Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-11 e-packetINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 11, 2002 6:50 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Industrial Development Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 1 lth day of December, 2002, at 6:50 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call Public Comments Motion to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2001 meeting Adjournment (~ity Cler'k Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 Industrial Development Authority Members Director of Finance THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, acting in the capacity of the Industrial Development Authority approve the minutes from last year's agenda dated December 12, 2001. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION From time to time, cities find it expeditious to form non-profit corporations and/or Joint Powers Authorities in order to facilitate various public financing arrangements. Under those circumstances, the City Council acts as a separate body, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies in the same way that it also acts as the Redevelopment Agency Board. On an annual basis, the City Council, acting as the board of directors for each of those corporate bodies is required to meet and take action. The purpose of this memo is to facilitate the annual meeting of the Industrial Development Authority. This Authority was set up on March 28, 1984 to allow the City to facilitate the sale of pass through tax- exempt bonds for use by private companies under certain conditions restricted by the Internal Revenue Service. Due to their tax-exempt nature, their use is limited primarily to financing the construction of small manufacturing plants, pollution control facilities, and several other narrowly restricted purposes. There is an annual application process by which the State authorizes projects for these purposes. The State also institutes an annual cap on the total industrial development bonds that can be issued in the State in the upcoming year. Prepared bY:jim eel~~e Finance Director Approved by: Mic~ael~A.,~WiWi~ City Manager Attachment: Minutes SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 11, 2002 6:53 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the South San Francisco Capital Improvement Financing Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 11 th day of December, 2002, at 6:53 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 Motion to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2001 Adjoumment City Clerk Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11,2002 Capital Improvement Financing Authority Members Director of Finance THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, acting in the capacity of the Capital Improvement Financing Authority approve the minutes from last year's agenda dated December 12, 2001. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION From time to time, cities find it expeditious to form non-profit corporations and/or Joint Powers Authorfies in order to facilitate various public financing arrangements. Under those circumstances, the City Council acts as a separate body, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies in the same way that it also acts as the Redevelopment Agency Board. On an annual basis, the City Council, acting as the board of directors for each of those corporate bodies is required to meet and take action. The purpose of this memo is to facilitate the annual meeting of the Capital Improvement Financing Authority. This Authority was set up as a Joint Powers Authority on September 11, 1991 between the City and the Redevelopment Authority. Its existence allows the City to enter into more advantageous financing arrangements than it otherwise could. For example, in 1991, the Capital Improvement Financing Authority sold bonds to finance the construction of the Conference Center, backed by the newly instituted $2.50 per room night hotel tax, approved by voters in 1989. By selling bonds through the Authority, the City is not liable for payment of the debt service on those bonds. Prepared bY:Jim S ele~~ Finance Director Approved by: M~ City Manager Attachment: Minutes SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE DECEMBER 11, 2002 6:55 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Surplus Property Authority of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, the 11th day of December, 2002, at 6:55 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call o Public Comments Motion to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2001 Adjournment City Clerk Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11,2002 Surplus Property Authority Members Director of Finance APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, acting in the capacity of the Surplus Property Authority approve the minutes from last year's agenda dated December 12, 2001. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION From time to time, cities find it expeditious to form non-profit corporations and/or Joint Powers Authorities in order to facilitate various public financing arrangements. Under those circumstances, the City Council acts as a separate body, acting as the Board of Directors for each of those corporate bodies in the same way that it also acts as the Redevelopment Agency Board. On an annual basis, the City Council, acting as the board of directors for each of those corporate bodies is required to meet and take action. The purpose of this memo is to facilitate the annual meeting of the Surplus Property Authority. The General Services Agency (GSA) requires local agencies to establish a Surplus Property Authority when they desire to purchase surplus federal property on an installment plan. The City established this Authority to purchase the GSA site in the Bay West Cove Area. Corporation. Prepared by~ Finance Director That site was subsequently sold to the Hines Approved ~1 City Manager Attachment: Minutes AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM DECEMBER 11, 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. KARYL MATSUMOTO Vice Chair PEDRO GONZALEZ Chairman JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember RAYMOND L. GREEN Boardmember BEVERLY BONALANZA FORD Investment Officer MICHAEL A. WILSON Executive Director SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2002 regular meeting 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of December 11, 2002 3. Motion to cancel regular meeting of December 25, 2002 CLOSED SESSION 4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, real property negotiations related to 178- 190 Airport Boulevard; Agency Negotiator: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2002 AGENDA PAGE 2 3. Motion to cancel regular meeting of December 25, 2002 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM DECEMBER 11, 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. KARYL MATSUMOTO Mayor Pro Tem PEDRO GONZALEZ Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RAYMOND L. GREEN Councilman BEVERLY BONALANZA FORD City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATION · Action for Better Cities - Rebecca Elliot, League of California Cities AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Community Forum · Subcommittee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of the November 13 and 20, 2002 special meetings and November 6 and 13, 2002 regular meetings 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of December 11, 2002 3. Resolution approving the City of South San Francisco's Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Program through September 30, 2003 4. Resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with the County of San Mateo for the reconstruction of Dorado Way and Constitution Way 5. Resolution of Intention to approve and amendment to the contract with the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to provide Section 21548 Pre-retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefits for Local Safety Fire Members 6. Resolution adopting the PARS retirement enhancement plan for the City Manager 7. Resolution establishing a voluntary payroll contribution program for City employees to protect local government services 8. Motion to cancel regular meeting of December 25, 2002 9. Acknowledgement of proclamation issued: Medical Center Day, November 21, 2002 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Consideration of resolution approving General Plan Housing Element Update (P02- 0021) and Negative Declaration (ND02-0021); Applicant: City of South San Francisco 11. Consideration of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 20.63, Terrabay Specific Plan District, to modify and clarify the setback and height requirements for accessory structures in Mandalay Point and Mandalay Heights; waive reading and introduce an ordinance 12. Consideration of resolution authorizing a ground lease between the City of South San Francisco and A.R.E. East Jamie Court, LLC of bayfront land for bay trail improvements; Applicant A.R.E East Jamie Court; Owner: Richard Haskins ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 13. Consideration of resolution amending Sections 2 and 9 of Resolution No. 105-01, adopting a military leave policy for non-career National Guard or military reserve personnel 14. Informational report on investment oversight services 15. Resolution authorizing an increase in the penalty for parking violations as defined by the California Vehicle Code and the South San Francisco Municipal Code 16. Resolution changing the names of the private streets shown on the Terrabay Woods East and Woods West Subdivisions from Bay Street to Bayview Drive and Woods Street to Woods Circle 17. Resolution approving personnel changes, including classification descriptions, salary ranges and unit designations for Fire Marshal and City Building Official LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 18. Waive reading and introduce an ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 3.12 to implement Council approved position title additions related to Fire Marshal and City Building Official ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 3 StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) to utilize disadvantaged businesses to the maximum extent feasible as outlined in the program for federally assisted construction projects funded between October 01, 2002 to September 30, 2003. