HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-14 e-packetAGENDA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
MAY 14, 2003
7:00 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of
each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South
San Francisco, California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please
complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk.
Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the tOpic of your public comment.
California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item no__~t on the Agenda
(except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation
and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive
action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for
the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. In
the event that there are more than six persons desiring to speak, the Chair may reduce the amount of time
per speaker to three (3) minutes. 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.
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Vice Chair
RICHARD A. GARBARiNO, SR.
Boardmember
BEVERLY BONALANZA-FORD
Investment Officer
MICHAEL A. WILSON
Executive Director
PEDRO GONZALEZ
Chairman
JOSEPH A. FERNEKES
Boardmember
RAYMOND L. GREEN
Boardmember
SYLVIA M. PAYNE
Clerk
STEVEN T. MATTAS
Counsel
PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the minutes of April 23, 2003
2. Motion to confirm expense claims of May 14, 2003
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
3. Gateway childcare center project:
a) Resolution accepting the conveyance of approximately .7 acres of land from Boston
Properties
b) Resolution authorizing the execution of a lease agreement with the YMCA
c) Resolution awarding construction contract to Coast Side Associates in the amount of
$1,957,433 and amending the FY 2002-03 CIP budget to add $1 million from the
Gateway bond proceeds
CLOSED SESSION
4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 178-
190 Airport Boulevard; Agency Negotiator: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director
Van Duyn
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
AGENDA
MAY 14, 2003
PAGE 2
l edevelopment Agency
Staff Report
DATE: May 14, 2003
TO:
Redevelopment Agency Members
FROM:
Assistant Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Property Acceptance - Gateway Childcare Center: Resolution to authorize the
Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to execute the conveyance of
approximately 0.7 acres from Boston Properties to the South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency for construction of a childcare center.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the Executive Director of the Agency to execute such documents as may be
necessary to effect the conveyance of approximately .7 acres from Boston Properties to the
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for construction of a childcare center.
BACKGROUND:
In June 2000, the Redevelopment Agency approved a Precise Plan for Boston Properties to
construct two office buildings and a parking garage at 611-681 Gateway Boulevard. As part of
that approval, Boston Properties agreed to provide to the City an existing landscape strip located
along Gateway Boulevard, just south of 601 Gateway Boulevard, for a childcare facility.
DISCUSSION:
As depicted on the attached Parcel Map the site consists of approximately 30,330 square feet
(-0.7 acres), an easement over approximately 10 parking spaces adjacent to the entry of the
proposed childcare center intended primarily as a drop-off/pick-up area, and access to parking for
employees in the common parking lot. The terms of the land transaction require that the property
be used only as a childcare center, branch library, or office.
The subject site had initially been encumbered by a private landscape easement. As a condition
of approval on the Precise Plan approving the Childcare Center, there was a requirement that this
easement be vacated prior to issuance of any building permits on the site. This easement will be
vacated by the Gateway Owner Association, allowing construction of the childcare facility to
proceed, concurrent with the property transfer.
Staff Report
To: Redevelopment Agency Board
Re: Property Acceptance - Gateway Childcare Center
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 2 of 2
Zoning/Land Use/Redevelopment Area Plan Consistency
The acquisition of the property is consistent with the General Plan and Gateway Redevelopment
Plan as it furthers the goals of the plans by providing affordable child care to the residents of the
City of South San Francisco and employees of businesses within the Plan Area in accordance
with Government Code Section 65402. Additionally, the Redevelopment Agency is authorized
pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.57.070 (d) to aid and cooperate with
redevelopment projects located within the area in which they are authorized to act, and the
acquisition of the property and use as a child care center is consistent with the goals, objectives
and policies of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.57, Gateway Specific Plan
District the Precise Plan adopted pursuant thereto.
Environmental Determination
In its approval of the Precise Plan for the Gateway Childcare Center, the Redevelopment Agency
determined that any potential environmental impacts of the childcare center had been adequately
analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration certified in July 2000 for the Boston Properties
project (MND-00-020), and that no further environmental analysis was necessary.
CONCLUSION:
Acquisition of the subject property will enable the Redevelopment Agency to begin construction
of the childcare center on the site. The acquisition is found to be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the City's General Plan, the Gateway Specific Plan District and the Gateway
Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the
attached Resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the Agency to execute such documents
as may be necessary to effect the conveyance of the subject property, including any grant deeds,
Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions and Certificates of Acceptance, subject to approval as to
form by Agency Counsel.
Assistant Executive-Director
ATTACHMENT: Resolution
Parcel Map
, APPROVED BY:
Executive Director
RESOLUTION NO.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
STATE OF CALIFOR_NqA
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF
APPROXIMATELY 0.7 ACRES FROM BOSTON PROPERTIES TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE GATEWAY CHILDCARE CENTER
WHEREAS, staff recommends the conveyance of approximately 0.7 acres from Boston
Properties to the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for construction of the Gateway
Childcare Center as described in the Grant Deed attached hereto as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the property is consistent with the General Plan and Gateway
Redevelopment Plan as it furthers the goals of said plans by providing affordable child care to the
residents of the City of South San Francisco and employees of businesses within the Plan Area as
determined by the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 65402; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency is authorized pursuant to South San Francisco
Municipal Code Chapter 20.57.070 (d) to aid and cooperate with redevelopment projects located
within the area in which they are authorized to act; and,
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the property and use as a child care center is consistent with
the goals, objectives and policies of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.57, Gateway
Specific Plan District the Precise Plan adopted pursuant thereto.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco that the Redevelopment Agency accepts the conveyance of approximately 0.7
acres from Boston Properties to the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for construction of
the Gateway Chiidcare Center.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOVLED that the Executive Director is hereby
authorized to execute such documents as may be necessary to effect the conveyance, including any
grant deeds, Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions and Certificates of Acceptance, subject to
approval as to form by Agency Counsel.
630266-1
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 ,2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
S: Current Reso s\4-23-03Grant.deed. Gateway.chfldcare.res.doc
Clerk
630266-1
/ / // / / /
/ .~/ // / ~__/ /
PARO£L 0 / ~-~ / / / / ~ / / ~ ~'
. ~ ~.o/-~ II
/ ~ ~ / /M27-~0/ ~ / ~ / FIEMAJNDEFI
LI_ .... ~ ~: ~ /
~ ~ I I -- ' N ~ I
Iu _ I I I X ~ ...... I ~.~.~,.~ _ _ ~o.~.
/
01~ OF SOU~ SAN FRANClSO0 ~Y ~UlTO~I~ DEED FInD F~
~REC~D
/ /
/ /
WEU_
~ON./ /
N38'42'41 "E
30,330 SQ. FT.
GRAPHIC SCALE
( lit r~-r )
ltu~h- 30 ft.
LEGEND
CWSE CAUFORNIA WATER SERVICE EASEMENT
PUE PUBUC UllUTY EASEMENT
PRE PRIVATE ROADWAY EASEMENT
(R) RADIAL LINE
· SET 3/4" IRON PIPE WITH TAG LLS 7515
(~)WELL CITY MONUMENT PER 107 M 27-50
MON.
DISTINCTIVE BOUNDARY
CENTERUNE
PARCEL UNE
EASEMENT LINE
NOTE::
ALL INFORMATION LYING OUTSIDE OF THE DISTINCTIVE
BOUNDARY IS RECORD INFORMATION PER 107 Id 27-50.
1 I
PARCEL MAP 2003-
LANDS OF REDI~glgLOPMIgNT ADGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH S.~uN' FRANCISCO
***********************************************************************************************
A RESUBDMSION OF LOT I AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED
'FINAL MAP GATEWAY CENTER" WHICH MAP WAS RECORDED ON OCTOBER 1, 1982 IN BOOK
107 OF MAPS AT PAGES 27 THROUGH 30 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE
COUNTY OF' SAN MATEO, STATE OF CAUFORN!A
***********************************************************************************************
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
.315 Mople Avenue South Sen Froncisco, CA. 94080 (650)829-6664
SCALE: N.T.S. , MAY, 2005 SHEET 1 OF 2
]:\DESIGN\01,101\2 nd SUBt4ITTAL\dwg\Parcel Map Parcel.....A Childcare.dwg 05/09/2003 10:30:59 AM PDT
OWNER'S STATEMENT
WE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE ONLY OWNERS OF AND HOLDERS OF RECORD TITLE
INTEREST IN AND TO THE REAL PROPERTY SUBDNIDED AND SHOWN UPON THIS MAP, AND
WE DO HEREBY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF THIS MAP.
OWNER: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO.
BY:
MICHAEL A. WILSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~ SS
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO }
ON THIS DAY OF 2005. BEFORE ME,
THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY
PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE SAID STATE AND COUNTY, PERSONALLY APPEARED
PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME, OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN
INSTRUMENT. AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER
AUTHORIZED CAPACRY, AND THAT BY HIS/HER SIGNATURE ON THIS INSTRUMENT THE
ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH HE/SHE ACTED EXECUTED THIS INSTRUMENT.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
NOTARY SIGNATURE:
PRINTED NOTARY NAME:
PRINCIPAL COUNTY OF BUSINESS:
COMMISSION NUMBER: EXPIRES:
COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENT
FILED AT THE REQUEST OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, AT AM/PM ON THE DAY OF. ,2002, IN THE OmCE OF
THE COUN3Y RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, STATE OF CAMFORNIA. IN BOOK
OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE
SERIES NO I~'EE:
WARREN SLOCUM, COUNTY RECORDER
BY:
DEPUTY COUNTY RECORDER
CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD
SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDMSION MAP ACT AND
LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
SIGNATURE:
CYRUS KIANPOUR
PLS 7515
EXPIRES: 12/31/06
DATE:
ACTING CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
I, ROBERT HAHN, ACTING CITY ENGINEER OF THE CllY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNIY
OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE
HEREIN EMBODIED PARCEL MAP AND THIS MAP IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL
ORDINANCES.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND
THIS __ DAY OF 2003.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
ROBERT T. HAHN
ACTING CITY ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
R.C.E. NO. 47344, EXPIRES 12/31/03
VICINITY MAP (N.T.S.)
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARING NORTH 66'05'01' FAST BEIWEEN ll#O FOUND MONUMENTS, 359.00 FEET
APART, ON THE CENTERUNE OF GATEWAY BOULEVARD, AS SND BOULEVARD IS SHOWN ON
THAT CERTNN MAP ENTITLED 'FINAJ_ MAP GATEWAY CENTER', FILED FOR RECORD ON
OCTOBER 1, 1982 IN BOOK 107 OF MAPS AT PAGES 27 THROUGH 30, INCLUSIVE, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS
FOR THIS MAP.
PARCEL MAP 2003-
LANDS OF REDEVELOP~[ENT ADGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
A RESUBDIVlSION OF LOT 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THAT CERTNN MAP ENTITLED
'FINAL MAP GATEWAY CENTER' WHICH MAP WAS RECORDED ON OCTOBER 1, 1982 IN BOOK
107 OF MAPS AT PAGES 27 THROUGH 3(3 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
315 Mople Avenue South Son Froncisco, CA. 94080 (650)829-6664
SCALE: N.T.S. , MAY, 2005 SHEET 1 OF 2
J:\DES:[GN\01,I. 01\2 nd SUBMITTAt\dwg\Parcel Map Parcel.....A Childcare,dwg 05/09/2003 10:30:59 AM PDT
Redevelopment Agency
Staff Report
DATE: May 14, 2003
TO:
Redevelopment Agency
FROM:
Assistant Executive Director
SUBJECT: YMCALease/Gateway Childcare Center
Location: 559 Gateway Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached resolution authorizing
the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to execute a lease with the YMCA to
operate the Gateway Childcare Center.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Last September, the Redevelopment Agency approved a Precise Plan for an 8,300 square foot
childcare facility with related playground and site improvements within an existing landscape
easement at 559 Gateway Boulevard. Since that time, the architects have been finalizing
construction drawings and the project has been out for bid, with award of contract anticipated
shortly, and construction to proceed directly afterward. Additionally, during this time staffhas been
working with the YMCA to draft a lease agreement to provide for operation and maintenance of the
facility.
Lease
Term - As indicated in the attached draft lease, the term of the lease is initially 25 years, with an
option to extend an additional 25 years. During the lease period the YMCA shall be required to
operate and maintain a child care program in accordance with the recommended developmentally
appropriate practices established by the National Associate for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC) or other similar nationally recognized organization.
Accreditation - The YMCA would be required to begin the NAEYC accreditation process, or
national equivalent, within two years of beginning operations and achieve accreditation within three
years of commencing operations. Once accreditation is obtained, YMCA would be responsible for
maintaining accreditation of the Center so long as it occupies the center.
Staff Report
To: Redevelopment Agency
RE: YMCA Lease/Gateway Childcare Facility
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 2
Fundraising Contribution - The YMCA intends to raise charitable contributions to fund equipment
purchases and its initial start-up costs for the operation of the Center. The YMCA's goal is to raise
at least $500,000 for this purpose. If the YMCA does not use all of the funds it raises for this
purpose, it intends to give all excess funds to the Agency for future collaborations between the
YMCA and the Agency and to fund maintenance and repairs to the property. Additionally, the
YMCA will make a one-time capital contribution of $200,000 to the Agency as an initial payment to
offset the Agency's capital contribution.
Rent - The annual rent for the property would be waived in total if the YMCA provides financial
assistance in an amount equivalent to approximately $140,895 per year. The financial assistance
shall be provided as subsidized childcare services as follows:
The YMCA shall provide to a minimum of 25% of the children enrolled in the
YMCA childcare program a childcare tuition subsidy averaging 60% of the prevailing
market rate childcare fee at the center. The specific subsidy for each child shall be
determined using the Peninsula Family YMCA Financial Assistance Sliding Scale,
attached as Exhibit C to the draft lease, ranging from 25-75% based on an income to
family size ratio. All subsidies will be targeted to children of low- and very low-
income families.
This subsidy has an estimated value of approximately $140,895 based on an average
annual tuition of approximately $9,300.00, as outlined below:
25% of assumed enrollment of 101 children ~ approx.60% of average annual
childcare tuition of $9,300 per child per year, adjusted annually in accordance
with changes in the CPI.
.25 x !01 x .6 x $9,300 = $140,895
The YMCA shall provide childcare spaces in accordance with the following
priorities:
ao
First priority given to children of residents of the City of South San Francisco
meeting specific income requirements.
bo
Second priority shall be given to children of employees who work in the City
of South San Francisco meeting specific income requirements.
o
Should the overall percentage of subsidized child care spaces fall below twenty-five
percent (25%) of total number of enrolled child care spaces, or should the average
subsidy provided to these 25% of the enrolled children fall below 60%, the Agency
shall be entitled to equivalent rent calculated according to the formula provided in
Exhibit B attached to the lease.
Staff Report
To: Redevelopment Agency
RE: YMCA Lease/Gateway Childcare Facility
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 3
Hours of Operation - Hours of operation shall initially be, at a minimum, 6 am to 8 pm unless the
YMCA demonstrates to the Agency's satisfaction that such extended hours are not required to serve
the existing demand for services. Additionally, the YMCA may operate 24 hours per day upon
approval of the Agency. The YMCA will inquire with companies in the area to determine whether
there is a demand for 24-hour childcare in the East of 101 area.
CONCLUSION:
The attached lease provides for long-term operation and maintenance of a top quality childcare
facility designed to meet the needs of various income groups within the residential and employment
communities of the City of South San Francisco. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council
adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to
execute the attached lease with the YMCA to operate the Gateway Childcare Center.
BY:~ t/~
~s sa~sYt a~V~ExD~ u~ttiv e DireCtor
Approved By:
Executive Director
MAW:MVD:sk
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution w/attachment (lease)
RESOLUTION NO.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
STATE OF CAL~ORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
YMCA FOR THE GATEWAY CHILDCARE CENTER
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency desires to enter into a lease agreement with the
YMCA for the Gateway Childcare Center, as attached hereto as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the lease of the property to the YMCA for operation as a licensed child care
center provides a benefit to the project area by providing child care for the employees of businesses
located in the plan area that is convenient to their places of employment; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency benefits from providing such a facility as it contributes to the
marketability of the businesses in the redevelopment plan area eliminating conditions of blight
caused by vacant, undeveloped properties in the Gateway Redevelopment Plan Area.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco that the Redevelopment Agency authorizes a lease agreement with the YMCA
for the Gateway Childcare Center.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute
the lease agreement on behalf of the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
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 ,2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
S:\Current Reso's\5-14-03YMC.gateway.childcare.rda.doc
City Clerk
May 2003
Child Care Center Lease
This Lease Agreement (the "Lease") is entered into as of ., 2003
("Effective Date"), by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (the "Agency"), and the PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA-YOUNG
MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO, a California nonprofit
corporation ("YMCA").
RECITALS
A. The Agency is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of South
San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California; more specifically, in the Gateway
Development, property owned in fee simple by the Agency, located along Gateway Blvd.
between East Grand Ave. and Oyster Point Blvd. an area of approximately 10,000 square feet;
and which is described in the attached Exhibit [Al, which is incorporated herein by this
reference (the "Property").
B. YMCA desires to lease the Property from the Agency for the purposes of
maintaining and operating a Licensed Child Care facility -(the "Center") on the Property to
provide child care opportunities for the residents and businesses of South San Francisco.
C. YMCA is willing to assume total responsibility and liability for operation,
maintenance of the Center.
D. The Agency is willing to grant a Lease to YMCA on the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth for the purpose of using the Property as specified herein for the operation,
maintenance of the Center.
E. Both parties enter into this agreement to set forth the relative rights and duties of
each with respect to the obligations under the Lease.
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Lease. The Agency leases to YMCA the Property, subject to the conditions and
covenants of this Lease.
2. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by
this reference.
3. Use. Under this Lease, YMCA shall use the Property for the purposes of
operating and maintaining a child care center. YMCA shall not use the Property for any other
purposes without written permission from the Agency. The YMCA anticipates that such other
purposes will include special events and recreational programming such as educational classes,
parent events and/or wellness programs.
618481-1 - 2 -
May 2003
4. Term of Lease. The term of this Lease shall commence on or about
and continue for a term of twenty-five (25) years renewable unless earlier terminated as provided
herein (or in Section 6 below). YMCA shall, at its sole expense, remove all internal components
placed at the Property within sixty (60) days of the termination of this Lease or on completion of
the Lease term and shall, to the greatest extent reasonably feasible, restore the Property to its
condition prior to the commencement of operation of the Center. In the event YMCA fails to
remove such items, the Agency may, upon thirty (30) days notice to YMCA, remove said items
at YMCA's sole cost and expense.
This Lease shall terminate without further notice at the expiration of the term. Any
holding-over by YMCA after expiration shall be a month-to-month tenancy and shall not
constitute a renewal or extension or give YMCA any rights in or to the Property, except as
expressly provided in this Lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no termination of this Lease
shall release YMCA from any liability or obligation hereunder, whether of indemnity or
otherwise, resulting from any acts, omissions or events happening prior to the date of
termination, or date of surrender if it be later.
5. Option to Extend. YMCA shall have an option, to be exercised in YMCA's
discretion, to extend this Lease for an additional 25-year period. YMCA shall provide written
notice to Agency of its intention to exercise its option at least 6 months prior to the end of the
initial lease period. If YMCA fails to notify Agency of its intention to exercise its option, the
option shall terminate upon expiration of the lease. The parties may agree to further extensions
of this Lease by mutual written agreement.
6. Early Termination. Either the Agency or YMCA may terminate this Lease prior
to the termination date upon a minimum of six months notice ("Notice Period") to the other party
to this Lease. Upon termination by either party, YMCA shall be obligated to vacate the Property
within at the end of the notice period and return possession to the Agency.
7. Relocation Benefits. YMCA hereby expressly waives any right it may have to
receive benefits under Federal and State Uniform Relocation Acts (United States Code, Title 42,
Section 4601, et seq.; California Government Code, Section 7260, et seq.) as a result of
Agency's use or possession of any portion of the Property. This requirement shall apply to any
sublessee or tenant of YMCA.
8. Operation and Control. YMCA shall be solely responsible for the operation,
control, supervision and expense of the Center at all times pursuant to Community Care
Licensing regulations and the YMCA Operations Manual. The YMCA shall maintain and
operate a child care program in accordance with the recommended developmentally appropriate
practices established by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
or nationally recognized equivalent organization.
The YMCA, at its sole cost and expense, shall be responsible for obtaining and installing
any telephone, computer, surveillance, security, and playground equipment that is necessary or
desired to safely conduct operations on the premises.
618481-1 3
May 2003
The YMCA, by and through its employees, shall be responsible for the day-to-day cost
and expense of operation of the Center and the Property surrounding it, including payment of
electrical, gas, water, sewer and other utility charges. The Agency shall pay any development
fees applicable to the property, but the Agency shall have no obligation to provide supervision of
the Center.
9. Accreditation. The YMCA shall begin the NAEYC accreditation process, or national
equivalent, within two years of beginning operations and achieve accreditation within three years
of commencing operations. Failure of the YMCA to meet or exceed state licensing standards
and obtain NAEYC accreditation (or substantially equivalent national accreditation) as required
in this section is grounds for termination of this agreement. Once accreditation is obtained,
YMCA will be responsible for maintaining accreditation of the Center so long as it occupies the
Premises.:
10. Fundraising Contribution. The YMCA intends to raise charitable contributions to
fund equipment purchases and its initial start-up costs for the operation of the Center. The
YMCA's goal is to raise at least $500,000 for this purpose. If the YMCA does not use all of the
funds it raises for this purpose, it intends to give all excess funds to the Agency for future
collaborations between the YMCA and the Agency and to fund maintenance and repairs to the
Property. Additionally, YMCA shall make a one-time capital contribution of $ 200,000 to
Agency as an initial payment to offset Agency's capital contribution.
11. Rent. The annual rent for the property will be waived in total, if the YMCA provides
financial assistance calculated in accordance with Exhibit B. The annual rent_and financial
assistance amount shall be adjusted on July 1st of each year in the amount equivalent to the
percentage change in the consumer price index over that of June 1st of the preceding year. The
financial assistance shall be provided as subsidized child care services as follows:
a. YMCA shall subsidize twenty - five percent (25%) of the total number of
enrolled childcare spaces at an average subsidy of 60% of the of the prevailing market
rate childcare fee at the center. The specific subsidy for each child shall be determined
using the Peninsula Family YMCA Financial Assistance Sliding Scale, attached as
Exhibit C
b. The YMCA shall provide childcare spaces in accordance with the following
priorities:
(i) First priority shall be given to children of residents of the City of
South San Francisco meeting the income requirements set forth in subparagraph
(b);
(ii) Second priority shall be given to children of employees who work
in the City of South San Francisco and whose incomes meet the requirements sets
forth in subparagraph(b).
c. Should the overall percentage of subsidized child care spaces fall below twenty
percent (25%) of total number of enrolled child care spaces or should the average subsidy
provided to 25% of the children fall below. 60% of the of the prevailing market rate
618481-1 - 4 -
May 2003
childcare fee at the center, the Agency shall be entitled to rent equivalent calculated in
accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
(d)An annual audit of YMCA by Agency shall be conducted in November of each year.
The audit shall be conducted according to standard accounting principles and shall
identify the percentage of enrollees subsidized and the amount of subsidy provided
enrollees. Any rent due shall be paid within ninety (90) days of the date on which the
audit is provided to YMCA.
12. Registration for participants identified by the City of South San Francisco.
Families of those persons employed by businesses located within the of-the City of South San
Francisco will receive the first oppommity to register for the Center. A pre-registration period
will be provided for these families. On an on-going basis, employees' families of the City of
South San Francisco will receive first priority for registration when there are openings available.
This courtesy will be extended throughout the length of the twenty-five (25) year lease.
13. Hours of Operation. YMCA, pursuant to State Licensing and the YMCA
Operations Manual shall determine the hours of operation of the Center. (General purpose hours
of Monday-Friday, 250-260 days per year, with hours similar to employers in the area but shall,
at a minimum, be from 6a.m. to 1 8p.m. unless YMCA demonstrates to the Agency's satisfaction
that such hours are not required to serve the existing demand for services..
(a) The YMCA may operate twenty-four (24) hours per day upon approval by
the Agency. The YMCA shall inquire with companies and employers located in the area to
determine whether twenty-four (24) hour child care is a desired service for employees in the East
of 101 Redevelopment Plan Area.
14. Design. The exterior design of the site shall not be altered in any way without
approval in writing by the Agency and shall conform to the South San Francisco General Plan
and/or Municipal Code.
15. Permits and Approvals. As a condition to use of the Property, YMCA shall work
with city of South San Francisco staff to obtain any required permits, licenses and approvals
from the Agency and any other governmental agencies having jurisdiction over YMCA's use of
the Property. As a condition of this Lease, YMCA shall maintain such permits, licenses and
approvals in force throughout the term of this Lease. The Agency shall be responsible for
conducting any initial environmental review required to be undertaken in association with
YMCA's development and use of the Property as a child care center. As a result of this
environmental review, any fees, charges or other expenses that may be imposed by a regulatory
agency other than the Agency shall be the sole responsibility of the YMCA. Any future
environmental reviews that may be required during the term of the Lease shall be conducted by
YMCA which shall be responsible for any and all fees and charges associated with such review.
Agency's approval for these limited purposes shall not relieve YMCA from
liability arising out of performance of the work or create any assumption of design or
construction responsibility on the part of Agency. Approval by Agency shall not constitute a
618481-1 - 5-
May 2003
warranty by Agency that such plans conform to applicable federal, state, and/or local codes and
regulations.
16. Agency Contributions. YMCA and the Agency recognize that the Agency has
made both out of pocket and in-kind contributions in connection with the Lease of the Property
and the approval, construction and operation of the Center. These contributions are summarized
in Exhibit
17. Lighting. Security lighting will be provided at the center in the form approved by
the Agency of South San Francisco and the Gateway Property security. If necessary additional
lighting will be installed in the exterior entranceway or play area. This lighting will be approved
by the Agency prior to installation.
18. Future Construction. Any additional construction or improvements of the Center
or on the Property must be approved in writing by the Agency and must be done in accordance
with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code.
19. Maintenance. YMCA shall maintain the Property and improvements, including
the landscaping, irrigation and the water in the interior of area of the fenced playground and
building only. The Agency or Gateway Properties will maintain the area exterior of the fence.
Agency shall be responsible for extraordinary maintenance of the building, unless the
maintenance is necessary due to YMCA's failure to perform preventative maintenance or is
attributed to improvements installed by YMCA to operate the premises.
20. Tree Maintenance. YMCA shall be responsible for maintaining all trees located
within the fenced area on the Property. The Agency or Gateway Properties will maintain the
trees on the exterior of the fence.
21. Repairs.
a. Except with respect to damage caused by the negligent or willful act or omission of
YMCA, its agents, employees, invitees or contractors, or YMCA's misuse of the Property
(which YMCA shall repair at its sole expense), Agency shall repair and replace, as necessary, all
structural load-bearing components of the Property and improvements (including, without
limitation, exterior walls and interior load-beating walls), the roof and roof membrane, all major
plumbing-which excludes interior components and fixtures, heating, ventilation, air conditioning
and electrical systems-excluding those added by YMCA as part of any installed security or
communication system, all major lighting facilities and equipment, all windows, exterior doors
and plate glass, if any. Agency shall bear the cost of all such repair and replacement, except that
YMCA shall establish a maintenance reserve in amount equal to one percent (1%) of the gross
revenues of the Center, but not to exceed $10,000 per year, and YMCA shall make those funds
available to Agency as YMCA's contribution to the cost of such repairs and replacements.
