Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-06-26 e-packet
SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE JUNE 26, 2002 6:00 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 26th day of June, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Closed Session: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), existing litigation: Aetna Realty v. City of South San Francisco 5. Adjournment AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM JUNE 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO 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. EUGENE R. MULLIN Chairman PEDRO GONZALEZ Vice Chair RAYMOND L. GREEN Boardmember BEVERLY BONALANZA FORD Investment Officer MICHAEL A. WILSON Executive Director JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABI.E 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 the June 12, 2002 regular meeting 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of June 26, 2002 CLOSED SESSION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, real property negotiations related to 26 South Linden Avenue; negotiating party: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 AGENDA PAGE 2 REGULAR MEETING ADDENDUM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: Municipal Services Building WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. REVISED The following item is added to Item No. 3, Closed Session: o Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, real property negotiations related to 338-339 Railroad Avenue, 340-340A Railroad Avenue, 341-341A First Lane, and 294 Hillside Boulevard; negotiating party: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn City/~lerk O fficc of the City Clerk, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, (650) 877-8518 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM JUNE 26, 2002 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address 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 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 Pro Tem EUGENE R. MULLIN Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RAYMOND L. GREEN Councilman KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman 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 Proclamation - Recreation and Parks Month, July 2002; recipient: Parks & Recreation Commission Chair Janine Greenwald ArtShare Diamond Award - Cultural Arts Commissioner Gloria Lagomarsino · AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Community Forum · Subcommittee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of the June 12 regular meeting 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of June 26, 2002 3. Resolution approving the Mid-Year 2001-02 budget changes 4. Resolution approving implementation of the City Treasurer's Investment Policy 5. Resolution authorizing Amendment No. 8 to Professional Services Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Myers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson 6. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant in the amount of $1,000 from the California Council for the Humanities in Partnership with the California Center for the Book and the Califomia State Library for participating in the "California Stories: Reading The Grapes of Wrath" book and film discussion project 7. Resolution approving a utility relocation agreement between the City of South San Francisco and PG&E related to the Oyster Point Grade Separation Phases II & 8. Motion to accept the Hickey Boulevard-Hilton Avenue Intersection Widening and Traffic Signals Installation Project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 26, 2002 PAGE 2 Resolution awarding the contract to Bramic Creative Business Products Ltd. for new dispatcher workstations in the Police Department Communications Center in the amount of $120,000, and awarding construction support contract to Roebuck Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $25,000 PUBLIC HEARING 10. 11. Terrabay II and III - Consideration of Amendment to Precise Plan (PP-01-020) to allow a different unit mix, reduced height, width and length of Terrabay condominium mid- rise tower; residential units to remain the same as previously approved May 2001; Owner/Applicant: Myers Development Corp; motion to approve 90 Oak Avenue - Consideration of Rezoning (RZ-01-054) classification from Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential Zoning District (R-3-L); Zoning Amendment (ZA-01-054) to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density, to comply with the General Plan density standards; Density Bonus of 25% allowing three dwelling units to be restricted as affordable housing in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.130; Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City of South San Francisco restricting three of the dwellings as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.125; Design Review (DR-01-054) of a 15 unit apartment building situated at 90 Oak Avenue in the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District; and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-01-054); Owner: Spiros Kakoniktis; Applicant: Antonio Brandi; approve resolution; and waive reading and introduce ordinances to rezone from medium to high density residential, and amending Chapter 20.69 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Resolution approving the South San Francisco Conference Center FY 2002-03 budget 13. Approval of FY 2002-03 budget: a) Resolution approving the operating budget for the City of South San Francisco for FY 2002-03 and appropriating the corresponding funds b) Resolution approving the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for FY 2002- 03 c) Resolution approving classification descriptions, adjustments to salary schedules, and/or unit designations d) Motion to waive reading and introduce an ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 3.12 to implement Council-approved position title additions, deletions, and/or changes e) Resolution modifying certain section so of the master fee schedule for FY 2002-03 14. Resolution providing interim spending authority for the first 60 days of the fiscal year in the event the 2002-2003 budget is not approved on June 26, 2002 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 AGENDA PAGE 3 StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance ~ 2001-02 Midyear Financial Report--Budget Amendment Resolution RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution which adopts the midyear 2001-02 budget changes recommended in February 2002, together with more up to date year end estimates contained in Attachments A through D of this staff report. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In February 2002, staff proposed a contingency plan to deal with the current fiscal year's revenue shortfall. The February staff report is attached. That plan was necessitated by a projected revenue decline of $3.0 million in the General Fund. Staff reported that it would return to the Council with a budget amendment to formally adjust revenues and expenditures towards the end of the fiscal year after more revenue data had come in. As of the date of this report, revenue has been booked through the end of April and as staff's earlier projections still appear to be holding for the most part, only a few changes are being recommended at this time to the February 13, 2002 staff report. The major changes are: Reductions in Transient Occupancy Tax from $4.4 million to $4.1 million, as occupancy rates have continued at a lower amount for longer than staff expected in February. Additional departmental budget savings are projected over and above the amounts listed in the midyear report. Additional funds for litigation. The City Attorney reported to the City Council in May about costs related to ongoing litigation for the City of South San Francisco. A budget increase will therefore be needed to cover litigation totaling $680,000. City Council 2001-02Midyear Financial Repoa Budget Amendment June 26,2002 Page 2 of 2 The Police Department has obtained approval from the Bureau of Justice Assistance for $15,322 in grant funds for the purchase of bulletproof vests. The attached budget amendment therefore increases grant revenue, offset by vest purchases, in the Police Department. Other more minor revenue changes as shown in Attachment A-1. By: Jim S~ele Director of Finance Approved:~../~~f'J~ Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments: Budget Amendment Resolution Attachments A-1 and A-2 Projected Year End Operating Budget and Reserves Attachment B Operating Budget Savings Attachment C Capital Budget Savings Attachment D Budget Increases needed February 13, 2002 Staff Report RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MIDYEAR 2001-02 BI TI')CTF, T CI--IANC. F,$ RECOMMF, NI')F,D IN FFBRI TARY 9002 WHEREAS, on February 13, 2002 the City Council approved staff's budget · contingency plan to deal with a General Fund revenue shortfall, primarily in Transient Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax; and WHEREAS, more is now known about the revenue picture as the fiscal year end approaches; and WHEREAS, a formal budget amendment is needed to adjust revenues and expenditures to incorporate the midyear report recommendations plus additional changes, listed in Attachments A through D, attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco the City Council hereby approves the midyear 2001-02 budget changes contained in Attachments A through D, attached hereto. 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 ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: F:\file cabinet\Current Reso's\6-20mid.year.bud.amd.res.doc City Clerk Attachment A-1 _Projected Year End General Fund Operating Budget, 2001-02 Revenues and Other Financing Sources: Property Taxes Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees Other Revenue from Other Agencies Franchise Fees Business License Building Permits Charges for Services Fines Interest Rent Administrative Charges Other Transfers In Total Revenues: Prior Year Carryovers Total Financing Sources Adopted Amended Midyear Projected Year End 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 Year End 2000-01 Budget Budget Proiected Estimate 7,390,446 9,094,620 9,094,620 9,200,000 9,200,000 13,793,074 14,497,569 14,497,569 13,450,000 13,450,000 6,057,060 6,755,000 6,755,000 4,400,000 4,100,000 3,287,214 3,272,727 3,272,727 3,400,000 3,400,000 1,863,995 1,201,510 1,389,963 1,389,963 1,405,285 1,682,028 1,778,898 1,778,898 1,778,898 1,889,176 1,056,662 1,687,200 1,687,200 1,445,200 1,370,200 2,362,459 1,820,000 1,820,000 2,126,213 2,176,213 4,312,183 3,859,607 3,877,607 3,834,607 3,834,607 932,545 914,200 914,200 914,200 964,200 881,095 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 750,000 1,002,188 1,255,300 1,255,300 1,255,300 1,290,300 1,472,695 1,605,071 1,605,071 1,605,071 1,605,071 1,963,871 420,480 420,480 381,300 381,300 1,479,098 676,416 676,416 676,416 804,416 $49,536,613 $49,838,598 $50,045,051 $46,857,168 $46,620,769 $1,343,067 $1,343,067 $1,343,067 $49,536,613 $49,838,598 $51,388,118 $48,200,235 $47,963,836 Expenditures: Administration Economic & Comm. Dev. Fire Library Police Parks, Rec & Maint. Svcs. Public Works Additional Dept. Savings 5,312,986 5,972,505 6,209,074' 6,067,374 6,747,374 1,978,026 2,117,472 2,426,374 2,367,374 2,367,374 11,845,565 12,952,959 12,884,689 12,831,689 12,561,689 3,480,492 3,454,959 3,747,195 3,691,745 3,691,745 11,842,894 12,199,254 12,249,314 12,174,064 11,929,386 10,388,107 11,045,390 11,127,061 10,829,361 10,679,361 1,133,467 1,256,951 1,401,802 1,366,802 1,401,802 -250,000 3ubtotal, uperatmg Budget Expenditures: $45,981,537 $48,999,490 $50,045,509 $49,328,409 $49,128,731 Net Operating Budget Impact: $3,555,076 $839,t08__ $1,342,609 -$1,128,174 -$1,164,895 Attachment A-2 Projected Year End General Fund Reserves 2000-01 Adopted Projected Year End Budget Year End Actual 2001-02 2001-02 Net Operating Budget (from Table I): Less Transfers: Capital Projects Debt Service $3~5557076 $8397108 .$1 ~1647895 -$1,521,282 -$1,070,500 -$2,089,530 -$212,000_ -$212,000 Net Impact on General Fund Reserves: $2~0337794 -$443~392 -$3~466~425 General Fund Reserves Projection: 2000-01 Adopted Projected Year End Budget Year End Actual 2001-02 2001-02 Discretionary Reserves/ Reserves Available: Emergencies and Contingencies Undesignated Reserve Subtotal, Discretionary Reserves: $4,100,000 $4,000,000 $4 $3,258,974 $3,434,724 $7,358,974 $7,434,724 $7,874,45' II. Non-Discretionary Reserves/ Reserves Already Committed: Encumbrances Advances to Other Funds Inventory, Prepaid Expen. and Loans Receivable Closed Bond Funds Appropriated Capital Projects $1,343,067 $0 $5,5Ol,973 $6,o36,11o $5,2Ol,973 $98,297 $3,000 $98,297 $3o5,oo0 $2,338,834 $0 $0 Subtotal: Non Discretionary $9,282,171 $6,039,110 $5,605,27{3 Total General Fund Reserves: $16,641,146 $13,473,834 $13,479,721 Attachment B Projected Operating Budget Savings, FY 2001-02 Finance Clerk Mgr./Council/Non dept. HR ECD Police Fire PW Parks/Rec/Maint. Services Library IT Total Savings $ $ $ $ $ 37,000 3,200 83,000 3,500 59,000 75,250 260,000 53,000 270,000 35,000 $ 297,700 $ 150,000 $ 55,450 $ 15,000 $ 1,397,100 Capital Budget Savings: Total $ 1,441,108 $ 2,838,208 Deferral of studies, vacancy Misc. Trimming Trimming Trimming Vacancy; trimming Delay purchase of "Live Scan", automated fingerprinting system; delay hire of new parking officer. Additional vacancies Misc. Trimming Additional vacancies Trimming Vacancies, delay of purchase of new key system; trim back to last year's levels for street and park materials Additional savings Trimming Trimming (See Attachment C) Attachment C Projected Capital Budget Savings Reductions: Close out Project 0015, Hilton Site Remediation, except leave a balance of $100,000 for future work. Close out remaining balances for 2 completed projects: 0109 Magnolia Center 0108 Siebecker Shift General Fund portion of funding for the Orange Park Sculpture Garden to Park Dedication Fees. $610,000 $58,186 $4,322 $25,000 Close out all by $10,000 in Rails to Trails project Shift funding for Westborough Portables from General Fund to Developer Fees Portable Classroom exits, close out all by $10,000 (to be done by in house staff at cost savings) Change funding for Finance/HR System: 10% to Sewer Fund 5% to RDA funds ANIP Solid Waste Fund Shift some Funding for Police Dept Interior Modifications to Communications Fund (0113) Savings in Fiberoptic Network (#0122) Sidewalk Replacement Program (#0204), close Bud Burl Play Area (0029)--close, finished Spruce Learning Center Furnishings (#0106) Close, finished Terrabay Emergency Transfer Switch (#0110) Close Various Green Spots--leave $10,000 (#0116) Emergency Generator Replacement--close (#0224) $21,600 $25,000 $38,000 $35,000 $17,500 $15,000 $20,000 $80,000 $15,000 $25,000 $78,000 $18,000 $20,000 $24,000 $49,OOO Net Savings to GF Transfer to CIP fund: $1,441,108 StaffReport DATE: June 26, 2002 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Finance SUBJECT: 2001-02 Midyear Financial Report--Budget Amendment Resolution RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution which adopts the midyear 2001-02 budget changes recommended in February 2002, together with more up to date year end estimates contained in Attachments A through D of this staff report. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In February 2002, staff proposed a contingency plan to deal with the current fiscal year's revenue shortfall. The February staff report is attached. That plan was necessitated by a projected revenue decline of $3.0 million in the General Fund. Staff reported that it would return to the Council with a budget amendment to formally adjust revenues and expenditures towards the end of the fiscal year after more revenue data had come in. As of the date of this report, revenue has been booked through the end of April and as staff's earlier projections still appear to be holding for the most part, only a few changes are being recommended at this time to the February 13, 2002 staff report. The major changes are: Reductions in Transient Occupancy Tax from $4.4 million to $4.1 million, as occupancy rates have continued at a lower amount for longer than staff expected in February. Additional departmental budget savings are projected over and above the amounts listed in the midyear report. Additional funds for litigation. The City Attorney reported to the City Council in May about costs related to ongoing litigation for the City of South San Francisco. A budget increase will therefore be needed to cover litigation totaling $680,000. City Council 2001-02Midyear Financial Repo~ Budget Amendment June 26,2002 Page 2 of 2 The Police Department has obtained approval from the Bureau of Justice Assistance for $15,322 in grant funds for the purchase of bulletproof vests. The attached budget amendment therefore increases grant revenue, offset by vest purchases, in the Police Department. Other more minor revenue changes as shown in Attachment A-1. By: Director of Finance Approved:,~_ _/,,~'~ t~'~ Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments: Budget Amendment Resolution Attachments A-1 and A-2 Projected Year End Operating Budget and Reserves Attachment B Operating Budget Savings Attachment C Capital Budget Savings Attachment D Budget Increases needed February 13, 2002 Staff Report RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIl., CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MIDYEAR 2001-02 BI IDC. F,'F CHANCTF, S RF, COMMF, NDF, D IN FFBRI IARY ~005~ WHEREAS, on February 13, 2002 the City Council approved staff's budget -contingency plan to deal with a General Fund revenue shortfall, primarily in Transient Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax; and WHEREAS, more is now known about the revenue picture as the fiscal year end approaches; and WHEREAS, a formal budget amendment is needed to adjust revenues and expenditures to incorporate the midyear report recommendations plus additional changes, listed in Attachments A through D, attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco the City Council hereby approves the midYear 2001-02 budget changes contained in Attachments A through D, attached hereto. 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 ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: F:\file cabinet\Current Reso's\6-20mid.year.bud.amd.res.doc City Clerk Attachment A-1 Projected Year End General Revenues and Other Financing Sources: Property Taxes Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees Other Revenue from Other Agencies Franchise Fees Business License Building Permits Charges for Services Fines Interest Rent Administrative Charges Other Transfers In Total Revenues: Fund Operating Budget, 2001-02 Adopted Amended Midyear Projected Year End 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 Year End 2000-01 Bud.qet Bud.qet Proiected Estimate 7,390,446 9,094,620 9,094,620 9,200,000 9,200,000 13,793,074 14,497,569 14,497,569 13,450,000 13,450,000 6,057,060 6,755,000 6,755,000 4,400,000 4,100,000 3,287,214 3,272,727 3,272,727 3,400,000 3,400,000 1,863,995 1,201,510 1,389,963 1,389,963 1,405,285 1,682,028 1,778,898 1,778,898 1,778,898 1,889,176 1,056,662 1,687,200 1,687,200 1,445,200 1,370,200 2,362,459 1,820,000 1,820,000 2,126,213 2,176,213 4,312,183 3,859,607 3,877,607 3,834,607 3,834,607 932,545 914,200 914,200 914,200 964,200 881,095 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 750,000 1,002,188 1,255,300 1,255,300 1,255,300 1,290,300 1,472,695 1,605,071 1,605,071 1,605,071 1,605,071 1,963,871 420,480 420,480 381,300 381,300 1,479,098 676,416 676,416 676,416 804,416 $49,536,613 $49,838,598 $50,045,051 $46,857,168 $46,620,769 Prior Year Carryovers Total Financing Sources $49,536,613 $49,838,598 $1,343,067 $1,343,067 $1,343,067 $51,388,118 $48,200,235 $47,963,836 Expenditures: Administration Economic & Comm. Dev. Fire Library Police Parks, Rec & Maint. Svcs. Public Works Additional Dept. Savings 5,312,986 5,972,505 6,209,074~ 6,067,374 6,747,374 1,978,026 2,117,472 2,426,374 2,367,374 2,367,374 11,845,565 12,952,959 12,884,689 12,831,689 12,561,689 3,480,492 3,454,959 3,747,195 3,691,745 3,691,745 11,842,894 12,199,254 12,249,314 12,174,064 11,929,386 10,388,107 11,045,390 11,127,061 10,829,361 10,679,361 1,133,467 1,256,951 1,401,802 1,366,802 1,401,802 -250,000 ~Subtotal, uperatlng Budget Expenditures: $45,981,537 $48,999,490 $50,045,509 $49,328,409 $49,t 28,731 Net Operating Budget Impact: $3,555,076 $839,108 $1,342,609 -$1,128,174 -$1,164,89~ Attachment A-2 Projected Year End General Fund Reserves Net Operating Budget (from Table I): Less Transfers: Capital Projects Debt Service Net Impact on General Fund Reserves: 2000-01 Adopted Projected Year End Budget Year End Actual 2001-02 2001-02 $3,555,076 $839,108 -$1 ~164,895 -$1,521,282 -$1,070,500 -$2,089,530 -$212~000 -$212,000 $2,033,794. .$443~392 -$3~466~425 General Fund Reserves Projection: I. Discretionary Reserves/ Reserves Available: Emergencies and Contingencies Undesignated Reserve Subtotal, Discretionary Reserves: I1. Non-Discretionary Reserves/ Reserves Already Committed: Encumbrances Advances to Other Funds Inventory, Prepaid Expert. and Loans Receivable Closed Bond Funds Appropriated Capital Projects Subtotal: Non Discretionary 2000-01 Adopted Projected Year End Budget Year End Actual 2001-02 2001-02 $4,100,000 $4,000,000 $4,200,000 $3,258,974 ~;3,434i724 $3'674,451 $7,358,974 $7,434,724 $7,874,451 $1,343,067 SC $5,501,973 $6,036,110 $5,201,973 $98,297 $3,000 $98,297 $305,000 $2,338,834 $0 $0 $9,282,171 $6,039,110 $5,605,27C Total General Fund Reserves: $16,641,146 $13,473,834 $13,479,721 Attachment B Projected Operating Budget Savings, FY 2001-02 Finance $ 37,000 Clerk $ 3,200 Mgr./Council/Non dept. $ 83,000 HR $ 3,500 ECD $ 59,000 Police $ $ Fire $ $ PW 75,250 260,000 53,000 270,000 35,000 Parks/Rec/Maint. Services $ $ Library $ IT $ 297,7OO 150,000 55,450 15,000 Total Savings $ 1,397,100 Capital Budget Savings: Total $ 1,441,108 $ 2,838,2O8 Deferral of studies, vacancy Misc. Trimming Trimming Trimming Vacancy; trimming Delay purchase of "Live Scan", automated fingerprinting system; delay hire of new parking officer. Additional vacancies Misc. Trimming Additional vacancies Trimming Vacancies, delay of purchase of new key system; trim back to last year's levels for street and park materials Additional savings Trimming Trimming (See Attachment C) Attachment C Projected Capital Budget Savings Reductions: Close out Project 0015, Hilton Site Remediation, except leave a balance of $100,000 for future work. Close out remaining balances for 2 completed projects: 0109 Magnolia Center 0108 Siebecker Shift General Fund portion of funding for the Orange Park Sculpture Garden to Park Dedication Fees. $610,000 $58,186 $4,322 $25,000 Close out all by $10,000 in Rails to Trails project Shift funding for Westborough Portables from General Fund to Developer Fees Portable Classroom exits, close out all by $10,000 (to be done by in house staff at cost savings) Change funding for Finance/HR System: 10% to Sewer Fund 5% to RDA funds ANIP Solid Waste Fund Shift some Funding for Police Dept Interior Modifications to Communications Fund (0113) Savings in Fiberoptic Network (#0122) Sidewalk Replacement Program (#0204), close Bud Burl Play Area (0029)--close, finished Spruce Learning Center Furnishings (#0106) Close, finished Terrabay Emergency Transfer Switch (#0110) Close Various Green Spots--leave $10,000 (#0116) Emergency Generator Replacement--close (#0224) $21,600 $25,000 $38,000 $35,000 $17,500 $15,000 $20,000 $80,000 $15,000 $25,000 $78,000 $18,000 $20,000 $24,000 $49,000 Net Savings to GF Transfer to CIP fund: $'1,441,108 Attachment D: Budget Increases Needed: City Attorney, Litigation expenses: $ 680,000 Police, grant funded expenses: $ 15,322 { Sta DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 13, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance 200 !-02 Midyear Financial Report RECOMMENDATION:. It is recommended that the City Council review and approve staff's budget contingency plan to deal with this year's revenue shortfall. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In October 2001, staff reported to Council that the current economic downturn would likely result in a $2.4 million decline in General Fund revenues, compared to the adopted budget for 2001-02. Staff also reported that a contingency plan was being developed to deal with that revenue decline. That contingency plan was to consist of operating and capital budget savings. Since October, the City Manager and Finance Director have held numerous meetings with department heads to fully develop a contingency plan. Staff has also conferred with the Conference Center Director and the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau Director regarding trends in the travel industry. Finally, staff has continued to monitor economic reports and revenue data. Since October three additional months of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) data has become available. A more definitive view of the current budget can now be presented to Council, as well as a concrete budget contingency plan. Summary Of Economic Condition The local, State, and national economies are now in an economic downturn, and have been since spring 2001. The Bay Area economy has been particularly hard hit due to declining high tech exports, business investment in high technology, and also due to the over-investment in dot corn industries and the subsequent collapse of those companies. Most economists continue to Reserved for Inventory: need of short to medium term "loans," if you will, or for "start up" funding. Most of the balance in this fund is due to prior advances made for capital work in the Shearwater Redevelopment area, primarily Oyster Point widening costs. $0.1 million This reserve reflects supply items purchased, but not yet charged to departments at year-end. Reserved for Encumbrances: Appropriated Capital Projects: This reserve reflects the total of operating budget purchase orders outstanding at the end of one fiscal year that are then carried forward to the next fiscal year. By reserving for: them, they are funded for in the fiscal year in which the commitment is made, and not out of current revenues. To be conservative, this report assumes all purchase orders will be spent this year, meaning no encumbrances would be carried forward to next year. To the extent there are carry forwards into next year, department operating budget savings will offset the encumbrances carried forward, meaning there will be no net impact on the General Fund Undesignated Reserve from what is projected in this report. This reserve reflects the total appropriation for prior years' capital projects that are the obligation of the General Fund at fiscal year end. As in the Reserve for Encumbrances, by reserving for them at year- end, they are in effect funded in the year in which the appropriation is made, not out of current year revenues. Also as in the Reserve for Encumbrances, to be conservative, this report assumes all capital projects will be spent this year, meaning no balances would be carried forward to next year. To the extent there are unspent capital projects carried forward into next year, budget savings in the "Transfers to Capital Projects" at the Top of Table II will offset the carry forward balances, meaning there will be no net impact on the General Fund Undesignated from what is projected in this report. Table III GATEWAY PROJECT AREA (52) Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance REVENUES Adopted Amended Projected Actual Budget Actual Adopted Budget Year End 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 Gross Tax Increment 2,625,544 3,375,000 3,812,138 4,338,496 4,338,496 4,926,926 Interest 701,093 701,093 712,713 600,000 600,000 600,000 Misc. Revenue 7,000 396,389 7,000 7,000 7,000 Total Revenues 3,326,637 4,083,093 4,921,240 4,945,496 4,945,496 5,533,926 EXPENDITURES Program Expenditures Transfers Out - Debt Service Transfers Out - Low Mod Housing Transfers Out - CIP Bond Retirement Account Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues over Expenditures 75,705 1,224,081 76,769 188,108 188,108 188,108 1,286,350 1,429,933 1,429,933 1,724,675 1,724,675 1,724,675 525,109 675,000 762,428 867,699 867,699 985,385 2,169,000 2,830,000 2,830,000 2,830,000 2,165,014 3,868,640 4,339,384 4,056,164 3,329,014 2,269,130 7,775,496 9,479,122 10,067,552 (729,527) 754,079 2,652,110 (2,830,000) * (4,533,626) (4,533,626) Fund Balance, End of Year 15,714,126 18,366,236 13,832,610 13,832,610 Bond Funds, End of Year 9,754,194 10,446,227 8,190,769 8,190,769 All Other Reserved Funds Unreserved / Undesignated Fund Balance, End of Year 5,519,413 5,689,789 440,519 2,230,220 5,641,841 5,641,841 (o) * For the Gateway Project Area, the excess of expenditures over revenues reflects a draw-down on the 1999 Gateway RDA Bond proceeds. Table IV SHEARWATER PROJECT AREA (53) Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance Adopted Amended Projected Actual Budget Actual Adopted Budget Year End 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001 °02 2001-02 REVENUES Gross Tax Increment Interest & Misc. Revenue Total Revenues 428,456 562,500 817,415 991,205 991,205 6,022 26,051 - 434,478 562,500 843,466. , 991,205 991,205 1,019,035 1,019,035 EXPENDITURES Program Expenditures Transfers Out - Low Mod Housing Transfers Out - ClP Advance Repayment / Interest Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues over Expenditures Fund Balance, End of Year 161,177 187,086 178,614 204,487 204,487 204,487 85,691 112,500 163,483 198,241 198,241 203,807 1,528,706 63,193 100,000 346,758 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,838,767. 399,586. 688,855 702,728 702,728 (1,404,289) 162,914 154,611 288,477 288,477 (3,501,973/ (3,347,362) (3,058,885.) 708,294 310,741 (3,036,621) All Reserved Funds Unreserved / Undesignated Fund Balance, End of Year 4,427 1,695 1,695 {3,506,400) 13,349,057) {3,060,580) 1,695 {3,038,316,,) Note: Shearwater has begun to generate a net surplus and can begin to pay back the General Fund for the advances made over the last several years. Table V DOWNTOWN / CENTRAL PROJECT AREA (54) Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance REVENUES Gross Tax Increment Interest Misc. Revenue / Rent HUD Loan Proceeds Proceeds from Land Sale Reduction for Genentech Appeal Realization of Britannia Payment Total Revenues Adopted Amended Actual Budget Actual Adopted Budget 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2,757,774 3,500,000 3,325,599 4,077,290 431,774 150,000 348,121 100,000 108,921 90,000 442,946 181,300 500,000 750,000 635,000 2,000,000 (1,463,006)(1) 4,077,290 457,513 181,300 (100,000) 4,550,819 Projected Year End 2001-02 6,748,414 457,513 181,300 (lOO,OOO) 4,550,819 3,798,469 3,740,000 4,038,659, 6,358,590 9,166,922 11,838,046 EXPENDITURES Program Expenditures Transfers Out - Debt Service ransfers Out - Low Mod Housing Transfers Out - CIP Pass Through Agreements Land Purchase Reserved for Property Tax Appeal Advance Repayment / Interest Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues over Expenditures 2,155,508 3,189,599 777,105 873,592 551,555 700,000 954,378 50,000 1,505,232 2,460,119 2,460,119 2,460,119 751,285 873,020 873,020 873,020 665,120 815,458 815,458 1,349,683 1,151,053 3,025,000 3,918,935 3,918,935 271,901 297,612 297,612 323,837 6,466,902 (3) 2,300,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,438,546 4,813,191 10,811,493 9,771,209 9,365,144 (640,077) (1,073,191)(6,772,834)(2)(3,412,619 (198,222) 9,925,594 1,912,452 Fund Balance, End of Year 9,069,407 2,296,573 2,098,351 4,209,025 Bond Funds, End of Year 7,111,698 6,500,230 1,963,808 1,963,808 All Other Reserved Funds Unreserved / Undesignated Fund Balance, End of Year 3,164,418 1,880,846 1,206,709) {6,084,503) 1,880,846 1,880,846 (1,746,303) 364,372 Notes for Downtown: (1) One time reduction for Genentech appeal. (2) For the Downtown Project Area, the excess of expenditures over revenues reflects a draw-down on the 1997 Downtown RDA Bond proceeds. (3) Actual expenditures include land acquisition purchases that Britannia had paid for, but which the City oWned title as of 6/30/00. Land Acquired: Paid by Britannia 212 Baden (Giorgi) 124 Linden (Parking Lot 9 B) 201 Grand Ave (Copa Cabana) Total $4,550,819 942,083 410,000 564,000 $6,466,902 Table VI EL CAMINO CORRIDOR PROJECT AREA (55) Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance REVENUES Gross Tax Increment Interest & Misc Revenue Adopted Amended Projected Actual Budget Actual Adopted Budget Year End 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 301,036 375,000 666,817 789,307 789,307 1,954 2,000 2,561 1,409,024 Total Revenues 302,990 377,000 669,378 789,307 789,307 1,409,024 EXPENDITURES Program Expenditures Transfers Out - Low Mod Housing Transfers Out - CIP Pass Through Agreements Advance Repayment / Interest Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues over Expenditures 305,889 428,610 113,634 341,734 341,734 60,207 75,000 157,861 157,861 22,474 200,000 42,219 15,000 296,324 292,989 295,000 295,000 31,720 50,000 84,105 420,290 753,610 532,947 809,595 1,090,919 (117,300) (376,610) 136,431 (20,288) (301,612) (1) 341,734 281,805 296,324 328,172 1,248,035 160,989 Fund Balance, End of Year (1,099,285) (962,854) (1,264,466) (801,865) All Reserved Funds Unreserved / Undesignated Fund Balance, End of Year 51,862 807,642 807,642 (1,151,147) (1,770,496) (2,072,108) 807,642 (1,609,507) Table VII LOW & MODERATE HOUSING (56) Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance REVENUES Adopted Amended Projected Actual Budget Actual Adopted Budget Year End 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 Transfers In - 20% Housing 1,222,562 1,562,500 1,391,983 2,039,259 2,039,259 2,820,680 Interest 394,588 200,000 561,467 350,000 350,000 350,000 Misc. Revenue / Rent 393,100 70,000 298,792 70,000 70,000 70,000 Total Revenues 2,010,250 1,832,500 2,252,242 2,459,259 2,459,259 3,240,680 EXPENDITURES Program Expenditures Transfers Out o Debt Service Land Purchase Total Expenditures 'Txcess of Revenues over Expenditures 269,801 2,431,351 1,501 867,473 1,716,127 1,716,127 164,550 293,788 587,016 294,179 294,179 294,179 133,576 2,700,000 434,351 2,725,139 722,093 3,861,652 2,010,306 2,010,306 1,575,899 (892,639) 1,530,149 (1,402,393) 448,953 1,230,374 Fund Balance, End of Year 12,455,887 13,986,036 14,434,989 15,216,410 Bond Funds, End of Year Less: Loan Commitments to Bridge / Mid Peninsula Loans Receivable All Other Reserved Funds Unreserved / Undesignated Fund Balance, End of Year 3,389,335 101,114 101,114 101,114 3,389,335 5,241,445 4,299,667 4,299,667 110,665 4,277,726 6,977,726 6,977,726 3,412,382 274,457 282,691 282,691 2,154,170 4,091,294 2,773,791 3,555,212 { Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Treasurer INVESTMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution implementing the City Treasurer's Investment Policy per SB564, Chapter 783 of the Government Code of the State of California. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION The City Treasurer is required to bring the City's Investment Policy to the City Council annually as a result of State legislation enacted in 1996. The investment policy follows the recommended format set down by the California Municipal Treasurers' Association. The primary concept used in this policy is the "Prudent Person Rule" which applies prudence, discretion, and intelligence towards the management of City funds. The objective of this policy, which is more commonly known as "SLY", is to maintain Safety, Liquidity and Yield. q3~eeverly - h~a-Ford City TreaB~r~r ~) Attachments: Resolution Investment Policy Investment Report RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY TREASURER'S INVESTMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the City desires to implement the City Treasurer's Investment Policy pursuant to SB564, Chapter 783 of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the investment policy is consistent with the recommended format developed by the California Municipal Treasurers' Association. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco the City Council hereby approves the implementation of City Treasurer's Investment Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 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 ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk F:\filc cabinet\Current Reso's\6-20investment.res.doc Exhibit A CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY INTRODUCTION: The following statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's temporary idle cash and to outline the policies for an effective cash management system. The City's cash management system accurately monitors and forecasts revenues and expenditures enabling the City to invest funds to the fullest extent possible. The City Treasurer attempts to obtain the highest yield possible as long as investments meet the criteria established for safety and liquidity. The investment policies and practices of the Treasurer of the City of South San Francisco are based upon federal, state, and local laws as well as prudent money management. The primary objectives of these policies are: To assure compliance with all federal, state, and local laws governing the investment of monies. To protec-t the monies of the City. To generate the maximum amount of investment income within the parameters of this statement of investment policy. TREASURER'S INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES: SAFETY OF PRINCIPAL is the foremost objective of the Treasurer of the City of South San Francisco. The Treasurer shall seek to ensure that capital losses are avoided with each investment transaction. LIQUIDITY is the second most important objective of the Treasurer of the City of South San Francisco. It is important that a portion of the portfolio contain investments which can be easily liquidated with minimal or no risk to principal and/or interest. YIELD is the interest earned by the City Treasurer on monies invested. The City's fund shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return through various economic cycles. The market-average rate of return is defined as the average return on three-month U.S. treasury bills. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS: The city operates its cash investments under the "Prudent Person Rule" which is ... "aninvestment standard stating that a trustee who is investing for another should behave. in the same way as a prudent individual of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital." This affords the City a wide range of investment opportunities as long as the investment is deemed prudent and is allowable under current state legislation. The City is governed by the California Government Code, Section 53600 et. seq. Within the context of these limitations, the following investments are authorized: U.S. TREASURY SECURITIES for which the faith and credit of the U.S. government are pledged for the payment of principal and interest; FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES such as obligations issued by banks, federal intermediate credit banks, federal home loan banks, the TVA, or in obligations, participations, or other instruments of, or issued by, or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the Federal National Mortgage Association. BANKER ACCEPTANCES are bills of exchange or time drafts drawn on and accepted by a commercial ba..nk_.which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. There is a time limit (270 days)-afid a 40% limit of surplus money which may be invested in bankers acceptances by municipalities. COMMERCIAL PAPER must be of prime quality of the highest rating. Eligible paper is limited to corporations organized and operating within the U.S. and having total assets of at least $500,000,000. There are also limitations as to the percent (15%) of portfolio and time of investment (180 days). CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT are not really considered investments in the true sense of the word. They allow the City Treasurer to select the exact amount, the day of maturity, as well as the exact depository. (There are penalties for withdrawal of funds prior to the original maturity date.) REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS allow a purchase of securities by a local agency; by agreement, the seller will repurchase the securities on or before a specified date and for a specified amount. THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND is a pooled fund managed by the state treasurer whose permitted investments are identified in the government code. L.A.I.F. provides for deposits up to a maximum of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). L.A.I.F. offers high liquidity as deposits and withdrawals can be wired to and from South San Francisco on the same day provided the request is made before 10:00 A.M. 2 THE SAN MATEO COUNTY INVESTMENT FUND established for the benefit of local agencies is a pooled fund managed by the San Mateo County Treasurer. Various county monies due local agencies are deposited in the fund rather than forwarded to the local agencies in check form. MUTUAL FUNDS are authorized investments allowing the City to maintain liquidity and receive money market rates. MEDIUM-TERM NOTES issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Notes eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service. Purchases of medium-term notes may not exceed 30 percent of the agency's surplus money which may be invested pursuant to this section. DEPOSITORY SERVICES Monies must be deposited in state or national banks, state or federal savings and loan associations, or state or federal credit unions in the state of California. The monies may be in inactive deposits, active deposits, or interest-bearing active deposits. The deposits in any institution cannot exceed the amount of the bank's or savings and loan's paid up capital and surplus. The bank or savings a'~d loan must s~odre the active and inactive deposits with eligible government securities having a market value of at least 110% of the total amount of the deposits. The Treasurer may at her discretion waive security for that portion of a deposit that is insured pursuant to federal law. Currently, the first $100,000 of a deposit is federally insured. It is to the City's advantage to waive this collateral requirement for the first $100,000 because the City then receives a higher interest rate on the total investment. QUALIFIED DEALERS AND INSTRUCTIONS The City shall transact business only with banks, savings and loans, and registered investment securities dealers. The purchase by the City Treasurer of any investments other than those purchased from the issuer shall be purchased from an institution licensed by the state as a broker-dealer, a national or state-chartered bank, a federal or state association, or a brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank. The City Treasurer shall investigate all institutions who wish to do business with the City in order to determine if they are adequately capitalized, make markets in securities aPpropriate to the City's needs, and agree to abide by the conditions set forth in the investment policy of the City of South San Francisco. SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES To protect against potential losses caused by the collapse of individual securities dealers, all securities owned by the City, except securities used as cotlateral for repurchase agreements, shall be kept in safekeeping by a trust department or a third party bank acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and by the City. INTERNAL CONTROLS The City Treasurer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the entity are protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The internal control of the structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: 1. The cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived. 2. The valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. Accordingly, the Director of Finance shall establish a process for an annual independent review by an external auditor to assure compliance with policies and procedures. REPORTING The Treasurer shall present to the City Council a (yearly, quarterly, or momhly) report showing the types of investments, institutions of investment, dates of maturity, amounts of deposit, current market value for all securities with a maturity of more than twelve months, rates of interest, and such data as may be required by the City Council. The State of California will be supplied with yearly reports per the State Code. POLICY REVIEW This investment policy shall be reviewed annually to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of safety of principal, liquidity, and yield. The policy should also, be relevant to current law, financial and economic trends, and should meet the needs of the City of South San Francisco. BeVerly B-~nal~nza-Ford ff . City Treasurer, South San Francisco 4 Staff Report Date: June 26, 2002 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: City Manager and City Attorney Subject: Amendment to Contract with Meyers-Nave for City Attorney Services Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement between Meyers-Nave and the City of South San Francisco for City Attorney services. Analysis: The proposed amendment modifies the compensation terms of the agreement between the City and Meyers-Nave to reflect the amounts included in the proposed Operating Budget for fiscal year 2002- 2003. Specifically, the retainer amount has been increased by five percent from $32,000 per month to $33,600 per month. This retainer amount covers all basic services under the contract, which includes all legal work performed for the City except litigation, redevelopment legal services in excess of 303 hours per year, and cost recovery matters performed on behalf of developers. This increase results in an average hourly rate of $130 per hour assuming 225 hours per month of legal services plus 25 hours per month of redevelopment services at an effective rate of $165 per hour. The secretarial component cost and direct costs would increase by five percent from $2,129.83 per month to $2,236.32 per month. There are no other changes proposed to the contract. Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER AND WILSON WHEREAS, the City and Meyers-Nave entered into a professional services agreement in March 1994; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend said agreement to modify the compensation provided to Meyers-Nave consistent with the recently approved budget; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: Approve Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; Authorizes the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City Amendment No. 8. 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 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 182936-1 EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT NO. :/--__STO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER AND WILSON The City of South San Francisco and Meyers-Nave do hereby agree as follows: 1. Section 4 "Compensation - Basic Services" is hereby amended to read as follows: "City shall compensate Law Firm for all Basic Services described in Section 1 hereof Thirty-TwoThree Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($32,00033,600) per month effective July 1, 2001. In addition to Basic Services compensation, Law Firm shall also be paid for cost recovery matters involving major developments at the rate of $200 per hour for shareholders and "Of Counsel" attorneys, $150 per hour for junior associates and $175 per hour for senior associates with the City's costs reimbursed by the development applicant. For purposes of this section a "major development" is one where more than 20 residential units are proposed or where more than 10,000 square feet of commercial, retail or industrial development is proposed. In addition to the Basic Services compensation, Law Firm shall also be reimbursed up to $25,55826,835 on an annual basis for secretarial services provided in the South San Francisco City Attorney's office and for photocopy costs incurred at the Law Firm's San Leandro office. City shall also reimburse Law Firm for the actual costs paid by Law Firm for Westlaw and Lexus computer research services, messenger services and document requests. In addition to the Basic Services, for redevelopment related legal services in excess of 303 hours during any City fiscal year, Law Firm shall be paid $165 per hour for attorneys and $85 per hour for paralegal services." Except as expressly provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Professional Services Agreement between the City and Meyers-Nave shall remain in full force and effect for the term of this Agreement. 182943-1 Date: City of South San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California By: Michael A. Wilson, City Manager Attest: Sylvia Payne, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson Special Counsel By:. Steven T. Mattas, Shareholder 182943-1 StaffReport DATE: June 26, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Library Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT A $1,000 GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR THE HUMANITIES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR THE BOOK AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE "CALIFORNIA STORIES: READING THE GRAPES OF WRA TH" BOOK AND FILM DISCUSSION PROJECT. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution to accept $1,000 to fund the California Stories: Reading the Grapes of Wrath project and amend the Library Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2001/2002. BACKGROUND In celebration of the one hundred year anniversary of John Steinbeck's birth, the California Council for the Humanities invites all Californians to read John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. The Reading The Grapes of Wrath program is the first phase of the California Stories Project, a three-year initiative to update the story of California through the stories of today's Californians. Public libraries are at the heart of this campaign. The South San Francisco Public Library has successfully applied for grant funds supplied by the Council through a grant from the California State Library to organize reading, discussion and speaker programs as well as additional activities in our community. An active campaign will be initiated to encourage community participation. The Grapes of Wrath has been selected as the first book in this initiative because, although written over 50 years ago, the story of the Joad family still has relevance to California today as we all face challenges living in this diverse state. The California Council for the Humanities believes that audiences will see, in the story of the Joads, the lives and hopes of newcomers who have come and continue to come seeking the "promised land." A goal of this program is to provide California readers with opportunities to draw connections between the experiences in Steinbeck's story and contemporary California life. In addition, this program enables a diversity of Californians to come together and experience the joy of reading and learning together. South San Francisco Public Library is enthusiastic about participating in this statewide project. Working with local schools, clubs and organizations, City residents will be engaged through a series of discussions and programs relating to the book and film. Library staff is currently establishing partnerships and planning programs. A local outreach campaign will be initiated in Summer 2002, culminating in a month of special events in October. Staff Report Subject: Reading the Grap~ f Wrath Program Grant Application Page 2 FUNDING: The $1,000 grant will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. Funds remaining at the end of this fiscal year will be carried forward into fiscal year 2002-2003. Receipt of this grant does not commit the City to ongoing funding after the close of the grant. Valerie Sommer Library Director Approved' Michael A. Wilson Cily Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RES()I,IITION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $1,000 FROM THE CALIFORNIA COIINCIL FOR THE HUMANITIES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR THE BOOK AND THE CALIF()RNIA STATE LIBRARY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE "CALIFORNIA STORIES: READING THE GRAPES OF WRATH" BOOK AND FILM DISCIISSI()N PROJECT AND AMENDING THE gOOD 2002 OPERATING BI ID(;ET (NO. 02-18) WHEREAS, staff recommends an acceptance of $1,000 to fund the "California Stories: Reading the Grapes of Wrath" Book and Film Discussion Project. WHEREAS, the $1,000 will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco the City Council hereby authorizes $1,000 from the California Council for the Humanities in partnership with the California Center for the Book and the California State Library for participation in the "California Stories: Reading the Grapes of Wrath" Book and Film Discussion Project and amending the 2001-2002 Operating Budget (No. 02-18) to add $1,000 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 regular meeting held on the day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: F:\file cabinet\Current Reso's\6-26.1ib.grapes.of. wrath.res.doc City Clerk DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works OYSTER POINT GRADE SEPARATION PHASES II &III - PG&E UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution to allow the City Manager to enter into an agreement with PG&E for cost sharing incurred for relocation of electrical utilities. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The construction of Phase III/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. FUNDING: This item is a budget line item in the construction of Oyster Point Phase m/Hook Ramps and is funded by San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and the City of South San Francisco. The project is authorized in the CIP. By: Director )s [ Public Works Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENT: Jg/dc Resolution Copy of UtSl±ty Agreement RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC AND THE OF CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FOR THE OYSTER POINT GRADE SEPARATION PHASE II & III PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY RELOCATION PRQIECT WHEREAS, the construction of Phase lllIHook Ramps necessitates that PG&E's 230KV transmission 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 an agreement between Pacific Gas & Electric and the City of South San Francisco for the Oyster Point Grade Separation Phase II & m Pacific Gas & Electric Utility Relocation 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 regular meeting held on the __ day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk \WIULDER\VGATrRELLXfile cabinet\Current Reso's\6-26PG&E.agree.res.doc CITY O[~ SOUTH SAN FRANClCO "UTILITY AGREEMENT Page1 0,5 COPY 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.1543.2.3 DATE: June 17, 2002 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 electrical transmission facilities within the limits of CITY's project which require relocation to accommodate realignment of the roadway. It is hereby mutually agreed that: I. WORK TO BE DONE In accordance with Notice to Owner No.1543.2.3 dated 4/24/02, CITY shall provide potholing and underground survey services for said utility facilities. All work shall be performed substantially in accordance with OWNER's Utility Plan No 7017445, 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 OWNER'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. ,T No.1543.2.3 (Cont'd) Page 2 of 5 I1. LIABILITY FOR WORK The cost of potholing and underground survey services 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 .......................................................... $2,875.00 Total Estimated CITY Liability,(50%) ....................................... $1,437.50 Total Estimated PG&E liability, (50%) ...................................... $1,437.50 II1. PERFORMANCE OF WORK CITY or CITY's contractor shall perform all phases of the potholing and underground survey 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 survey 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 pads salvaged and retained or sold by OWNER. ' UTILITY AGREEMF_.., T No. 1543.2.3 (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 AGREEML, iT No. 1543.2.3 (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 AGREEME, ~ ]' No. 1543.2.3 (Cont'd) Page 5 of 5 THE ESTIMATED COST TO CITY FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $1,437.50 FUND TYPE AMOUNT City & SMCTA $1,437.50 CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS I 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 4-24-02 I 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: Mike Wilson, City Manager Date APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: Carl Horikoshi, Land Services Supervisor Date By: By: Steve Mattas, City Attorney Date David Klm, Program Manager Date Staff Report DATE: June 26, 2002 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Hickey Boulevard - Hilton Avenue Intersection Widening and Traffic Signals Installation Project, Engineering File No. 51-13231-9908, Project No. TR-98-4, Bid No. 2297 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the Hickey Boulevard - Hilton Avenue Intersection Widening and Traffic Signals Installation Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project provided the widening of Hickey Boulevard to accommodate the new left-turn lanes at the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Hilton Avenue, the removal of the pedestrian bridge at the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Hilton Avenue, the installation of new traffic signals, traffic signal interconnects, new pedestrian crosswalks and ADA accessible ramps at the intersections of Hickey Boulevard- Hilton Avenue and Hickey Boulevard- Camaritas Avenue, and the installation of new soil nail retaining walls along the widened portion of Hickey Boulevard between Hilton Avenue and Camaritas Avenue. The project has been inspected by City staff and is completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The project has a one-year warranty period that takes effect upon acceptance by the City Council. Staff will file a Notice of Completion and release the payment performance bond and ten-percent retention at the end of the thirty-day lien period. Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Hickey Boulevard - Hilton Avenue Intersection Widening and Traffic Signals Installation Project June 26, 2002 Page: 2 of 2 FUNDING: The construction was completed at a cost of $1,300,846.12 ($970,697.50 bid amount and $330,148.62 for five change orders). The change orders covered costs for: new interconnect conduits and interconnect fiber optic cables from E1 Camino Real to Junipero Serra Boulevard, additional slope stabilization, additional soil nails due to change in field conditions, utility conflict delays and other field design and construction changes. Sufficient funds are budgeted for this project in FY 01-02 Capital Improvement Program. ( By: ~ Joh'i~:r[ Directo] of Public Works Michael A.~W~sonx City Manager RD/JG/ed ' Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS CENTER NEW WORKSTATIONS, ENGINEERING FII.F~ PB-01-8 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt resolutions: · Awarding the contract for new dispatcher workstations in the Police Department Communications Center to Bramic Creative Business Products Ltd., in the amount of $120,000. · Awarding the construction support contract to Roebuck Construction, Inc. not to exceed $25,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project will upgrade the existing Communications Center by replacing the existing workstations with new workstations, adding acoustical wall panels and installing new tiles on the existing raised floor. This project is the last major project to upgrade many features of the Communications Center. Engineering issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in March 2002 for new workstations. A total of three responses were received. Bramic was selected to provide new workstations primarily since their furniture was clearly suited for the Communications Center environment, unlike the other two proposals that were more suited for a typical office environment. Roebuck Construction, Inc. also provided a proposal with one of the two furniture suppliers not chosen to install all the associated items such as acoustical wall panels, floor tiles and electrical wiring. Roebuck Construction, Inc. was the contractor for the recently completed modifications of the Police Department Report Writing Room. The Engineering and Police Department were pleased with their workmanship and cooperation during that project. Roebuck Construction, Inc. has agreed to work with the City and Bramic to install the new workstations. StaffReport TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council RE: Police Department Dispatch Center New Workstations DATE: June 26, 2002 PAGE: 2 of 2 Staff recommends that the contract for the new workstations be awarded to Bramic Creative Business Products Ltd., in the amount not to exceed $120,000, and to Roebuck Construction Inc. not to exceed $25,000 as indicated below: New Workstations (Bramic) Construction Support (Roebuck) Contingencies Construction Inspection/Administration $120,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ lO,OOO.OO Total $170,000.00 Construction is expected to start in early October 2002 (due to fabrication of furniture takes approximately 12 weeks) and be completed by the end of October 2002. FUNDING: Funding for this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51-13232-4210-0113) that has a remaining balance of approximately $242,000. By: John libbs Dire( or of Public Works Approved By: ;/'~..~ J~ Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENT: Resolution RTH/JG/ed Staff Report DATE: June 26, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: Terrabay Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment for the Remaining Parcels at Terrabay-Condominium Tower Only Address: Applicant: Case No.: San Bruno Mountain Myers Development Company PP, ZA, SP-01-020/MOD1 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a Final Terrabay Specific Plan Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Precise Plan Amendment. The amendment would affect only the condominium tower in the Phase III portion of Terrabay only. The conditions of approval adopted by City Council on May 9, 2001 would remain in effect, with three conditions added, BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan for the "Remaining Parcels" of Terrabay on November 21, 2000 (Resolution 148-2000). April 11, 2001 a second amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance were approved (Resolution 32-2001). The amendment provided for an increase in number of units in the condominium tower from 96 to 112. The amendment also approved 14 one-bedroom units at one space per unit and 70 two-bedroom and 13 three-bedroom units with parking at two spaces per unit. The City Council approved a precise plan and vesting tentative map for the condominium tower and Phase III commercial development on May 9, 2001 (Resolution 38- 2001). Requested Amendment Myers Development Group is requesting an amendment to the approved precise plan to predominately allow for a different bedroom mix of the units and to modify the parking assignment. A table comparing the proposed changes follows. Staff Report To: Subject: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Terrabay Condominium Amendment to Specific Plan, Zoning and Precise Plan PPSA-01-020 Page 2 Proposed Plan Approved Precise Plan (2002) (2001) Number of Units 112 112 -three bedroom units 6 19 -two bedroom units 54 79 -one bedroom units 52 14 Overall Parking 238 238 -per one bedroom 2/unit 1/unit -per two and three-bedroom 2/unit 2/unit -guest O. 13 0.25 Number of Floors 15 20 -parking 4 3 -residential 11 17 Building Length at 203 feet 341 feet Parking Level Building Length at 203 feet 220 feet Residential Level Building Height 165 feet 200 feet Building Width 67 feet 63 feet Top of Tower at Parapet 337 feet MSL 394 MSL Above Mean Sea Level Planning Commission Action and Comment The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the item June 6, 2002. No members of the public spoke on the project. At the conclusion, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the amendment to the Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plan for Terrabay Condominium Tower, only. It was noted by the Planning Commission that the anticipated price range of the units, $400,000- $800,000, provide a better fit with respect to the Marketing Program for public service employees and the biotechnology industry east of 101. The amended project would also require approximately 4,000 cubic yards less of grading as noted by another Commissioner. The importance and desirability of the mass grading for the condominium tower occurring within the same time frame as the grading for the paired housing (currently undergoing grading) was noted by another Commissioner as important given that it would reduce the construction impacts to the neighborhood as well as the future occupants of the paired housing. In order to facilitate this concurrent grading, Western Pacific Housing is working to get their final map on the Council agenda in early July and Myers would follow with a final map for the condominium building. Staff Report To: Subject: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Terrabay Condominium Amendment to Specific Plan, Zoning and Precise Plan PPSA-01-020 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Reason for Proposed Changes Since the precise plan approval in May 2001, Myers Development Group conducted additional market studies subsequent to the events of September 11, 2001. The findings of the three independent studies are that: 1) The condominium market has dramatically changed since the aggressive days of the dot.com and the events of September 11, 2001; 2) The previous condominium plan with the larger units and single loaded corridors resulted in a predominately high end income market; and 3) In order to reach the targeted marketing group which include the East of 101 biotechnology employees and South San Francisco public employees, unit sizes and prices require scaling back. According to the studies the proposed unit size and mix would also attract the empty-nester, small executive family move-up, executive first homebuyers and San Francisco International Airport industry workers. A scaling back in the size, but not the quality of the units, was recommended. Essence of Changes The hallways of the building would be double-loaded in order to achieve a smaller structure and appeal to the identified market. (The previous plan included double loaded hallways on half the plan.) Therefore, each unit would either have a view to the bay or the mountain. As noted above and by the Planning Commission, this affords a variety in the pricing from $400,000 to $800,000 range. The price range will fit well into the marketing program required by the Development Agreement, Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan for Terrabay. The marketing program is targeted to the East of 101 biotechnology industry, South San Francisco public employees and public service employees (i.e., teachers, nurses, police and fire). The Marketing Plan was developed by Western Pacific Housing with input from Myers Development Group and approved by City staff, in conformance with the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. The plan was introduced at the grand opening of Mandalay Heights in April 2002. The Marketing Plan applies to the Mandalay Heights, Mandalay Point and the Condominium project. Also worthy of note, Western Pacific Housing is conducting due diligence with respect to becoming a financial partner with Myers in the construction of the condominium project. Staff Report To: Subject: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Terrabay Condominium Amendment to Specific Plan, Zoning and Precise Plan PPSA-01-020 Page 4 Preservation of Architectural Integrity As noted in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission, the smaller building would be realized without sacrificing the quality of the architecture or the architectural materials. