 76.59 738 490 66.40 905 700 77.35 711 568 79.89 705 540 76.60 1235 956 77.41 763 471 61.73 770 488 63.38 656 429 65.40 891 595 66.78 953 613 64.32 686 480 69.97 746 544 72.92 735 550 74.83 1315 1019 77.49 579 474 81.87 882 710 80.50 823 643 78.13 724 558 77.07 738 568 76.96 938 667 71.11 844 580 68.72 778 564 72.49 720 497 69.03 650 465 71.54 577 406 70.36 583 451 77.36 859 645 75.09 549 436 79.42 760 607 79.87 690 529 76.67 712 549 77.11 793 653 82.35 27954 20660 73.91 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MEASURE I ( 2/3 vote req.) Y E N S 0 325 115 328 127 378 180 348 141 280 128 447 184 350 153 335 133 597 275 265 144 299 129 257 135 329 185 367 158 281 131 344 139 336 137 639 244 294 111 460 176 382 182 358 130 356 142 373 192 336 146 303 156 286 142 276 140 252 103 255 135 396 162 285 84 364 142 329 117 319 139 425 154 12554 5391 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MEASURE J ( 2/3 vote req.) Y E N S 0 307 147 293 161 367 192 311 175 266 144 406 222 331 171 309 160 565 304 286 122 272 155 235 149 305 212 351 175 263 151 325 155 294 177 592 298 260 150 432 196 376 192 326 159 319 186 399 162 324 158 321 147 300 133 275 137 245 112 253 146 403 150 236 136 325 185 295 153 282 174 392 183 11841 6129 Staff Xeport AGENDA ITEM #13 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager EMINENT DOMAIN FOR WET WrEATH]ER PROGRAM - PHASE 1 PROJECT ENGINEERING FILE SS-02-1, PROJECT NO. 71-13235-0351, BID NO. 2323 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a Resolution of Necessity and direct the filing of Eminent Domain proceedings for the acquisition of certain real property interests in connection with the Wet Weather Program Phase 1 Project. BACKGROUND/DIS CUSS ION: The Wet Weather Program consists of improvements to the wastewater collection system and pump stations to control sewer system overflows. This project is required to comply with the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance is required by November 1, 2007. The City will use state revo, lving funds to finance the project. This project consists of the following: · Upgrade to San Mateo Pump Station. · Construction of new Shaw Road Pump Station. · Construction of new 36-inch Lowrie Avenue Force Main. · Construction of new 42-inch Shaw Road Force Main. · Construction of new Effluent Storage Pond and Pump Station. · Construction of new Vactor Truck Unloading Station. · Installation of new Influent Pumps and Effluent Pumps at WQCP. · Construction of new Gravity Sewer Mains in L,owrie Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. St~ff Report To: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council EMFNENT DOMAD4 FOR WET WEATHER PROGRAM - PHASE 1 PROJECT December 8, 2004 Page: 2 of 4 The matter to be considered at this hearing is whether or not tlhe Council should adopt a Resolution of Necessity, the common term for a resolution authorizing th,: filing of Eminent Domain la~vsuits to acquire the real property interests that will allow the City to construct the improvements contemplated by the Wet Weather Program Phase I Project. California Eminent Domain 'Law requires a public agency to dc) the following prior to adopting a Resolution of Necessity': a. Appraise the property interests that need to be acquired by the City for the public improvements. b. Offer'the owners of the property interests 'the appraised value of those interests. The City contracted ~vith Dean Chapman and Associates to appraise the property interests that were required lbr the project and has offered the appraised value to the property owners. In particular, o frets to purchase the required property interests ~ver'e mailed to the following property owners on the following dates: NAME / PARCEL No. Marino Giannini Piera Giannini 225 Shaw Rd 015-162-020 DATE EASEMENT/AREA SQ/FT Nov. 19, 2004 Permanent Easement / '717 AMOUNT/OFFER $3,585 S~affReport Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council EMiNENT DOMAIN FOR WET WEATHER PROGRAM - PHASE 1 PROJECT December 8, 2004 Page: 3 of 4 As of the date of this report, no offer has been accepted. In order to construct Phase I of the project in a timely fashion, the contractor must commence construction in the next several months. California ]Eminent Domain Law provides that the City may obtain an Order of Prejud~nent Possession immediately after it files an Eminent Domain laxvsuit and deposits the appraised value of each property interest to be acquired into the State Treasu~ Condemnation Fund. In the event a property is being used for business, residential or agricultural purposes, the law requires that the possession order be operative not earlier than 90 days following the date that the possession order is served on the property owner. This period may be shortened upon a showing of urgent necessity. The only issues to be discussed at the hearing on the: Resolution of Necessity are as follows: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the ~eatest public good and the least private injmy; 3. Whether the interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether the offer to purchase required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owners of record. Notice of the hearing has been mailed to each of the proper~:y owners in question. In the event that any property owner appears and desires to speak to any of the above issues, the Council should permit the owner to state his or her objections or observatic,ns. The Council should not permit any discussion of the amount or' compensation to be [)aid for the property interests to be acquired. Compensation is not a proper issue or matter for discussion. In order to adopt the Resolution of Necessity, a 2/3 majority vote is required or 4 affin'native votes on a five member Council. Staff Report T9: Re:: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council EMINENT DOMAIN FOR WET WEATHER PROGRAM - PHASE 1 PROJECT December 8, 2004 Page: 4 of 4 The project was originally analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council adopted a resolution ibr a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Progam for the Sewer Improvements