YMCA shall contribute up to 50% of the cost of necessary repairs and replacements, as funds are
available in the maintenance reserve fund. Any repairs or rebuilding performed by YMCA or
Agency shall be done in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Such
repairs or rebuilding performed by YMCA must be approved in writing by the Agency and must
be done in conformance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Agency or
618481-1 - 6 -
May 2003
Gateway Owner's Association will be responsible for any and all repairs to equipment, buildings
or landscaping on the exterior of the fenced area.
b. Except for Agency's maintenance and repair obligations under Section 21 (a), YMCA
at its expense shall keep the Property in good order, condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear
excepted, including landscaping inside the fence.
22. Destruction or Damage
Partial Damage. If there is damage to the Property which can reasonably be repaired within 270
days fi.om the date of casualty, the Agency shall repair such damage as promptly as possible and
restore the Property to the condition existing prior to the casualty, including any required code
upgrade, and this Lease shall continue in full force and effect, if such loss is insured. If the loss
is not insured or if Agency will not receive sufficient insurance proceeds to repair such damage,
Agency shall give written notice thereof to YMCA. YMCA or Agency may elect within forty-
five (45) days after such notice to contribute the shortfall, without reimbursement, and if neither
so elects, either party may terminate this Lease effective as of the date of the casualty by giving
notice to the other party prior to the commencement of restoration. Agency shall have no
obligation to repair YMCA's trade fixtures or equipment, except for damage thereto caused by
the Agency.
b. Total Destruction. If there is damage, whether or not an insured loss, (including
destruction required by any authorized public authority), which cannot reasonably be repaired
within 270 days of the casualty, this Lease shall automatically terminate on the date on which the
casualty causing the total destruction occurred.
c. Abatement of Rent; YMCA's Remedies. If either party restores the Property
pursuant to this Section 22, the rent or financial assistance required for the period during which
such restoration continues shall be abated in proportion to the degree to which YMCA's use of
the Property is impaired. Except for such abatement, YMCA shall have no claim against Agency
for any damage suffered by reason of any such damage, destruction, repair or restoration.
If Agency is required or elects to restore the Property under the provision of this Section 22, and
does not commence such restoration within (270) days after the date of casualty, YMCA may
terminate this Lease by giving Agency notice thereof at any time prior to the commencement of
the actual work of restoration on or about the Property. If the Agency commences restoration
but fails to substantially complete the restoration within one year (365 days) from the date on
which construction begins, as such period may be extended by acts of force majeure and other
events beyond the reasonable control of the Agency, YMCA may terminate this Lease upon
notice to Agency given at any time before restoration is completed. In either event, this Lease
shall terminate as of the date of such notice.
d. Waiver. Agency and YMCA waive the provisions of any statutes that relate to
the termination of leases when leased property is damaged or destroyed, and agree that such
events shall be governed by the terms of this Lease, including California Civil Code Sections
1932 and 1933.
618481-1 - 7 -
May 2003
23.
.Right of Entry. The Agency, its officers, agents, employees or authorized
representatives, upon reasonable notice, reserve and shall at all times have the right to
enter upon the Property and the improvements thereon at all reasonable times to
inspect the same or to perform any other acts authorized by this Lease or by the terms
of any permit or Agency ordinance.
24.
Signage. The YMCA shall post signs at the Center indicating that they are the
operating party. All signs and/or banners displayed on the exterior of the Center must
be approved in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code's
design review provisions and be approved by the Agency's Executive Director.
25. Default/Remedies of Agency. In the event that YMCA:
a. Fails to maintain or operate the Property for the principal purposes for
which the same are hereby demised, or fails to repair or pay utilities as provided herein or
any taxes or assessments when due; or
b. Fails to maintain reasonable and adequate supervision of the Property; or
c. Transfers or sublets the Property in violation of Section __ of this Lease;
or
d. Permits liens to be placed on the property in violation of Section __
of this Lease; or
or
e. Fails to maintain insurance as provided in Section __ herein; or
f. Breaches any other material provision of this Lease, and further fails to
remedy any such faults or defects described in a-f herein within thirty (30) days after
written notice to do so fi.om the Agency.
g. Said events described in a-f above shall constitute a default(s) by the
YMCA, and the Agency may then elect to terminate and cancel this Lease; provided that
in the event of a war or national or local emergency, or act of God, it becomes impossible
for YMCA to so construct upon, maintain or operate said Property, the Lease shall not be
canceled during the continuance of such cause of impossibility, but that during the
continuance the Property may be used for any other appropriate purpose which has been
approved by the Agency.
h. In addition to the Agency's right to terminate the Lease for a default
described above, the Agency may exercise any other right or remedy available at law or
in equity.
i. As a precondition to pursuing any remedy for an alleged default by
YMCA, the Agency shall, before pursuing any remedy, give notice of default to YMCA
stating that the notice was for the purpose of notice under this provision. Each notice of
default shall specify in detail the alleged event of default and the intended remedy.
618481-1 - 8 -
26.
27.
May 2003
j. If the default is for non-payment of taxes or other sums to be paid by
YMCA hereunder, YMCA shall have thirty (30) days after written notice is given to
YMCA to cure the default. For the cure of any other default, YMCA shall have thirty
(30) days after written notice of default is given as provided herein to commence curing
the default and sixty (60) days to complete curing of such default, and such time may be
extended by option of the Agency.
Mediation. Should any dispute arise out of this Lease which cannot be resolved by the
parties, the parties shall meet in mediation and attempt to reach a resolution with the
assistance of a mutually acceptable mediator. The costs of the mediator, if any, shall be paid
equally by the parties. If a mediated settlement is reached, neither party shall be deemed the
prevailing party for purposes of the settlement, and each party shall bear its own legal costs.
Neither party shall be permitted to file legal action without first meeting in mediation and
making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated resolution.
Restriction on Use. YMCA agrees that the Property will not be used for any of
the following activities:
a. Dumping. YMCA shall not cause or permit the dumping or other disposal on,
under or about the Property of refuse, Hazardous Material (as defined below) or any
other materials that could pose a hazard to the human health or safety of the
environment.
b. Hazardous Material. No Hazardous Material (as defined below) will be brought
upon, kept, used, stored, generated or disposed of in, on or about the Property, or
transported to or from the Property except that YMCA may use vehicles and equipment
customarily used during the course of its normal activities and shall be in full compliance
with all applicable environmental laws during such use. YMCA shall immediately notify
the Agency when YMCA learns of, or has reason to believe that, a release of Hazardous
Material has occurred in, on or about the Property. YMCA shall further comply with all
laws requiring notice of such releases or threatened releases to mitigate the release or
minimize the spread of contamination. In the event any Hazardous Material (as defined
below) is released on or about the Property, YMCA shall, without cost to the Agency and
in accordance with all laws and regulations, return the Property to the condition
immediately prior to the release. In connection therewith, YMCA shall afford the
Agency a full oppommity to participate in any discussion with governmental agencies
regarding any settlement agreement, cleanup or abatement agreement, consent decree or
other compromise proceeding involving Hazardous Material. For purposes hereof,
"Hazardous Material" means material that, because of its quantity, concentration or
physical or chemical characteristics, is at any time now or hereafter deemed by any
federal, state or local governmental authority to pose a present or potential hazard to
public health, welfare or the environment. Hazardous Material includes, without
limitation, any material or substance defined as a "hazardous substance, pollutant or
contaminant" pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq., or pursuant to
Section 25316 of the California Health & Safety Code; a "hazardous waste" listed
pursuant to Section 25140 of the California Health & Safety Code; any asbestos and
618481-1 9
May 2003
asbestos containing materials whether or not such materials are part of the Property or are
naturally occurring substances in the Property, and any petroleum, including, without
limitation, crude oil or any fraction thereof, natural gas or natural gas liquids. The term
"release" or "threatened release" when used with respect to Hazardous Material shall
include any actual or imminent spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing in, or under or about the
Property. YMCA shall not be responsible to remediate, clean-up or pay any fines or
other charges resulting from any pollution or condition that was on the Property before
the Lease took effect.
c. Nuisances. No activities shall be conducted on the Property that constitute
waste, nuisance or unreasonable annoyance (including, without limitation, emission of
objectionable odors, noises or lights) to the Agency, to the owners or occupants of
neighboring property or to the public.
28. Indemnity. YMCA shall release, defend (with counsel reasonably satisfactory to
the Agency), indemrfify and hold harmless the Agency, and its officers, board members,
commissioners, employees, or agents, and their respective successors and assigns (all of
the above hereinafter collectively known as "Indemnitees"), from and against all
liabilities, obligations, damages, penalties, claims, costs, charges and expenses (including
reasonable attorney's fees and expense for loss of or damage to property and for injuries
to or death of any person, including, but not limited to, the presence or release of any
hazardous materials as defined in Section 26 and the property and employees of each
party) when arising or resulting from the use of the Property by YMCA, its agents,
employees, contractors, subcontractors, or invitees or YMCA's breach of these
provisions by reason of any of the following occurrences, unless caused by the sole
negligence or willful misconduct of the Agency or its respective officers, agents or
employees, during the term of this Lease:
a. Any work or thing done in, on or about the Property and the improvements
thereon or any part thereof by YMCA, or its agents, employees, invitees, or
contractors; or
Any use, non-use, possession, occupation, condition, operation, maintenance
or management of the Property and the improvements thereon or any part
thereof by YMCA, or its agents, employees, invitees, or contractors; or
c. Any negligence on the part of YMCA or any of its agents, contractors, agents,
employees, or invitees; or
d. Any accident, injury or damage to any person or property occurring in, on or
about the Property and the improvements thereon or any part thereof; or
Any failure on the part of YMCA to perform or comply with any of the terms,
provisions, covenants and conditions contained in this Lease to be performed
or complied with on its part.
618481-1
-10-
May 2003
i. In case any action or proceeding is brought against the Agency or
its respective officers, agents or employees that is subject to YMCA's indemnity
obligation hereunder, YMCA, upon written notice from the Agency, shall, at
YMCA's expense, resist or defend such action or proceeding by counsel selected
by YMCA or YMCA's insurance cartier and determined by the Agency to be
reasonably satisfactory.
ii. The duty of YMCA to indemnify and save harmless includes the
duties to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. It is the
express intent of the parties that YMCA will indemnify and hold harmless
Indemnitees from any and all claims, suits or actions arising from any cause
whatsoever as set forth above regardless of the existence or degree of fault or
negligence on the part of the Agency, YMCA, or any subcontractor or employee
of any of these, other than the sole negligence, willful misconduct or criminal acts
of the Agency, its board members, officers, employees and agents. YMCA
waives any and all rights to any type of express or implied indemnity against the
Agency, its board members, officers or employees. This indemnity shall survive
termination or expiration of this Lease.
iii. It is the intention of the parties that should any term of this
indemnity provision be found to be void or unenforceable, the remainder of the
provision shall remain in full force and effect.
f. Notwithstanding the above provisions of this paragraph 29, YMCA shall
not indemnify Agency, it officers, agents or employees for costs or expenses caused by
any injury or illness suffered by Agency's employees due to an event described in a-e
above, other than those injuries caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of
YMCA or its officers, employees, agents, invitees and assigns.
29. Insurance. YMCA and Agency shall maintain in full force and effect during the
term of this Lease and any extension hereof, the following insurance:
Worker's Compensation. As required by Section 1860 of the California Labor
Code (Chapter 1000, Statutes of 1965), or any subsequent amendments or
successor acts thereto governing the liability of employers to their employees,
the YMCA and Agency shall secure Workers' Compensation coverage with
an Employer's Liability limit of at least $1,000,000. The policies shall
contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the other party and its respective
board members, officers, employees, agents while acting in such capacity,,
and their successors and assignees, as they now or as they may hereafter be
constituted singly, jointly or severally, consistent with the indemnity
provisions of this Lease.
Commercial General Liability. YMCA shall, at its own cost and expense,
procure and maintain Commercial General Liability insurance.. The policy
shall include, as additional insureds, Agency and its respective board
members, officers, employees and agents while acting in such capacity, and
618481-1 - 1 1 -
May 2003
their successors or assignees, as they now or as they may hereafter be
constituted, singly, jointly or severally, consistent with the indemnity terms of
this Lease. The policy shall be primary and contain cross liability and
severability of interest clauses. The policy shall have a combined single limit
of at least $2,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage per occurrence.
This insurance shall include but not be limited to premises and operations;
contractual liability covering the indemnity provisions contained in this
Agreement; personal injury; explosion, collapse and underground coverage;
products and completed operations and broad form property damage. The
policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of Agency and its
respective board members, officers, employees, agents while acting in such
capacity, and their successors and assignees, as they now, or as they may
hereafter be constituted singly, jointly or severally, consistent with the
indemnity provisions of this Lease.
c. Automobile Liability Insurance. YMCA shall, at its own cost and
expense, procure and maintain Automobile Liability insurance providing bodily
injury and property damage coverage with a combined single limit of at least
$2,000,000 per occurrence for all owned, non-owned and hired automobiles. This
insurance shall provide contractual liability covering all motor vehicles and mobile
equipment to the extent coverage may be excluded from general liability insurance.
Such insurance shall include, as additional insureds, Lessor and its respective board
members, officers, employees and agents while acting in such capacity, and their
successors or assignees, as they now or as they may hereafter be constituted, singly,
jointly or severally. The policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of
Agency and its respective board members, officers, employees, agents while acting in
such capacity, and their successors and assignees, as they now, or as they may
hereafter be constituted singly, jointly or severally, consistent with the indemnity
provisions of this Lease.
d. Property Insurance. YMCA shall, at its own cost and expense, procure and
maintain property insurance to protect its interest in the Property, with loss payable to the
Agency ,and any fixtures placed on the Property pursuant to this Lease covering all risks
of physical loss or damage to such Property, materials or improvements, except the perils
of flood and earthquake. The coverage under such policy shall have coverage limits
adequate to protect the full replacement value of the Property, improvements and any
fixtures placed on the Property. The policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor
of Agency and its respective board members, officers, employees, and agents while
acting in such capacity, and their successors and assignees, as they now, or as they may
hereafter be constituted singly, jointly or severally, consistent with the indemnity and
maintenance provisions of this Lease.
e. Additional Policies of Insurance. In addition to the requirements described
above, YMCA shall maintain any other insurance that may be required by law, statute or
governmental regulations.
618481-1 - 1 2 -
May 2003
f. All Policies. The insurance policy[ies] shall be written by an insurance
company or companies with a minimum Best's rating orA-VII. Such insurance company
shall be authorized to transact business in the State of California.
g. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to occupying the Premises, YMCA and Agency
shall file a Certificate of Insurance with the other party evidencing coverage, and upon
request, a certified duplicate original of the policy(ies). The insurance company(ies)
issuing such policy(les) shall give written notice to the other party of any material
change and provide at least thirty (30) days notice of cancellation.
h. Failure to Maintain. Failure to maintain the liability insurance policy(ies) in
conformance with this Section shall constitute a default by either party and they may
elect to terminate and cancel the Lease pursuant to Section 6
i. Self-Insured YMCA. Upon evidence of financial capacity satisfactory to
Agency and with Agency's permission, YMCA may self-insure any of the above-
required coverages.
j. Third Party Beneficiaries. The City of South San Francisco shall be
deemed a third party beneficiary under this Lease for purposes of enforcing any rights to
indemnification and insurance granted in this Lease, and shall be entitled to seek
attorneys fees and costs as provided in Section 33 below in any dispute arising from the
enforcement of said rights:
k. Policy Review. The liability insurance requirements required hereunder
shall be reviewed by the Agency and YMCA every five (5) years for the purpose of
increasing, if necessary, the minimum limits of such insurance to limits which shall be
reasonable and customary for similar facilities of like size and operation. YMCA agrees
to obtain insurance in the amounts deemed appropriate by the Agency pursuant to this
provision.
30. Compliance with Laws. At all times, YMCA shall comply, at YMCA's
expense, with all applicable laws, regulations, rules and orders with respect to the use of
the Property, regardless of when they become or became effective, including, without
limitation, those relating to construction, grading, signage, health, safety, noise,
environmental protection, hazardous materials, waste disposal and water and air quality,
and shall furnish satisfactory evidence of such compliance upon request of the Agency.
31. Successors and Assigns. YMCA shall not assign nor sublet, or otherwise
transfer this Lease, in whole or in part, any rights covered by this Lease, or permit any
other person, firm or corporation to use, in whole or in part, any of the rights or privileges
granted pursuant to this Lease, without first obtaining the written consent of the Agency.
Any encumbrance, assignment, transfer or subletting without the prior written consent of
the Agency, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, by operation of law or otherwise, is
void and shall, at the option of the Agency, terminate the Lease. The construction of
improvements by the YMCA shall not be considered an assignment of this Lease.
618481-1 - 1 3 -
May 2003
32. No Waiver. No waiver of any default or breach of any covenant of
this Lease by either party shall be implied from any omission by either party to take
action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated, and no express
waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver, and then the
waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent stated. Waivers of any
covenant, term or condition by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of any
subsequent breach of the same covenant, terms or condition. The consent or approval by
either party to or of any act by either party requiring further consent or approval shall not
be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any
subsequent similar acts.
33. Attorneys' Fees. If any legal proceeding should be instituted by either of the
parties to enforce the terms of this Lease or to determine the rights of the parties under this
Lease, the prevailing party in the proceeding shall receive, in addition to all court costs,
reasonable attorneys' fees.
34. Condemnation. In the event all or any portion of the Lease is condemned for
public use, YMCA shall receive no compensation whatsoever, unless a specific amount is
awarded for the taking and damaging of any of YMCA's improvements or property on the
Property and in such case compensation shall be limited to the value of YMCA's approved
improvements on the property and furnishing but only to the extent YMCA purchased, provided
or installed at their sole cost or expense said improvements and said improvements or furnishings
are not returned to YMCA for its future use.
35. Waiver of Liability. Neither the Agency nor any of its board members,
commissions, departments, boards, officers, agents or employees shall be liable for any damage
to the property of YMCA, its officers, agents, employees, invitees, parking patrons, contractors
or subcontractors or their employees, for any bodily injury or death to such persons, resulting or
arising from the condition of the Property or its use by YMCA, except where such damage,
bodily injury or death is caused by the sole negligence and/or willful misconduct of the Agency
or its board members, departments, boards, officers, agents or employees.
36. Non-Discrimination. YMCA shall not, in the operation and use of the Property,
discriminate against any person or group of persons solely because of race, color, creed, national
origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation or disability.
37. Taxes. Any and all real property taxes, sales taxes or any other form of tax
assessed or imposed against the Property arising out of, or attributable to, YMCA's occupancy
and use of the Property, including possessory interest taxes, shall be borne exclusively by
YMCA. YMCA shall be responsible for payment, before they become delinquent, of all taxes
charged and assessments levied upon or assessed against the Property during the term of this
Lease, including but not limited to Possessory Interest Tax as outlined in Section 107.6 of the
California Revenue and Taxation Code.
38. Utilities. YMCA shall pay for all water, gas, heat, light, power, telephone, refuse
and other utilities and services supplied to the Property, together with any taxes thereon. It is
618481-1 - 14 -
May 2003
acknowledged that the Lease is a "Triple Net" Lease and that the YMCA is responsible for all
utilities as well as the care and maintenance of the Center.
39.
parties.
Amendment. This Lease may be amended only upon written agreement of the
41. Captions. The captions of the various articles and sections of this Lease are for
convenience and ease of reference only and do not necessarily define, limit, augment or describe
the scope, content, or intent of this Lease or of any part or parts of this Lease.
42. Gender. The neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and each
includes corporation, partnership, or other legal entity when the context so requires.
43. Singular and Plural. The singular number includes the plural wherever the
context so requires.
44. Exhibits, Addenda. All exhibits and addenda to which reference is made in this
Lease are incorporated in the Lease by the respective references to them, whether or not they are
actually attached, provided that they have been signed or initialed by the parties. Reference to
the "Lease" includes matters incorporated by reference.
45. Applicable Law. This Lease shall be construed and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of California.
46. Covenants and Conditions. All provisions of this Lease whether covenants or
conditions, on the part of YMCA shall be deemed to be both covenants and conditions and such
covenants shall survive termination.
47. Construction of Lease; S everabilit¥. To the extent allowed by law, the terms,
covenants, conditions, provisions and agreements in this Lease shall be construed and given
effect in a manner that avoids any violation of statute, regulation or law. The Agency and
YMCA covenant and agree that in the event any term, covenant, condition, provision or
agreement in this Lease is held to be invalid or void by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
invalidity of any such term, covenant, condition, provision or agreement shall in no way affect
any other term covenant, condition, provision or agreement in this Lease.
48. No Benefit to Third Parties. Nothing herein shall be construed to be for the
benefit of third parties, except those third parties identified in this Agreement, unless otherwise
approved in writing by both parties.
49. Notices. All notices required or permitted to be given under this Lease shall be in
writing and mailed postage prepaid by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by
personal delivery or by overnight courier, to the appropriate address indicated below or at such
other place or places as either the Agency or YMCA may, from time to time, respectively,
designate in written notice given to the other. Notices shall be deemed sufficiently served four
(4) days after the date of mailing or upon personal delivery.
To YMCA: Peninsula Family YMCA
618481-1 - 1 5-
May 2003
1877 South Grant Street
San Mateo, CA 94402
Attn: Executive Director
To Agency:
City of South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency
400 Grand Ave
South San Francisco, Ca 94080
Attn: Director of Economic and Community Development
WITH COPY TO: City Clerk
50. Execution in Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two (2) or more
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
51. Integration. This Lease constitutes the complete expression of the agreement
between the parties and supersedes any prior agreements, whether written or oral, concerning the
subject of this Lease, which are not fully expressed in this Lease. Any modification of or
addition to this Lease must be in writing signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease as of the day and year
first above written by their duly authorized representatives.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA - YOUNG
MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF
SAN FRANCISCO, a California nonprofit
corporation
By:
Michael A. Wilson
Executive Director
By:
Title:
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
By:
Title:
Steven T. Mattas
Agency General Counsel
618481-1 - 16 -
Redevelopment Agency
Staff Report
DATE: May 14, 2003
TO: Redevelopment Agency Members
FROM: Assistant Executive Director
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2002-03 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 MILLION FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE GATEWAY CHILDCARE CENTER.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached resolution to award the
construction contract for the Gateway Childcare Center to Coast Side Associates, in the
amount of $1,957,433 and to authorize an amendment to the 2002-03 Capital Improvement
Program budget in the amount of $1 million.
BACKGROUND:
In June 2000, the Redevelopment Agency approved a Precise Plan for Boston Properties to construct
two office buildings and a parking garage at 611-681 Gateway Boulevard. As part of that approval,
Boston Properties agreed to provide to the City an existing landscape strip located along Gateway
Boulevard, just south of 601 Gateway Boulevard, for a childcare facility.
In June 2002, the Board authorized staff to retain the architectural consultant team of Starkweather
Bondy to design a childcare facility on the roughly .7 acre site within the landscape strip, and in
September 2002, the Agency approved Precise Plan PP-02-0059, accepting the design of the
approximately 8,300 square foot facility with related playground and site improvements.
DISCUSSION:
The Public Works Department initially advertised the subject project in February 2003, and opened
bids on March 24, 2003. At the April 9, 2003 Redevelopment Agency meeting, the Board rejected
all bids. The project was readvertised and bids were opened on April 15, 2003. The following were
the bid results:
Staff Report
To:
Re:
Date:
Redevelopment Agency Board
Award of Contract and Budget Amendment for the Gateway Childcare Center
May 14, 2003
Page 2 of 4
CONTRACTOR
BID AMOUNT
Coast Side Associates
- Half Moon Bay
$1,957,433
Alpha-Bay Construction
- San Francisco
$1,980,889
XL Construction
- San Jose
$1,981,346
Tinney Construction
- Redwood City
$2,011,262
John Plane Construction
- Burlingame
$2,020,253
Competent Builders
- San Francisco
$2,144,390
Kin Wo Construction
- San Francisco
$2,174,457
Seto's Construction
- San Francisco
$2,208,223
Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Coast Side Associates and found them to be
satisfactory. The project schedule provides for work to commence in May 2003, and completed by
the first part of 2004. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Coast Side Associates in the
amount of $1,957,433.
StaffReport
To: Redevelopment Agency Board
Re: Award of Contract and Budget Amendment for the Gateway Childcare Center
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 3 of 4
FUNDING:
Budget Amendment
In 1999, the City issued Tax Allocation Bonds in the amount of $28 million dollars for Gateway
refinancing. Two million of the bond funds have been budgeted for the project in the 2002-03
Capital Improvement Program budget (CIP Project #0225). This was done prior to completion of
design and before related site development costs were known. The cost breakdown for the design
and construction of the childcare facility and related site improvements is shown below:
Project Cost Amount
Architectural Services $301,000
Geotech study $15,000
Soils evaluation $10,000
Cost Estimating $20,000
Parcelization- Surveying, $20,000
mapping, title insurance
Construction Contract $1,957,433
10% Construction contingency $200,000
10% Administration/Inspection $200,000
Total Estimate $2,723,433
Funds are available from Gateway Bond proceeds to accommodate this budget transfer and to
increase the Gateway Project approved CIP by $1 million for this project. (Agency funds may be
expended for the construction of the childcare center pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33445.) The attached resolution increases the project funding and transfers $1 million from the
Gateway Bond to the CIP. Note: Any unused allocated monies would be returned to the Gateway
Bond fund.
Redevelopment Area Plan Consistency
Construction of the center will assist the Agency in furthering the objectives identified in the
Gateway Redevelopment Plan Area by providing child care to the employees of businesses in the
Gateway Center Project where such an amenity assists in ensuring continued marketability of the
existing facilities, increasing the ability of businesses to succeed in the Plan Area, and thereby
serving to eliminate blight in accordance with the objectives of the Plan.
Staff Report
To: Redevelopment Agency Board
Re: Award of Contract and Budget Amendment for the Gateway Childcare Center
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 4 of 4
Environmental Determination
In its approval of the Precise Plan for the Gateway Childcare Center, the Redevelopment Agency
determined that any potential environmental impacts of the childcare center had been adequately
analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration certified in July 2000 for the Boston Properties
project (MND-00-020), and that no further environmental analysis was necessary. Additionally, the
project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, in-fill development.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached resolution to award the
construction contract for the Gateway Childcare Center to Coast Side Associates, in the mount of
$1,957,433 and to authorize an amendment to the 2002-03 Capital Improvement Program budget in
the amount of $1 million.
BY: ~
Marty Van Duyn
Assistant Executive~D'~?'~tor
Michael A. Wilson
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT:
Resolution
Location Map
Bid Breakdown
SK/BA/JG/ed
RESOLUTION NO.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
STATE OF CAL~ORNIA
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
FOR THE GATEWAY CHILDCARE CENTER TO COAST SIDE
ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,957,433 AND AMENDING THE
2002-03 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NO. 0-22) BUDGET
TO ADD $1,000,000 FROM GATEWAY BOND PROCEEDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 33391, the
Redevelopment Agency has the authority to acquire property in a redevelopment plan area; and,
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the site for the construction of the child care center was
approved by Resolution No. 03- , adopted May 14, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, construction of the center will assist the Agency in furthering the objectives
identified in the Gateway Redevelopment Plan Area by providing child care to the employees of
businesses in the Gateway Center Project; and,
WHEREAS, such an amenity is necessary and desirable to ensure continued marketability of
the existing facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the ability of businesses to succeed in the Plan Area serves to eliminate blight in
accordance with the objectives of the Plan; and,
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, Agency funds may be expended for the construction of
the child care center pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33445; and,
WHEREAS, the project was previously analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, and the Agency adopted Negative Declaration ND-
00-020 on July 26, 2000. Additionally, the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15332, in-fill development; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Coast Side
Associates in the amount of $1,957,433; and
WHEREAS, funds are available from Gateway Bond proceeds to accommodate this budget
transfer and to increase the Gateway Project approved Capital Improvement Program by $1 million
for this project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco that the Redevelopment Agency awards the construction contract for the
Gateway Childcare Center to Coast Side Associates in the amount of $1,957,433 and amends the
2002-03 Capital Improvement Program (No. 3-22) by adding $1,000,000 to this project with funding
fi.om Gateway Bond Proceeds.