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposed 2002 Plan on May 21, 2001. The architectural changes were viewed very favorably. The pedestrian entry would be off of Redwood Place, which fosters the residential feel of the building. The entry would be treated with a two-story glazed entrance that leads directly to a sidewalk. The entry colors would be warm-toned textured plaster, wood, glass and a stone finish. The entry materials are distinguished from the remainder of the building that is proposed to be textured plaster and three types of glass. The color palette includes warm yellows, warm gray, and off-white. The vehicular entry for residential parking is separated from the visitor and delivery entrance to the parking garage. Both entrances are proposed to be off Redwood Place. The visitor parking area leads directly into the lobby area. A shuttle bus parking stall is also located in this area for ease of loading and unloading passengers. The City' s transportation consultant for Terrabay (Mark Crane) reviewed the proposal and finds that it is an improvement over the approved plans of last year wherein the residential and visitor entry were behind the building. Environmental Review The proposed text amendment (Specific Plan and Zoning) reduces the potential impacts of the Final Terrabay Sp.ecific Plan. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings, and the Final Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which were adopted and re-certified on November 21, 2000 and on May 9, 2001 would remain unchanged. The MMRP, CEQA Findings and SEIR impacts and mitigations need not be altered as a result of the proposed amendment. The City's transportation consultant reviewed the proposed change in the driveway location (see memorandum dated May 20, 2002, attached to the Planning Commission staff report dated June 6, 2002). The May 15, 2002 alternative (page 2) is identified as the superior alternative. The alternative is identified as "Alternative C" which is the plan shown on the proposed change to the precise plan. The location of the visitor and residential driveways is in an area that is flat (at 175 foot contour and provides 160 feet of clear sight distance, which would allow landscaping in the clear zone a maximum of six inches tall. The intersections at Redwood Place and Cypress Place are stop sign controlled in the westbound direction on Redwood Place and the north, east, and west bound direction from Cypress Place. The stop sign therefore requires drivers to stop in the westbound direction while allowing vehicles to travel in the east bound direction freely, thus avoiding stacking of cars onto Sister Cities Boulevard in the evening peak hours. The proposed grading for the project would be reduced by approximately 4,000 cubic yards from that in the approved precise plan. The City's geologic consultant, Dr. Eric McHuron, reviewed Staff Report To: Subject: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Terrabay Condominium Amendment to Specific Plan, Zoning and Precise Plan PPSA-01-020 Page 5 the proposed plans (see memorandum dated May 17, 2002, attached to the Planning Commission staff report dated June 6, 2002). The proposed precise plan would result in a reduction of grading, off-haul, and site winterization and that is required under the approved precise plan. CONCLUSION: The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan amendment (Condominium only) conforms to the City's General Plan. The development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan text amendment would not change the land use that was approved by Council on November 21, 2000. The text amendment would not result in any increase of impacts or mitigations identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The CEQA Findings and MMRP adopted by Council would remain in effect and would not require any amendments. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plan for the Terrabay Condominium, only, would result in an improvement to site circulation, a reduction in grading, a "better fit" for the targeted Marketing Program and a reduction in size of the building while still maintaining the architectural integrity of the building. Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to make the requisite changes to the Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the proposed modification to the precise plan for Terrabay Condominium only. r of Economic and Community Devel6pment Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENTS: II. III. IV. V. Draft City Council Resolution of Approval Modifying the Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plan for Terrabay Condominium only. Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 6, 2002, with attachments. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2618 Minutes of June 6, 2002 Plans. RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FINAL TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND PRECISE PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase 1II of the Terrabay Development on November 21, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco adopted an amendment to Chapter 20.63, Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District, Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map on May 9, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted an amendment to the Restated and Development Agreement to incorporate changes in the approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Chapter 20.63; and, WHEREAS, Myers Peninsula Development Company has prepared changes to the previously approved Precise Plan and Final Terrabay Specific Plan with respect to the condominium portion only; and, WHEREAS, the proposed modifications result in changes to the number of one bedroom units, the guest parking ratio, reduction in grading on the site, reduction in the height of the building and alters the configuration of the units within the structure; and, WHEREAS, together, the amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Precise Plan are referred to as the "Amendments" and do not result in an increase in land use or development intensity over that analyzed in the 1982 EIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1998-99 SEIR and Addendum thereto; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, projects which have been previously analyzed and do not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures do not require further environmental analysis; and, WHEREAS, the prior certified EIR's, SEIR and Addendum to the 1998-9 SEIR fully analyzed all potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigation for said impacts; and, WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and said program remains in full force and effect; and, WHEREAS, based on the foregoing and CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no further environmental review is required; and, _.,., .001 WHEREAS, on June 6, 2002, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public heating to consider the proposed text amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance and the amendments to the Precise Plan and recommended approval by a 7-0 vote. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based upon the entire record for the Terrabay development. The record includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) The South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan; 3) The 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998-1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; 4) Testimony and materials, including the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase 111 of the Terrabay Development, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 2000; 5) Testimony and materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase m of the Terrabay Development; and 6) Testimony and Materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance, and Precise Plan submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on June 6, 2002; and testimony and materials submitted to the City Council at the duly noticed public heating on June 26, 2002: The Amendments do not alter the land use or result in an increased development intensity of the property. The Amendments relate entirely to the condominium portion of the approved project. Specifically, the Amendments replace the .25 parking ratio for guest parking with a ratio of no less than .13 spaces per unit. The Amendments also reduce the height and development footprint of the condominium tower, reduce grading on the site, reduces the tower from 20 floors to 15 and alters the units configuration to 52 one bedroom units from the previously approved 14 one-bedroom units. The total number of units, 112, would remain unchanged. The Amendments are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Dave Carbone, Staff Administrator of the C/CAG San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) previously reviewed the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and found it complied with the ALUC requirements (letter of October 25, 2000). Because the Amendments result in a reduction of the height of the condominium tower and will not result in increased development or densities over that previously analyzed by Dave Carbone, the compliance letter of October 25, 2000 supports approval of the Amendments with the conditions imposed as part of the Vesting Tentative Map and prior Precise Plan approvals. Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 2 of 31 which serves as a sound wall to protect the noise environment of outdoor space of the Hillcrest (single-family paired units) neighborhood. The design of the sound wall (fencing) shall be compatible with the architecture of the project and integrate into the native landscape of the Mountain. The design of the sound wall (fencing) shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. Retaining walls in common areas and the sound wall/fence shall be maintained in good condition and kept free of graffiti and damage. The master Homeowner's Association and the owner of the commercial building shall be responsible for keeping the retaining walls in common areas and the sound wall/fence in good condition and kept free of graffiti and damage. o Fencing on side and rear yards shall not exceed six (6) feet in height from finished grade measured from the highest elevation. Should a fence be placed on top of a retaining wall, the overall height shall not exceed six feet in height measured from highest grade. Fences exceeding six (6) feet in height measured from lowest grade shall be reviewed by the Building Department and may require a building permit. The Developer shall coordinate with the City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works and Planning Division and participate in the remediation of noise along Sister Cities Boulevard (Terrabay/Paradise Valley - Supplemental Noise Assessment, 19 March 2001). At a maximum the Developer would be required to construct a noise barrier on the south side of Sister Cities Boulevard from approximately 50 feet west of the Sister Cities Boulevard and Oyster Point Intersection westward for 650 feet. Other solutions to the noise mitigation may be approved by the Director of Public Works and the Chief Planner which could include an in-lieu fee for a portion or all of the noise barrier costs to be used toward a noise insulation program or other such measures to reduce noise in the Paradise Valley neighborhood. This mitigation measure is identified in the 1982 Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay. At a minimum, the City may also find that additional noise mitigation is not required. 10. The Developer shall draft covenants to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Chief Planner for the Peninsula Tower (commercial building). The Covenants shall address owner and occupant obligations such as the requirements of the Transportation Demand Management Program (approved in the April Plan and the Amended and Restated Development Agreement) and all remaining obligations such as, but not limited to the use and access of the performing arts center and road, building, debris basin and building maintenance. 11. The 50-foot fire buffer shall remain free of ornamental and combustible landscaping and shall be hydroseeded with native grasses in-keeping with the California Coastal Grassland habitat. .... ,.019 S :XAllison~JuneConditions of Approval.doc o The Amendments are consistent with the Habitat Conservation Plan. (HCP) Victoria Harris, biologist with Thomas Reid Associates (The Plan Administrator) reviewed the previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and found the Specific Plan complied with the HCP boundary and grading limits (letter of October 25, 2000) certified by the City of South San Francisco on May 12, 1999. The limits certified by the City on May 12, 1999, were used to verify HCP Compliance for Terrabay Phase 1I and Phase llI. Because the proposed Amendments would result in less grading on the site and would remain well within the previously approved grading limits, the Amendments are consistent with the HCP. The Amendments are consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. Amendments proposed relate only to the condominium portion of the approved project. All findings and analysis made in support of the 70 unit residential and commercial portions are unchanged. Specific findings related to the condominium amendments are set forth below. Housing Element Action 1 C-3: Ensure that new development and rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. Support excellence in deSign through the continued use of the design review board and/or staff. Analysis: The Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plan further this policy. The density of the project would not be increased, it would however be situated on a smaller portion of the condominium parcel. Sewer, water, storm drain and open space and a linear park are already in place and are continued in the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan lands. Precise plan and design review of detailed architectural and landscape drawings (as required by the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance) ensure architectural compatibility. ii. Housing Element Policy 3E: Foster amenities needed by female-headed households. Action 3E-1 The City shall strongly encourage the inclusion of child-care and after- school care facilities within or near affordable and higher density housing and mixed use developments. Analysis: The Amendments incorporate the previously approved project and permit development of additional one bedroom units. The Amendments allow for 52 one bedroom units, 54 two bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units ranging in size from approximately 900 square feet to 1,500 square feet in area. The unit sizes and sales prices are intended to accommodate small households. 111. Transportation Element Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 003 iv. vi. vii. Analysis: The Amendments conform with and implement this policy. The site planning proposed includes pedestrian trails, shuttle service to major transit areas and bike paths as previously approved in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Precise Plan. Paradise Valley Terrabay Guiding Policy 3.8-G-1: Allow limited development that is in keeping with the character of the Paradise Valley/Terrabay area and its natural setting Analysis: The Amendments conform with and implement this policy. The Final Terrabay Specific Plan, which includes the Recreation and Preservation parcels, limits development to areas predominately disturbed by Phase I grading activities and proposes clustering development and preserving open space. No changes to those parcels are made as part of the Amendments. Additionally, architectural and design changes in the Precise Plan have been incorporated to impart a more residential appearance to the condominium tower. The Amendments conform to the Open Space, Business Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use designations reflected in the General Plan, Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended, and the Vesting Tentative Map. Housing Element Policy lB. Provide assistance fi.om all divisions, departments, and levels of the City Government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. Action lB-1 Support Private Market Construction: The program is designed to remove hurdles to constructing new market-rate housing units for above-moderate and moderate-income households so that units can be built at a rate that will meet the current and projected housing needs. Analysis: The Amendments conform to the Medium Density Residential Designation and (8.1-18.0 dwelling units per acre) provides for housing while preserving habitat and open space. All three phases of Terrabay would provide 603 housing units. The Amendments do not authorize additional units nor result in a reduction in the number of units previously approved. However, the number of one bedroom units increases from 14 to 52 with a resulting reduction in the number of two and three bedroom units. The change in unit distribution is based on market considerations and is intended to meet the needs of working professionals in the East of 101 area and nearby airport. Housing Element Policy lC: Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing units in well planned neighborhoods. 004 4 o Analysis: The previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plan include a variety of housing units and types. The Amendments add one-bedroom units in a double loaded design within the condominium tower. The proposed project and the existing approved project that includes townhomes and a variety of sizes of detached units would provide an overall variety of housing. Recreational land uses are also included within the Terrabay planning area. Proper environmental documentation has been prepared on the Amendments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a). This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: City Council's independent review of the proposed Amendments; the SEIR and relevant sections of the 1982 EIR and the 1996 Supplemental EIR and the entire 1999 SEIR, and Addendum thereto, which demonstrate that any significant impacts from the proposed development have either been avoided or mitigated to a level of less than significance or were addressed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No further environmental analysis is required when a prior EIR has been prepared for a project unless new impacts or mitigation measures are identified. The Amendments do not result in any new significant impacts or require changes to existing mitigation measures. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no additional environmental review is required. The condominium site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: The site is suited for the type, density and location of commercial and residential development in that all the mitigation measures applicable to the Phase II and Phase III sites identified in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1999 SEIR are incorporated into the mitigation monitoring program for Phase II and Phase m. No changes to the mitigation monitoring program are required as a result of the Amendments nor do the Amendments result in a change in density or location over that previously analyzed and approved in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan District, Precise Plan or Vesting Tentative Map. The design, improvements and constructions standards included within the Amendments are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat and are designed to achieve compliance with the development and/or construction standards of the Terrabay specific plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, together with the Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1982, the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Addendum to the 1999 SEIR analyze the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed Phase II and Phase m development and together with the adopted mitigation monitoring program demonstrate that the project will either avoid or mitigate impacts of the project that are likely to cause serious public health problems, to cause substantial environmental damage, or to cause substantial and avoidable injuries to fish, wildlife or their habitat. -005 o The design and type of improvements proposed in the Amendments do not conflict with public easements for access through or use of the property within the Phase li and Phase 1TI areas of the Terrabay development and conform to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 19.48.080 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code as to design, drainage, utilities, road improvements and offers of dedication or deed. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: City Council's independent review of the proposed Amendments and the reports of the city engineer and other appropriate department heads. 10. 11. As previously determined by the City Council, Phase II and Phase In of the Terrabay development provide, to the extent feasible, future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. No changes are proposed in the Amendments that would alter passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, together with the Environmental Impact Report proposed in 1982 and the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Addendum related thereto, analyze the energy impacts of the project and provide to the extent feasible future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the proposed Vesting Tentative Map. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the City Council's independent review of the Amendments and the previously approved Vesting Tentative Map; City Council's review of the comments of the Design Review Board; and, City Council's review of the staff report and supporting documents submitted with the application for Amendments and the approved Vesting Tentative Map. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Precise Plan implements the project as proposed in the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan, including the incorporation of residential housing and preservation of open space as indicated on the Vesting Tentative Map. The Amendments are consistent with the approved development agreement. This finding is based upon the City Council's independent review of the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase 111 of the Terrabay Development, the First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement, and the attached Amendments. The Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the Final Terrabay Specific Plan Lands was approved by Council on January 24, 2001. A First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement was approved in January 2001, which implemented the changes made to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan related to the configuration of the 70 unit residential neighborhood and development approval process. The Development Agreement vests rights to develop the property in accordance with the previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and its implementing ordinance, Chapter 20.63 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, in effect as of January 11, 2001. The Amendments are consistent with the land uses, development intensities and design standards approved in the Development Agreement, as amended. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: A. Approve an amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and authorize staff to make changes to the plan consistent with the Council's approval of same. B. Approve an amendment to the Precise Plan for the condominium 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 regular meeting held on the day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: \XaM ULDER\VGATTRELL\fi le cabinet\Current Reso's\terrabayres.doc City Clerk 7 =-' :'~ 007 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.63 (TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT) WHEREAS, the existing Terrabay Specific Plans, Chapter 20.63 and the Terrabay Development Agreement allow development of the Terrabay Project; and, WHEREAS, in November 2000, the City Council approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Final Terrabay Specific Plan was amended by resolution of the City Council on June 26, 2002; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 20.63 is proposed to be amended to reflect the changes approved in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1999 SEIR) and Addendum thereto was prepared, which together with the Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1982 (1982 EIR) and the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1996 SEIR), analyze the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, projects that have been previously analyzed and that do no result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures do not require further environmental analysis; and, WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project in accordance with the EIR's, SEIR's and Addendum thereto; and, WHEREAS, based on the foregoing and CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no further environmental review is required; and, WHEREAS, on June 6, 2002, following a properly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63; and, .. 008 SFDOCS 6153538vl WHEREAS, on June 26, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution and environmental findings to approve a Specific Plan Amendment, and a Precise Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 20.63, to reflect the amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2002, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.63. NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS. Bo Co The proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 is consistent with the goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan, specifically the policies for the Paradise Valley/Terrabay area under Chapter 3.8 of the Planning Sub-Areas Element and the Medium Density land use designation for the project area. The project provides 112 residential units, including 54 one bedroom units. This is consistent with the medium density designation for the property and the number of units approved in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 is consistent with the Specific Plan, as amended. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the proposed development is residential and the Amended Specific Plan prescribes residential development for the area. The Amended Specific Plan and the proposed development provide for open space to be dedicated to San Bruno Mountain, for preservation areas and for residential development and associated infrastructure. The proposed development meets the density standards prescribed in the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan and other development standards including but not limited to the quantity, size and location of parking, building setbacks, design and height. Proper environmental documentation has been prepared on the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a). 2 009 Section 2: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20.63 Chapter 20.63.130, Special Regulations applicable within the Terrabay residential district, of the South San Francisco Municipal Code shall be amended to reflect the following: 20.63.130 (f) (3) Phase II/III Residential Heritage Neighborhood (Condominium/Apartment Tower). (A) The maximum height shall not exceed one hundred and sixtyfive ~ feet. 20.63.130 (i) (3)(A)(i) Phase Il/III Residential Area Parking Standards. (i) A total of two hundred thirty-eight parking spaces shall be provided, of which Parking shall be p ovided at atio ~ r a r ............... F ...a....., two spaces rese~ed for each residential unit uniter t~e remaining W:a and tP~ee 'ght Gguest parkingo~.~,"h~u ~ provided at ~ .... v~-~; .... ,~*;~ ~rn~.-~oq .13 spaces per unit. No four bedroom units ~e pe~itted. Section 3: SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Pursuant to the provisions of Govemment Code Section 36933, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days from and after its adoption. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 26th day of June, 2002. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this ~ day of ., 2002 Mayor \WIULDERWGATTRELLXfile cabinet\Current Ord's\terrabay.ord.doc Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: June 6, 2002 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Terrabay Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment for the Remaining Parcels at Terrabay RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Final Terrabay Specific Plan Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Precise Plan Amendment. The amendment would affect the condominium tower in the Phase III portion of Terrabay only. The conditions of approval adopted by City Council on May 9, 2001 would remain in effect with the addition of two conditions. BACKGROUND The City Council approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan for the "Remaining Parcels" of Terrabay on November 21, 2000 (Resolution 148-2000). April 11, 2001 a second amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance were approved (Resolution 32-2001). The amendment provided for an increase in number of units in the condominium tower from 96 to 112. The amendment also approved 14 one-bedroom units at one space per unit and 70 two-bedroom and 13 three-bedroom units with parking at two spaces per unit. The City Council approved a precise plan and vesting tentative map for the condominium tower and Phase III commercial development on May 9, 2001 (Resolution 38-2001). REQUEST Myers Development Group is requesting an amendment to the approved precise plan for Terrabay to allow 52 one-bedroom units, 54 two-bedroom units and six three-bedroom units. The parking requirements would be two spaces per unit for all residential units and guest parking at not less than 0.13 spaces per unit. Two hundred thirty eight parking spaces would be provided as identified and required in the existing approved precise plan and the zoning ordinance. As a point of comparison the parking would be that which was originally approved in the final Terrabay Specific Plan on November 21, 2000. The proposed change in the mix of bedroom units serves to reduce the height of the building and reduce the length of the building. A table comparing the proposed changes follows on the next page. 012 Planning Commission Staff Report Terrabay Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment June 6, 2002 Page 2 Proposed Plan Approved Precise Plan (2002) (2001) Number of Units 112 112 -three bedroom units 6 19 -two bedroom units 54 79 -one bedroom units 52 14 Overall Parking 238 238 -per one bedroom 2/unit 1/unit -per two and three-bedroom 2/unit 2/unit -guest 0.13 0.25 Number of Floors 15 20 -parking 4 3 -residential 11 17 Building Length at 203 feet 341 feet Parking Level Building Length at 203 feet 220 feet Residential Level Building Height 165 feet 200 feet Building Width 67 feet 63 feet Top of Tower at Parapet 337 feet MSL 394 MSL Above Mean Sea Level Reasoning for Proposed Changes Since the precise plan approval in May 2001, Myers Development Group conducted additional market studies subsequent to the events of September 11, 2001. Three different market studies were conducted by The Ryness Company, The Paquin Group, and Pacific Marketing Associates, Inc. The findings of the three independent studies are that: 1) The condominium market has dramatically changed since the aggressive days of the dot.com and the events of September 11, 2001; 2) The previous condominium plan with the larger units and single loaded corridors resulted in a predominately high end income market, and 3) In order to reach the targeted marketing group which include the East of 101 biotechnology employees and South San Francisco public employees unit sizes and prices require a scaling back. According to the studies the proposed unit size and mix would also attract the empty- nester, small executive family move-up, executive first homebuyers and San Francisco International Airport industry workers. A scaling back in the size, but not the quality of the units, was recommended. 013 Planning Commission Staff Report Terrabay Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment June 6, 2002 Page 3 Essence of Changes and Previous City Comments The hallways of the building would be double-loaded in order to achieve a smaller structure and appeal to the market identified above. (The previous plan included double loaded hallways on half the plan.) Therefore, each unit would either have a view to the bay or the mountain. This affords a variety in the pricing from $400,000 to $800,000 range. The price range will fit well into the marketing program required by the Development Agreement, Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan for Terrabay. The marketing program is targeted to the East of 101 biotechnology industry, South San Francisco public employees and public service employees (i.e., teachers, nurses, police and fire). The Marketing Plan was developed by Western Pacific Housing with input from Myers Development Group and approved by City staff, in conformance with the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. The plan was introduced at the grand opening of Mandalay Heights in April 2002. The Marketing Plan applies to the Mandalay Heights, Mandalay Point and the Condominium project. Also worthy of note, Western Pacific Housing is conducting due diligence with respect to becoming a financial partner with Myers in the construction of the condominium project. Design Review Board Comments Building Architecture As the Commission will recall, the biggest issue with the condominium tower with both the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Planning Commission, during the 2000 review, is the height, length and lack of "residential" presence along the Redwood Place frontage. The DRB reviewed the proposed 2002 Plan on May 21, 2001. The architectural changes were viewed very favorably. The color and materials would be the same as approved last year. The pedestrian entry, however, would be off of Redwood Place, which fosters a residential feel of the building. The entry would be treated with a two-story glazed entrance that leads directly to a sidewalk. The entry colors would be warm-toned textured plaster, wood, glass and a stone finish. The entry materials are distinguished from the remainder of the building that is proposed to be textured plaster and three types of glass. The color palette includes warm yellows and warm gray and an off-white. The glazing proposed includes clear vision glass. The spandrel glass would be dark green and frosted white. Window mullions are proposed to be three colors: copper to provide a residential feel; silver; and a metallic white. The articulation of the windows provides for windows surrounded by textured plaster (i.e., "punch opening" windows) as opposed to predominately glass with little or no surround, which also lends to the residential feel of the building. The vehicular entry for residential parking is separated from the visitor and delivery entrance to the parking garage. Both entrances are proposed to be off Redwood Place. The visitor parking area leads directly into the lobby area which is a benefit in that a shuttle bus parking stall is also located in this area for ease of loading and unloading passengers. The City's transportation consultant for Terrabay (Mark Crane) reviewed the proposal and finds that it is Planning Commission Staff Report Terrabay Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment June 6, 2002 Page 4 an improvement over the approved plans of last year wherein the residential and visitor entry were behind the building (This will be discussed in more detail below, under Environmental Review). Landscape Architecture The landscape plans will be forwarded to the DRB next month for review. Plans for the landscapint~ will be presented to the Planmng Cornrmss~on on June 6 and the C~ty Counc~ on June 26 . The DRB did provide comments on the landscape to be prepared which include softening the comers of the building with plantings and providing pockets of dense planting areas. It is important to note that the landscape plan in front of Redwood Place was approved by the City Council in 1990 as a part of the linear park landscape. Also worthy of note is that the landscape palette behind the retaining wall consists of a 50 foot wide firebreak which may consist of native grasses only. Therefore the landscape opportunities are the pockets east and west of the building and on the plaza. As the Commission is aware, pursuant to Commission and Council direction, staff is including native vegetation in the landscape palette and enhanced view opportunities to the Mountain that will transition to the Mandalay Point area and the restored "point" of the Mountain. The landscape concept as identified by the landscape architect is to echo the landscape of the Mountain and blend with the plaza. The plan also is intended to connect the pedestrian way and to make the announcement of the entry way a part of the existing neighborhood, in order to announce the entry in a ceremonial way while still being an integral part of the condominium and Mandalay Point neighborhood. A third objective of the landscape plan is to sculpt the exterigr spaces to be pleasant and inviting while using the existing colors and textures of the Mountain to increase the awareness of the natural beauty of San Bruno Mountain. Pt'ocess Upon approval of the requested changes by the Planning Commission and City Council, staff would review the entire Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance and amend language that reflects the revised standards. The revisions would modify language in the Plan and ordinance to reflect the approved height, parking requirements and any other technical data such as number of parking and residential floors, amount of grading (which would be approximately 400 cubic yards less than what would occur as a result of the approved precise plan), double loading of the residential tower, as well as the length and width of the tower. 015 Planning Commission Staff Report Terrabay Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment June 6, 2002 Page 5 EVALUATION Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment The proposed text change amendments do not alter the approved land uses for the Plan Area. The Specific Plan conforms to the City's General Plan. The conformance findings made last year do not change as a result of this proposed amendment. The Specific Plan, as proposed, conforms to the City's General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance change to require two parking spaces per unit is more than what was required last year. Staff believes that it is a better standard for parking given the number of one-bedroom units proposed in the current precise plan. The 0.13 parking for guests is slightly more than what was approved in the Specific Plan in November 2000. The Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) requires that the project incorporate its own shuttle bus or employ the services of an existing East of 101shuttle bus service into the project. The proposed increase in the number of one-bedroom units aids in promoting a pricing structure that can be directed to the targeted "Market Group" that includes to the East of 101 biotechnology industry, South San Francisco public employees and public service employees (i.e., teachers, nurses, police and fire). Requiring two parking spaces for a one-bedroom unit is designed to accommodate two wage earner households that may be purchasing their first home. Environmental Review The proposed text amendment (Specific Plan and Zoning) reduces the potential impacts of the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings, and the Final Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which were adopted and re-certified on November 21, 2000 and on May 9, 2001 would remain un-changed. The MMRP, CEQA Findings and SEIR impacts and mitigations need not be altered, as a result of the proposed amendment. The City's transportation consultant reviewed the proposed change in the driveway location (see memorandum dated May 20, 2002, attached). The May 15, 2002 alternative (page 2) is identified as the superior alternative. The alternative is identified as "Alternative C" which is the plan shown on the proposed change to the precise plan. The location of the visitor and residential driveways is in an area that is flat (at 175 foot contour and provides 160 feet of clear sight distance. The intersections at Redwood Place and Cypress Place are stop sign controlled in the westbound direction on Redwood Place and the north, east, and west bound direction from Cypress Place. The stop sign therefore requires drivers to stop in the westbound direction while allowing vehicles to travel in the east bound direction freely, thus avoiding stacking of cars onto Sister Cities Boulevard in the evening peak hours. The proposed grading for the project would be reduced by approximately 400 cubic yards from that in the approved precise plan. The City's geologic consultant, Dr. Eric McHuron, reviewed the proposed plans (see memorandum dated May 17, 2002, attached). The 016 Planning Commission Staff Report Terrabay Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment June 6, 2002 Page 6 proposed precise plan would result in a reduction of grading, off-haul, and site winterization and that is required under the approved precise plan. CONCLUSION The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan amendment conforms to the City's General Plan. The development proposed by the Final Terrabay Specific Plan text amendment would not change the land use that was approved by Council on November 21, 2000. The text amendment would not result in any increase of impacts or mitigations identified in the Certified 1998-99 SEIR. The CEQA Findings and MMRP adopted by Council would remain in effect and would not require any amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of the Terrabay Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance text amendment and the precise plan amendment to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Proposed Conditions of Approval Letter from Jack Myers to the Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of a Text Amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance and the Terrabay Phase III (condominium tower only) Precise Plan Memorandum Mark Crane, May 20, 2002 Memorandum Eric McHuron, May 17, 2002 Schedule for Condominium Construction Plans .' . '_017 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TERRABAY PHASE III Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (SA 01-020) and Precise Plan (PP 01-020) Consisting of the Open Space/Recreation Parcel/Office Parcel/Residential Parcels/Buffer Parcel/Preservation Parcel General Conditions The following conditions shall be incorporated into the Vesting Tentative Map and Precise Plan for Terrabay Phase III. Should in the determination of the Chief Planner, implementation, or incorporation of any conditions require substantial revision to the design of the project, the project shall be referred back to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and action. The applicant shall comply with the City of South San Francisco's Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential Projects and with all the requirements of the affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions. A. Planning Division Conditions shall be as follows: The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by City Council on November 21, 2000. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City final plans which substantially comply with the site and precise plans date stamped April 12, 2001, except as modified herein, as approved by City Council. o Parking requirements, maximum building heights and required building set backs shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 20.63 (Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning) of the Municipal Code adopted by City Council on April 25, 2001 by Ordinance #1288-2001. Incorporate noise insulation features into the design of the proposed residential portion of the project to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45dB, based upon aircraft flyover. o Project sponsor shall (1) submit FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" to the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office in Los Angeles, for an FAA airspace evaluation, and (2) incorporate the findings of the FAA airspace evaluation into the final plans for the project, if applicable. o Incorporate the design requirements of the Charles Salter Supplemental Noise Assessment (19 March 2001) with respect to the placement and design of a fence 018 Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 3 of 31 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. The final landscape and irrigation plan shall be peer reviewed by a landscape architect selected by the City and paid for by the applicant. The Chief Planner shall review and approve the final landscape and irrigation plan prior to issuance of any building permits. The surface treatment of the retaining walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner prior to issuance of any building permits. The Chief Planner may require additional landscaping and surface treatment of the walls to insure that the walls are screened adequately and are compatible with the architecture of the buildings and transition appropriately to San Bruno Mountain and the native landscape. This review is in addition to any structural review required by the Department of Public Works and/or Engineering Division. Maximum square footage of the commercial building shall be 665,000 gross square feet. No four-or-more bedroom units shall be permitted in the residential tower. No five-or-more bedroom units shall be permitted in the single-family paired (duplex) units. A licensed archaeologist and a geologist shall be on site during the rough grading of the Buffer and Office Parcels. Should Native American remains or artifacts be discovered all grading and site activity shall cease in the affected area. The Native American Heritage Commission (Commission) shall be contacted and an appropriate plan (Plan), agreeable to the City, the Commission and the Developer shall be implemented. Said Plan shall address the treatment and disposition of any artifacts and/or remains. Any modifications to the plans requested by either the Planning Commission and/or City Council during the public heating process shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner prior to issuance of building permits. A remediation and clean-up program to control the presence and spread of exotic plant material on and from the Terrabay lands (including the Recreation/Open Space, Buffer, Preservation, Residential and Office parcels) shall be developed and implemented by the Developer. The Program, at a minimum, shall be similar to that of Juncus Ravine which includes manual and chemical removal of invasive exotic plant material and may include the use of fire. The Program shall continue for a minimum of five years in order to assist in abating the presence and spread of exotic plant material. The Program shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. . ,.'._ 020 S :LMlisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase m SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 4 of 31 20. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) management fees shall be remitted to the HCP Plan Administrator in accordance with the HCP for San Bruno Mountain. 21. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the residential development shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of building permits for the project. 22. All proposed signage for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner. 23. Prior to receiving a rough grading permit for Phase II/III, the Developer shall deposit with the City the sum of $25,000 to establish a Planning Development Account. The Planning Development Account of $25,000 shall be maintained from the date of City Council approval and at all times until project construction is finalized and all the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Conditions of Project Approval are satisfied. The deposit provided by the Developer shall be handled as a deposit account that is set aside. Staff and contract services shall be billed directly to the Developer on a monthly basis and not against the account. Services to be billed shall include but are not limited work efforts required in order to implement and monitor the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Conditions of Project Approval and perform plan checks, site visits and field condition and final inspections. This account is in addition to and separate from any account required by the Department of Public Works. 24. AI'I' the requirements of the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) contained in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan shall be implemented into the project. Annual monitoring shall occur and updates (if needed) of the TDM Program shall occur in order to assure that the performance objectives are met. 25. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the project applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The project was found to be in conformance with the HCP by City Council, May 1999. No grading permit shall be issued until a grading plan and permit application is reviewed by the HCP Administrator and the Plan is found to be in conformance with the grading regulations contained in the "Agreement with Respect to San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan" and as indicated in Figure 2-04 South Slope Project Grading Phases. No grading permit shall be issued by the City until the applicant provides the written documentation to the Chief Planner that all other County, state and federal regulations pertaining to wetlands and endangered or threatened species have been satisfied. Notice of satisfaction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board subject to their authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 1603 of the S :XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 5 of 31 California Fish and Game Code and the Endangered Species Act must be provided. 26. The grading shall avoid the single Viola plant near the California Department of Forestry (CDF) road in the Recreation Parcel. The Developer shall work with the Habitat Conservation Plan Administrator, U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game regarding avoiding take of the Viola or the potential take of the one Viola in the event of the Incidental Take Permit being amended. Offsets could include supplemental Viola planting, restored habitat and preservation of existing Viola plants. 27. A CDF access road shall be maintained in the project area. The access road can be reached from either the Residential side or the Office Complex side of Phase III. If it is connected only from the Residential side then the existing access road on the east side of the point needs to be restored to its natural state. 28. The condominium project shall incorporate shuttle bus service into the project. The shuttle bus service can either be a stand alone serving the project, connect with the Alliance shuttle bus service serving the East of 101 area, or another similar shuttle service. 29. Sight distance for the condominium driveways shall be a minimum of 160 feet free and clear of any landscaping or obstructions greater than six inches in height (Memorandum, Mark Crane May 20, 2002). Planning Department Contact: Allison Knapp 650 829-6633 B. POLICE DEPARTMENT requirements shall be as follows: mo Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. B. Landscaping Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. C. Building Security 0;:2 S:~llisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase m SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 6 of 31 1. Doors ao The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 lbs. of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt lock~ with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should be free moving and case hardened. Co Employee/pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt lock~ with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. do Overhead roll-up doors shall be so secured on the inside that the lock cannot be defeated from the outside and shall also be secured with a cylinder lock or padlock from the inside. eo Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non- removable pins when pin-type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal of the door. fo Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazing2 or the equivalent, if double-cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. go Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic-equipped doors, and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal 1 The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turnpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or a single-cylinder deadbolt lock without a turnpiece may be used in "Group B" occupancies as defined by the Uniform Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. 25/16" security laminate, 1/4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum. Og3 S:XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 7 of 31 shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used on panic- equipped doors. ho All entrance and exit doors for individual tenant spaces shall have a deadbolt lock. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three-fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bolts. jo Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. 2. Windows ao Louvered windows shall not be used as they pose a significant security problem. Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. 3. Roof Openings ao or: or: All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: 1) Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material.2 2) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. .024 S:XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 8 of 31 3) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. bo All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. Co All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: or: 1) 2) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch fiat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened and 3) Lighting If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. ao Parking lots, (including parking lots with carports) driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with high intensity discharge lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of business darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on site. Such lighting shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers. A lighting level of .50 to 1 foot-candles minimum, maintained at ground level is required. The lighting level for the parking garage shall be 5 foot candles in the drive areas and 10 foot candles in the stairway areas. S :XAllisonkJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase m SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 9 of 31 bo All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Co The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night-lights. Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. eo Parking lot lights shall remain on anytime there are employees in the building. fo Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Lighting plans shall include photometric and distribution data attesting to the required illumination level. 5. Numbering of Buildings ao The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting with the background. In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. Co Posted at the main entrance to the building/complex shall be a sign (directory) showing the addresses and businesses within the complex. Said sign shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness and shall be protected by use of vandal-resistant covers or materials. do Each different unit within the building shall have its particular address prominently displayed on its front and rear doors. (Rear door numbers only need to be one inch in height.) 6. Alarms and other security measures ao The business shall be equipped with at least a central station silent intrusion alarm system. S :XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase llI SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 10 of 31 Co do The business shall be equipped with a central station monitored silent robbery alarm. All individual businesses within the complex will be/may be required to have an alarm system before occupancy. The type of alarm is dependent upon the nature of the individual business. Tenants should be advised to make contact with Crime Prevention Bureau well in advance of requested business occupancy for further details. The Garage area will be protected by CCTV applications that will be monitored by the security officers. There will also be interactive speaker systems on each floor that will enable persons to call for assistance without having to dial a telephone. There shall be 24-hour security provided for the entire commercial complex. During the normal business hours these guards will staff an entry desk that will monitor the entry of persons into the complex. This station will also monitor the CCTV applications in the garage and the emergency call stations. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation steps should be taken well in advance of the final inspection. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan ao All entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC, to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner's/manager's request. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Traffic Bureau at 829-3934. Misc. Security Measures ao Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15. The perimeter of the site shall be fenced during construction, and security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. S AAllison~JuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 8,: PP 01-020 Page 11 of 31 c. The fence surrounding the storage yard should be topped with triple-strand barbed wire or razor ribbon. Police Department contact, Sergeant Mike Massoni (650) 877-8927 .,. _028 S:~Allison~JuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 12 of 31 C. Engineering Division conditions shall be as follows: The following recommended conditions of approval have been prepared based upon the Terrabay Phase m Vesting Tentative Map, dated April 11, 2001, Drawings 1 through 8, prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk and the Precise Plan Submittal, dated April 11, 2001, submitted by the developer and subdivider, Myers Peninsula, LLC, for the consideration of the Planning Division and the City Council. The improvement, grading, drainage and utility information shown on these plans are preliminary and illustrative in nature. The project will require detailed and comprehensive civil engineering, grading, improvement, drainage, utility and landscaping plans to be prepared and submitted for review and approval, before the Developer can commence the construction of the finish improvements, however rough grading of the site is anticipated to occur prior to the approval of the finish improvement plans and the recordation of the final map, in accordance with the provisions of the Terrabay Specific Plan ordinance. The subdivider and the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the City staff the documents required by Section 19.36.040 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, prior to receiving approval to file the Terrabay Condominium Tower subdivision final map with the City of South San Francisco. Should the Planning Commission and the City Council approve the subject project, the Engineering Division recommends that the following items be made conditions of approval for Tentative Subdivision Map No. SA-01-020 and Precise Plan No. PP-01-020: I. UTILITIES A. Electrical and Gas Facilities All new and existing electrical power and gas mains, services, facilities and appurtenances shall be installed underground within the limits of the entire Terrabay development (except for the existing P.G.& E. Tower Line facilities that provide electricity to San Francisco). All utilities for power and gas shall be located within appropriate easements, dedicated to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or their designated successor in interest and shall conform to their requirements. o Prior to filing a Final Map, the Developer shall submit to the City Engineer a letter from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or their designated successor in interest, stating that they have reviewed the Subdivision Map and Utility Improvement Plans and that satisfactory easements and utility services have been provided by the Developer. Bo Water Facilities . ',.: ._ 029 S:XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 13 of 31 Il, Co o All water mains, services and appurtenances shall be installed underground and designed and installed to the standards and requirements of the California Water Service Company and the South San Francisco Fire Chief. They shall be located within appropriate easements, acceptable to the California Water Service Company and shall conform to their requirements. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Developer shall submit to the City Engineer a letter from the California Water Service Company stating that they have reviewed the Subdivision Map and Improvement Plans and that satisfactory easements and water supply facilities have been provided by the Developer. The Developer shall install City standard fire hydrants at locations, and flowing sufficient water, as specified by the South San Francisco Fire Chief. The design of the water system shall be supported by appropriate calculations. The design, phasing and construction staging of the water system shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief and the City Engineer. The new water system shall, where feasible, be interconnected to the existing California Water Service Company facilities to provide a continuous loop. C6mmunication Facilities All telephone, communication and cable TV lines, services, facilities and appurtenances shall be installed underground within the limits of the Terrabay Development. All communication and cable TV facilities shall be located within appropriate easements dedicated to Pacific Bell, RCN, AT&T Broadband, or other City franchised utilities and shall conform to their requirements. o Prior to filing the Final Map, the Developer shall submit to the City Engineer a letter from Pacific Bell, RCN and TCI Cablevision stating that they have reviewed the Subdivision Map and Utility Improvement Plans and that satisfactory easements and utility services have been provided by the Developer. STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS . :'... 030 S AAllison~JuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 14 of 31 Public and private improvements intended to accommodate and convey storm water runoff from the Terrabay project and its drainage basin on San Bruno Mountain shall be designed by the applicant's civil engineering consultant, in accordance with City standards and the requirements of the Terrabay Specific Plan Ordinance, the State Department of Transportation and the County of San Mateo (as appropriate). Surface storm drains, excluding the trunk system carrying runoff from the San Bruno Mountain catchment basins, shall be designed to accommodate at least a 10-year storm without surcharging the pipes. At low points, where overflow would result in property damage, the drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year design storm. Inlets shall be placed and located so as to relieve the street of all storm water generated by a 10-year design storm. The maximum width of gutter flow within the streets shall not exceed 8' from the face of the curb. The storm drainage system improvements, appurtenances and construction details shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Storm drain pipes shall be designed to achieve a velocity of 3 fps when flowing half full under gravity flow conditions. All drainage facilities shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and the requirements of the City Engineer. The overflow system at the inlet structure shall be designed to handle runoff from storms in excess of the hundred year return period, utilizing the private street sys.tem and hydraulically designed overflow drainage facilities, as may be necessary to protect residential or commercial structures from potential damage from storm runoff and from the approved design storm. The storm system shall intercept all runoff from the improved portions of the site and transport it via the public storm drain system to the San Francisco Bay. Bo The City will not accept any drainage facilities for ownership or maintenance within the Phase 1II project, except storm drainage facilities, if any, which accept flow from catchment basin(s) owned and maintained by a public entity. Only storm drainage improvements located within a public street, or a dedicated storm drainage easement, accepted by the City Council, shall be owned and maintained by the City. The minimum pipe size within the public right-of-way or City easements shall be 12" diameter. Where flow velocity within the pipe is anticipated to exceed 11 fps, when flowing half full under gravity flow conditions, at least two inches of cover over the reinforcing steel in the concrete pipes shall be specified, unless a lesser standard is approved in writing by the City Engineer. Co Unless specifically approved by the City Engineer, all storm drain pipes within public or private streets, or public drainage easements, shall be manufactured of ._. 