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council by Resolutions Nos. 104-81,160-84, 112-95, 121-98,126-99, 154-2000, 24-2001 and 119-2001 had previously adopted the City of South San Francisco's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 requires that goals be reviewed and updated each year in order to receive federal funds for necessary street improvements. The Federal Government requires that these goals be stated in the contract documents for projects receiving Federal funds. New Federal guidelines have been developed regarding the establishment of DBE goals. The City's plan has been reviewed by Caltrans and they had minor comments on the plan. This resolution will establish the City of South San Francisco's goal for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise that utilizes disadvantaged businesses to the maximum extent feasible but not less than the percentage for the contract cost established in the City's DBE program for federally assisted construction projects funded between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2003. The Director of Public Works has advertised these goals in the San Mateo County Times and allowed for comments on the goals. No comments were received on the goals. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Re: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM Date: December 11, 2002 Page: 2 of 2 FRANCISCO'S DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS FUNDING: The cost for the program is included in the individual Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Director of Public Works Approved: ~A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Caltrans Procedure Manual-DBE FY 02-03 RTIadlG/ecl RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTINUATION OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue its current goal for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) which is to utilize disadvantaged businesses to the maximum extent feasible, but not less then 10% of the contract cost for federally assisted construction projects funded between October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, the cost for the program is included in individual Capital Improvement Projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes continuation of the City's current goal for its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program through September 30, 2003. 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 F:'ffile cabinetkCurrent Reso's\l 1-13DBE.res.doc CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2003 Submitted in conformance with Title 49 Code of the code of Federal Regulations Part 26 Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual And Caltrans Local Programs Procedures EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual ivIODEL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM City of South San Francisco I Definitions of Terms The terms used in this program have the meanings defined in 49 CFR §26.5. II Objectives/Policy Statement (§§26.1, 26.23) The City of South San Francisco has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR Part 26. The City of South San Francisco has received federal financial assistance from the DOT, and as a condition of receiving this assistance, the City of South San Francisco will sign an assurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26. It is the policy of the City of South San Francisco to ensure that DBEs, as defined in part 26, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT-assisted contracts. It is also our policy: To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts; To create a level playing field on v,'hich DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts; To ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs; To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT-assisted contracts; and To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program. The City Engineer has been delegated as the DBE Liaison Officer. In that capacity, the City Engineer is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE program. Implementation of the DBE program is accorded the same priority as compliance with alt other legal obligations incurred by the City of South San Francisco in its financial assistance agreements with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The City of South San Francisco has disseminated this policy statement to the City of South San Francisco Council and all the components of our organization. We have distributed this statement to DBE and non-DBE business communities that perform work for us on DOT-assisted contracts by publishing this statement in general circulation, minority - focused and trade association publications. III Nondiscrimination (,}26.7) .['he City of South San Francisco will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR Part 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies In administering its DBE program, the City of South San Francisco will not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin. IV DBE Program Updates ({}26.21) The City of South San Francisco will continue to carry out this program until the City of South San Francisco has established a new goal setting methodology or until significant changes to this DBE Program are adopted. The City of South San Francisco will provide to Caltrans a proposed overall goal and goal setting methodology and other program updates by June 1 of every year. V Quotas ({}26.43) The City of South San Francisco will not use quotas or set asides in any way in the administration of this DBE program. VI DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) ({}26.25) The City of South San Francisco has designated the following individual as the DBE Liaison Officer: Barbara Haw 'kins, City Engineer, 315 Maple Ave., South San Francisco, CA 94080, (650) 829-6664, E- mail: Barbara. Hawkins@ssf. net. In that capacity, the City Engineer is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE program and ensuring that the City of South San Francisco complies with all provisions of 49 CFR Part 26. This is available on the Internet at osdbuweb.dot.gov/main.cfm. The City of South San Francisco has direct, independent access to the City Manager concerning DBE program matters. The DBELO has a staff of 2 professional employees and 1 support employee assigned to the DBE program who devote a portion of their time to the program. An organization chart displaying the DBELO's position in the organization is found in Attachment A to this program. The DBELO is responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring the DBE program, in coordination other appropriate officials. Duties and responsibilities include the following (suggested): 1. Gathers and reports statistical data and other information as required. 2. Reviews third party contracts and purchase requisitions for compliance with this pro,am. 3. Works with all departments to set overall annual goals. 4. Ensures that bid notices and requests for proposals are available to DBEs in a timely manner. 5. Identifies contracts and procurements so that DBE goals are included in solicitations (both race- neutral methods and contract specific goals) and monitors results. 6. Analyzes the City of South San Francisco's progress toward goal attainment and identifies ways to improve progress. 7. Participates in pre-bid meetings. 8. Advises the City Manager/governing body on DBE matters and achievement. 9.. Participate with the legal counsel and project director to determine contractor compliance with good faith effort. 10. Provides DBEs with information and assistance in preparing bids, obtaining bonding and insurance. 11. Plans and participates in DBE training seminars. 