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 ., 2003 by the following vote:
AYE S:
NOES'
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
S:\Current Reso's\5-12-03 constmction.gateway.childcare.rda.res.doc
Clerk
I · ! I' I I I [ I' I I '1 I I. I I .I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1
GATEWAY CHILDCARE CENTER
VICINITY/CONTEXT MAP
NOT TO SCALE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GATEWAY CHILD CARE BUILDING
ALL BIDS - BREAKDOWN - TOTAL COSTS
COMPETENT
CONTRACTOR --> XL BUILDERS COASTSIDE TINNEY CONST. SETO'S KIN we JOHN PLANE ALPHA BAY
ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTI UNIT COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST
NO. TY
1 Site Construction: Demolition 1 LS $ 5,429.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 15,866.00 $ $ 11,550.00 $ 7,000.00: $ 20,000.00 $ 7,884.00
2 Site Construction: Earthwork 1 LS $ 48,857.00 $ 82,500.00 $ 70,635.00 $ 83,719.00 $ 73,654.00 i $ 70,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 43,080.00
3 Site Construction: Site Utilities 1 LS $ 73,176.00 $ 81,070.00 $ 58,142.00 $ 65,008.00; $ 87,018.00 ~$ 60,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 43,188.00
4 Site Construction: Landscaping 1 ES i$ 92,904.00 $ 110,660.00 $ 147,406.00 $ 88,311.0015 86,297.00 $ 155,000.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 97,083.00
5 Site Constrauction: Concrete Paving 1 LS !$ 67,538.00 $ 71,280.00 $ 52,796.00 $ 96,915.00 $ 88,352.00 $ 71,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 78,448.00
Site Construction: Subtotal
6 Concrete Foundations ~ LS $ 114,137.00 $ 52,800.00 ~$ 86,098.00 $ 186,025.00 $ 196,350.00 $ 42,263.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 109,500.00
7 Concrete: Slab on Grade ~ LS $ 48,916.00 $ 105,600.00 $ 79,475.00 $ $ 46,200.00 $ 139,094.00 $ 80,000.00 $ ~,277.00
8 Metals: Sructural Steel 1 ES $ 63,687.00 $ 24,750.00 $ 15,918.00 $ 67,136.00 $ 23,100.00 $ 28,363.00 $ 30,000.00 ~$ 25,9~.00
9 Metals: Metal Fabriation ~ LS $ 3,352.00 $ 39,600.00 $ 838.00 $ $ 46,200.00 $ 4,210.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 39,995.00
Metals: Sub Total
~0 Wood: Rough Carpentry ~ LS $ 2,596.00 $ 269,550.00 $ 258,126.00 $ 274,129.00 $ 277,200.00 $ 176,185.00 $ 341,253.00 $ 269,860.00
~ Wood: Glu-Lam Structural Units ~ LS $ 346,531.00 ~$ 11,000.00 $ 64,658.00 $ $ 57,750.00 $ 230,575.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 63,154.00
12 Wood: Finish Carpent~ ~ LS $ 10,382.00 $ 18,150.00 $ 1,690.00 $ $ 17,325.00 $ 4,620.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 28,650.00
~3 Wood: Architectural Woodwork ~ LS $ 62,554.00 $ 85,580.00 $ 63,244.00 $ 74,464.00 $ 71,930.00 $ 64,142.00 $ 97,000.00 $ 72,737.00
~, Thermal and Moisture Protection: Building ~ ES $ 18,418.00 $ 31,900.00 $ 18,245.00 $ 13,717.00 $ t7,961.00 $ 18,834.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 14,892.00
~5 Thermal and Moisture Protection: Underla ~ Ls $ 2,361,00 $ 12,100.00 $ 2,406.00 $ $ 19,635.00 $ 14,5~.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 6,933.00
1 5/9/20032:03 PM
COMPETENT
CONTRACTOR --> x_~ BUILDERS COASTSIDE TINNEY CONST. SETO'S KIN WO JOHN PLANE ALPHA BAY
ITEM QUANTI
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST
NO. TY
16 Thermal and Moisture Protection: Roofin.c 1 LS $ 110,428.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 104,580.00 $ 104,678.00 $ 138,600.00 $ 108,790.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 101,493.00
Thermal
and
Moisture
Protection:
Sub
~7 Doors and Windows: Steel Doors ~ LS $ 25,701.001 $ 30,470.00 $ 38,159.00 $ 54,125.00 $ 18,047.00 $ 23,758.00~ $ 25,000.00 $ 13,867.00
~ Doors and Windows: Access Doors & Pan ~ Es $ 525.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,543.00 $ $ 2,310.00 $ 3,532.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,146.00
19 Doors and Windows: Aluminum Window ~ LS $ 37,352.00 $ 77,000.00 $ 40,220.00 $ 170,026.00 $ 37,180.00 $ 40,281.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 36,672.~
20 Doors and Windows: Hardware ~ LS $ 26,225.00 $ 24,090.00 $ 9,374.00 $ $ 32,127.00 $ 29,557.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,628.00
2~ Window Walls ~ LS $ 132,428.00 $ 198,000.00 $ 120,660.00 $ $ 131,220.00 $ 133,201.00 $ 175,000.00 $ 132,936.00
Doors & Windows: Sub Total ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ .~ ';~;~ .... ~ ~- ~ 9:~
2; Finishes: Podland Cement Plaster 1 LS $ 77,649.00 $ 77,000.00 $ 77,391.00 $ 81,9~.00 $ 69,300.00 $ 86,775.00 $ 82,000.00 $ 84,~.00
23 Finishes: G~sum Board Assemblies ~ LS $ 80,493.00 $ 42,790.00 $ 80,921.00 $ 77,253.00 $ 86,607.00 $ 82,775.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 82,235.00
24 Finishes: Tile ~ LS $ 10,197.00 $ 23,100.00 $ 10,167.00 $ 10,212.00 $ 17,268.00 $ 12,064.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 12,193.00
25 Finishes: Acoustical Ceiling ~ LS $ 24,371.00 $ 26,400.00 $ 24,227.00 $ 24,406.00 $ 23,850.00 $ 24,198.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 24,582.00
26 Finishes: ResilentTile Flooring 1 ES $ 16,288.00 $ 13,200.00 $ 4,048.00 $ 27,185.00 $ 29,710.00 $ 17,758.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 15,894.00
27 Finishes: Carpet Tiles 1 LS $ 10,858.00 $ 18,920.00 $ 22,938.00 $ $ 11,025.00 $ 10,919.00 $ $ 10,939.00
2~ Finishes: Painting and Coatings 1 Ls $ 25,244.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 28,388.00 $ 23,453.00 $ 22,918.00 $ 26,760.00 $ 30,000.00 ~$ 28,755.00
Finishes:
Sub
Total
29 Specialities ~ LS $ 16,606.00 $ 24,530.00 $ 15,499.00 $ 16,399.00 ;$ 22,463.00 $ 18,367.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 18,235.00
30 Equipment ~ LS $ 17,124.00 $ 8,800.00 $ 17,119.00 :$ 11,583.00 $ 13,878.00 $ 18,074.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 8,257.00
31 Furnishings ~ LS $ 9,748.00 $ 14,850.00 $ 14,721.00 ~$ 17,740.00 $ 9,489.00 $ 0,490.00 $ 1,000.00'$ 9,884.00
Specialities/Equip/Furnish: Sub ~~ ~f~, ~~;: ~ ~'~ r~.~,,:~;~, ;::?~;t:~: ~:~;~~,~?~,~ ~Tf~; ..................................... -- ~' ~
~2 Mechanical: Plumbing 1 LS $ 71,3~.~ $ 85,800.00 $ 69,753.00 ~$ 71,355.00 $ 61,100.00 $ 72,000.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 72,407.00
33 Mechanical: HVAC ~ LS $ 56,416.00 $ 5a,300.00 $ 58,e50.00 $ a7,665.00 $ 80,850.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,623.00
3~ Mechanical: Fire Sprinkler Systems 1 LS $ 24,107.00 $ 29,260.00 $ 26,098.00 $ 31,381.00 $ 36,046.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 28,650.00
2 5/9/20032:03 PM
COMPETENT
CONTRACTOR --> x~ BUILDERS COASTSIDE TINNEY CONST. SETO'S .KIN W~ JOHN PLANE ALPHA BAY
ITEM QUANTI
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST
NO. TY
Mechanical: Sub Total
~ ~ ~,,~ ~ ~ ~?~,:, ~' ~'~ ~.~:.~- ~,~, ~:~ . ~:~,~ ~,: ~'~ .........
~s Electrical: Power & Distribution ~ ES $ 32.103.00 $ 36,850.00 $ 50,855.00 $ 202,085.00 $ 30,167.00 $ 108.00O.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 193,404.00
Electrical: Lighting 1 ES $ 130,418.0O~ $ 99,550.00 $ 103,331.00 $ $ 130,515.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 90,0O0.00 $
36
Electrical: Signal & Communications
37
~" Electrical: Fire Alarm Systems ~ LS $ 30,097.0O $ 37,180.00 $ 30,513.00 $ $ 25,815.00 $ 28,000.00 $ ~,00o.00 $
Electrical: Sub Total
39 Area 1
iParking Lot Landscape at new Building
Front-See Section 01230 I LS $ 30,615.00 $ 39,820.00 $ 30,403.00 I$ 32,034.00 $ 31,276.00 $ 40,862.00 $ 40,0O0.00 $ 38,459.00
~o iArea 2
Parking Lot Landscape - See Section
91230 ~ LS $ 16,188.00 $ 24,090.00 $ 20,788.00 $ 18,325.00 $ 16,700.00 $ 37,476.00 $ 41,000.00 $ 19,505.00
Total Bid Amount Above
$ 1,981,352.0O $ 2,144,440.00 $ 1,957,432.00 $ 2,011,263.00 $ 2,208,223.00 $ 2,174,457.00 $ 2,019,753.00 $ 1,980,889.00
Vender Bid Amount
$ 1,981,346.0O $ 2,144,390.00 $ 1,957,433.00 $ 2,011,262.00 $ 2,208,223~00 $ 2,174,487.00 $ 2,020,253.00 $ 1,980,889.00
Difference- $ 9.0o $ 60.0o $ (1.0o) $ 1.oo $ $ $ (60o.oo) $
3 5/9/20032:03 PM
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNIC~AL SERVICE BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
MAY 14, 2003
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 no__~t on the Agenda
(except in emergency 'circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for
investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more
comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your
name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
M1NUTES PER SPEAKER. In the event that there are more than six persons desiring to speak, the
Mayor may reduce the amount of time per speaker to three (3) minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
PEDRO GONZALEZ
Mayor
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Mayor Pro Tem
JOSEPH A. FERNEKES
Councilman
RICHARD A GARBAR1NO, SR.
Councilman
RAYMOND L. GREEN
Councilman
BEVERLY BONALANZA-FORD
City Treasurer
SYLVIA M. PAYNE
City Clerk
MICHAEL A. WILSON
City Manager
STEVEN T. MATTAS
City Attorney
PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
PRESENTATIONS
Introduction of new and promoted employees
Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week, May 18-24; recipient:
EMS
Coordinator Rich Porcelli
Caltrain construction update - Mr. Joe Siino, Caltrain Construction Manager
Lawndale Drive construction and adjacent preferential permit parking area update - Public
Works Director John Gibbs and Police Lieutenant Mike Newell
· Report on Terrabay Development slide area and soundwall design - Public Works Director
John Gibbs
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
· Community Forum
· Subcommittee Reports
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2003 regular and special meetings
2. Motion to confirm expense claims of May 14, 2003
Resolution authorizing acceptance of grant funds from the Peninsula Community
Foundation in the amount of $43,954 ~
Resolution amending FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement Program budget to include the
Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard traffic signal project and transfer $50,000 from the Eccles
Avenue/Forbes Boulevard traffic signal project ~
Resolution authorizing utility relocation agreements with PG&E for the Oyster Point
Grade Separation Phases II and III project
Acknowledgement of proclamations issued: Police Services Volunteer Appreciation
Day and Police Reserve Officer Appreciation Day, April 25, 2003; Library Volunteer
Week, April 27-May 3, 2003; and Mosquito and Vector Control and West Nile Virus
Awareness Week, April 28-May 4, 2003 J
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2003
AGENDA PAGE 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consideration of Zoning Amendment (P03-0007) amending SSFMC Chapter 20.79,
Residential Second Unit Regulations, Chapter 20.06, Definitions; Chapter 20.14 R-E,
Rural Estates District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.16, R-1 Single-Family Density
Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.18, R-2, Medium Residential District
Use Regulations; Chapter 20.20, R-3 Multi-Family Residential District Use Regulations;
Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 20.85, Design
Review Procedure, to amend the development standards for residential second units to
be consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element and State
law; motion to waive reading and introduce an ordinance
Consideration of Zoning Amendments (ZA-01-021/Mod 1 and ZA-01-041/Mod 1) to
adopt revisions to SSFMC Chapter 20.27, Transit Village District; Chapter 20.14 R-E,
Rural Estates District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.16, R-1 Single-Family Density
Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.18, R-2, Medium Residential District
Use Regulations; and Chapter 20.20, R-3 Multi-Family Residential District, to require a
use permit for all projects that generate 100 or more vehicle trips per day (ADT); and
Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management to include child care as an
additional measure not originally listed in the chapter; motion to waive reading and
introduce an ordinance
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Consideration of a request by the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District for
annexing South San Francisco, including request for a property tax sharing agreement
10.
Resolution naming a baseball field at Alta Loma Park in honor of the late Gus
Nicolopulos
CLOSED SESSION
11.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), existing litigation: California
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) v. City of South San Francisco
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
MAY 14, 2003
PAGE 3
Staff Report
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 14, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Director of Community Outreach and Library Director
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,954 FROM THE PENINSULA COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP, THE PARTNERSHIP'S TRANSITIONAL
KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM AND PROJECT READ, AND AMENDING
THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2002/2003 OPERATING BUDGET.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve a resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant
funds in the amount of $43,954 from the Peninsula Community Foundation and amending the
2002/03 Operating Budget for the Library.
BACKGROUND
The San Mateo County First Five Commission has awarded the South San Francisco Community
Partnership (SSFCP) and eight additional Peninsula Partnership sites $41,360 each to fund a third year of
Transitional Kindergarten programs. This funding will substantially support our work towards meeting
one of our primary goals of Kindergarten Readiness.
The SSFCP, through its partnership with the South San Francisco Unified School District, will conduct
quality Transitional Kindergarten/Kindergarten Readiness classes at the Partnership's targeted schools.
Targeted schools are Hillside, Los Cerritos, Martin, Spruce and Sunshine Gardens elementary schools.
The Summer 2002 program was a great success, with 170 students attending classes at these schools. In
addition, the school district funded classes for an additional 102 students at Ponderosa, Buff Buri and
Monte Verde elementary schools.
This summer's program will:
· Serve a minimum of 180 children.
· Give preference to children who have not had a quality, pre-school experience and/or are English
Language Learners.
· Include a teacher and an instructional aide in each classroom.
· Assure that teachers in each of the classrooms will have early childhood education experience.
· Orient children to the school site, kindergarten room, teachers, and curriculum areas.
Staff Report
Subject:
Page 2
Acceptance of grant funding for the SSFCP and Project Read
Include a parent involvement/education component.
Provide each student with a Kinder Kit (take-home kit containing books and educational activities
to give parents an opportunity to participate in their child's learning).
Include an evaluation component.
The Peninsula Community Foundation is also providing $594 in additional funding for South San
Francisco Community Parmership salary costs and $2,000 to upgrade a specialized Project Read
database.
FUNDING
Grant funding received from the Peninsula Community Foundation will be used to amend the current
budget for the Library Department. The fiscal impact of this grant will not create any ongoing
financial obligation for the City. Monies not spent by the end of the Fiscal Year 02-03 will be carried
over into Fiscal Year 03-04.
By: _ Approved:
Heather Quinn
Director of Community Outreach
City Manager
Valerie Sommer
Library Director
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,954 FROM THE PENINSULA
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION AND AMENDING THE 2002-2003
OPERATING BUDGET ( NO. 03-20)
WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of a grant from the Peninsula Partnership in an
amount of $43,954 to support the South San Francisco Community Partnership, the Partnership's
Transitional Kindergarten Program and Project Read; and
WHEREAS, grant funding received from the Peninsula Community Foundation will be used
to amend the current 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 authorizes the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of
$43,954 from the Peninsula Community Foundation to support the South San Francisco Community
Partnership, the Partnership's Transitional Kindergarten Program and Project Read and amending the
2002-2003 Operating budget to add $43,954 to the Library 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 ., 2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
S:\Current Reso'sX5-14-03 library.budget.amend.res.doc
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Staff Report
DATE: May 14, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: GULL DRIVE/FORBES BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution amending the FY 2002-2003
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to include the Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Traffic
Signal Project and transfer $50,000 from the Eccles Avenue/Forbes Boulevard Traffic Signal
Project in order to establish a budget for a portion of the total construction costs and to order
City furnished materials.
BACKGROUND:
In June 1999, the City Staff conducted traffic signal warrant evaluations on the following
intersections: Forbes Boulevard/Eccles Avenue and Forbes Boulevard/Gull Road. The purpose of
this evaluation was to determine the timeframe for the installation of traffic signals at these two key
intersections along Forbes Boulevard due to current and future conditions. It was determined that
both intersections satisfy the warrants for signals.
Both projects were included in the CIP FY 2002-03 for completion of design and bid documents.
Also included in FY 2002-03, was Eccles/Forbes construction followed by Gull/Forbes construction
in FY 03-04. However, the Eccles/Forbes traffic signal requires approval from Union Pacific
Railroad and California Public Utility Commission as a railroad spur is located in the center of this
intersection. Until this approval is received, the design and construction cannot be completed.
In order to keep both projects on track, City Staff would like to purchase City furnished materials
(poles, mastarms, and controller) that are time sensitive and remove the median islands on Forbes
Boulevard now while awaiting finalization of Eccles/Forbes. This portion of the total construction
cost is estimated to be $50,000 that can be transferred from the Eccles/Forbes project. The $50,000
will then be added in the CIP for Eccles/Forbes in FY 03-04.
Staff Report
To~
Re:
Date:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Traffic Signal Project
May 14, 2003
Page: 2 of 2
The construction costs in the amount of $50,000 will be transferred from the Eccles/Forbes Traffic
Signal Project. There is sufficient funding for this transfer.
DirectOr of Public Works
ATTACI-~N[ENTS' Resolution
Michael A. Wilson
City Manager
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
TS/JG/ed
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NO. 03-21) TO INCLUDE THE GULL
DRIVE/FORBES BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT AND
TRANSFER $50,000 FROM THE ECCLES AVENUE/FORBES
BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT
WHEREAS, the construction costs in the amount of $50,000 will be transferred from the
Eccles/Forbes Traffic Signal Project; and
WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding for this transfer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council hereby amends the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Capital Improvement
Program (No. 03-21) to include the Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Traffic Signal Project and to
transfer $50,000 from the Eccles Avenue/Forbes Boulevard Traffic Signal Project.
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 ,2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
&\Current Reso'sL5-14-03gull.drive.traffic.signal.res.doc
City Clerk
,/
,,., GNAL
FOR
T
TION
SI ~E'" LI GH T
IN STAEEATION ON
FoI~B'ES AT GULL
//
..... ' ...... t/ /./ x, ~.~/
FORBES AT ECCLES AND GULL
VIClNI~ MAP - ~hiblt 1
REVISION BY APP'D. S~E 1':750' ~PRO~D: { D~WN: KCM
CI~ OF SOUTH SAN F~NClSCO O~E: ~03 ~ CHECKED:TS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET: 1 ~%T~f~%~L [ns~[ F~ e ;odes & ~t
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 14, 2003
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Director of Public Works
OYSTER POINT GRADE SEPARATION PHASES II & m- PG&E UTILITY
RELOCATION AGREEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution to allow the City Manager to enter
into agreements with PG&E for cost sharing incurred for relocation of electrical utilities.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The construction of Phase m/Hook Ramps necessitates that PG&E's 230KV transmission facilities
within the City' s limits be relocated. The agreement identifies cost and responsibilities related to the
work. Utility relocation agreements related to construction are predicated on equal cost sharing.
The utility relocation requires the execution of separate agreements in order to maintain conformity.
Utility Agreement Number Total Utility Agreement Amount City Share of Utility Cost
1543.1.5 $ 123,060.00 $ 61,530.00
1543.2.5 $ 117,520.00 $ 58,760.00
Total Agreement Amounts $ 240,580.00 $ 120,290.00
FUNDING:
These items are budget line items in the construction of Oyster Point Phase m/Hook Ramps funded
by San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and the City of South San Francisco. The
project is authorized in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
The cost sharing agreements are pursuant to section 9(A) of the master agreement between Cal-Trans
and PG&E dated April 16, 1952. The City Attorney's office has revised the agreements as to form.
Dire¢tor of Public Works
Approved: Mi~~. Wil~son~
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
2 Utility Agreements
JG/ed
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
PACIFIC GAS & E1,ECTRIC AND THE OF CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO FOR COST SHARING INCURRED FROM
THE OYSTER POINT GRADE SEPARATION PHASE II & III
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY RELOCATION
PROIECT
WHEREAS, the construction of Phase IlJD-Iook Ramps necessitates that PG&E's
facilities within the City's limits be relocated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco the City Council hereby authorizes agreements between Pacific Gas
& Electric and the City of South San Francisco for cost sharing incurred from the Oyster
Point Grade Separation Phase 11 & 1II Pacific Gas & Electric Utility Relocation Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute the agreements 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 regular meeting held
on the day of ,2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
\'aMULDER\VGATTRELLX:file cabinet\Current Reso's\6-26PG&E.a~ee.res.doc
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCICO
UTILITY AGREEMENT
Page 1 of 5
Dist. County Route P.M.(KP) E.A.
4 SM US101 36.2\38.0 254901
Fed. Aid. No. n/a
Owner's File #7017908
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION: On the Project [] Yes [x] No
On the Utilities [ ] Yes [x] No
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO.1543.1.5
DATE: March 21, 2003
The CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, hereinafter called "CITY", acting by and through
the State of California Department of Transportation, proposes to construct a
realignment of Bayshore Blvd. from Sister Cities Boulevard to approximately 1000
meters north of Sister Cities Boulevard.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC, hereinafter called "OWNER", owns and maintains 600mm
gas transmission facilities within the limits of CITY's project which require
abandonment and partial removal to accommodate realignment of the roadway.
It is hereby mutually agreed that:
I. WORK TO BE DONE
In accordance with Notice to Owner No.1543.1.2 dated 6/17/02, CITY shall
remove segments of line in conflict with road work and abandon segments of the
line that can remain in place. All work shall be performed substantially in
accordance with CITY's construction documents for the Oyster Point Hook
Ramps, Proje~ct No. 9710, a copy of which is on file in the City of South San
Francisco, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 and also at
District Office of the Department of Transportation, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland,
CA 94612-3771. Minor deviations from the above-described work may be made
and incidental work may be performed by CITY's Contractor when mutually
acceptable to both parties and upon approval of the CITY.
Deviations from the OWNER's plan described above, initiated by either the CITY
or the OWNER, shall be agreed upon by both parties hereto under a Revised
Notice to Owner. Such Revised Notices to Owner, approved by the CITY and
acknowledged by the OWNER, will constitute an approved revision of the CITY's
plan described above and are hereby made a part hereof. No work under said
deviation shall commence prior to receipt by the OWNER of the Revised Notice
to Owner. Changes in the scope of the work will require an amendment to this
Agreement in addition to the revised Notice to Owner."
UTILITY AGREEMEI,, No.1543.1.5 (Cont'd)
Page 2 of 5
II. LIABILITY FOR WORK
The cost of abandoning and removing OWNER's utility facilities, as described in
Section I above, shall be 50 percent OWNER expense and 50 percent CITY,
pursuant to Section 9(A) of the Master Agreement between Caltrans and Pacific
Gas and Electric dated April 16, 1952, as amended.
Total Estimated Cost .......................................................... $123,060
Total Estimated CITY Liability, (50%) ..................................... $ 61,530
Total Estimated PG&E liability, (50%) .................................... $ 61,530
III. PERFORMANCE OF WORK
CITY or CITY's contractor shall perform all phases of the abandoning and
removal work required under this Agreement and is to coordinate said work with
the OWNER and OWNER's contractor(s). CITY shall be obligated to inform
OWNER's designated representative of the scheduled date and time of the
abandonment and removal work. All work shall be performed under the direction
of CITY's Engineer as shown on the Notice to Owner. OWNER shall have
access to all phases of the work to be performed by CITY's contractor to ensure
that the work is performed safely and accurately.
CITY agrees to perform the herein-described work with its own forces or to
cause the herein-described work to be performed by the CITY's contractor,
employed by written contract on a continuing basis to perform work of this type,
and to provide and furnish all necessary labor, materials, tools, and equipment
required therefore, and to prosecute said work diligently to completion.
IV. PAYMENT FOR WORK
Owner Operates Under PUC or FCC Rules:
"The OWNER shall pay its share of the actual cost of the herein described work
within 90 days after receipt of CITY's itemized bill in quintuplicate, signed by a
responsible official of CITY and prepared on CITY's letterhead, compiled on the
basis of the actual cost and expense incurred and charged or allocated to said
work in accordance with the uniform system of accounts prescribed for OWNER
by the California Public Utilities Commission or Federal Communications
Commission, whichever is applicable.
"It is understood and agreed that the CITY will not pay for any betterment or
increase in capacity of OWNER's facilities in the new location and that OWNER
shall give credit to the CITY for all accrued depreciation on the replaced facilities
and for the salvage value of any material or parts salvaged and retained or sold
by OWNER."
UTILITY AGREEME~., No.1543.1.5 (Cont'd)
Page 3 of 5
Not more frequently than once a month, but at least quarterly, CITY will prepare
and submit progress bills for costs incurred not to exceed CITY's recorded costs
as of the billing date less estimated credits applicable to completed work.
Payment of progress bills not to exceed the amount of this Agreement may be
made under the terms of this Agreement. Payment of progress bills which
exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made after receipt and approval
by OWNER of documentation supporting the cost increase and after an
Amendment to this Agreement has been executed by the parties to this
Agreement.
The CITY shall submit a final bill to the OWNER within 360 days after the
completion of the work described in Section I. above. If the OWNER has not
received a final bill within 360 days after notification of completion of CITY's work
described in Section I. of this Agreement, and CITY has delivered to OWNER
fully executed Director's Deeds, Consents to Common Use or Joint Use
Agreements as required for OWNER's facilities, OWNER will provide written
notification to CITY of its intent to close its file within 30 days and CITY hereby
acknowledges, to the extent allowed by law, that all remaining costs will be
deemed to have been abandoned.
The final billing shall be in the form of an itemized statement of the total costs
charged to the project, less the credits provided for in this Agreement, and less
any amounts covered by progress billings. However, the OWNER shall not pay
final bills which exceed the estimated cost of this Agreement without
documentation of the reason for the increase of said cost from the CITY. If the
final bill exceeds the CITY's estimated costs solely as the result of a revised
Notice to Owner as provided for in Section I, a copy of said revised Notice to
Owner shall suffice as documentation.
In any event, if the final bill exceeds 125% of the estimated cost of this
Agreement, an Amended Agreement shall be executed by the parties to this
agreement prior to the payment of the CITY's final bill. Any and all increases in
costs that are the direct result of material deviation from the work described in
Section I of this Agreement shall have the prior concurrence of the OWNER.