031 S :XAllison~JuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase 1II SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 15 of 31 reinforced concrete with water tight, neoprene, gasketed joints. Corrugated plastic or metal pipes shall only be used for temporary winterization improvements and their associated downdrains. All storm drain manholes shall be spaced at intervals not exceeding 300 feet. Do Storm drains installed within earth slopes with a ratio of 2:1 or greater, shall be provided with pressure treated wooden, concrete, or metal check dams installed at 20 foot intervals, of a design approved by the City Engineer. mo Storm drain laterals shall be connected to the main at a manhole, catch basin, junction box or other accessible structure. No "blind" connections are permitted to storm drains. Laterals shall be connected so that their inverts are no higher than the top of the main. Fo Two copies of the storm drainage and catchment basin calculations and drainage basin key map, justifying the design of the storm drain trunk system improvements (conforming to the approved construction plans), shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and for City records. Go Adequate maintenance access to all storm drainage facilities, meeting the approval of the City Engineer, shall be provided by the developer. Drainage facilities maintained by the homeowners association or property owner (and all public storm drainage facilities, if any) shall be located so as to facilitate and accommodate equipment access to man holes or turning structures at each end of the main and shall provide for safe personnel access to intermediate inlets, structures and other facilities that may need to be periodically maintained. Ho Catch basins up to 4' deep shall be a minimum of 24" square. Inlets over 4' deep shall have a minimum inside dimension of 36" square. All grates shall have a "bicycle proof' waffle pattern. Access structures shall not be placed more than 300 feet apart for conduits smaller than 48" in diameter or 400 feet apart on conduits larger than 48" in diameter. Reinforced concrete lining, a minimum of 4" in thickness, shall be required for all drainage channels, other than pre-existing natural drainage swales. All lined channels shall include a cut-off-wall at the beginning and termination of the lining, unless it is contiguous with a lined channel. The cut-off-wall shall not be less than two and one-half (2.5) feet below the invert of the line channel, and shall extend to a minimum of two and one-half (2.5) feet outside of the side walls to the top of the lining. The freeboard of any lined channel shall not be less than 0.5 feet. The depth and width of lined channels shall be supported by engineering calculations, submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 032 S :XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase m SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 16 of 31 J. All projects within the Phase III development shall be provided with a storm drainage system incorporating pollution control filters of a type that are centrally located, accessible and require cleaning and maintenance no more than once a year. The design and location of these filters shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator. III. SANITARY SEWERS mo All sanitary sewers shall be designed to function during peak wet weather flows without surcharging the sewer pipes. The design of both the on and off-site sewer systems shall conform to the requirements of the Municipal Code and shall be supported by appropriate pipe capacity calculations prepared by the applicant's civil engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Calculated pipe flows shall exceed 3 feet per second. Bo In accordance with the Terrabay Specific Plan requirements: Sanitary sewer trunk lines shall, wherever possible, be located within parking lots, paved walks, or streets. Where sanitary sewers are located parallel or longitudinal to slopes, they shall be installed under a minimum 10 foot wide bench, service road, path or similar facility of the width and structural section acceptable to the City Engineer, as required to accommodate the type of vehicles and equipment needed to access these utilities. The sanitary sewer main, which serves only the Phase III commercial development, shall be installed within the commercial site as a priv. ate sewer line. It shall be installed by the developers at their cost and shall be maintained by the future owners of the commercial parcel and their successors-in- interest. Co All public sanitary sewers shall be constructed of vitrified clay, plastic, ductile iron or cast iron pipe with water tight joints conforming to City standards. Private sewer mains shall be constructed of materials approved by the Plumbing Code, as adopted by the City. All joints shall be watertight. Sewer lateral clean outs shall be installed at property lines and at other locations, as required by the Plumbing Code. Drop manholes shall not be installed, except where necessary due to unavoidable utility conflicts. Manholes shall be spaced a maximum of 300 feet apart. Manholes shall be provided at each change in direction, slope or pipe size. All dead end sewer mains shall terminate at a manhole structure. mo Adequate maintenance access to all sanitary sewer facilities, meeting the approval of the City Engineer, shall be provided by the developer. Sewer facilities maintained by the homeowner association shall be located so as to facilitate and accommodate equipment access to man holes at each end of the main and shall .... 033 S:XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase m SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 17 of 31 provide for safe personnel access to intermediate clean outs, structures and other facilities that may need to be periodically maintained or accessed. Fo Only sanitary sewer improvements located within a public street, or a public sanitary sewer easement, shall be owned and maintained by the City. G° Sanitary sewers shall be designed and installed as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code, the South San Francisco Municipal Code and as approved by the City's civil engineering plan check consultant and the City's Building Division. IV. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS mo The developer shall submit to the City Engineer, for review and approval, complete improvement plans and specifications designed by a civil engineer registered in the State of California for all of the Terrabay project improvement work. The applicant's civil engineer shall sign, date and stamp each improvement, grading and construction plan prior to its approval by the City Engineer. All traffic, channelization, detour and signa1 plans shall also be designed, signed, dated and stamped by a traffic engineer, registered in the State of California. The design of roadway improvements shall be supported by soils test results, including R-values, and drainage calculations. The City Standard Plans used for the subject project shall be those plans and specifications shown in the "Standards for Public Improvements" booklet, dated February 2001, and all approved revisions. Bo Staging of improvements and utilities (placing portions of the improvements in service prior to the completion of the entire infrastructure) shall be approved by the City Engineer and other City staff, as appropriate. Co In accordance with Section 66456.2 of the Government Code, the Developer shall pay the entire cost of the City's geotechnical and civil engineering consulting services to review the preliminary final map, the development improvement plans, technical reports, specifications, plan revisions and related documents. Payment of these consultant services shall be secured by the Developer's $100,000 cash security deposit. Do The developer shall furnish the City Engineer with two copies of all final documents, studies, reports, analysis, calculations and related material used by the developer's consultants to design the project infrastructure. At the time of requesting an occupancy permit for structures within each phase of the subdivision, the developer shall submit a set of "as-built" plans of all public and private utility and improvement plans to the City Engineer. The "as-built" 034 S:XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase In SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 18 of 31 plans shall be the original tracings or permanent "Mylar" transparencies of a quality acceptable to the City Engineer and two paper copies of the plans. V. PRIVATE PROPERTY AND COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENTS Surfaced areas within private property and any common areas, shall be designed for structures adequately based on soil tests for R-Values. The minimum traffic index shall be 4.5. Emergency vehicle access, dead-end turn-a-round areas, fire lanes, fire mains and hydrants shall meet the approval of the Fire Marshal. The proposed interior driveway configurations shall be designed to accommodate the Fire Department's maneuvering and turn-around requirements for their fire fighting equipment. Street intersection radii design shall be justified by turning movement analysis. Bo Private roadway grades shall not exceed 12%. The City Engineer may approve a maximum street grade of 15% for service roads that do not need to accommodate emergency fire equipment and trucks. Storm water runoff shall not be discharged in a concentrated flow across, or over, street curbs and pavements, or pedestrian walks. Sidewalks, a minimum of 4 feet in width, clear, shall be provided on at least one side of each street, connecting each residence with South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard. Lighting shall conform to Police Department requirements and light standards and equipment shall be selected for both performance and durability, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D. Reflectorized barricades shall be provided at the end of stub streets. Each building structure shall be connected to a private sanitary sewer system discharging into the public sewer system. Traffic control signs shall be installed by the Developer in conformance with the approved plans. All streets shall be posted "No Parking at Any Time" (except in designated parking areas). Stop signs and crosswalks shall be installed at each street intersection where required for traffic and pedestrian safety. Intersection curb returns shall have a minimum radius of 30'. Adjacent property lines shall be concentric with the corresponding curb return. Go All roof leaders shall discharge directly into an approved drainage facility, or an underground rigid pipe, connected to the site's drainage system. The site drainage design shall be designed by the applicant's civil engineer and approved by the applicant's soils engineer and the City Engineer. 035 S:XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase m SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 19 of 31 Ho All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into adjacent public or private property or streets. Area drains shall be provided with clean outs, inlets, manholes or other structures, as required to provide access for maintenance to all portions of the drainage system. Storm drains, surfaced areas, planted areas, sprinkler systems and their controls, area lighting, water lines and utility lines and facilities shall be shown on the project site improvement plans and submitted to the City for review and approval. All common and private property areas shall be landscaped and imgated in accordance with plans approved by the City's Planning Division, or the City's Park and Recreation Department, as appropriate. Ko The individual property owner, a property owners association, or similar entity, shall maintain all on-site improvements. Utility easements shall be dedicated and accepted by the utility company requiring said easements to maintain its facilities. Lo Building and garage floors shall be protected from flooding caused by a 100-year design storm. M° All retaining walls shall be designed for the specific location where the wall is intended to be used. All retaining walls supporting private property shall be constructed on private property and not on City lands or rights-of-way. The project soils engineer shall approve wall locations and design parameters. The applicant shall submit structural computations for every retaining wall and for lined ditches (channels) with side slopes steeper than 1-1/2:1. The applicant shall apply to the Building Division for a building permit for each wall to be constructed. No Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for each individual structure, or residence, within the Terrabay project from the Building Division, the developer shall require his civil engineer to inspect the finish grading surrounding each building and certify, in writing, that it conforms to the approved site plans, that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of each building and that all drainage facilities within the lot have been installed, in accordance with their improvement plans. The developer shall make any modifications to the grading or drainage facilities required by the project civil engineer to conform to intent of his plans. All approved field revisions to the approved site plans shall be shown on a record drawing prepared by the applicant's design consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division for the City's records. Oo At the time of making a request for occupancy of each phase of the development, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the project grading, drainage, 036 S :XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 20 of 31 improvement, irrigation and utility plans marked "record drawing" by the developer's civil engineer. The "record drawing" plans shall be permanent plastic film transparencies of a quality acceptable to the City Engineer. Po Building permits for habitable structures downstream of natural drainage channels shall not be issued until the catchment/debris basin above the site requiring permits, has been constructed and is functional, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Qo The developer shall landscape and irrigate the slope between the project improvements and the Sister Cities Boulevard street improvements and along Bayshore Boulevard, between Sister Cities Boulevard and north toward the City limits, to the north property line of Parcel G, in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer, Chief Planner and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. These slopes shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner, property owner's association, or other appropriate entity, unless formally accepted for maintenance by the City Council. Ro Catchment (or Debris) basins, protecting the private, improved, property within the Phase III development, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Terrabay Specific Plan Ordinance, the Terrabay Environmental Impact Report and the Joint Powers Authority (for the Maintenance of Catchment Basins on San Bruno Mountain) standards. VI. SUBDIVISION MAP OR PARCEL MAP mo Submit three copies of the traverse closures for lots and boundaries of each subdivision for review and approval. B. Submit three copies of a current title report for each property to be subdivided. Co The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance, with respect to preparing and filing subdivision final maps. Do The location of all existing and proposed public and private easements shall be shown on the final map. mo Within 30 days of recording the map and prior to receiving a Building Permit for the subject project, the developer shall file with the City Engineer a reproducible "Mylar", or equal, copy of the recorded subdivision final map and two paper prints for the City's permanent records. Fo The developer shall pay all engineering map and improvement plan checking and filing fees, and any other applicable fees, prior to filing of the final map. ... 037 S AAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 21 of 31 VII. Go Any proposed deed restrictions and C.C. & R.'s shall be fully approved by the Planning Division and the City Attorney, prior to submittal of the preliminary subdivision maps for final checking. The approved deed restrictions and C.C. & R.'s shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder concurrently with the final tract map. Three copies of the recorded documents shall be submitted to the City for our files. Ho The proposed building pad, lot lines and infrastructure, including the roadway alignments shown on the Tentative Map are subject to modification to accommodate life safety and traffic considerations and grading and geological impacts, that may become evident through the detailed improvement plan preparation and review process and during the construction of the site improvements and field observations. All permanent monuments shown on the recorded final map shall be in place prior to receiving an occupancy permit for each dwelling unit. Any survey monuments destroyed, moved, displaced, or disturbed during the course of constructing the project, shall be replaced in kind by the contractor or developer, to the satisfaction of the project surveyor and the City Engineer, prior to receiving permission to occupy the structure. DEDICATIONS Bayshore Boulevard, within the boundary of the subject tentative map shall be dedicated by the subdivider to the City of South San Francisco for public street and utility purposes, at no cost to the City. In accordance with the right-of-way and easement agreement between the subdivider and the City, as approved by the City Council on October 11, 2000 and any approved amendments. The extent of this dedication shall be determined by the Director of Public Works based upon the needs of the City of South San Francisco to accommodate the construction of the Bayshore Boulevard Realignment, Fly-Over and Hook-Ramp projects. The following easements and property are not required for dedication to the City of South San Francisco. 1. Slope maintenance easements (S.M.E.). Blanket public utility easements over private property shall not be dedicated to the City for maintenance. The private streets in the residential area may be overlaid with public utility easements to accommodate the installation and maintenance of water, power and communications facilities however, these easements shall not contain any . . :-038 S AAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase 1II SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 22 of 31 City maintained facilities or improvements, and shall be so noted on the final map. o Any hiking trails and trailheads proposed by the developer within the City limits. VIII. GRADING A. Soils, Geologic and Geotechnical Reports The subdivider shall submit three copies of all final project soils, geologic and geotechnical reports and addenda prepared for the Terrabay Development, to be filed in the City's permanent records. These reports shall address all deviations from the latest, adopted, Uniform Building Code and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The final reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's geotechnical consultants. The URS Geotechnical Reports submitted with the Precise Plan and Tentative Map application indicate that additional information needs to be gathered and analyzed within the Phase III area. This information must be submitted to the City's consultants and reviewed and approved. These additional reports and the subsequent review may result in the imposition of additional soils, geological or geotechnical studies or requirements for the project. B. Grading Permit A grading permit for new grading within the boundaries of the TerraBay Phase HI site shall not be issued by the City Engineer until after the City Council has approved the Phase III Vesting Tentative Map and Precise Plan for the subject project and the Developer has submitted a $100,000 cash security deposit, as provided for by Section 19.44.110 of the Municipal Code, to guarantee the prompt payment of the City's inspection, construction monitoring, plan checking and administrative costs. Co Grading Plans The developer's project Geotechnical Consultant shall either sign the project grading plans or submit a signed and stamped letter stating that they have reviewed the rough grading or final grading (as appropriate) plans and that they conform to the intent of their recommendations and are acceptable to be used for the grading of the site. The reshaping/restoration of the "Point" above the proposed parking garage shall be completed along with the grading/restoration above the .i..' 039 S :XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase m SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 23 of 31 Residential Parcel. This will allow an integrated drainage divide, physically identify areas of maintenance responsibility and provide a head-start for the restoration of the existing scared slope on the Point. o Benches, walls and/or lined ditches shall be designed in to the lower portion of the major slopes to trap siltation and/or raveling of earth materials from the slope areas. These devices shall be placed along the sidewalks, roads and at the rear of the residential lots, that abut the base of the existing and new slopes. The project grading plans shall include interim and winterization work within the Recreation Parcel. This work shall include, at a minimum, the scope of work listed in the Memorandum to Eric McHuron from M. S. Townsend, Inc., dated April 13, 2001. In summary, the maintenance work shall be conducted for a minimum of five to seven years and may be extended if the performance objectives are not met. (A). Extend to the north, support with engineered fill, and clear/repair if necessary the 12- inch black line storm drain at the siltation basin. (B). Grout/repair the void underneath the V" ditch, where seeps have undermined the embankment. (C). Establish a proposed vehicular/pedestrian entry and utility connection point at the peak elevation of South San Francisco Driven and, (D). Enlist a restoration specialist to mitigate the Scotch Broom and Fennel at the benched slope to the east of the parcel; place sliver fill and re-vegetate the benches similar to the re-vegetation concept approved for the Point. C. Grading Operations The grading operations shall be accomplished in accordance with the terms of a grading permit, the requirements of the project soils reports, the approved plans and specifications and the direction of the project soils engineer in the field. The grading permit will not be approved until the applicant has obtained building permits, from the City's Building Division, for all retaining walls needed to complete the approved grading plans. The entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled to prevent dust, covered with tarps, or sprayed with oil, or equally effective dust palliative, to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried into the adjacent developed areas of South San Francisco. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day until the property is fully developed. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets. O4O S :XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase llI SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 24 of 31 o o The developer shall provide the City Engineer with a clear written statement that he understands the potential for increased costs and delays during the grading operations, due to potential geotechnical conditions identified in the project soils and geotechnical reports, and has made provisions for these potential costs and delays in his project budgeting and scheduling. The developer shall provide a commitment to take maximum geotechnical care and attention in the field performance of the grading and that he will correct any geotechnical problems which develop during construction at his expense. Particular attention shall be given to compaction adjacent to utility structures, manholes, storm drain inlets, maintenance access areas, concrete gutters, etc. An adequate performance bond to cover the dust and erosion impacts of grading operations, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney and of an amount specified by the City Engineer, shall be provided to the City by the developer, prior to receiving a grading permit. The developer shall prepare, and submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, a construction grading schedule with specific dates for completion of grading milestones by which the progress of the work can be evaluated. The developer shall have his civil engineer design and submit, for review and approval by the City staff and consultants, a Site Winterization Plan, Best Management Practices Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the grading work and other construction activities, prior to receiving a grading permit for any phase of the project. The approved winterization plan shall be placed in effect and maintained to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, between October 15 and April 15 of each year that the finish grading and improvement work remains incomplete. o All work activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Friday (and excluding all City recognized holidays), unless other hours and days are specifically approved in writing by the City Engineer. INSPECTION The developer shall provide continuous on-site grading inspection services by his geotechnical consultant. At a minimum, inspection services shall 041 S :XAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 25 of 31 be provided at a level that will permit the consultant to state that all grading work was performed in accordance with the requirements of the project soils and geotechnical reports and in accordance with their recommendations. The City shall provide construction compliance monitoring of the grading inspection services provided by the developer's consultants. The compliance monitoring requirements are set forth in another section of these recommendations. Funding for this service shall be provided by the developer. E. MAINTENANCE OF UNIMPROVED GRADED AREAS The developer shall provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week maintenance of all graded, or otherwise disturbed areas, until these areas are fully developed. The maintenance work shall include the control of dust and erosion, the repair and cleaning of drainage and silt retention facilities, the irrigation of erosion control plantings, and the repair of slope failures, slumps and potentially hazardous conditions. A regular maintenance program for unimproved graded areas shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The maintenance program shall be implemented by the developer's contractor to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. F. MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVED SLOPE AREAS The developer, their successor's in interest, and the future owners of both any common areas and the improved lots, shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of all slope areas within their properties. The developer shall prepare a written maintenance plan, with specifications, schedules and illustrative exhibits for the maintenance and repair of slope areas, drainage facilities, benches, gutters and subdrains for the review and approval of the City Engineer. The developer and future property owners shall be required to maintain their property in accordance with the approved maintenance plan. This requirement shall be incorporated into the Terrabay Phase III D.C.C. & G. LOT PAD AND GRADING APPROVALS Prior to receiving a Building Permit for any structure within the Terrabay Phase III Development, the project soils engineer shall verify in writing SAAllison~JuneConditions of Approval.doc 042 Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase m SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 26 of 31 that the grading and earthwork within the building pad area is complete and in conformance with the approved soils report and his recommendations. The soils engineer's compaction and civil engineer's elevation, lot pad certifications, shall be submitted to the City Engineer and the City's geotechnical consultant for review and approval. o Each grading plan shall be signed and stamped by the project geotechnical consultant, prior to its approval by the City Engineer, in connection with the issuance of a grading permit. IX. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM Ao In order to provide assurance to the City that the grading, drainage, improvements, landscaping and site construction work within the property on San Bruno Mountain have been properly constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, project requirements and conditions of approval, the applicant shall develop a quality control program to inspect the work. The quality control program shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The developer's consultants shall inspect the project work and supply daily written documentation of all inspections and testing performed by the consultants to verify compliance with the approved plans. The consultants shall coordinate their activities with the City's representatives, the developer's contractors, and subcontractors, public utilities and the Habitat Plan Operator. The quality control program shall be funded entirely by the project sponsor. Bo The City shall retain a contract employee and one or more assistants (if needed) to represent the City Engineer during the construction of the Terrabay Phase III development. This employee(s) shall inspect the public improvement construction work, as well as monitor the activities of the developer's quality assurance program, respond to citizen inquires, attend construction field meetings, organize, review and file project related correspondence, logs, test results and similar documents, coordinate with public utilities and perform other services for the City Engineer in connection with the development of the Terrabay Phase m projects. The City's representative(s) will be assisted by geotechnical and civil engineering consultants as necessary to perform the inspection and monitoring services. The project sponsor shall fund the City's costs for the City's inspection/monitoring program. The developer shall also provide a desk, telephone and access to a copy and fax machine in the contractor's field office to be used by the City staff while at the job site and either provide a vehicle for the inspector, or reimburse the inspector (or City) for the cost of a leased vehicle for the inspector's use. ..... 043 S :~AllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 27 of 31 Co Do F° Go Ho The developer shall prepare a detailed geotechnical quality assurance program to provide an independent review and confirmation of all geotechnical decisions and reviews during construction, including, but not limited to, the installation and interpretation of instrumentation, field trials of excavation and fill materials, drainage installations, application of slope stabilization techniques and construction monitoring. This quality control program must be acceptable to the City and the developer must commit to its implementation, prior to receiving a grading permit. The quality control program will be monitored by the City Engineer through his field representative(s) and contract consultants. In the course of construction, differences of opinion may occur between the developer and the City as to the interpretation of the approved plans and specifications, geotechnical solutions to unexpected field conditions, the acceptability of particular methods of construction, safety related improvements, and similar matters. In the event of a dispute between the construction and field monitoring personnel, the City Engineer will make every effort to resolve the differences to all parties satisfaction. However, the City Engineer shall make the final decision regarding disputes, which shall be binding on the developer, his contractors and consultants. The developer shall assign a project construction coordinator during both the design and construction phases of the project who will be the single point of contact with the City and its authorized agents. In the event that this person leaves, or is reassigned, these duties shall be assigned to a new person who shall cofitinue to represent the developer and his engineers and contractors. The developer shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the potential for future slope maintenance and slope correction work has been fully considered, and that adequately funded procedures for the efficient maintenance of slopes and correction of failures after construction have been provided. Building permits for lots below earth cuts and landslide repair slopes shall be withheld until the lots have experienced an average winter rainfall. The developer shall install geotechnical instrumentation on the major cut slopes above the project. These instruments shall be monitored during grading and after grading, as required by the City's geotechnical consultant. Habitable buildings below rock fall and debris flow retention structures shall not receive building permits until the developer has provided the calculations and performance standards for the proposed structures for the review and approval of the City's consultants. 044 S AAllison~luneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 28 of 31 Prior to performing any blasting within the site, the developer's blasting contractor shall obtain a blasting permit from the Fire Department and shall provide a minimum of 48 hours notice, in writing, to the City Engineer and all City departments and other government agencies that may be affected by the work, advising them of the date and time that such blasting will occur. Building permits for all retaining walls shall be obtained by the developer from the Building Division, prior to commencing foundation excavation and construction of the walls. XI. MITIGATION MEASURES AND OTHER AGENCIES The Terrabay developer shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in the Terrabay Phase II and III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The Terrabay developer(s) shall not commence work at the site until they have obtained all permits from any federal, state and county agencies required by law to perform the work needed to develop the subject projects. XII. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT OCCUPANCY The subdivider will likely request temporary occupancy of one or more homes to be used as models. Also, the subdivision's permanent residents will probably want to move into their homes before heavy construction within the project is complete. Either request could result in the public and/or residents being impacted in various health and safety ways by the construction activities. Prior to receiving a temporary certificate of occupancy for a model home within the subdivision, the developer shall submit for the City staff's review and approval a plan, that will address at a minimum, the following items: All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from areas accessible by the visiting public. All areas subject to public travel shall be paved and provided with adequate street and area lighting meeting the Police Department's requirements. 3. A parking and traffic safety plan shall be prepared and implemented. Pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be provided within the model home complex area. 045 SAAllisonXJuneConditions of Approval.doc Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 29 of 31 Bo Prior to receiving permanent occupancy permits for the homes within the subdivision, the developer shall submit for the City staff's review and approval a plan that will address, at a minimum, the following items: All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from the portion of the site occupied by the new residents. All streets and sidewalks accessible to the public shall be clear of all trailers, equipment, materials, debris, and other obstructions, and cleaned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All street lights within the portion of the subdivision accessible to the public shall be fully operational. All traffic signs and pavement markings within the portion of the site accessible by the public shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans. All site improvements within areas subject to public access shall be complete in accordance with the approved subdivision improvement, grading, drainage and utility plans. o Hours of construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). Engineering Division contact, Richard Harmon, Development Specialist: 829-6654 D. Fire Prevention Building Division requirements shall be as follows: Typical: 1. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than 300 feet from one another. Fire flow and the number of fire hydrants shall be determined utilizing Appendix IliA and IIIB of the 1998 California Building Code. Due to the nature of the buildings in proximity to the San Bruno Mountain and the topography as it relates to fire apparatus access; a 75% reduction in fire flow will not be given. A reduction will have to be negotiated based upon inherent construction and other passive types of fire protection. Hydrants may be shared among buildings. Fire apparatus access shall be required per Section 3.05, Title 19 California Code of Regulations and Section 902 of the 1998 California Fire Code. The South San Francisco Fire Department recognizes absolute conformance may be impossible due to geography and topography. The SSFFD is willing to negotiate alternate means of protection in lieu of strict conformance. Alternate means of protection 046 S:~Allison~JuneConditions of Approve.floc v Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase llI SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 30 of 31 for fire apparatus access shall be approved by the SSFFD prior to submission of building plans for construction. Fire Department Connections for the sprinkler/standpipe system shall be accessible from the street level and placed with 100 feet of a fire hydrant. Commercial Building: 1. Fire Control Room shall be located at the exterior of the building and have separate access from the main entrance/exit. Such room shall have communicating access to the main building lobby. Exit stair enclosures shall be a rated two-hour fire resistive enclosure exiting directly to the exterior of the building. Exception pertinent to lobbies when associated with office buildings will be recognized. Garage: 1. Because of the size of the structure, emergency response is difficult. The elevators provided for patron convenience should be gurney accessible and provided with stand-by power. Single 1. Family Residences: Fire sprinklers shall be required for all structures three stories or more in height. Single family dwellings may utilize NFPA 13D Standard For Fire Sprinklers In One and Two Family Dwellings. Condominiums: 1. Fire Control Room shall be located at the exterior of the building and have separate access from the main entrance/exit. Such room shall have communicating access to the main building lobby. o Exit stair enclosures shall be a rated two-hour fire resistive enclosure exiting directly to the exterior of the building. o Fire department access as indicated does not provide access at street level. Provide access from street level to both sides of the building. o Upgrade the current fire sprinkler system to a quick-response system throughout the tower. o The driveway to the West of the building is considered a Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access that exceeds a 12% slope. Reduce the slope to 12% or less. ° Although the drawings indicate a new stair at the Eastside of the building, the distance from the bottom of the building to the Westside of the podium around the SAAllisonUuneConditions of Approval.doc-' 0 4 7 Conditions Of Approval Terrabay Phase III SA 01-020 & PP 01-020 Page 31 of 31 parking garage is unacceptable. Provide an additional stairway from the street to the podium level adjacent to the garage entrance at grids B/C and 6/6.7. Provide 110 duplex outlets within the corridor every 20 feet on center (10 feet from ends) within public corridors interconnected into the emergency generator. o Provide a fire equipment cache on the 7th and 14th floors. Equipment to be purchased by the developer and maintained by the South San Francisco Fire Department. Equipment and specifications to be identified at a later date. Example of equipment would be 100 foot of 2V2 inch hose, one hose pack (2V2 coupling/reducer connected to a 100 foot of 13,4 inch hose with a combination nozzle), two smoke ejectors, four "Circle D". Two male to female twist lock pigtails, and six 25 foot extension cords. Contact Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshall / Chief Building Official: 829-6688 E. Water and Waste Water Conditions During all on-site activities the contractor is to have onsite prior to grading all supplies and materials that are listed Stormwater Management Plan that also includes the Erosion Control Plan. 2. Additional comments and/or conditions at the building plan submittal stage. Contact Ray Honan, Environmental Compliance Coordinator: 877-8634 SAAllison~JuneConditions of Approval.doc. 0 4 8 MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 30, 2002 Commissioner Joseph D'Angelo Commasmoner Judith Honmn Commissioner Michael Meloni Commissioner Rick Ochsenhirt Commissioner William Romero Commissioner Eugene Sim Comnusmoner Marc Teglia City of South San Francisco City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: The Terrabay Condominium - Design Refinement Dear Commissioners: Thank you for malting the time to meet with us to review the refinements that have been made to our Terrabay Condominium project. As you'll recall, The Planning Commission previously 'approved a Precise Plan for this development on May 9, 2001. By way of background, I'm pleased to report that we've reached agreement with Western Pacific Housing who intends to join us in the development of The Terrabay Condominium through its commitment of the additional'capital necessary to complete this exciting project. As you may be aware, there have been significant fluctuations in our local real estate markets due, in large part, to: 0 0 Changes in buyer profiles; Stepped-up underwriting disciplines by equity and debt providers; Current local and national economic conditions; and, The events of September 11 th. We have refined our condominium plans in light of these factors. After reviewing our proposed modifications, the planning staff indicates that our plans warrant further review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. II11 Second Sm:.~:, Suite 555 · San Francisco. C^ 94 IO5 · Telephone: (415) 777-3330 · Fax; {415) 777-3331 ww~:mycrsdevdopment.¢o m ..049 South San Francisco Planning Commission Members May 30, 2002 Page 2 Generally speaking, the revised condominium plan has gained certain desi~ efficiencies that have: cl Reduced the overall building height by 35 feet; and, Reduced the w/dth of the parking garage podium by nearly 140 feet. While the building's dimensions have changed in height and width, our approach to design has remained virtually the same. The clegant "Mondrian" style first expressed by our design architects has been handsomely re£med and enriched through the development of a consistent color and material composition. Of particular importance, has been our design teams focus on making The Terrabay Condominium "less commercial" in its appearance, as th. is was a concern expressed during our original design review. Efficiencies in the structure and changes to the average unit size have been driven primarily by a refinement to the unit mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms. This change is due to the following: 1.) The condominium, market has changed dramatically since the "go-go" days of the dot.corn phenomenon and the overwhelming events of 9/11. Our market consultants have directed our pricing, uni! size and trait mix to meet the needs of our principal potential consumer groups. These consumers consist of: [] South San Francisco public workers (teachers, firemen, police, etc.), empty nesters, single buyers, small executi'~e family move-up buyers and/or executive first-time home buyers; m East of US 101 (bio-tech personnel); and, a "San Francisco International Airport industry workers. 2.) In light of the market changes as outlined in #1 above, lending and equity investor markets showed little interest in underwriting the previously approved plan. The original avcrage unit size and corresponding market price did not sustain their scrutiny relative to their market demand analysis. Of considerable importance, to everyone involved in this development, has been the mandate to continue to deliver an outstanding residential project. In furtherance of this fundamental goal, our selection of building materials, color palates and specific architectural details has remained consistent with the intent of the originally approved scheme. We have also received assurances by our market advisors that the Terrabay Condominium residences will continue to represent quality housing and dcsi~ excellence within the community of South San F;cancisco. O50 South San Francisco Planning Comrnission Members May 30, 2002 Page 3 Our presentation on June 6~ will be comprehensive and inclusive of the kind of information you've come to expect from our group. Until then, we're looking forward to meeting with you again. In the mean time, if there are any questions you would like answered or addressed prior to our meeting, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (415) 777-3330. Very truly yours, BCYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Jack E. Myers Chairman & Chief Executive Officer YEMJla 051 RESOLUTION NO. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN, APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.63 (THE TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT) AND AMENDMENT TO THE PRECISE PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase 1TI of the Terrabay Development on November 21, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco adopted an amendment to Chapter 20.63, Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District, Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map on May 9, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Restated and Development Agreement to incorporate changes in the approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Chapter 20.63; and, WHEREAS, Myers Peninsula Development Company, L.L.C., has prepared text amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan ("Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is revised to incorporate modifications to the parking, height of the condominium building and other technical changes to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended on May 9, 2001; and, WHEREAS, Myers Peninsula Development Company has prepared changes to the previously approved Precise Plan with respect to the condominium portion only; and, WHEREAS, the proposed modifications result in changes to the number of one-bedroom units, the guest parking ratio, reduction in grading on the site, reduction in the height of the building and alters the configuration of the units within the structure; and, WHEREAS, together, the amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Chapter 20.63 and the Precise Plan are referred to as the "Amendments" and do not result in an increase in land use or development intensity over that analyzed in the 1982 El]R, the 1996 SEHt. and the 1998-99 SEIR and Addendum thereto; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, projects which have been previously analyzed and do not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures do 052 not require further environmental analysis; and, WI-IEREAS, the prior certified EIR's, SEIR and Addendum to the 1998-9 SEIR fully analyzed all potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigation for said impacts; and, WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and said program remains in full force and effect; and, WHEREAS, based on the foregoing and CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no further environmental review is required; and, WHEREAS, on June 6, 2002, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance and the amendments to the Precise Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based upon the entire record for the Terrabay development. The record includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) The South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan; 3) The 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998- 1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; 4) Testimony and materials, including the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 2000; 5) Testimony and materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and Phase m of the Terrabay Development; and 6) Testimony and Materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance, and Precise Plan submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on June 6, 2002: The Amendments do not alter the land use or result in an increased development intensity of the property. The Amendments relate entirely to the condominium portion of the approved project. Specifically, the Amendments replace the .25 parking ratio for guest parking with a ratio of no less than .13 spaces per unit. The Amendments also reduce the height and development footprint of the condominium tower, reduce grading on the site, reducs the tower from 20 floors to 15 and alters the units configuration to 52 one bedroom units from the previously approved 14 one-bedroom units. The total number of units, 112, would remain unchanged The Amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Chapter 20.63 and Precise Plan are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Dave Carbone, Staff Administrator of the 053. C/CAG San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) previously reviewed the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and found it complied with the ALUC requirements (letter of October 25, 2000). Because the Amendments result in a reduction of the height of the condominium tower and will not result in increased development or densities over that previously analyzed by Dave Carbone, the compliance letter of October 25, 2000 supports approval of the Amendments with the conditions imposed as part of the Vesting Tentative Map and prior Precise Plan approvals. The Amendments are consistent with the Habitat Conservation Plan. ( HCP ) Victoria Harris, biologist with Thomas Reid Associates (The Plan Administrator) reviewed the previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and found the Specific Plan complied with the HCP boundary and grading limits (letter of October 25, 2000) certified by the City of South San Francisco on May 12, 1999. The limits certified by the City on May 12, 1999, were used to verify HCP Compliance for Terrabay Phase 11 and Phase m. Because the proposed Amendments would result in less grading on the site and would remain well within the previously approved grading limits, the Amendments are consistent with the HCP. The Amendments are consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. Amendments proposed relate only to the condominium portion of the approved project. All findings and analysis made in support of the 70 unit residential and commercial portions are unchanged. Specific findings related to the condominium amendments are set forth below. Housing Element Action 1C-3: Ensure that new development and rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. Support excellence in design through the continued use of the design review board and/or staff. Analysis: The Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan District zoning ordinance and the Precise Plan further this policy. The density of the project would not be increased, it would however be situated on a smaller portion of the condominium parcel. Sewer, water, storm drain and open space and a linear park are already in place and are continued in the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan lands. Precise plan and design review of detailed architectural and landscape drawings (as required by the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance) ensure architectural compatibility. ii. Housing Element Policy 3E: Foster amenities needed by female-headed households. Action 3E-1 The City shall strongly encourage the inclusion of child- care and after-school care facilities within or near affordable and higher density housing and mixed use developments. 3 054 vi. iii. iv. Analysis: The Amendments incorporate the previously approved project and permit development of additional one bedroom units. The Amendments allow for 52 one bedroom units, 54 two bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units ranging in size from approximately 900 square feet to 1,500 square feet in area. The unit sizes and sales prices are intended to accommodate small households. Transportation Element Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. Analysis: The Amendments conform with and implement this Policy. The site planning propOsed includes pedestrian trails, shuttle service to major transit areas and bike paths as previously approved in Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Chapter 20.63 and the Precise Plan. Paradise Valley Terrabay Guiding Policy 3.8-G-1: Allow limited development that is in keeping with the character of the Paradise Valley/Terrabay area and its natural setting Analysis: The Amendments conform with and implement this policy. The Final Terrabay Specific Plan, which includes the Recreation and Preservation parcels, limits development to areas predominately disturbed by Phase I grading activities and proposes clustering development and preserving open space. No changes to those parcels are made as part of the Amendments. Additionally, architectural and design changes in the Precise Plan have been incorporated to impart a more residential appearance to the condominium tower. The Amendments conform to the Open Space, Business Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use designations reflected in the General Plan, Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended, and the Vesting Tentative Map. Housing Element Policy lB. Provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of the City Government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. Action lB-1 Support Private Market Construction: The program is designed to remove hurdles to constructing new market-rate housing units for above-moderate and moderate-income households so that units can be built at a rate that will meet the current and projected housing needs. Analysis: The Amendments conform to the Medium Density Residential 4 055 vii. Designation and (8.1-18.0 dwelling units per acre) provides for housing while preserving habitat and open space. All three phases of Terrabay would provide 603 housing units. The Amendments do not authorize additional units nor result in a reduction in the number of units previously approved. However, the number of one bedroom units increases from 14 to 52 with a resulting reduction in the number of two and three bedroom units. The change in unit distribution is based on market considerations and are intended to meet the need of working professionals in the East of 101 area and nearby airport. Housing Element Policy lC: Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing units in well planned neighborhoods. Analysis: The previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plan include a variety of housing units and types. The Amendments add one-bedroom units in a double loaded design within the condominium tower. The proposed project and the existing approved project that includes townhomes and a variety of sizes of detached units would provide an overall variety of housing. Recreational land uses are also included within the Terrabay planning area. The Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance implements the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended. In recommending approval, the Planning Commission relies on the extensive findings in the record, including environmental analyses, articulated at the June 6, 2002, meeting of the Planning Commission. As the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance merely implements the particular standards, land uses, boundaries and development criteria of the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the findings related to consistency, with the General Plan support consistency findings for the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. As an implementing measure, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Proper environmental documentation has been prepared on the Amendments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a). This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: City Council's independent review of the proposed Amendments; the SE[R and relevant sections of the 1982 EIR and the 1996 Supplemental EIR and the entire 1999 SEIR, and Addendum thereto, which demonstrate that any significant impacts from the proposed development have either been avoided or mitigated to a level of less than significance or were addressed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No further environmental analysis is required when a prior EIR has been prepared for a project unless new impacts or mitigation measures are identified. The Amendments do not result in any new significant impacts or require changes to existing mitigation measures. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no additional environmental review is required. 056 7, o 10. The condominium site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: The site is suited for the type, density and location of commercial and residential development in that all the mitigation measures applicable to the Phase 11 and Phase 111 sites identified in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1999 SEIR are incorporated into the mitigation monitoring program for Phase 1I and Phase m. No changes to the mitigation monitoring program are required as a result of the Amendments nor do the Amendments result in a change in density or location over that previously analyzed and approved in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan District, Precise Plan or Vesting Tentative Map. The design, improvements and constructions standards included within the Amendments are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat and are designed to achieve compliance with the development and/or construction standards of the Terrabay specific plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, together with the Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1982, the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Addendum to the 1999 SEIR analyze the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed Phase 1I and Phase m development and together with the adopted mitigation monitoring program demonstrate that the project will either avoid or mitigate impacts of the project that are likely to cause serious public health problems, to cause substantial environmental damage, or to cause substantial and avoidable injuries to fish, wildlife or their habitat. The design and type of improvements proposed in the Amendments do not conflict with public easements for access through or use of the property within the Phase 11 and Phase areas of the Terrabay development and conform to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 19.48.080 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code as to design, drainage, utilities, road improvements and offers of dedication or deed. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: Planning Commission's independent review of the proposed Amendments and the reports of the city engineer and other appropriate department heads. As previously determined by the City Council, Phase 12I and Phase 1II of the Terrabay development provide, to the extent feasible, future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. No changes are proposed in the Amendments that would alter passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, together with the Environmental Impact Report proposed in 1982 and the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Addendum related thereto, analyze the energy impacts of the project and provide to the extent feasible future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. 6 ;-.'~ 057 11. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the proposed Vesting Tentative Map. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: Planning Commission's independent review of the Amendments and the previously approved Vesting Tentative Map; Planning Commission's review of the comments of the Design Review Board; and, Planning Commission's review of the staff report and supporting documents submitted with the application for Amendments and the approved Vesting Tentative Map. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that the Precise Plan implements the project as proposed in the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan, including the incorporation of residential housing and preservation of open space as indicated on the Vesting Tentative Map. 12. The Amendments are consistent with the approved development agreement. This finding is based upon the Planning Commission's independent review of the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase 11 and Phase III of the Terrabay Development, the First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement, and the attached Amendments. The Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the Final Terrabay Specific Plan Lands was approved by Council on January 24, 2001. A First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement was approved in January 2001, which implemented the changes made to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan related to the configuration of the 70 unit residential neighborhood and development approval process. The Development Agreement vests rights to develop the property in accordance with the previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and its implementing ordinance, Chapter 20.63 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, in effect as of January 11, 2001. The Amendments are consistent with the land uses, development intensities and design standards approved in the Development Agreement, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: Recommend approval of an amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and authorize staff to make changes to the plan consistent with the Commission's approval of same. Bo Recommend approval of an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance and authorize staff to prepare text changes to Chapter 20.63 to reflect the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. Co Recommend approval of an amendment to the Precise Plan for the condominium project. 7 O58 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 ~ day of 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: AB STENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: Thomas A. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission 8 059 85/29/2882 10:56 415-457-6~~" PAGE ~12 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 545 Burnett Avenue, #101 Sa Francisco, CA 94131 (415) 282-9656 phone (415) 821-9837fax 6220 Bay View Avenue El Sobrante, CA 94806 (510) 236-9375 phone (510) 236-5624/ax MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Allison Knapp (aknapp~ix.netcom.com) Mark D. Crane May 20, 2002 REVIEW OF TERRABAY CONDOMINIUM TOWER ACCESS Allison: i have reviewed the 3 May 2002 Conceptual Design plans for proposed driveway access to the proposed 112-unit Terrabay condominium tower to be located along the future Redwood Place as well as a supplemental access alternative plan developed by Meyer Development Company on 15 May 2002. I have also had a discussion with Richard Harmon of the Public Works Department to obtain his input regarding the proposed access. My comments are as follows. 1. Resident Driveway a) 3 May 2002 Conceptual Design Plan This plan shows that the residem driveway would be located along Redwood Place about 80 feet from the Redwood Place/South San Francisco Drive intersection. Redwood Place would be 25 feet wide (curb to curb) adjacent to this driveway and along the entire frontage of the condominium tower. It would also be stop sign controlled on its westbound approach to the South San Francisco Drive three-leg intersection. Redwood Place would also crest a hill at the location of this driveway connection. Potential issues with this proposed driveway connection are as follows. Issue 1: Outbound driveway traffic leaving the garage would not be likely to approach Redwood Place at (or close to) a 90-degree angle given the long curb radius on the northwest comer of this intersection. This would necessitate drivers on the driveway approach turn their necks 120 degrees or more to see traffic on the westbound (uphill) Redwood Place imersection approach. Solution i: Reduce to curb radius on thc northwesl comer of the intersection to force outbound traffic from the condo garage to approach Redwood Place at closer to a 90-degree angle. 