on October 23, 2002. The Mitigated Negative Declaration included an assessment of potential environmental ira. pacts as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and recommends a number of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. FL.2NDING: This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/71-13235-0351) in the amount of $23,505,904.00. The City has received an approved preliminary funding commitment of $45,000,000 for phases I through V from the State Water Resources Control Board for the Wet Weather Pro.am. Marry Van Duyn /' ~ Assistant City Manag re~ Approved::'C-,= , ~ ,,., Barr4y N'agel ,' City Manager '-~ ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of Necessity Exhibit A - Easement Descriptions RB/BB/SM/JG/ed RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECE'.SSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCI--EDINGS WET WEATHER PROJECT Parcel No: APN 015-162-020- 225 Shaw Road, South San Francisco IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, California, as follows: WHEREAS, it is desirable and necessary for the City Council of the City of South San Francisco to acquire the permanent easement in and to real property more particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, to construct the Wet Weather Program and related facilities and appurtenances in connection with the above-captioned Project. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire said real property interests by virtue of Article % Section 19, of the Constitution of the State of California, Health and Safety Code Section 5001 and Sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.030, 1240.040, 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1250.110 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, notice has been duly given to the owners of the subject property and whose names and addresses appear on the most recent San Mateo County's equalized assessment roll, all of whom have been given a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard before the City Council of-the City of South San Francisco on the following matters: (a) Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; (b) Whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c) Whether the interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the Project; and (d) Whether the offer to purchase required by Government Code section 7267.2 has been submitted to the owners of the real property interests. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 7267.2 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco has made an offer to the owners of subject property for just compensation; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS FOUND, DETEP, MINED, AND ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. The public interest and necessity require the Project; The Project is planned and located in the manner which will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; The property interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the project; The offer required by section '7'267.2 of the Government Code of the State of California has been made to the owners of subject property; The City Attorney of the City of Soutln San Francisco or his duly authorized designee be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to institute and conduct to conclusion an action in eminent domain for the acquisition of the estates and interests aforesaid and to take such action as he may deem advisable or necessary in connection therewith; An order for prejudgment possession may be obtained in said action and a warrant issued to the State Treasury Condemnation Fund, in the amount determined by the Court to be do deposited, as a condition to the right of immediate possession. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.] The foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held on the 8th day of December, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steve T. Mattas City Attorney 724792 1 4 EXHIBIT A Legal Description for Proposed Easements Portions of that certain parcel of land situate in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described anti recorded in Document No. 2002223977 on October 31, 2002 in the Records of the said County of San Mateo, more particularly described herein as follows: PARCEL 1: Permanent Utility Easement Beginning at the southeasterly corner of said parcel, which is also a point in the northerly right of xvay line of Shaw Road; thence along the easterly line of said parcel, North 1° 33' 12" West, 42.90 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence leaving said easterly line, South 88° 26' 48" West, 36.67 feet; thence North 34° 03' 12" East, 16.95 feet; thence North 50° 30' 42" East, 33.99 feet to the easterly line of said parcel; thence along said easterly line, South 1° 33' i2" East, 34.67 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 'an area of 717 square feet, more or less. APN: 015-162-029 C:".,W1NDOWS',Temporary Internet Files'xOLKB",225 Shaw Rd Legal.doc 8/27/2004 StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #14 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Mich Mercado, Human Resources Analyst II RESOLUTION APPROViNG PERSONNEL CHANGES, CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND PLACEMENT ON MANAGEMENT GROUP SALARY SCHEDULE iNCLUDING THE MID- RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the j ob specification and salary placement for the newly created Community Development Coordinator classification. BACKGROUND The Community Development Block Grant Program has had a vacant housing and community development specialist position for many years. During the last few years, the position has been filled on a contract basis with part-time, temporary staff. The Program has hired recent graduate students and provided training regarding federal regulations and procedures, but eventually after six to nine months the staff would move on to other career opportunities. The reasons cited for leaving the position, was lack of benefits and career advancement. This position was reclassified to Rehabilitation