Detailed records from which the billing is compiled shall be retained by the CITY
for a period of three years from the date of the final bill and will be available for
audit by OWNER, State and/or Federal auditors. CITY agrees to comply with
audit principles and standards as 'set forth in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31.
UTILITY AGREEME~, ,' No.1543.1.5 (Cont'd)
Page 4 of 5
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Neither OWNER nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any
damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
CITY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, CITY or its
contractor(s) shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the OWNER, all
officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought for or on account of injury occurring by reason of anything
done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement.
Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage
or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
OWNER under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated
to OWNER under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, OWNER
shall defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY from all claims, suits or actions
of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury occurring
by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by OWNER under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to OWNER under
this Agreement.
All costs accrued by OWNER as a result of CITY's request of June 4, 1998 to
review, study and/or prepare plans and estimates for the work associated with
this Agreement may be billed pursuant to the terms' and conditions of this
Agreement. The OWNER shall maintain records of the actual costs incurred and
charged or allocated to the project in accordance with recognized accounting
principles.
If CITY's project, which precipitated this Agreement, is canceled or modified so
as to eliminate the necessity of work by CITY's contractor, CITY will notify
OWNER in writing and CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by
Amendment. The Amendment shall provide mutually acceptable terms and
conditions for terminating the Agreement.
CITY shall submit a Notice of Completion to the OWNER within 30 days of the
completion of the work described herein.
UTILITY AGREEMEN,
No.1543.1.5 (Cont'd)
Page 5 of 5
THE ESTIMATED COST TO CITY FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $ 61,530
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are
available for the pedod and purpose of the expenditure shown here.
John Gibbs, Director of Public Works
IDate 3-21-03
FUND TYPE AMOUNT
City & SMCTA $61,530
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written.
City of South San Francisco Pacific Gas and Electric
By: ~ By:
~'ikb. Wilson, City Manager
Date
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:
By: By:
Steve Mattas, City Attorney
Date
Carl Horikoshi,
Land Services Supervisor
Rand Unverferth,
Project Manager
' Dat(~
Date
CITY'~3F SOUTH SAN FRANCICO
UTILITY AGREEMENT
Page I of 1
Dist. County Route P.M.(KP) E.A.
4 SM US101 36.2\38.0 254901
Fed. Aid. No. n/a
Owner's File #7017445
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION: On the Project [] Yes [x] No
On the Utilities [ ] Yes [x] No
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO.1543.2.5
DATE: March 21, 2003
The CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, hereinafter called "CITY", acting by and through
the State of California-' Department of Transportation, proposes to construct a
realignment of Bayshore Blvd. from Sister Cities Boulevard to approximately 1000
meters north of Sister Cities Boulevard.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC, hereinafter called "OWNER", owns and maintains 250mm
230KV electric transmission facilities within the limits of CITY's project which require
abandonment and partial removal to accommodate realignment of the roadway.
It is hereby mutually agreed that:
I. WORK TO BE DONE
In accordance with Notice to Owner No.1543.2.1 dated 6/17/03, CITY shall
remove segments of line in conflict with road work and abandon segments of the
line that can remain in place. All work shall be performed substantially in
accordance with CITY's construction documents for the Oyster Point Hook
Ramps, Project No. 9710, a copy of which is on file in the City of South San
Francisco, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 and also at
District Office of the Department of Transportation, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland,
CA 94612-3771. Minor deviations from the above-described work may be made
and incidental work may be performed by CITY's Contractor when mutually
acceptable to both parties and upon approval of the CITY.
Deviations from the OWNER's plan described above, initiated by either the CITY
or the OWNER, shall be agreed upon by both parties hereto under a Revised
Notice to Owner. Such Revised Notices to Owner, approved by the CITY and
acknowledged by the OWNER, will constitute an approved revision of the CITY's
plan described above and are hereby made a part hereof. No work under said
deviation shall commence prior to receipt by the OWNER of the Revised Notice
to Owner. Changes in the scope of the work will require an amendment to this
Agreement in addition to the revised Notice to Owner."
UTILITY AGREEME,. No. 1543.2.5 (Cont'd)
Page 2 of 5
II. LIABILITY FOR WORK
The cost of relocation for OWNER's utility facilities, as described in Section I
above, shall be 50 percent OWNER expense and 50 percent CITY, pursuant to
Section 9(A) of the Master Agreement between Caltrans and Pacific Gas and
Electric dated April 16, 1952, as amended.
Total Estimated Cost .......................................................... $117,520
Total Estimated CITY Liability, (50%) ..................................... $ 58,760
Total Estimated PG&E liability, (50%) .................................... $ 58,760
III. PERFORMANCE OF WORK
CITY or CITY's contractor shall perform all phases of the pipe abandoning and
removal work required under this Agreement and is to coordinate said work with
the OWNER and OWNER's contractor(s). CITY shall be obligated to inform
OWNER's designated representative of the scheduled date and time of the
abandon and removal work. All work shall be performed under the direction of
CITY's Engineer as shown on the Notice to Owner. OWNER shall have access
to all phases of the work to be performed by CITY's contractor to ensure that the
work is performed safely and accurately.
CITY agrees to perform the herein-described work with its own forces or to
cause the herein-described work to be performed by the CITY's contractor,
employed by written contract on a continuing basis to perform work of this type,
and to provide and furnish all necessary labor, materials, tools, and equipment
required therefore, and to prosecute said work diligently to completion.
IV. PAYMENT FOR WORK
Owner Operates Under PUC or FCC Rules:
"The OWNER shall pay its share of the actual cost of the herein described work
within 90 days after receipt of CITY's itemized bill in quintuplicate, signed by a
responsible official of CITY and prepared on CITY's letterhead, compiled on the
basis of the actual cost and expense incurred and charged or allocated to said
work in accordance with the uniform system of accounts prescribed for OWNER
by the California Public Utilities Commission or Federal Communications
Commission, whichever is applicable.
"It is understood and agreed that the CITY will not pay for any betterment or
increase in capacity of OWNER's facilities in the new location and that OWNER
shall give credit to the CITY for all accrued depreciation on the replaced facilities
and for the salvage value of any material or parts salvaged and retained or sold
by OWNER."
UTILITY AGREEME,. ~' No.1543.2.5 (Cont'd)
Page 3 of 5
Not more frequently than once a month, but at least quarterly, CITY will prepare
and submit progress bills for costs incurred not to exceed CITY's recorded costs
as of the billing date less estimated credits applicable to completed work.
Payment of progress bills not to exceed the amount of this Agreement may be
made under the terms of this Agreement. Payment of progress bills which
exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made after receipt and approval
by OWNER of documentation supporting the cost increase and after an
Amendment to this Agreement has been executed by the parties to this
Agreement.
The CITY shall submit a final bill to the OWNER within 360 days after the
completion of the work described in Section I. above. If the OWNER has not
received a final bill within 360 days after notification of completion of CITY's work
described in Section I. of this Agreement, and CITY has delivered to OWNER
fully executed Director's Deeds, Consents to Common Use or Joint Use
Agreements as required for OWNER's facilities, OWNER will provide written
notification to CITY of its intent to close its file within 30 days and CITY hereby
acknowledges, to the extent allowed by law, that all remaining costs will be
deemed to have been abandoned.
The final billing shall be in the form of an itemized statement of the total costs
charged to the project, less the credits provided for in this Agreement, and less
any amounts covered by progress billings. However, the OWNER shall not pay
final bills which exceed the estimated cost of this Agreement without
documentation of the reason for the increase of said cost from the CITY. If the
final bill exceeds the CITY's estimated costs solely as the result of a revised
Notice to Owner as provided for in Section I, a copy of said revised Notice to
Owner shall suffice as documentation.
In any event, if the final bill exceeds 125% of the estimated cost of this
Agreement, an Amended Agreement shall be executed by the parties to this
agreement prior to the payment of the CITY's final bill. Any and all increases in
costs that are the direct result of material deviation from the work described in
Section I of this Agreement shall have the prior concurrence of the OWNER.
Detailed records from which the billing is compiled shall be retained by the CITY
for a period of three years from the date of the final bill and will be available for
audit by OWNER, State and/or Federal auditors. CITY agrees to comply with
audit principles and standards as set forth in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31.
UTILITY AGREEMEK, No.1543.2.5 (Cont'd)
Page 4 of 5
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Neither OWNER nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any
damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
CITY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, CITY or its
contractor(s) shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the OWNER, all
officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought for or on account of injury occurring by reason of anything
done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement.
Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage
or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
OWNER under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated
to OWNER under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, OWNER
shall defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY from all claims, suits or actions
of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury occurring
by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by OWNER under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to OWNER under
this Agreement.
All costs accrued by OWNER as a result of CITY's request of June 4, 1998 to
review, study and/or prepare plans and estimates for the work associated with
this Agreement may be billed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. The OWNER shall maintain records of the actual costs incurred and
charged or allocated to the project in accordance with recognized accounting
principles.
If CITY's project, which precipitated this Agreement, is canceled or modified so
as to eliminate the necessity of work by CITY's contractor, CITY will notify
OWNER in writing and CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by
Amendment. The Amendment shall provide mutually acceptable terms and
conditions for terminating the Agreement.
CITY shall submit a Notice of Completion to the OWNER within 30 days of the
completion of the work described herein.
UTILITY AGREEMEI
No. 1543.2.5 (Cont'd)
Page 5 of 5
THE ESTIMATED COST TO CITY FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $ 58,760
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are
available for the period and purpose of the expenditure shown here.
John Gibbs, Director of Public Works I Date 3-21-03
I
FUND TYPE AMOUNT
City & SMCTA $58,760
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written.
City of South San Francisco
Pacific Gas and Electric
By: By:
Wilson, City Manager Date
Carl Hodkoshi,
Land Services Supervisor
Date
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:
By: By:
Steve Mattas, City Attorney
Date
David Amos,~'
Project Manager
StaffReport
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 14, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
SECOND RESDENTIAL UNIT REGULATIONS: Alvl]ENDMENTS
TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE (CHAPTER 20.79, SECOND
RESIDENTIAL UNIT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 20.06,
DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 20.16, SINGLE-FAMILY RESDENTIAL
DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.18, MEDIUM DENSITY RESDENTIAL
DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.20, MULTI-FAMILY RESDENTIAL
DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.74, OFF-STREET PARKING, AND
CHAPTER
20.85, DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE) THAT
IMPLEMENT THE SECOND RESDENTIAL UNIT REGULATIONS'%
Applicant: City of South San Francisco
Case Numbers: P-03-0007 and ZA-03-0007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council wave reading and introduce an ordinance amending the
Municipal Code, (Chapter 20.06, Definitions, Chapter 20.16, Single-Family Residential District,
Chapter 20.18, Medium Density Residential District, Chapter 20.20, Multi-Family Residential
District, Chapter 20.79: Second Residential Unit Regulations, Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking,
and Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure) that implement the Second Residential Unit
Regulations.
BACKGROUND:
State law (California Government Code 65852.2) requires that applications for second units
received on or after July 1, 2003, be considered ministerially without discretionary review or
hearing. The proposed Amendments to the Municipal Code will implement the General Plan
policies that promote residential second units in residential districts.
Between January and May 2003, the Planning Commission formed a Subcommittee, held two
study sessions and two public hearings to search for solutions and propose revisions to the
existing Second Unit Ordinance. The Planning Commission Subcommittee held three special
Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Amendment to the Residential Second Unit Ordinance
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 2
meetings that accomplished the following tasks: 1) Reviewed existing development standards for
second units in other cities, such as San Carlos, Daly City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View; 2)
reviewed existing standards in the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and 3) provided
direction to Planning Division staff to amend the Chapter 20.79 Residential Second Unit
Regulations. Following the Subcommittee process, the Planning Commission reviewed the
Subcommittee recommendations and provided guidance to staff. On May 1, 2003, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendments to
the Municipal Code regarding residential second units.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this public hearing is consider the recommendations from the Planning
Commission to amend the Municipal Code in order to conform with State law and implement the
General Plan policies supporting residential second units for single-family lots in residential
districts. A "Residential second unit" is defined as a secondary separate residential unit
containing sleeping quarters, kitchen, and bathroom facilities, located on a residentially zoned lot
that contains a single-family residence as a primary use. Residential second units differ from
standard "duplex" condominiums, townhouses or apartments permitted in a medium- and high-
density residential areas, which are designed for a variety of different households. Residential
second units should be smaller, averaging close to 600 square feet (see attached table),
subordinate to the primary unit, and affordable for small households, such as elderly parents on
fixed incomes.
The State of California has declared that second units are a valuable form of housing in
California. Second units provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home
health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market rate prices within existing
neighborhoods. The State Legislature believes that any second-unit ordinances adopted by local
agencies have the effect of providing for the creation of second units and that provisions in these
ordinances relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees and other requirements, are not
so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonable restrict the ability of homeowners to
create second units in zones in which they are authorized by local Ordinances (State Planning
and Zoning Law, Section 65852.150 Local second unit ordinances).
Currently, local cities and counties are permitted to approve second unit applications with a
Conditional Use Permit. However, the State Legislature has recently amended State Law
requiring that local jurisdictions approve applications for second units "ministerially". The new
law will take effect on July 1, 2003.
Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Amendment to the Residential Second Unit Ordinance
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 3
Planning Commission Objectives
The Planning Commission has indicated that it is imperative that workable development
standards be in place to guide administrative approvals by the time the State law becomes
effective. In order to encourage new residential second units, the proposed amendments remove
the Use Permit requirement, permit tandem parking for the primary unit, and expand the
maximum second unit size from 640 square feet to 1,000 square feet. The performance criteria
also specify ownership, off-street parking, density, setback, and design requirements to limit the
impact on existing residential neighborhoods due to unintended increases in density, on-street
parking, local traffic and infrastructure.
Planning Commission Guidance
At the May 1, 2003 Public Heating, the Planning Commission recommended that the following
key points be incorporated into the Municipal Code:
Ownership
· That at least one unit (either the main house or the second unit) must be owner occupied.
Residential Second Unit Performance Criteria
· That residential second units shall be permitted in all residential zones.
· Permit only one residential second unit on a lot.
· Permit second units only on lots with no more than one single-family dwelling.
· Limit residential second units to no more than one bedroom.
· Permit second units on the second story of an existing single-family dwelling.
· Require that all second units comply with existing lot coverage, FAR, setback, height and
bulk standards that currently exist in the appropriate residential district.
· Require that all second units shall be subject to the City's design review process,
established in Chapter 20.85 of the Municipal Code.
· Require a separate address for the second unit.
· Allow either separate or shared meter or utility hookups for the second unit.
· Permit the size of second units to be from 400 to 1,000 square feet (and eliminating the
100 square feet incentive for handicapped accessible units).
Off-Street Parking
· Allow tandem spaces to satisfy the parking requirement for primary residential units in
all residential districts (The City parking standards at present count only side-by-side
Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Amendment to the Residential Second Unit Ordinance
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 4
parking; tandem spaces may exist but only one space counts toward the parking
requirement).
That tandem parking shall not satisfy the requirement for an additional space for a
residential second unit.
Design Review Process
At the April 17, 2003 study session and at the May 1, 2003 public hearing, the Planning
Commission indicated that the Municipal Code should include a provision that second units
should be subject to the City's existing design review process. The Commission felt that the
design review process was a necessary tool that the City should use to help ensure that new
residential second units would be designed and built to the scale and architectural character of
single-family neighborhoods. The Assistant City Attorney expressed concern that the State has
limited the scope of the City's review of projects and indicated to the Commissioners that the
design review process could be interpreted as a discretionary review. The City Attorney,
however, also noted that that there are inconsistencies in the State law regarding second units
since the Statute requires a city to follow a ministerial process, but also permits architectural
review. The Planning Commission, after consideration, agreed unanimously that the Second
Unit Ordinance should retain the design review process requirement, as a reasonable
implementation of architectural review.
Amendments In Other Chapters Of The Municipal Code
Adoption of the revisions to Chapter 20.79, Residential Second Units, will require a revision to
several chapters in the Municipal Code in order to ensure internal consistency. The proposed
amendments include: 1) Chapter 20.06, Definitions, to add new definitions related to second
units and tandem parking; 2) Chapter 20.16, Single-Family Residential District, Chapter 20.18,
Medium Density Residential District, and Chapter 20.20, Multi-Family Residential District, to
add residential second units as a "ministerially" permitted use; 3) Chapter 20.74, Off-Street
Parking, to permit tandem parking; and 4) Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure to reference
second units and the makeup of the Design Review Board.
General Plan Consistency
In addition to the Housing Element policies listed above, the proposed amendments in Chapter
20.79 Residential Second Unit Regulations is consistent with the following General Plan
Policies:
· Land Use Framework: Conservation of the existing land use character of the city's
residential neighborhoods.
Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Amendment to the Residential Second Unit Ordinance
Date: May 14, 2003
Page 5
·
Guiding Policy 2-G-l: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods,
and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas.
Guiding Policy 2-G-6: Maximize opportunities for residential development, including
through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating
conflicts with industrial operations.
Implementing Policy 2-1-10: Establish regulations to permit second units in single-
family residential developments in accordance with State law.
Environmental Analysis
Article 18, Statutory Exemptions, describes the exemptions from the California Environmental
Quality Act granted by the State Legislature. Section 15282, Other Statutory Exemptions,
exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single family or multi-family
residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2
of the Government Code (CEQA Section 15282 (i).
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the City Council wave reading and introduce an ordinance amending the
Municipal Code, (Chapter 20.06, Definitions, Chapter 20.16, Single-Family Residential District,
Chapter 20.18, Medium Density Residential District, Chapter 20.20, Multi-Family Residential
District, Chapter 20.79: Second Residential Unit Regulations, Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking,
and Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure) that implement the Second Residential Unit
Regulations.
By:
Marry V~y Mana~,er
lV~c~l ~(c~n,~C~t v~M a n a ger
Attachments
Ordinance
Table comparing different second unit standards among cities in San Mateo County
Planning Commission public hearing and study session staff reports, resolution,
minutes, and attachments
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 20.79, SECOND RESDENTIAL UNIT
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 20.06, DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 20.16, SINGLE-
FAMILY RESDENTIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.18, MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.20, MULTI-FAMILY RESDENTIAL
DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.74, OFF-STREET PARKING, AND CHAPTER 20.85,
DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65852.2, the City of South San
Francisco is proposing to amend the South San Francisco Municipal Code to include changes in
Chapter 20.79, Second Residential Unit Regulations, Chapter 20.06, Definitions, Chapter 20.16,
Single-Family Residential District, Chapter 20.18, Medium Density Residential District, and Chapter
20.20, Multi-Family Residential District, Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking, and Chapter 20.85,
Design Review Procedure; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments to the Municipal Code is to allow the more
efficient use of the city's existing stock of dwellings, to provide housing units for family members
who are elderly or disabled, to avoid parking problems in residential neighborhoods, and to protect
property values and the single-family character ora neighborhood by ensuring that second units are
developed under such conditions as may be appropriate to further the purpose of this chapter; and
WHEREAS, between January and March, 2003 the Planning Commission Subcommittee
held three special meetings to consider the draft amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal
Code concerning residential second units, off-street parking requirements, design review procedure,
and the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2003~ and April 17, 2003, the Planning Commission held two
study sessions to consider the draft amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
provide a mechanism for allowing residential second units in residentially zoned districts, thereby
providing the opportunity for the development of small housing units designed to meet the special
housing needs of one-person and two-person households and to allow for an increase in the supply of
affordable housing in conformance with the goals and policies of the South San Francisco General
Plan Housing Elementt 0..~3 ~
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2003, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code concerning residential second
units, off-street parking requirements, design review procedure, and the Design Review Board and
recommend that the City Council adopt the amendments; and
WHERE_AS, the City Council StaffReport, dated May 14, 2003 and incorporated herein by
reference, ,,~.~prepared for distribution to the City Council ~, which report~, describ~md
analyz~he amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code concerning residential second
units, off-street parking requirements, design review procedure, and the Design Review Boar~-~t~l-~
NOW THEREFORE, be it ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco:
1. AMENDMENTS TO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20:
The City Council hereby adopts P03-0007 and ZA-03-0007, amending Chapter 20.06,
Definitions, Chapter 20.16, Single-Family Residential District, Chapter 20.18, Medium
Density Residential District, and Chapter 20.20, Multi-Family Residential District, Chapter
20.74, Off-Street Parking, Chapter 20.79, Residential Second Unit Regulations, and Chapter
20.85, Design Review Procedure, in the South San Francisco Municipal Code, as set forth in
Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E attached to the StaffReport dated May 14, 2003, and incorporated
by reference.
2. FINDINGS:
The City Council findings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent
and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record
relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings
and determinations of the City Council and are supported by substantial evidence in the
~record, including the General Plan adopted in 1999, the General Plan Housing Element
adopted in 2002, the staff reports submitted at the City Council meeting ~'on May 14, 2003,/
thereto.-~w ~e, be ~her ~ed that~ouncil, .i~'~adopting the
' ,/~ame ents ' .
above described amendments the South San Francisco
A.
The
to
Municipal
Code are internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. The amendments
to the South San Francisco Municipal Code concerning Chapter 20.06, Definitions, Chapter
20.16, Single-Family Residential District, Chapter 20.18, Medium Density Residential
District, and Chapter 20.20, Multi-Family Residential District, Chapter 20.74, Off-Street
Parking, and Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure implements the goals and policies of
the South San Francisco General Plan adopted in October 1999 and the South San Francisco
General Plan Housing Element adopted in December 2002. Specifically, the amendments
implement General Plan Guiding Policy 2-G-6, General Plan Implementing Policy 2-1-10,
and General Plan Housing Element Policy 1-8. General Plan Guiding Policy 2-G-6 states
"maximize oppommities for residential development, including through infill and
redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with
industrial operations."
Bo
General Plan Implementing Policy 2-1-10 directs the City to "establish regulations to
permit second units in single-family residential developments in accordance with
State law." Additionally, General Plan Policy 1-8 in the South San Francisco General
Plan Housing Element states "the City shall support and facilitate the development of
second units on single-family designated and zoned parcels." The regulations
adopted by the City Council establish criteria designed to accommodate residential
second units within existing neighborhoods without adversely affecting such
neighborhoods by requiring second units to be architecturally consistent with
surrounding properties and establishing regulations governing lot size, unit size, lot
coverage and parking requirements.
Article 18, Statutory Exemptions, describes the exemptions from the California
Environmental Quality Act granted by the State Legislature. Section 15282, Other
Statutory Exemptions, exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units
in a single family or multi-family residential zone by a city or county to implement
the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code (CEQA
Section 15282 (i).
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue
in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City
Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each
section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences,
clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, the City Attorney shall
prepare a Summary of this Ordinance. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting
at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.
Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1)
publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full
text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for
and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective
thirty days from and after its adoption.
Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, held the __ day of ,2003.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the __ day of, 2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this __ day of ,2003.
S:lCurrent Ord's\Second Unit-zonin.ord.doc
Pedro Gonzalez, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.79: RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNIT
REGULATIONS
The underlined text located below will replace the entire existing text in Chapter 20.79:
CHAPTER 20.79: RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNIT REGULATIONS
20. 79. O10 Purpose
Chapter 20.79 establishes residential second unit regulations. The purpose of this chapter is to
provide a mechanism for allowing residential second units in residentially zoned districts,
thereby providing the opportunity for the development of small housing units designed to meet
the special housing needs of one-person and two-person households and to allow for an increase
in the supply of affordable housing in conformance with the goals and policies of the South San
Francisco General Plan Housing Element. Furthermore, the purpose of these provisions is to
allow the more efficient use of the city's existing stock of dwellings, to provide housing units for
family members who are elderly or disabled, to avoid parking problems in residential
neighborhoods, and to protect property values and the single-family character of a neighborhood
by ensuring that second units are developed under such conditions as may be appropriate to
further the purpose of this chapter. This chapter implements the provisions of California
Government Code, Section 65852.150 and 65852.2.
20. 79. 020 Prohibition
This chapter shall not in any form or manner automatically legalize any existing residential
second unit whatsoever whether or not such second unit is claimed to have been legally
established. The Chief Building Official shall maintain records of all residential second units
established pursuant to this chapter. Properties establighing residential second units pursuant to
this chapter shall not be subdivided at the time said unit is established or thereafter.
20. 79. 030 Residential Second Units Standards and Requirements
New residential second units may be permitted in any residentially zoned district. Where allowed
by the Zoning Ordinance in residential zoning districts, residential second units shall be
approved by the Chief Planner and the Chief Building Official. The following standards shall
apply to the development of each residential second unit:
(a) No more than one residential second unit shall be permitted on any one parcel or lot.
(b) A residential second unit may only be permitted on a residential lot on which there is
already built one single-family detached dwelling unit (primary unit). Residential second units
shall not be permitted on residential lots having more than one dwelling unit located thereon.
(c) Residential second units shall comply with the development standards within the
established location, lot coverage, size, setback and height standards of the zone, planned unit
development, overlay district, specific plan or other designated planning area in which they are
developed. Detached residential second units shall not be considered "Accessory Structures," a~
defined in the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
(d) Size of unit: No second unit shall be constructed containing
square feet or more than 1,000 square feet.
a floor area of less than 400
May 1, 2003
Page 2
(e) Entrance: The second unit may utilize either a separate entry or the same exterior
doorways as the primary unit.
(fl Address: The second unit shall be assigned an address, determined by the Chief Building
Official.
(g) Number of bedrooms: The number of bedrooms in a residential second unit shall not be
more than one.
(h) Design Review: All residential second units shall comply with the City of South San
Francisco design review requirements, as specifically set forth in Section 20.85.020 (b) of the
Municipal Code.
(i) Off-street parking requirements: One off-street parking space shall be required for the
second unit in addition to any off-street parking spaces required for the primary unit by Chapter
20.74 of this code, as amended from time to time. The provisions of Section 20.74.030 (b) Shall
continue to govern parking requirements for the primary use.
(i) Tandem parking shall not be used to satisfy_ the parking requirement for the residential
second unit.
(k) Tandem parking may be used to satisfy the parking requirement for the primary_ unit.
(1) Garages designated for the residential second unit must be accessible for the parking of a
vehicle.
(m) Garage conversions: Conversions of garage space to a second unit is not permitted, unless
alternate enclosed parking is provided on-site meeting current code requirements.
(n) Code compliance.
(1) If the proposed second unit is attached or within the primary structure, the primary_ unit
must comply with all building, electrical, plumbing, and housing code requirements in effect at
the time the building permit is issued for the second residential unit.
(2) The second unit shall comply with all provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code in effect at the time of approval of the building permit, including but not limited to all
uniform codes adopted by reference in said municipal code.
(3) Products of combustion detectors shall be required for each primary_ and second unit.
(o) Owner occupancy required: Either the primary dwelling unit or the second dwelling unit
shall be owner occupied. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the second unit, the property
May 1, 2003
Page 3
owner must submit proof of ownership and record a restrictive covenant to run with the land
such that the use of the second unit as a separate dwelling may continue only as long as the,
property is owner-occupied.
(p) Services: Second units ma5' be metered separately from the main units for gas, sewer,
electricity, and water services.
20. 79.040 Permit Process
All residential second units are subject to ministerial review for compliance with the terms of
this Chapter by the Chief Planner and the Chief Building Official.
(a) The building permit application, with appropriate site and building plans, documents and
fees shall be submitted to the Building Division. The application shall be accompanied by a non
refundable processing fee in an amount set forth in the master fee schedule of the city of South
San Francisco. The Planning Division shall check each application submitted for compliance
with all standards and requirements of Section 20.79.030. The Chief Planner shall approve, deny
or require alterations to the ori~nal drawings and documents to satisfy the requirements of
Section 20.79.030. If alterations to the drawings are required, said drawings shall be re-submitted
and processed according to the procedures established herein for approval of the original
drawings.