060 05/29/2002 10:56 415-457-6¢~1 PAGE 03 Issue 2: It is impossible to tell on the plan whether there will be adequate sight lines for drivers between the driveway and Redwood Place to the east of the driveway. A minimum stopping sight distance for an eastbound vehicle on Redwood Place traveling 30 miles per hour (on a 10% uphill grade) would be about 180 feet' (200 feet without grade considerations). The sight line would cross some project frontage which could have a slope or landscaping interfering with this dimmce. Solution 2: Provide hillside contouring and appropriate landscaping to provide acceptable sight lines. Issue 3: Drivers turning from northbound South San Francisco Drive to eastbound Redwood Place could be confronted by a vehicle waiting for westbound traffic to clear to make a lel~ turn into the condo tower driveway. The 25-foot street width would not allow through waffle to bypass this stopped vehicle, The limited distance between the two intersections may only allow a 30- to 40-foot sight line between the driver turning right from South San Francisco Drive and this stopped vehicle. A turning vehicle traveling at 15 miles per hour would require a minimum stopping sight distance of 80 feet.' Solution 3: Provide an additional 10 feet of curb-m-curb width along Redwood Place from the South San Francisco Drive intersection to just past (east of) the residence driveway serving the condo tower. This would allow provision of a 12.5-foot-wide westbound travel lane and a 22.5- foot-wide eastbound travel lane in the widened section, b) 15 May 2002 Meyer Development Company Alternative Proposal This plan would have the residential driveway located under the west end of the condo tower building about 190 feet west of the Redwood Place/Cypress Place intersection. Meyers Development refers to this proposal as Alternative C. Redwood Place would be level at this location and would remain level 190 feet easterly to the Cypress Place intersection. Westerly, Redwood Place would proceed up a 10 percent grade starting just west of this location. Redwood Place would be straight to the west of the driveway and would traverse a horizontal curve to the east of the driveway for the majority of its length to Cypress Place. A 160-foot sight line would be provided between a driver exiting the residential driveway and westbound traffic on Redwood Place that had just departed the Redwood Place/Cypress Place intersection. In order to provide and maintain this sight line, which would extend across the site frontage due to the curvature of Redwood Place adjacent to the from of the condo tower, no obstruction higher than six inches, including landscaping, could ever be allowed in this area. A 160-foot stopping sight distance would be adequate for a vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour.' Should final design considerations indicate that a 160-foot sight line is not obtainable, a stop sign could be provided on the westbound Redwood Place approach to the condo tower resident driveway (in conjunction with the stop sign that would already be provided for outbound traffic on the condo driveway intersection approach). Since the 112 units in the condo tower would be producing approximately the same level of trip generation as the single family units to the east, there would ' ,4 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO 2001. 5/20/02 CTO Page 2 Memo to Allison Knapp 85/29/2882 16:56 415-457-$~t PAGE be similar flows oftraf~c on both stop sign controlled approaches to the resident driveway/Redwood Place intersection. The sight line to/from west of the residential driveway along Redwood Place would be about 220 feet (to the crest of the uphill grade that sram just west of the driveway). This would also be adequate for a vehicle travel speed of 30 miles per hour*, which would be a maximum expected speed for an eastbound vehicle on Redwood Place cresting the hill just east of the South San Francisco Drive intersection. 2. Visitor Parking Driveway The visitor driveway would be located along Redwood Place about 70 feet west of thc Redwood Place/Cypress Place intersection. This driveway would be in the same location with either the 3 May 2002 Conceptual Design Plan or the 15 May 2002 Alternative C proposal. Redwood Place would be 25 feet wide (curb to curb) in the vicinity of this driveway. Westbound traffic on Redwood Place at the driveway would be traveling at low speeds as it would have been stop sign controlled at the Redwood Place/Cypress Place intersection. Drivers exiting the condo tower driveway (all of whom or virtually all of whom would be making a right turn) could easily see westbound traffic departing this intersection. Eastbound (downhill) traffic on Redwood Place would have about a 200-foot sight line (limited by the front of the condo tower building-it is impossible to tell if the sight line would be longer on the plan) to see a vehicle stopped waiting to make a left turn into the condo tower visitor driveway, which would be adequate for a 25 mile per hour speed, but not a 30 mile per hour or higher speed. Realistically, even with a posted 25 mph limit, eastbound (downhill) traffic will be traveling at a speed higher than 25 mph. However, given the volumes expected on this segment of Redwood Place due to the single family units and the low volume of traffic expected to be turning into the condo tower visitor driveway, there would only be an extremely low probability that a vehicle turning left into the condo tower visitor driveway would experience any measurable delay for a turning movement. Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO 2001. 5/20/02 CTG Page3 Memo to Allison Km~pp O62 ~AY-]9-2002(SUN) 18:02 McHuror (FAX) 1 41F 6Bz~ 4041 P. 001/001 McHuron Geosciences 1670 Sth Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 415 564-1364 fax 415 664-4041 mchuron~car flalink, net RECEIVED PLANMNG May 17, 2002 Soutl~ San Francisco Planning Department City Hall Annex PO Box ? 11 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: Allison I<.napp, City Planning Constfltant RE: Review of April 30, 2002 (Preliminary) Terrabay Phase 3 - Residential Tower Grading Plan Dear Allison: At your request, 1 have reviewed tim subject plans. The focus of this review was to compare the geologic impacts of the revised grading plans to the previous one that was analyzed for the EIR and approved by the Planning Commission and CiO Council_ The revised plans call for a significant reduction in fine footprim for the parking garage. This reduction reduces the amouilt of required excavation and the impacts associated with thc required excavation. Therefore, it ks my opinion that the gradh~g necessary to execute the revised plan will result in lowering thc geological impacts discussed in thc EItL These reduced impacts include: area needed for excavation, amount of excavated materials transported off site, and area requiring erosion/winterization mitigation. Wc understand that these plans are Preliminary and are subject to fu,~ther revision. We will be happy to continue working with you, City Officials and MDC in evaluating tiffs important element of thc Tcrrabay development. Should you have any questions regarding this memo or need thrthcr clarification, please contact me. Sincerely, McHuron Geosciences D, CEG ;)1023 President Cc: Dave Lukes MDC; Brian Scott, BKF 063 RESOLUTION NO. 2618 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN, APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.63 (THE TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT) AND AMENDMENT TO THE PRECISE PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development on November 21, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco adopted an amendment to Chapter 20.63, Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District, Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map on May 9, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Restated and Development Agreement to incorporate changes in the approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Chapter 20.63; and, WHEREAS, Myers Peninsula Development Company, L.L.C., has prepared text amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan ("Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is revised to incorporate modifications to the parking, height of the condominium building and other technical changes to the Final Terrabay Spe'cific Plan, as amended on May 9, 2001; and, WHEREAS, Myers Peninsula Development Company has prepared changes to the previously approved Precise Plan with respect to the condominium portion only; and, WHEREAS, the proposed modifications result in changes to the number of one-bedroom units, the guest parking ratio, reduction in grading on the site, reduction in the height of the building and alters the configuration of the units within the structure; and, WHEREAS, together, the amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Chapter 20.63 and the Precise Plan are referred to as the "Amendments" and do not result in an increase in land use or development intensity over that analyzed in the 1982 EIR, the 1996 SE[R and the 1998-99 SEIR and Addendum thereto; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, projects which have been previously analyzed and do not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures do not require further environmental analysis; and, WHEREAS, the prior certified EIR's, SEIR and Addendum to the 1998-9 SEIR fully analyzed all potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigation for said impacts; and, 0t34 WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and said program remains in full force and effect; and, WHEREAS, based on the foregoing and CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no further environmental review is required; and, WHEREAS, on June 6, 2002, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance and the amendments to the Precise Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based upon the entire record for the Terrabay development. The record includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) The South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan; 3) The 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998-1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; 4) Testimony and materials, including the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase [[I of the Terrabay Development, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 2000; 5) Testimony and materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development; and 6) Testimony and Materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance, and Precise Plan submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on June 6, 2002: The Amendments do not alter the land use or result in an increased development intensity of the property. The Amendments relate entirely to the condominium portion of the approved project. Specifically, the Amendments replace the .25 parking ratio for guest parking with a ratio of no less than. 13 spaces per unit. The Amendments also reduce the height and development footprint of the condominium tower, reduce grading on the site, reducs the tower from 20 floors to 15 and alters the units configuration to 52 one bedroom units from the previously approved 14 one- bedroom units. The total number of units, 112, would remain unchanged The Amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Chapter 20.63 and Precise Plan are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Dave Carbone, Staff Administrator of the C/CAG San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) previously reviewed the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and found it complied with the ALUC requirements (letter of October 25, 2000). Because the Amendments result in a reduction of the height of the condominium tower and will not result in increased development or densities over that previously analyzed by Dave Carbone, the compliance letter of October 25, 2000 supports approval of the Amendments with the conditions imposed as part of the Vesting Tentative Map and prior Precise Plan approvals. o The Amendments are consistent with the Habitat Conservation Plan. ( HCP ) Victoria Harris, biologist with Thomas Reid Associates (The Plan Administrator) reviewed the previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and found the Specific Plan complied with the HCP 065 2 boundary and grading limits (letter of October 25, 2000) certified by the City of South San Francisco on May 12, 1999. The limits certified by the City on May 12, 1999, were used to verify HCP Compliance for Terrabay Phase II and Phase m. Because the proposed Amendments would result in less grading on the site and would remain well within the previously approved grading limits, the Amendments are consistent with the HCP. The Amendments are consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. Amendments proposed relate only to the condominium portion of the approved project. All findings and analysis made in support of the 70 unit residential and commercial portions are unchanged. Specific findings related to the condominium amendments are set forth below. Housing Element Action 1 C-3: Ensure that new development and rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. Support excellence in design through the continued use of the design review board and/or staff. Analysis: The Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan District zoning ordinance and the Precise Plan further this policy. The density of the project would not be increased, it would however be situated on a smaller portion of the condominium parcel. Sewer, water, storm drain and open space and a linear park are already in place and are continued in the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan lands. Precise plan and design review of detailed architectural and landscape drawings (as required by the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance) ensure architectural compatibility. ii. Housing Element Policy 3E: Foster amenities needed by female-headed households. Action 3E-1 The City shall strongly encourage the inclusion of child-care and after-school care facilities within or near affordable and higher density housing and mixed use developments. Analysis: The Amendments incorporate the previously approved project and permit development of additional one bedroom units. The Amendments allow for 52 one bedroom units, 54 two bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units ranging in size from approximately 900 square feet to 1,500 square feet in area. The unit sizes and sales prices are intended to accommodate small households. nl. Transportation Element Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. Analysis: The Amendments conform with and implement this policy. The site planning proposed includes pedestrian trails, shuttle service to major transit areas and bike paths as previously approved in Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Chapter 20.63 and the Precise Plan. 066 iv. Paradise Valley Terrabay Guiding Policy 3.8-G-1: Allow limited development that is in keeping with the character of the Paradise Valley/Terrabay area and its natural setting Analysis: The Amendments conform with and implement this policy. The Final Terrabay Specific Plan, which includes the Recreation and Preservation parcels, limits development to areas predominately disturbed by Phase I grading activities and proposes clustering development and preserving open space. No changes to those parcels are made as part of the Amendments. Additionally, architectural and design changes in the Precise Plan have been incorporated to impart a more residential appearance to the condominium tower. The Amendments conform to the Open Space, Business Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use designations reflected in the General Plan, Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended, and the Vesting Tentative Map. vi. Housing Element Policy lB. Provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of the City Government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. Action lB-1 Support Private Market Construction: The program is designed to remove hurdles to constructing new market-rate housing units for above-moderate and moderate- income households so that units can be built at a rate that will meet the current and projected housing needs. An. alysis: The Amendments conform to the Medium Density Residential Designation and (8.1-18.0 dwelling units per acre) provides for housing while preserving habitat and open space. All three phases of Terrabay would provide 603 housing units. The Amendments do not authorize additional units nor result in a reduction in the number of units previously approved. However, the number of one bedroom units increases fi'om 14 to 52 with a resulting reduction in the number of two and three bedroom units. The change in unit distribution is based on market considerations and are intended to meet the need of working professionals in the East of 101 area and nearby airport. vii. Housing Element Policy lC: Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing units in well planned neighborhoods. Analysis: The previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plan include a variety of housing units and types. The Amendments add one-bedroom units in a double loaded design within the condominium tower. The proposed project and the existing approved project that includes townhomes and a variety of sizes of detached units would provide an overall variety of housing. Recreational land uses are also included within the Terrabay planning area. 5. The Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance implements the Final Terrabay Specific O67 4 o Plan, as amended. In recommending approval, the Planning Commission relies on the extensive findings in the record, including environmental analyses, articulated at the June 6, 2002, meeting of the Planning Commission. As the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance merely implements the particular standards, land uses, boundaries and development criteria of the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan, the findings related to consistency with the General Plan support consistency findings for the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. As an implementing measure, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Proper environmental documentation has been prepared on the Amendments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a). This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: City Council's independent review of the proposed Amendments; the SEIR and relevant sections of the 1982 EIR and the 1996 Supplemental EIR and the entire 1999 SEIR, and Addendum thereto, which demonstrate that any significant impacts from the proposed development have either been avoided or mitigated to a level of less than significance or were addressed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No further environmental analysis is required when a prior EIR has been prepared for a project unless new impacts or mitigation measures are identified. The Amendments do not result in any new significant impacts or require changes to existing mitigation measures. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no additional environmental review is required. The condominium site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: The site is suited for the type, density and location of commercial and residential development in that all the mitigation measures applicable to the Phase II and Phase m sites identified in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1999 SEIR are incorporated into the mitigation monitoring program for Phase II and Phase llI. No changes to the mitigation monitoring program are required as a result of the Amendments nor do the Amendments result in a change in density or location over that previously analyzed and approved in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan District, Precise Plan or Vesting Tentative Map. The design, improvements and constructions standards included within the Amendments are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat and are designed to achieve compliance with the development and/or construction standards of the Terrabay specific plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, together with the Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1982, the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Addendum to the 1999 SEIR analyze the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed Phase II and Phase m development and together with the adopted mitigation monitoring program demonstrate that the project will either avoid or mitigate impacts of the project that are likely to cause serious public health problems, to cause substantial environmental damage, or to cause substantial and avoidable injuries to fish, wildlife or their habitat. The design and type of improvements proposed in the Amendments do not conflict with public 068 10. 11. easements for access through or use of the property within the Phase II and Phase m areas of the Terrabay development and conform to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 19.48.080 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code as to design, drainage, utilities, road improvements and offers of dedication or deed. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: Planning Commission's independent review of the proposed Amendments and the reports of the city engineer and other appropriate department heads. As previously determined by the City Council, Phase II and Phase 1II of the Terrabay development provide, to the extent feasible, future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. No changes are proposed in the Amendments that would alter passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, together with the Environmental Impact Report proposed in 1982 and the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Addendum related thereto, analyze the energy impacts of the project and provide to the extent feasible future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the proposed Vesting Tentative Map. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: Planning Commission's independent review of the Amendments and the previously approved Vesting Tentative Map; Planning Commission's review of the comments of the Design Review Board; and, Planning Commission's review of the staff report and supporting documents submitted with the application for Amendments and the approved Vesting Tentative Map. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that the Precise Plan implements the project as proposed in the Amended Final Terrabay Specific Plan, including the incorporation of residential housing and preservation of open space as indicated on the Vesting Tentative Map. 12. The Amendments are consistent with the approved development agreement. This finding is based upon the Planning Commission's independent review of the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase m of the Terrabay Development, the First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement, and the attached Amendments. The Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the Final Terrabay Specific Plan Lands was approved by Council on January 24, 2001. A First Amendment to the Restated and Amended Development Agreement was approved in January 2001, which implemented the changes made to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan related to the configuration of the 70 unit residential neighborhood and development approval process. The Development Agreement vests rights to develop the property in accordance with the previously approved Final Terrabay Specific Plan and its implementing ordinance, Chapter 20.63 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, in effect as of January 11,2001. The Amendments are consistent with the land uses, development intensities and design standards approved in the Development Agreement, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: Recommend approval of an amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and 6 O69 Bo Co authorize staff to make changes to the plan consistent with the Commission's approval of same. Recommend approval of an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance and authorize staffto prepare text changes to Chapter 20.63 to reflect the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. Recommend approval of an amendment to the Precise Plan for the condominium project. 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 6th day of June 2002 by the following vote: AYES:Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt, Chairperson Romero NOES: None ABSTAIN:NONE ABSENT:NONE Tl~o~na~'A. ~ppark'~' '"' ",/ Secretary to the Planning Commission uTO Chairperson Romero, Commissioner Honan and Commissioner Ochsenhirt noted that this is a good opportunity to revisit the item and asked that the comments from the previous meetings be taken into consideration. Commissioner Teglia noted that public has the impression that a decision has been made on this application. Commissioner D'Angelo pointed out that if them was no major change he does not see a reason not to continue the item. Commissioner Meloni noted that the Commission was concerned with the design of the building and if the applicant feels that he can work with massing then it can be continued. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the presentation was lacking contextual information and the Commission needs to visualize how the building will fit on the street. He pointed out that the housing needs of the City are a good reason to revisit the item more seriously. Motion Honan / Second Sim to continue to July 18, 2002. Approved by majority roll call vote. Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Absent: None Abstain: None Recess called 8:16- 8:25 p.m. Terrabay Phase II and III Myers Development Corp-owner/applicant San Bruno Mtn.frerrabay PP-01-020, ZA-01-020, SP-01-020 RESOLUTION 2618 Amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Chapter 20.63, "Terrabay Specific Plan District" and Precise Plan as it relates to the Condominium Mid-Rise Tower to permit a change in number of one, two and three bedroom units.and to reduce the height, width and length of the building Staff Report presented by Consultant Planner Knapp. Mr. Jack Myers and DES Architects presented the modifications to the Commission. Commissioner Sim and DES Architect discussed the architecture of the building, elevations, garage and the landscaping. Public Heating opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commission, staff and applicant's discussion: Commissioner Honan questioned if the shuttle system would only work Monday-Friday or if it would include weekends. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the applicant will have shuttle service and it is anticipated to be Monday through Friday. The applicant is approaching the East of 101 Alliance to become a part of that shuttle service as well as researching other options. The service could be expanded to include weekends. The TDM program is going to be monitored on an annual basis and a determination will be made annually as to how the program will be expanded to meet the needs of the residents. Commissioner Meloni was concerned with the modification changing the number of BMR units that the developer is required to build. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that it would not change the 32 BMR units that are required to be built by the DA and Specific Plan. Chairperson Meloni asked where the applicant was in the S:minutes\06-0~-02 }rec.,toe e~g~ a of 6 0 7 ]. process of finding a site to build the BMR units. Mr. Myers noted that they want to finalize the commercial building and residential portion and will resume the BMR housing site search at that point. Chairperson Meloni felt that the proposal relates better to the mountain. Commissioner Honan asked what the Fire Department has in place for the building to rescue people in case of a fire being that there is not going to be a fire escape ladder on the top floor. Consultant Planner Knapp pointed out that there are standpipes that provide firefighting capabilities, there is an area behind the plaza that provides emergency access, and there is access in the front and the two sides. Kerwin Lee, fire and life safety consultant to Myers Development Group, pointed out that high-rise buildings are the safest buildings. They have all life safety features required by building code such as emergency exits, protective stairways, sprinkler systems, smoke control system, fire alarm system, and a fire control room. Assistant City Attorney Johnson added that Fire Marshal / Chief Building Official Kirkman has reviewed the plans and determined that there was enough fire access in case of emergencies. TAPE 2 Commissioner Teglia asked if the streets for paired housing were remaining unchanged. Consultant Planner Knapp stated that they were not changing and that it is the access to the parking structure of the condominium tower that would change as a result of the amended precise plan.. Commissioner Teglia asked that he be informed as to the development of the Point and its restoration. Motion Meloni / Second Teglia to approve the modification to PP-01-020, ZA-01-020 and SP-01-020. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess called at 9:22 - 9:36 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the applicant for item #3, 90 Oak Avenue, would like to address the Commission with regard to the item being continued. Antonio Brandi, applicant, stated that he has been working on this proposal for two years and would prefer that the Commission deny the project rather than redesigning the project. Chairperson Romero asked that the applicant clarify if he was not going to work with staff and the Commission to address the Commission' s concerns. Mr. Brandi pointed out that the proposal complies with all City requirements and he has done all that is possible to address the Commission's concerns, including an issue with the dormers. Chairperson Meloni pointed out that if applicant wants the Commission to deny the application, the Commission can do so but did want the record to reflect that the Planning Commission gave Mr. Brandi an option to work with the Commission and staff. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the Commission is looking for an opportunity to communicate better and not redesign the project. Mr. Brandi stated that if the Commission wants to review the proposal given to them at the previous meeting due to lack of communication then he is willing to return. He pointed out that a total redesign is impossible and that is what he understood because of the height issues stated previously. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt pointed out that the Commission does not want a total redesign of the project. Commissioner D'Angelo felt that working with staff for two years is not a commitment that the project will be approved. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the applicant will not be available in July and a continuation to June 20th would be more appropriate. u72 S:\Minutes\06-06-02 RPC.doc Page 4 of 6 The Terrabay Condominiums - Project Schedule as Proposed to CSSF Permit and Constructim~ Procem L4md Ma ping Proctss Mandah! Point Final Map Terrabay Condominium SchedUlelXlS2lXlSDEV 6/1g/200211:55 AM South San Francisco's Premier Marketing Program · Customer Premier List: Start Summer 2002 (90 Days Prior to Public List) · Models Open: Spring 2003 · Location: Terrabay, So. San Francisco · Product Type: Paired single family homes, 2,400-2,482 sq. ft., attached one side, all plans have views and garages, 70 units total · City/County/School District Employees · 3% discount* (combination of) · Further discounts for multiple purchases *Applies to 90 day Premier List for preliminary target market or until 35 homes are sold. · Proximity to business/employment centers · Direct Mail: to targeted individuals and businesses/government entities (for internal distribution) · Direct Contact: WPH representatives to follow-up on leads (650) 589-3988 t~~/iWes, tern lffiffiHousmg DATE: June 26, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development Department SUBJECT: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. 0 Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential District (R-3-L), in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. e Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040 clarifying that density bonuses granted by the City for reasons other than that required by State law, require approval by the City Council and must comply with the City's adopted General Plan density standards. e Density Bonus of 25% allowing 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable housing in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.130. So Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City of South San Francisco restricting three of the dwellings as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC 20.125. e Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. Address: 90 Oak Avenue (APNs 011-313-070, 011-313-080 & 011-313-090). Owner: Spiros Kakonikitis Applicant: Antonio M. Brandi Case Nos.: RZ 01-054, ZA 01-054, DR 01-054 & ND 01-054 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 4-2 with one absent that the City Council: Approve (1). Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-01-054) assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building; (2). Zoning Amendment (ZA- 01-054) to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040; (3). Density Bonus of 25% allowing an additional 3 dwelling units; (4). Affordable Housing Agreement requiring 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable dwellings; and (5). Design Review (DR-01- 054) allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, with findings and conditions of approval. The Planning Commission also recommends by a vote of 5-1 with one absent that the City Council approve a Rezoning (RZ-01-054) from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to Multi-Family Residential District (R-3-L). BACKGROUND: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the study sessions of November 15, and December 6, 2001, and at the public heatings of May 16, June 6, and June 20, 2002. At the Study Session conducted in December the Commissioners considered the project and offered cornrnents to revise some of the project details including the dormers and open space areas. At the first hearing, conducted on May 16, the majority of Commissioners determined that the project did not fit with the area and continued the item with direction to staff to prepare findings of denial. At the meeting on June 6, the Commission agreed to continue the matter to the Commission meeting of June 20 in order that the applicant may make a more comprehensive and detailed presentation that might provide new insight to the question of the project's quality of fit with the area. At the meeting of June 20 the Planning Commission approved the project on a vote of 4 to 2. The majority perspective was that the applicant's presentation provided a much greater level of detail and information and clearly established that the project could fit with the surrounding residences. The Commissioners however, determined that the applicant needed to refine the design of the refuse enclosure to improve accessibility and aesthetics, to place two of the visitor parking spaces in the location of t-he manager's parking spaces adjacent to the refuse enclosure, increase the size of the dormers, decrease the size of the chimneys, and to consider refinement of the upper decks facing Oak Avenue. The Commission added a condition requiring that prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, that the applicant review the revised plans with the Planning Commission. The minority perspective shared all of the design concerns expressed by the majority and also expressed several more concerns including that the project was too tall, too bulky, too dense, and that additional visitor parking should be required. The 0.41 acre site is comprised of three separate parcels. One of the parcels has been used as a single-family dwelling and the other two abutting parcels are vacant. The project includes merging the three parcels, demolition of the dwelling and the construction of a three-story 15- unit apartment building. Three of the dwellings will be restricted as affordable units. Parking will be provided on site at-grade and in a subterranean garage. The site is adjacent to other dwellings and a religious assembly hall. The project site's General Plan land use designation, High Density Residential, allows multi- family development. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The present zoning is Medium Density Residential (R-2) which does not allow the proposed Staff Report Date: June 26, 2002 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 3 of 7 be provided on site at-grade and in a subterranean garage. The site is adjacent to other dwellings and a religious assembly hall. The project site's General Plan land use designation, High Density Residential, allows multi- family development. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The present zoning is Medium Density Residential (R-2) which does not allow the proposed density nor apartment style buildings. The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. The building generally complies with current City development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: 0.41acres [17,815 SF] Floor Area: 29,950 SF Density: Maximum: 37.5 Du/Ac. Proposed: 36.7 Du/Ac Minimum 8 Du/Ac. 15 Du/Ac. Height Maximum: 50 FT Proposed: 35 FI' Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: No Max Proposed: NA Lot Coverage Maximum: 65% Proposed: 60 % Landscaping: Minimum: 10% Proposed: 10% Automobile Parking Minimum: 34 Proposed: 34 Setbacks Minimum Proposed Front 15FT 15 FI' Side 5 FT 5 FT Rear 11.5 FT 20 FT Notes: The project includes 3 affordable dwellings units. Maximum Base Density (not including density bonus) is 30 units per net acre. A city sewer line crosses the site and will need to be relocated. The applicant has discussed two Staff Report Date: June 26, 2002 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 4 of 7 following route options with the City Engineering staff: 1. Oak Avenue to Mission Road 2. Oak Avenue to Commercial Avenue Both of these routes are acceptable. Diagrams are attached to this staff report. A condition has been added to require that the applicant install a new sewer line and that the location and design be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Affordable Housing The proposed development is obligated to provide twenty percent (20%) of the proposed fifteen (15) dwellings as affordable to low and moderate income households (SSFMC 20.125). The applicant will restrict three (3) units on-site to fulfill the obligation. An Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City has been prepared and is attached to this staff report. The Affordable Housing Agreement complies with the SSFMC requirements including identifying the specific dwelling units and restricts the units to be affordable for a minimum term of fifty-five (55) years. Density Bonus The maximum base density of the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) is 30 dwelling units per net acre. Based on a site area of 0.41acres [17,815 SF] the maximum base density is 12 dwellings. The minimum density in the R-3 District is 18.1 units per net acre. Applied to this development the minimum base density would be 8 dwelling units. In this case the applicant is proposing a 25% density bonus to provide three affordable dwellings versus 2.4 units, as required by the SSFMC Chapter 20.125 "Inclusionary Housing Requirements". The proposed density bonus does not meet State requirements necessitating a bonus because the three (3) proposed affordable dwelling units will not satisfy state requirements. State law requires that the units be affordable to persons of low or very low income. However, City staff recommends granting the twenty-five percent (25%) density bonus, since the City gains an additional affordable unit restricted to maintain affordability to households having an income at one hundred percent (100%) of the medium income level and lower. The General Plan allows base densities to be increased up to 37.5 dwelling units per net acre provided that the housing meets City design standards and development requirements specified in the SSFMC. To permit such flexibility, staff proposes that SSFMC Chapter 20.69 be amended to allow density bonuses where the City deems it appropriate and consistent with the General Staff Report Date: June 26, 2002 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 5 of 7 Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with State Law and the General Plan. Allowing projects to build to the maximum permitted density under the General Plan, particularly when the project applicant is proposing on-site affordable dwelling units, aids the City in meeting its fair share allocation of affordable dwelling units. Historic Preservation The project will necessitate the demolition of single family dwelling, which according to City Historic Survey, is identified as a Potential Historic Resource. As provided in SSFMC, demolition of a Potential Historic Structure requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the development at their meetings of January 2002 and February 2002. After conferring with the Historical Society, the Commission determined that the building had been significantly altered, was not a Historic Resource and that the City should consider moving the structure to Orange Park for reuse. The applicant is willing to offer the building to anyone, including the City, for removal to, and reuse at, another site. A condition has been added to require the owner to make the property available for reuse. If no one wants the building, the applicant can demolish the structure. Zoning Reclassification The existing zoning of the site is Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-2-H). The General Plan adopted in October 1999, designates the site as High Density Residential with a density of up to 30 units per net acre and a maximum density with incentives and bonuses of 37.5 dwellings per net acre. The intent of the General Plan Land use Element is that the site should be reclassified from Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential Zoning District (R-3-L). In order for the zoning to be consistent with the intent of the General Plan, a reclassification is required, which the applicant is requesting in conjunction with the proposed development. The proposed density of 36 dwelling units per net acre complies with the proposed R-3-L density at maximum permitted density with bonuses. Because the project involves a zone change the project requires review by the City Council. Lot Merger The site consists of three separate abutting parcels. Because buildings are not allowed to be constructed over property boundaries, the lots will need to be merged into a single parcel. In accordance with SSFMC Title 19, Lot Mergers are approved by the City Engineer. A condition has been added that the applicant complete the lot merger prior to the issuance of the building permit. Staff Report Date: June 26, 2002 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 6 of 7 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meetings of June 19, 2001 and October 16, 2001. At the first meeting the Board suggested that the applicant revise the plans to provide a more articulated front entry, revise the orientation of the trash facility, make some plant substitutions in the shaded side yards and asked the applicant return to the Board. The applicant revised the plans in response to Board comments. At the second meeting the Board recommended approval of the development. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for twenty (20) day circulation period in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing on February 20, 2002 and ending on March 14, 2002. No public comments were received. The key impacts are storm water drainage, flooding, relocation of a sewer line, and construction impacts. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts to level less than significant. The mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, implementing a storm water pollution prevention plan, elevating the site so that it is not in the flood plain, implementation of the soils report recommendations in the construction plans, and implementing a construction plan to suppress dust and minimize noise. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce these impacts a less than a significant level. PUBLIC NOTICE As a matter of courtesy, the property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development and the two citizens who attended the Planning Commission meeting of May 16, 2002 were re- notified of the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and (1) approve Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-01-054 assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building; (2). Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance to Rezone the subject parcels from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to Multi-family Residential District (R-3-L) (RZ-01-054); (3). Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040 (ZA-01-054); (4). Approve a Density Bonus of 25 % allowing 3 additional dwelling units; (5). Approve an Affordable Housing Agreement requiring 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable Staff Report Date: June 26, 2002 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 7 of 7 dwellings; and (6). Approve Design Review (DR-01-054) allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building with findings and conditions of approval. ~and Community Devbh~ment DO¢;Oa~imCent Michael A. Wilson, City Manger Attachments: Draft City Council Resolution Exhibit A Draft Housing Agreement Exhibit B Draft Conditions of Approval Draft Reclassification Ordinance Draft Reclassification Maps Draft Density Ordinance Amendment Planning Commission Resolution of Approval Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2001 December 6, 2001 May 16, 2002 June 6, 2002 June 20, 2002 Draft Design Review Board Minutes June 19, 2001 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 13,2001 February 14, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Reports November 15, 2001 December 6, 2001 May 16, 2002 June 6, 2002 June 20, 2002 Sewer Line Diagrams Negative Declaration Plans RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALI~'ORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 01-054 AND APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW ON A 0.41 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 90 OAK AVENUE WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed study sessions on November 15 and December 6, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on May 16, June 6 and June 20, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Affordable Housing Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A and Design Review, provided that a Condition of Approval be added to require further design review prior to the first building permit for the project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project on June 26, 2002; and, WHEREAS, as required by the Chapter 20.125, Inclusionary Housing Requirements, and Chapter 20.69, Density Regulations, the City Council, based on public testimony and the materials submitted at the public hearing which include, but are not limited to: an Affordable Housing Agreement prepared by the City of South San Francisco; Architectural and Landscape Plans, dated August 2001, prepared by Anthony M. Brandi, Architect; minutes of the Design Review Board meetings of June 19, and October 16, 2001; Planning Commission staff reports of November 15, December 6, 2001, May 16, June 6 and June 20, 2002; and staff reports and the Affordable Housing Agreement submitted at the June 26, 2002, public hearing of the City Council; makes the following findings in support of a density bonus of 25% and approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement: 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 01-54 identifies several potential adverse impacts attributable to the development of the fifteen (15) new residences. Mitigation measures, including a mitigation monitoring program, have been incorporated into the project or have been made conditions of approval which will reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level. 2. The development will create a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability and will result in an intensity of land use similar to adjacent multi-family and single-family neighborhoods. The proposed density of 36.7 units per acre and the general style and quality of the new residences and site improvements is substantially similar to recently approved subdivisions in the City. 3. The project complies with the applicable community design guidelines established in the South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.68 through 20.74. The design and improvements are not in conflict with any known existing public easements. Moreover, the project provides three units of affordable housing, with the 25% density bonus. The affordable units will be restricted to occupancy by families of low and moderate income and as such, the project meets the requirements of Chapter 20.125 and satisfies the criteria for granting a density bonus as permitted in Chapter 20.69. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 01-054 and approves the Affordable Housing Agreement with a 25% density bonus and approves Design Review 01-054 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute the Affordable Housing Agreement. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the day of 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: C:~DOCUM E-I ~kimberly\LOCALS~ 1 \Temp\6-26oak.res.doc City Clerk EXHIBIT A ATTENTION: THIS AGREEMENT IS A DRAFT AND IS BEING PROVIDED BY TI-YE CITY ONLY FOR REV1-EW AND COMMENT, IT IS NOT AN APPROVAL OR OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE CITY'S INTENTIONS REGARDING THE PROJECTS MENTIONED I-HEREIN; ANY NUMBERS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Department of Economic and Community Development [~SER~ ADD.SSi Documentary Transfer Tax $ EXEMPT County of San. Mateo City of South San Fran¢isco[]. Right of Way Agent AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND [~~Q~I This Agreement is entered into this ~] day of .i ,2002, by and between the City of South San Francisco ("City"), and ("Developer") as a condition of approval of the development of the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Project Property"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth the requirements for Inclusionary Housing ("Inclusionary Housing Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, the Developer is planning to construct apartments on property located within South San Francisco and has an approved site development plan; and WHEREAS, the Developer is required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to set aside a percentage of new housing as median and low income level housing; and WHEREAS, the Developer proposes meeting this requirement by renting the required number of Below Market Rate Units; and 90 OAK - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Page 1 of 5 WH]EREAS, the City has agreed that onsite rental of the Below Market Rate Units will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires the Developer's plans and the City's conditions regarding inclusionary housing be set forth in an Affordable Housing Agreement; and WHEREAS, this Affordable Housing Agreement is required as a condition of future discretionary permits for development of the Project Property and shall be recorded against the Project Property; NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. As a condition of developing and constructing fifteen (15) apartments on real property located in South San Francisco, which property is more particularly described in Exhibit A, incorporated herein and attached hereto ("Project Property"), Developer shall designate three (3) apartments as Below Market Rate Units and shall make these units available for rental as 13elgw Market Rate Units. The number of Below Market Rate Units shall b:~ equal ~to twenty percent (20%) of the total number of apartments to be built upon the Project Property. 2. The Below Market Rate Units shall be affordable to lower income households guaranteed by deed restrictions or other enforceable covenants running with the land. One (1) two-bedroom unit, with a total minimum size of~ square feet, will be affordable 1.6 households at seventy percent (70%) of median-income, one (1) two- bedroom unit, with a total minimum size of~ square feet, will be affordable to households at ninety percent (90%) of median-income, and one (1) one-bedroom unit, with a total minimum size of__ square feet, will be affordable to a household at one hundred percent (100% of median-income However, at no time will the rent for any Below Market Rate Unit exceed ninety percent (90%) of comparable Market Rate units. 3. Occupancy of the Below Market Rate Units shall be established concurrently with occupancy of the market rate units located on the Project Property. This requirement shall be effective as of the date the first unit is occupied on the Project Property. This requirement for the Below Market Rate Units shall remain in effect even in the event all market rate units on the Project Property become unoccupied. 4. Rent restrictions for Below Market Rate Units shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project. The Below Market Rate Units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group(s) for a period of fifty- 90 OAK - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Page 2 of 5 five (55) years. The period shall begin the date the final Below Market Rate Unit is occupied. 5. The Below Market Rate Units shall meet minimum Below Market Rate and habitability standards. Said standards shall be determined by the City and set forth in Exhibit B, incorporated herein and attached hereto. 6. Developer shall maintain the three (3) Below Market Rate Units in conformance with the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, incorporated herein and attached hereto. To the extent applicable, said conditions shall be reflected in all rental agreements for the three (3) rental units. 7. Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance related to the implementation of this Agreement and/or the renting of the three (3) Below Market Rate Units. . i . · .. 8. Developer shall:pay an adminiStrati¢~ fee to:reimburse the City for all administrative/processing co~ts and fees .in~:~ed in processing the affordable housing plan which may include'~'tt'°rne(?s fee~'~nd cost, and implementing the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. i[~ED TO.DE .TE.. :...~ DA~:~ T~F© 9. This Agreement shall run with the Project Property and shall be binding on the parties hereto and their successors and assigns in accordance with the time limit provide for in Section 4. This Agreement shall be recorded on the Project Property upon final map recordation or, if a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project Property. 10. Developer shall provide City, or its assigned, a one-time first fight of refusal to purchase the Project containing the Below Market Rate Units if it, or the individual units, are offered for sale at any point during the fifty-five (55) year affordability period. The fight of first refusal to purchase the rental project shall be submitted in writing to the Director of the Department of Economic and Community Development. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt, the City shall indicate its intent to exercise the first right of refusal for the purpose of providing affordable housing and close escrow within ninety (90) days. 11. If Developer sells any Below Market Rate Rental Unit to an owner- occupant before the fifty-five (55) year rental restriction period ends, said Unit(s) shall remain affordable to subsequent income eligible owner-occupant buyers pursuant to a resale restriction with a term of thirty (30) years. The thirty (30) year sale restriction shall be recorded upon close of escrow for said Unit(s). 7 90 OAK - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Page 3 of 5 12. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be processed in the same manner as an original application for approval pursuant to Section 20.125.150 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Nothing, however, shall prevent the body granting final approval of the project development, from modifying the location and phasing of inclusionary housing as a condition of approval for the project. 13. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 14. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 15. If a court of competent JUrisdiCtion finds or rUles that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, orUnenf0Vceable~ the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in ~ull 'forCe and. effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shali not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 16. Any notice or demand shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below: . .. Developer: City: City of South San Francisco - City Clerk 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 17. Notwithstanding any previous provision of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 90 OAK - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Page 4 of 5 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. OWNER: CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISO Michael A. Wilson, City Manager :APPRO~.ED AS TO FORM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney J:\wpdWlnrsw\405\001XAGREEX2002\90 Oak_Affordable Housing Agreement_040402.doc 90 OAK - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT C The following conditions shall apply to the rental of all three (3) Below Market Rate Units and, to the extent applicable, the conditions shall be reflected in the rental agreements between the Developer and all Tenants of the three (3) Below Market Rate Units: 1. Tenants shall be annually certified as to income eligibility for the three (3) Below Market Rate Units and the annual certification shall be submitted to the office of Community Development. If Developer fails to perform an annual certification, City shall notify Developer in writing that Developer is in violation of the Affordable Housing Agreement and Developer shall be fined ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1000.00) for each Below Market Unit whose tenants were not subject to an annual certification. Upon receiving written notice, Developer shall have thirty (30) days from the date of notification to perform the certification. In the event Developer fails to perform the certification within the thirty (30) day period, City Shall have the right to fine the Developer an additional ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1000.00) for each Below Market Unit whose tenants have not been subject to an annual certification. The City shall continue to have the right to fine Developer ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($ 1000.00) for every thirty (30) day period that passes, from the date Developer receives notice, for each Below Market Unit whose tenants have not been subject to an annual certification. City shah have the right to take steps to assess these fines as a lien against either the property where the Below Market Units are located or against the Project Property. 2. The Developer shall be allowed to raise the rental amount no more than five percent (5%), or the percentage rise in area median income, whichever is lower. Developer shall only raise rents once per year on the Tenant's anniversary. 3. Developer shall at all times maintain three (3) Below Market Rate Units in the Project. No units are specifically designated as Below Market Rate units so long as three (3) units in the Project are occupied by income eligible Tenants at all times. However, the three (3) units shall at all times be consistent with the size and space requirements set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement. In the event any income eligible Tenants are subsequently determined to be ineligible (or over income tenants), Developer shall not evict a formerly income eligible Tenant on the basis the Tenant has become income ineligible for a period of six (6) months. If during the six (6) month period, it is determined that another Tenant is income eligible, and that the size and space requirements for the three (3) Below Market Rate units can be maintained in accordance with the Affordable Housing Agreement, the income ineligible Tenant subject to eviction shall be allowed to remain in the unit and Developer shall be allowed to raise the rent amount for said ineligible Tenant to an amount equivalent to the Market Rate for said Tenant's unit. Developer shah immediately lower the new income eligible Tenant's rent to the applicable Below Market Rate upon determining that the Tenant is income eligible EXHIBIT C - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Page I of 2 and that the Tenant occupies a unit that meets the size and space requirements set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement. J:\wpd\Mnrsw\405\001~GREE'~2002\90 Oak_AHA Exhibit C_040402.doc EXHIBIT C - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B .... 12 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS MND, RZ & DR 01-054 (As recommended by Planning Commission on June 26, 2002) PLANNING DIVISION requirements shall be as follow: The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the plans prepared Anthony M. Brandi Architect, dated August 2001 in association with Design Review 01-054. The landscape plan shall be revised to include more mature shrubs, trees shall have a minimum size of 24 inch box and 15% of the total number of proposed trees shall be a minimum size of 36 inch box. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the three lots comprising the site APNs 011-313-070, 011-313-080 & 011-313-090 shall be merged and the merger recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. The applicant shall provide a record of the merger with the City Engineer. o Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall make available the .existing dwelling at 90 Oak Avenue to anyone willing to move and restore the building. The building shall be made available for a minimum period of 60 days starting from the date no later than the submittal for a demolition permit. The applicant shall provide a public notice consisting of placing an advertisement of the availability of the dwelling in a newspaper of local circulation and on the City's web site. o The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration 01-054. Prior to completion of the building or sale of the property, the applicant shall complete the Affordable Housing Agreement. o Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall revise the plans to relocate the refuse enclosure closer to the street, orient the gates towards the street to facilitate access, relocate the manager's parking spaces to the garage area and relocate the visitor spaces adjacent to the refuse enclosure, to increase the landscape buffer from the play area, add landscaping along the parking area and driveway access to the refuse enclosure, to revise the upper deck design visible Be o o from Oak Avenue, to increase the size of the dormers and decrease the size of the chimneys. The design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. (Planning Contact Person: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) ENGINEERING DIVISION requirements shall be as follows: The developer shall comply with all of the applicable conditions of approval detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Subdivision and Use Permit Conditions for Townhouse, Condominium and Apartment Developments with Private Streets and Utilities", contained in our "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet dated January 1998. This booklet is available in our office at no cost to the applicant. The developer shall design, construct and install: new curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approach and pavement overlay/conform to the street centerline (if necessary) within Oak Avenue, in front of the subject property. Plans for these improvements shall be prepared by the developer's civil engineering consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The frontage improvement work shall be constructed at no cost to the City and in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Construction Coordinator and pursuant to the terms of a secured encroachment permit, to be obtained prior to receiving a building permit for the project. The developer shall design a storm drainage system for the project that will drain the entire site, without flowing onto adjacent private property. The on-site drainage system shall connect directly to the existing public drainage facilities located within Oak Avenue. The drainage system shall incorporate storm water filters, meeting the requirements of the San Mateo County Best Management Practices for private developments. The plans for these improvements shall be prepared by the developer's civil engineering consultant and submitted to the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions for review and approval. The applicant is advised that the subject site is located within FEMA Flood Hazard Zone AH and will need to have the elevation of its floor raised above the 100-year flood elevation. The proposed underground garage may need special flood-proofing and drainage improvements to conform to FEMA's regulations. The developers shall show on their plans all utility connections proposed to service the building. The plans shall show all existing utilities that may be affected by the new services. All utility facilities and appurtenances shall be installed underground. The applicant shall submit the following plans for review: Site, Grading & Drainage, Landscaping and Utility Plans, in accordance with the Engineering Division's "Typical Plan Check Submittals" requirements hand-out sheet. There is an existing City 10" diameter sanitary sewer main, which crosses the subject property and must be relocated before the proposed apartment can be constructed. The applicant shall design, construct and install a new 10" sewer main, which will by-pass the subject property. The applicant has submitted a proposed Sewer Relocation plan, dated February 20, 2002, prepared by BKF Civil Engineers, showing a new sewer main installed within Oak Avenue and Commercial Avenue. The main would connect with an existing manhole in front of 90 Oak Avenue, flow North to Commercial Avenue, then East along Commercial, connecting to the existing sewer main at Commercial Avenue's intersection with Daly Court. This plan is acceptable, under the following conditions: a) The sewer shall be installed along the alignment of the existing sewer within Commercial Avenue. The existing old sewer shall be removed and replaced with the new 10" sewer main and any existing laterals reconnected to the new line. b) Because of the existing number of utility cuts in the street and the impact of the new sewer installation, the applicant shall also over-lay the portion of Commercial Avenue, between Oak Avenue and the East side of Daly Court with 1.5 inches of Class A asphaltic concrete. c) The applicants shall have their civil engineer prepare plans and specifications to perform this work. The plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The applicant shall install the new sewer main, in accordance with the approved plans and to City standards. d) Prior to receiving a building permit for the apartment, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or public improvement agreement, secured by cash, a letter of credit, or surety bond in the amount of the Engineer's Estimate to perform the work, as approved by the City Engineer. Alternately, the applicant may install a new 12" sewer main extending down Oak Avenue to the 18" City trunk main within Mission Road. However, this alternative will have to be evaluated by the applicant's civil engineer to verify, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the portion of the 18" main, between Oak Avenue and Chestnut Avenue (where the main size increases to 24" diameter) can accommodate the additional sewage flow, along with the existing flow in the line, as well as the future flows from Daly City, the Town of Colma and from future development in South San Francisco within the drainage basin that discharges into the Mission Road main. Conditions 7c and 7d discussed above would apply to this solution to the sewer relocation requirement. (Engineering Contact Person: Richard Harmon, 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT requirements shall be as follows: A. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. B. Landscaping Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. C. Building Security 1. Doors ao The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 lbs. of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. bo Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt lockl with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should be free moving and case hardened. Co do Pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt lock~ with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. Overhead roll-up doors shall be so secured on the inside that the lock cannot be defeated from the outside and shall also be secured with a cylinder lock or padlock from the inside. eo Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non-removable pins when pin-type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal of the door. fo Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazing or the equivalent, if double-cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. g. Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and I The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/tumpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or a single-cylinder deadbolt lock without a tumpiece may be used in "Group B" occupancies as defined by the Uniform Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door statng "This door to remain unlocked dudng business hours", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. ho jo mo bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic- equipped doors, and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used on panic-equipped doors. All entrance and exit doors for individual tenant spaces shall have a deadbolt lock. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three-fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bolts. Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. An interviewer or peephole shall be provided in each individual unit entrance door and shall allow for one hundred and eighty (180) degree vision. Doors swinging out shall have shall have non-removable hinge pins or hinge studs to prevent removal of the door. Sliding patio-type doors opening to patios or balconies which are otherwise accessible from the outside (this includes accessibility from adjacent balconies) shall comply with the following: Single sliding glass doors shall be adjusted in a manner that the vertical play is taken up to prevent lifting with a pry tool to defeat the locking mechanism. no Deadbolts shall be provided on all single sliding patio doors. Mounting screws for the lock cases shall be inaccessible from the outside. Lock or hook bolts shall be hardened steel or have hardened steel inserts and shall be capable of withstanding a force of eight hundred pounds applied in any horizontal direction. In addition of the primary locking device, auxiliary or secondary locking devices shall be provided on all accessible sliding-glass doors. Windows a. Louvered windows shall not be used as they pose a significant security o problem. Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. C · Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible window that open. Roof Openings a. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: or: or: 1) 2) 3) Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material.2 Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch fiat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: or: 1) 2) Iron bars of at least 112" round or one by one-fourth inch fiat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened and 3) If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. 4. Lighting Parking Garage Requirements: ao A lighting level of 5-foot candles will be maintained in the interior of the garage, for the travel lanes and parking spaces. bo A lighting level of 10-foot candles will be maintained in the stairwells and areas adjacent to the elevators. c. A telephone(s) will be available in the garage area that will enable people to summon assistance. Parking Lot and Circulation AreaS: Parking lots, (including parking lots with carports) driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with high intensity discharge lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of business darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on site. Such lighting shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers. A lighting level of .50 to 1 foot-candles minimum, maintained at ground level is required. bo All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Co Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Lighting plans shall include photometric and distribution data attesting to the required illumination level. 5. Numbering of Buildings ao Posted at the main entrance to the building/complex shall be a directory of the complex. Said sign shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness sign (directory) showing the addresses within the complex and shall be protected by use of vandal-resistant covers or materials. bo Each different unit within the building shall have its particular address prominently displayed on its front door. 6. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan ao All entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC, to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner's/manager's request. bo Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Traffic Bureau at 829-3934. 7. Misc. Security Measures Laundry Room go The community laundry room shall be equipped with a window to allow visibility into the interior of the room. The laundry room shall remain locked and the lock shall be keyed so that unit keys can open the lock. bo Coin operated laundry equipment must be emptied of it coins on a regular basis. Elevator ao The elevators in the complex shall be equipped with convex mirrors to allow persons to view the interior of the car before entering. Elevator lighting shall be equipped with vandal-resistant lenses and shall remain on at all times. Lobby and Parking Garage Doors ao Lobby and parking garage must be accessible to emergency personnel. A security keypad shall be utilized to enable access into the lobby and the garage areas at any time of the day or night. Construction a. The perimeter of the site shall be fenced during construction, and security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. c. The fence surrounding the storage yard should be topped with triple-strand barbed wire or razor ribbon. (Police Department Contact Person: Sergeant Mike Newell 650/877-8927) WATER QUALITY DIVISION requirements shall be as follows: 1. Refuse station is to be covered and drain connected to sanitary sewer system. 2. Elevator Sump connected to sanitary sewer system. 3. That the applicant pays a Sewer Connection based on the number of units constructed. Current fee is $21,525.00 ($1,435.00 per dwelling unit). Fee is to be paid when Building Permit is issued. 4. More comments when Building Plans are submitted. (Water Quality Contact Person: Ray Honan, 650/877-8634) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE TO REFLECT A CHANGE FROM R-2-H MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO R-3-L MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR 90 OAK AVENI IE The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: REZONE OF PROPERTY Chapter 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby amended to reflect the rezone of a .41 acre site consisting of three lots (APN 011-313-070, APN 011-313-080, and APN 011-313-090) as indicated in the legal description of the property, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, from R-2-H Medium Density Residential to R-3-L Multi-Family Residential. SECTION 2: FINDINGS 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 General Plan adopted in 1999, the staff reports and consultant reports submitted at the Planning Commission meetings conducted November 2001 through June, 20, 2002 and the public heating, documents and testimony received at the City Council meeting of June 26, 2002. The 90 Oak Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and circulated for a 20-day public/agency review period beginning on Februar3) 20, 2002 and ending on March 14, 2002. No public comments were received. The re-zone of the property is internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan and reflects the designation of the site by the General Plan, as adopted in 1999, as High Density Residential. SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4: PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those 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. 1 ..... 22 Introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the __ day of ,2002. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of ,2002. Mayor J:\wpd~Inrsw\405\001\ORDL2002~90 Oak rezone_042502.doc EXISTING ZONING t / / PROPOSED ZONING " 25 IN TI-tIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.69 "DENSITY REGULATIONS" OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Chapter 20.69 of the Municipal Code should be amended to give the City Council the authority to grant density bonuses in accordance with General Plan policies as identified in Table 2.2-I of the General Plan, adopted in October 1999; and, WHEREAS, a density bonus granted under this chapter will not increase the maximum permitted density established by the for reasens ether than required by State ~ ...... ,4 ,^ · ,~. ...... ~ ~ ..........., ~ .....;o,~, ..it~ ,~ City's General Plan .......... requ:re .............................................. Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the amendment is consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan that support residential development, and specifically with the Housing Element regarding the development of additional market rate and affordable housing in the community to meet on-going demand.; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR, certified in 1999, analyzed the potential impacts of the policies and land use goals proposed by the General Plan; and, WIqF. REAS, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan related to density; and, WI-IFREAS, the proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment that was not identified in the certified 1999 General Plan EIR nor will it result in additional mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15162(a), no further environmental review is required. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: 1. ADDITION OF CHAPTER 20.69.040: Chapter 20.69 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is amended by adding the following section: 20.69.040 Density bonus regulations. "Maximum densities listed in Table 20.69.020 may be increased by the grant of a density bonus in accordance with State and City requirements. Additionally,:l:he City Council may also-grant a density bonus when a proiect provides affordable housing consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.125, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specified in this Title. ,~n, ;o ~, ..... ;~,~ ,,,, e,n,~ ! .... Any grant of a density bonus, which increases a maximum density listed in Table 20.69.020, shall be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan Land Use Element. Density bonuses are required to be approved by the Planning Commission and/or City Council pursuant to in accordance with Chapters 20.125.14029.120.999and 20.130." 2. 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. 33. SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the __ day of ,2002. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk " 07 As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this ~ day of ,2002. C:XNrPortbI~EBMAINXKIMBERLY~65566_1 .DOC RESOLUTION NO. 2620 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION oF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 01-054, RECLASSIFICATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT (R-2-H) TO MULTI-FAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-L) ZONING DISTRICT, ZONING AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20.69, A DENSITY BONUS, AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND A DESIGN REVIEW ON AN 0.41 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 90 OAK AVENUE. WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed study sessions on November 15 and December 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 16, 2002; and WHEREAS, as required by the "Amendment Procedures" (SSFMC Chapter 20.87), and Title 19 (Subdivision Ordinance), the Planning Commission, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: an Affordable Housing Agreement prepared by the City of South San Francisco; Architectural and Landscape Plans, dated August 2001, prepared by Anthony M. Brandi, Architect; minutes of the Design Review Board meeting of June 19, 2001; February 21, March 7, April 4, May 2, and May 16, 2002, Planning Commission staff reports; and the May 16, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, makes the following findings in support of Reclassification from Medium Density Residential (R-2-H) Zoning District to Multi-Family Residential Zoning District (R-3-L), Density Bonus, Lot Merger and Affordable Housing Agreement with provisions for Affordable Housing allowing a fifteen (15) unit apartment building on a 0.41 acre site located at 90 Oak Avenue, owned by Spiros Kakoniktis: 1. The project is consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan that support residential development, and specifically with the Housing Element regarding the development of additional market rate and affordable housing in the community to meet on-going demand. The proposed density of 36.7 units per acre for the 0.41 acres to be developed with dwellings is well within the overall density of 37.5 units per acre for the High Density Residential category provided in the City's General Plan with the density increase permitted by the General Plan. 2. The 0.41 acre site is physically suited for the proposed single-family subdivision. 3. The development will create a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability and will result in an intensity of land use similar to adjacent multi-family and single-family neighborhoods. The proposed density of 36.7 units per acre and the general style and quality of the new residences and site improvements is substantially similar to recently approved subdivisions in the City. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 01-54 identifies several potential adverse impacts attributable to the development of the fifteen (15) new residences. The impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. A mitigation monitoring program is established to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures, including a mitigation monitoring program, have been incorporated into the project or have been made conditions of approval which will reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level.. 6. The Lot Merger of the three separate lots comprising the site, and allowing the development of fifteen (15) apartments, will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The use is compatible with the existing uses. Site improvements including the provision of upgrades to the public infrastructure, and landscaping the yards of each new lot, will reduce potential adverse impacts to the public infrastructure, reduce circulation conflicts and provide a streetscape that is comparable to the sun'ounding neighborhoods. The fifteen (15) new apartments and site landscaping comply with the City's Design Guidelines. 8. The residences comply with the applicable community design guidelines established in the South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.68 through 20.74. The design and improvements are not in conflict with any known existing public easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 01-054, RZ 01-054, Zoning Amendment to Chapter 20.69, Density Bonus 01-054, the Affordable Housing Agreement and Design Review 01-054 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 20th day of June 2002 by the following vote: The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Zoning Amendment, Density Bonus, Housing Agreement and Design Review 01-054 received the following vote: AYE S: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim,, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt, and Chairperson Romero NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia None ABSENT: Chalrper~nn Meloni The Rezoning from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential received the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt, and Chairperson Romero NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner D'Angelo None ABSENT: C~hnirpe. r~nn Meloni Commission S ecr[,~-f Thomas C. Sparks Recess called at 11:10 p.m. 4. Recalled to order at 11:20 p.m. Phillip & Wendy Wan-owner/applicant. DENIED 127 Arroyo Drive PM-01-063, DR-01-063 & Categorical Exemption Class 15 Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions (Continued from October 18, 2001) Tentative Parcel Map allowing a lot split and Design Review of a new single family dwelling and remodel of an existing single family dwelling situated at 123 and 127 Arroyo Drive in the Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-l-E) in accordance with SSFMC Title 19 and Chapter 20.85. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Leal Charonnat, representing the owner presented the project. Public Hearing opened. Public Hearing closed. The Commission discussed the size of the lot. They noted that the uniqueness of the area needed to be preserved. A subdivision would change the character of the area and a lot that would be twice the size of the lots in the surrounding area would not preserve the character. Motion Sim / Second Teglia to deny the application. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero, and Chairperson Meloni Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo Abstain: None Denial approved. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS STUDY SESSION a. Spiros Kakonikitis-owner Antonio M. Brandi, applicant 90 Oak Avenue RZ, DR-01-054 &ND-01-054 CONTINUED Study Session of a Rezoning and Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15 unit apartment building, situated at 90 Oak Avenue (APN-011-313-070, 011-313-080 &011-313-090) in the Medium Density (R-2) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Motion Teglia / Second D'Angelo to continue the item due to the lateness of the hour. 6. Items from Staff Chief Planner Sparks noted that the City Council upheld the Commission' s recommendation for denial of a cell site application at 1274 Old Mission Road. He added that they also adopted the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. 7. Items from Commission S :WIinutes\fi nalized~2001\111501RPC.doc Page 6 of 7 Approved on April 4, 2002 32 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE December 6, 2001 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Romero and Chairperson Meloni MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Teglia Notified Chairperson Meloni STAFFPRESENT: Planning Division: City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Kimberly Johnson Richard Harmon Sgt. Mike Newell AGENDA REVIEW NO CHANGES ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE STUDY SESSION Spiros Kakonikitis.-owner Antonio M. Brandi, applicant 90 Oak Avenue RZ, DR-01-054 &ND-01-054 Study Session of a Rezoning and Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, situated at 90 Oak Avenue (APN-011-313-070, 011-313-080 &011-313-090) in the Medium Density (R-2) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Senior Planner Carlson presented the Staff Report. Antonio Brandi, applicant, presented the project. Commission Comments: · The Commission discussed the architectural detail and history of the property as well as the building. They also spoke of having the Historic Preservation Commission look at the structure and determine whether it can be saved, adapted to the area, or moved to another location within the City. · Another concern that the Commission had was there not being any open space for children to play. This may create a problem in the future where the children may end up playing between the buildings and on the street. They suggested having an open area for children to play in. Page 1 of 7 S:\Minutes~tinalizedX2001 \124)6-01 RPC.doc Approved on June 6, 2002 · They were also concerned with how the sewer line issue would be addressed being that the main sewer line runs straight through the property. · The Commission pointed out that the affordable units should vary and not only be one-bedroom apartments. · They concluded that a project like the one proposed should be encouraged in the City but the issues need to be addressed. Staff's response: · They noted that the Historical Preservation Society would be consulted as to what they thought would be feasible for the building. · With regard to the open space, staff pointed out that there is a small tot lot behind the building but if the Commission wanted something greater they would work with the applicant. · Development Review Coordinator Harmon noted that relocating the sewer line is going to be a great task because it is a major line that takes all the sewage from Sunshine Gardens. He pointed out that them needs to be a solution as to how this will be done before the project moves forward. · Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated that the Inclusionary Housing ordinance asks for the affordable units to be all types of units. Direction given to applicant. CONSENT CALENDAR NO ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 0 MARBELLA a. Marbella Housing Subdivision (GP, RZ, SA, PUD, DA, & EIR-00-053) Approximately 14.9 acres located on the west side of Gellert Boulevard, north of Westborough Boulevard (APNs 091.661.240/250/260/270/280/290/310/320/330). Public hearing to consider the FEIR, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Unit Development and Development Agreement to allow development of 280-unit residential condominium project on a 14.9 acre vacant site. The project would be configured in six four- story buildings with both underground and surface parking. The following entitlements are included in the request: · General Plan Amendment: 1) to change the current land USe designation of the site from Mixed Community Commercial/Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential; and 2) modify General Plan Policy 3.11-I-2 regarding the Westborough/Gellert Urban Design Plan. · Rezoning to change the zone designation from C-1 Retail Commercial to R-3-L Multiple Family Residential · Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map · Planned Unit Development Permit with exceptions to: 1) allow private streets; and 2) permit an increase in height limits allowed in the R-3 Zone from 50 feet to 70 feet. Development Agreement (DA-00-053) Allison Knapp gave a brief staff report. Joe Finelli, Vice President of DUC Housing, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project. S :\Minutes~fmalized~2001 \12-06-01 RPC.doc Approved onJtme 6, 2002 Page 2 of 7 34 Spiros Kakoniktis-owner Continued to June 6, 2002 Antonio M. Brandi-applicant 90 Oak Ave. RZ-01-054, DR-01-054 and ND-01-054 (Continued from May 2, 2002) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential District (R-3-L), in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040 clarifying that density bonuses granted by the City for reasons other than that required by State law, require approval y the City Council and to comply with the City's adopted General Plan density standards. Density Bonus of 25% allowing 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable housing in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.130. Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City of South San Francisco restricting three of the dwellings as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC 20.125. Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. Senior Planner Carlson gave staff report. Antonio Brandi, Architect, noted that they have responded to Commission concerns by creating more open space, and by matching the roof and building to the neighborhood. Commission, staff and applicant discussion: · Chairperson Meloni questioned the normality of the affordable Housing Agreement in Exhibit C about raising the rent 5%. He asked if the Engineering Division would decide where the sewer lines were to go. Assistant City Attorney Johnson answered that the Inclusionary Ordinance allows rental increases. If the median income spikes then the maximum increase would be 5 %. The Commission discussed relocating the house, the resources to do this, and the possibility of the house being used by the Fire Department Senior Planner Carlson stated that the Historical Preservation Commission determined the house is not a historical resource and that there are no resources available to relocate it. He added that relocation to Orange Park was not being considered. Applicant responded that cost of relocating existing house was close to $20,000 not including additional cost for foundation, utilities etc. Commissioner Meloni questioned what the little dormers where for. Thinks dormers are too small in relation to roof size and chimneys. They get lost in roof on rear elevation. Concerned about the scale- very large chimneys compared to dormers, round windows in dormers but not anywhere else. Looks like windows are right on the frame. Mr. Brandi pointed out the dormers are strictly decorative. They had originally proposed them to be larger dormers but if the Commission would like them larger they can make them bigger. Page 2 of 4 3¸5 S:\MinutesXJ'malized\05-16-02 RPC.doc Approved onJm~e 6, 2002 · Commissioner Sim questioned where the 55 year came from and the rounding up or down ratio 2.4%. Assistant City Attorney Johnson explained when Inclusionary Ordinance was prepared a limit on length of time we can encumber private property was needed, so 55 years is just about max and consistent with what other jurisdictions have imposed. The Ordinance requires an in lieu fee for .5 or above. But if the applicant would rather build a unit than pay the fee to the City Recess called 8:01 p.m. 8:05 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Ed Peterson, 64 Daly Court, asked if the trees were going to be permanent and stated his concern with the height of the building and the shadow it would cast on his property. Senior Planner Carlson replied that the trees were only part of the artist rendition and staff did not conduct a shadows study because the building was only 3 stories tall. Public Hearing closed. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked what the market rate eligibility was and if the developer or the City handles this. Senior Planner Carlson noted that City staff determines the eligibility rate by using Federal HUD data. Assistant City Attorney Johnson added that it is 90 % of the base market rent. The Commission pointed out that the proposed project is out of character with the neighborhood and that the only benefit is the 3 affordable units. They noted that they did not feel comfortable with the proposed zoning amendment and housing element and that there are better ways to mass/scale the site. It was suggested that the developer look into underground parking. Senior Planner Carlson r~sponded it is in a flood zone and site will be elevated. Difficult to keep garage flood resistant. Motion Sim to continue the item. Motion died for lack of a second. The applicant noted that she did not want a continuance and did not feel that the Commission was against the project at the two study sessions. She pointed out that they have been cooperative and would like to have known previously what the Commission's concerns were. Motion Teglia / Second Sim directing staff to prepare finding of denial for 90 Oak and continue the item to June 6, 2002 to adopt said findings. Approved by majority voice vote with Commissioner Ochsenhirt voting no. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Items from Staff None 4. Items from Commission Chairperson Romero asked Sergeant Mike Newell about the Special Olympics. Sergeant Newell announced that the Special Olympics are June 8th and those interested should contact Carol Haskins to mow lawns for a donation. Page 3 of 4 8 :\Minutes~fmalized\05-16-02 RPC.doc Approved onJtme 6, 2002 SSFMC Chapter 20.30.030 and 20.30.040. Public Hearing opened. Associate Planner Kowalski presented the Staff Report. Staff recommends the Commission approve the caretakers unit but deny the application to pay the in-lieu landscaping fee. Emilio Arco, Arco Auto, stated that his business has 40 employees and he parks the cars on the site and not on the street because of the limited parking on San Mateo Avenue and on Lowrie. He is requesting that the Commission allow him to pay the in-lieu landscaping fee in order to keep parking cars on his site and not on the street. He added that removing some parking spaces to add landscaping would increase the parking issues in the area. In addition he pointed out that the site is surrounded by rock and sand and this would make it difficult for any type of vegetation to grow. He concluded that he has always maintained his area clean and safe and will continue to do so by complying with all the conditions of approval. Public Hearing closed. The Commission discussed the possibility of allowing the applicant to pay an in-lieu landscaping fee due to the owner's reputation with the City and his willingness to always work with the City. The Commission also discussed the public right of way and a fence being placed on City property, which is in violation of the Municipal Code. They noted that the fence needs to be out of the public right of way and this needs to be resolved prior to any Commission approval. The Commission felt that any type of landscaping would not last on the site, due to the proximity of the concrete plant. Motion Teglia ! Second Meloni to continue to July 18, 2001. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Spiros Kakoniktis-owner Antonio M. Brandi-applicant 90 Oak Ave. RZ-01-054, DR-01-054 and ND-01-054 Continued (Continued from May 16, 2002) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential District (R-3-L), in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040 clarifying that density bonuses granted by the City for reasons other than that required by State law, require approval y the City Council and to comply with the City's adopted General Plan density standards. Density Bonus of 25% allowing 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable housing in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.130. Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City of South San Francisco restricting three of the dwellings as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC 20.125. Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission discussed this item on May 18, 2002 and directed preparation of Findings of Denial for approval at this meeting. There are some issues that the Commissioners had and would like to get more information on the item. The Commission can continue the item for two weeks to allow for notification. 37 S:\Minutes\06-06-02 RPC.doc Page 2 of 6 Chairperson Romero, Commissioner Honan and Commissioner Ochsenhirt noted that this is a good opportunity to revisit the item and asked that the comments from the previous meetings be taken into consideration. Commissioner Teglia noted that public has the impression that a decision has been made on this application. Commissioner D'Angelo pointed out that if there was no major change he does not see a reason not to continue the item. Commissioner Meloni noted that the Commission was concerned with the design of the building and if the applicant feels that he can work with massing then it can be continued. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the presentation was lacking contextual information and the Commission needs to visualize how the building will fit on the street. He pointed out that the housing needs of the City are a good reason to revisit the item more seriously. Motion Honan / Second Sim to continue to July 18, 2002. Approved by majority roll call vote. Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Absent: None Abstain: None Recess called 8:16 - 8:25 p.m. Terrabay Phase II and III Myers Development Corp-owner/applicant San Bruno MtndTerrabay PP-01-020, ZA-01-020, SP-01-020 RESOLUTION 2618 Amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan, Chapter 20.63, "Terrabay Specific Plan District" and Precise Plan as it relates to the Condominium Mid-Rise Tower to permit a change in number of one, two and three bedroom units and to reduce the height, width and length of the building Staff Report presented by Consultant Planner Knapp. Mr. Jack Myers and DES Architects presented the modifications to the Commission. Commissioner Sim and DES Architect discussed the architecture of the building, elevations, garage and the landscaping. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Heating was closed. Commission, staff and applicant's discussion: Commissioner Honan questioned if the shuttle system would only work Monday-Friday or if it would include weekends. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the applicant will have shuttle service and it is anticipated to be Monday through Friday. The applicant is approaching the East of 101 Alliance to become a part of that shuttle service as well as researching other options. The service could be expanded to include weekends. The TDM program is going to be monitored on an annual basis and a determination will be made annually as to how the program will be expanded to meet the needs of the residents. Commissioner Meloni was concerned with the modification changing the number of BMR units that the developer is required to build. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that it would not change the 32 BMR units that are required to be built by the DA and Specific Plan. Chairperson Meloni asked where the applicant was in the 38 S:WIinutes\06-06-02 RPC.doc Page 3 of 6 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE June 20, 2002 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Meloni STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Water Quality: Bldg./Fire Prey. Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Steve Kowalski Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Kimberly Johnson Richard Harmon Sgt. Mike Newell Ray Honan Barry Mammini AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks a~ked that the Commission continue item 4, Cingular Wireless, to allow thc joint telecommunications subcommittee to meet. Item 7, Renee Yates, will also need to be continued due to the applicant being unavailable. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None 1. Approval of Special Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2001, Regular Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2001 and June 6, 2002. Motion Sim / Second Honan to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by majority voice vote. Chairperson Meloni absent. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS Spiros Kakoniktis-owner Antonio M. Brandi-applicant 90 Oak Ave. RZ-01-054, DR-01-054 and ND-01-054 S:~linutes\06-20-02.doc Page 1 of 11 (Continued from June 6, 2002) Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential District (R-3-L), in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040 clarifying that density bonuses granted by the City for reasons other than that required by State law, require approval by the City Council and to comply with the City's adopted General Plan density standards. Density Bonus of 25% allowing 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable housing in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.130. Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City of South San Francisco restricting three of the dwellings as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC 20.125. Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with $SFMC Chapter 20.85. Public Hearing reopened. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Mr. Antonio M. Brandi gave a detailed presentation to the Commission of the proposal in context with the adjacent properties. He showed various 2-story buildings in the area, close-ups of Mission Road, floor plans, roof view and rear view. Commissioner Sim's comments: · He asked that the applicant explain what was done with the elevation in relation to the street, the vertical posts and the underground parking. Mr. Brandi explained that the parking garage is underground and there is an elevator allowing tenants access to the apartment levels, there is also stairway access to the right side of the building. The building is separated by walkways to allow daylight to reach the bottom units. · He was uncomfortable with the gridded look of the scheme and its relation to the street elevation. Mr. Brandi suggested having m6re articulation between the rails and the side. Chairperson Romero's comments: · He asked how the architect improved the entryway in response to the DRB comments. Mr. Brandi stated that they added columns, doors, windows and canopies to the entryway. · He questioned how the visitors would get access to the guest parking if it is a gated. Mr. Brandi noted that there are 2 guest-parking stalls in the front of the building and 2 in the back. · He felt that the area needed to be improved more being that it is in the front of the property. · He asked how the applicant responded to the DRB comment with regard to the turnaround area in the garage. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the plans comply with City turnaround requirements and that the cars have room to head out of the site hood first. Commissioner Honan's comments: · She asked if the children's play area had a fence around it. Mr. Brandi noted that although the drawings do not represent a fence there would be one surrounding the play area. · She was concerned with the refuse being next to the tot lot. She suggested having the garbage and the managers parking in the corner for odor purposes. Mr. Brandi noted that it can be done but the garbage has a roof over it and this would minimize the odor. S:~Minutes\O6-20-O2.doc Page 2 of 11 She questioned if there was enough room for the scavenger company to get the trash bin out. Mr. Brandi noted that the management company would determine how they want to handle the trash service but that there is not enough room for the Scavengers' truck to go into the site given the proposed site plan. Chairperson Romero suggested that the trash bin would be better situated in the front to allow the Scavenger Company access for garbage pickup. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the DRB requested that the applicant not have the gates facing the street and that landscaping be added so that it would be aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Teglia suggested that in parking spaces 33 or 34 there be a strip of grass and move the refuse container toward the street. He recommended another buffer on the other side between play area and refuse. Chairperson Romero and Commissioner Honan agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Sim noted that the diagonal guardrail is a significant gesture in the project. He suggested that there be more detail to the guardrail to make it relate to the vertical post. Mr. Brandi noted that they can look into adding more detail and the diagonal guardrail allows a larger break between the buildings. Commissioner Honan asked if there was an onsite manager. The management company stated that although it is not required for California for a building under 15-units they will be having an onsite manager. Commissioner Honan asked why there was an extra parking stall if the manager will be onsite and have his or her own parking stall. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the applicant is providing minimum amount of spaces and there are not any excess spaces. Koustantinos Dokos, P.O. Box 953 - Millbrae, owner of 77 Oak Avenue, the building directly across from 90 Oak Avenue spoke in favor of the proposal. He does not have any problems or concerns with this project and understands the Commission's concerns with regard to the garbage pickup. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia asked what the guest parking requirement§.are for the area. Senior Planner Carlson noted that for buildings above 4-units the requirement is .25 stall spaces per unit. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that this facility has inadequate parking. He suggested a minimum of or two spaces per unit for guest parking. He stated that he is against density changes and that the height is too high. He asked what the developer has done with the dormer problems. Mr. Brandi stated that if the Commission thinks the dormers need to be larger they can be increased. He suggested that it be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Honan asked how the sewer line issue was resolved. Development Review Coordinator Harmon noted that the developer would have to relocate the 10-inch sewer line. The developer can intercept the line and run it up to Commercial Avenue and connect it to the area opposite of Daly Court or connect it to line in Mission Road but the line will have to be 12-inch line in this case. He pointed out that the project is conditioned to do this work. The project cannot be built until the sewer line is removed and replaced at another location. There is another condition that the developer overlay the street from Oak Avenue to Daly Court due to sewer connections done by the Oak Farms Development and this new proposal. He stated that there would not be an impact to City sewer services. Commissioner Teglia stated that the project remains the same and that this will impact parking in the area. He noted that changing the requirements for the density bonus is concerning him. He questioned if this change would impact the entire city. He added that the project does not meet the City's high standards for a good development. He stated that the dormers need to be incorporated with the chimney and the garbage area needs to be looked at further. 41 S:\Minutes\O6-20-O2.doc Page 3 of 11 Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that there are two ways to get an increase in density. One is to provide the low and very low income housing. In accordance with State law the City is required to grant a 25% density increase. The otehris to reflect the density bonuses that are allowed under the General Plan in accordance with SSFMC 20.69. The General Plan land use element, table 2.2.1 states that High Density Residential is entitled to go from 18.1 to 30-units per acre. They can be approved up to 37.5 units per acre if the 25% bonus is available for affordable housing projects, housing for elderly residents, or housing that meets community design standards specified in the zoning ordinance. She added that the zoning amendment implements one of the General Plan's policies. Commissioner Honan questioned the I-l~C's decision to save some of the kitchen of the historical building. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the HPC found that the kitchen had been completely altered and could not be saved and it could not be verified if it had been part of the Lux Mansion. The Commission asked that the developer convert the managers parking to guest parking and that the tot lot be buffered by landscaping on either side. They suggested that this portion return to the Commission as a design review. They asked that the garbage stay within the enclosure and be brought out when garbage is to be picked up. The Commission asked that Chairperson Meloni's comments with regard to the restructuring of the dormers be addressed. Assistant City Attorney Johnson suggested changing the language to the amendment of Chapter 20.69, density regulations are shown as follows. The language would be revised to strike "also grant the density bonus" and "that is not required by state law ". The language that would be inserted is "when a project provides affordable housing, housing for senior citizens that provides amenities for those residents, or for projects that meet the community design standards as may be established by this ordinance ". Commissioner Teglia noted that this should have been handled separately and not part of a single project. Assistant City Attorney Johnson suggested that each item be handled as a separate motion. Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Sim recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Approved by majority roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Abstain: None Absent: Commissioner Meloni Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Sim recommending that the City Council approve Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential District (R-3-L). Approved by majority roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo Abstain: None Absent: Commissioner Meloni Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Sim recommending that the City Council approve Zoning Amendment 01-054. Approved by majority roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Abstain: None S:Wlinutes\O6-gO-OZdoc Absent: Commissioner Meloni Motion Ochsenhirt ! Second Sim recommending that the City Council approve the Density Bonus of 25%. Approved by majority roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Abstain: None Absent: Commissioner Meloni Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Sim recommending that the City Council approve the Housing Agreement. Approved by majority roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Abstain: None Absent: Commissioner Meloni Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Sim recommending that the City Council approve Design Review 01-054 and that all comments from the Planning Commission with regard to managers parking, dormers, garbage, and tot lot return to the Commission. Approved by majority roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Abstain: None Absent: Commissioner Meloni Recess taken 9:12 p.m. Project 101/Huntsman Architectural Group-applicant Elbert Bressie -owner 600-790 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-090 and SBE 135-41-14 PAR 1) UP 00-024, VAR 00-024, PTDM 00-024, DR 00-024 & MND 00-024 Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, in accordance CEQA. Use Permit allowing a multi-tenant mixed-use commercial center comprised principally of office and R&D with retail uses generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips, with 24 hour operation and off-site parking, in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.24.060, 20.74.120 and Chapter 20.81. Variance allowing a reduction in parking from the required parking rate of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet to a rate of 2.64 spaces per 1,000 square feet in conjunction with a TDM Plan in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.82 and 20.120. Transportation Demand Management Plan reducing traffic impacts, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.120. Design Review of a conversion of an existing commercial development from a multi-tenant mixed-use facility comprised primarily of warehouse, distribution, office and retail to a multi-tenant mixed-use facility comprised primarily of office and R&D with retail, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. Zone District: Planned Commercial (P-C) Zone District. 43 S:XMinutes\O6-20-O2.doc Page 5 of 11 JUNE19, 2001.DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES RZ 01-054 & DR 01-054 90 OAK AVENUE 1. Redesign the trash enclosure area to increase the distance at least five feet between the end of the adjacent parking area. 2. Designate the guest parking areas with signs. 3. Increase the width of the end stalls in the garage to provide sufficient room for vehicle turnaround. 4. Submit a conceptual landscape plan which includes a tree substitution for the jacaranda tree, plants or other materials suitable for the areas receiving little direct sunlight, 5. Revise the facade along Oak Avenue to provide a greater sense of entry. Coordinate the design of the entry with the landscape plan. 6. The revised plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to review by the Planning Commission. MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting of October 16, 2001 TIME: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 4:00 P.M. Harris, Nilmeyer, Williams Nelson, Ruiz Tom Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner 1. ADMINSTRATIVE BUSINESS Canon, Inc. Equity Office Properties-owner JSJ Electrical Display-applicant 890 Dubuque Ave. DR-S-01-070(B) Type B Sign Permit for new individual tenant signage in a multi-tenant office complex. (Case Planner: Steve Kowalski) The Board had no comments and recommended approval of the application. Dennis Georgopoulos-owner Aura Hardwoods, Inc.-applicant 301 Allerton Ave. DR-S-01-083(B) Type B Sign Permit to remove existing illegal signage and to add new signage to a single-tenant industrial/warehouse building. (Case Planner: Steve Kowalski) The Board had no comments and recommended approval of the application. Dr. Raju-owner Arun Bisessar-applicant 521 Rocca Ave. DR-01-072 Design review of first and second story additions to an existing single-family residence. (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) The Board had the following comments: a. Remove either of the two front entries from the plans to make the front elevation more compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. b. Drop the floor of the living room/kitchen addition down the natural slope of the lot rather than cantilevering it straight out from the rear of the house. c. Transfer some of the proposed square footage to the unutilized space under the house. d. Provide a more accurate site plan; the contour lines of the section drawings do not match those of the site plan. ' ' DRB Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 2 e. Show the footprints of the adjacent residences on their respective parcels. Resubmit revised plans to the DRB for further review upon completion. Britannia East Grand Buildings 4, 5, 6 Britannia East Grand Cherokee San Francisco, LLC.-owner Slough Estates-applicant 450 East Grand Ave. (easterly terminus of East Grand Ave.) DR-01-006 & EIR-01-006 Design Review of Buildings 4, 5, 6 (Case Planner: Susy Kalkin) The Board had no comments and recommended approval of the application. Emilio Arco/owner Jerrod L. Ewell-applicant 1361 San Mateo Ave. UP-01-086 . Design review of a Night Watchman's Quarters on the second floor of an existing industrial building. (Case Planner: Steve Kowalski) The Board had no comments and recommended approval of the application. PG&E-owner Tetra Tech/Whalen & Co. (Maryann Miller)-applicant adjacent to 340 S. Airport Blvd. UP-01-084 Design review of 6 panel antennas to be mounted on top of an existing PG&E tower. (Case Planner: Steve Kowalski) The Board had the following comments: Replace any landscaping around the base of the tower that is removed during the installation of the equipment and its housing facility ge Welch Family Partnership-owner Tetra Tech (Peter Clement)-applicant 631 E! Camino Real UP-01-085 Design review of new rooftop antennas and equipment to be co-located on an existing commercial building already containing existing telecommunications equipment. , '~.' 46 DRB Minutes October 16, 2001 Page 3 (Case Planner: Steve Kowalski) The Board had no comments and recommended approval of the application. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: Zymed/Dean Tsao-owner Peter C. Luu-applicant 571 Eccles Ave. UP 00-023fMOD1 & Negative Declaration ND-00-023 Second design review of a building that has been convened from a warehouse to an office building. (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) The Board reviewed the current design and determined that the applicant met all of its previous requirements. The board had no additional comments. Giorgi Bros. Furniture Robert Giorgi-owner/applicant 211 Baden Ave. UP-00-006/PCA-00-006/ND-00-006 Design review of landscaping plan for a new commercial building. The Board had the following comments: a. Replace bougb, invillea with another evergreen, thomless vine that needs little sun, such as creeping fig. b. Plant more low plantings to fill in the gaps between the vines, preferably with erigeron. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Stephen Kowalski Associate Planner CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REVISED MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2001 REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Chair Vieira, Vice Chair Masuda, Commissioners Elliott, Giusti and Iskra None Chief Planner Tom Sparks, Senior Planner Steve Carlson, Associate Planner Steve Kowalski CHAIRMAN COMMENTS: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. AGENDA ITEMS: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting minutes of November 8, 2001 - M. Giusti, S. Masuda, Motion passes 5-0 2. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: None. 3. ITEMS FROM STAFF: a. Sign Hill Discussion regarding Director of Parks, Ban'y Nagel's assessment of the condition of Sign Hill. Mr. Nagel stated that the condition of the letters should not cause alarm. There are some cracks in some of the letters that need to be patched with cement, but there is not a serious erosion problem as was originally thought by the Commission. Mr. Nagel also stated that the letters will be repainted white after the patchwork is complete. b. Status Report for 210 Eucalyptus Avenue Applicants' contractor (Home Depot) raised the estimated cost of the job just before starting the work, so the applicant did not proceed. Applicant is reconsidering contractors, and is seeking other competitive estimates. c. 90 Oak Avenue (Removal of a Potential Historic Resource) S:kHPCMVlINUTES~.001\I21301.HPC.DOC Page I of 2 o ~ -, Applicants Brandi (Architect) and Kakonikitis (owner) wish to remove a Potential Historic Resource at 90 Oak Avenue. The existing house is believed to possibly contain some remnants from the original kitchen at the Lux Mansion. Commission asked the applicant to obtain quotes to preserve the house and relocate it to Orange Park because it felt that the house contained numerous historic features and was a valuable asset to the Community. Applicant agreed to do this. The Commissioners also agreed to visit the house individually on their own time to determine what should be preserved during the move. If the cost is not prohibitive to move the structure, the Commission would like to see the house saved and relocated to Orange Park. 4. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION (REVISED): Commissioner Elliott reported that he had met with Parks Department Superintendent Barry Nagel to discuss the status of the maintenance and preservation of Sign Hill. ADJOURNMENT: M. Elliott, S. Masuda, Passed 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Francisco V'i'eira, Chair Historic Preservation Commission City of South Francisco Stephen Kowalski Commission Secretary S :~qPCWI INUTF_3~001 \ 12130 ! .HPC.DOC Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2002 REGULAR MEETI31G CALL TO ORDER: 7:37 PM ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Vice Chair Masuda, Commissioners Giusti and Iskra Chair Vieira (one position vacant) Chief Planner Tom Sparks, Senior Planner Steve Carlson CHAIRMAN COMMENTS: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. AGENDA ITEMS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting minutes of January 10, 2002 Commissioner Iskra noted for the record that Ms. Drinkwater's engraved stone had arrived (item #3.) Motion Iskra Second Giusti Approved 3-0 (one absent, one vacancy.) 2. REORGANIZATION Continued to next meeting when presumably five members will be present. 3. Subcommittee Reports: None. 4. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Staff noted that the City Council at their regular meeting of February 13, 2002, had appointed Jeanette Acosta to fill the vacancy left by the departure of Charles Elliott. Senior Planner Carlson presented an update regarding the existing house at 90 Oak Avenue. Applicant Kakoniktis and Architect Brandi were present and participated with Commissioners and staff in a discussion of issues. The Commission concluded, consistent with the recommendation transmitted by the Historical Society, that it would be desirable if possible and if funding can be found to move the structure to Orange Park for other uses, perhaps as a classroom. However, the Commission was clear that while the house has pleasing architectural features and preservation is desirable, the driving force is not historical value. Commissioners suggested contacting the Cultural Arts Commission to see if there is interest in and/or funding S :htl PCkM IN UTESX2002\021402. H PC.DOC Page I of 2 5O Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: November 15, 2001 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Study Session of a Rezoning and Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15 unit apartment building, situated at 90 Oak Avenue (APN 011-313-070, 011-313-080 & 011-313-090) in the Medium Density (R-2) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Owner: Spiros Kakonikitis Applicant: Antonio M. Brandi Case Nos.: RZ 01-054, DR 01-054 & ND 01-054 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a Study Session of the development proposal and offer comments. BACKGROUND: The 0.41 acre site i~ comprised of three separate parcels. One of the parcels has been used as a single family dwelling and the other two abutting parcels are vacant. The project includes merging the three parcels, demolition of the dwelling and the construction of a three-story 15 unit apartment building. Three of the dwellings will be restricted as affordable units. Parking will be provided on site at-grade and in a subterranean garage. The site Will be landscaped. The site is adjacent to other dwellings and a religious assembly hall. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meetings of 3une 19, 2001 and October 16, 2001. At the first meeting the Board suggested that the applicant revise the plans to provide a more articulated entry, make some plant substitutions in the shaded areas in the side yards and asked the applicant return to the Board. The applicant revised the plans in response to Board comments. At the second meeting the Board recommended approval of the development. The project site's General Plan land use designation, High Density Residential, allows multi- family development. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The present zoning is Medium Density Residential (R-2) which does not allow the proposed density nor apartment style buildings. The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from Medium Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: RZ 01-054 & DR 01-054 November 15, 2001 90 Oak Avenue Page 2 of 3 Density Residential (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. The building generally complies with current City development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: Floor Area: Density: Maximum: Height Maximum: Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: Lot Coverage Maximum: Landscaping: Mimmum: Automobile Parking Minimum: Setbacks Front Side Rear 0.41 acres 29,95O SF 37.5 Du/Ac. 50 Fl' No Max 65% 10% 34 Minimum 15FT 5FI 11.5 FT [17,815 SF] Proposed: 36.7 Du/Ac Proposed: 35 Fl' Proposed: NA Proposed: 60 % Proposed: 10% Proposed: 34 Proposed 15 FI' 5FT 20 FI' Note: The project includes 3 affordable dwellings units. Maximum density without affordable dwellings is 30 Du/Ac or 12 units. Very recently, it was discovered that a city sewer line crosses the site. The line will need to be relocated. The applicant has discussed the matter with the City Engineering staff and is proposing to re-route the line along Oak Avenue to Mission Road. The project will necessitate the demolition of single family dwelling, which according to City Historic Survey, is identified as a Potential Historic Resource. As provided in SSFMC, demolition of a Potential Historic Structure requires review by the Historic Commission. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: RZ 01-054 & DR 01-054 November 15, 2001 90 Oak Avenue Page 3 of 3 Because the project involves a zone Change the project will also be required to be reviewed by the City Council. CONCLUSION: The construction of a 15 unit apartment is consistent with the City's General Plan and with a rezoning with all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission should review the project and offer comments. Plans Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: December 6, 2001 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Study Session of a Rezoning and Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15 unit apartment building, situated at 90 Oak Avenue (APN 011-313-070, 011-313-080 & 011-313-090) in the Medium Density (R-2) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Owner: Spiros Kakonikitis Applicant: Antonio M. Brandi Case Nos.: RZ 01-054, DR 01-054 & ND 01-054 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a Study Session of the development proposal and offer comments. BACKGROUND: Owing to the laten6ss of the hour, the project was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of November 15, 2001. The 0.41 acre site is comprised of three separate parcels. One of the parcels has been used as a single family dwelling and the other two abutting parcels are vacant. The project includes merging the three parcels, demolition of the dwelling and the construction of a three-story 15 unit apartment building. Three of the dwellings will be restricted as affordable units. Parking will be provided on site at-grade and in a subterranean garage. The site will be landscaped. The site is adjacent to other dwellings and a religious assembly hall. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meetings of June 19, 2001 and October 16, 2001. At the first meeting the Board suggested that the applicant revise the plans to provide a more articulated entry, make some plant substitutions in the shaded areas in the side yards and asked the applicant return to the Board. The applicant revised the plans in response to Board comments. At the second meeting the Board recommended approval of the development. The project site's General Plan land use designation, High Density Residential, allows multi- family development. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The present zoning is Medium Density Residential (R-2) which does not allow the proposed Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: RZ 01-054 & DR 01-054 December 6, 2001 90 Oak Avenue Page 2 of 3 density nor apartment style buildings. The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. The building generally complies with current City development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: Floor Area: Density: Maximum: Height Maximum: Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: Lot Coverage Maximum: Landscaping: Minimum: Automobile Parking Minimum: Setbacks Front Side Rear 0.41 acres 29,950 SF 37.5 Du/Ac. 50 FT No Max 65% 10% 34 Minimum 15FI' 5FT 11.5 FI' [17,815 SF] Proposed: 36.7 Du/Ac Proposed: 35 FI' Proposed: NA Proposed: 60 % Proposed: 10% Proposed: 34 Proposed 15 FT 5FT 20 FI' Note: The project includes 3 affordable dwellings units. Very recently, it was discovered that a city sewer line crosses the site. The line will need to be relocated. The applicant has discussed the matter with the City Engineering staff and is proposing to re-route the line along Oak Avenue to Mission Road. The project will necessitate the demolition of single family dwelling, which according to City Historic Survey, is identified as a Potential Historic Resource. As provided in SSFMC, demolition of a Potential Historic Structure requires review by the Historic Commission. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: RZ 01-054 & DR 01-054 December 6, 2001 90 Oak Avenue Page 3 of 3 Because the project involves a zone change the project will also be required to be reviewed by the City Council. CONCLUSION: The construction of a 15 unit apartment is consistent with the City's General Plan and with a rezoning with all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission should review the project and offer comments. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Plans Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: TO: SUBJECT: May 16, 2002 Planning Commission Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. e Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential District (R-3-L), in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. e Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040 clarifying that density bonuses granted by the City for masons other than that required by State law, require approval by the City Council and must comply with the City's adopted General Plan density standards. Density Bonus of 25% allowing 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable housing in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.130. Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City of South San Francisco restricting three of the dwellings as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC 20.125. Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. Address: 90 Oak Avenue (APNs 011-313-070, 011-313-080 & 011-313-090). Owner: Spiros Kakonikitis Applicant: Antonio M. Brandi Case Nos.: RZ 01-054, DR 01-054 & ND 01-054 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission should make the following recommendations to the City Council: approve (1).Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building; (2). Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to Multi-Family Residential District (R-3-L); (3). Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040; (4). Density Bonus of 25% allowing an Staff Report Date: May 16, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 2 of 7 additional 3 dwelling units; (5). Affordable Housing Agreement requiring 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable dwellings; and (6). Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, subject to making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the meetings of November 15, 2001, December 6, 2001 and May 16, 2002. The 0.41 acre site is comprised of three separate parcels. One of the parcels has been used as a single-family dwelling and the other two abutting parcels are vacant. The project includes merging the three parcels, demolition of the dwelling and the construction of a three-story unit apartment building. Three of the dwellings will be restricted as affordable units. Parking will be provided on site at-grade and in a subterranean garage. The site is adjacent to other dwellings and a religious assembly hall. The project site's General Plan land use designation, High Density Residential, allows multi- family development. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The present zoning is Medium Density Residential (R-2) that does not allow the proposed density nor apartment style buildings. The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. Staff Report Date: May 16, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 3 of 7 The building generally complies with current City development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: Floor Area: Density: Maximum: Height Maximum: Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: Lot Coverage Maximum: Landscaping: Minimum: Automobile Parking Mimmum: Setbacks Front Side Rear Notes: The project includes 3 density bonus) is 30 units per 0.41acres [17,815 SF] 29,950 SF 37.5 Du/Ac. Proposed: 50 FT Proposed: No Max Proposed: 65% Proposed: 10% Proposed: 34 Proposed: Minimum Proposed 15 l:rl' 15 Fl' 5FT 5FT 11.5 FT 20 Fl' 36.7 Du/Ac 35FT NA 60 % 10% 34 affordable dwellings units. Maximum Base Density (not including net acre. A city sewer line crosses the site and will need to be relocated. The applicant has discussed two following route options with the City Engineering staff: 1. Oak Avenue to Mission Road 2. Oak Avenue to Commercial Avenue Both of these routes are acceptable. Diagrams are attached to this staff report. A condition has been added to require that the applicant install a new sewer line and that the location and design be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff Report Date: May 16, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 4 of 7 Affordable Housing The proposed development is obligated to provide twenty percent (20%) of the proposed fifteen (15) dwellings as affordable to low and moderate income households (SSFMC 20.125). The applicant will restrict three (3) units on-site to fulfill the obligation. An Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City has been prepared and is attached to this staff report. The Affordable Housing Agreement complies with the SSFMC requirements including identifying the specific dwelling units and restricts the units to be affordable for a minimum term of fifty-five (55) years. Density Bonus The maximum base density of the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) is 30 dwelling units per net acre. Based on a site area of 0.41acres [17,815 SF] the maximum base density is 12 dwellings. In this case the applicant is proposing a 25% density bonus to provide three affordable dwellings versus 2.4 units, as required by the SSFMC Chapter 20.125 "Inclusionary Housing Requirements". The proposed density bonus does not meet State requirements necessitating a bonus because the three (3) proposed affordable dwelling units will not satisfy state requirements. State law requires that the units be affordable to persons of low or very low income. However,- City staff recommends granting the twenty-five percent (25%) density bonus, since the City gains an additional affordable unit restricted to maintain affordability to households having an income at one hundred percent (100%) of the medium income level and lower. The General Plan allows base densities to be increased up to 37.5 dwelling units per net acre provided that the housing meets City design standards and development requirements specified in the SSFMC. To permit such flexibility, staff proposes that SSFMC Chapter 20.69 be amended to allow density bonuses where the City deems it appropriate and consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with State Law and the General Plan. Allowing projects to build to the maximum permitted density under the General Plan, particularly when the project applicant is proposing on-site affordable dwelling units, aids the City in meeting its fair share allocation of affordable dwelling units. Historic Preservation The project will necessitate the demolition of single family dwelling, which according to City Historic Survey, is identified as a Potential Historic Resource. As provided in SSFMC, demolition of a Potential Historic Structure requires review by the Historic Preservation Staff Report Date: May 16, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 5 of 7 Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the development at their meetings of January 2002 and February 2002. After conferring with the Historical Society, the Commission determined that the building had been significantly altered, was not a Historic Resource and that the City should consider moving the structure to Orange Park for reuse. The applicant is willing to offer the building to anyone, including the City, for removal to, and reuse at, another site. A condition has been added to require the owner to make the property available for reuse. If no one wants the building, the applicant can demolish the structure. Zoning Reclassification The existing zoning of the site is Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-2-H). The General Plan adopted in October 1999, designates the site as High Density Residential with a density of up to 30 units per net acre and a maximum density with incentives and bonuses of 37.5 dwellings per net acre. The intent of the General Plan Land use Element is that the site should be reclassified from Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential Zoning District (R-3-L). In order for the zoning to be consistent with the intent of the General Plan, a reclassification is required. Since the City has not yet amended the zoning code to incorporate the amended General Plan, the applicant is required to request the reclassification in conjunction with the proposed development. The proposed density of 36 dwelling units per net acre complies with the proposed R-3-L density at maximum permitted density with bonuses. Because the project, involves a zone change the project will also be required to be reviewed by the City Council. Lot Merger The site consists of three separate abutting parcels. Because buildings are not allowed to be constructed over property boundaries, the lots will need to be merged into a single parcel. In accordance with SSFMC Title 19, Lot Mergers are approved by the City Engineer. A condition has been added that the applicant complete the lot merger prior to the issuance of the building permit. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meetings of June 19, 2001 and October 16, 2001. At the first meeting the Board suggested that the applicant revise the plans to provide a more articulated entry, make some plant substitutions in the shaded areas in the side yards and asked the applicant return to the Board. The applicant revised the plans in response to Board comments. At the second meeting the Board recommended approval of the development. Staff Report Date: May 16, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 6 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for twenty (20) day circulation period in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing on February 20, 2002 and ending on March 14, 2002. No public comments were received. The key impacts are storm water drainage, flooding, relocation of a sewer line, and construction impacts. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts to level less than significant. The mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, implementing a storm water pollution prevention plan, elevating the site so that it is not in the flood plain, implementation of the soils report recommendations in the construction plans, and implementing a construction plan to suppress dust and minimize noise. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce these impacts a less than a significant level. Any comments received prior to the public hearing, although outside the public comment period, will be brought to the meeting for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC NOTICE As a matter of courtesy, the property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development were re-notified of the Planning Commission meeting of May 16, 2002. CONCLUSION: The construction of a 15-unit apartment is consistent with the City's General Plan and with a rezoning with all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission should make the following recommendations to the City Council approve (1). Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building; (2). Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to Multi-family Residential District (R-3-L); (3). Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040; (4). Density Bonus of 25 % allowing 3 additional dwelling units; (5). Affordable Housing Agreement requiring 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable dwellings; (6). Design Review allowing for the construction a three- story 15-unit apartment building. St~~lson~~~ Staff Report Date: May 16, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 7 of 7 Draft Resolution Draft Reclassification Ordinance Draft Reclassification Maps Draft Density Ordinance Amendment Draft Housing Agreement Draft Conditions of Approval Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 13,2001 February 14, 2002 Sewer Line Diagrams Negative Declaration Plans Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: TO: SUBJECT: June 6, 2002 Planning Commission Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. e Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential District (R-3rL), in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040 clarifying that density bonuses granted by the City for reasons other than that required by State law, require approval by the City Council and must comply with the City's adopted General Plan density standards. e Density Bonus of 25% allowing 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable housing in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.130. e Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City of South San Francisco restricting three of the dwellings as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC 20.125. e Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. Address: 90 Oak Avenue (APNs 011-313-070, 011-313-080 & 011-313-090). Owner: Spiros Kakonikitis Applicant: Antonio M. Brandi Case Nos.: RZ 01-054, DR 01-054 & ND 01-054 RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 16, 2002, the Planning Commission directed preparation of findings of denial for the subject application. Consistent with that direction the Planning Commission should make the following recommendations to the City Council: approve (1).Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building; deny (2). Rezoning Staff Report Date: June 6, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 2 of 2 from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to Multi-Family Residential District (R- 3-L); (3). Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040; (4). Density Bonus of 25 % allowing an additional 3 dwelling units; (5). Affordable Housing Agreement requiring 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable dwellings; and (6). Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, subject to making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting of May 16, 2002, the Commission voted 6 to 1 to recommend denial of the development. The majority of the Commissioners expressed several concerns among them that the proposed development was too dense for the existing neighborhood, that the proposed building was too tall and should only be two stories instead of the proposed three stories, and that the dormers were too small. The Commission directed that staff prepare Findings of Denial based on the Commissioners comments at the meeting. The Draft Findings of Denial are attached to this staff report. CONCLUSION: That the Planning Commission should make the following recommendations to the City Council: approve (1). Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building; deny (2). Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to Multi-Family Residential District (R-3-L); (3). Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040; (4). Density Bonus of 25% allowing an additional 3 dwelling units; (5). Affordable Housing Agreement requiring 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable dwellings; and (6). Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, subject to making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval. St4v6 Car~on, Seni6i' Plafiner Draft Resolution 65 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: TO: SUBJECT: June 20,2002 Planning Commission Reconsideration of: Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to High Density Residential District (R-3-L), in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040 clarifying that density bonuses granted by the City for reasons other than that required by State law, require approval by the City Council and must comply with the City's adopted General Plan density standards. e Density Bonus of 25% allowing 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable housing in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.130. So Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City of South San Francisco restricting three of the dwellings as affordable housing units in accordance with SSFMC 20.125. Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. Address: 90 Oak Avenue (APNs 011-313-070, 011-313-080 & 011-313-090). Owner: Spiros Kakonikitis Applicant: Antonio M. Brandi Case Nos.: RZ 01-054, DR 01-054 & ND 01-054 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission should make the following recommendations to the City Council: approve (1). Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building; (2). Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District Staff Report Date: June 20, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 2 of 7 (R-2-H) to Multi-Family Residential District (R-3-L); (3). Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040; (4). Density Bonus of 25 % allowing an additional 3 dwelling units; (5). Affordable Housing Agreement requiring 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable dwellings; and (6). Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building, subject to making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the study sessions of November 15, and December 6, 2001, and at the public hearings of MaY 16 and June 6, 2002. At the last hearing the Planning Commission agreed to continue their review until the Commission meeting of June 20 to allow the applicant to provide a more detailed presentation of the development. The 0.41 acre site is comprised of three separate parcels. One of the parcels has been used as a single-family dwelling and the other two abutting parcels are vacant. The project includes merging the three parcels, demolition of the dwelling and the construction of a three-story 15- unit apartment building. Three of the dwellings will be restricted as affordable units. Parking will be provided on site at-grade and in a subterranean garage. The site is adjacent to other dwellings and a religious assembly hall. The project site's General Plan land use designation, High Density Residential, allows multi- family development. The project generally complies with the General Plan goals and policies. The present zoning is Medium Density Residential (R-2) that does not allow the proposed density nor apartment style buildings. The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. Staff Report Date: June 20, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 3 of 7 The building generally complies with current City development standards as displayed in the following table: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Area: Floor Area: Density: Maximum: Height Maximum: Floor Area Ratio: Maximum: Lot Coverage Maximum: Landscaping: Minimum: Automobile Parking Minimum: Setbacks Minimum Front 15FI' Side 5 FI' Rear ll.5FY 0.41acres [17,815 SF] 29,950 SF 37.5 Du/Ac. Proposed: 50 FY Proposed: No Max Proposed: 65% Proposed: 10% Proposed: 34 Proposed: Proposed 15 FY 5FT 20 FY 36.7 Du/Ac 35FT NA 60 % 10% 34 Notes: The project includes 3 affordable dwellings units. Maximum Base Density (not including density bonus) is 30 units per net acre. A city sewer line crosses the site and will need to be relocated. The applicant has discussed two following route options with the City Engineering staff: 1. Oak Avenue to Mission Road 2. Oak Avenue to Commercial Avenue Both of these routes are acceptable. Diagrams are attached to this staff report. A condition has been added to require that the applicant install a new sewer line and that the location and design be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff Report Date: June 20, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 4 of 7 Affordable Housing The proposed development is obligated to provide twenty percent (20%) of the proposed fifteen (15) dwellings as affordable to low and moderate income households (SSFMC 20.125). The applicant will restrict three (3) units on-site to fulfill the obligation. An Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City has been prepared and is attached to this staff report. The Affordable Housing Agreement complies with the SSFMC requirements including identifying the specific dwelling units and restricts the units to be affordable for a minimum term of fifty-five (55) years. Density Bonus The maximum base density of the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) is 30 dwelling units per net acre. Based on a site area of 0.41acres [17,815 SF] the maximum base density is 12 dwellings. The minimum density in the R-3 District is 18.1 units per net acre. Applied to this development the minimum base density would be 8 dwelling units. In this case the applicant is proposing a 25% density bonus to provide three affordable dwellings versus 2.4 units, as required by the SSFMC Chapter 20.125 "Inclusionary Housing Requirements". The proposed density bonus does not meet State requirements necessitating a bonus because the three (3) proposed affordable dwelling units will not satisfy state requirements. State law requires that the units be affordable to persons of low or very low income. However, City staff recommends granting the twenty-five percent (25%) density bonus, since the City gains an additional affordable unit restricted to maintain affordability to households having an income at one hundred percent (100%) of the medium income level and lower. The General Plan allows base densities to be increased up to 37.5 dwelling units per net acre provided that the housing meets City design standards and development requirements specified in the SSFMC. To permit such flexibility, staff proposes that SSFMC Chapter 20.69 be amended to allow density bonuses where the City deems it appropriate and consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with State Law and the General Plan. Allowing projects to build to the maximum permitted density under the General Plan, particularly when the project applicant is proposing on-site affordable dwelling units, aids the City in meeting its fair share allocation of affordable dwelling units. Historic Preservation The project will necessitate the demolition of single family dwelling, which according to City Historic Survey, is identified as a Potential Historic Resource. As provided in SSFMC, Staff Report Date: June 20, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 5 of 7 demolition of a Potential Historic Structure requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the development at their meetings of January 2002 and February 2002. After conferring with the Historical Society, the Commission determined that the building had been significantly altered, was not a Historic Resource and that the City should consider moving the structure to Orange Park for reuse. The applicant is willing to offer the building to anyone, including the City, for removal to, and reuse at, another site. A condition has been added to require the owner to make the property available for reuse. If no one wants the building, the applicant can demolish the structure. Zoning Reclassification The existing zoning of the site is Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-2-H). The General Plan adopted in October 1999, designates the site as High Density Residential with a density of up to 30 units per net acre and a maximum density with incentives and bonuses of 37.5 dwellings per net acre. The intent of the General Plan Land use Element is that the site should be reclassified from Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) to Multi-Family Residential Zoning District (R-3-L). In order for the zoning to be consistent with the intent of the General Plan, a reclassification is required. Since the City has not yet amended the zoning code to incorporate the amended General Plan, the applicant is required to request the reclassification in conjunction with the proposed development. The proposed density of 36 dwelling units per net acre complies with the proposed R-3-L density at maximum permitted density with bonuses. Because the projec~ involves a zone change the project will also be required to be reviewed by the City Council. Lot Merger The site consists of three separate abutting parcels. Because buildings are not allowed to be constructed over property boundaries, the lots will need to be merged into a single parcel. In accordance with SSFMC Title 19, Lot Mergers are approved by the City Engineer. A condition has been added that the applicant complete the lot merger prior to the issuance of the building permit. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meetings of June 19, 2001 and October 16, 2001. At the first meeting the Board suggested that the applicant revise the plans to provide a more articulated front entry, revise the orientation of the trash facility, make some plant substitutions in the shaded side yards and asked the applicant return to the Board. The applicant revised the plans in response to Board comments. At the second meeting the Board Staff Report Date: June 20, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 6 of 7 recommended approval of the development. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for twenty (20) day circulation period in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing on February 20, 2002 and ending on March 14, 2002. No public comments were received. The key impacts are storm water drainage, flooding, relocation of a sewer line, and construction impacts. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts to level less than significant. The mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, implementing a storm water pollution prevention plan, elevating the site so that it is not in the flood plain, implementation of the soils report recommendations in the construction plans, and implementing a construction plan to suppress dust and minimize noise. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce these impacts a less than a significant level. Any comments received prior to the public hearing, although outside the public comment period, will be brought to the meeting for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC NOTICE As a matter of courtesy, the property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development and the two citizens who attended the Planning Commission meeting of May 16, 2002 were re- notified of the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 2002. CONCLUSION: Should the Planning Commission desire to approve the project the Commission should make the following recommendations to the City Council approve (1). Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing environmental impacts of a new 15-unit apartment building; (2). Rezoning from Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) to Multi-family Residential District (R-3-L); (3). Zoning Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.69 Density adding Section 20.69.040; (4). Density Bonus of 25% allowing 3 additional dwelling units; (5). Affordable Housing Agreement requiring 3 dwelling units to be restricted as affordable dwellings; (6). Design Review allowing for the construction a three-story 15-unit apartment building. Should the Planning Commission desire to recommend that the City Council disapprove the project, the Commission should adopt the Findings of Denial. Staff Report Date: June 20, 2002 To: Planning Commission Re: 90 Oak Avenue Apartments Page 7 of 7 Steve CarlsOn, Senior Planner Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Resolution of Approval Findings of Denial Reclassification Ordinance Reclassification Maps Density Ordinance Amendment Housing Agreement Draft Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Minutes November 15,2001 December 6, 2001 May 16, 2002 June 6, 2002 Design Review Board Minutes June 19, 2001 October 16, 2001 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 13,2001 February 14, 2002 Sewer Line Diagrams Negative Declaration Plans SEWER LINE DIAGRAMS 4. APR.25.2002 B:OBPM BRIAN KANGAS FOULK 650 482 6450 HO.OB2 P.Bx~ INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Application Number UP 01-054 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCXSCO 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS PREPARED BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 315 MAPLE AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 FEBRUARY 20, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5 APPLICATION 5 APPLICANT 5 PROJECT OBJECTIVE 5 LOCATION 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS P,.EQUIRING MITIGATION MITIGATION IVlEASURES FOR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 7 CHIEF PLANNER'S DETEILMINATION 8 PUBLIC REVIEW 9 LEAD AGENCY 9 DETERMINATION 10 INITIAL STUDY 11 GENERAL INFOP,.MATION 11 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION 11 Location and Setting 11 Circulation Characteristics !2 Zoning 12 Site Ownership 12 PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION 12 Required Discretionasv Approvals 12 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 13 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Agriculture Resources ................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Noise ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................................................................................... $0 77 INITIAL STUDY ! MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS PAGE i Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................................................................................... 53 REFERENCES 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY55 AUTHOR 55 APPENDICES 56 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS PAGE ii 75 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page LIST OF FIGURES PROJECT LOCATION ................... 10 PROJECT SITE PLAN .................................. 12 TABLES AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD CITY, 1998 - 2000 .......................................... 31 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS PAGe: il'[" 7 9 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECI &RATION APPLICATION This Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application Number 01-054) is for the proposed 90 Oak Avenue Apartments development. APPLICANT The Project Applicant is Spiros Kakoniktis. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The Project objective is to merge three lots into one lot, demolish an existing dwelling and construct a 15 unit apartment building at 90 Oak Avenue. LOCATION The Project site is located in the westerly portion of South San Francisco, at 90 Oak Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project involves merging three lots into one lot, demolishing an existing dwelling and construction of a 15 unit apartment building with at-grade and underground parking for 34 vehicles. The project includes restricting 20% of the 15 dwellings - 3 units - as affordable housing. POTENTIALLY'SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION The following is a summary of potential Project impacts. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist and/or Appendix A of this document for a more detailed discussion of these impacts. The proposed Project would require demolition of an existing dwelling and excavation for a subterranean garage. The physical demohtion of existing structures and grading are construction activities with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during demolition, substanfal dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. The Project site is a previously disturbed, developed site where no known archaeological sites are located. However, given that archaeological remains have been found in the Project's vicinity, the presence of archaeological remains underneath the Project site cannot be discounted. The proposed building's occupants could be exposed to adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking. $0 INITIAL STUDY ! MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ' ~A;E '~ Renovation or demolition activities at the Project site could expose construction workers to lead dust. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following is a summary of mitigation measures for potentially sigrfificant Project impacts. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist and/or Appendix A of this document for a more detailed discussion of these mitigation measures. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant submit a construction plan including measures to control fugitive dust utilizing measures approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. The following measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions: During Demolition of Existing, Structure Watering should be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. During Construction Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION '. 81 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 6 An archaeologist certified by the Registry of Professional Archaeologists shall be present at the Project site during the initial grading process and excavation fro the sanitary sewer line to monitor grading activities and ensure the protection and preservation of any archaeological resources discovered at the Project site. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall submit a soils report with recommendations regarding the foundation of the proposed building. The report shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Fire Marshall/Building Official. Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit the buildings should be tested for asbestos and lead based mater/als by a certified lab. The lab results and recommendafons for abatement, if warranted, shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. Hazardous materials shall be removed prior to demolition by a licensed abatement contractor in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local health and safety regulations. Prior to the issuance of any permit the buildings shall be designed to be flood resistant in compliance the applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. Prior to issuance of any permit the applicant shall provide the City with a construction plan for a new sanitary sewer line to replace the existing line that traverses the site. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Engineer. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Associatior~ of Bay Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The plan shall also include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. Prior to issuance of any permit the applicant shall provide the City with a construction plan that includes measures to reduce construction noise. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors, which may be affected by a project, as defined by the Cahfornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block (I) were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been idenffied as a "Potentially $~'g~zi~Fcmlt I~np~ct', as indicated in the Initial Study Checklist and related discussion that follows. Factors which are unmarked ( ) were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion also provided in the Checklist. 82 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 7 · Hazards and Hazardous Materials [] Population and Housing lo Aesthetics [] Agriculture Resources [] Air Quality [] Biological Resources · Cultural Resources · Geology and Soils · Hydrology and Water Quality · Land Use and Planning [] Mineral Resources [] Mineral Resources ~ Public Services [] Recreation · Transportation and Circulation · UtiLities and Services CHIEF PLANNER'S DETERMINATION After due consideration, the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco has found that with the implementation of mitigation measures identfied in this Mitigated Negative Declaraton (listed separately in Appendix A of this document), the proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the Project will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be met by the preparation of this Mitigated Negative Declarafon. This decision is supported by the following findings: The Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. It does not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. It does not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre- history because: there is no identified area at the Project site which is habitat for rare or endangered species, or which represents unique examples of California history or prehistory. In addition, the Project is within the scope of use contemplated in the General Plan; and the Project does not have any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts. Implementation of specified rr4tigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on the environment and thereby avoid any significant impacts. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The Project does not involve impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, because the described Project will incorporate both Project-specific mitigation measures and cumulative mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts of the Project in the context of continued growth and development in the City of South San Francisco. The Project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the proposed development will enhance the existing agricultural uses within the immediate area, provide the county with addifonal habitat area, and all adverse effects of the Project will be mitigated to an insignificant level. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 8 83 PUBLIC REVIEW The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 30-day public review period. Written comments may be submitted to the following address: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Telephone: 650.877.8535 Fax: 650.829.6639 Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declara6on does not constitute approval of the Project itself, which is a separate action to be taken by the Planning Commission and the South San Francisco City Council. Approval or denial of the Project can take place only after the Mitigated Negative Declarafon has been adopted. LEAD AGENCY The Lead Agency for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS' PAGE 9 84 DETERMINATION On the basis of the evaluation in this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study: I fred that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fred that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION w/ll be prepared. I fred that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fred that the proposed Project MAY have a "potent/ally significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mit/gated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 00) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. T~omas ~. Sparks, Chief Vlanj Date INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ' PAGE 10 INITIAI STUDY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Department of Economic and Community Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 GENERAL INFORMATION A. Application Number: 01-054 ]3. Applicant: Spiros Kakoniktis PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION LOCATION AND SETTING As shown in Figure 1, the Project site is located in the westerly portion of South San Francisco, at 90 Oak Avenue. The Project site is located in a residential area. The site is occupied by an existing single-story dwelling and two vacant lots. The building and access areas are essentially flat and at a similar grade as Oak Avenue on the site's westerly border. The site is bordered other dwellings and assembly uses across Oak Avenue. Vegetation consists of landscaping around the existing buildings and in the vacant lot, consisting of groundcover and shrubs throughout. 85 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · P,~G~ 1 '{ CIRCULATION CHARACTERISTICS The Project site is primarily accessible from Oak Avenue via Grand Avenue, Mission Road, and Highway 85 [El Camino Real] and Hillside Boulevard via Chesmut Avenue. ZONING The Project site is cuzrenfly zoned Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H). The site's General Plan Land Use designation is High Density Residential. The Zoning of the site will be changed to High Density Residential District (R-3-L) to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. SITE OWNERSHIP The Project site is owned by Spiros Kakoniktis. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 2. The Project would involve the merger of three contiguous lots, the demolition of an existing dwelling at the Project site and construcdon of a three-story 15 urfit apartment. REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS The Project would require a Zoning Reclassification, Parcel Map and Design Review. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · -PAGE INITIAI STUDY CHECKLIST The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each answer. A "no impact' response indicates, for example, that no displacement of existing housing would occur due to the Project, because no housing units now exist within the Project site that might need to be removed to enable the Project to proceed. A "less than signiz~canF response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of "less than signit~cant." Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be "less than signiJYcant ndth mitigation" indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval in order to effectively reduce potential Project-related environmental effects to a level of "less tl~an signiJYcant." Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation AESTHETICS -- Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic [ ] vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, [ ] including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substan.tially degrade the existing visual [ ] character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or [ ] glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [ ] [ ] [ ,/] [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ [ ] Setting~ South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on three sides. The terrain ranges from the flaflands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain (which is outside City limits) in the distance are visual bndmazks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS '~ PAGE 13 8 ~ parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing USES. The Project site is located in the Sushine Gardens planmng sub-area of South San Francisco. The area was originally utilized for small farms. Since then, the area has undergone a transformation to a residential area with some insftutional uses. Site Description. The Project site's entrance will be on 90 Oak Avenue, although a small two parking lot area for two vehicles will be accessed from Commercial Avenue shown in Figure 3. a) Scenic Vistas Impact Threshold of,~ignificance: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a Project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing object within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a General Plan Policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. The Project site is not located within any formally designated scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on a scenic vista. b) Scenic Resources Impact ThreshoM of Significance: Any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock out.croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway), would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. The Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway since it is not located on a state scenic highway. c) Visual Character Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The proposed Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics primarily consist of residential uses. Buildings in the immediate project vicinity are one-to two stories in height. The Project, consisting primarily of a new three-story 15 unit apartment building, would have no adverse effect on the visual character of the site or its surroundings. The new building has been designed to ] Dyett & Bhafia, South San Iran&co General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997, p.4-2, 4-10, 4-15. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PA'GE"14 89 complement the adjacent building and the site will be landscaping. Therefore, the Project would have ,no irnlwCt on visual character. d) Light or Glare Iznpact Threshold of Significance: The Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttLrne views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. The South San Francisco Police Department will require that the lighting be provided for the parking areas. Lighting design will be required to employ fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction to eliminate off-site glare. Given compliance with Police Department requirements, the amount of light and glare emanating from the Project site is considered less than sigaitYcant. It is not expected that sources of daytime glare would be associated with the Project. II. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,/] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,,,'] a) Converting Prime Farmland The Project area is in the midst of an urban area that has already been developed in a mix of industrial and commercial uses. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at the Project site. Project development would not result in the conversion of any Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. The project does not involve any farmland, therefore z~o ia22pact will occur. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 15 9O b) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning There are no areas in the vicinity of the Project site that have been zoned for agricultural uses and no parcels near the Project site are currently under Williamson Act contracts. Project development would not result in the conversion of any land currently zoned for agricultural use or in Williamson Act contracts to non-agricultural uses. The project does not involve any farmland, therefore no impact will occur. c) Non-Agricultural Use Farmland Conversion The Project involves no activi6es that would result in conversion of farmland or other land in agricultural to non-agricultural uses. The project does not involve any farmland, therefore no impact will occur. Ill. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ~1 [ ] [ ,,,'1[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ v'] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,/1 [ ] [ ] [ I [v'l [ I Sett/ng The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilufon are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the average in fall and winter. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS * PAGE 16 91 The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The BA_AQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although 'none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table 1 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites. The table shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project area with the exception the state standard for PM~0. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Bay Area is considered as having attained all federal ambient air quality standards exkept for ozone. Under the California Clean Air Act the Bay Area is considered non-attainment for ozone and PM~0. TABLE 1 ~,NCISCO AND REDWOOD CITY, 1998-2000 Pollutant Standard Monitorin9 Site Days Standard Exceeded 1998 1999 2000 Ozone Federal 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8-Houri San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 PM~o Federal 24-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 PM~o State 24-Hour San Francisco 1 6 1 Redwood City 0 3 1 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometfic Data Anal ~sis and Management (ADAM), 92 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS" PAGE 17 Significance Thresholds. The CEQA environmental checklist provides five questions regarding air quality impact significance. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the determinations of significance. BAAoQMD CEoQA Guideline~2 provide the fonowing definitions of a sigmficant air quality impact: A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (,ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reacfve Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PM~0. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. The term "substantial levels" is further defined as an exposure associated with an excess cancer risk of 10 in one million. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~0. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activites would be considered less than significant. a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan Setting The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and PM~0 (state ambient standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PM~0. The Proposed Final San t%andsco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the l-HourNational Or(one Standarda is the current ozone air quality plan required under the Federal Clean Air Act. The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan.4 These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. Bay Area Ak Quality Management District, BAA. QMD CE~.A Guide~nes, 1996 (revised 1999). Bay Area Ak Quality Management District, Proposed Final San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, June 2001. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and TtiennialAssessment, December 20, 2000. 93 INITIAl_ STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAF~ATION 90 OAK AVENUE APAI~TMENTS' P~G~~ 1 ~ Impact A proiect would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the g~owth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional gxowth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. The Project would have No impact on any of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans nor obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans. b) Air Quality Standards IMPACT 1: Construction Dust. The proposed Project would require demolition of the existing dwelling and excavation for a subterranean garage. The physical demolition of structures and grading are construction activities with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during demolition, substantial dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. This would be a potentially sigNiIYcaNt impact of the Project. The California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies not to issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding asbestos, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous building materials. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is vested by the California Legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through both inspecfon and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition and must provide information on the amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature of planned work and methods to be employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. The purpose of BAAQMD regulations is the minimization of potential hazards to the public and surrounding land uses. The Project must also comply with California Occupationa! Safety and Health Admimstrafion (Cai/OSHA) regulations, standards and procedures and California Department of Health Services 0DHS) Lead Work Practice Standards. These regulations are designed to minimize worker and general public exposure to hazardous building materials. The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the permit review process, would ensure that any potential impacts due to asbestos, lead or other hazardous materials would be reduced to a level of insignificance. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local ak quality. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ~' PAGE 1 9 94 construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally mitigafible. BAAQ_MD CEoQ. M Guideliness provide thresholds of sigmficance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~0. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. MITIGATION MEASURE 1: Dust Suppression Procedures. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall submit a construction plan including measures to control fugitive dust utiliTing measures approved by the Bay Area Quality Managrnenet District (BAAQMD). The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. The following measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions. During Demolition of Existing Structure Watering should be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. During Construction Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, impacts on sensitive receptors related to construction emissions would be reduced to a less tl~ m'grzilgcamlevel. s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQM22) CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999). INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 2(5" 95 Operation. Development projects in the Bay Area are most likely to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through vehicle trip generation. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets that provide access to the site. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's BAAoQMD CEoQA Guidelines recommends estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where Project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F; or where Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more (if the increase is at least 100 vehicles per hour). Daily net new vehicle trip generation from the Project would be less than 99 daily trips and the peak hour net trip generation from the Project would be less than 8 trips (,Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991). This trip generation is below the BAA QMD threshold trigger level for estimating carbon monoxide concentrations. Considering that the proposed Project is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide (the state and federal ambient standards are met) and that South San Francisco has relatively low background levels of carbon monoxide compared to other parts of the Bay Area, the proposed Project could not have a significant impact on local carbon monoxide concentrations. Therefore, Project carbon monoxide impacts would be less tl~a~ sig~i~ca~t. c) Cumulative Air Quality Effects Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project's impact would be significant if it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD has developed criteria to detenmne if a development Project could result in potentially significant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily vehicle trips be used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts. Net new daily trip generation is below this threshold for quantification. Project emissions therefore would be below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for regional pollutants. Therefore, Project impacts on regional ak quality would be less than sigrdfiCal~t. d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations Setting The BAAQMD defines exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and risk of accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials (AHMs) as potential adverse environmental impacts. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, residential areas with children, and convalescent facilities. INITIAL STUDY ! MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 21 Impact The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to located. These land uses include residences, schools playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors are the adjacent residences. The proposed Project could expose the facilities to on-site emissions during construction. The Project's location greatly reduces the potential for exposure to pollutants released from the site, since easterly winds that could carry emissions from the site to the occur only 2.9% of the time on an annual basis. Any Project occupant who would potentially release toxic air contaminant emissions would be subject to roles, regulations and procedures of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. As part of its program to control toxic air contaminant emissions, the District has established procedures for estimating the risk associated with exposure. The methods used are conservative, meaning that the real risks from the source may be lower than the calculafons, but it is unlikely they will be higher. In the first step of a two-step process, the District estimates how much of a contaminant would be found in the air at a specific location. The estimate depends upon the type of source, its rate of production and its location. The second step involves determining if the estimated amount of contaminant is hazardous to those exposed to it. This determination includes an evaluation of both carcinogenicity (tendency to cause cancer) and non-cancer health effects. Chemical toxicity is based on animal study results and in some instances, on the results of human exposure. After a new Project's risk level is determined, a decision must be made as to the significance of this risk level. If a new source has a cancer risk of one in a million or less over a 70-year-lifefi_me exposure period, and will not result in non-cancer health effects, it is considered to be a less than significant risk and no further review of all health impacts is required. If a project has a risk greater than one in a million, it must be further evaluated in order to determine acceptability. Factors that affect acceptability include the presence of controls on the rate of emissions, the location of the site in relation to residential areas and schools, and contaminant reductions in other media such as water. In general, projects with risks greater than one in a million, but less than 10 in a million, are approved if other determining factors are acceptable. In general, projects with risks greater than 10 in a million are not approved. Non-approved projects may be re-evaluated if emissions are reduced, thereby reducing their risks. District Regulation 2-1-412 provides for special noticing requirements prior to approval of toxic air contaminant sources with one-quarter mile of a sensitive receptor. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS" PAGE 22 The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the air quality permit review process for any future occupant of the Project, would ensure that any potential impacts due to hazardous or toxic air contaminant emission would be reduced to a level of less than sigrdt~cant at the closest sensitive receptor and other receptors closer to the Project site. e) Odors Impact Threshold of Significance: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refiner/es, etc. During construction the various diesel-powered veb_icles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project boundaries. The potential for diesel odors impacts is less than signiaffcant. The Project would not generate any odors and therefore would not have any impacts. IV. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental impact Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Departmeht of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ~'1 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,,"l [ ] [ ] [ ] [ v'l [ ] [ ] [ ] [ vi [ ] [v'] [ ] [ ] 98, INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ~' PAGE 23 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation [ ] [ ~'1 [ ] [ ] Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Items a) through d) Impact The Project site is located in a largely residential area that is for the most part developed. The Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. Items e) and f) Setting The Project site is surrounded by various types of landscaping, including low ground covers, assorted shrub types and small to large trees. Impact ThreshoM of Significance: The Project would have a sigaificant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a txee preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation. The Project site is landscaped. The Proiect does not conflict with any of the above referenced plans, policies, requirements or programs. Therefore, ao impact would occur. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15O64.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.57 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [ ] [ ] [v,] [v'] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ v,] [ ] [ ] [ v'] INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS" PAGE 24 a) Historical Resources Impact Threshold of Siegnificance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined m ~15064.5. The dwelling at 90 Oak Avenue is identified by the City of South San Francisco as a Potential Historic Resource. While not a Historic Resource in the meaning of State Law and regulations, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 2.58, projects so designated are subject to a review of the Demolition Permit for a maximum of 60 days to allow the City representatives to explore ways to save and/or photograph the building for City historical records. The applicant has offered to donate the building to the City or to anyone to move the building to another site to preserve it, and to allow the building to be photographed. The City's Historical Preservation Commission has reviewed the project and determined that previous alterations to the interior were so extensive as to obliterate any historical significance. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5, since the existing building has no historical value. The Project would have a no impact. b) Archaeological Resources Impact Thmhold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in ~15064.5. IMPACT 2: Potential Disturbance of Archaeological Resources. The Project site is a previously disturbed, developed site where no known archaeological sites are located. However, given that archaeological remains have been found m the Project's vicinity, and that the Project involves the construction of an underground garage and trenching to relocate an underground sanitary sewer line constructed in 1913, the presence of archaeological remains underneath the Project site cannot be discounted. The Project could have a signilYcant impact on any archaeological remains discovered at the Project site. MITIGATION MEASURE 2: Monitoring of Grading Process. An archaeologist certified by the Registry of Professional Archaeologists shall be present at the Project site during the initial grading process and excavation fro the sanitary sewer [me to monitor grading activities and ensure the protection and preservation of any archaeological resources discovered at the Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the Project's impact on archaeological resources to a level of less than signi~cant vdth mitigation. ..100 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 25 c) Paleontological Resources/Unique Geologic Features Impact Tbres3o/d of Significance: The Proiect would have a significant environmental impact if it were to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No unique paleontological or geologic features have been nor are expected to be identified at the Project site. Therefore, the Project would be expected to have ~o impact on paleontological resources and unique geologic features. d) Disturbance of Human Remains Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the disturbance of any human remains. No human remains have been identified at the Project site. However, if such remains are encountered during site preparation associated with the construction at the Project site, all work shall be halted in the vicinity, and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be informed to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is required, and to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. If such remains are of Native American origin, the nearest tribal relatives as determined by the state Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted to obtain recommendations for treating or removal of such remains, including grave goods, with appropriate dignity, as required under Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. This would reduce the potential impact associated with the discovery of human remains at the Project site to a level of less than significant. It is expected that there would be ~o Lmp~ct from the Project related to the disturbance of human remains. VI. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [ ] [ ] [ v] [ I [ ] [ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ l [ ] [ ~'l [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,,,'] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ v,] INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 101 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ' PAGE 26 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ ] [ ,/] [ ] [ ] [ Setting The relative stability and composition of different types of soils can contribute to hazard risks by amplifying earthquake waves, increasing susceptibility to liquefaction and landslides, and affecting flood levels. South San Francisco occupies three general topographic zones: the lowland zone, the upland zone and the hillside zone.a The Project site is located within the Upland Zone. The Upland Zone is comprised of gently to moderately sloping areas located throughout the central south central, and eastern portions of the City, generally between 30 and 200 feet above mean sea level, and between Sign Hill and the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain. Slopes are commonly between 3 and 15 percent gradient. This zone includes the alluvial plain of Colma Creek, which bisects the area froth northwest to southeast. The City's Upland Zone consists primarily of the Colma and Merced soil formations: The Colma Formation (designated (~c on geologic maps) extends on either side of the Colma Creek alluvial fan. It is comprised of loose, friable, well-sorted sand with subordinate gravel, silt and clay deposited during the Pleistocene Era. It generally provides good foundation conditions and earthquake stability when not disturbed by artificial cuts, which tend to erode and cause gullying. The Merced Formation (designated QTm on geologic maps) is comprised of poorly consolidated to semi-consolidated sand and silt deposited during the Pleistocene Era. It is subject to severe landslide hazards in areas of artificial cuts, provides good seismic stability and may provide excellent to poor foundation conditions depending on slope and local litholo~. 6 Dyett & ]3hatia, South San Francisco GeneralPlan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997. 