12. Provides outreach to DBEs and community organizations to advise them of opportunities. Page 9-29 EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual VII Federal Financial Assistance Agreement Assurance (§26.13) The City of South San Francisco will sign the following assurance, applicable to all DOT-assisted contracts and their administration as part of the program supplement agreement for each project: The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT-assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE Program or the requirements of 49 CFR part 26. The recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE Program, as required by 49 CFR part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a' legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). VIII DBE Financial Institutions It is the policy of the City of South San Francisco to investigate the full extent of services offered by 'nancial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in rne community, to make reasonable efforts to use these institutions, and to encourage prime contractors on DOT-assisted contracts to make use of these institutions. Information on the availability of such institutions can be obtained from the DBE Liaison Officer. The Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program may offer assistance to the DBE Liaison Officer. IX Directory ({}26.31) The City of South San Francisco will refer interested persons to the DBE directory available from the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program website at www.dot.ca, gov/hq/bep. X Overconcentration ({}26.33) The City of South San Francisco has not identified any types of work in DOT-assisted contracts that have a overconcentration of DBE participation. If in the future the City of South San Francisco identifies the need to address overconcentration, measures for addressing overconcentration will be submitted to the DLAE for approval. XI Business Development Programs (§26.35) The City of South San Francisco does not have a business development or mentor-protfigfi program. If .ne City of South San Francisco identifies the need for such a program in the future, the rationale for adopting such a program and a comprehensive description of it will be submitted to the DLAE for approval. Paee 9-30 Local Assistance Procedures Manual XII Required Contract Clauses (§{}26.13, 26.29) Contract Assurance EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies The City of South San Francisco ensures that the following clause is placed in every DOT-assisted contract and subcontract: The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as recipient deems appropriate.' Prompt Payment The City of South San Francisco ensures that the following clauses or equivalent will be included in each DOT-assisted prime contract: Satisfactory Performance The prime contractor agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each payment the prime contractor receives from the City of South San Francisco. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the City of South San Francisco. This clause applies to both DBE and non-DBE subcontractors Release of Retainaae The prime contractor agrees further to release retainage payments to each subcontractor within 30 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the City of South San Francisco. This clause applies to both DBE and non-DBE subcontractors. XIII Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms (§26.37) The City of South San Francisco will assign a Resident Engineer (RE) or Contract Manager to monitor and track actual DBE participation through contractor and subcontractor reports of payments in accordance with the following: After Contract Award After the contract award the City of South San Francisco will review the award documents for the portion of items each DBE and first tier subcontractor will be performing and the dollar value of that work. With these documents the RE/Contract Manager will be able to determine the work to be performed by the DBEs or subcontractors listed. Preconstruction Conference EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual preconstruction conference will be scheduled between the RE and the contractor or their representative to discuss the work each DBE subcontractor will perform. Before work can begin on a subcontract, the local agency will require the contractor to submit a completed "Subcontracting Request," Exhibit 16-B of the LAPM or equivalent. When the RE receives the completed form it will be checked for agreement of the first tier subcontractors and DBEs. The RE will not approve the request when it identifies someone other than the DBE or first tier subcontractor listed in the previously completed "Local Agency Bidder DBE Information," Exhibit 15-G. The "Subcontracting Request" will not be approved until any discrepancies are resolved. If an issue cannot be resolved at that time, or there is some other concern, the RE will require the contractor to eliminate the subcontractor in question before signing the subcontracting request. A change in the DBE or first tier subcontractor may be addressed during a substitution process at a later date. Suppliers, vendors, or manufacturers listed on the "Local Agency Bidder DBE Information" will be compared to those listed in the completed Exhibit 16-1 of the LAPM or equivalent. Differences must be resolved by either making corrections or requesting a substitution. .Substitutions will be subject to the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (FPA). Local agencies will require contractors to adhere to the provisions within Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (State Law) Sections 4100-4144. FPA requires the contractor to list all subcontractors in excess of one half of one percent (0.5%) of the contractor's total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater. ~he statute is designed to prevent bid shopping by contractors. The FPA explains that a contractor may _ot substitute a subcontractor listed in the original bid except with the approval of the awarding authority. The RE will give the contractor a blank Exhibit 17-F, "Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, First Tier Subcontractors" and will explain to them that the document will be required at the end of the project, for which payment can be withheld, in conformance with the contract. Construction Contract Monitorinz The RE will ensure that the RE's staff (inspectors) know what items of work each DBE is responsible for performing. Inspectors will notify the RE immediately of apparent violations. When a firm other than the listed DBE subcontractor is found performing the work, the RE will notify the contractor of the apparent discrepancy and potential loss of payment. Based on the contractor's response, the RE will take appropriate action: The DBE Liaison Officer will perform a preliminary investigation to identify any potential issues related to the DBE subcontractor performing a commercially useful function. Any substantive issues will be forwarded to the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. If the contractor fails to adequately explain why there is a discrepancy, payment for the work will be withheld and a letter will be sent to the contractor referencing the applicable specification violation and the required withholding of payment. Page 9-32 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies If the contract requires the submittal of a monthly truck document, the contractor will be required to submit documentation to the RE showing the owner's name; California Highway Patrol CA number; and the DBE certification number of the owner of the truck for each truck used during that month for which DBE participation will be claimed. The trucks will be listed by California Highway Patrol CA number in the daily diary or on a separate piece of paper for documentation. The numbers are checked by inspectors regularly to confirm compliance. Providing evidence of DBE payment is the responsibility of the contractor. Substitution When a DBE substitution is requested, the RE/Contract Manager will request a letter from the contractor explaining why substitution is needed. The RE/Contract Manager must review the letter to be sure names and addresses are shown, dollar values are included, and reason for the request is explained. If the RE/Contract Manager agrees to the substitution, the RE/Contract Manager will notify, in writing, the DBE subcontractor regarding the proposed substitution and procedure for written objection from the DBE subcontractor in accordance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. If the contractor is not meeting the contract goal with this substitution, the contractor must provide the required good faith effort to the RE/Contract Manager for local agency consideration. If there is any doubt in the RE/Contract Manager's mind regarding the requested substitution, the RE/Contract Manager may contact the DLAE for assistance and direction. Record Keepin~ and Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises The contractor shall maintain records showing the name and address of each first-tier subcontractor. The records shall also show: 1. The name and business address, regardless of tier, of every DBE subcontractor, DBE vendor of materials and DBE trucking company. 2. The date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to each of the firms. 3. The DBE prime contractor shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work claimed toward DBE goals. When a contract has been completed, the contractor will provide a summary of the records stated above. The DBE utilization information will be documented on the form "Final Report-Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors" (Exhibit 17-F) and will be submitted to the DLAE attached to the Report of Expenditures. The RE will compare the completed "Final Report-Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors" form to the contractor's completed "Local Agency Bidder-DBE-Information" (Exhibit 15-G) and, if applicable, to the completed "Subcontracting Request" (Exhibit 16-B). The DBEs shown on the completed "Final Report-Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors" form should be the same as those originally listed unless an authorized substitution was allowed, or the contractor used more DBEs and they were added. The dollar amount should reflect any changes made in planned work done by the DBE. The contractor will be required to explain in writing why the names of the subcontractors, the work items or dollar figures are different from what was originally shown on the completed "Local Agency Bidder-DBE-Information" form when: Page 9-33 EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual There have been no changes made by the RE. The contractor has not provided a sufficient explanation in the comments section of the completed "Final Report-Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors" form. The explanation will be attached to the completed "Final Report-Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors" form for submittal. The RE will file this in the project records. The local a~ency s Liaison Officer will keep track of the DBE certification