(b) All residential second unit applicants are required to pay all required fees.
(c) The property owner shall enter into a restrictive covenant with the City, which shall be
recorded against the property. The restrictive covenant shall confirm that either the primary
dwelling unit or the second dwelling unit shall be owner occupied and prohibit rental of both
units at the same time. It shall further provide that the residential second unit shall not be sold, or
title thereto transferred separate and apart from the rest of the property. A copy of the recorded
restrictive covenant shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building..
permit.
20. 79. 041 Appeal Procedure
A decision of the Chief Planner may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.90. A decision of the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 20.90.040 which decision shall be,
deemed the final action on the matter.
20. 79. 050 Revocation of Permit
In addition to any other remedy provided by law, in the event a permitted residential second unit
is maintained in violation of the Residential Second Units Standards and Requirements in
Section 20.79.040 or of any other requirements of this Chapter, the Chief Planner may, on ten
(10) days written notice to the property owner bring a proceeding to revoke the Certificate of
May 1, 2003
Page 5
20. 79. 060 Severability
In the event any section or portion of this chapter 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.
EXHIBIT B
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.85, DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE
May 1,2003
Page 6
The underlined text located below will be added to the following chapter. The strikeout text
located below will be removed from the following chapter:
CHAPTER 20.85, DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE
20.85. 020 Applicability
(a) No person shall commence any use or erect any structure or make exterior modifications
to any existing use, parking area, or structure; and no permit, including but not limited to
building, use or variance permit, shall be issued for any new use or structure or modification
thereof until the design review process has been completed in accordance with these
requirements.
(b) Design review for new single-family, two-family and three-family dwellings on
individual lots which are not in planned developments, and residential second units as defined in
Section 20.79.030 (a) of the Municipal Code, shall be limited to height, bulk, lot coverage, and
general compatibility with the neighborhood.
(c) The following exceptions which do not require design review shall apply to exterior
modifications:
(1) Changes in sign copy on existing signs, existing changeable copy signs or signs designed
to allow a change in copy, excluding painted signs or copy changes which increase the sign area
of coverage or which physically alter the sign structure. Sign programs less than twenty-five
square feet are also exempt.
(2) Changes required in whole or part by a requirement of any government agency.
(3) Additions to one-, two- and three-family residential structures which do not break the
existing roof line of the structure and which do not constitute a fifty percent or greater increase in
floor area.
20. 85. 030 Design review guidelines and standards.
(a) The planning commission, in exercising the scope of authority set forth in this section,
shall by resolution adopt guidelines and standards for design review. The guidelines and
standards shall be adopted only after a public hearing noticed and conducted in the manner
required for zoning amendments in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.87. Any person
or persons aggrieved by the actions of the planning commission may appeal the action in
accordance with the provisions for appeal set forth in Chapter 20.90.
(b) Guidelines and standards for design review shall be in accordance with the following:
(1) The site subject to design and review shall be graded and developed with due regard for
the natural terrain, aesthetic quality, and landscaping so as not to impair the environmental
quality, value, or stability of the site or the environmental quality or value of improved or
May 1, 2003
Page 7
unimproved property in the area. Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent should be retained
in the natural state. Development of hillsides should follow existing contours to the greatest
extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum.
(2) A building, structure, or sign shall:
(A) Reasonably relate to its site and property in the immediate and adjacent areas; and
(B) Be of high quality of design as to adversely affect the environmental quality or
desirability of the immediate areas or neighboring areas; and
(1) New additions to existing residential dwellings and residential second units shall be
architecturally compatible with the primary residential unit, with respect to style, massing, roof
pitch, color and materials.
(C) Not impair the benefits or occupancy of existing property or environmental quality
thereof in such areas or the stability and value of improved or unimproved real property in such
areas, or produce degeneration of property in such areas with attendant deterioration of
conditions affecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
(3) A site shall be developed to achieve a harmonious relationship with the area in which it is
located and adjacent areas, allowing a reasonable similarity of style or originality which does not
impair the environmental quality or value of improved or unimproved property or prevent
appropriate development and use of such areas or produce degeneration of properties in such
areas with attendant deterioration of conditions affecting the health, safety, and general welfare
of the city.
(a) Height, bulk, floor area ratio (FAR), and coverage requirements: Residential additions
and residential second units shall conform to the height, bulk, floor area ratio (FAR), and lot
coverage requirements of the zone, planned unit development, overlay district, specific plan or
other designated planning area in which they are developed.
(b) Minimum yard requirements: Residential second units and additions shall conform to the
front, side, and rear yard setback requirements of the zone, planned unit development, overlay
district, specific plan or other designated planning area in which they are developed.
(c) Privacy, noise and view protection may be considered in deciding the issue of
neighborhood compatibility.
(4) Open space, parking areas, pedestrian walks, signs, illumination, and landscaping
(including irrigation) shall be designed and developed to enhance the environmental quality of
the site, achieve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development, and accomplish the objectives
set forth in the precise plan of design and design criteria.
(5) Electrical and mechanical equipment or works and fixtures and trash storage areas shall
be designed and constructed so as not to detract from the environmental quality of the site.
May 1, 2003
Page 8
Electrical and mechanical equipment or works and fixtures and trash storage areas shall be
concealed by an appropriate architectural structure which uses colors and materials harmonious
with the principal structure, unless a reasonable alternative is recommended by the design review
board.
(6) For the purpose of determining a reasonable implementation of the design and the effect
on the environmental quality of the area, the components considered in design review shall
include but not be limited to exterior design, materials, textures, colors, means of illumination,
landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access, security, safety, and other usual
on-site development elements. The design review board may also make recommendations as to
site coverage, and the intensity of proposed development. (Ord. 1006 § 2 (part), 1986)
20.85. 050 Design review board
(a) The design review board shall consist of five members appointed by the planning.
commission. Each member shall be appointed for a term of four years. Two members shall be
architects licensed by the state. Two members shall be either a landscape architect, designer,
contractor, horticulturist, or person with equivalent landscaping expertise or background. One
member shall be any one of the above mentioned professions or a building or engineering
contractor. ^* 1~, .... c+,, .... ~, .... 'h.,ll ~1~ 1.~ ..... ~A~+ ~..4 ~1~4-r,-,- r,-ff+'h~ ~+..
(b) The design review board shall review design review applications, related drawings, and
other matters related thereto and make recommendations to the planning commission and chief
planner in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the design review guidelines with
the exception of additions to one-, two- and three-family residential structures as set forth below.
(c) The design review board members shall be compensated according to the schedule
adopted by the city council. (Ord. 1169 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1006 § 2 (part), 1986)
20. 85. 060 Design review action.
(a) The planning commission shall have design review authority for all projects requiring
planning commission approval (such as PUD permits, use permits and variances) and all new
commercial, office and multifamily developments. The commission shall consider the design
review board's recommendations and shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the
application.
(b) For items nbt requiring planning commission approval, the chief planner shall consider
the recommendations of the design review board and shall approve, conditionally approve or
disapprove the design review application. Conditions shall be reasonable and designed to assure
attainment of the standards established by this title. If the chief planner disapproves the
application, standards or conditions which have not been met shall be specified. If the chief
planner fails to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application as submitted by
the applicant within ninety days following the date the recommendation is received from the
design review board, the application, as submitted, shall be deemed approved, unless the
May 1, 2003
Page 9
planning commission grants the chief planner a reasonable extension of time therefor. The
determination by the chief planner shall be subject to review by the planning commission either
on appeal by the applicant or upon motion of the planning commission. If the planning
commission fails to make an order to review the chief planner's determination at its next regular
meeting after the determination, then the chief planner's determination shall be final.
(c) The chief planner may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove additions to one-,
two- and three-family residential structures, and residential second units not elsewhere exempted
from the procedures of this chapter, without the design review board's review and
recommendations if the chief planner can find that such addition is consistent with applicable
design standards and/or criteria or with conditions which cause changes to the proposed addition
which will bring it into conformance with said standards and/or criteria. (Ord. 1169 § § 1 (part),
3, 1995; Ord. 1089 § 1 (part), 1990: Ord. 1006 § 2 (part), 1986)
EXHIBIT C
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.06, DEFINITIONS
May 1, 2003
Page 10
The underlined text located below will be added to the following chapter:
CHAPTER 20.06, DEFINITIONS
(al "Residential second unit" means a secondary separate residential unit containing sleeping.
quarters, kitchen, and bathroom facilities, located on a residentially zoned lot that contains a
single-family residence as a primary_ use, meeting the requirement of Chapters 19 and 20 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code. Attached and detached dwelling units/structures are
defined in Chapter 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
(bi "Accessory Structure" means a detached subordinate building or structure used only
incidental to the main building, such as a garage.
(c) "Owner" means a person holding beneficial title to the property as an individual.
including but not limited to the settlor of a grantor trust, a general parmer, or a shareholder, for
example.
(d) "Illegal second unit" means a second unit which is being used for habitation and for
which a building permit under Chapter 20.79 has not been issued.
(e) "Habitation" means regular and exclusive use of a space or structure for shelter and other
residential purposes in a manner which is private and separate from another residence on the
same lot.
(f) "Primary_ unit" or "primary dwelling unit" means the existing residential unit on a lot that
is being used for habitation and occupied by the property owner at the time of the application for
a building permit to consmact a residential second unit.
(g) "Tandem parking" is an arrangement of two or more vehicles (Chapter 20.06.260 (a) of the
Municipal Code) placed one behind the other: parking vehicles in tandem.
EXHIBIT D
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.74, PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
May 1, 2003
Page 11
The underlined text located below will be added to the following chapter. The strikeout text
located below will be removed from the following chapter:
CHAPTER 20.74, PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
Section 20. 74. 040 Residential Uses
The number of off-street parking spaces required for residential uses shall be no less than the
following:
(a) Family Residential Use Types.
(1) One-, two- and three-unit dwellings: two spaces per unit, one of which shall be in a
garage, for dwellings with less than five bedrooms and less than two thousand five hundred
square feet in size; three spaces per unit, two of which shall be in a garage, for dwellings with
five or more bedrooms, or for any dwelling unit with a gross floor area of two thousand five
hundred square feet or greater. A carport shall not be substituted for a required garage except for
existing dwellings on lots adjacent to a lane. Tandem parking may be permitted to satisfy the off-
street parking requirement for one-, two-, and three-unit residential dwellings when both spaces
in a tandem parking bay are assigned to a single dwelling unit.
(2) Multiple-family projects with four or more units: two spaces per unit with at least one
space covered. One guest space per every four units shall be provided on the site. Tandem
parking may be permitted to satisfy the off-street parking requirement for multi-family
residential units in proiects where parking is assigned, when both spaces in a tandem parking bay
are assigned to a single dwelling unit. In no case shall tandem spaces be permitted to satisfy the
guest parking requirement.
(3) Single-family and townhouse units in planned developments: If a project has driveway
aprons at least eighteen feet long, two and one-fourth spaces shall be provided per unit, two of
which shall be in a garage. Otherwise, four and one-fourth spaces shall be provided per unit, two
of which shall be in a garage.
(4) Residential Second Units: One off-street parking space shall be required for the second
unit in addition to any off-street parking spaces required for the primary unit by Chapter 20.74 of
this code, as amended from time to time. Tandem parking shall not be used to satis~ the parking
requirement for the residential second unit.
20. 74.110 Size and design
(g) The tandem space shall be permitted at a minimum 40 feet by 10 feet in dimension. No
more than two vehicles shall be placed one behind the other.
(h) Parking spaces required for the residential second unit must be accessible for the parking
of a vehicle.
May 1, 2003
Page 12
20. 74.120 Location
(d) Residential parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or building site as the
dwelling to be served.
(e) Tandem parking may be permitted to satisfy the off-street parking requirement for a
residential unit if additional usable space for on-site tandem parking is available and only in
areas adiacent to an enclosed garage serving the primary unit and located outside the established
setbacks for the established zoning district or planning area.
20. 74.150 Driveway access
La_) Driveway access to parking for all single family and single-family dwellings with a
residential second unit shall be not less than ten feet in width throughout, ma4-requived
(1) Driveway cuts shall be limited to a maximum of 20 feet in width unless the lot exceeds
50 feet in width, in which case driveway cuts shall not exceed 40 percent of the lot width.
(2) For more than one curb cut on a parcel on any street frontage, at least 20 feet measured at
top of curb shall be provided between each curb cut.
EXHIBIT E
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTERS 20.16, 20.18 AND 20.20
May 1, 2003
Page 13
The underlined text located below will be added to the following chapters:
CHAPTERS 20.16, 20.18 AND 20.20
Chapter 20.16 R-I, Single-Family Residential District Use Regulations
20.16.020 Permitted Uses
Residential Second Units as regulated in Chapter 20.79 of the Municipal Code.
Chapter 20.18 R-2 Medium Density Residential District Use Regulations
20.18.020 Permitted Uses
Residential Second Units as regulated in Chapter 20.79 of the Municipal Code.
Chapter 20.20 R-3, Multi-Family Residential District Use Regulations
20.20. 020 Permitted Uses
Residential Second Units as regulated in Chapter 20.79 of the Municipal Code
RESOLUTION 2624
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT P03-
0007 AND ZA-03-0007, AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.79, SECOND
RESDENTIAL UNIT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 20.06, DEFINITIONS,
CHAPTER 20.16, SINGLE-FAMILY RESDENTIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER
20.18, MEDIUM DENSITY RESDENTIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.20, MULTI-
FAMII.Y RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.74, OFF-STREET PARKING,
AND CHAPTER 20.85, DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE IN THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, The City of South San Francisco is proposing to amend the South San
Francisco Municipal Code to include changes in Chapter 20.79, Second Residential Unit
Regulations, Chapter 20.06, Definitions, Chapter 20.16, Single-Family Residential District, Chapter
20.18, Medium Density Residential District, and Chapter 20.20, Multi-Family Residential District,
Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking, and Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments to the Municipal Code is to allow the more
efficient use of the city's existing stock of dwellings, to provide housing units for family members
who are elderly or disabled, to avoid parking problems in residential neighborhoods, and to protect
property values and the single-family character of a neighborhood by ensuring that second units are
developed under such conditions as may be appropriate to further the purpose of this chapter; and
WHEREAS, between January and March, 2003 the Planning Commission Subcommittee
held three special meetings to consider the draft amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal
Code concerning residential second units, off-street parking requirements, design review procedure,
and the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2003 and April 17, 2003, the Planning Commission held two
study sessions to consider the draft amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
provide a mechanism for allowing residential second units in residentially zoned districts, thereby
providing the opportunity for the development of small housing units designed to meet the special
housing needs of one-person and two-person households and to allow for an increase in the supply of
affordable housing in conformance with the goals and policies of the South San Francisco General
Plan Housing Element.
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2003 and May 1, 2003, the Planning Commission held two public
hearings to consider the amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code concerning
residential second units, off-street parking requirements, design review procedure, and the Design
Review Board; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Guiding Policy 2-G-6 states "maximize oppommities for
residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing
neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations"; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Implementing Policy 2-1-10 states "establish regulations to permit
second units in single-family residential developments in accordance with State law"; and.
WHEREAS, Policy 1-8 in the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element states
"the City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family designated
and zoned parcels"; and
WHEREAS, staff reports, dated March 20, 2003, April 3, 2003, April 17, 2003 and May 1,
2003 and incorporated herein by reference, were prepared for distribution to the Planning
Commission review, which reports describe and analyze the amendments to the South San Francisco
Municipal Code concerning residential second units, off-street parking requirements, design review
procedure, and the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, Article 18, Statutory Exemptions, describes the exemptions fi:om the California
Environmental Quality Act granted by the State Legislature. Section 15282, Other Statutory
Exemptions, exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single family or
multi-family residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1
and 65852.2 of the Government Code (CEQA Section 15282 (i).
WHEREAS, the findings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent
and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to
the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations
of the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the
General Plan adopted in 1999, the General Plan Housing Element adopted in 2002, the staff reports
submitted at the Planning Commission meeting s on March 20, 2003, April 3, 2003, April 17, 2003
and May 1, 2003 thereto.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby
finds as follows:
The above described amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code are internally
consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan.
Analysis: The amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code concerning Chapter 20.06,
Definitions, Chapter 20.16, Single-Family Residential Distr/ct, Chapter 20.18, Medium Density
Residential District, and Chapter 20.20, Multi-Family Residential District, Chapter 20.74, Off-Street
Parking, and Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure implements the goals and policies of the
South San Francisco General Plan adopted in October 1999 and the South San Francisco General
Plan Housing Element adopted in December 2002. The amendments implement General Plan
Guiding Policy 2-G-6, General Plan Implementing Policy 2-1-10, and General Plan Housing Element
Policy 1-8.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the South San Francisco Planning
Commission that it is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt P03-0007 and ZA-03-0007,
amending Chapter 20.06, Definitions, Chapter 20.16, Single-Family Residential District, Chapter
20.18, Medium Density Residential District, and Chapter 20.20, Multi-Family Residential District,
Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking, and Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure, in the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, as set forth in Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 1~t day of May, 2003 by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner
Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero
NOES: Commissioner Te$1ia
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
dommiss{'on S ~re~"ary
Thomas C. Sparks
EXHIBIT A
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.79: RESIDENTIAl, SECOND UNIT
REGULATIONS
The underlined text located below will replace the entire existing text in ~hapter 20.79:
Ci-L4~PTER 20.79: RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNIT REGULATIONS
20. 79. 010 Purpose
Chapter 20.79 estabhshes residential second unit re~lafions. The pm-~ose of this chapter is to
provide a mechanism for allowin~ residential second units in res/dentially zoned districts,
thereby providint the opvortunirV for the development of small housin~ units desi,~oned to meet
the special housin~ needs of one-person and two-person households and to allow for an increase
in the suvplv of affordable housin~ in conformance with the goals and policies of the South San
Francisco General Plan Housin~ Element. Furthermore. the purpose of these provisions is to
allow the more efficient use of the city's existin~ stock of dwellings, to provide housin~ un/ts for
family members who are elderly or disabled, to avoid parkin~ problems in residential
nei~borhoods, and to protect property values and the single-family character of a neighborhood
by ensurin~ that second units are developed under such conditions as m~y be appropriate to
fm-ther the purpose of this chapter. This chapter imnlements the provisions of California
Government Code, Section 65852.150 and 65852.2.
20. 79. 020 Prohibition
This chapter shall not in any form or rnm~ner amomaticallv legalize any existin~ residential
second urdt whatsoever whether or not such second unit is claimed to have been le_~allv
established. The Chief Buildina Official shall maintain records of all residential second unix,
established pm-suant to this chapter. Properties establi~hin~ residential second units pm'suanr to
tkis chapter shall not be subdivided at the time said unit is established or thereafter.
20. 79. 030 Residential Second Units Standards and Requirements
New residential second un/ts may be permitted in any residentially zoned district. Where allowed
by the Zoning Orddnance in residential zonin~ districts residential second units shall be
approved by the Chief Planner and the Chief Building Official. The followin~ standards shall
apply to the development of each residential second un/t:
.(a) No more than one residential second unit shall be pe,wnitted on any one parcel or lot.
(b) A residential second unit may only be permitted on a residential tot on which there is
akeadv built one sin=lc-family detached dwelling unit (pr/mary unit). Residential second units
shall not be ~ermitted on residential tots havin~ more tha~ one dwellin~ unit located thereon.
(c) Resident/a] second units shall comr)lv with the development standards witMn the
established location, lot coverage, size, setback and hei_=ht standm'ds of the zone. planned unit
development, overlay district, specific plan or other desimuated plannin_~ area in which they are
developed. Detached residential second un/ts shall not be considered "Accessory Structures." as
defined in the South San Francisco Municinal Code.
(d) Size of urfit: No second un/t shall be constructed containin~ afloor area of less flqm, 400
square feet or more than 1,000 square feet.
May 1, 2003
Page 2
(e) Entrance: The second un/t max, utilize either a separate entry or the same exterior
doo~w~'avs as the primary unit.
Address: The second un_it shall be assi_oned an address, determined by the ChiefBuildint
Official.
(g) Number of bedrooms: The number of bedrooms in a residential second unit shall not be
more than one.
(h) Desi~ Review: All residential second units shall comptv with the City of' South San
Francisco desi~ review requirements as specifically set forth in Section 20.85.020 (b) of the
Murficipal Code.
(i) Off-street parkin¢ requirements: One off-street parkin¢ space shM1 be required for the
second un/t in addition to any off-street parking spaces required for the prirnarv m~it by Chapter
20.74 o£this code. as amended from time to time. The provisions of Section 20.74.030 Cb) shall
continue to goven~ parldn¢ requirements for the primary use.
(i) Tandem ~ar?d_n~ shall not be used to satisf-v the parkin~ requ/rement for the residential
second m~t.
(k) Tandem parl~dna may be used to sais~ the om'kh~ ~ requirement for the r~rima'v un_it.
(1) Gara,~es destro-hated for the residential second unit must be accessible for the parlfin ~ of s
vekicte.
(m) Garaae conversions: Conversions of carafe space to a second urfit is not r~ermitted, unless
alternate enclosed parking is provided on-site meeting current code requirements.
(n) Code compliance.
(I) If the nroposed second refit is attached or within the pr/maw structure, the pr/man~ uni~
must comply with all builcl/n~, electrical, plumbing, and housin~ code reouirements in effect at
the time the buildin~ permit is issued for the second residential un_it.
(2') The second un/t shall comolv with all provisions of the South Sma Francisco Municipal
Code in effect at the time of approval of the build~n~ perm/t, includin~ but not limited to all
uniform codes adopted by reference in said mun/cir~al code.
(3) Products o£ combustion detectors shall be required for each primary and second m~/t.
(o~ Owner occupancy required: Either the primary dweliin~ un/t or the second dwelIin~ umt
shall be owner occupied. Prior to issuance of a building oermi~ for the second m~ir. the propern~
May 1, 2003
Page 3
owner must submit proof of ownership and record a restrictive covensnt to run with the land
such that the use of the second unit as a separate dwelling may continue ontv as lona as the
property is owner-occurfied.
(p) Services: Second un/ts may be metered separately from the rnsSn units for sas. sewer,
elecn'/citv, and water services.
20. 79. 040 Permit Process
All residential second units are subiect to mini.qterial review for compliance with the terms of
this Chapter by the ChiefPlarmer and the ChiefBuildin~ Official.
(a) The build/ms permit application, udth appropr/ate site and buildint plans, documents and
fees shall be submitted to the Buildins Division. The application shall be accompanied bv a non
refundable process/ms fee in an anaount set forth in the master fee schedule of the city of South
San Francisco. The Plmxfi_n__. Division shall check each application submit-ted for comoliance
with all standards and requfl-ements of Section 20.79.030. The Chief Planner shall approve~ deny
or require alterations to the ofimnal draw/mss and documents to satisfy the requirements of
Section 20.79.030. If alterations to the drawinCs are required, said drawin¢s shall be re-submitted
and processed accord/ns to the vrocedures established herein for approval of the o~5~na]
drawings.
All residemial second un/t applicants are required ro pax, ali required fees.
(c) The property owner shall enter into a restrictive covensnt with the City, which shall be
recorded a_~ainst the propera~. The restrictive covenant shall confirrn that either the primary
dwellin~ unit or the second dweltin~ unit shall be owner occupied and prohibit rental of both
mzits at the same time. I~ shall further provide that the residential second unit shall not be sold, or
title thereto transferred separate and apart from the rest of the property. A copy of the recorded
resn-ictive covenant shall be subnzitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building
permit.
20. 79. 050 Revocation of Per,nit
In addition to any other remedy provided by law. in the event a vermitted residential second unit
is maintained in violation of the Residential Second Un/ts Standards and Requirements in
Section 20.79.040 or of any other requirements of this Chapter, the Chief Planner may. on rein
(10) days written notice ro the r~ropera: owner brins a vroceedins to revoke the Certificate of
OccuCm~cv for the residential second unit usins the r~rocedure in of the
Mu_rfici~ al Code.
May 1, 2003
Page 4
20. 79. 060 Severabilit~,
in the event any section or port/on ofthi~ chapter 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.
EXHIBIT B
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.85, DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE
May 1, 2003
Page 5
The underlined text located below will be added to the following eiaapter. The strikeout text
located below will be removed from the following chapter:
CHAPTER 2t}.85, DESIGN RE5rlEW PROCEDURE
20. 85. t~20 Applicability
(a) No person shall commence any use or erect any sn'ucmre or make exterior modifications
to any existing use, parking area, or structure; and no perm/t, including but not limited to
building, use or variance permit, shall be issued for any new use or structure or modification
thereof until the desig-n review process has been completed in accordance with these
requirements.
(b3 Desim~ review for new single-family, two-f~milv and three-family dwellings on
individual lots wh/ch are not in planned developments, and residential second units as defined in
Section 20.79.030 (a) of the Municipal Code. shall be limited to height, bulk. lot coverage, and
general compatibiliW with the neighborhood.
(c) The folloudn~ exceptions which do not require desi_o-n review shall apply to exterior
modifications:
(1) Chan~es in si~ copy on existin_~ si_ohs, existing changeable copy si_o-n~ or si_o-n~ desi_oned
to allow a change in copy. excluding painted si_o-n~ or copy ch~n~es which increase the simon area
of coverage or which physically alter the sim~ structure. Si_on prozr~m.~ less th~n twenty-five
square feet are also exempt.
(23 Changes required in whole or part by a requirement of any government a~encv.
(3) Additions to one-, two- and three-family residential structures which do not break the
existin¢ roof line of the strucrm-e and which do not constitute a fi~,' percent or ~eater increase in
floor area.
20. 85. 030 Design revie},, guidelines and standards.
(a). The planning commission, in exercising the scope of authofi~ set forth in this section,
shall by resolution adopt guidelines and standards for desi=mx review. The guidelines and
standards shall be adopted only after a public hearing noticed and conducted in the mariner
required for zoning amendments in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.87. Any person
or persons ag=m-ieved by the actions of the planning commission may appeal the action in
accordance with the provisions for appeal set forth in Chapter 20.90.
(b) Guidehnes and standards for design review shall be in accordance with the following:
(1) The site subject to desig-n and review shall be ~aded and developed x~dth due regard for
the natural terrain, aesthetic qualitT, and landscaping so as nor to impair the environmental
qualhy, value, or stabiliry of the site or the environmental quahD~ or value of improved or
May ~, 2003
Page 6
unflnproved property in the area. Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent should be retalnec~
in the natural state. Development of hillsides should follow existin~ contours to the _o-reatest
extent possible. Gradin_~ should be keot to a minimmn,
(2) A building, structure, or sign shall:
(A) Reasonably relate to its site and proper~y in the immediate and adjacent areas; and
(B) Be ofki~x quatiry of design as to adversely affect the environmental quality or
desirability of the immediate areas or nei~boring areas; and
(t) New additions to existin~ residential dwell~nts and residential second units shall be
architecturally compatible with the primary residential unit. with respect to sWle massing, roof
pitch, color and materials.
(C) Not impair the benefits or occupancy of existing property or environmental quality
thereof in such areas or the stability and value of improved or unimproved real property in such
areas, or produce degeneration of property in such areas with attendant deter/oration of
conditions affecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
(3) A site shall be developed to ach/eve a harmonious relationsh/p with the area in wltich it is
located and a4/acent areas, allowing a reasonable sim/larity of style or originality wtfich does not
impair the environmental quality or value of/reproved or unimproved property or prevent
appropriate development and use of such areas or produce degeneration of properties in such
areas with attendant deterioration of conditions affecting the health, safety, and general welfare
of the city.