102 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS" PAGE 27 The site is occupied by an existing single-story dwelling. The site area is relatively fiat and at a similar grade as 90 Oak Avenue. The site is near a former drainage swale to Colma Creek. The Project would include grading and soil excavation to prepare the site and construct the underground garage and relocate the sanitary sewer line. A Preliminary Soils Report was not prepared for the project. However, the Building Official may require the preparation of a Soils Report as part of the Building Permit. Other soils reports prepared for another nearby residential development in the immediate project vicinity indicate that free groundwater may be encountered at a depth of 15 feet. In addition, fluctuations in the groundwater level could occur due to a change in seasons, rainfall variations and other factors. In general the site is likely to have loose surficial deposits of several feet, overlying several feet of loose to medium dense silty sand to sandy clay (fill, alluvium and soil deposits) which probably transitions to the Colma Formation at depth. The San Andreas fault is situated approximately 2 miles southwest of the site. The site may have the potential for liquefaction, consolidation of earth materials and very strong seismic ground shaking. a)(i) Exposure of People or Structures to Known Earthquake Fault Setting According to the United States Geologic Survey Geologic Map of the South San Francisco Quadrangle, the site is likely underlain by sandstone, shale and greenstone of the Franciscan Formation. The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is considered on of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Significant earthquakes have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area and are believed to be associated with crustal movements along a system of subparallel fault zones that generally trend in a northwesterly direction. The site is located approximately 3 miles northeast, 9 miles northeast and 15 miles southwest, respectively, of the active San Andreas, San Gregorio and Hayward fault zones. In 1868 an earthquake with an estimated Moment magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale occurred on the southern segment of the Hayward Fault between San Leandro and Fremont. Since 1800, four major earthquakes have been recorded on the San Andreas Fault with Moment magnitudes ranging from 6.25 to 7.9. in 1999, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities at the United States Geologic Survey predicted a 70 percent probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area by 2030. Impact Threshold of Siegnificance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS" PAGE 28 The Project site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. The closest Special Study Zone is the San An&eas Rift Zone located 3.75 miles southwest of the Project site. Therefore, the risk of surface faulting is considered to be less than signiticant. a)(ii) Exposure of People or Structures to Strong Seismic Shaking Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant envixonmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Impact The proposed buildmg's occupants could be exposed to adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking. Conformance to the Uniform Building Code would result in mumn~mg damage to the building and occupants. This measure would reduce the impact of seismic ground shaking to people who would occupy the buildings at the Project site to a leVel of less than signiticant. a)(iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. · IMPACT 3: Soil conditions on-site. Soil liquefaction is typically caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that soil liquefae'tion occurs in saturated, loose granular soil (primarily fine to medium grained clean sand deposits) during or after strong seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction is typified by a near total loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. The potential hazards associated with soil liquefaction below or near a structure are loss of foundation support, lateral spreading, sand boils and areal and differential settlements. Given that the soils report for a project within 200 feet of the project site has encountered these soils conditions and that the project site is within a flood plain, it is possible that such conditions exist on the project site. These conditions are unknown and represent a potentially significant impact unless m~igated. Saturated, cohesionless soil can liquefy as it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength due to a transient rise in excess pore pressure generated by strong ground motion. It is not known if loose, saturated cohesionless soil is present at the Project site. Given the results of the soil report prepared for the Oak Farms development within 200 feet of the project site it would be prudent to require a soils report with recommendations regarding the foundation of the proposed building. 104 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 29 MITIGATION MEASURE 3: Soil report. Prior to the issuance of any permit the applicant shall submit a soils report with recommendations regarding the foundation of the proposed building. The report shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Fire Marshall/Building Official With implementation of this mitigation measure the effect would be reduced to less tl~an signi~cant impact. a)(iv) Exposure of People or Structures to Landslides Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a sign/ficant environmental impact if it were located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Project site is located on land that is relatively flat, but that is sloped slightly from north to south. The risk of landsliding on the Project site is considered less tl~an sig~ilTcant. b) Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Impact ThreshoM of Significance: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. Site softs, with the exception of landscaped areas, are covered with either asphalt paving or concrete and have no expos.ute to water or wind erosion forces, though temporary erosion may occur during construction. However, standard erosion control measures can be employed to reduce this erosion to negligible levels during construction. Local iurisdictional rules governing erosion protection should be followed during construction in order to ensure no impact from the Project. c) Unstable Geological Conditions Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefacfon or collapse. There would be no impact, since the Project will be required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code and the site is not known to be underlain by unstable soils of geologic units. d) Expansive Soils Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. 105 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 30 The Project site soils are not known to be susceptible to expansion, and therefore would have no impact. e) Soils Unsuitable for Septic Tanks Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. The proposed Project does not include a proposal for septic systems at the Project site, representing no impact. VII. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous [ ] [ ] or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list [ ] [ ] of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use [ ] [ ] plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private [ ] [ ] airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically intedere[ ] with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] IV] [ ~] [ ] [ v'] [ ] [ ] [ v'] [ ] [ v'] [ I [ ¢] [ ] [ ] [ vi -- 106 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 31 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation [ ] [ ] [ ] [ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Setting The use of the site for dwellings will likely result in small quantities of unregulated household- type hazardous materials (cleaning agents, solvents) will be stored within each unit. A review of historical documents for the subject property indicate that the site was apparently utilized as part of farming. The existing dwelling constructed at the turn of the century means that the building may contain asbestos in the plaster and/or lead based paint or materials. Because of the known adverse human effects of such materials were they to become airborne during demolition activities, the dwelling should be tested for the presence of these materials and if found removal will be required in conformance with Federal, State and local regulations. a) Hazardous Materials Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. It is not expected that a residential uses would utilize any significant quantity of hazardous materials. Provided that the business conforms to Uniform Building Code regulations applicable to the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials no impact would occur. b) Upset and Accident Conditions Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Normal operations at the Project site could involve use, transport and disposal of small quantifies of cleaning and gardening supplies that would be considered hazardous if not handled appropriately. In such an environment, there is some potential for accidents to occur. Adherence to Uniform Building Code regulations pertaining to hazardous materials would help prevent such an occurrence, limiting the impact of the Project to a level of less ~an sigrdt~cant. .... 107 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ' PAGE 32 c) Hazardous Materials and Schools Impact Threshold of Significance: The P~oject would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Project site is located within one-quarter mile of a private school. However, because the building was constructed in the turn of the century, it is highly likely that the paint and plaster contain lead and asbestos. The building should be tested for both materials prior to demolition and the material removed and disposed in accordance with Federal, State and local laws and regulations. IMPACT 4: Asbestos and Lead Dust Exposure. Demolition activities at the Project site could expose construction workers to asbestos or lead dust. This would be a potentially signitYcant impact of the Project. MITIGATION MEASURE 4: Removal of Asbestos or Lead Containing Materials. Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Perrmt the buildings should be tested for asbestos and lead based materials by a certified lab. The lab results and recommendations for abatement, if warranted, shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. Hazardous materials shall be removed prior to demolition by a licensed abatement contractor in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local health and safety regulations. This action together with construction dust suppression controls Mitigation Measure # 1 would reduce the impact of asbestos or lead exposure to a level of less than signitTcant with mitigation. d) Cortese List of Hazardous Materials Sites Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a sigrfificant environmental impact if located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). A review of City records indicates that the site is not near any apparent Underground Storage Tanks or other sites with hazardous materials e/f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... 108 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ~' PAGE 33 The Project site is located within about 1.5 miles from San Francisco International Airport. The site is in a developed area and is intended for the proposed use. Development of the Project site as proposed would not create any inordinate aviation-related safety hazard above and beyond that which currently exists in the City of South San Francisco in the area around San Francisco International Airport. Therefore the Project would represent x~o impact for people residing at the site. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Development of the proposed Project would not interfere with and therefore have z~o impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan provided it conforms to the specifications found in applicable emergency response or evacuation plans. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project world have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild]and fies. The Project would have z~o impact related to wild]and fires since the site is located in a built out industrial area and not close to wild]and areas. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ¢1 [ ] [ ] [v,] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -.. 109 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 34 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a l O0-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Less Than Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Mitigation [ ] [ ] [ ,,,'1 [ ~'] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ vi [ ] [ ] [ ,/] [ ] [ ] [ ,/] [ ] [ ] [ v] [ ] [ ] [ v] Setting Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a water shed of about 16.3 square miles those trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drams into San Francisco Bay. a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Provided that the future residents occupying the site adhere to existing waste discharge regulations, the Project would present ~o impact. 110 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 35 b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed Project would be located in an urban area and would receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, thereby not depleting the local groundwater supply. The proposed building structure would be an impervious surface over the land that would to some degree impede recharging of local groundwater. However, since groundwater resources are not used in the Project area, this impact would be less than signitYcant. c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The proposed Project would be built on a site that is partially developed surrounded by fully developed parcels. There would be no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site. d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects Impact Threahold o~Sigeificance: The Project would have a sigrfificant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. It is not expected that the proposed Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, nor would it substantially increase the amount of surface runoff, since the site is currently partially developed with impervious surfaces and the total site area is only 18,000 SF. Because the Project site is only 18,000 SF, no impact related to substantial increased surface runoff. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. IMPACT 5: Storm runoff. The project will be required to collect storm water on-site and convey it to the City's storm drainage system. The drainage system is adequate to accommodate the increase runoff. Soils at the Project site will be susceptible to erosion 111 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ~' PAGE 36 during construction activities that could result in a potentially sigrd~cant impact during construction unless runoff is controlled. MITIGATION MEASURE 5: SWPPP. Prior to the issuance of any perm/t, the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The plan shall also include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm dram system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the project would have a less than impact. f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The proposed Project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area on the Project site, since the site is already partially developed. Therefore, there would be no addt~'onal impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site. g) Place Housing Within A 100-Year Flood Hazard Area Impact Threshold of Significance: The Pzoject would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated lO0-year flood hazard area. A portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood hazard area (Flood Insurance Rate Map [FIRM] Panel 1 of 12, Community Panel # 065062 00002B, dated September 2, 1981 prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency) In accordance with the FIRM map the site is situated in zone AH- areas subject to inundation of between 1 to 3 feet during the 100 year storm event. In accordance with the SSFMC Chapter the building will be required to be constructed in a manner to be flood resistant. IMPACT 5: Flooding. A portion of the site is within the 100 flood plain. Flooding can expose the structure to damage and inconvenience for the future residents. This would be a potentiMly sig~i, qcant impact of the Project. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 37 112 MITIGATION MEASURE 5: Flood Resistant Construction. Prior to the issuance of any permit the buildings shall be designed to be flood resistant in compliance the applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. This action would reduce the impact of flooding to a level of less than sig~it~cant with mitigadon. h) Place Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows Impact Tbrexbold of Significance: The Proiect would have a significant environmental impact if it placed any structures in a manner, which would impede or redirect flood flows. While the Project site is located in a 100-year flood hazard zonev it is on the edge of such and therefore would have no fimpact related to the placement of a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows. i) Expose People or Structures to Flooding Hazards Impact Tbrexbold of Significance: The Proiect would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. Development of the proposed Project would expose any people or structures to flooding hazards and therefore would have a potentially sigaiI~cant impact. See mitigation measure number 6. j) Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Development of the proposed Project would not expose any people or structures to hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow and therefore would have no impact. IX. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? [ ] [ I [ ] [ 7 Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994, p.106. ... 113 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGA?IVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS" PAGE 38 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact b) Conflict with any applicable'land use plan, [ ] policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation [ I [ ] [ ,,"l [ ) [ ] Setting8 South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate homes and businesses west of the industries supporting the town in order to take advantage of topography and westerly winds. Another development trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. a) Dividing an Established Community The proposed Project would have no impact related to the division of an established community. b) Conflict with Land Use Plan The Project site is currently zoned Medium Density Residential District (R-2-H) and is part of the Sunshine Gardens Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's General Plan designation is High Density Residential. This designation accommodates multi-level apartment buildings. All development is subject to design and landscape standards? The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies: 3.10G-1 Maintain the character of the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood and promote new development in remaining vacant site at intensities suitable to proximity to transit and employment centers. However, the site's current R-2-H zoning does not allow the density nor type of building. The City, since the adop6on of the general Plan in October 1999, has intended to reclassify the area to the City of South San Francisco, South San Frandsro GeneralPlan, 1999. Ibid., p.43. 114 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 39 High Density Residential District (R-3-L) that would allow the proposed type of development. The applicant has filed to reclassify the site to the R-3-L District as part of the project. With the reclassification, the proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with the above applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan land use policies, and Zoning requirements, thereby constituting no impact. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Construction at the Project site would not conflict with any conservation plan, therefore no impact would occur. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact impact Mitigation MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,/1 Setting No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. (a./b.) Result in loss of mineral resources. Impact Tbrexbold of Significance: The Proiect would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local'general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. The proposed development at the Project site would not affect the availability of and would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. --115 INITIAL STUDY ! MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 40 XI. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation NOISE -- Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise [ ] [ ] levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of [ ] [ ] excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient [ ] [ ] noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use[ ] [ ] plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private[ ] airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? [ ,4 [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ v'] [ ] [ ] [ ,,'] Setting Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. Residential and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. There are many sensitive receptors in the site vicinity. In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise-impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the 116 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ~' PAGE 41 implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 65 dBA (CNEL)~° are acceptable noise levels for residential areas. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned "Medium Density Residential (R-3)," and the noise level standard for this zone is 50-60 dBA (Ls0).~ Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. a) Exposure of Persons To or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. Tralt~c. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local streets due to Project-generated traffic. It is anticipated that traffic related noise increases associated with the Project would be less than signilgcant due to the low level of Project-related traffic increases on local roadways. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would be required to result in a 3-dBA noise increase in a traffic-dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. Project-related traffic increases on local roadways (well below a 100 percent increase) would result in traffic noise increases well below 3 dBA. MechanicalEquipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of mechanical equipment for garage ventilation other mechanical devices. The impact of the HVAC system and mechanical devices would be considered less The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic umt used to quant/fy sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour). 117 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 42 than signit~cantprovided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. b) Exposure of Persons To or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibrations or Groundborne Noise Levels Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental effect if it were to expose people to, or generate, excessive groundbome vibrations or groundbome noise levels. It is not be expected that an apartment building would generate excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would have no impact related to excessive gmundborne vibration or excessive groundbome noise levels. c) Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Although site preparation and the implementation of the proposed Project would be expected to result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, it is not expected that on-going-operations at the Project site would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, thereby representing no impact. d) Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact ... Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. During site preparation and construction at the Project site, operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. IMPACT 6: Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This would be a potentially sig~zit]cant impact associated with Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. · MITIGATION MEASURE 6: Limitation of Construction Hours/Noise Abatement. Prior to issuance of any permit the applicant shall provide the City with a INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ' PAGE 43 118 construction plan that includes measures to reduce construction noise. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. Assuming construction noise levels comply with the 90-dBA noise limit and hourly restrictons specified in the City Noise Ordinance, construcfon-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less tfiam sigrdIYcaat v~th mitigation. e/f) Location in Vicinity of a Public Airport or Private Airstrip Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) if it would expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains exiSting and future (2006) airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. These contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and air overflights noise sources will continue to be less than 60 dBA (CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project would be compatible with future noise level projections in the Project v/cimty of less than 60 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing z~o irapact. XII. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with impact Impact Mitigation POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing [ ] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [ ] necessitating the construction of replacement housinco elsewhere? [ I [ I [ [ ] [ I [ ,/l [ I [ I [v'] Impact ThreshoM of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce substantial population growth, or if it were to result in the displacement of substantial 119 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 44 numbers of existing housing units, or in the displacement of substantial numbers of people living at the Project site. The proposed Project would not entail the extension of infrastructure that could support addifiona! residential or commercial development. It would involve the construction of 15 new dwellings, and would require the displacement of an existing persons living on-site. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on population and housing in the area. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation PUBLIC SERVICES -- a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? [ ] [ ] [ v'] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,/] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ vi [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ¥'1 [ ] [ I [ ] [ ,x] [ ] Impact Threshold of Siegnificance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of'which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service taros, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. The proposed Project would place a less than sigrdlffcantincreased demand on City of South San Francisco public services. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XIV. RECREATION -- iNITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION '9 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 45 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact a) Would the Project increase the use of existing [ ] neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities [ ] or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation [ ] [ ] [ ,,'1 [ ] [ ] Impact Threshold of Xignificance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment. The Project would have no signitYcant adverse impact on parks or recreational facilities since it involves the construction of only 15 new dwellings. XV. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial [ ] [ ~] [ ] [ ] in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a [ ] [ ] [ ] [ V'] level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [ ] [ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design [ ] [ V'] [ ] [ ] feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ V~] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ V'] [ ] [ ] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or [ ] [ ~] [ ] [ ] programs supporting alternative transportation (e.~., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 46 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Setting A Parking and Circulation Study was not prepared for the Project owing to its small size. The Project site is served directly by Oak Avenue, Mission Road, Grand Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, while regional access is provided by the U.S. Highway 101 and S.R. 280. Highway 101 and S.R. 280 are eight-lane freeways that provides regional access to the Project area. They extend from downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. Oak Avenue is residential collector. It has two travel lanes with on-street parking along the both sides of the street. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour and provides access between Grand Avenue and Mission Road. a) Cause an Increase in Traffic, Which is Substantial in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Capacity of the Street System Impact Threshold of Significance: Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: · The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system. · Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F. · Movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F. · Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. · The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent or more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is a stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F. · The proposed Project would increase in traffic entering an unsignalized intersect/on by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria levels. · The Project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 47 Impacts at Project Driveways. The Project will be served by two driveways. The primary entry will be on Oak Avenue and the second entry will lead to a small parking area accessed off of Commercial Avenue. Sight Lines of each driveway are excellent. Internal Circulation. All internal driveways and parking aisles would accommodate two-way traffic flow. All parking aisles would be 25 feet wide adjacent to 90-degree parking stalls. Overall, the internal circulation plan appears acceptable. The proposed 15 new dwellings are estimated to generate a net increase of 99 ADT and 8 vehicle trips during the AM commute peak traffic hour. The capacity of the existing streets is estimated a 1,400 vehicles per hour and 14,000 vehicle per day. Based on field observation conducted by City staff, the streets are far under capacity. The net increase in traffic, even when taking into consideration of the new nearby Oak Farms development under construction, will result in a less than signilYcant impact.. b) Direct or Cumulative Increase in Traffic Which Causes a Congestion Management Agency Standard to be Exceeded Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a direct increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded, or contribute substantially to a cumulative increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded. The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of a Congestion Management Agency level of service standard. c) Change in Air Traffic Patterns Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. The Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Hazards Due to Design Features Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The project will not create nor substantially increase any hazards. Therefore, no impact will occur. 123 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS "' PAGE 48 e) Emergency Access Impact Tbmbdd of Si~nificance: The ?roject would have a significant envixonmental impact if it were to provide inadequate emergency access to the Project site. The proposed Project would involve construction in a manner consistent with City of South San Francisco building codes. There would be no impact related to inadequate emergency access to the site. f) Parking Capacity Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project's impact on parking shall be considered significant if the Project does not meet the City of South San Francisco's parking space requirements and/or the proposed parking plan is adequate and meets City standards. On-street parking will be reduced by approximately two parking spaces. Therefore, the impact will be less than sigtzitYcaNt, g) Alternative Transportation Setting Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail service. Bus Service. The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service in the study area along the following routes Routes130, 131 and 35/36. Both Routes 130 and 131, providing service to BART stations, operate with 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 35/36, providing community service, operates with limited service during the weekday and no weekend service. Caltrain. Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. The nearest station is located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue m South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. Bicycle Lanes. Sidewalks are in place along the north side Oak Avenue and partially along the south side of Oak Avenue in the Project vicinity. The project site frontage does not have a sidewalk. The closest bicycle routes, identified n the City's General Plan, to the Project are a route on Grand Avenue, Chesmut Avenue. Within the BART right-of-way; a bicycle pedestrian trail may be constructed. All the above mentioned routes/paths are within one-to-two blocks of the Project site. Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ._. 124 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 49 As proposed, the Project would be requized to construct sidewalks along the Project site's frontage on Oak and Commercial Avenues. The project will improve pedestzian access and safety. Therefore, the project would have z~o impact. XVl. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of [ ] [ ] the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new [ ] [ ] water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental . effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new [ ] [ ] storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve [ ] [ ] the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ] [ ] treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted[ ] capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes [ ] and regulations related to solid waste? [ ] [ v,] [ vi [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ [ v'] [ ] [ ] [ ,x] [ ] [ I [ ] [ ,/1 a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a sigrfificant envixonmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the small size of the project and the recent upgrade and expansion of the Waster Water Treatment Plant the Project, due to it's small size, would have z~o impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requizements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS '~ PAGE 50 b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Se t ting Water. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo County by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). In 1999, average water use throughout CWSC's South San Francisco District was approximately 8.39 million gallons per day (mgd), with a five-year average of 7.85 mgd. For the last few years, total water use in this District has exceeded CWSC's "average demand" scenario.~2 The City's 1994 East of 101 Area Plan estimated that water use east of the freeway would increase by 2.675 mgd by 2010. This is more than four times CWSC's average demand projection for total growth in water use throughout the South San Francisco District from 1994 to 2010. The Water Company's estimates are based on past water use, ABAG growth predictions and a combination of commercial, industrial and residential development that differed from some of the City designated land uses incorporated into the Area Plan. In addition, the Area Plan's projections included an allowance for the potentially higher water demand associated with the R&D facilities and pharmaceutical-manufacturing fzrms that were beginning to move into South San Francisco. This ran counter to CWSC's actual records, which indicate that industrial water use in the South San Francisco District declined by 57 percent from 1981 to 1999, falling from 35 percent to 13 percent of District-wide demand. In spite of these differences in land use assumptions and resulting water demand estimates, CWSC currently feels it has sufficient resources to accommodate continued growth within its service area. The Water Company's contract with the SFWD calls for a maximum delivery rate of 42.5 mgd, so approximately 8mgd should be available to meet unanticipated water supply needs that exceed its 2010 projected demand of 34 mgd. As a result, there are currently no restrictions on service connections for new development. Wastewater. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. These latter two municipalities have a combined dry weather allocation of 700,000 gallons per day (gpd) at the WQCP.u To accommodate continued development within the WQCP's service area, and also to allow plant operators to discontinue the use of expensive chemical additives in the treatment process, the plant is being upgraded to a dry weather capacity of 13 mgd. Construction is currently underway, and is scheduled for completion in 2002. Of the 3.5 mgd of additional dry weather capacity this will make ~2 Morehouse Assodates, Britannia East Grand Project Environmental Impact Report, p.14-1, October 2001. u Ibid.,p.14-11. 126 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS" PAGE 51 available (above current flow rates), 0.5 mgd is reserved for San Bruno and for Colma/Daly City. This will leave approximately 2.5 mgd available above current dry weather flow rates to support continued growth in South San Francisco. When this upgrade was designed in 1995, the City's wastewater consultants projected it would meet the service area's needs until 2015. However, development and wastewater flows have been increasing more rapidly than expected in recent years, so additional improvements may be needed before that date. ~4 Impact Threshold of Significanae: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to requke the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. I IMPACT 7: Sanitary Sewer Line. The project site is underlain by a sanitary sewer line constructing in 1913. The line will need to be relocated to allow construction of the building and subterranean garage. Several different routes for the new line are possible with the most feasible being to construct a line along Oak Avenue to Mission Road and tie in with the trunk line on Mission Road. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with Project development. MITIGATION MEASURE 7: Sanitary Line Relocation. Prior to issuance of any permit the applicant shall provide the City with a construction plan for a new sanitary sewer line to replace the existing line that traverses the site. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Engineer. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would have no impact related to the construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities, since the proposed Project would be implemented at an already built out site connected to storm water drainage infrastructure. d) Water Supply Impact Threshold of Sign~cance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. The Project would utilize existing water entidements and resources, having no impact on other water resources. Ibid. 1r) INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ' PAGE 52 e) Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The Project would place a less than signilTca~t demand on the area's wastewater treatment provider and would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments. f) Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would generate a less tl~an sigrdtTcant amount of solid waste. g) Compliance With Solid Waste Regulations Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Operation of the pr~)posed Project would be expected to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, thereby having No impact.. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions tot Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitio~ation XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-- a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histo~ INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 53 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Significant Significant Significant No impact with Impact Impact Mitigation [ ] [ ] [ ,4 [ v'] [ ] [ a) Quality of the Environment Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. There are no Project- related environmental impacts that would not be reduced to a level of less than sigx~it~cant through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above. b) Cumulative Impacts The Project does not involve environmental impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when.viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. There are no Project-velated cux~uJadve ~pacts. c) Adverse Environmental Effects on Human Beings The Project would not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the Project is consistent and compatible with agricultural land uses in the surrounding area. The implementation of the mitigation measures identified above would reduce potentially significant Project-related environmental impacts to a level of less than sig~JEcsnt. INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ' PAGE 54 REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Ba4_A~QMD CE~,4 Guidelines: ~4ssessing the ,4ir~Quali~y Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Ba~A~QMD CE~Q~ Guidelines, p.23,24. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "Bay Area Attainment Status" April 1999 (obtained at BAAQMD website: www.baaqmd.go~. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, SummaCy of ~4ir Pollution in the Bay .4rea, individual sheets for 1995-1999; and various Press Releases, Office of Public Information, Education Division, August 1997 through January 2001. Brady and Associates, East of 10 ! _alma Plan, adopted July 1994. City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Nlunidpal Code: Tree Preservation, adopted June 28, 2000. Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San I::randsco General Plan, adopted October 1999. Dyett & Bhatia, 'South San I~randsco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, September 1997. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th Edition. REPORT AUTHOR Steve Carlson, Senior Planner INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS · PAGE 55 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B List of Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ A-1 Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................ B-1 131 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 OAK AVENUE APARTMENTS ' PAGE 56 gO OAK AV~NU~ ~T~-~ 8E)EWALK (3) VI~OR$ (2) VISITOR8 VAN [--'~ (11 VISITOflS HANDICAPPED 1218 SF / UNIT SITE / GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1/8' = 1'-0' AT PRC~'I~.¥T' L, II~ 32 '1 FENCE UNDERGROUND PARKING BASEMENT PARKING PLAN 100' SAND PIT lg8.84' MGRS.PARKING SETBACK PROPOSED MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING 90 OAK AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA REVISED 2-8-02 ANTOMO M. BRANDI ARCHrTECT UC, C-8738 804 LAFI~H AVE, 80UTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 ABRANI~AoAOL.COM SITE / FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~___~ .~. ~' ~'-~' _' :~ -~ , ~, t ~: I'~ == = ~ ~ 900AKAVE ,- ~1 ~~~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~-. SO~H s~, ~SCO, c~ ~ '-'~i~:~ - ~ / -r -: ~V~ 2-8~ ' ' ~ ~ ~T~ ~ : ~ FLOOR PLANS ~ ....... a~, ~1 ~ ' 0~0~ 1~ ~----~~~ '-~ -' ............. ._ ..,, ~,~. SECOND LEaL FLOOR PLAN ~ THIRD ~L FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ~ , , i'i~' 90 OAK AVE -,= I. . '~'~,~:,- SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA i' A~O~ REAR ELEVATION A~ECT m. C-8738 ~ LAR~ AVl ABRA~IAeA~C~ FRONT ELEVATION <- - ni SIDE ELEVATION (RIGHT) 6'H. hlOC~ ---- J, qAL.L TYPICAL. TYPIC. AL PENC4E TYPIC. AL -- 6/12 F~DOF ~ 'Pr~¢AL TY~IGAL SIDE ELEVATION (LEFT) SCALE, V8'-?~' PROPOSED MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING 90 OAK AVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA REVISED 2-8-'02 ANTONIO M. BRANDI ARCHITECT UC. C-8738 ~ ~ m ~.~'12 FAX eSO- 871 8002 904 LARCH AVE. SOUTH 8AN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 ABRANDIAoAOI_OOM NOTE, o~r~,~d ~ conb'ctct. BLDG. ELEVATIONS JOB NO. O3O1OO SCALE AS DRA~ BY BRAJIX/AS,.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.~G. ~ BY Ltl. BRAJO GIE~ BY OATE 9~ ,,'K AVENUE ,='-,,,,,-,- -,~-,- PFIOPOSED ~ -,-..Es BUILDING ' "~': ' '-- '"'"' .................... J" --,'~,,~.~ ' ~l~;,~,, ~ { .--', - ~ ~~~ ~: /~ ~u-~ ~ ~t /~ ~,.~ ~ SOU~ SAN FRANCISCO, CA v.v.v.' ' - ~ .......... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :::::¥:::::: ~ ......... ~ ~ ~ - ' I~.:~ I,, j~~~~:.~ , ~ · m:~-~ ~.o~.~ oov~. . .:..:......,~ ~-, ..~ ~ ~ _ = 2.~: ~. c-.~ ~ .~' ~ ~ ~'.'.';." , ,' I ~ ....... ~ ~ SITE / GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1/8' = ~-0". ~"~ .,T.,C. OF SIDE ELEVATION (RIGHT) SIDE ELEVATION (LEFT) SCALE, VS'-~.0' PROPOSED MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING 9O OAK AVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA REVISED 2-8'02 ANTONIO M. BRANDi ARCHrI'ECT UC. C-8738 ~ ~ ~ ~ FAX ~ ~71 ~ gO4 LARCH AVE. SOUTH 8AN FRANCISCO, CA g4080 ABRANDIAeAOLGOM NOTE, TITLE BLDG. ELEVATIONS --,,/ ~ PROPOSED ~ .............. ~ , ~ i/ ;',:~ r.~;: - : ~ , / · ,,~ ;~:~;: .: ~ ,, MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT :~.-... Il ~ ':'?~'~ ;"'"-'- ':~ ~::~;' ~;", BUILDING .... ~. ~ = 'n ~ ~ ~ ~, : 7 .%,~*~'~,.~ SOUTH SAN ~ANCISCO, CA ~CT ~. 0-87~ ~ ~CH A~ ABRA~A~A~C~ ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN PROPOSED 15 UNIT APARTMENT UNIT - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROJECT INFORMATION CONSTRUCTION TYPE, v - I HR / type I OCCUPANCY TYPE, R-1/S3 ALLOWABLE AREA, BASE - 2 YARDS - 2 stories - FIRE SPRINKLING 10,500 x 1.5 x 2 x 2 - 63,000 sf ALLOWABLE PER FLOOR, 10,500 x 1.5 x 3 - 47,250 sf BUILDING AREA, GROUND FLOOR 11,500 SF SECOND FLOOR 9,910 SF THIRD FLOOR 8,540 SI= TOTAL ENCLOSED - 29,950 SF COMBINED LOT AREAS - 17,815 SF LOT 7,8, AND 9 MAX. LOT COVERAGE 65%" 11,500 SF USED 10,778 60 % SF PROPOSED 11 -2 BEDROOM, 2 STUDIOS AND 2 SINGLE BEDROOM UNIT OVER PARKING 15 UNIT TOTAL WITH 3 LOW INCOME UNITS EQUIVALENT TO 20% OF THE UNITS LANDSCAPING 10% - 1800 SF PARKING 2.25 SPACES PER UMT (x 15)- TOTAL REQUIRED 34 SPACES TOTAL PROVIDED 34 SPACES (2 HANDICAPPED) FRONT-VIEW PERSPECTIVE PROPOSED MULTI-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING 90 OAK AVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA REVISED 2-8-02 ARCHITECT UC. C-8738 ~04 LARCH AVE. 801JTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA ~4080 ABRANDIAoAOLCOM NOTE, o~'eed I~ co.trout. TITL~ COVER SHEET SCALE ORAWN BY EESI(~D BY DAI~ Staff Report DATE TO FROM SUBJECT June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Conference Center Executive Director Conference Center Authority Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget RECOMMENDATION The Conference Center Authority (Authority) recommends that the City Council accept and approve the Conference Center Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-2003 Budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION As has the rest of the hospitality industry, the Conference Center and its surrounding hotels have been affected by the tragic events of September 11 as well as the downturn in the economy. Hotel occupancies fell to the Iow 50's, individual business travel decreased, leisure travel decreased, and group meetings and travel reduced the level of spending during events. However, the group market is the one segment that still continues to book meetings and group travel. This is positive for the Conference Center and its surrounding hotels. It is also evident in the Center's rental revenue - FY 2001-2002 will exceed FY 2000-2001 rental revenue; FY 2000-2001 had been the Center's busiest year since opening. However, FY 2001-2002 food service and event service revenue will be below the previous year's as these expenditures have been reduced by clients who are impacted by their own reduced budgets. And as FY 2001-2002 had been anticipated to be a strong year during last year's budget preparations, neither operating revenue nor transient occupancy tax projections will be met. Operating expenses were reduced as well by only allowing essential spending. FY 2002-2003 is projected to be a better year. Operating revenue projections are very realistic considering the impacts discussed above. Transient occupancy tax is projected at a conservative 56%. The beginning of a recovery in hotel occupancies is being experienced but anticipated to be slow. Competition in the ,marketplace for business is greater than ever before as the total market share has decreased. Marketing expenses have been increased to provide maximum exposure of the Conference Center and its new branding and tagline "Excellence Within Reach". More efficient operating systems will be Honorable Mayor and City Council June 26, 2002 Page Two implemented which allow other operating expenses to be decreased - specifically, the bringing of the Center's previously contracted security service in-house. The FY 2002- 2003 total operating expenses have decreased considerably from last year's expenses. In addition, minimal capital projects are required this year. The FY 2002-2003 Budget includes a total revenue projection of $2,952,193 and a total expenditure request of $2,629,372. The fund balance (approximately $1.1 million) continues to be healthy and indicates the Center is able to operate and pay its debts without General Fund subsidies. The FY 2002-2003 Budget also includes a capital project request of $64,500. Enclosed is the budget document which describes all the details as well as an explanation of the changes from last year's budget. The Authority's recommended FY 2002-2003 Budget is responsive to the current economy and market conditions but allows the Center to aggressively market to its client base and continue to provide the expected, high level of service that has become synonymous with events at the Conference Center. If I may answer any questions or clarify any information about the Budget, please let me know. Sandra M. O'Toole, CFE Conference Center Executive Director Enclosures: Resolution FY 2002-2003 Budget Document DRAFT 6/26/O2 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONFERENCE CENTER FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET WHEREAS, South San Francisco Municipal Code §2.78.010 et seq. requires that the Conference Center budget be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Conference Center Authority has conducted public meetings, considered available public input, and reviewed the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget; and WHEREAS, the Authority found that the budget represented the appropriate level of expenditures for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and recommended that the proposed budget be approved by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco as follows: 1. The budget identified as the "Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Operating Budget" in the amount of $2,952,193 in revenue and $2,629,372 in expenditures is hereby approved by the City Council. 2. The budget identified as the "Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Budget" in the amount of $64,500 in capital expenditures is hereby approved by the City Council. 3. Each budget category listed in Municipal Code §2.78.106 is funded to the limits specified in the proposed budget. 4. The funds collected pursuant to Municipal Code §4.20.035 are hereby appropriated to fund the Conference Center budget. 5. The City Manager and Finance Director are hereby directed and authorized to make the specified funds available to the Conference Center. 6. Copies of the Conference Center budget shall be made available for public review and inspection in the Offices of the City Clerk and Administrative Offices of the Conference Center. 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 ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE CENTER AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET June 26, 2002 255 South Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California 94080 tel 650.877.8787 fax 650.877.5356 www. ssfconfocom South San Francisco Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget Revenue and Expenditure Projections - All Sources FY 02-03 Budget Request FY 01-02 Approved Year-End Budget Projection Total Revenue Total Expenditures Surplus $2,952,193 2,629,372 $ 322,821 $3,290,000 $2,735,500 2,797,561 2,716,706 $ 492,439 $ 18,794 -1- 6/26/O2 South San Francisco Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget- Approved and Revised Revenue Projections - All Sources Conference Center Operations Transient Occupancy Tax Interestlncome FY 02-03 FY 01-02 FY 01-02 Bud~let Proiection Approved Bud.qet Year-End Prolection 1,345,000 1,500,000 1,260,000 1,565,193 1,690,000 1,400,500 42,000 100,000 75,000 Total 2,952,193 3,290,000 2,735,500 Expenditure Projections - All Sources FY 02-03 FY 01-02 FY 01-02 Bud~let Request Approved Bud,qet Revised Budf:let Conference Center Operations 1,633,933 1,802,525 1,721,670 Debt Service 532,139 527,736 527,736 Property Leases/Taxe: 463,300 467,300 467,300 Total 2,629,372 2,797,561 2,716,706 -2- 6/26/02 South San Francisco Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget- Approved and Revised Revenue Projections-Conference Center Operations FY 02-03 FY 01-02 FY 01-02 Bud~let Projection Approved Budget Year-End Proiection Rent 760,000 845,000 Food & Beverage 425,000 470,000 Event Services 160,000 185,000 Total 1,345,000 1,500,000 710,000 400,000 150,000 1,260,000 -3- 6/26~02 South San Francisco Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget Expenditure Budget Conference Center Operations Detail Percentage of Change-FY2002-03 Budget to FY 2001-02 Year-End Projection Salaries/Benefits FY 02-03 FY 01-02 FY 01-02 Budget Request Approved Budget Year-End Projection % Increase Decrease Salaries 657,932 541,900 538,500 22.2% Car Allowance 2,400 2,400 2,400 0.0% Workers' Compensation 3,511 3,102 2,500 40.4% Health, Dental, Vision 127,398 71,696 68,696 85.5% Pension, Medicare FICA 68,979 56,755 54,755 26.0% Vacation Buyout 8,000 Performance Incentive Program 20,000 30,500 20,000 0.0% Operations/Maintenance Services 880,220 714,353 686,851 28.2% Set Up/Tear Down Service 80,000 110,000 160,000 -50.0% Janitorial Service 80,000 152,000 157,000 -49.0% Transportation Service 7,500 16,000 7,000 7.1% Security Service 125,000 125,000 -100.0% Linen/Water Service 22,000 20,000 19,000 15.8% Temporary Event Labor 30,000 30,000 30,000 0.0% Electr/Plum/HVAC Main. Service 22,000 27,500 20,000 10.0% Pest Control 2,400 2,400 2,400 0.0% Fire Extinguisher/Alarm Service 2,500 2,500 2,500 0.0% Landscape Service 16,000 16,000 15,500 3.2% 262,400 500,400 538,400 -51.3% Operation/Maintenance Supplies Janitorial Supplies 9,000 9,500 8,200 9.8% Operations Supplies 20,000 50,500 20,000 0.0% 29,000 60,000 28,200 2.8% Marketing Services Ad Production/Placement 145,250 83,500 83,500 74.0% Public Relations 5,000 7,500 3,500 42.9% Brochure/Folder Reprints 5,500 6,000 5,500 0.0% Client Entertainment 3,500 5,000 3,500 0.0% Client Gifts 12,000 12,000 12,000 0.0% Booth Rental & Equipment Fee 12,000 12,000 11,500 4.3% Industry Event Registration 4,250 5,750 4,750 -10.5% Group Incentive Rentals 20,000 25,000 Meeting Travel/Dues/Memberships 207,500 156,750 124,250 67.0% Dues/Memberships 5,250 6,000 5,500 -4.5% Meeting Travel Expense 11,500 13,000 12,500 -8.0% 16,750 19,000 18,000 -6.9% Legal/Professional Services Legal Services 7,500 10,000 2,330 221.9% Professional Services 37,000 142,600 140,600 -73.7% 44,500 152,600 142,930 -68.9% -4- 6/26~02 Expenditure Budget Conference Center Operations Detail Percentage of Change-FY2002-03 Budget to FY 2001-02 Year-End Projection FY 02-03 FY 01-02 FY 01-02 Budget Request Approved Budget Year-End Projection Audit/Payroll Services City Finance Services General Insurance Property Insurance Liability Insurance Bank Charges/Bad Debt Bank Charges Bad Debt % Increase Decrease 12,250 11,750 11,750 4.3% 6,000 5,700 5,700 5.3% 8,479 7,066 7,066 20.0% 16,834 19,596 19,596 -14.1% 25,313 26,662 26,662 -5.1% 18,000 21,000 16,000 6,000 6,810 12.5% 24,000 27,810 16,000 50.0% Office Machines/Publication/Supplies Postage/Rental Equipment Office Machines 8,000 9,000 8,000 0.0% Computer Supplies 2,500 2,500 2,000 25.0% Publication 500 500 500 0.0% Office Supplies/Water 4,000 4,500 2,744 45.8% Postage 7,000 6,000 6,000 16.7% 22,000 22,500 19,244 14.3% Printing 5,000 4,000 5,787 -13.6% 75,000 75,000 75,000 0.0% 19,000 21,000 18,100 5.0% 5,000 5,000 4,796 4.3% 99,000 101,000 97,896 1.1% Utilities Gas/Electric Telephone/Long Distance Water 1,633,933 1,802,525 1,721,670 -5.1% ' 5 - 6/26/02 South San Francisco Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget Capital Improvement Budget Upgrade Computer System including the Purchase of Six New Work Stations to Support Upgraded Software and New Virus Scanners; Upgraded Software for All Units to Replace Unsupported, Existing Software; New Laptop Computed Software; Virus Scanner Upgrade Subscription Improve Exterior Landscaping and Purchase New Interior Containers for Lobby Palm Replanting Purchase Carpet Extractor Purchase 25 New Headsets for ADA Listening System Purchase an Additional 750 Coffee Mugs Total 45,OOO 9,000 5,000 4,000 1,500 $ 64,5OO 6/26/02 -6- South San Francisco Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget Fund Balance/Designated/Undesignated Reserves Fund Balance 6/30/01 per Audit Plus Projected FY 2001-02 Surplus Less FY 2001-02 Capital Expenditures Projected Fund Balance 6/30/02 Plus Projected FY 2002-03 Surplus Less FY 2002-03 Capital Expenditures Projected Fund Balance 6130102 $1,2O7,O89 18,794 (132,767) 1,093,116 322,821 (64,500) $1,351,437 Designated Reserves* Projected Undesignated Reserves Projected Fund Balance 6130102 $500,000 851,437 $1,351,437 *Designated Reserve Categories Capital Improvements Insurance Debt Service Contingencies Total $100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 $500,000 - 7 - 6/26/02 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONFEREI' CENTER Salary Schedule effective July 1,2002 I 2 3 4 5 Sales Assistant (Crystal Nieto) Hourly 18.69 19.64 20.63 21.63 22.72 Semi-Monthly 1,620.44 1,702.21 1,787.02 1,875.47 1,969.36 Monthly 3,240.87 3,404.43 3,574.04 3,750.93 3,938.71 Sales Manager (Teresa Martinez) Hourly 20.60 21.86 22.95 24.11 25.32 Semi-Monthly 1,785.69 1,894.50 1,988.68 2,089.25 2,194.40 Monthly 3,571.39 3,789.00 3,977.35 4,178.50 4,388.80 Director of Sales (Dean Grubl) Hourly 25.32 26.62 27.92 29.32 30.77 Semi-Monthly 2,194.40 2,306.86 2,419.33 2,540.93 2,667.11 Monthly 4,388.80 4,613.73 4,838.65 5,081.86 5,334.22 Security Officer (3) (New Position) Hourly 11.00 Semi-Monthly 953.33 Monthly 1,906.66 Security Supervisor (New Position) Hourly 15.00 Semi-Monthly 1,300.00 Monthly 2,600.00 Facility Service Coordinator (Austin Middleton) Hourly 15.19 15.95 16.75 17.57 18.45 Semi-Monthly 1,254.13 1,316.79 1,382.58 1,451.46 1,599.00 Monthly 2,508.25 2,633.58 2,765.14 2,902.92 3,198.00 Facility Service Manager (Jorge Cruz) Hourly 21.13 22.16 23.28 24.44 25.66 Semi-Monthly 1,830.61 1,921.21 2,017.39 2,118.26 2,224.18 Monthly 3,661.22 3,842.42 4,034.78 4,236.52 4,448.36 Business Services Asst. (Part Time) (Carolyn Tam) Hourly 14.63 15.36 16.12 16.92 17.76 Semi-Monthly 1,267.92 1,331.27 1,397.79 1,467.43 1,540.82 Monthly 2,535.84 2,662.54 2,795.58 2,934.86 3,081.64 Business Services Coordinator (Earsie Johnson) Hourly 15.19 15.94 16.75 17.57 18.45 Semi-Monthly 1,316.79 1,382.58 1,451.46 1,524.06 1,599.00 Monthly 2,633.58 2,765.16 2,902.92 3,048.12 3,198.00 Director of Facility Services (Ted Luff) Houdy 28.42 29.84 31.33 32.90 34.55 Semi-Monthly 2,462.94 2,585.81 2,715.51 2,852.03 2,994.33 Monthly 4,925.88 5,171.62 5,431.02 5,704.06 5,988.66 Controller (Faina Vinarskaya) Hourly 27.36 28.73 30.16 31.68 33.27 Semi-Monthly 2,371.06 2,490.31 2,614.18 2,745.44 2,883.18 Monthly 4,742.13 4,980.62 5,228.36 5,490.88 5,766.35 Executive Director (Sandra O'Toole) Hourly 52.86 Biweekly 4,228.86 Monthly 9,162.54 Sales Assistant 10/16 24@1969.36 Sales Manager 10/16 24 @ 2194.40 Director of Sales 4/1 24 @ 2667.11 Security Officer (3) 7/1 12 @ 1906.66 12@1906.66 12 @ 1906.66 Security Supervisor 7/1 12@2600. Facility Service Coordinator 24@1599. Facility Service Manager 7/1 24@2224.18 Business Services Asst. (Part Time) (2 @ 1397.79+22 @ 1467.43)/2 8/1 additional $1400. Business Services Coordinator 24@1599.00 11/16 Director of Facility Services 4/1 24@2994.33 Controller 5/1 20 @ 2614.18+4 @ 2745.44 Executive Director 9/1 26@4228.86 Total 47,264.64 52,665.60 64,010.64 22,879.92 22,879.92 22,879.92 31,200.00 38,376.00 53,380.32 18,939.52 38,376.00 71,863.92 63,265.36 109,950.36 657,932.12 ' 8 ' 6/26/02 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE CENTER AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET Explanations of Changes June 26, 2002 255 South Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California 94080 tel 650.877.8787 (ax 650.877.5356 www. ssfconf.com Revenue and Expenditure Projections - All Sources - Page I and 7 A surplus of revenue over expenses in the amount of $322,821 is projected. This contributes to the fund balance and provides for capital improvements. Revenue Projections - All Sources - Page 2 and 3 Conference Center Operations - 6.3% increase over FY 2001-02 year-end projections. With the softened market given the economy and the effects of September 11,2001, the FY 2002-03 projections are more realistic. 38% of the overall amount projected has been presold; 54% reflects the FY 2001-02 booking pace; and 8% reflects an increase over last year's booking pace. Transient Occupancy Tax - An annual occupancy rate of 56% is projected. It is anticipated that FY 2001-02 year-end occupancies will be just under 51%. It appears that the market has begun to move upward again; but recovery is expected to be extremely slow. 'Conference Center projections must be conservative given the limited sources of revenue. Currently there are 3063 guest rooms in 30 hotels in South San Francisco. Interest Income - Lower interest rates impacts this category. Overall increase in total revenue from FY 2001-02 year-end projection - 8% Expenditure Projections - All Sources - Page 2 Conference Center Operations - 5% reduction over FY 2001-02 year-end projections. Please see the Operations Detail section for explanations. Debt Service and Property Leases/Taxes - These amounts reflect a continuation budget. 3.2% decrease over FY 2001-02 year-end projection. Expenditure Projections - Conference Center Operations Pages 4 and 5 Salaries/Benefits - Detail on Page 8 1. Salaries have increased and titles have changed to accommodate 5% increase of four position salaries to compensate for increased duties: Director of Facility Services (formerly Operations Manager); Facility Services Manager (formerly Maintenance Supervisor); Facility Services Assistant (formerly Maintenance Assistant); and Business Services Coordinator (formerly Receptionist/Typist). Approximate increase in salaries and benefits is $11,600. 2. Salaries have increased to accommodate four new security positions. The projected increase in the Center's contract security service justifies the cost of bringing the service in house. Although salaries and benefits have increased by approximately $136,000, the savings are $26,000 from the annual contract amount. 6/26/02 South San Francisco Conference Center Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget Explanations of Changes - Page 2 3. Salaries have increased by 1.1% which represents a cost-of-living adjustment for the Controller (formerly Business Manager) and the Part-Time Business Services Assistant (formerly Part-Time Receptionist/Typist). 4. The cost of Health benefits have increased by 38%. Should the Conference Center employees remain a part of the City's health/dental/vision group, the budget reflects the cost of those benefits. However, staff is reviewing whether the same benefits are available through another group at a lower cost. 5. The Vacation Buyout budget has been eliminated as this liability is carried on the Conference Center's balance sheet. 6. The Performance Incentive Program for the three Sales positions is the same as last year's program only based on the new revenue projections. Operations/Maintenance Services - 1. The Security Services expense has been absorbed in salaries/benefits. 2. Transportation Services expense more accurately reflects the cost of parking lot event security as well as regular, weekday shuttle service to BART and CalTrain beginning September 1 through the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. Marketing Services - The majority of the increase reflects a full year of aggressive advertising in publications specifically targeted to association/corporate meeting planners using our new advertisement with our new branding and tag line "Excellence Within Reach". Funds are also budgeted to update our website, create new booth display materials, and finalize our new branding on all conference center promotional materials and supplies. Legal/Professional Services - The majority of the reduction in this expense area was referred to in previous discussions. All Other Operating Categories - A continuation budget is reflected in all other operating categories. 5% decrease over FY 2001-02 year-end projection. Capital Improvements Budget - Page 6 Minimal projects are required for the FY 2002-03 fiscal year. 6/26/02 ............ Staff Report To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Date: June 26, 2002 Page: 2 of 2 Under Streets, Item No. 1 McLellan Extension. Since the project was awarded at the June 12, 2002 City Council meeting, funding was changed from "New Appropriation" to "Prior Year". Under Streets, Item No. 12 Mission Road Rehabilitation and TOD Improvements. City did not receive Transportation for Livable Communities Grant (TLC). Plan to use Transit Oriented Development Grant (TOD) allowance if we get the TLC grant next year. This project has $600,000 in Measure A funds for the upcoming year. This $600,000 will be used for paving on Mission Road in the area of the BART station. FUNDING: The total CIP budget for this fiscal year will be $50,034,013 of which $ 28,933,522 is in prior year appropriation and $21,100,491 is in new appropriation. The new appropriation of $21,100,491 will consist of: · Capital Improvement (General Fund) $ 106,000 · Grants $ 608,800 · Redevelopment (Tax Increment) $ 117,500 · Bonds $14,883,404 · Developer Fees $ 2,833,787 · Gas Tax $ 879,000 · Measure A $ 1,065,000 · Sewer Fund $ 372,000 · Storm Water Fund $ 75,000 · Other $ 160,000 TOTAL $21,100,491 By: Direct Ibbs ;/ ir of Pu~: Works ATTACHMENT: Resolution Approved b y~~. . Michael A. Whson City Manager RTH/JG/ed { Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance Proposed City of South San Francisco 2002-03 Budget RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the 2002-03 Budget for the City of South San Francisco and appropriate the corresponding funds. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION A Preliminary Draft Budget for fiscal year 2002-03 was reviewed by the full City Council in a study session on May 29, 2002. The Proposed 2002-03 City of South San Francisco Budget is attached and submitted for formal Council adoption. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed General Fund Operating Budget results in a net draw on General Fund reserves of $.3 million. With operating transfers to fund capital improvement projects and debt service, the net impact on the General Fund Budget is a net draw on reserves of $.6 million. Discretionary General Fund reserves are projected to end fiscal year 2002-03 at $8.8 million, roughly 18% of General Fund revenues. A Capital Improvement Budget is being submitted by the Public Works Department under separate cover. By: ~ Ji Director of Finance Approved: Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments: Resolution Exhibit A - Budget Document RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2002-2003 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND APPROPRIATING THE CORRESPONDING FUNDS WHEREAS, a preliminary Draft Budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 was reviewed by the City Council at a study session on May 29, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the proposed 2002-2003 City of South San Francisco Operating Budget is attached hereto; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves the fiscal year 2002-2003 Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco and hereby appropriates the funds set forth therein; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that consistent with the limitations set forth herein, any and all expenditures for and agreements relating to the programs and materials contained in the 2002-2003 Operating Budget may be expended or entered into under authority of or by the City Manager and are hereby authorized and the payments therefore may be made by the Director of Finance; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any monies received during fiscal year 2002-2003 as a consequence of a grant application approved by the City Council are hereby appropriated for the purposes for which the grant has been approved. Such appropriation includes authorization for the City Manager to expend such monies and for the Finance Director to make payments therefore in accordance with the terms and conditions and for the purpose of the grant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is hereby granted the authority to increase budgeted revenues and budgeted expenses in departments specifically for development related expenses such as expedited plan checks, legal reviews, traffic studies, geotechnical studies, etc., where the developers pay up front for expenses that the City contracts out for. In those cases, the Finance Director, upon receiving those deposits or payments will increase the budget for revenues in the General Fund and expenses in the appropriate departments where those expenses will take place by a corresponding amount. Said transactions will have no net impact on General Fund Reserves, as revenue will offset expenses. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is hereby authorized to increase budgeted revenues and expenses in departments so that departments may use donations made to them. Said transactions will have no net impact on General Fund Reserves, as revenue will offset expenses. 182845-1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 2002-2003 budget attached hereto is hereby officially adopted: By Department by fund for operating budget appropriations; By Project for capital project appropriations. The City Manager may authorize the Director of Finance to transfer budgets during the year in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles between the following budget categories provided the overall appropriation by funding source is not increased without City Council approval: Departments within the same fund; Capital projects with the same funding source; Operating and capital budgets for the same department if funded by the same funding source. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to rollover any outstanding encumbrances from Fiscal Year 2001-2002 into Fiscal Year 2002-2003. 2. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to rollover unencumbered appropriations from grants received in 2001-2002 or prior years if so allowed under the terms of the grant. 3. The staffing levels for each department, as detailed in the 2002-2003 Operating Budget are hereby approved as adopted by the City Council on June 26, 2002. 4. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to carry forward unspent 2001-2002 unencumbered non-recurring project budgets such as litigation projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby approves the Gann Limit for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 at the level set forth in the budget document. 182845-1 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 26th day of June, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 182845-1 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Personnel Changes, including Classification Descriptions, Adjustments to Salary Schedules, and Changes in Unit Designations RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the job specifications, salary levels, and/or unit designations for the following positions: Lead Public Works Maintenance Worker, Financial Services Supervisor, Manager of Housing and Redevelopment, Police Records Manager, Librarian Il, and Supervising Librarian. BACKGROUND During fiscal year 2001-02, a study was undertaken of several positions, resulting in recommended job title changes, increases to the salary ranges, and unit designation changes. In addition, in this budget, one new classification is recommended to be included. Below are the changes and attached are the Exhibits with the top ranges of the salary schedule (Exhibit A) for each classification with a salary adjustment recommendation and the new or revised job specifications (Exhibits B). New Positions: Title I Supervising Librarian ..................................... Reason Approve job specification, salary range, and unit designation (Mid-management), .no net change in positions. Classirtcations Stud From Title To Title Reason Administrative Assistant I ........ Administrative Reclass recommendation-approve Assistant 11 ................. recommendation. Lead Public Works Lead Public Works Reclass recommendation-approve Maintenance Worker (1 Maintenance Worker.. recommendation for certification position) ................................. compensation. Manager of Housing and Manager of Housing Reclass recommendation-approve job Community Development ..... and Redevelopment ...... title, classification description, and salary range. Staff Report Subject: Page 2 (Personnel Changes) From Title To Title Reason Payroll Coordinator .................. Financial Services Reclass recommendation-approve job Supervisor .................. specification and salary range. Police Records Manager ...........Same ............................. Reclass recommendation-approve job specification and salary range. Librarian 1I ................................ Same ............................. Recommendation-approve classification description modifications, salary range, and unit designation (AFSCME). By: Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments Proposed Salary Range (Exhibit A) for: ,/ Financial Services Supervisor · / Lead Public Works Maintenance Worker ,/ Librarian II ~' Manager of Housing and Redevelopment q' Police Records Manager ,/ Supervising Librarian Class Descriptions (Exhibits B for: ,/ Financial Services Supervisor ,/ Librarian II q' Manager of Housing and Redevelopment ,/ Supervising Librarian JAB-06/I 8/02 F:Wile Cabinet\City CouncilXBudgetXO2Budget-PersXPers Changes.doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION APPROVING JOB SPECIFICATIONS, SALARY LEVELS AND UNIT DESIGNATIONS FOR SPECIFIED POSITIONS NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby approve the job title changes, job specifications, salary levels and unit designations for the positions of Lead Public Works Maintenance Worker, Financial Services Supervisor, Manager of Housing and Redevelopment, Police Records Manager, Librarian II and Supervising Librarian as set forth in Exhibits A, B and C attached hereto. 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 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: F:\file cabinet\Current Reso's\job specification 2002.doc ATTEST: City Clerk City of South San Francisco Exhibit A Below are the proposed top steps of the salary range for each of the classifications listed in the staff report to which this is attached. The salary changes would be effective July 1, 2002. Please note that these top steps are not inclusive of any COLAs already agreed-upon by their bargaining unit and may have some minor fine-tuning when entered into the payroll system. AFSCME Salary Schedule Title Top Step Librarian II ............................................................................. Monthly Salary Range to $4,908 Lead Public Works Maintenance Worker ............................. Add 5% for specific CWEA certification Mid-Management Salary Schedule Title Top Step Supervising Librarian ............................................................ Monthly Salary Range to $5,400 Financial Services Supervisor ............................................... Monthly Salary Range to $5,489 Manager of Housing and Redevelopment ............................. Monthly Salary Range to $8,665 Police Records Manager ........................................................ Monthly Salary Range to $6,353 JAB-06/I 7/02 F:XFile Cabinet\City CouncilXBudgetX02Budget-PersXExhibit A.doc Exhibits B Attachments Proposed Class Descriptions for: 1. Librarian 1I 2. Supervising Librarian 3. Financial Services Supervisor 4. Manager of Housing and Redevelopment 5. Police Records Manager JAB-06/I 7/02 3:38 PM F:~ile Cabinet\City CouncilXBudget\02Budget-Pers~Exhibit B.doc City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department Financial Services Supervisor Class Description Definition Under general direction, supervises and directly participates in the preparation of Citywide payroll; oversees and coordinates other Citywide business support functions; and performs other related duties as assigned. Distinguishing Characteristics This single position class is distinguished from other classifications by its specialization in payroll administration and other financial support services and the responsibility for supervising the work of assigned staff. Other areas of program responsibility include, but are not limited to, oversight of the business license function and mail courier services. Under direction, the incumbent exercises considerable independence. Important and Essential Duties 1. Coordinates the completion of the payroll through participation and direction of assigned staff; screens incoming personnel payroll documents, and checks non-recurring transactions for accuracy; calculates retroactive pay adjustments and vacation payoffs. 2. Establishes new employee payroll files; makes changes in pay rates and deductions; and reviews and reconciles payroll information provided by departmental personnel; supervises year-end processing and reporting of payroll information. 3. Participates as a member of the management labor negotiations team as assigned and provides staff assistance to the city's chief negotiator; researches and provides information on past practices, and completes negotiations costing work. 4. Supervises issuance and renewal of city business licenses and parking permits; answers questions from the public and oversees computerization and maintenance of related records. 5. Oversees city mail pick-up and delivery system including development and modification of routes, schedule changes, use of offsite storage facilities, and supervision of mail courier. 6. Maintains journals and ledgers of financial transactions; audits payroll reports and checks quarterly payroll tax submissions. 7. Administers the Department's computerized finance system; provides for access security, implements system changes and system modifications through conferring with contract programmers. 8. Performs a variety of research oriented special projects or analyses involving data gathering, data analysis and report preparation. 9. Assigns, prioritizes, reviews the work of subordinate staff; trains and evaluates assigned staff. City of South San Francisco Financial Services Supervisor Class Description Page 2 10. Performs related duties and responsibilities as assigned. Job Related and Essential Qualifications Knowledge of: · Principles, practices, terminology, and forms used in fiscal records management. · Laws and regulations pertaining to all facets of the assigned function. · Personal computer hardware and software, including applications for payroll systems and fiscal records management. · City business license procedures and parking permit requirements. · Basic principles of supervision and office management. · Principles, methods and techniques of public administration. · Standard office administrative practices and procedures, including the use of standard office equipment. · Records management principles and practices. · Research techniques and practices. · Techniques for dealing effectively with the public and City staff, in person and over the telephone. Ability to: · Gather and analyze data with speed and accuracy. · Make arithmetical calculations with speed and accuracy. · Effectively coordinate the processing of the payroll through direct participation and direction of assigned staff. · Effectively prepare and maintain records and reports related to the assigned functions. · Acquire a thorough knowledge of the City's payroll process and of applicable City policies and regulations; · Direct the work of assigned staff. · Prepare clear, concise, and comprehensive reports. · Read, interpret, apply, and explain rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. · Analyze issues and resolve administrative and procedural problems. · Make oral and written presentations and reports, including drawing conclusions and formulating recommendations. · Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing. · Use initiative and independent judgment within established procedural guidelines. · Organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical deadlines. · Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. · Establish and maintain effective working relationships with business owners, employees, city officials, labor unions, and the general public. · Take a proactive approach to customer service issues. · Recommend process improvement changes to streamline procedures. · Work in a safe manner, following City safety practices and procedures. City of South San Francisco Financial Services Supervisor Class Description Page 3 Skill in: · Using a personal computer and related software. Experience and Training Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills, and abilities would be: Experience: Four years of public-sector clerical accounting experience, including at least two years in the maintenance of payroll records. One year of lead experience is desirable. Training: Equivalent to completion of high school supplemented by coursework in bookkeeping or accounting. Licenses and Certificates Possession of, or ability to obtain, an appropriate, valid California driver's license, which must be maintained as a condition of employment Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment: Physical Skills: Sit, stand, walk, kneel, stoop, twist, lift 35 pounds; and maintain sustained posture in a seated or standing position for prolonged periods of time. Work Environment: Work in a standard office environment; ability to work protracted and irregular hours, and available for evening meetings. Ability to: Travel to different sites and locations. Approved: Revised Date: Former Titles: Abolished: Bargaining Unit: ADA Review: DOT: Physical: Status: EEOC Category: Job Code: July 1999 July 1997, January, 2002 Payroll Coordinator Payroll Coordinator abolished 2002 Mid-management 1994/95, April 2002 Yes Class 3 Classified/Non-exempt EF1LEJ3 M540 City of South San Francisco Financial Services Supervisor Class Description Page 4 ADA Documentation of Essential Duties 1. SDE 2. SWE 3. SAE 4. SDE 5. SDE 6. SDE 7. SDE 8. SAE 9. SDE 06/17/02 5:38 PM sSadmin\class descriptions\finance\fss.doc City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department Librarian I/II Class Description Definition Under general supervision, performs professional library work that may be assigned to any phase of library operations and may be rotated among services, such as children's, adult reference, circulation, technical processing, and the branch library services; incumbents oversee the work of full-time, part-time, and volunteer staff; does related work as required. Distinguishing Characteristics A position in this class may be assigned to any phase of library operations and may be rotated among services, such as children's, adult reference, circulation, technical processing, and branch library. The Librarian I is the entry level in the professional librarian series. At this level, incumbents learn and perform a limited range of the less complex or specialized work tasks, under closer supervision with less latitude for independent action. This class is alternately staffed with Librarian II and incumbents may advance to the higher-level class after gaining the experience, demonstrating knowledge and skill, and consistently performing work of the higher-level classification. The Librarian II is the experienced, journey-level in the professional librarian series. At this level, incumbents perform the full range of tasks common to the classification series, under less supervision, while exercising discretion and independent judgment within established guidelines. This class is distinguished from Supervising Librarian in that the latter is a full supervisory class and may direct the work of professional librarians and library support staff. Important and Essential Duties 1. Assists patrons in making effective use of library facilities; answers reference questions and trains the public on the use of on-line services and reference sources. 2. Develops and presents programs directed at interests of various patron groups. 3. Assists in cataloging and classifying print and non-print materials. 4. Ensures adequate collection coverage in assigned areas by assessing, evaluating, selecting, and deselecting materials under the direction of a supervisor. 5. Assists in directing a library program or may assume complete responsibility for a sub- program. 6. Coordinates assigned program functions with other Department units and other library systems. 7. Prepares reports, maintains records, and attends meetings. City of South San Francisco Librarian I/II Class Description Page 2 8. Oversees and supervises the work of full-time, part-time, and volunteer staff, as needed. 9. Monitors or assists in materials and supplies budget. 10. Performs outreach to the community, community organizations, and schools. 11. Plans and prepares exhibits, book lists, and displays. 12. Performs related duties as assigned. Job Related and Essential Qualifications Knowledge of' · Professional library principles, practices and procedures. · Library classification and cataloging procedures. · Books and authors, standard bibliographies, and other reference materials. Computer system applications to library operations. · General principles of supervision. Ability to: Effectively conduct assigned department sub-programs. · Acquire a working knowledge of department policies. · Acquire a working knowledge of community needs and interests, and resources available to meet them. · Effectively promote usage of library facilities and involvement in its programs. · Effectively direct the work of others. · Apply computer programs to the assigned function. · Maintain effective working relationships with those contracted in the course of work. · Communicate effectively in writing and verbally. · Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing. · Use initiative and independent judgment with established policy and procedural guidelines. · Organize own work, set priorities, meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assignments with a minimum of direction. · Represent the City and the department effectively in contacts with representatives of other agencies, City departments, and the public. · Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in 'the course of the work. · Take a proactive approach to customer service issues. · Make process improvement changes to streamline procedures. · Work in a safe manner, following City safety practices and procedures. ·Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. Skill In: · Some positions may require bilingual skill. · Data entry into a standard computer with speed and accuracy sufficient to perform assigned work. City of South San Francisco Librarian I/II Class Description Page 3 Experience and Training Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge, skills and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills and abilities would be: Experience: At Librarian I: None. At Librarian II: Two years of increasingly responsible professional-level municipal library experience. Training: At both levels: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university and a Master's of Library Science from a university accredited by the American Library Association. Licenses and Certificates Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid appropriate, valid California driver's license, which must be maintained as a condition of employment. Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment: Physical Skills: Ability to sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, stoop, squat, and twist; ability to lift 35 pounds. Work Environment: Work in a standard library environment. Ability to: Travel to different sites and work irregular hours. Approved: October 1993 Revised Date: August 1997, February 2002 Former Titles: Abolished: Bargaining Unit: AFSCME ADA Review: t 994/95 DOT: Yes Physical: Class 3 Status: Classified/Non-exempt EEOC Category: EF15/EJ2 Job Code: A210 ADA Documentation of Essential Duties 1. SDE 2. SWE 3. SDE 4. MME 5. SDE 6. MAE 7. MAE 8. SDE City of South San Francisco Librarian I/II Class Description Page 4 9. MAE 10. OAE 11. MAE 4/11/00 S:XAdmin\Class Descriptions~Library~Librarian l-lI.rtf City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department Manager of Housing and Redevelopment Class Description Definition Under general direction, manages housing production, housing rehabilitation, and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) projects for the City; prepares and administers project budgets involving the use of federal and state funds; and does related work as required. Distinguishing Characteristics This single-position classification is a division head. Areas of program responsibilities include, but are not limited to, implementing RDA plans and capital projects, housing production and rehabilitation, real property acquisition and management, seismic retrofits, affordable housing promotion, community development block grants (CDBG), and supervisions of staff and consultants. This class is distinguished from City Planner in that the latter is responsible for current and advance planning, environmental and design review, and zoning administration. This class is distinguished from the department head in that the latter has overall responsibility for economic and community development including housing and RDA administration, and supervises this classification. Important and Essential Duties 1. Participates in planning, developing, and administering housing, community development, and RDA projects and programs for the City; assists in the negotiation of Owner Participation and Disposition and Redevelopment Agreements. 2. Manages the implementation of RDA plans and commercial capital improvement projects; oversees property appraisal and property acquisition, negotiation of low-moderate income housing agreements, and housing productions and rehabilitation activities. 3. Provides construction management oversight for the City and RDA capital projects; hires construction contractors and consultants; supervises their work, and reviews/approves invoices for payment; makes site visits to construction locations to monitor work in progress. 4. Identifies funding sources, applies for state and federal funds, and obtains construction financing for projects; prepares and administers CDBG and RDA funds and budgets; prepares and submits various budgetary documents to funding agencies; manages affordable housing construction loan portfolio 5. Prepares staff analyses and reports for RDA, City Council, and Planning Commission relative to areas of program responsibilities; attends meetings of public bodies, explain staff analyses, and responds to questions from elected or appointed officials. 6. Coordinates program activities with other departments and divisions; attends community meetings, represents the department and City, and promotes good community relations; City of South San Francisco Manager of Housing and Redevelopment Class Description Page 2 investigates and resolves citizen complaints and concerns; applies the principles of good customer service and instills it in staff members. 7. Prepares the annual budget request for the division; estimates staffing, equipment, and supply needs based upon recent trends and planned activities; monitors expenditures after budget adoption; oversees disposition of surplus materials; approves purchase requisitions. 8. Interviews and selects new staff; prioritizes, develops, and revises staff work schedules; assigns and reviews work; approves time off for payroll purposes, and prepares and conducts employee performance evaluations. 9. Performs related duties and responsibilities as assigned. Job Related and Essential Qualifications Knowledge of' · Housing acquisition and rehabilitation programs and regulations pertaining to them, including eligibility, budgeting, processing, environment, and citizen participation. · Principles and practices of community planning, redevelopment, and economic development. · Principles and practices relating to loan procurement and administration. · Principles and practices of budget and personnel management. · Principles and practices of housing and commercial construction and development. Ability to: · Effectively administer assigned housing programs within requirements and guidelines established by the City and funding agencies. · Acquire a thorough knowledge of applicable City and department policies and regulations. · Maintain effective liaison with other City departments and other agencies and deal successfully with the public and community groups. · Communicate effectively in writing and verbally. · Effectively supervise and direct the work of staff. · Prepare complex reports and analyses; prepare clear, concise, and complete written reports. · Communicate clearly and concisely, both verbally and in writing. · Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing. · Use initiative and independent judgment with established policy and procedural guidelines. · Organize own work, set priorities, meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assignments with a minimum of direction. · Represent the City and the department effectively in contacts with representatives of other agencies, City departments, and the public. · Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in the course of the work. · Take a proactive approach to customer service issues. · Make process improvement changes to streamline procedures. · Work in a safe manner, following City safety practices and procedures. · Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. Skill in: · Using a standard computer with speed and accuracy sufficient to perform assigned work. City of South San Francisco Manager of Housing and Redevelopment Class Description Page 3 Experience and Training Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills, and abilities would be: Experience: Four years of increasingly responsible experience involving housing and related programs, with an additional one year of lead experience. Training: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major course work in city planning, public administration, economics, or a related field. Licenses and Certificates Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid, appropriate California driver's license and a satisfactory driving record, which must be maintained as a condition of employment. Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment:: Physical skills: mobility to work in a typical office setting with some exposure to outdoors, to use standard office equipment, including a computer, vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone; lifting of boxes, files, and materials of up to 35 pounds. Work environment: a typical office setting with some exposure to outdoors. Specified positions may require extended hours or off-shift work for meeting attendance or participation in specific projects or programs. Ability to: travel to various sites throughout the City Approved: Revised Date: Former Titles: Abolished: Bargaining Unit: ADA Review: DOT: Physical: Status: EEOC Category: Job Code: June 2002 CDBG Coordinator, Manager of Housing and Community Development CDBG Coordinator abolished July 1997; Manager of Housing and Community Development abolished June 2002 Mid-management 1994/95 Yes Class 3 Unclassified/exempt EF9XEJ2 M145 ADA Documentation of Essential Duties 1. SDE 2. MWE City of South San Francisco Manager of Housing and Redevelopment Class Description Page 4 3. SDE 4. MWE 5. OAE 6. MME 7. MAE 8. SDE 06/17/02 5:41 PM s:XadminXclass descriptions~ecd'angr housing&conmaunity development.doc City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department Supervising Librarian Class Description Definition Under general direction, supervises a primary library program or a branch library; supervises a variety of full and part-time employees, including professional, paraprofessional, clerical, and volunteer staff; does related work as required. Distinguishing Characteristics This is a full supervisory class in the professional librarian series. This classification differs from that of Librarian I and 1I in that incumbents will be responsible for complete Library programs or operating units of the Library, and the Librarian I and 11 classifications have significantly lesser program responsibilities. This classification differs from that of Library Program Manager in that the Manager classification has direct responsibility for the most comprehensive and 'complex, primary Library Department programs. Important and Essential Duties 1. Oversees the operations of the Branch Library or administers a primary department program. 2. Supervises employees, providing training and staff development; schedules work hours; evaluates performance and makes recommendations for employee actions. 3. Assists with the budget, and monitors program/branch budgetary expenditures, as appropriate. 4. Performs a variety of professional library tasks, including technical processing, circulation, and reference. Selects, or assists in the selection of books, periodicals, and other materials. Represents the department at meetings and other professional events. Directs or performs classification, cataloging, and processing of books and other materials. Maintains records, prepares reports, and compiles data; makes oral and written presentations. Assesses community needs and interests, and develops resources to meet them. Promotes patron usage of facilities and involvement in programs. Performs related duties and responsibilities as assigned. o 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Job Related and Essential Qualifications Knowledge of' · Modem professional library principles, practices, and procedures. · Modem techniques regarding the processing and circulation of library materials. Books and authors, standard bibliographies, and other reference materials. · Community needs and interests. City of South San Francisco Supervising Librarian Class Description Page 2 · Local and regional resources. · Principles and practices of supervision, training, and employee development. Ability To: · Conduct assigned department programs. · Effectively promote usage of library facilities and involvement in its programs. · Perform a variety of professional library work, including technical processing, circulation, and reference. · Maintain effective working relationships with others, including other library systems, community organizations, and patrons. · Prepare and present oral and written reports. · Effectively supervise and direct the work of staff. · Prepare complex reports and analyses; prepare clear, concise, and complete written reports. · Communicate clearly and concisely, both verbally and in writing. · Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing. · Use initiative and independent judgment with established policy and procedural guidelines. · Organize own work, set priorities, meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assignments with a minimum of direction. · Represent the City and the department effectively in contacts with representatives of other agencies, City departments, and the public. · Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in the course of the work. · Take a proactive approach to customer service issues. · Make process improvement changes to streamline procedures. · Work in a safe manner, following City safety practices and procedures. · Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. Skill In: · Some positions may require bilingual skill in Spanish. · Using a standard computer with speed and accuracy sufficient to perform assigned work. Experience and Training Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills, and abilities would be: Experience: Three years of increasingly responsible professional municipal library experience. Training: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university and a Master's of Library Science from a university accredited by the American Library Association. Licenses and Certificates Possession of, or the ability to obtain, a valid appropriate California Driver's license, which must be maintained as a condition of employment. City of South San Francisco Supervising Librarian Class Description Page 3 Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment: Physical Skills: Ability to sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, stoop, squat, crawl, and twist, and lift 35 pounds. Work Environment: Work in a standard library environment. Ability to: Travel to different sites and locations and work extended hours or off-shift work for meeting attendance or participation in specific projects or programs. Approved: Revised Date: Former Titles: Abolished: Bargaining Unit: ADA Review: DOT: Physical: Status: EEOC Category: Job Code: April 1994 August 1999, November 1998, April 1995, January, 2002 Librarian II Mid-management 1994/95, April 2002 No Class D Classified/Exempt EF15XEJ2 M ADA Documentation of Essential Duties 1. SDE 2. SDE 3. SAE 4. SDE 5. SDE 6. MAE 7. SDE 8. SDE 9. SDE 10. SDE 06/17/02 5:42 PM s3admin~class descriptionsXlibraryXsupervising librarian.doc EXHIBIT C NEW POSITIONS Supervising Librarian POSITION TITLE CHANGES Administrative Assistant I Lead Public Works Maintenance Worker (1 position) Manager of Housing and Community Development Payroll Coordinator Administrative Assistant 1/ Lead Public Works Maintenance Worker Manager of Housing and Redevelopment Financial Services Supervisor DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources Amendment to Chapter 3.12 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code RECOMNmNDATION Waive reading and introduce the ordinance, which amends Chapter 3.12 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to implement Council-approved position title additions, deletions, and/or changes. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Municipal Code, Chapter 3.12 is updated during the budget process and periodically as positions are renamed, reclassified, developed, and/or deleted from the competitive and non-competitive service. During fiscal year 2001-02, a classification review was undertaken of several positions, resulting in recommended job titles, job duties, and salary changes. As a result, the following additions, deletions, and changes to the Municipal Code are recommended. Add to the Municipal Code: Title Fire Apparatus Engineer ......................................... Literacy Services Assistant ..................................... Supervising Librarian ............................................. Reason Position added to the classified service as a result of negotiations. Title change as a result of a combining several classifications. Title change as a result of a reclassification study. Delete from the Municipal Code: Title Adult Day Care Coordinator .................................. Assistant City Attorney .......................................... Assistant Mechanic/Machinist - WQC ................... Associate Engineer - grant funded ......................... Reason Title no longer used. Title no longer used. Title no longer used. Position no longer used. JAB-06/18/02 F:hCile Cabinet\City Council\BudgetX02Budget-PersX/Vluni Code.doc Staff Report Subject: Amendment to Municipal Code, Chapter 3.12 Page 2 Delete from the Municipal Code (Continued): Title Building Maintenance Supervisor .......................... Capital Project Coordinator .................................... City Attorney .......................................................... Construction Inspector - grant-funded ................... Deputy City Attorney ............................................. Director of WQCP .................................................. Economic Development Coordinator ..................... Garage Supervisor .................................................. Reason Title no longer used. Title no longer used. Title no longer used. Position no longer used. Position no longer used. Title no longer used. Position no longer used. Title no longer used. Instrument Technician ............................................ Title no longer used. Instrumentation Technician .................................... Lead Maintenance Worker (WQCP) ...................... Management Assistant ........................................... Maintenance Supervisor - water quality control .... Management Analyst Ifil listed in 3.12.010 (B) ..... Mechanic' s Helper ................................................. Operations Supervisor - water quality control ....... Personnel Clerk ...................................................... Public Works Supervisor ........................................ Solid Waste Coordinator ........................................ Telecommunications Specialist .............................. Typist Clerk - grant-funded ................................... Position no longer used. Title no longer used. Position no longer used. Position no longer used. Position already listed in 3.12.010(A) Title no longer used. Position no longer used. Title no longer used. Title no longer used. Title no longer used. Title no longer used. Title no longer used. Change in the Municipal Code: Fi'om Assistant Fire Chief .................. Assistant Plant Superintendent - WQCP .................................... Chief Planner ............................ Laboratory Chemist - WQC ..... Deputy Fire Chief ..................... Assistant Plant Superintendent .......................... City Planner .............................. Laboratory Chemist .................. Laboratory Supervisor- WQC Laboratory Supervisor .............. Maintenance Worker - Parks .... Park Maintenance Worker ........ Maintenance Worker - Public Works ....................................... Manager Housing and Community Development ........ Public Works Maintenance Worker ...................................... Manager of Housing and Redevelopment ......................... Reason Title change as a result of a reorganization. Title change forconsistency. Title change for consistency. Title change as a result of a labor agreement. Title change as a result of a labor agreement. Title change for consistency. Title change for consistency. Title change as a result of a reclassification study. JAB-06/17/02 F:Wile Cabinet\City Council\Budget~2Budget-PersxMuni Code.doc Staff Report Subject: Amendment to Municipal Code, Chapter 3.12 Page 3 Change in the Municipal Code From · Operator I, WQC ...................... Operator 1I, WQC ..................... Payroll Coordinator .................. Parking Meter Collector - repairman .................................. Pre school Coordinator ............. Tutor Student Coordinator ....... Utility Worker, WQC ............... (Continued): To Plant Operator I ........................ Plant Operator 1/ ....................... Financial Services Supervisor .. Parking Meter Collector - Repair Worker .......................... Reason Title change as a result of a labor agreement. Title change as a result of a labor agreement. Title change as a result of a reclassification study. Title change for consistency. Recreation and Community Title change to combine several Services Coordinator ................ classifications. Literacy Services Coordinator Title change to better reflect )osition duties. Plant Utility Worker ................. Title change for consistency. Change in the Municipal Code from Non-competitive to Competitive Service: Title Change the lead sentence of this section [3.12.010(b)] to read, The following positions and officers shall not be included in the competitive service, which shall also include any and all grant-[unded positions. Reason This ensures that the municipal code is clear that any grant-funded positions is not in the competitive service, as some grant-funded and some regular positions have the same titles. Courier .................................................................... Change to correct the municipal code. Police Corporal ....................................................... Change to correct the municipal code. Police Services Technician ..................................... Change to correct the municipal code. By: Di~oniffeHruAn~aBn °;e~;urces Approved:~ff/J~ Michael A. Wilson City Manager JAB-06/17/02 F:XFile Cabinet\City CouncilXBudget~02Budget-PershMuni Code.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.12.010 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. SECTION 3.12.010 IS HEREBY AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Ao SUBDIVISION (a) (1): (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Delete the position of "Instrumentation Technician." Delete the position of "Lead Maintenance Worker (WQCP)." Delete the position of "Management Assistant." Delete the position of "Personnel Clerk." Add position "Courier." Add position "Housing and Commercial Rehab Specialist." Change "Payroll Coordinator" to "Financial Services Supervisor." Change "Parking Meter Collector- Repairman" to "Parking Meter Collector- Repair Worker." SUBDIVISION (a)(2): (1) Add position "Literary Services Assistant." (2) Add position "Supervising Librarian." (3) Change "Student Teacher Coordinator" to "Literary Services Coordinator." SUBDIVISION (a)(3)(a): (1) Add position "Police Corporal." (2) Add position "Police Services Technician." SUBDIVISION (a)(3)(B): (1) Delete the position of "Deputy Fire Chief." (2) Add position "Fire Apparatus Engineer." SUBDIVISION (a)(4) (1) (2) (3) (4) Delete the position of "Capital Project Coordinator." Delete the position of "Garage Supervisor." Delete the position of "Maintenance Supervisor- water quality control." Delete the position of "Solid Waste Coordinator." Fo SUBDIVISION (a)(5): (1) Delete the position of "Assistant Mechanic/Machinist-WQC." (2) (3) (4) Delete the position of "Operations Supervisor-WQC." Delete the position of "Public Works Supervisor." Change "Assistant Plant Superintendent-WQCP" to "Assistant Plant Superintendent." SUBDIVISION (a)(6): (1) Delete the position of "Adult Day Care Coordinator." (2) Delete the position of "Building Maintenance Supervisor." (3) Change "Pre school Coordinator" to "Recreation and Community Services Coordinator." SUBDIVISION (a)(7): (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Delete the position of "Instrument Technician." Delete the position of "Mechanic's Helper." Delete the position of "Telecommunications Specialist." Change "Laboratory Chemist-WQC" to "Laboratory Chemist." Change "Laboratory Supervisor-WQC" to "Laboratory Supervisor." Change "Maintenance Worker- Parks" to "Park Maintenance Worker." Change "Maintenance Worker- Public Works" to "Public Works Maintenance Worker." Change "Operator I, WQC" to "Plant Operator I." Change "Operator II, WQC" to "Plant Operator II." Change "Utility Worker, WQC" to "Plant Utility Worker." I. SUBDIVISION (b) Change the lead sentence of this section to read: "All the grant-funded positions and the following positions and officers shall not be included in the competitive service. SUBDIVISION (b) (1) Delete the position (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Delete the position Delete the position Delete the position Delete the pos~t~on Delete the pos~t~on Delete the pos~t~on Delete the pos~t~on Delete the pos~t~on Delete the posmon Delete the pos~t~on of "Assistant City Attorney." of "Associate Engineer- grant funded." of "City Attorney." of "Construction Engineer- grant-funded." of "Courier." of "Deputy City Attorney." of "Director of WQCP." of "Economic Development Coordinator." of "Management Analyst I/II." of "Police Corporal." of "Police service technician." 2 (12) (13) (14) Add the position of "Deputy Fire Chief." Change "Chief Planner" to "City Planner." Change "Manager Housing and Community Development" to Manager of Housing and Redevelopment." SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the ~ day of ,2002. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this ~ day of ,2001. Mayor Staff.Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance Master Fee Schedule Revisions for 2002-03 Recommendations It is recommended that the City Council, following a public hearing, adopt a resolution modifying certain sections of the Master Fee Schedule for the 2002-03 fiscal year. Background/Discussion Annually, staff reviews existing fees and charges as part of the budget development process. The following modifications to the Master Fee Schedule are recommended to cover increased or previously unidentified areas of costs to the City, and to eliminate discontinued fees. Details appear in Exhibits A through C, which are attached to the proposed resolution. Sewer and Stormwater Fees are not included in this report, as Public Works received approval for those fees from the City Council on June 12, 2002. City Clerk A Passport Execution Fee in the amount of $30 per person, effective August 19, 2002, is added in Chapter 1. Parks, Recreation & Maintenance Services (Exhibit A) Increases in existing charges are proposed to cover increasing operating costs for most recreation programs. Most of these fees have not been changed since FY 2000-2001. Fire Department - Emergency Services Division (Exhibit B) New fees to cover new life support training classes for the public and outside agencies. RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MODIFYING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE 2002-03 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, staff recommends the modifications to the Master Fee Schedule as shown in Exhibit A through D, attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco the City Council hereby approves certain sections of the Master Fee Schedule for the 2002-03 Fiscal Year. 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 ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: FAille cabinet\Current Reso's\6-26master.fee.schedule.rev.res.doc City Clerk EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 4 By Resolution of the Parks and Recreation Commission Parks, Recreation & Maintenance Services Department Unless noted otherwise, all fees were adopted on June 28, 2000 in Resolution #77-00. Child Care Programs Resident Non-Resident Traditional Summer Camp $105.00 $120.00 Per Week Spring Camp Winter Camp $2~ ~n e~ ~n $25.00 $30.00 $25.00 $30.00 Per Day Per Day ~ELIMINA TED] T~. r~ .... Before/After School Day Camp Kindergartners Full-time $15.75 $17.00 Per Day: Part-time Full-time 1 st 6tS 1-5th Grade $17.50 · IA ~ $1.6.00 Per Day Per Day Part-time $!5.75 $1.6.50 Per Day: Before School Care, 7:30 - 8:30 AM $1.2.00 Per Week, when added to fees above $27.00 Per Week, when enrolled morning only Pre-School Child Care Half-day Full-day Resident Non-Resident $16.00 $18.00 $19.00 $21.00 S20.00 S22.00 Per Day Per Day Late Pick-up All Child Care Programs Processing Fee/New Enrollment for Pre-School and After-School Recreation Programs $1.00 $1.00 $40.00 S45.00 For each minute after closing time. r.~.;..;... time r, ......... ~ Per Application Late Fees/Tuition $15.00 Per Month, for payments made after the fifth working day of the month Aquatic Classes Adult Admission Adult Script Adult Script (Senior) Child Admission Child Script Resident Non-Resident $3.00 $3.00 $16.50 S10~0 $1]sY~t)l~-~ $2.00 $2.00 S10.00 $20.00 Per Admission 10 Admissions 10 Admissions Per Admission 10 Admissions Family Swim Infant Water Orientation Baby/Aqua Tots Child Lessons Saturday Weekday Adult Lessons Private Lessons Semi-Private Lessons Saturday Weekday Adult Fitness Adult Aquatic Exercise Masters Water Safety Instructor Resident $2.75 S3.00 SQ "7~ $9.25 GQ '7~ $9.25 $9.25 $7.40 $9.25 $40.00 $17.00 $17.75 $14.20 $2.70 $3.13 $4.25 $37.99 $39.OO $50.00 3 Non-Resident $3.00 $11.75 $11.75 $11.75 $9.40 $11.75 $50.00 $20.25 $16.20 Ga 15 $4.38 $5.25 $46.00 $6O.OO Per Family Admission Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Monthly Per Session Resident Non-Resident Lifeguard Training Pool Rental Participants 0to 30 31 to 60 61 to 100 Picnic Fees Application Processing Orange Park Eucalyptus Shelter 15 tables Orange Park Area #2 (5 tables) Orange Park Area #3 (2 tables) Alta Loma Area #1 (6 tables) Alta Loma Area #2 (2 tables) Alta Loma Area #3 (2 tables) Avalon Park (5 small tables) $55.00 Resident $80.00 $95.00 $105.00 $110.00 $20.00 $25.00 $1.80.00 $50.00 $60.00 $24.00 $72.00 $20.90 $24.00 $24.00 $50.00 $65.00 Non-Resident $90.00 $105.00 $115.00 S120.00 $20.00' $25.00 $190.00 $70.00 $34.00 $82.00 $34.00 $34.00 $60.00 Per Session Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Permit, added to each rental Per Day, 7 hours 10:00 AM - 5 PM Per Day Per Day Per Day Per Day Per Day Per Day Resident Non-Resident Buri Buri Park I (6 tables) Buri Buri Park II (2 tables) Buri Buri Park III (3 tables) Buri Buri Park IV (3 tables) Sellick Park (4 small tables) Westborough Park (6 tables and shelter) $72.00 $24.00 $36.00 $36.00 $40.00 $82.00 $82.00 $34.00 $46.00 $46.00 $50.00 $92.00 Per Day Per Day Per Day Per Day Per Day Per Day Sports Programs and Facilities Adult Softball League Resident $57.00 Non- Resident Per Game Per Game Adult Basketball $57.00 Per Game Field Lights $21.00 $26.OO $31.00 $26.00 $31.00 $36.00 Per Hour Per 1.5 Hours Per 2 Hours Field Preparation General Affiliated League Resident Non-Resident $25.00 q~< aa $26.00 $36.00 $24.00 $36.00 Per Preparation Per Preparation Gymnasium Rental (School District gymnasium- additional fee is payable to SSFUSD.) $18.00 Per Hour Tee Ball Youth Soccer Class Youth Basketball Class $49.09 $47.09 $42.00 $52.00 Per 8-Week Session &~.00 cA,v nn Per 8-Week $42.00 $52.00 Session 4&00 ~¢bT--:00 Per 8-Week 42.00 $52.1)0 Session Terrabay Gymnasium Sports Fees Terrabay fees were adopted on July 14, 2000 in Resolution #101-99. Resident Non-Resident Adult Volleyball League Non-Resident Surcharge $26.00 $12.00 Per Team per Game Per Non-Resident Player Facility Fees Municipal Services Building Resident Non-Resident Social Hall w/kitchen & one- hour use of Atrium $140.00 $155.00 Per Hour; 6-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups $I10.00 $115.00 Per hour Resident Non-Resident Atrium kitchen (As add-on to Social Hall only) $70.00 Per Hour; ~2-Hour Minimum HANGEDI Non-Profit groups $55.00 Per Hour; 5-Hour Minimum Social Hall $140.00 $150.00 Per Hour; 5-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups $119.00 $115.00 Per Hour Social Hall w/o kitchen $130.00 S145.00 Per Hour; 5-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups 1OA AA $105.00 Per Hour Atrium/Made Peterson Room w/kitchen $95.00 $105.00 Per Hour; 5-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups $75.00 Per hour; 5-Hour Minimum Atrium w/kitchen "5 $85.00 $9..00 Per Hour; 4-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups $65.00 Per Hour; 4-Hour Minimum Marie Peterson Room w/kitchen $75.00 $85.00 Per Hour; 4-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups $~N AA $65.00 Per Hour; 4-Hour Minimum Marie Peterson Room w/o kitchen $~N NN ¢~N NN $65.00 $75.00 Per Hour; 4-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups $55.00 Per Hour; 4-Hour Minimum Betty Weber Room $45.00 e<n nn $50.00 $55.00 Per Hour; 1-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups Resident S45.00 Fees for the use of the Community Room, Betty Weber Room, and the Multi-Use and Activity Rooms in the Westborough Park Building apply to business meetings and seminars only. Resident Non-Resident Community Room w/o kitchen, no food. $~a aa inn aa Per Hour; 2-Hour $85.00 $95.00 Minimum Non-Profit groups ,~a~ rm Per Hour; 2-Hour $65.00 Minimum Cra~ Room ¢<a aa ¢<< aa $55.00 $60.00 Per Hour; 2-Hour Minimum Non-Profit groups $~ < aa Per Hour; 2-Hour $50.00 Minimum Westborough Park Building Multi-Use/Activity Rooms w/kitchen Non-Profit groups Multi-Use Room w/kitchen Non-Profitgroups Activity Room w/kitchen Non-Profit groups $105.00 $120.00 PerHour; 5-Hour $110.00 $1.25.00 Minimum ~ aa Per Hour; 5-Hour $90.00 Minimum co< aa $! ~ a aa. Per Hour; 5-Hour $100.00 $115.00 Minimum $75.00 Per Hour; 5-Hour $80.00 Minimum $-~ aa ¢~< aa Per Hour; 4-Hour $80.00 $90.00 Minimum ea~ aa Per Hour; 4-Hour $70.00 Minimum 8 Resident Non-Resident Multi-Use Room for business meetings and seminars only $75.00 $85.00 Per Hour; 2-Hour $80.00 $90.00 Minimum Non Profit groups Sgn an Per Hour; 2-Hour $65.00 Minimum Activity Room for business meetings and seminars only $60.00 ,, ,,.,,,,'~'*n aa Per Hour; 2-Hour $65.00 $75.00 Minimum Non-Profit groups SAn nn Per Hour; 2-Hour $45.00 Minimum Quiet Room (no food) ca< an cAa an Per Hour; 2-Hour $40.00 $45.00 Minimum Non-Profit groups -,a an Per Hour; 2-Hour $35.00 Minimum Group Set-up charges {An an Sd0.00 Per Hour $45.00 $45.00 Fees ,,c ¢an nt~ $45.00 for the first hour and 30.00 $35.00 for each additional hour will be charged during non-regularly scheduled hours requiring staff to be on duty. ICHANGEDI Terraba¥ Recreation Center All fees adopted July 14, 1999 in Resolution #101-99. Resident Non-Resident Iris Room 1 & 2 w/kitchen, gym and Poppy Room $1'~n nn q21A< nn Per Hour, 3 $1.45.00 $1.50.00 Hour Minimum Non-Profit Groups $110.00 Iris Room 1 & 2 w/kitchen and Poppy Room Saa nth ¢ 1 aa aa Per Hour, 3 $95.00 $105.00 Hour Minimum Non-Profit Groups $70.00 $75.OO 9 Resident Non- Resident Iris Room 1 & 2 w/kitchen and Gym Non-Profit Groups Ihs Room 1 & 2 w/kitchen Non-Profit Groups Gymnasium Non-Profit Groups Ihs Room 1 & 2 w/o kitchen Non-Profit Groups Poppy Room w/o kitchen * Non-Profit Groups Iris Room 1 with kitchen Non-Profit Groups Ihs Room 1 w/o kitchen * Non-Profit Groups $105.00 $110.00 $85.00 $65.00 $75.90 $70.00 $80.00 $60.00 $80.00 $90.00 $70.00 $60.00 $70.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $50.00 $55.00 $60.00 $50.00 $50.00 $55.00 $45.00 Per Hour, 3 Hour Minimum Per Hour, 3 Hour Minimum Per Hour, 3 Hour Minimum Per Hour, 2 Hour Minimum Per Hour, 2 Hour Minimum Per Hour, 2 Hour Minimum Per Hour, 2 Hour Minimum 10 Iris Room 2 with kitchen Non-Profit Groups Iris Room 2 w/o kitchen * Non-Profit Groups * Rates are for business meetings/seminars only Resident $55.00 $50.00 $50.00 $45.00 Non- Resident $60.00 $55.OO Per Hour, 2 Hour Minimum Per Hour, 2 Hour Minimum Reservation Deposits (deducted from total rental fee) ICHANGEDI MSB Atrium & AJB MSB Social Hall Westborough Building Terrabay Recreation Center Damage/Overtime/Clean-up Deposit (refundable if no violation) ~ MSB Atrium & A/B MSB Social Hall Westborough Building Terrabay Recreation Center $300.00 $350.00 $300.00 $250.00 $100.00 $300.00 $5O0.OO $300.00 $250.00 Per Rental Per Rental Per Rental Per Rental Per Rental Per Rental Per Rental Per Rental Insurance (Subject to charge of insurance company on year to year basis) Group Set-up Charges $95.00 to $140.00 $45.00 Per Day Event, depending on the facility and size of the group .. CHANGED Per Hour 11 Camps at Terrabay All fees adopted-July 14, 1999 in Resolution # 101-99, except where noted Enrichment Camps $150.00 Per Week Sports Camps $150.00 Per Week Enrichment and Sports Camps core programs are 10 ant to 4 pm. Fees include before and after camp care, available frotn 7:30 ant to 10 am, and 4pm to 6pm. ~LIMINA TED[ Theatre A~s ~ Math mhd Sc;~n~ Camp Spots ~ .... C~V;.~ Camp A ~ ARer o~- o~-~ (4 5 PM) [CHANGE~ $199.00 P-er---W-e~ $125.00 P-er--We~ $130.00 P-er--We~ $1~n nn ~ $1~n nn ~ $130.00 ~ $39.00 Per Week Add (Non-residents pay an additional $I 3.OO $15.00 per week.) 12 After-School Sports Program Playground Sports Clinic Playground Sports Program Resident S35.00 $30.00 $35.00 Non-Resident $35.00 $35.00 Per 6-Hour Session Per League Fun Run Before Event Day of Event $18.00 $17.00 $20.00 Per Entry Per Entry Middle School Sports Football, Volleyball, Basketball, Soccer, Track & Field, Cheerleading $45.00 Tennis Classes [CHANGEDI Non-Resident class fees add $7 $.10 per session. All fees are on an hourly basis, unless noted otherwise. Junior Team Tennis ~ $4.66 Private Lesson ...... $23.34 Semi-Private Lessons $17.00 Group Lessons 4 students $6.66 5 students $5.25 $6.00 6 students $4--.50 $5.17 Per Session for each sport or activity Per Hour ICLARIFICATIOI~ Per Person, per hour C Amr cAr oN Per Person, per hour [CLARIFICA TIO~ Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour 13 WolfPack (6 students) $6.O0 Per Hour Pee Wee Tennis $5.00 Per Hour Pre-School Classes ~HANGEDI Non-Resident class fees add $7 SlOper session. All fees are on an hourly basis. Alphabet Adventures ~-~ S3.15 Baby Gym I & II S4.10 Kids Krafts Klub ~ $2.85 EL IMINA TE Kids Kinderclass (new format) $3.15 Kindergarten Readiness $3.45 Kinderplay S3.45 Kinderskills S3.45 Little Cooks $4.09 $4.20 Mexican Folk Dance $2.00 Move ~vith Music ~-~ S3.70 Pre-Ballet $4.!0 S4.50 14 Pre-Gymnastics Pre-K (2 days per week) Pre-Kindergarten q2"l QFI $4.00 $3.15 $3.15 Science Discovery Toddlergarten ELIMINATE Tot ~ ..... (2 ~' ............. ~'~ Tot-Explorers (evenings) Tot Tappers Tot Time ~-~ Tumbling/Exercise $4.15 $1.80. $1.90 $2.85 $3.90 $2.40 $4.00 Children's Classes [CHANGED1 Non-Resident class fees add $7 $10 per session. All fees are on an hourly basis. Art Adventures 6.50 Ballet ~ L IMINA T~ Intro $4.50 Levels I to IV $4.50 Levels V to VII q2A /hth $4.50 15 Cheerleading ~ Cooking for Kids ELIMINATE Eskrima ~-~ ~.LIMIN/tT~J Guitar for Electric Bass Gymnastics Levels I & II Levels III & IV Levels I - IV ELIMINATE T~; o1~ l-~ .... Karate Kids Kraft Klub Mexican Folk Dance Piano (Group) Piano (Private) Piano Readiness $3.15 $4.20 $3.15 $4.20 $9.00 $3.55 $3.55 ~'1 Ath $3.55 $2.00 $2.55 $2.00 $5.00 $25.OO $5.75 $6.25 g? A "'/~ $5.00 16 Per Half Hour Per Hour For each 15 minutes Tap Dance Teen Modeling T~ TI ,,~,,-t TIT Tumbling..., Voice (Group) Voice (:Private) $4.15 $6.00 $3.70 S12.50 Per Half Hour Adult Classes ~HANGED] Non-Resident class fees add $ 7 $10. O0 per session. All fees are on an hourly basis. Aromatherapy $5.5O Ballet Intro $4~00 $4.50 Ballet Intermediate $4.4O $4.50 Bonsai Club ~-~ $53.00 Per Year Cake Decorating ¢O "/th $2.85 Cooking $6.50 Computers $8.50 Country Western Dance $6.00 Eskrima ~ Exercise to Music $3.15 $3.70 17 Step Aerobics Stretch and Tone Floral Arrangement Flower Design ELIMINATE Guitar for Electric Bass EL IMINA TE EL IMINA TE Jazz Dance Karate Kickboxing ~--~ Knitting Meditation ELIMINATE Mex:can r~,_,,,,,,, .... ! Percussion ~-~ Photo Club Photography Piano (Private) 18 $3.70 $3.70 $3.00 $3.00 $1.30 $9.00 $~, .00 $3.15 $3.70 $3.00 $3.00 $!.20 $9.00 $3.00 $3.11.0 $25.00 $5.75 $6.25 Per Half-Hour Per Half Hour Per Hour Per 15 minute class Pool Polynesian Dance Porcelain Dolls Quilting Sewing ~-~ Sign Language ELIMINATE Salsa Silk Painting EL IMINA TE Social Dance I & II EL IMINA TE <2.*.,-.;,.I 1'~.-.~ D~,,*;~ Swing Dance Tai Chi Chuan Tap Dance Watercolors ~-~ Yoga $2.45 $4.20 $2.00 ¢`3 A< $2.60 $4.40 $4.25 $2.35 $2.80 q~A A< $4.65 $3.95 $4.30 $5.00 $3.50 19 Other Services Community Garden Plot Adult Day Care Senior Meal Donation (Suggested) Senior Center Adult Day Care Senior Transportation Donation (Suggested) Donate-A-Tree Halloween Haunted House S70.00 $12.00 to $d2.00 $44.00 $2.50 $1.75 $2.00 $1.50 $85.00 · A ~ $5.00 Annually Sliding Fee schedule based on ability to pay Per Meal Per Meal Per Ride (each way) Per Tree Per Admission 20 EXHIBIT B CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 3, 2002 Jim Steele, Director of Finance John Lucia, Deputy Chief MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ADDITION FY 2002-03 The Fire Department recommends the following additions to the Master Fee Schedule under Paramedic Fire Service: American Heart Association "Professional Level" courses for the public and other outside agencies Initial Recognition: Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS-HCP) Re-recognition: Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS-HCP) $190 per person $190 per person $ 40 per person $150 per person $150 per person $ 30 per person C:~Vly Documents\02-03 Budget\02-03 MFS\EXHIBIT B -- fire MFS Addition-Paramedic Fees.doc EXHIBIT C CHAPTER 2 By Resolution of the Library Board of Trustees Library Department Damaged Materials (See also Lost, Replacement Charges) Un/ess noted otherwise, all fees became effective on Ju/Y 1, 1993 AV Materials (rteta~3mage~ Actual cost of each item, plus a (contents or item damage) processing fee. ICHANGE~ Fines for Overdue Materials Adult Materials, excluding equipment, fi!ms DVDs and video. ICHANGEd Children's Materials - books, audio, video, magazines, DVDs, etc. ICHANGE~ Engraver Video, geRer-al Videos and DVDs, Adult Collection ICHANGE~ $0.20 daily; $6.00 maximum per item. $0.10 daily; $3.00 maximum per item. [June 28, 2000] cn ~ n $t.00 daily; $3.00 $10.00 maximum per item. $0.50 daily; $10.00 maximum per item. (July 14, 1999; R: 101-99) Supplies Charges set by the Friends of the Library Bookbags, canvas ..... $18.00 for each bag. 2 for $35.00, 3 for $$50.00 Pencils ..... Erasers $0.10 Sharpeners $1.00 Pens $0.30 $0.35 each. $0.50 each. Lost, Replacement Charges Books, AV, equipment, etc. Actual cost for each item, plus a processing fee. Note: Rare/OP Books - charges may reflect current value, whichever is higher amount. Miscellaneous Charges Reserve, Peninsula Library System videos, DVDs, slide programs and CD- ROMs [CHANGEd $0.50 per item/barcode; collected at the time of pickup. (July 14, 1999: R: 101-99) Kindergarten Readiness Guide $3.00 each Learning Center Programs Westborough Learning Club Refund Processing Fee $120.00 $10.00 Per Session Per refund, when requested by participant EXHIBIT D Economic & Community Development Department Planning Division Documents, Maps and Plans Specific Plan $20.00 each. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report $25.00 each Draft Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report $25.00 each $25.00 each Miscellaneous Fees City Attorney Cost Recovery Fee ~HANGEi~ nnn nn $2 000 00 each. $5,000.00 for projects requiring Environmental Impact Reports, Developer Agreements, Specific Plan and/or GPA. (Initial Deposit. Any additional costs are required to be reimbursed by the applicant.) Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance Interim Budget Authority for 2002-03 Fiscal Year RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution providing interim spending authority for the first 60 days of the fiscal year, in the event the 2002-03 budget is not approved on June 26, 2002. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City's authority to expend funds, granted under prior budget resolutions, expires on June 30, 2002. A resolution must be passed to allow for continued operations until the budget is adopted, assuming the budget is not adopted on June 26, 2002. The proposed resolution allows the 2002-03 budget to be continued for a period of 60 days in terms of staffing and appropriations, which would be prorated accordingly. By: Ji Steele Director of Finance Approved~ Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION PROVIDING INTERIM SPENDING AUTHORITY FOR THE FIRST 60 DAYS OF THE FISCAL YEAR, IN THE EVENT THE 2002-03 BUDGET IS NOT APPROVED ON JUNE 26, 2002 WHEREAS, the City's authority to expend funds granted under prior budget resolutions, expires June 30, 3002; and WHEREAS, a resolution must be passed to allow for continued operations until the budget is adopted, assuming the budget is not adopted June 26, 2002; and WHEREAS, the proposed resolution allows the 2001-2002 budget to be continued for a period of 60 days into fiscal year 2002-2003 in terms of staffing and appropriations, which would be prorated accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco the City Council hereby approves interim spending for the first 60 days of the fiscal year in the event the 2002-2003 budget is not approved on June 26, 2002. 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 ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: F:\file cabinet\Current Reso'sXinterim.budget.authority.res.doc City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR NEW DISPATCHER WORKSTATIONS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS CENTER TO BRAMIC CREATIVE BUSINESS PRODUCTS LTD., IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000 AND AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT CONTRACT TO ROEBUCK CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the contract for the new workstations be awarded to Bramic Creative Business Products Ltd., in the amount not to exceed $120,000, and to Roebuck Construction Inc. in an amount not to exceed $25,000; and 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 ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: F:Xfile cabinet\Current Reso's\6-26police.dept.comm.center.res.doc City Clerk