status on the Internet at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep and keep the RE informed of changes that affect the contract. The RE will require the contractor to act in accordance with existing contractual commitments regardless of decertification. The DLAE will use the PS&E checklist to monitor the City of San Francisco's commitment to require .bidders list information to be submitted to City of South San Francisco from the awarded prime and · subcontractors as a means to develop a bidders list. This monitoring will only take place if the bidders list information is required to be submitted as stipulated in the special provisions. The City of South San Francisco will bring to the attention of the DOT through the DLAE any false, ~raudulent, or dishonest conduct in connection with the program, so that DOT can take the steps (e.g., ceferral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, referral to the DOT Inspector General, action under suspension and debarment or Program Fraud and Civil Penalties rules) provided in {}26.109. The City of South San Francisco also will consider similar action under our own legal authorities, including responsibility determinations in future contracts. XIV Overall Goals ({}26.45) Amount of Goal The City of South San Francisco's overall goal for the federal fiscal year 2003 is the following: 2% of the federal financial assistance in DOT-assisted contracts. This overall goal is broken down into 1% race-conscious and 1% race-neutral components. Methodology See Attachment "B". Breakout of Estimated Race-Neutral and Race-Conscious Participation See Attachment "B". Page 9-34 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Process Starting with the federal fiscal year 2003, the amount of overall goal, the method to calculate the goal, and the breakout of estimated race-neutral and race-conscious participation will be required annually by June 1 in advance of the federal fiscal year beginning October 1 for DOT-assisted contracts. Submittals will be to the Caltrans' DLAE. An exception to this will be if FTA or FAA recipients are required by FTA or FAA to submit the annual information to them or a designee by another date. FI-DVA recipients will follow this process: Once the DLAE has responded with preliminary comments and the comments have been incorporated into the draft overall goal information, the City of South San Francisco will publish a notice of the proposed overall goal, informing the public that the proposed goal and its rationale are available for inspection during normal business hours at the City of South San Francisco's principal office for 30 days following the date of the notice, and informing the public that comments will be accepted on the goals for 45 days following the date of the notice. The notice must be published in general circulation media and available minority-focused media and trade association publications. The notice will include addresses to which comments may be sent and addresses (including offices and websites) where the proposal may be reviewed. The overall goal resubmission to the Caltrans DLAE, will include a summary of information and comments received during this public participation process and the City of South San Francisco's responses. This will be due by September 1 to the Caltrans DLAE. The DLAE will have a month to make a final review so the City of South San Francisco may begin using the overall goal on October 1 of each year. If there is a design build please refer to Appendix B of this Model DBE Program. XV Contract Goals (§26.51) The City of South San Francisco will use contract goals to meet any portion of the overall goal the City of South San Francisco does not project being able to meet by the use of race-neutral means. Contract goals are established so that, over the period to which the overall goal applies, they will cumulatively result in meeting any portion of the overall goal that is not projected to be met through the use of race- neutral means. Contract goals will be established only on those DOT-assisted contracts that have subcontracting possibilities. Contract goals need not be established on every such contract, and the size of contract goals will be adapted to the circumstances of each such contract (e.g., type and location of work, availability of DBEs to perform the particular type of work). The contract work items will be compared with eligible DBE contractors willing to work on the project. A determination will also be made to decide which items are likely to be performed by the prime contractor and which ones are likely to be performed by the subcontractor(s). The goal will then be incorporated into the contract documents. Contract goals will be expressed as a percentage of the total amount of a DOT-assisted contract. Page 9-35 EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual XVI Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (§26.49) If DOT-assisted contracts will include transit vehicle procurements, the City of South San Francisco will require each transit vehicle manufacturer, as a condition of being authorized to bid or propose on transit vehicle procurements, to certify that it has complied with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26, Section 49. The City of South San Francisco will direct the transit vehicle manufacturer to the subject requirements located on the Internet at http://osdbuweb.dot..ov/proerams/dbe/dbe.htm. XVII Good Faith Efforts (§26.53) Information to be Submitted The City of South San Francisco treats bidders'/offerors' compliance with good faith effort requirements as a matter of responsiveness. A responsive proposal is meeting all the requirements of the advertisement and solicitation. Each solicitation for which a contract goal has been established will require the bidders/offerors to submit the following information to the City of South San Francisco no later than 4:00 p.m. on or before the fourth day, not including Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, following bid opening: ' The names and addresses of known DBE firms that will participate in the contract; _. A description of the work that each DBE will perform; 3. The dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm participation; 4. Written and signed documentation of commitment to use a DBE subcontractor whose participation it submits to meet a contract goal; 5. Written and signed confirmation from the DBE that it is participating in the contract as provided in the prime contractor's commitment; and 6. If the contract goal is not met, evidence of good faith efforts. Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts The obligation of the bidder/offeror is to make good. faith efforts. The bidder/offeror can demonstrate that it has done so either by meeting the contract goal or documenting good faith efforts. Examples of good faith efforts are found in Appendix A to Part 26 which is attached. The following personnel are responsible for determining whether a bidder/offeror who has not met the contract goal has documented sufficient good faith efforts to be regarded as responsive: The City Engineer. The City of South San Francisco will ensure that all information is complete and accurate and adequately documents the bidder/offeror's good faith efforts before a commitment to the performance of the contract by the bidder/offeror is made. Administrative Reconsideration Page 9-36 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Within 10 days of being informed by the City of South San Francisco that it is not responsive because it has not documented sufficient good faith efforts, a bidder/offeror may request administrative reconsideration. Bidder/offerors should make this request in writing to the following reconsideration official: Mr. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works, 400 Grand Ave., South San Francisco, CA 94080, (650) 877-8538, E-mail: John. Gibbs@ssf.net. The reconsideration official will not have played any role in the original determination that the bidder/offeror did not make document sufficient good faith efforts. As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to provide written documentation or argument concerning the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so. The bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to meet in person with the reconsideration official to discuss the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so. The City of South San Francisco will send the bidder/offeror a written decision on reconsideration, explaining the basis for finding that the bidder did or did not meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts to do so. The result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to Caltrans, FHWA or the DOT. Good Faith Efforts when a DBE is Replaced on a Contract The City of South San Francisco will require a contractor to make good faith efforts to replace a DBE that is terminated or has otherwise failed to complete its work on a contract with another certified DBE, to the extent needed to meet the contract goal. The prime contractor is required to notify the RE immediately of the DBE's inability or unwillingness to perform and provide reasonable documentation. In this situation, the prime contractor will be required to obtain the City of South San Francisco prior approval of the substitute DBE and to provide copies of new or amended subcontracts, or documentation of good faith efforts. If the contractor fails or refuses to comply in the time specified, The City of South San Francisco contracting office will issue an order stopping all or part of payment/work until satisfactory action has been taken. If the contractor still fails to comply, the contracting officer may issue a termination for default proceeding. XVIII Counting DBE Participation (§26.55) The