(a) I--Iei*_j~t, bulk, .floor area ratio (FAR), and coverage requirements: Residential additions
and residential second units shall conform to the heizht, bulk. floor area ratio (FAR). and lot
coverage requirements of the zone, planned unit development, overlay d/sU-ict, specific plan or
other desi,onated plannin~ area in which they are developed.
(b) Minimum yard requirements: Residential second un/ts and additions sh~ll conform to the,
front, side. and rear yard setback requfl'ements of the zone. olanmed unit development, overlay
disrr/ct specific plm~ or other designated olannin~ area in which they are developed.
(c] Privacy, noise and view protection may be considered in decid/r~ the issue of
neighborhood compatibility.
(4) Open space, parldng areas, pedestrian walks, sigmas, illumination, and landscaping
(including irrigation) shall be desig-ned and developed to enhance the environmental quality of
the site, ach/eve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development, and accomplish the objectives
set forth in the precise plan of design and desi~zn criteria.
(5) Electrical and mechanical equ/pment or works and fixtures and tx'ash storage areas shall
be designed and constructed so as nor to detract from the emdronmental quality o~the site.
May 1, 2003
Page 7
Electrical and mechanical equipment or works and fixtures and trash storage areas shall be
concealed by an appropriate architectural structm-e which uses colors and materials harmonious
with the principal structure, unless a reasonable alternative is recommended by the design rev/ew
board.
(6) For the purpose of determining a reasonable implementation of the desig-n and the effect
on the em,irom'nemal quality of the m'ea, the components considered in design review shall
include bur not be limited to exterior design, materials, text-re'es, colors, means of illmrfination,
landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access, security, safety, and other usual
on-site development elements. The design review board may also make recommendations as to
site coverage, and the intensity of proposed development. (Ord. t006 § 2 (part), t986)
20. 85. 050 Design review board
(a) The desi.~n review board shall consist of five members appointed bv the pl annin.~
commission. Each member shall be appointed for a term of four years. Two members shall be
arckitects licensed bv the state. Two members shall be either a landscape arckitect, desim~er,
contractor, horticultur/st, or person with equivalent landscaping expertise or back~ound. One
member shall be any one of the above mentioned professions or a building or en~neering
contractor ^ + ~+ .... c+,, ..... 1 ..... ~ ~" ~' ..... ~°*'+ ~'~ ~+ .... ~'+*'~ git3
(b) The desig-n review board shall review desig-n review applications, related drawings, and
other matters related thereto and make recommendations to the planning commission and chief
planner in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the desig-n review g~hdelines with
the exception of additions to one-, two- and tl~ee-family residential structures as set forth below.
(c) The design review board members shall be compensated according to the schedule
adopted by the city council. (Ord. 1169 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1006 § 2 (part), 1986)
2t~. 85. 060 Design review action.
(a) The planning commission shall have desig-n review authority for ail projects requimlg
planning commission approval (such as PUD permits, use permits and variances) and all new
commercial, office and multifamily developments. The commission shall consider the design
review board's recommendations and shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the
application.
(b) For items not requiring planning comm/ssion approval, the chief planner shall consider
the recommendations of the desig-n review board and shall approve, conditionally approve or
disapprove the desi~m~ review application. Conditions shall be reasonable and desig-ned to assure
attairm~ent of the standards established by this title. If the chief planner disapproves the
application, standards or conditions which have not been met shall be specified. If the chief.
planner fails to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application as submitted by
the applicant within nineD~ days following the date the recommendation is received fi:om the
design review board, the apphcation, as submitted, shall be deemed approved, unless the
May 1, 2003
Page 8
planning commission gTants the chiefplarmer a reasonable extension of time therefor. The
determination by the chief planner shall be subj eot to review by the plarmmg commission either
on appeal by the applicant or upon motion of the planning commission. If the planning
commission fails to make an order to review the chiefplarmer's determination at its next regular
meeting after the determination, then the chiefplarmer's determination shall be final.
(e) The ckiefplanner ma), approve, conditionally approve or disapprove additions to one-,
two- and three-family residential sn-uctures, and residential second milts not elsewhere exempted
fi'om the procedm'es of this chapter, without the desig-n review board's review and
recommendations if the chief planner can find that such addition is consistent with applicable
desi~ standards and/or criteria or with conditions which cause changes to the proposed addition
which will bring it into conformance with said standards and/or criteria. (Ord. 1169 §§ i (part),
3, 1995; Ord. 1089 § 1 (pm-t), 1990: Ord. 1006 § 2 (part), 1986)
EXHIBIT C
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.06, DEFINITIONS
May 1, 2003
Page 9
The underlined te~ located below will be added to the following chapter:
CHAPTER 20.06, DEFINiTIONS
(a) "Residemial second unit" memos a secondary separate residential unit contminin-* sleep/ng
qum'~ers, kitchen, and bathroom facii/ties, located on a residentially zoned lot that eontain~ ~
sm-*le-fam/lv residence as a priman7 use, meetin~ the requirement of Chapters 19 and 20 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code. Attached and detached dwellin~ units/structures are
defined in Chanter 20 of the South San Francisco Mmn~cipal Code.
(b) "Accessory Structure" mean~ a detached subordinate buildin-* or structm-e used only a~
incidental to the main building, such as a garage.
(c) "Owner" means a person ho]din_* beneficial title to the property as an individual,
includin-* but not limited to the settlor of a -*-rantor trust, a ceneral partner, or a shareholder~ for
example.
(d) "Illegal second unit" means a second unit which is beth-* used for habitation and for
which a buildin~ permit m~der Char)ter 20.79 has not been issued.
(e) "Habitation" means remalar and exclusive use of a space or structure for shelter mad other
residential purposes in a manner which is or/vate mad separate from another residence on the
same 1o~.
"Primary unit" or "primary dwellin-* unit" means the existin~ residential unit on a lot that
is bemm used for habitation and occupied by the propert3~ owner at the dine of the application for
a buildin~ pemtit to construct a residential second unit.
(g) "Tandem parking" is an arran_cement of two or more vehicles (Chapter 20.06.260 (a) of the
Municipal Code) placed one behind the other: parkin-* vehicles in tandem.
EXHIBIT D
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.74, PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
May 1, 2003
Page 10
The underlined text located below will be added to the following chapter. The strikeout text
located below will be removed from the following chapter:
CH_&PTER 20.74, PA1LKING A_ND LO3~DING REGULATIONS
Section 20. 74. 040 Residential Uses
The number of off-street paring spaces required for residential uses shall be no less than the
following:
(a) Family Residential Use Types.
(1) One-, two- and three-unit dwellings: two spaces per unit, one of which shall be in a
garage, for dwellings with less than five bedrooms and less than two thousand five hundred
square feet in size; three spaces per un/t, two ofwh/ch shall be in a garage, for dwellings with
five or more bedrooms, or for any dwelling unit with a goss floor area of two thousand five
hundred square feet or greater. A carport shall not be substituted for a requfl'ed garage except for
existing dwellings on lots adjacent to a lane. Tandem parkin~ may be permitted to satisfy the off-
street parking requirement for one-. two-, and three-unit residential dwellinzs when both spaces
in a tandem parkinz bay are assi_oned to a single dwelling umt.
(2) Multiple-family projects with four or more units: two spaces per unit with at least one
space covered. One guest Space per every four units shall be provided on the site. Tandem
par!dn~ may be permitted to satisfy the off-street par ~k_ing requirement for multi-family
residential units in projects where parkin_~ is assi_oned, when both spaces in a tandem par ~kin_~ bay
are assi_oned to a sinzle dweltmz unit. In no case shall tandem spaces be permitted to satisfy the
.guest parkin~ requirement.
(.3) Single-family and townhouse units in planned developments: If a project has driveway
aprons at least eighteen feet long, two and one-fourth spaces shall be provided per unit, two of
which shall be in a garage. Otherwise, four and one-fourth spaces shall be provided per unit, two
of which ~ha~ be m a garage.
(4) Residential Second Units: One off-street Carkin~ space shall be required for the second
unit in addition to any off-street ~artd_ng spaces recruited for the or/mary unit by Char)ter 20.74 of
this code. as anaended from time to time. Tandem r)arkinz shall not be used to satisfy the oarkin~
requirement for the residential second unit.
20. 74.110 Size and design
(z) The tandem space shall be ¢ermitted at a minimum 40 feet by 10 feet in dimension. No
more thm~ nvo vetdctes shall be olaced one behind the other.
(hi Partdnz spaces required for the residential second umt must be accessible for the parkinz
of a vehicle.
May 1, 2003
Page
20. 7¥.120 Location
(d) Residential parkin~ sr~aces shall be located on the same lot or buildin~ site as the
dwellin~ to be served.
(e) Tandem oarkin~ may be permitted to satisfy the off-street parkin ~ requiremem for a
residential un/t if additional usable space for on-site tandem parking is available m:~d only in
areas adiacent to an enclosed ~arage serxfin~ the pr/mary urdt and located outside the established
setbacks for the established zonin~ district or plann/n~ area.
20. 74.!50 Driveway access
(_g_) Dr/veway access to parking for all single fam/ly and singte-farrfily dwellings with a
residential second un_it shall be not less than ten feet in width throughout, ~
(1) Driveway cuts shall be 1/m/ted to a maximum of 20 feet in width unless the lot exceed s
50 feet in width, in which case dr/vewav cuts shall nor exceed 40 percent in width.
(2) For more than one curb cut on a parcel on any street frontage, m least 20 feet measured at
too of curb shall be provided between each curb cut.
EXHIBIT E
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTERS 20.16, 20.18 AND 20.20
IVlay 1, 2003
Page 12
The underlined text located below will be added to the foliowing chapters:
CH32TERS 20.16, 20.18 AND 20.20
Chapter 20.16 R-I, Single-Family Residential District Use Regulations
2t7.16. 020 Permitted Uses
Residential Second Units as regulated in Chapter 20.79 o£the Municival Code.
Chapter 20.1§ R-2 Medium Density Residential District Use Regulations
20.18.020 Permitted Uses
Residential Second Un/ts as regulated in Chapter 20.79 o£the Municipal Code.
Chapter 20.20 R-3, Multi-Family Residential District Use Regulations
20.20. 020 Permitted Uses
Residential Second Un/ts as re_o-ulated in Chapter 20.79 of the Murficipa! Code.
Staff Report
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 14, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
AMENDMENTS TO TI--~E SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE,
CHAPTER 20.27, TRANSIT ViLLAGE DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 20.120,
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Applicant: City of South San Francisco
Case Numbers: ZA-01-021/MOD1 & ZA-01-041/MOD1
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council wave reading and introduce an ordinance amending the
Municipal Code, Chapter 20.27, Transit Village District, to require a Use Permit for all projects
that generate 100 or more average daily trips (ADT) and Chapter 20.120, Transportation
Demand Management, to include childcare facilities as a transportation demand management
(TDM) measure.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
South San Francisco Transit Village District
Currently, the City requires a Use Permit for projects that generate 100 or more average daily
trips (ADT) for all projects in other Zoning Districts except the Transit Village District. The
purpose of this Amendment to Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning. District, is to add the same
Use Permit requirement for all projects that generate 100 or more average vehicle trips per day
(ADT) in the Transit Village Zoning District. The Use Permit process would further the goals of
the General Plan by allowing the City to impose reasonable conditions on these new uses
designed to mitigate the effects of the proposed use on traffic flow in the transit village area and
surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's objectives for the Transit Village Zoning
District. The Transit Village Plan, adopted in August 2001, provides specific design and
development standards for future projects in the District. The August 22, 2001 City Council
staff report stated that "the District, however, does not automatically include or approve any
specific projects or development applications in the District; any future project or development
applications would be subject to a separate environmental review and City approvals."
Staff Report
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Honorable Mayor & City Council
Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
Amendment to Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zone and Chapter 20.120,
Transportation Demand Management
May 14, 2003
Page 2
Transportation Demand Management
The purpose of the Amendment to Chapter 20.120, Transportation Demand Management, is to
include "childcare facilities" as an additional TDM measure not originally listed in the chapter.
The TDM program implements the goals and policies of the General Plan which promote criteria
and alternative mode usage for projects. Currently, the Municipal Code permits would childcare
as a TDM measure under the "Other Measures" category as a measure that is not listed in the
chapter. The Municipal Code permits applicants the flexibility to use various TDM measures
meet a required percentage mode shift. The proposed amendment would add "childcare
facilities" to the text in the "Other Measure" subsection of Chapter 20.120. The proposed
amendment is consistent with the General Plan Implementing Policy 2-1-12, which promotes
development of childcare facilities and developing criteria for incentives for childcare facilities,
as part of bonuses for specified TDM programs.
Environmental Determination
The proposed amendments have been determined to be "Categorically Exempt" under the
"General Rule" (CEQA Section 15061 (b) (3)) that CEQA applies only to projects that have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments are
process-oriented, requiring additional levels of review (use permit) and an additional TDM
measure (childcare) for future projects. Consequently, there is no possibility that the proposed
amendments could have a significant effect on the environment.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the City Council wave reading and introduce an ordinance amending the
Municipal Code, Chapter 20.27, Transit Village District, to require a Use Permit for all projects
that generate 100 or more average daily trips (ADT) and Chapter 20.120, Transportation
Demand Management, to include childcare facilities as a TDM measure.
By:
N~arty Van Duyn, A~,0ant City Manager
l~li ch aelt/~~'A. Wil~Manager
Attachment:
Ordinance
Planning Commission Public Hearing staff report with attachments, May 1, 2003
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 20.27, TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT
TO REQUIRE A USE PERMIT FOR ALL PROJECTS THAT GENERATE 100 OR
MORE AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY (ADT) AND CHAPTER 20.120,
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TO INCLUDE CHILDCARE
AS A OPTIONAL TDM MEASURE.
WHEREAS, in August 2001, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the
Transit Village Zoning District and Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 16, 2001, and the City
Council Staff Report, dated August 22, 2001, indicate that any future project or development
applications would be subject to a separate environmental review and City approvals; and
WHEREAS, in December 2000, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted an
ordinance to require a use permit for all projects that would generate 100 or more average daily trips
over the previous use of a property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.27 would further the goals of the
General Plan by allowing the City to impose reasonable conditions on furore uses to mitigate the
effects of the proposed use on traffic flow in the Transit Village area and surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.27 is process-oriented and is consistent
with the development goals and objectives of the Transit Village Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to Chapter 20.120 provides business additional
flexibility to include childcare to the list of"Other Measures" not listed in the Chapter.
WHEREAS, General Plan Implementing Policy 2-1-12 states "developing criteria for
incentives for childcare facilities, as part of bonuses for specified TDM programs"; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
held a duly noticed public heating and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendments; and
630274-1
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2003, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held a
duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been determined to be "Categorically Exempt"
under the "General Rule" (CEQA Section 15061 (b) (3)) that CEQA applies only to projects that
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments are
process-oriented, requiring additional levels of review (use permit) and an additional TDM measure
(childcare) for future projects. Consequently, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments
could have a significant effect on the environment.
WHEREAS, the findings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent and
substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of
the City Council and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the staff report
submitted at the City Council meeting on May 14, 2003tthereto.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby amends the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter
20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, Section 20.27.030, subsection (c) and Chapter
20.120, Transportation Demand Management, Section 20.120.50 to read as follows:
The first paragraph of Subsection "c" of Section 20.27.030 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"(c) "U" designates use classifications that may be permitted in the Transit Village
District after review and approval of a use permit, as described in Chapter 20.81. In
addition to those uses that are designated "L" or "U" in Table 20.27.030, a use permit
shall also be required for all projects within the Transit Village Zoning District that
generate 100 or more average vehicle trips per day (ADT). In addition to the criteria for
granting a use permit set forth in Chapter 20.81, a use that is subject to a use permit in the
Transit Village District shall also meet the following criteria:"
20.120.50 Additional Measures
(j) Other Measures. Additional measures not listed in this chapter, such as
childcare facilities and an in-lieu fee that would be negotiated in a development
agreement with the city, may be implemented as determined by the chief planner and
approved by the planning commission. Once the planning commission approves the
preliminary TDM plan, the chief planner may recommend additional measures either as
part of the final TDM plan or as part of the triennial review process.
630274-1 2
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue
in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City
Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each
section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences,
clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers
voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the
City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30)
days from and after its adoption.
Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, held the __ day of ,2003.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the day of, 2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this __ day of ,2003.
Pedro Gonzalez, Mayor
630274-1
-3-
EXHIBIT A
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.27, TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District shall be revised to add the following text,
underlined below:
20.27.030 Land Uses
(c) "U" designates use classifications that may be permitted in the Transit Village District
after review and approval of a use permit, as described in Chapter 20.81. In addition to
procedures and criteria of any generally permitted in Section 20.27.030 shall meet the criteria
established for conditional uses.
(4) A Use Permit shall be required for all proiects that generate 100 or more average vehicle
trips per day (ADT).
-4-
EXHIBIT B
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.120, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Chapter 20.120, Transportation Demand Management shall be revised to add the following text,
underlined below:
20.120.50 Additional Measures
(j) Other Measures. Additional measures not listed in this chapter, such as childcare
facilities and an in-lieu fee that would be negotiated in a development agreement with the city,
may be implemented as determined by the chief planner and approved by the planning
commission. Once the planning commission approves the preliminary TDM plan, the ch/el
planner may recommend additional measures either as part of the final TDM plan or as part of
the triennial review process.
-5-
Pianningsta ff Repo mmissio n
DATE: May 1, 2003
TO:
Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE,
CHAPTER 20.27, TRANSIT VILLAGE DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 20.120,
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Applicant:
Case Numbers:
City of South San Francisco
ZA-01-021/MOD1 & ZA-01-041/MOD1
RECOMMENDATION:
k is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt
Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 20.27, Transit Village District, to require a Use
Permit for all projects that generate 100 or more average daily trips (ADT) and Chapter 20.120,
Transportation Demand Management, to include childcare facilities as a transportation demand
management (TDM) measure.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
South San Francisco Transit Village District
Currently, the City requires a Use Permit for projects that generate 100 or more average daily
trips (ADT) for all projects in other Zoning Districts except the Transit Village District. The
purpose of this Amendment to Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, is to add the same
Use Permit requirement for all projects that generate 100 or more average vehicle trips per day
(ADT) in the Transit Village Zoning District. The Use Permit process would further the goals of
the General Plan by allowing the City to impose reasonable conditions on these new uses
designed to mitigate the effects of the proposed use on traffic flow in the transit village area and
surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's objectives for the Transit Village Zoning
District. The Transit Village Plan, adopted in August 2001, provides specific design and
development standards for furore projects in the District. The August 22, 2001 City Council
staff report stated that "the District, however, does not automatically include or approve any
specific projects or development applications in the District; any future project or development
applications would be subject to a separate environmental review and City approvals."
Staff Report
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Amendment to Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zone and Chapter 20.120, Transportation
Demand Management
Date: May 1, 2003
Page 2
Transportation Demand Management
The purpose of the Amendment to Chapter 20.120, Transportation Demand Management, is to
include childcare facilities as an additional TDM measure not originally listed in the chapter. The
TDM program implements the goals and policies of the General Plan which promote criteria and
TDM measure under the "Other Measures" category as a measure that is not listed in the chapter.
The proposed amendment add childcare facilities as an other measure. The proposed amendment
is consistent with the General Plan Implementing Policy 2-1-12, which promotes development of
chiidcare facilities and developing criteria for incentives for childcare facilities, as part of
bonuses for specified TDM programs.
Environmental Determination
The proposed amendments have been determined to be "Categorically Exempt" under the
"General Rule" (CEQA Section 15061 (b) (3)) that CEQA applies only to projects that have the
potential for causing a si~mfificant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments are
process-oriented, requiring additional levels of review (use permit) and an additional TDM
measure (childcare) for future projects. Consequently, there is no possibility that the proposed
amendments could have a significant effect on the environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt
Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 20.27, Transit Village District, to require a Use
Permit for all projects that generate 100 or more average daily trips (ADT) and Chapter 20.120,
Transportation Demand Management, to include childcare facilities as a TDM measure.
Respectfully submitted,
,4;?' //
--
Michael~app¢ff/
Se~or
Attachment:
1. Resolution with Exhibits
-7-
RESOLUTION
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
.AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNIC/PAL
CODE, CHAPTER 20.27, TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT TO
REQUIRE A USE PERMIT FOR ALL PROJECTS THAT GENERATE 100 OR
MC)RF, AVF, R AGF, VFI4TCT F TI~]-P,~ PFI~ TbAV (AIhT~ ANJ'-13 ("MADT~I~ 9(h 1 913
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TO INCLUDE CHILDCARE
AS A OPTIONAL TDM MEASURE.
WHEREAS, in August 2001, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the
Transit Village Zoning District and Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 16, 2001, and the City.
Council Staff Report, dated August 22, 2001, indicate that any future project or development
applications would be subject to a separate environmental review and City approvals; and
WHEREAS, in December 2000, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted an
ordinance to require a use permit for all projects that would generate 100 or more average daily trips
over the previous use of a property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.27 would further the goals of the
General Plan by allowing the City to impose reasonable conditions on future uses to mitigate the
effects of the proposed use on traffic flow in the Transit Village area and surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.27 is process-oriented and is consistent
with the development goals and objectives of the Transit Village Zoning District; and
8
WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to Chapter 20.120 provides business additional
flexibility to include childcare to the list of"Other Measures" not listed in the Chapter.
WHEREAS, General Plan Implementing Policy 2-1-12 states "developing criteria for
incentives for childcare facilities, as part of bonuses for specified TDM programs"; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments
vv nz, r,_r_,&~, ,nC prupu~uu amendments have been determined to be '~.ategoncany
Exempt" under the "General Rule" (CEQA Section 15061 (b) (3)) that CEQA applies only to
projects that have the potential for causing a sigrfificant effect on the environment. The proposed
amendments are process-oriented, requiring additional levels of review (use permit) and an
additional TDM measure (childcare) for future projects. Consequently, there is no possibility that
the proposed amendments could have a significant effect on the environment.
WHEREAS, the findings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent
and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to
the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations
of the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the
staff report submitted at the Planning Commission meeting s on May 1, 2003 thereto.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby
finds as follows:
The above described amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code are internally
consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the South San Francisco Planning
Commission that it is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt amendments to the City of
South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District to require a use
permit for all projects that generate 100 or more average vehicle trips per day (ADT) and Chapter
20.120, Transportation Demand Management to include childcare as an optional TDM measure, as
set forth in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
9 "
City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the day of May, _00~ by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
ATTEST
Thomas C. Sparks
Secretary to the Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
-10-
EXHIBIT A
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.27, TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District shall be revised to add the following text,
underlined below:
20.27.030 Land Uses
(c) "U" designates use classifications that may be permitted in the Transit Village District
after review and approval o£a use permit, as described in Chapter 20.81. In addition to
procedures and criteria of any generally permitted in Section 20.27.030 shall meet the criteria
established for conditional uses.
(4) A Use Permit shall be required for all projects that ~enerate 100 or more average vetticle
trips per day (ADT).
-11-
EXHIBIT B
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 20.120, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Chapter 20.120, Transportation Demand Management shall be revised to add the following text,
underlined below:
20.120.50 Additional Measures
(j) Other Measures. Additional measures not listed in this chapter, such as childcare
facilities and an in-lieu fee that would be negotiated in a development agreement with the city,
may be implemented as determined by the chief planner and approved by the planning
commission. Once the planning commission approves the preliminary TDM plan, the chief
planner may recommend additional measures either as part of the final TDM plan or as part of
the triennial review process.
-12-
Staff Report
DATE: May 14, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Finance
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT FOR ANNEXING SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR A PROPERTY TAX SHARING
AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council consider the various options presented in this report with
regards to a request for annexation by the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District (the
District), and provide staff with direction.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
As was outlined in a study session held on February 19, the District is concerned about the potential
for the spread of the West Nile Virus. Much of San Mateo County is already included in the
District's boundaries, and is therefore subject to its services. Several jurisdictions, including South
San Francisco, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, Brisbane, Colma, Pacifica, and Daly City did not join the
District when it was created years ago. The District is now proposing expanding the service area
boundaries, in part to be unified in its efforts to prevent the spread of the West Nile Virus.
The District currently covers 163 sq. miles serving some 464,000 citizens throughout San Mateo
County. A Board of Directors governs it with one member appointed by the City Council of each
member city. Funding comes from diverting property taxes that would have gone to other taxing
entities. Most of the cities participating in the District joined prior to Proposition 13's passage in
1978, meaning all taxing entities at the time (Community College District, School District, the
County, etc.) were not directly impacted by the District's creation, because the District was able to
raise overall property taxes.
To fund the district's efforts, the District is proposing that the City pay the District via a property tax
sharing agreement that will reduce City General Fund property taxes by approximately $128,000
beginning in the 2004-05 fiscal year, and increasing thereafter by the growth in assessed valuation in
South San Francisco. In addition, if the Council approves the annexation, each parcel in the City of
South San Francisco will be assessed $3.74 per year, as are all the parcels in the existing district
boundaries, providing approximately another $63,000 annually for the District. Total South San
Staff Report
Subject: Consideration of a Request by the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District for
Annexing South San Francisco, Including a Request for a Property Tax Sharing Agreement
Page 2
Francisco contributions as proposed by the District would therefore total about $191,000 annually in
the first year, with the property tax share increasing annually by the general increase in assessed
valuations in the City.
Several policy issues are raised by the District's proposal. They include the following.
Funding Impact on New Cities
The City is now being asked to fund a larger share than it would have had it joined prior to
Proposition 13. If the City had joined in the 1960's, for example, the District would have raised the
property tax rate to all property owners in South San Francisco. When Proposition 13 passed in 1978,
all taxing entities in South San Francisco (the School District, the County, the Community College
District) would have had their property taxes lowered proportionally, since Proposition 13 mandated
a cap on property taxes of 1%. That is, all taxing entities would have given up a very small share of
their property tax revenue to fund the District. Now, only the City of South San Francisco is being
asked to fund the District's services within South San Francisco, while the County, School District,
and Community College District are not being asked to share in the funding. That raises a question as
to whether that funding arrangement is fair and equitable to the City compared to the funding
arrangement in place for cities that are already members. Because the City is in the midst of a serious
budget downturn, the equity of the proposed funding arrangement is all the more critical.
Responsibility for Public Health
Another policy issue is whether funding public health should be the City's responsibility. Most
public health responsibilities in California are funded by either the State or the counties. The State
and the County of San Mateo have indicated they will not pay for the expansion of the District's
boundaries. Hence, the District is turning to cities to fund their expansion.
Effectiveness of Mosquito Abatement
Mosquitoes can fly up to 5-7 miles. Given that Daly City has chosen not to pay to participate in the
District's annexation, and given that it appears that San Bruno is leaning against joining at this time,
it is not clear if South San Francisco's joining would effectively control mosquitoes within its
boundaries. The District appears to be well managed, and also appears to be very effective in its
approach to combating mosquitoes. However, if two of South San Francisco's neighbors do not
participate, the District's effectiveness in combating mosquitoes in South San Francisco could be
compromised.
The City Attorney's Office has indicated, "The Health and Safety Code does not require ... South San
Francisco to join the ...District. However, a vector problem affecting public health within the
jurisdiction of South San Francisco may be considered the responsibility of the City in the absence of
district membership." The attorney's office has also reported that "The City should be aware that the
Staff Report
Subject: Consideration of a Request by the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District for
Annexing South San Francisco, Including a Request for a Property Tax Sharing Agreement
Page 3
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recently issued a report on the ...threat of the West Nile Virus.
This report concluded that to mount an effective campaign against the outbreak of... (the) virus within
San Mateo County, ...the District needs to conduct county-wide...(activities)...The Grand Jury
recommended that LAFCO (the Local Agency Formation Commission) expedite the proposed
annexation by the District, and that Daly City (which had indicated it would not join) agree to join in
order to secure continued vector control services."