Specialist in 1999 with benefits added; however, the City found it difficult to recruit a qualified person to fill the position as the salary was significantly below comparable positions in the County of San Mateo. At this time, the Department needs to create a permanent career position within the CDBG Program. The proposed position of Community Development Coordinator would be responsible for the day-to-day management of the block grant program and provide oversight to the social service agency grants funded by the City's CDBG Program. The: Community Development Coordinator would ensure that the Redevelopment Manager is not distracted from the Redevelopment Plan Amendment that must occur simultaneously with the CDBG allocation process this spring. The Plan Amendments are the City's highest priority. Not being fully staffed in the CDBG Program would create conflicts and delays that would be unacceptable. It is essential that this position be filled as early as possible as the block grant is from January to May. Salary is proposed to be comparable to an Associate Planner. Funds for this position are budgeted in the CDBG Program for FY 04-05 and wilt be fully paid out of CDBG funds with no impact to the General Fm~d. §P-12/01/04 S:klIR StaflkStaff Repons\CommDevdopCoord position.docCommDevelopCoord position.doc Staff Report Subject: (Personnel Changes) Page 2 Attached is the salary schedule (Exhibit A) for the classification and the new job specification (Exhibit B). New Classification: To Reason Community Development -New classification to replace the Housing and Community Coordinator ............................... Rehabilitation Specialist classification. By: MirxI~ Mercado Human Resources Analyst II Barw~vI. Nagel City Manager Attachments Exhibit A - Salary Range Exhibit B - Class Description RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCFL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCJlSCO, STATE OF CALI]FORNIA A RESOIA 5TION AYPROVING PERSONNEL C}-L&N GES, INCLUDING CI,&SSIFICATION DESCRIPTION .5~NI) PLACEMENT ON THE MID- MANAGEMENT GROITP SALARY SCHEDULE NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: The classification description, salary placement for the newly developed Community Development Coordinator position is hereby approved. The sala2-y schedule and class description are attached as Exhibit A and B. 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\ 12-8-04postion.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk City of South San Francisco Exhibit A Below is the salary range for the classification listed in the staff report to which this is attached. Mid-management Salary Schedule Title Monthly Salad. Range Community Development Coordinator ................................... $5,044 to $6,131 SP-11/18/04 S:¢tR Star,Staff Reports\Exhibit A for CDC.doc Exhibit B Attachments Class Descri~otion for: 1. Community Development Coordinator SP-I1/18/04 2:01 PM S:kHR StaffkStaffReportsXExh/bit B for CDC.doc City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department Community Development Coordinator Class Description Definition Under general supervision, performs a variety of professional, technical, and administrative tasks involving the implementation of community development and housing projects and programs; and does related work as required. Distinguishing Characteristics This is a single-position journey-level professional classification and it is distinguished by its speciahzation in community development and housing projects and programs. Assignments are in such areas as capital projects, housing production and rehabilitation, real property acquisition and management, seismic retrofits, affordable housing promotion, and community development block grants (CDBG). An employee in this classification may direct the work of others on a project basis. Important and Essential Duties 1. Identifies and works with for-profit and non-profit housing development organizations in developing housing projects. 2. Researches and analyzes economic and sociological issues relating to short- and long-term housing and community development needs. 3. Develops new housing assistance programs, including criteria for new construction programs; negotiates lending agreements and contracts with financial institutions. 4. Acquires sites for housing programs. 5. Manages the community development block grant program. 6. Develops and evaluates Requests for Proposals. 7. Prepares rehabilitation project specifications. 8. Consults with property owners and develops owner participation agreements for housing and commercial projects. 9. Confers with contractors and evaluates their qualifications. 10. Reviews funding applications and environmental assessments; monitors and ensures compliance with a variety of regulations. 11. Develops, coordinates, and monitors activities, such as loan brokering services, loan/grant agreements, and consultant services agreements. 12. Monitors construction projects from outset to completion; performs routine project inspections; and prepares attendant progress reports. 13. Assists apphcants in preparing loan documents to determine eligibility.. 14. Provides information to City officials and to federal, state, county, and private organizations, as well as to individual citizens. City of South San Francisco CommuniW Development Specialist Class Description Page 2 15. Maintains liaison with applicable government agencies; represents the City in a variety of groups and county'-wide organizations. 16. Prepares and maintains a variety of reports and documents, such as the HUD Consolidated Plan and Annual Performance Reports. 17. May direct the work of other workers on a project basis. 