City of South San Francisco will count DBE participation toward overall and contract goals as provided in the contract specifications for the prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner with prime or subcontractor, or vendor of material or supplies. See the Caltrans' Sample Boiler Plate Contract Documents. Also, refer to XIII. "After Contract Award." XIX Certification (§26.83(a)) The City of South San Francisco ensures that only DBE firms currently certified on the Caltrans' directory will participate as DBEs in our program. XX Information Collection and Reporting Page 9-37 EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies :id&rs List Local Assistance Procedures Manual The City of South San Francisco will create and maintain a bidders list, consisting of information about all DBE and non-DBE firms that bid or quote on its DOT-assisted contracts. The bidders list will include the name, address, DBE/non~DBE status, age, and annual gross receipts of firms. Monitoring Payments to DBEs Prime contractors are required to maintain records and documents of payments to DBEs for three years following the performance of the contract. These records will be made available for inspection upon request by any authorized representative of the City of South San Francisco, Caltrans, FHWA, or DOT. This reporting requirement also extends to any certified DBE subcontractor. Payments to DBE subcontractors will be reviewed by the City of South San Francisco to ensure that the actual amount paid to DBE subcontractors equals or exceeds the dollar amounts stated in the schedule of DBE participation. .Reporting to Caltrans The City of South San Francisco - Final utilization of DBE participation will be reported to the DLAE using Exhibit 17-F of the Caltrans' LAPM. Confidentiality The City of South San Francisco will safeguard from disclosure to third parties information that may reasonably be regarded as confidential business information, consistent with federal, state, and local laws. City Manager This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program is accepted by: Date: [Signature of DLAE] Date: Page 9-38 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies APPENDIX A TO PART 26 -- GUIDANCE CONCERNING GOOD FAITH EFFORTS I. When, as a recipient, you establish a contract goal on a DOT-assisted contract, a bidder must, in order to be responsible and/or responsive, make good faith efforts to meet the goal. The bidder can meet this requirement in either of two ways. First, the bidder can meet the goal, documenting commitments for participation by DBE firms sufficient for this purpose. Second, even if it doesn't meet the goal, the bidder can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even if they were not fully successful. Pi. In any situation in which you have established a contract goal, part 26 requires you to use the good faith efforts mechanism of this part. As a recipient, it is up to you to make a fair and reasonable judgment whether a bidder that did not meet the goal made adequate good faith efforts. It is important for you to consider the quality, quantity, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that the bidder has made. The efforts employed by the bidder should be those that one could reasonably expect a bidder to take if the bidder were actively and aggressively trying to obtain DBE participation sufficient to meet the DBE contract goal. Mere pro forma efforts are not good faith efforts to meet the DBE contract requirements. We emphasize, however, that your determination concerning the sufficiency of the firm's good faith efforts is a judgment call: meeting quantitative formulas is not required. III. The Department also strongly cautions you against requiring that a bidder meet a contract goal (i.e., obtain a specified amount of DBE participation) in order to be awarded a contract, even though the bidder makes an adequate good faith efforts showing. This rule specifically prohibits you from ignoring bona fide good faith efforts. IV. The following is a list of types of actions which you should consider as part of the bidder's good faith efforts to obtain DBE participation. It is not intended to be a mandatory checklist, nor is it intended to be exclusive or exhaustive. Other factors or types of efforts may be relevant in appropriate cases. A. Soliciting through all reasonable and available means (e.g. attendance at pre-bid meetings, advertising and/or written notices) the interest of all certified DBEs who have the capability to perform the work of the contract. The bidder must solicit this interest within sufficient time to allow the DBEs to respond to the solicitation. The bidder must determine wittx certainty if the DBEs are interested by taking appropriate steps to follow up initial solicitations. B. Selecting portions of the work to be performed by DBEs in order to increase the likelihood that the DBE goals will be achieved. This includes, where appropriate, breaking out contract work items into economically feasible units to facilitate DBE participation, even when the prime contractor might otherwise prefer to perform these work items with its own forces. C. Providing interested DBEs with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract in a timely manner to assist them in responding to a solicitation. EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual D. (1) Negotiating in good faith with interested DBEs. It is the bidder's responsibility to make a portion of the work available to DBE subcontractors and suppliers and to select those portions of the work or material needs consistent with the available DBE subcontractors and suppliers, so as to facilitate DBE participation. Evidence of such negotiation includes the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBEs that were considered; a description of the information provided regarding the plans and specifications for the work selected for subcontracting; and evidence as to why additional agreements could not be reached for DBEs to perform the work. (2) A bidder using good business judgment would consider a number of factors in negotiating with subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors, and would take a firm's price and capabilities as well as contract goals into consideration. However, the fact that there may be some additional costs involved in finding and using DBEs is not in itself sufficient reason for a bidder's failure to meet the contract DBE goal, as long as such costs are reasonable. Also, the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts. Prime contractors are not, however, required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable. E. Not rejecting DBEs as being unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities. The contractor's standing within its industry, membership in specific groups, organizations, or associations and political or social affiliations (for example union vs. non-union employee status) are not legitimate causes for the rejection or non- solicitation of bids in the contractor's efforts to meet the project goal. F. Ma 'king efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance as required by the recipient or contractor. G. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or related assistance or services. H. Effectively using the services of available minority/women community organizations; minority/women contractors' groups; local, state, and federal minority/women business assistance offices; and other organizations as allowed on a case-by-case basis to provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of DBEs. V. In determining whether a bidder has made good faith efforts, you may take into account the performance of other bidders in meeting the contract. For example, when the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the contract goal, but others meet it, you may reasonably raise the question of whether, with additional reasonable efforts, the apparent successful bidder could have met the goal. If the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the goal, but meets or exceeds the average DBE participation obtained by other bidders, you may view this, in conjunction with other factors, as evidence of the apparent successful bidder having made good faith efforts. Page 9-40 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies APPENDIX B TO BE USED FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS The following are hereby incorporated into the A..encys Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program: II Objectives/Policy Statement (§§26.1, 26.23) At the end of the first paragraph, add the following: The Agency recognizes that certain modifications are necessary to adapt the program for use in connection with design-build contracts, and has therefore established' certain procedures applicable to design-build DBE contracts under the DBE Program. Public Contract Code Section 4109 requires subcontractors to be identified by the prime contractor for the subletting or subcontracting of any portion of the work in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor's total bid. Exceptions are only in the cases of public emergency or necessity, and then only after a finding reduced to writing as a public record of the awarding attthority setting forth the facts constituting the emergency or necessity. The written public record of the awarding attthority/Agency as to either emergency or necessity is attached hereto (See Appendix C for sample). XIII Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms (§26.37) At the end of the first para~aph below "After Contract Award", add the following paragraph: After Design-Build Contract Award As described in the Section entitled "GOOD FAITH EFFORTS" below, each proposer for an Agency design-build contract will be required to submit