Options
Several options are available to the Council. They include:
1. Accept the property tax sharing agreement proposed by the District. If Council were
to choose this option, a Resolution is attached and would need to be approved.
2. Reject the services of the District altogether.
Pass the attached resolution, but direct staff to insert alternative language that would
approve a lowered funding amount that would be more equitable/consistent with the
funding that the City would have paid had it joined prior to Proposition 13. Staff believes
that that amount is approximately 17.2% of the total funding for the District coming
from South San Francisco's property taxes, or 17.2% of the .00185505 of the one
percent property taxes, not 100% of the .00185505 of the one percent property taxes, as
the District is proposing to shift from South San Francisco. Several cities' finance
directors, including South San Francisco's, already made this proposal to the District.
17.2% represents the pre-ERAF share of South San Francisco's property taxes that the
City receives. The Mosquito District Director has indicated he does not believe his Board
would accept less than full funding, however, and the Director responded negatively to
this proposal. South San Francisco's proposal, and the District's response, is attached for
Council's information. Council may want to consider this option to indicate it supports the
annexation, but only under an equitable funding mechanism.
Agree to participate in the District, contingent on South San Francisco voter approval this
November of a special parcel tax of approximately $7.50 per parcel per year, in addition to
the existing $3.74 per parcel per year that the District would levy, or a total of
approximately $11.24 per parcel per year. Besides relieving the City of the obligation to
pay for the District's funding, this option would also test the voters' willingness to fund
this effort. If the voters do not support it (a 2/3 vote would be required), it would be an
indication that these efforts are not a critical priority to the voters. If the Council were to
select this option, the City Clerk estimates the cost to the City for putting this measure on
the November ballot to be $5,000. The last day to file for a measure for the November
2003 election would be August 8. If Council selects this option, staff recommends that
they direct staff to prepare a resolution agreeing to join the District contingent on voter
approval of a special parcel tax.
Staff Report
Subject: Consideration of a Request by the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District for
Annexing South San Francisco, Including a Request for a Property Tax Sharing Agreement
Page 4
CONCLUSION:
Several options have been presented to Council on the question of whether the City should become
annexed to the District, and whether it should relinquish about $128,000 in property tax revenue
beginning in 2004-05 (increasing thereafter). Staff requests Council direct staff on which option it
would prefer.
Prepared by:
~ctor
City Manager
Attachments:
Resolution Consenting to Property Tax Sharing Agreement
Letter from Robert Gay, Dated March 17, 2003 Requesting Annexation
Letter to Robert Gay, Dated April 11, 2003 Suggesting Alternative Funding
Response from Robert Gay, Dated April 18, 2003
Grand Jury Report
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING DETERMINATION OF PROPERTY
TAX EXCHANGE PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 282,
SECTION 59, PART .05, IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE XIIIA OF
THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION COMMENCING WITH
SECTION 95, DIVISION 1, OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION
CODE
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco as follows:
WHEREAS, state law requires that affected agencies including the City of South San
Francisco and the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District (the District) negotiate a property
tax exchange relating to any proposed annexation to the district; and
WHEREAS, the District receives 0.00185505 of the 1% of assessed valuation within current
boundaries and the District proposes exchange of the same increment in the annexation area; and
WHEREAS, the subject determination has been made prior to and as a condition precedent to
the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission issuing the Certificate of Filing
on said proposal; and
WHEREAS, it has been agreed that the property tax revenue of 0.00185505 of the 1% of
assessed valuation shall be transferred from the City of South San Francisco to the San Mateo
Mosquito Abatement District on an annual basis.
630194-1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
that the City Council hereby authorizes as follows:
Except as provided in Section 2 herein below, property tax revenue of.00185505 of the
1% assessed valuation shall be transferred from the City of South San Francisco to the
San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District effective with the tax year 2004-05.
The City of South San Francisco agrees that the annexation shall include the entire city,
including property included within the City's Redevelopment Project Areas. The
property tax exchange shall not affect the redevelopment tax increment payable to the
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
3. In accordance with Section 3a of Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, the
appropriation limit of the City shall be decreased based on this agreement.
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 ., 2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES'
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
630194-1
March 17, 2003
SAN MATEO COUNTY
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
1351 Rollins Road
Burlingame, California 94010-2409
(650) 344-8592
FAX (650) 344-3843
www.smcmad.org
Michael A. Wilson, City Manager
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject:
Proposed Property Tax Transfer for Annexation of northern and western
portions of San Mateo County to the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement
District
Dear Mr. Wilson;
As you know, the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District has applied to San Mateo
Local Agency Formation Commission for an amendment of the District's sphere of influence
and annexation of the northern and western portions of the County to the District. The
application is part of a statewide effort to prepare for West Nile Virus by expanding the
District's boundaries to offer mosquito abatement service countywide. Currently the District
serves the eastern portion of the County from East Palo Alto to Millbrae.
District services are funded by a small portion of property tax (0.00185505) and a $3.74 parcel
tax. The District proposes that services in the annexation area would be funded in a like manner.
Annexation of your city would also result in expansion of the District's board membership to
include a council appointed board member from your city.
As indicated by the San Mateo County Controller's letter of March 11, 2003, the District and
affected cities and the County have 60 days to negotiate a property tax exchange. On behalf of
the Board of Directors of the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District, I request that the
City of South San Francisco join in the countywide effort to combat West Nile and other vector
borne diseases by agreeing to a tax transfer of 0.00185505 of the one percent property tax
collected in the unincorporated areas of the annexation area. Based on the District's tax
increment and the City of South San Francisco's assessed valuation for the annexation area of
$6,910,834,780 as reported by the San Mateo County Controller, $128,199.44 would be
transferred to the District on an annual basis.
Attached is a narrative of the services that would be necessary in the City of South San
Francisco to effectively prevent West Nile Virus. Also enclosed is a copy of our proposed
budget. I hope that you will contact the District if you have any questions or need additional
information about our program. It is hoped that our agencies can work together to provide a
vital service to your residents.
Sincerely,
District Manager
Medical Entomologist
Attachments
CC: Board Members
San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District
Martha Poyatos, Executive Officer
San Mateo LAFCo
Kanchan K. Charan
Deputy Controller, County of San Mateo
Jim Steele, Finance Director
City of South San Francisco
SAN MATEO COUNTY
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
1351 Rollins Road
Burlingame, California 94010-2409
(650) 344-8592
FAX (650) 344-3843
www.smcmad.org
City of South San Francisco - District Service Request Program
Residents of your city can call the District any time they are experiencing problems with
mosquitoes. The Mosquito Control Technician for your city will visit the caller's residence
within 1-2 days, locate the source of the problem and treat it.
District personnel will also respond to calls regarding ground-nesting yellowjackets. If the
caller knows the location of the nest, a technician will come out to the property within 1-2
days and eliminate it.
· Residents can also call with questions about other insects or vector-borne diseases.
· Residents can call or drop by the District office to obtain mosquito fish for their backyard
pond or fountain.
· Last year the District responded to 1,059 service requests within its present boundaries. We
expect 200 calls from your city in the first year.
Mosquito problems account for the majority of the requests for service from current District
residents (70%). The remainders of calls are for yellow jacket problems (24%), requests for
mosquito fish (5%) and questions or problems regarding other insects (1%).
Mapping and Treatment of Mosquito Breeding Sources
Once annexation has been formalized, Mosquito Control Technicians will begin to map out
all mosquito-breeding sites within your city. These will be added to a computerized database
of sources and placed on a schedule to be checked regularly and treated as needed.
A Mosquito Control Technician will be assigned to your city or zone. This person will be
responsible for checking and treating all breeding sources within the city and responding to
service requests. Additional staff from other zones will assist this person on large projects.
Mosquito Control Programs
Catch Basins
Catch basins and storm drain systems are the largest source of northern house mosquitoes in
San Mateo County. These mosquitoes are an efficient vector of West Nile Virus and
therefore a serious public health concern.
The District treats approximately 10,000 within its current boundaries on a weekly basis.
This requires 1,200 man-hours and four additional seasonal staff. The District budgets
$60,000.00 for summer hires.
South San Francisco has a tremendous number of catch basins (approx. 5,000) and truck
ramps. These catch basins would have to be inspected and those considered breeding sites
for the northern house mosquito would be treated on a weekly basis.
The District would need to purchase and equip an additional right hand drive vehicle to treat
catch basins in your city. The estimated cost of this equipment would be $34,000.00. The
District would also hire additional seasonal staff to treat your catch basins at a cost of
approximately $8,000.00 each year per seasonal hire.
Vaults
The underground chambers housing equipment for utilities, sewers and water systems also
hold water and are a significant breeding site for the northern house mosquitoes (vector of
West Nile Virus).
· Mosquito Control Technicians treat 2,000 vaults within current District boundaries each year.
We anticipate treating between 200 and 500 vaults in your city.
· Vaults in your city would be inspected in the fall to determine which ones are producing
mosquitoes.
· Teams of Mosquito Control Technicians would treat these vaults 2 to 3 times per year. This
work is conducted on Sunday mornings when the traffic is light.
Industrial Sources
· The industrial areas of South San Francisco have numerous truck ramps, sumps, and
impounded areas. These can breed mosquitoes throughout the year.
· These sources will be mapped and checked and treated on a regular basis.
Waste Water Treatment Plants
· The District provides contract services with the three treatment plants within its present
boundaries.
The same program would be provided to the treatment plants in your city. These are usually
enterprising Districts responsible for abatement costs.
· The Water Quality Control Plant on Belle Aire Road has settling ponds, tanks, and
underground vaults that will need to be monitored and treated.
Water under Buildings
Many of the buildings east of Highway 101 are built on bay fill and experience subsidence
problems. When the soil subsides under these buildings, large voids are created that can act
as development sources for larval mosquitoes. The Mosquito Control Technician for your
city would monitor such buildings, look for mosquito breeding and treat them as needed.
Fresh and Saltwater Marshes
· The District presently treats over 200 acres of freshwater marshes and 2000 acres of salt
marshes.
Your coastal areas would be surveyed by the Mosquito Control Technician and a treatment
schedule established.
Creeks
The District currently treats 28 creeks running through urbanized areas along with many other
drainage channels and roadside ditches. This is a significant source of mosquitoes including
those that transmit malaria, and encephalitis.
The Mosquito Control Technician assigned to your city would survey all creeks and
determine those breeding mosquitoes. A treatment schedule will commence for those
portions of creeks that produce mosquitoes.
· All creeks will be inspected in the spring and treated as needed throughout the summer and
fall.
Residential Sources
Residential sources account for almost V2 of sources treated within the current District. These
sources include backyard ponds, fountains, hot tubs, neglected swimming pools, birdbaths
and miscellaneous containers.
Residents of your city may call the District office to request mosquito fish for their ponds.
Fish will be delivered to District residents, free of charge, and checked regularly to ensure
that they are keeping the mosquitoes in check. Residents may also drop by the District office
to pick up fish during normal business hours.
· The mosquitofish, Gatnbusia affinis is a small minnow, which feeds on the mosquito larvae
and is used for control of mosquitoes in backyard ponds.
Surveillance of Adult Mosquito Populations
Laboratory personnel will monitor mosquito populations to assess the level of public health
risk and effectiveness of control measures. The laboratory staff includes two full time
employees, one part-time employee and one seasonal aide.
Forty carbon dioxide traps are deployed throughout the District every two weeks. Traps are
collected the following day; their contents are identified and counted. This information is
maintained in a computerized database and used to track long-term trends in mosquito
density.
Surveillance for Vector-borne Diseases
Malaria
The District laboratory staff works closely with the County's Public Health personnel to
investigate all potential human malaria cases and prevent local transmission of this
disease.
· Malaria prevention and control operations are very important priorities when a human
case is reported. The District responds to approximately a dozen cases each year.
· The Mosquito Control Technician for your city would map all breeding sites for the
mosquitoes that transmit malaria.
· When notified of a malaria case, District staff rechecks known sources and conducts
additional surveillance for vector species.
West Nile and Other Encephalitis Viruses
In addition to West Nile Virus, California has 2 other viruses that are transmitted by
mosquitoes and cause disease in humans: Western Equine Encephalitis virus (WEE) and
St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLE). The District conducts surveillance for these viruses
through the following programs:
Sentinel Chickens
The District maintains 3 flocks of sentinel chickens to detect the presence of West
Nile Virus, western equine encephalitis virus and St. Louis encephalitis virus in
mosquitoes.
· The District will be establishing additional flocks once the annexation process is
complete and would consider establishing one in your city.
Mosquito Pools
The District collects adult mosquitoes and submits them to laboratories at the
University of California at Davis to test for encephalitis viruses. The District pays
the cost of testing for mosquitoes collected within its boundaries.
Laboratory staff will collect mosquitoes from your city using specialized traps for
this purpose. Mosquitoes must be collected alive, anesthetized, identified, and
shipped on dry ice the same day.
Dead Wild Birds
· The District participates in a statewide program to collect and test dead wild birds to
detect West Nile virus.
· Residents of your city will also be encouraged to call the District if they find a dead
bird.
· District staff will pick up the bird within 24 hours, package it and send it to the State
Health Department for testing. Results of the test will be reported back to the caller.
.Lyme Disease
The District conducts surveys of ticks and the diseases they transmit, targeting recreational
areas.
Surveys would be conducted on recreational areas in South San Francisco such as San Bruno
Mountain and Sign Hill. ~
· Residents from your city would be able to submit ticks found on themselves or family
members for Lyme disease testing free of charge.
Rodent-Borne Diseases
· The District conducts surveys of vector-borne diseases in small mammals in parks and open
spaces adjacent to homes.
· Diseases surveyed include plague and Hantavirus. The District would include susceptible
locations in your city for surveillance and testing.
· San Bruno Mountain is a known plague-infested site and portions of this site bordering your
city would be surveyed regularly.
Yellowjacket Control Program
· Ground nesting yellowj ackets are a serious public health threat in residential areas throughout
the county.
· The District treats 300-500 nests annually free of charge on school and residential properties.
This is a real savings for your homeowners and schools.
Insect Identification and Information
· The District will identify any insect submitted by residents of your city free of charge.
Residents can drop off the insect at our offices or request it picked up by a Mosquito Control
Technician. Laboratory staff will identify the insect and provide information on its biology,
public health significance and control.
· Free pamphlets are available for display at City Hall, libraries, etc.
Public Education
· The District provides free classroom instruction on insects and other animals and on vector-
borne diseases.
· The District attends community fairs and provides various types of displays.
&A/v MA ~ COUNTY MOSQUITO ABA TEMENT DIS TRI,
PROPOSED
GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FY 2003-04 - FUND NO. 02706
07/01'/03
loflo
Acct
No.
SALARIES & EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
4111
4161
4311
4321
4412
4415
4422
4431
4442
4451
Regular Full-Time Positions
Regular Part-Time Positions
Social Security
County Retirement Plan
Health Insurance
Medicare Insurance
Dental Insurance
Vision Insurance Plan
Long Term Disability
Unemployment Insurance
Sub Total
SERVICES & SUPPLIES
5111
5121
5156
5171
5199
5233
5331
5416
5428
5472
5631
5635
5721
5856
5966
6712
6725
6731
Agricultural (insecticides)
Clothing
Household
M e d ica I/La b o rato ry
Office
Special Tools/Instruments
Membership (Association fees)
Gasoline/Oil/Grease
Miscel. Repairs - Maintenance Equipment
General Maintenance
Electric/Gas
Water/Sewage Disposal
Meetings/Conferences
Services/Consultations
District Special Expense
Telephone
Insurance
Workers' Compensation
988,524
35,000
2,200
99,200
138,500
14,000
28,5OO
4,700
10,100
2,100
1,322,824
150,000
16,100
2,2OO
3,700
21,870
10,600
11,825
21,500
29,900
4,350
15,000
4,000
55,300
81,650
16,200
17,000
35,000
35,000
7211
7311
8611
8612
Sub Total
FIXED ASSETS
Structures & Improvements
Equipment
Sub Total
TOTAL OPERATIONAL BUDGET
CONTINGENCIES
9% of Operational Budget/Fixed Assets Budget
GENERAL RESERVES
60% of Operational Budget/Fixed Assets Budget
531,195
0
4,000
4,000
1,858,019
167,222
1,114,811
TOTAL BUDGET 3,140,052
SAN MA TEO COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
CAPIT PROJECT FUND BUDGET- FUND NO. 027¢
Summary
07/01/03
5188
5233
5834
5856
5966
7211
7311
SERVICES
Other Misc Expenses (C.O.P. Payment)
Special Tools/Instruments
Legal/Admin Fees (C.O.P.'s)
Services/Consultations
Distdct Special Expense
300,000
0
2,000
9,000
2,000
Sub Total 313,000
FIXED ASSETS
Structures & Improvements
Equipment
5,000
142,500
Sub Total 147,500
TOTAL BUDGET 460,500
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
650 877-8509
April 11, 2003
Mr. Robert B. Gay
District Manager
San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District
1351 Rollins Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-2409
Dem' Mr. Gay:
The City of South San Francisco is in receipt of your letter dated March 17, 2003
proposing a property tax transfer for annexation of South San Francisco into the San
Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District. As you indicated, the San Mateo County
Controller has advised us that the City and the District have 60 days to negotiate such a
tax transfer.
Your letter notes the proposed funding within the annexed area includes collecting a
special tax in the amount of $3.74 per parcel. Further, you suggested that the district
receive a portion of the property tax collected within the annexation area, consistent with
the manner and rate (.00185505 of the one percent property taxes) collected throughout
the existing district boundaries.
The City is concerned about mosquito abatement and about the potential spreading of the
West Nile virus, and is also confident that your agency would provide outstanding
services to our residents. We do have concerns about the equity of the funding proposal,
however.
Because the District was set up prior to Proposition 13, the District was able to raise its
own property taxes without impacting the ori~nal cities' property taxes. That is no longer
possible under Californ/a law. Furthermore, when Proposition 13 was implemented, in
order to achieve an overall 1% cap on property taxes, every taxing entity in a city's
boundaries was proportionally reduced to get to a 1% level. That is to say, when
Proposition 13 was implemented, the Mosquito District's funding would have been
adjusted proportionally along with the taxes of the City, the County, the school district,
the community college district, and any other special districts located within our city
boundaries.
CITY HALL ANNEX
400 GRAND AVENUE · P.O. BOX 711 · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Robert Gay
April 11, 2003
Page 2
When Proposition 13 was implemented, therefore, South San Francisco's share property
taxes would have been proportionately reduced in order to maintain funding to the
Mosquito District equal to .0018505 of the one percent of property taxes. South San
Francisco's share would have therefore been approximately 17.2% of the total funding
for the District coming from South San Francisco's property taxes, or 17.2% of the
.00185505 of the one percent property taxes, not 100% of the .00185505 of the one
percent property taxes, as the District is proposing to skift from South San Francisco.
The remaining 82.8% of the .0018505 of the one percent property taxes would have come
from the County, the school district, the community college district, etc., each of which
get a share of property taxes paid in South San Francisco.
Equity issues aside, the City of South San Francisco is not in a fiscal position to
relinquish property tax or other revenues needed to maintain City services. However, the
City can accept transferring an amount equal to the Proposition 13 formula mentioned
above, which is the City's share of the one percent property tax collected within South
San Francisco. This exchange would place the City in no more adverse position than any
of the cities cun'ently within the district boundaries. That amount is listed in the
Controller's Office letter to us dated March 11 and would be 17.2% of the .00185505 of
the one percent of property taxes you have proposed. That would result in an
approximate share of the Mosquito District for the City of $22,050, not counting the
parcel tax you may levy. Again, to be equitable, we believe the balance you have asked
from us should be funded by all other taxing entities within South San Francisco.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 877-8509, or our City Manager, Mike
Wilson, at 877-8500. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Jim Steele
Finance Director
CC:
City Manager
City Attorney
April l8,2003
SAN MATEO COUNTY
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
1351 Rollins Road
Burlingame, California 94010-2409
(650) 344-8592
FAX (650) 344-3843
www.smcmad.org
Debra C. Ryan
Director of Finance
City of Half Moon Bay
citymn
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
James H. O'Leary
Finance Director
City of San Bruno
567 E1 Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066
Jim Steele
Finance Director
City of South San Francisco
City Hall Annex
400 Grand Avenue
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear respective Finance Directors:
This letter is in response to the meeting held April 17, 2003 between James O'Leary, City of San Bruno
and myself. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the financial aspect of the annexation process on
his city, along wi,th the concerns of South San Francisco and Half Moon Bay. With the status of budgetary
cuts being a serious topic in today's climate, I understand your concerns about any further financial outlay.
I must stress to you the importance in public safety and health that this annexation process is addressing.
Since each of your cities is addressing these issues together, I will address this letter to all three cities as a
whole.
On November 2, 1982, 74% of the citizens of our current District boundaries passed the Special Mosquito
Control Tax because they saw the Mosquito and Vector Control program as a priority to health and safety.
With the current need to provide an aggressive prevention and abatement program to prevent the spread of
deadly diseases such as West Nile virus, Malaria, and Encephalitis, to name just a few, your request to
negotiate a lesser amount to contribute puts your cities at enormous risk. West Nile Virus has killed more
people this last year alone in the United States than the new SAPS Virus has worldwide! The Special
Mosquito Control Tax, which is capped at a maximum of $3.74 per parcel, is enacted each year by the vote
of the Board of Trustees to basically meet three fiscal challenges to the District; 1) the 17% loss due to
Education Relief Assistance Fund or ERAF, 2) the increasing cost of biorational pesticides and pesticide
dispersal equipment, 3) the funding of operational cost of the administration and laboratory personnel who
perform a critical role to allow the District to meet it's mission of "safeguarding the health and comfort of
the citizens of this District through a planned program to monitor and reduce mosquitoes and other
vectors."
The District has requested, as your letters stated, to receive a portion of the property tax collected within
the annexed area, to be consistent with existing district boundaries. You dispute this as being unequal. We
disagree. The proportion of the property tax (.00185505~ofthe 1%) comes from the owners paying tax on
their property. We feel strongly that the property owners, if given the option, would choose to have their
.00185505 of their 1% paid taxes, passed for mosquito and vector control programs directly. We feel your
legal opinion on Proposition 13 and its implications is putting your city residents at serious risk.
In regard to your individual letters, I wish to address them separately:
City of Half Moon Bay
As stated in your letter, you are requesting the full services of an Independent Mosquito and Vector Control
District for an entire year at a cost of $1,805.25. I must help you understand, our District could not provide
you with $1,805.25 worth of service on its own, the funding of all cities within the District serve to address
your abatement needs as a whole. Without the cooperation of the entire group of proposed cities, you
lessen the ability of our District to provide the same service to you as it can to San Mateo or Foster City or
Brisbane and all the other remaining cities. The revenue received to fund our program is dispersed by
operational need, not by contribution. At times, you may require several technicians and equipment to
handle mosquitoes breeding in a freshwater marsh, so we would move our staff from previously assigned
areas to help solve your issue. If you want to only pay $1,805.25, you are saying that the health and safety
of your citizens is only worth 29 cents per homeowner per year or less than one week of a mosquito control
technician's work. Our District, cannot in good faith, provide the same services to you for that amount
when the citizens of our current boundaries pay to supplement your services. We have a fiduciary
responsibility to our current citizens who have been receiving our services for more than 30 years. We
woUld not ask you to pay more than them, nor can I ask you to pay less. We were led to believe your city
was excited about annexation and receiving the full services of the district. With your letter, we will cancel
all preparations of servicing your city.
City of San Bruno
Similar to Half Moon Bay, we have provided free service to your residents in high-risk areas especially
around Mills Field and on BART property for years. This abatement service was provided to you as a
courtesy to prevent the spread of mosquitoes into areas that are funded by our service. We were led to
believe your city wanted the full services of this mosquito and vector control district. For the last six
months during this annexation process, there has been no opposition by your city. In review, property tax
sharing of $60,421.99 by your city would at least provide for a mosquito control technician's time for
approximately 30 weeks. Unfortunately, you are only willing to authorize $7,671.78. This supports the
work of a mosquito control technician for only four weeks. We were willing to cover the costs of getting
your program up and running this coming fiscal year in preparation for. the arrival of West Nile Virus
knowing your s~g of the 1% property tax would not occur until fiscal year 2004-2005. With your
letter, we will cancel all preparations of servicing your city as a whole but continue to service the 428
parcels presently within the district boundary.
City of South San Francisco
We have documented mosquito problems for your city that go back to 1959. Forty-four years later, you
still have serious mosquito problems. The State is expecting that, this fall, your urban mosquitoes will have
the ability to transmit West Nile Virus to your city residents~ The history of mosquitoes, disease, and
funding concerns were discussed in great detail over the course of the last six months. We disagree with
your present view of the purpose and procedures of past legislation.
You also brought up the issue of redevelopment agencies should not be Included in your cities assessed
value. Redeveloped properties, historically, have the same mosquito problems as any other area. In
addition, the new Adopted Order amending the San Mateo County Municipal Stormwater Permit, New and
Redevelopment Provision for San Mateo County will generate significant numbers of new mosquito
breeding sites and further the spread of mosquitoes .and vectoring of West Nile Virus. This San Francisco
Water Resource Control Board permit and the State's Health and Safety Code, requires the District to
inspect, monitor, and control mosquitoes that pose a health threat to the public. These costs for Stormwater
Management are at the expense of the property owner. This will escalate to a si~ificant and serious
problem for cities and counties. You are willing to authorize $22,050.00, which would cover the costs of a
mosquito control technician for only 11 weeks. We assume from this offer you are recommending to your
City Council to not approve annexation into the District at the requested current property tax rate of
.00185505 of the 1%. No full mosquito and vector control service could be provided with this funding
level. As a result, we will not continue with preparations for servicing your city.
If our District were to break out all of our cities by what is perceived as being paid, the smaller cities would
never be able to have their problems addressed. The pesticide dispersal equipment alone would take years
to purchase under the proposed plans listed above. If you truly feel that your offers are fair and equitable
and the original request may not be met, then I must wish you well and amend our application to exclude
each of you. I was looking forward to welcoming you to our District but once the annexation process is
complete, our planned media announcement will not include you.
Respectfully,
Cc:
Board of Supervisors
County Manager
LAFCO
City Managers
City Council
District Board of Trustees
San Mateo Courts - Civil Grand Jury Page 1 of 3
2002-2003 Report:
Review of Mosquito Control Measures
SummaryI Back_ground I Find~ I Conclusions I Recommendations
Summary:
The San Mateo County Grand Jury finds that to combat the threat of further
cases of West Nile Virus, the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District
should be permitted to expand its programs of vector control throughout the
entire county. All cities in the county should cooperate with LAFCo in expediting
the proposed annexation of all areas not currently with the District.
issue: Have San Mateo County agencies, including the San Mateo County
Mosquito Abatement District, County government, and individual cities
adequately responded to the threat of West Nile Virus?
Top of this pa_g~.
Background:
There have been several cases of West Nile Virus among County residents.
While only twenty percent of those infected contract the disease, and less than
one percent contract the severe form with development of aggravated
meningitis or encephalitis type symptoms, it can be fatal to the elderly or those
with compromised immune systems.
The San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District (SMCMAD), formed by the
merger of two small districts in 1953 and headquartered in Burlingame, is an
independent special district set up and empowered under state law with one of
its primary functions that of combating mosquitoes and mosquito-borne
diseases. It provides safe, i.e., non-toxic to humans, methods of control.
SMCMAD recently completed and updated a comprehensive Arbovirus
Surveillance and Response Plan under which SMCMAD will continue to
provide vector management services. A "vector" is an organism that transmits a
disease.