18. Performs related duties and responsibilities as assigned. Job Related and Essential Qualifications Knowledge of: Principles and practices of grant administration, particularly with respect to community development programs. Environment review process. Real estate lending practices and underwriting standards. Housing development finance. Statistical and research methods, practices, and techniques. Laws, regulations, relating to state and federal assisted housing programs, HUD, CDBG, and HOME programs. · Principles and practices of f'mancial management. · Principles and practices of public admi~fistration. · Principles and practices of housing and commercial construction and development. Ability to: · Effectively administer assigned housing and community development programs within requirements and guidelines established by the City and funding agencies. · Acquire a thorough knowledge of applicable federal, state, county, and local regulations and processes relating to redevelopment programs. · Acquire a thorough knowledge of applicable City and department policies and regulations. · Maintain effective liaison with other City departments and other agencies and deal successfully with the public and cormnunity groups. · Communicate effectively in writing, orally, and with others to assimilate, understand, and convey information, in a manner consistent with job functions. · Prepare complex reports and analyses; prepare clear, concise, and complete written reports. · Communicate clearly and concisely, both verbally and in writing. · Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing. · Use initiative and independent judgment with established policy and procedural guidelines. · Organize own work, set priorities, meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assignments with a minimum of direction. · Represent the City and the department effectively in contacts with representatives of other agencies, City departments, and the public. · Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in the course of the work. · Take a proactive approach to customer service issues. City of South San Francisco Community Development Specialist Class Description Page 3 · Make process improvement changes to streamline procedures. · Effectively utilize personal computers in connection with work performed. · Make presentations to appropriate agencies, groups, and parties. · Organize own work, set priorities, meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assigmnents with a minimum of direction. · Work in a safe manner, following City safety practices and procedures.. · Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. Skill in: · Using a personal computer and its associated applications. Experience and Training Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills, and abilities would be: Experience: Three years of increasingly responsible experience with housing programs, construction industry, grant administration, or real estate in the areas of redevelopment or economic development. Training: A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in planning, public administration, economics, business administration, policy development, or a related field. Licenses and Certificates All licenses and certificates must be maintained as a condition of employment. · Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid, appropriate California driver's license and a satisfactory driving record. Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment: Physical Skills: Ability to use standard office equipment, including a computer; sit, stand, walk, and maintain sustained posture in a seated position for prolonged periods of time; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone; lift and carry 35 pound boxes, files, and materials. Work Environment: Mobility to work in a ~pical office setting with some exposure to the field and outdoors. _4bilio; to: Travel to different sites and locations; drive safely to different sites and locations; maintain a safe driving record; work protracted and irregular hours and evening meetings or off- shift work for meeting attendance or participation in specific projects or prog-rams; available for evening meetings. City of South San Francisco Community Development Specialist Class Description Page 4 Approved: December 2004 Revised Date: Former Titles: Abolished: Bargaining Unit: Mid-management ADA Review: December 2004 DOT: No Physical: Class 3 Status: Classified/Exempt EEOC Category: Job Code: M725 ADA Documentation of Essential Duties 1. SDE 2. SDE 3. SDE 4. MAE 5. SDE 6. SAE 7. SAE 8. SAE 9. SAE 10. SAE 11. SAE 12. SAE 13. SAE 14. SDE 15. SDE 16. SDE 17. SAE 11/18/04 3:26 PM s:\admin\class descripfions~,ecd\community der specialist.doc Staff Xeport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Mich Mercado, Human Resources Analyst II AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3.12 OF MUNICIPAL CODE THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDATION Waive reading and introduce the ordinance, which amends Chapter 3.12 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to implement Council-approved position title additions, deletions, and/or changes. BACKGROUND The Municipal Code, Chapter 3.12 is updated during the budget process and periodically as positions are renamed, reclassified, developed and/or deleted from the competitive and non- competitive service. The following changes to the Municipal Code are recommended. Delete from the Municipal Code: To Reason Housing and Community New classification to replace the Housing Rehabilitation Specialist ........... Rehabilitation Specialist classification. and Community Add to the Municipal Code: To Community Development Coordinator .............................. Reason Position added to the classified service. By: Mich Mercado ~ Human Resources Analyst II Barry M. Nagel '~City Manager SP-t 2102/04 S:Xl-IR StaflSStaff Reports\Amendment To Ch apter 3.12.1 .docAmendment To Chapter 3.12.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.1_9.010 SOUTH SAN F1L~NCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. 1. SECTION 3.12.010 IS HEREBY AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SUBDIVISION (7)(b) 1. Delete the position title "Housing and Community Rehabilitation Specialist." 2. Add the position title of "Community Development Coordinator." SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced 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: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of ,2004. S:\Current Ord's\l 2-8-04positon.doc Mayor