a DBE Performance Plan as part of a responsive proposal. Following award of a design-build contract and during both the design and construction portions of the project, the design-build contractor will be required to submit documentation, itt the form of progress reports described below, to show that the design-build contractor is meeting the contract goal for the project, or if the goal is not being met, the design-build contractor must submit satisfactory evidence that it has made good faith efforts, in accordance with Section XVII, to meet the goal. Evidence of good faith efforts, as described in 49 CFR Part 26 Section 26.53 and AppendLr. A, will be monitored by the Agency throughout the duration of the design-build project. At the end of the first paragraph below "Preconstruction Conference", add the following sentence: The contractor will promptly provide the Agency with the information required by the form entitled "Local Agency DBE Information" upon selection of any DBE or other subcontractor not previously identified by the design-build contractor. During the course of the contract, differences must be explained and resolved by either making corrections or requesting a substitution. EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual At the end of the fourth paragraph below "Construction Contract Monitorine", add the following paraeraph: The contractor will provide DBE Progress Reports to the Agency with each invoice and will provide an annual report on or before August 1 of each year of the design-build contract. Each report must also include a narrative summary stating whether the contractor is on target with respect to the DBE goal set forth in the design-build contract, whether the goal has been exceeded (stating the amount of the excess), or whether the contractor is behind target (stating the amount of the deficit). XVII Good Faith Efforts (§26.53) At the end of the third paragraph below "Information to be Submitted", add the following items: 7. A DBE Performance Plan containing a detailed description of the design-build contractor's planned methodology for achieving the DBE goal stated in the contract, including a description of the good faith efforts the design-build contractor intends to undertake to achieve that goal. 8. A design-build proposaI must alSo include an affidavit that the proposer will either attain the DBE goals for the design-build contract or will exercise good faith efforts to do so. At the end of the first paragraph below "Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts", add the following sentence: If it is a design-build contract, each contractor proposing will be required to submit a DBE Performance Plan as part o fa responsive proposal and good faith efforts. City Manager Date: This Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program for design-build contracts is accepted by: [Signature of DLAE] Date: Page 9-42 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies APPENDIX C RESOLUTION OF THE (Agency Name) REGARDING NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY FOR SUBSEQUENT SUBCONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS (REQUIRED BY PUBLIC .CONTRACT CODE SECTION 4109 ENTITLED "Public Emergency Grounds For Change") A. EXPLANATION OF PUBLIC NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY B. FACTS CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY C. FINDINGS D. RESOLUTION FOR SUBSEQUENT IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS E. ADOPTION OF PROCEDURE TO BE USED BY DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR FOR SUBSEQUENT IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS F. CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY 1. MOTION MADE AND DATE 2. VOTING RESULTS 3. SIGNATURES (a) Secretary (b) Chairperson EXHIBIT 9-A Model DBE Program for Local Agencies Local Assistance Procedures Manual Page 9-44 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2003 Submitted in conformance with Title 49 Code of the code of FederaI Regulations Part 26 Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual And Caltrans Local Programs Procedures CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL AND METHODOLOGY FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY) 2003 I. DOT-ASSISTED CONTRACTING PROGRAM FOR FFY 2003 Table 1 below represents five DOT-assisted projects the City of South San Francisco considered in the overall goal-setting process for FY 2002/2003. All projects have subcontracting opportunities and are anticipated to be awarded and/or expanded within the next two fiscal years: Table 1 r~*~.. ~ ~ ' ,:, ~:I... ,,~.~.. i ,., g ~: Westborough Street Resuffacing $444,000.00 So. Airport Blvd Street Resurfacing $243,000.00 Table 2 below provides a summary of the corresponding subspecialty work grouped into two primary categories and identifies the Estimated Federal Dollar Share and the Percentage of Federal; Funding of each primary work category utilizing Caltrans' Work Category Codes (WCC) and comparable 2000 Census Business Patterns database North American Industries Classification System (NAICS) Work Codes. Highway & Street 23411 $643,700.00 93.7% Construction Concrete Work 23571 $ 43,300.00 6.3% II. GOAL-SETTING PROCESS Step 1: Determination of a Base Figure for the Overall Annual Goal (26.45) To begin the goal-setting process, the City of South San Francisco determined the Base Figure for the relative availability of DBEs, by following on e of the five examples of approaches set forth in {}26.45 of the regulations. The following data sources were immediately available to the City of South San Francisco. For the numerator: The City of South San Francisco utilizes the Caltrans Bulletin Board System (BBS) Directory of Certified DBE Firms to determine the number of ready, willing and able DBEs in the City of South San Francisco' market area (further defined as San Mateo, Alameda, San Francisco and Contra Costa Counties). For the denominator: The City of South San Francisco utilized the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns(CBP) Database to determine the number of ready, willing and able businesses in the City of South San Francisco' market area (further defined as San Mateo, Alameda, San Francisco and Contra Costa Counties). The City of South San Francisco made a concerted effort to ensure that: a) The scope of businesses included in the numerator is as close as possible to the scope included in the denominator. b) The NAICs codes included in the denominator is as close as possible to the Caltrans Work Category Codes (WCC) included in the numerator. This was accomplished by utilizing the conversion table between WCC and NAICs work codes provided by Caltrans. c) The geographic base included in the numerator is as close as possible to the U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns Database. This was accomplished by determining the corresponding zip codes for each county, within the City of South San Francisco' market area. The Base Figure was further adjusted by Weighting the relative availability of DBEs within each primary work category, giving more weight to the work category the City is projected to spend more DOT-assisted dollars. The Base Figure resulting from this weighted calculation is a follows: Base Figure = CBFs in NAICS 23411'* Base Figure =.937 30 + .063 5 2029 230 Base Figure = .937(.0147856) + .063(.0217391) Base Figure = .0138541 + .0013695 Base Figure = .01522 X 100 = 1.52= 1.5%*** * For detailed listing of all Caltrans Work Categories grouped in each tnajor category, refer to Exhibit A. ** For detail listing of all NAICS Work Codes grouped in each major category, refer to Exhibit B. *** Routtded to the nearest tenth. 93.7% (DBE's in C1601, C1901' + 6.3% (DBE's in C5110, C7301 CBP's in NAICS 23571 Step 2: Adjusting the Base Figure Upon establishing the Base Figure, the City of South San Francisco reviewed and assessed other known relevant evidence potentially impacting the relative availability of DBE within the City of San Francisco's market area in accordance with prescribed narrow tailoring provisions set forth under 49 CFR 'part 26. Evidence considered in making an adjustment to the Base Figure included the City of South San Francisco's past DBE Participation Goals and Actual Attainments on Similar Projects and Bidders Lists. A summary of these considerations follows: A. Proven Capacity of DBE Measured By Actual Attainment The following tables reflects the City of South San Francisco's DBE attainments on similar DOT- assisted projects, utilizing the 2% adopted goal: COMlr>LETED AND ON-GOI2qG PROJECTS Pedestrian Bridge Seismic Retrofit Completed $ 179,019.00 10.5 Junipero Serra Blvd. Slope Repair In-Progress $2,155,316.84 10.68 (To Date) 1999-2000 StreetResurfacing Completed $1,129,342.11 8.59 2001-2002 StreetResurfacing Being Awarded $ 574,927.00 10.8 (BidEst.) B. City's Bidders List While a Bidders List would serve as a quantifiable evidence of DBE's demonstrated interest and capacity, the City has not established a tailored Bidders List. However, the City of South San Francisco will in accordance with Caltrans procedures institute program requirements to capture such information form all bidders and will utilize all relevant information in future goal -setting analysis. Resultant Base Figure After careful consideration of the above-mentioned evidence, particularly in the City of South San Francisco's DBE participation and attainments in the similar contracting program, the Base Figure of 1.5% was further adjusted upward by 0.5% to 2%. Although there were only two evidence/factors considered, the goal-setting process in a new procedure undertaken by the City of South San Francisco. For future goal-setting analysis, the City of South San Francisco will have the opportunity to fine tune the process each year as the