In a comprehensive report to the Board of Supervisors on the West Nile Virus
on September 18, 2002, the San Mateo County Health Services Agency
recommended that the SMCMAD be expanded to include the entire County.
Currently, only one-third of the geographic area of the County is within the
District. Seven cities in the northern portion of the County (Daly City, Brisbane,
South San Francisco, Colma, San Bruno, Pacifica and Half Moon Bay), the
western coastal section of the County, and certain rural areas to the south are
outside the District.
The Board of Supervisors endorsed the recommended plan 'to combat West
Nile threat to San Mateo County by annexing to SMCMAD portions of the
County that are not within the District. Annexation would enlarge the District
from approximately 166 square miles to a total County area of 450 square
miles.
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury/2002/Mosquito-Control.html 3/21/2003
San Mateo Courts - Civil Grand Jur,, Page 2 of 3
SMCMAD submitted a formal application for the annexation to LAFCo on
January 21,2003. Negotiations took place involving SMCMAD, the cities, the
County and LAFCO. Such negotiations considered tax consequences in the
newly annexed areas which would involve 1) a $3.74 annual parcel tax, equal
to that imposed on owners presently within the District, and 2) allocation to the
District of a portion of the one percent assessed value (AV) tax. Both
subventions would increase SMCMAD revenue by approximately $335,000
from parcel tax proceeds and $400,000 from the AV allocations. The increased
tax revenue would fund the cost of six new employees required to service
newly annexed areas.
Top of this page
Findings:
SMCMAD has stated that the annexation needs to conclude quickly so that the
new staff can be hired and trained to be ready for the mosquito breeding
season beginning this spring. No city or other areas, including unincorporated
areas in the County, has formally opposed annexation, with the sole exception
of Daly City. However, several cities have raised questions as to costs that
would result from inclusion in the annexed area.
Daly City has refused to approve annexation. Daly City in its Council resolution
stated that the annual costs of annexation would involve the transfer of $91,000
of City property taxes to the District and a further payment of $120,000 in parcel
taxes. Daly City has stated it does not intend to agree to any transfer of
property taxes or imposition of assessments on its owners and residents and
has asked SMCMAD to delete its name from the resolution requesting
annexation and the LAFCo application.
In a letter dated January 22, 2003, SMCMAD's Manager stated that while
SMCMAD has a contractual abatement agreement with Daly City for the
Mussel Rock area expiring June 30, 2003, SMCMAD would be unable to
provide further services to Daly City on a contractual basis after that date.
Daly City has previously contracted for SMCMAD services, including
responding to residents' complaints, mosquito surveillance and preventative
and control measures at catch basins, vaults, waste water facilities, freshwater
and salt marshes and residences, as well as overall monitoring and disease
control including the use of sentinel flocks of chickens and dissemination of
public information. It is SMCMAD's position that many if not all of these
programs will be discontinued if Daly City is not annexed to the District.
SMCMAD has performed significant preventative measures in significant areas
of mosquito infestation within Daly City, including coast side, lands adjacent to
San Francisco Bay, near Lake Merced, golf courses and storm drainage from
Junipero Serra Boulevard and in the vicinity of the Cow Palace.
Top of this page
Conclusions:
San Mateo County does not have a comprehensive countywide vector control
program. To mount an effective campaign against the outbreak of further cases
of West Nile Virus within San Mateo County, SMCMAD needs to conduct
county-wide monitoring, surveillance, and treatment; and to provide public
information and education. To be successful, SMCMAD needs the full legal
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury/2002/Mosquito-Control.html 3/21/2003
San Mateo Courts - Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 3
power and authority, financial capacity, staffing, and public support.
Recommendations:
1. LAFCo should expedite the proposed annexation of the
currently unannexed portions of the County by SMCMAD.
2. The City of Daly City must join SMCMAD before the expiration
of its current contract for vector control to not only protect its
residents but to enable SMCMAD to take effective countywide
measures.
Top of this page
Response
Top_ of thi~_.age
~it¢ wse_a_g~ and contact information,
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury/2002/Mosquito-Control.html 3/21/2003
Staff Re ort
DATE: May 14, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Recreation and Community Services
SUBJECT: A Resolution Approving the Naming of a Baseball Field at Alta Loma Park
in Honor of Gus Nicolopulos
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution naming a baseball field at Alta
Loma Park in honor of the late Gus Nicolopulos.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On March 6, 2003, Mr. Robert Lorenzini submitted a request with attached letters of support
requesting that one of the ball fields at Alta Loma Park be named in honor of Gus Nicolopulos.
It should be noted that there are two youth baseball fields at Alta Loma Park; the field near the
Camaritas entrance was named for Ermen Rozzi in 2000. As specified in the city's
Administrative Instruction Section I, Number 4, Naming of City Facilities, the request was
forwarded to the City Council Sub-Committee on Naming of Facilities. The Sub-Committee,
which is comprised of Mayor Pro-Tem Matsumoto and Councilmember Femekes, reviewed the
request favorably on March 20, 2003. The proposal was referred to the Parks and Recreation
Commission for public comment and evaluation on April 24, 2003. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward to City Council the recommendation that the request be approved.
The policy section of the Administrative Instruction on Naming includes athletic fields under the
definition of"Recreation Facilities and Amenities." The general policy is to name facilities in a
"manner that will provide an easy and recognizable reference for the city's customers," with
geographic location always a consideration. The field is located in Alta Loma Park, which
provides a recognizable reference to location. Because there are two fields in the park, the
adoption of a unique name for each field is actually a more specific identifier for users (versus
Field 1 and Field 2).
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 14, 2003
Subject: Naming of Baseball Field at Alta Loma Park
Page 2
In order for an individual to be considered for having a city facility named in their honor, three
conditions must be met:
The individual, the family, or a community organization has made exceptional contributions
to the city, including one or more of the following: a) financial gifts; b) public service as an
elected official; c) public service as a community volunteer; and d) long-term sponsorship
agreements.
2. There must be a well-defined connection associated with the contributions of the individual
or community organization and the city facility.
3. The significance of the contribution from the individual/organization needs to be evaluated in
terms of the service impact of the city facility.
In the information submitted with this request, some of the highlights include that Gus
Nicolopulos founded the Police Athletic League (P.A.L.) in 1958, soliciting contributions from
local businesses, as well as contributing his own time and money. He was directly involved with
the league for many years, including organizing an annual golf tournament to raise funds for
P.A.L. It is also noted that Mr. Nicolopulos served as a police officer, City Council member, and
Mayor, and as a member of many civic organizations. His dedication, generosity, and positive
influence on the community were also cited. Thirteen letters of support were submitted from the
following individuals: Emanuel Damonte, Chris Ramos, Jack Drago, Jim and Anne Allio, Ed and
Fran Simpson, Hal Panattoni, Michael Brosnan, Jim Lefty Noonan, Ray and Kathie Ming, Dick
Noftsger, Patrick Dunleavy, Donald Nelson, and Jeanette Acosta. Twenty-nine (29) individuals
signed a statement in support, with some overlap with those who wrote letters. A copy of the full
application is attached for your review.
It should be noted that Alta Loma Park is relatively new; hence Mr. Nicolopulos does not have an
association with that specific field. However, as in the case of Ermen Rozzi Field, the fact that
this field is used by the P.A.L., and many individuals who now use the field benefit from the past
contributions of Mr. Nicolopulos in developing the league, it seems reasonable that consideration
be given to naming the field in his honor.
If the request is approved by the full City Council, arrangements will be made for acknowledge-
ment: his name on a panel on the scoreboard, a plaque placed on a pedestal near the field, and a
dedication ceremony. This would be coordinated in the near future, possibly in conjunction with
the Pee Wee League's award ceremony that is tentatively scheduled for June 22, 2003, at Alta
Loma Park. The P.A.L. has generously offered to contribute $750 toward the cost of these items,
which is consistent with donations made in the past for Rozzi Field as well as Archie Fregosi
Field at Orange Memorial Park.
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 14, 2003
Subject: Naming of Baseball Field at Alta Loma Park
Page 3
Sharon Ranals
Director of Recreation and Community
Services
Approved: ~~~n~
Michael A Wil
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Letter from Robert J. Lorenzini (w/attachments)
3. Administrative Instruction Section I, No. 4, Naming of City Facilities
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION NAMING A BASEBALL FIELD AT ALTA LOMA
PARK IN HONOR OF THE LATE GUS NICOLOPULOS
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2003 Mr. Robert Lorenzini submitted a request with attached
letters of support requesting that one of the ball fields at Alta Loma Park be named in honor of Gus
Nicolopulos; and
WHEREAS, thirteen letters of support were submitted from individuals and twenty-nine
individuals signed a statement in support; and
WHEREAS, in the letters submitted it is highlighted that Mr. Nicolopulos served as apohce
officer, city council member, mayor, and as member of many civic organizations; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Nicolopulos's dedication, generosity, and positive influence on the
community was also cited.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council names a baseball field at Alta Loma Park in honor of the late Gus
Nicolopulos.
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 ., 2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
&\Current Reso's\5-12-03alta.loma.park.ball.field.res.doc
City Clerk
327 Camaritas Drive
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 583-1438
March 6, 2003
Park and Recreation Department
Atto: Park & Recreation Commissioners
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
I am submitting to you a request to name a baseball diamond preferably the diamond in
Alta Loma Park, next to Alta Loma School, in honor of Gus Nicolopulos.
Enclosed are letters and signatures of citizens of South San Francisco and people who
were residents, who saw the great work and effect that Gus Nicolopulos contributed to
our city to help the children of our city. He founded the Police Athletic League using
much of his time and money to insure its success. He cared for every child that wanted to
participate in athletics and wanted no child left out. One year, he came to me and said he
had a group of kids that were not able to get on a team and would I form a team ~om
them and manage them. He cared for all the children, not just the ones who were great
athletes.
I have lived in.South San Francisco since 1951 and in m3' opinion there is no one who has
contributed more to the children of our city than Sergeant Gus Nicolopulos.
Robert J. Loi6n?.ini
pc Mike Wilson, City Manager
The South San Francisco Recreation Department
33 Arroyo Ddve
South San Francisco, CA 94080
To Whom It May Concern:
Through the years, we have had parks and other city properties named after persons who were
influencial in the progress of our city. One person of note, was "Gus" Nicolopulos who served
our community as a police officer, a City Council Member, a Mayor, and a member of many civic
organizations. While serving as a police officer, Gus was the prime mover in the organizing and
operation of the South San Francisco Police Athletic League. He organized and coached many
boys' baseball teams for that same leagiJe.
In appreciation for the numerous good deeds and accomplishments attributed to Gus Nicolopulos
for the betterment of our city, it would be tiffing to title a city property in his name. Naming a
baseball field or a softball field after Gus would be most appropriate. A site that comes to mind
is the Alta Loma Park which has two baseball diamonds, one named for Ermen Rozzi and the
other which is unnamed. Ermen Rozzi was very active in Gus' creation, The PAL. What better
tribute could be given to Gus Nicolopulos and Ermen Rozzi than to have both diamonds named
after two of the men who created, organized, and operated the South San Francisco Police
Athletic League for so many years.
It is my hope, a person who has much affection and appreciation for Gus and his generous
giving to our community, that the South San Francisco Recreation Commission give serious
consideration to my request of naming the second baseball diamond at Alta Loma Park after
Gus Nicolopulos.
Thank you for your consideration.
Emanuel~e
SOUT:~ SA~,,~ FEANC£SCO
PARKS AND RECREA'2iON DE_rT.
MLS'~IC IPAL BUiLDiNG
33 ARROYO
SOUTH S. Y. CA.L 9~0~0
i ?~CULD 'L~K~ TO ADD Xv VOICm ~0 ~'-~ ~.~,,~ .~=,~ aRE ~OzEr~a THAT .~'~
HiS DE~ATi02{ $0' :<ZDS iS =~mm;-~,~ -- : .... ~-~ _ _ .
-~z.~,~ .~ .... ~z~ ~E.AGL~ E~' 4'~ ~j~ ''~'~ '~.~.~'~-~ ~,~ ~T~T?,RT ~_~
BASEBALL FOR BOYS BY AGE 'GROUP '
BO~ iNG
SEELS SOFTBALL
BOX iNG
ARCHERY
51AM RADIO OPERATIONS
AT THE END OF THE SEASON ~"~ wa ETq
A.,u :~:~ WOULD ~' "
~CbT ,~ -~ ...... FOR
PARTICIPANTS iN ALL PROGEAf,~S -,' ~ .... '-
. iN!=I.~ Ti~ DINNERS ~r~=~ AT
SCHOOL BUT BECAME SO LARGE Tn.~Y HAD TO 5i~VE THEM AT SOLVE m_~=~ z RANCioC~ HiGH
~.= ...... HELD LOS CERRiTO
SCHOOL. ~=' = -'~ ~ --
GUS ALSO INITIATED AN ACHiEVMENT AWARD
· u=_ THE v~r~mw .
~,~=~. OF SOLTTi~ SAN F~ANC
REWARDING THEM FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE CO]¥H'dL~T~y AS aN EXA~iFLE,
GRASSi ~L~KED PE' C'~ ...... ' ....
A m_ MiERi TC HiS JOB AS A 'w ~ ~-
V~ND~.x AT THE LINDEN A.;~ ~
EVERY DAY (M2 NIERi WAS BLIND) FOR m .... ' = ~ u,
' ' · -Hlo PEEWEE ~.ECIEVED AN AWARD,
iN ~TEE -z=~~'~ -rT:: Wn~:c=n ' "~-x .... __
.......... ~r_~:ii'~ RC.6~i ON ~-E PAL GC.~ '~'--~ ~, ~ ...... -'
~C T~ TIME OF HIS PASSING ON ~u~ WAS STILL iNVOLVED W-ITW PAL BOOSTERS
AS YOU CAN ~ -- ·
.- ~, THOUS~N~DS OF KIDS HAD T2~ GOOD ~ ~m~,-~
. C~.~b~= TO BE HELPED BY
SINCE ERMIN ROZZI ALREADY HAS A FIELD NAMED AFTER HIM WOC%D,NT IT BE FI~
TO JOiN ='
~HEm~ TWO O~STANDING CITIZENS TOG~T ...... AGAIN WITH ~mT,~,=Wm FIELDS
' ~'
ALTA LOMA PLAYGRO~D. '
67~ i~.iLLER _%V~
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94080
To whom it may concern
I, as well as many others, believe a ball
diamond in So.S.F. be named after Gus
Nicolopulos in recognition of his work with
the Police Athletic League.
Many youngsters may not have had the
chance to play the sport of baseball, had not
the PAL been established under Gus's
efforts.
Thank
you for your consideration
· -.,,~/J~ack Drago
Feb. 14, 2003
So. San Francisco Park & Recreation Dep~.
My ~fe & i are ~iting you, asking for your consideration
of Gus Nicopolus~ for any baseball park that is to be
dedicated in memory of a person who was outstanding of youth
sports in our city of So. San Francisco. Gus, as you know was
the founder of SSF PAL. Gus had the hope that all young people
could be involved in sports.
As there were no £unds available at this time~ Gus went to
our industri~l area and he did raise the money to start PAL.
This was the start of SSF PAL. PAL grew, and in !962 there were
!6 Baseball teams and 300 young people involved.
In 1962 the PAL membership, in what was to become an annual
drive~ canvased the city to raise funds. From that time on
SSF PAL was successful.
We can thank Gus for his devotion to ?~. There would be no
fitting person to dedicate a park to. Thank you f'or your more
consideration of this man.
Sincerely
To: Park & Rec. Dept.
Your being asked to do something that should have
been taken care of years ago and that's to name a
baseball diamond for Gus Nicolopulas.
Gus used a lot of his own time and money to start
the P.A.L. He put together four leagues: The PeeWees
(8X10) ~idgets (ll-12) 14 & under, & the Pony league.
~oney had to be raised for uniforms and baseball
equipment, which Gus took care of. You have to stop
an think just how many kids were able to play baseball
because of Gus.
I coached for many years for P.A.L. teams and found
it a great experience~working with the kids. I owe it
all to Gus for getting me into coaching.
Baseball season is just about here and we were
hoping to have your approval, so a diamond can be
named for Gus Nicolopulas before the season starts.
S inc erely,
Ed. & Fran. ~imPs~
56 Escanyo Dr.
So. S.F.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Police Athletic League
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco
CA 94080
February 28, 2003
Ms. Sharon Ranals
Director of SSF Parks and Recreation
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear M~, ~~-~
This letter is to advise you that the South San Francisco Police Athletic League (PAL)
fully endorses Mr. Lorenzini's efforts to get the second field at Alta Loma Park dedicated
in the name of Gus Nicolopulos.
Gus Nicolopulos started the SSF PAL in 1958 and his idea was to facilitate positive
relationships between police personnel and the youth of South San Francisco. Using the
game of baseball, this mission was accomplished. That idea grew into the PAL we have
today, which sponsors all types of activities for the youngsters of our city.
In closing, we believe that a baseball field memorializing the name of Gus Nicolopulos
would be a fitting way to recognize Gus (and his family) for all that he did for the City of
South San Francisco. In addition, the PAL would be willing to offset some of the
expenses as we did for the Archie Fregosi and Ermen Rossi field dedications.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael R. Brosnan
President, SSFPAL
"/1 Pal to Our Youth"
park and recreation feb. 20, 2003
department
My name is Jim (lefty) N°onan and i
resided in South San Francisco for 52
years and was a So.S.F. firefighter for 25
years. I coached Pal baseball in So.S.F.
for 14 years. I with others in baseball in
our town fully appreciated the sacrifice
and time that Gus Nicholopouls spent in
starting the Pal program. From Bob Brian
at South City High School to Lou Zuardo
at E1 Camino, both coaches at their
pr°'gp¢ctive schools always would remark
that ff ~t'weren t for SoS.F:r Pal' youth
leagues that odr c~ty' wouldn. .... t hav~: :One'
of the" be:st baseball pr°grames on the
peninsula,' ~It has. created many high.
school championships from both schools.
But the main benefit of the Pal league is
for the very young. 7 years and up to be
involved playing and getting along with
others and learning what team work will
accomplish in sports later on in life. I
think that is is only appropriate that a
baseball field be named in the honor of
GUs NicholOpolus, a devoted' public
'Ser~ant-and'a man that spent'timeless
hours` ~d"dedic~tion t° bring organized
~youth sports'to our city..resPectfully
'sUbmitted: jim (LefiY)$oojcn -
885 El Catnino Real · South San Francisco, California 94080-4409
Telephone: (650) 583-2510 · Fax: (650) 583-1833
FD-805
February 18, 2003
TO: South San Francisco Parks & Recreation Commissioners
I am in full support and agreement to name one of the parks in So. San Francisco,
preferably Alta Loma Park, after Gus Nicolopulos.
Gus served our community- in many and various ways, and was one of the founders of
the South San Francisco P.A.L. Boosters Club, of which I am the current treasurer.
Gus was dedicated, devoted, and commited to the youth of our community, and many
children benefited from his efforts.
I can't think of a more appropriate way to recognize him for his many contributions,
not only to the children of our community, but to the community as a whole.
Very truly yours,
Dick Noftsger I /
420 Briarwood Dr.
So. San Francisco, Cal. 94080-5827
February 20, 2003
Park & Recreation Department
33 Arroyo Dr.
So. San Francisco, Cal. 94080
Little League Baseball has been the glue that has held our cities
young people together with: Sportsmanship, Parental Participation and
uniting our community.
The first Little League Baseball in South San Francisco was
organized by the late Gus Nicolopulos. Mr. Nicolopulos deserves
recognition for his hard work and dedication to the youngsters that now
fill our parks. Please support a remembrance to a wonderful man who
left his mark on our city.
Sincerely,
Donald B. Nelson
Retired Battalion Fire Chief
South San Francisco
February 16, 2003 .
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to propose that a baseball field be dedicated in the memory of.Gus
Nicolopulos. ~
I-have been attending PAL Dinner Dances for many years ;and at everyciinner Gus
Nicolopulos is mentioned. They mention all his contributions to this wonderful organization and
how without Gus there WOuld not be an organization in place in South San Francisco. One story
in particular struck me as a perfect example of who Gus Nicolopulos was as,a person and how he
cared for our children, of this City.
Out of his.own pocket he had a.uniform made 'special for a youngster that was too big to
fit inthe donated uniforms. Without that uniform, the young-boy would.have been unable m play
the game of'baseball and Gus took it upon himself to make sure that would not happen.
I ,heard this story directly from the youngster Who has now grown up'to be one of our
businessmen. He has never forgot what Gus did for him. I'm sure he did many other generous
things for other people, but we will never know.
I had never heard this story before, and I have known Gus Nicolopulos formore than
fifty-five years and.to me this showed his true genuine personality. He never did-something to
get recognitiOn for himself or to make a name fOr himself. Gus was always concerned about
everyone else, especially'children. He knew .that if boys were.playing ball they would be busy
and off the streetsl He was a warm and generous person who sawthe good in everyone and
thought everyone deserved a chance..
I believe its about time that a field.is named for GusNicolopulos, -to show his
contributions didn't 'fall on deft ears. This process needs to be accomplished before all the fields
in South San.Francisco are taken by other dedications.
Thank you for your courtesy.and cooperation with regard :to this request. I hope you too
see the good in others.
Sincerely,
276 Country Club Drive
-South San Francisco, CA 94080
650-5§9~7874
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WOULD LIKE .THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TO NAME
A BASEBAL DIAMOND, PREFERABLY THE ALTA LOMA ~PARK DIAMOND NEXT TO ALTA LOMA
SCHOOL, IN HONOR OF GUS NICOLOPULOS. GUS WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE AND SPENT YEARS GIVING THE CHILD1LEN OF OUR
CITY A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ATHLETIC ADTIVITIES.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WOULD LIKE THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TO NAME
A BASEBAL DIAMOND, PREFERABLY THE ALTA LOMA PARK DIAMOND NEXT TO ALTA LOMA
SCHOOL, IN HONOR OF GUS NICOLOPULOS. GUS WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE AND SPENT YEARS GIVING THE CHILDREN OF OUR
CITY A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ATHLETIC ADTIVITIES.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WOULD LIKE THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO T0 NAME
A BASEBAL DIAMOND, PREFERABLY THE ALTA LOMA PARK DIAMOND NEXT TO ALTA LOMA
SCHOOL, IN HONOR OF GUS NICOLOPULOS. GUS WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE AND SPENT YEARS GIVING THE CHILDREN OF OUR
CITY A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ATHLETIC ADTIVITIESo
WE', THE UNDERSIGNED, WOULD LIKE THE CITY OF SOUTH SAlq FRANCISCO TO NAME
A BASEBAL DIAMOND, PREFERABLY THE ALTA LOMA PARK DIAMOND NEXT TO ALTA LOMA
SCHOOL, IN HONOR OF GUS NICOLOPULOS. GUS WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE SOUTH SAN ·
FRANCISCO POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE AND SPENT YEARS GIVING THE CHILDREN OF OUR
CITY A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ATHLETIC ADTIVITIES.
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
(ss0) 877-8s00
FAX (650) 829-6609
Effective: June 23, 1999
Naming of City Facilities
Administrative lm~ta-ucti0n
Sectm~ I
PURPOSE
To define the policies, responsibilities and procedures associated with the naming of City
facilities.
BACKGROUND
The City of South San Francisco has lacked a policy to guide staff and the City Council in the
naming of City facilities, including buildings, support facilities, park sims and recreation
facilities. As a result, City facilities have been named in honor of public officials, citizens, or in
association with geographic locations, without the benefit of a City Council approved policy to
guide the naming process. The development of a Policy/Procedure to guide the naming of City
facilities is intended to enable the process to be applied in a fair, objective and consistent manner.
DEFINITIONS
"Buildings" are City owned facilities that house employees or are otherwise used to conduct
City business. Buildings may include, but are not limited to, City Hall, the Municipal Services
Building and libraries.
"Support Facilities" are City owned facilities that are used to support field operations. Support
facilities may include, but are not limited to, the Corporation Yard and the Water Quality Control
Plant.
"Park Sites" are City owned parks, open space and trail areas. Park sites include developed and
undeveloped park areas and designated open space areas.
"Recreation Facilities and Amenities" are facilities/amenities used primarily for recreation and
leisure activities, including, but not limited to, athletic fields, tennis/basketball courts,
gymnasiums, recreation centers, meeting rooms and theatres.
Administration Instruction - Naming of City Facilities
Section I
No. 4
(Page 2)
POLICY
General. The policy of the City is to name facilities in a manner that will provide an easy and
recognizable reference for the City's customers. Therefore, naming options will always consider
a name based on the facihty's geographic location. However, the pohcy also establishes
conditions for the consideration ofnarning options based on other factors.
Geographic Location. Whenever possible, all City facilities will be named for their geographic
location. The geographic location may be based on the identification of the facility with a
specific place, neighborhood, major street, regional area of the City or the City itself if the
facility is deemed to serve the entire community or the Bay Area.
Other Considerations. Consideration of names for facilities may also include a prominent form
of topography, a prominent plant, bush or tree and historical precedent.
Individual/Organizational Recognition. The name of City facilities in honor of individuals or
community .organizations may be considered under the following conditions:
The individual, their family or a community organization has made exceptional
contributions to the City, including one or more of the following: a) financial gifts;
b) public service as an elected official; c) public service as a community volunteer; and
d) long term sponsorship agreements.
There must be a well defined connection associated with the contributions of the
individual or community organization and the City facility.
The significance of the contribution from the individual/organization needs to be
evaluated in terms of the service impact of the City facility. Individuals and
organizations that have made contributions of regional or community-wide significance
may be considered for name of facilities that serve the region or community. Individuals
and organizations that have made contributions of area or neighborhood-wide
significance may be considered for naming of facilities that serve areas or neighborhoods
within the City, including recreational facilities and amenities within City parks.
PROCEDURE
New Facilities. At least 180 days prior to opening a new City facility, the assigned City staff
will propose a name to the Council Committee on Policy Development and Internal Operations
for buildings and support facilities and the Council Committee on Recreation and Cultural
Affairs for park sites and recreation facilities. The appropriate Council Committee will provide a
recommendation for consideration by the City Council.
Administration Instruction - Naming of City Facilities
Section I
No. 4
(Page 3)
Following review by the appropriate Council Committee, the proposed name may be reviewed, if
necessary, by the Planning Commission or Parks and Recreation Commission. The appropriate
Commission will conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed name and provide a
recommendation for consideration by the City Council.
The recommendations of the appropriate Council Committee and Commission regarding the
proposed name will be summarized for consideration by the City Council. The City Council is
responsible for the final approval of the proposed name.
If a request to name a City facihty in honor of an individual or community organization is
received and there is no suitable facility at that time, the name(s) will be placed on a "wa/ting
list" until such time that a suitable facility is available for naming.
Street names for new developments will be subject to review and approval by the City Council at
the time the tentative subdivision map is adopted. Should a list of street names be established by
the City, staffwilt provide the applicant early indication of preferred names. It should be noted
that all street names must also be approved by Public Safety and the Post Office.
Existing Facilities. Requests to rename existing facilities will 'be received by the assigned staff,
investigated and summarized for review by the appropriate Council Committee within 90 days.
The appropriate Council Committee will provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Following review by the appropriate Council Committee, the proposed name for City facilities
other than existing park sites and recreation facilities/amenities may be reviewed, if necessary, by
the appropriate Commission. The renaming of an existing park site or recreation facility/amenity
must be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission through a public hearing prior to
consideration by the City Council.
The recommendations of the appropriate Council Committee and Commission regarding the
proposed name will be summarized for consideration by the City Council. The City Council is
responsible for the final approval of the proposed name.
Except in very unusual circumstances, there will be no renaming of existing streets.
City Manager
Dated: June 24, 1999