City's experience grows and relevant data will be available, as well as current data will improve. In conclusion, after careful consideration of the above-named evidence/factors, including completed and on-going projects, the Overall Annual DBE Goal for the City of South San Francisco for FFY 2003 is 2%. III. OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL AND PROJECTION OF RACE-NEUTRAL AND RACE-CONCIOUS PARTICIPATION The Overall Annual (FFY 2003) DBE Goal for the City of Sc~uth San Francisco' DOT assisted contracts is 2%. The overall goal is expressed as percentage of all DOT-assisted funds that the City of South San Francisco will expend in FHWA-assisted contracts in the forthcoming fiscal year. This goal further serves to identify the relative availability of DBEs based on the evidence of ready, willing and able DBE's to all comparable firms, which are known to be available to compete for and perform on the City of South San Francisco' DOT-assisted contracts. The Overall Annual Goal reflects a determination of the level of DBE participation, which would be expected absent the effects of discrimination. The City of South San Francisco projects meet 1% of the goal utilizing race-neutral methods, including making efforts to assure that bidding and contract requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses in conformance with new regulatory requirements. The City of South San Francisco projects to meet the remainder of the goal 1% utilizing race-conscious measures, including utilizing contract-specific numeric goals, as necessary to achieve the overall goal. IV. PUBLIC PARTICPATION AND FACILATION In conformance with Public Participation Regulatory Requirements of 49 CFR part 26 and Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM), this goal analysis will be reviewed with minority, women, local business chambers, and community organizations within the City of South San Francisco' geographic market area. Additionally, the City of South San Francisco will publish a Public Notice in general circulation media announcing the City of South San Francisco's proposed.Overall Annual Goal for the FFY 2003 DOT-assisted contracts. Such Notice will inform the public that the proposed goal and its rationale is available for inspection at the City of South San Francisco' principal office during normal business hours for 30 days following the date of the Public Notice and that the City of South San Francisco will accept comments on the goal analysis for 45 days from the date of the Public Notice. The required public participation provisions will be fully satisfied prior to submitting the City of South San Francisco DBE Program and Overall Annual DBE Goal to Caltrans for final review and approval. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DBE GOAL ANALYSIS FOR FFY 2003 EXHIBIT A Cf OF ESTABLISHED DBE FIRMS IN SAN MATEO, ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA AND SAN FRANCISCO COUNTIES 1 COUNTY ZIP CODES CONSTRUCTION: C1201 23531 Traffic Control System 1 1 2 C5620 23411 Roadside Sign C1801 23411, 23499 Clearing and Grubbing 3 1 2 3 1 2 12 C1901 23593 Roadway Excavation 3 3 3 1 1 11 C1910 23411 Grading 1 1 C1930 23412, 23593 Structure Backfill C2201 23411 Fininshing Roadway C3901 23411 Asphalt Concrete 1 1 C3910 23411 Paving Asphalt 2 2 C8406 23411,23521 Painted Traffic Stripe and Marking C8602 23411 Signal and Lighting 1 1 HIGHWAY & STREET CONSTRUCTION 30 COUNTY ZIP CODES CONSTRUCTION: C5110 23571 Concrete Sudace Finish 1 C7301 23571 Concrete Curb and Sidewalk 3 1 4 CONCRETECONSTRACTORS G:/forms letters/dbe goal analysis/exhibit a Z × 0 o Z · Z oo 0 o 0 ~ ~ ~ '=o o m ~ z ~m~ oo o o o~ 0 ..'~ Staff Xeport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works RECONSTRUCTION OF DORADO WAY AND CONSTITUTION WAY IN THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AREA - AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with the County of San Mateo for the Reconstruction of Dorado Way from Country Club Drive to Alta Vista Drive and Constitution Way from Taylor Drive to Country Club Drive in the Country Club Park Area of unincorporated San Mateo County. BACKGROUND/DIS CUSSION: The County of San Mateo is planning to reconstruct Dorado Way and Constitution Way in the unincorporated Country Club Park Area. Within the street area of Dorado Way, there are 4 manholes and 1 flushing inlet that are part of the City's sewer system that need to be raised to the new grade of the street. The County has offered to have their Contractor raise the manholes and inlet with the City reimbursing the County for the work. The County will remove approximately 20 feet of existing curb and gutter on Constitution Way at Taylor Drive within the City of South San Francisco' s City limits and reconstruct to align and conform to the County's proposed valley gutter. The County will reconstruct the existing curb and gutter at no cost to the City. The project will start this spring. The County has estimated a cost of $4,500.00 for the City's portion of work. This cost includes design, construction, contingencies, inspection, and administration. Adoption of this resolution will allow the City Manager to sign the agreement with the County of San Mateo. Staff Report To~ Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Reconstruction of Dorado Way and Constitution Way in the South San Francisco City Area - Agreement with the County of San Mateo December 11, 2002 Page 2 FUNDING: As the County will invoice the City upon completion of the work, funds in the amount of $5,500.00 ($4,500.00 for County costs plus $1,000.00 for City's administrative and inspection costs) will be appropriated in the FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Approved by: By: John Gi Director of Public Works Michael A. Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Agreement RTHIJG/ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OFAN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF DORADO WAY FROM COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO ALTA VISTA DRIVE AND CONSTITUTION WAY FROM TAYLOR DRIVE TO COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE IN THE COUNTRY CLUB PARK AREA OF UNINCORPORATED SAN MATEO COUNTY WHEREAS, staff recommends that that City Council authorizes execution of an agreement with the County of San Mateo for the Reconstruction of Dorado Way from County Club Drive to Alta Vista Drive and Constitution Way from Taylor Drive to Country Club Drive in the Country Club Park Area of unincorporated San Mateo County, as attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the County will invoice the City upon completion of the work, funds in the amount of $5,500 will be appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2003-2003 Capital Improvement Program budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes execution of an agreement with the County of San Mateo for the Reconstruction of Dorado Way from County Club Drive to Alta Vista Drive and Constitution Way from Taylor Drive to Country Club Drive in the Country Club Park Area of unincorporated San Mateo County. 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 F:~ffle cabinet\Current Reso's\12-1 lreconsl~uction.of, dorado.way.res.doc NRC:BEK:RO:DYS Form approved by County Counsel, 2002 AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ADJUSTING SANITARY SEWERS, FLUSHING INLET TO GRADE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF DORADO WAY AND CONSTITUTION WAY IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTRY CLUB PARK AREA OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Project No. R7G01 (F36 [179-2]) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of :,~ ' by and between the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "County", and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City". ,2002, WlINESSEIH: WHEREAS, the County is preparing to call for bids for the reconstruction of Dorado Way between Alta Vista Drive and Country Club Drive and Constitution Way between Country Club Drive and Taylor Drive; and WHEREAS, the City-owned four (4) sanitary sewer manholes and one (1) flushing inlet will require adjustment to the new grade of the aforementioned roads; WHEREAS, City has requested the County to include, in its reconstruction contract, the -1- adjustment of said manholes and flushing inlet to grade; WltEREAS, County will reconstruct a portion of existing curb, gutter and pavement within the City to conform to County's proposed reconstruction work. NOW, TltEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City grants the necessary permission to the County to do work within the City limits as herein described. 2. The County will include in its Contract for the above-described project, contract items for adjustment of sanitary sewer manholes and sanitary flushing inlet to grade. The work shall be completed by the County's Contractor. 3. The County will award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder~ ~or the complete reconstruction project including the work described above for the roadWay reconstruction work. 4. The County agrees to notify the City of the successful bidder to whom the construction contract is awarded. 5. The City agrees to reimburse County, on demand, the total cost incurred by the County for work on City sanitary sewer facilities, preparation of plans and specifications, project administration, construction management, contract Change Orders, and any other incidental expenses incurred by the County; provided that said incidental expenses and overhead shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the construction contract and Change Order costs for said work. The estimated cost for said work is $4,000 for all sanitary sewer facility adjustments. Any contract change orders on the City's portion of the construction work will be subject to the written approval by the City. It is understood that the total sum to be reimbursed to the County by the City shall be determined from the actual costs incurred by the County to adjust the City's -2- sanitary sewer manholes and sanitary flushing inlet to grade in conjunction with the roadway reconstruction project. 6. County shall furnish primary construction inspection services for all phases of the project work. The Director of Public Works or his appointed representative shall be solely responsible for all phases of construction and inspection functions and liaison with the Project Contractor. In this regard, all communications and directions of the City to the County's Contractor shall be directed through the County representative. City representatives shall have access to the work on the City facilities at all times, and without restriction, for the purposes of inspection of such facilities. The County and City representatives shall cooperate and confer to facilitate the performance of inspection duties incident to expeditious completion and acceptance of City's facilities. 7. The City shall have the option to exclude the City's portion of work specified herein from the County's contract should the total estimated cost, including incidental and overhead expenses, exceed $4,500. 8. If the City elects to exercise said option to exclude the proposed roadway reconstruction within the City limits, the City shall notify the County in writing, within ten (10) working days from the County's notification of the lowest responsible bidder to whom the Contract will be recommended for award. If the City exercises their option to exclude said work, the County shall perform only the proposed work, which is within the County limits and will provide acceptable conforms between the City and County limits. 9. If the City elects to exercise said option to delete said work on its sanitary sewer distribution facilities included in the County's contract, the City shall notify the County in writing, within ten (10) working days from the County's notification of the lowest responsible -3- bidder to whom the Contract will be recommended for award. If the City exercises their option to eliminate this work the County shall cause said facilities to be referenced in the field prior to reconstruction such that said sanitary sewer manholes and sanitary flushing inlet may be adjusted by the City to the new grade of the reconstructed road once the County has completed the reconstruction project. 10. Any acquisition of real property or rights-of-entry shall be the sole responsibility of the City on its portions of the streets. 11. The City and County agree that upon completion, elimination, or abandonment of the work specified under this Agreement and acceptance thereof by City and County, ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the existing roadways and the improvements installed and constructed hereto under this Agreement shall contifiue to vest in the City to the extent said improvements are located within the City limits. 12. It is also understood and the City agrees that upon completion of the work specified under this Agreement, City shall continue to have all ownership and maintenance responsibilities over the sanitary sewer lines, and all other sanitary sewer distribution facilities within the project limits. 13. The City and County agree that upon completion of the City's work specified under this Agreement and acceptance thereof by County and City, the total cost incurred by County for administration and construction of City's facilities, as described herein, shall be determined, and billed to City. invoice date. 14. the City after receiving written approval from the City. Payment from City shall be due within thirty (30) days of the The County shall only accept the work accomplished within the limits of City disapproval of County work shall -4- only be for non-conformance with the County adopted project plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Dorado Way between Alta Vista Drive and Country Club Drive and to reconstruct Constitution Way between Country Club Drive and Taylor Drive. Said approval or disapproval, if any, by the City shall be provided so as not to cause the County to sustain any claims for delays from the Contractor. 15. City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, damages, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description, arising out of or relating to the matters covered by this Agreement to the extent that such claims, suits or actions are due to the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or the City's failure to perform obligations required of the City under this Agreement. Likewise, the County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, damages, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description, arising out of or relating to the matters covered by this Agreement to the extent that such claims, suits or actions are due to the negligence or willful misconduct of the County or the County's failure to perform obligations required of the County under this Agreement. The duty to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duties to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. The County shall require the Contractor to name the City and the County, their officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds on all insurance documents for this project and to include all work performed on behalf of the City in the bonds, warranties and guaranties to be furnished by Contractor. The benefits arising under this Section 16 shall apply to the respective directors, officers, employees and agents of the parties hereto. -5- 16. This Agreement shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their duly authorized representatives, have affixed their hands on the day and year first above written. "County" COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ATTEST: BY Jerry Hill, President Board of Supervisors, County of San Mateo County Manager / Clerk of the Board of Supervisors "City" CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ATTEST: BY City Manager, City of South San Francisco Clerk, City Council -6- StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), and the City Council, City of South San Francisco, to Provide Section 21548 Pre-retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit for Local Safety Fire Members. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to amend the PERS Contract to provide for Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit for local safety fire members. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION During negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) bargaining unit two proposed enhancements to the City's retirement system were made. With approval from Council, the City's plan was to modify its PERS contract to provide several retirement formula enhancements with an implementation date anticipated to occur in late 2002. One enhancement has already been made and is in effect now. This is the final retirement enhancement to be completed for this group. The City has received all the necessary valuations and documents from PERS. The process from PERS requires that the City adhere to strict timelines. The timelines are as follows: 12/11/02 Adoption of Resolution of Intention. 01/08/03 Adoption of Final Ordinance. 01/09/03 Effective Date of Ordinance. 01/10/03 Effective Date of CalPERS Amendment to Contract. COSTS Government Code Section 7507 requires that the future annual costs of the proposed contract amendment be made public prior to the adoption of the final ordinance. The City's Normal Cost for this enhanced retirement benefits for Fire safety is .049%. The annual actuarial cost of .049% is higher than what was originally anticipated, due to the negative changes in PERS' investment portfolio. Staff Report Subject: Resolution to Amend PERS Contract Page 2 For the Local Fire Safety Plan, the cost information is below: 1. Change in the Present Value of Benefits 2. Change in Normal Rate $32,894 .018% As indicated previously, actual annual PERS rates for the City for the local safety fire members may increase after PERS adjusts for the portfolio losses they incurred in 2001-02, which will be factored in for the next fiscal year. l~rector of Human Resources Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachment: Exhibit A: Resolution Exhibit B: Form CON- 12, Certification of Governing Body's Action Exhibit C: Form CON-12A Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 7507 JAB-11/22/02 F:~File Cabinet\City CouncilXPERS ModificationsX2WXPERS Resolution.doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETVVEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS), AND THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, TO PROVIDE SECTION 21548 PRE-RETIREMENT OPTIONAL SETTLEMENT 2 DEATH BENEFITS FOR LOCAL SAFETY FIRE MEMBERS WHEREAS, during negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters bargaining unit two proposed enhancements to the City's retirement system were made; and WHEREAS, the City planned to modify its PERS contract to provide several retirement formula enhancements with an implementation date anticipated to occur in late 2002; and WHEREAS, one enhancement now is in effect; and WHEREAS, this is the final retirement enhancement to be completed for this group; and WHEREAS, the City received all the necessary valuations and document from PERS. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves an Amendment to the Contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), City of South San Francisco, to Provide Section 21548 Pre-retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit for Local Safety Fire Members. 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 F:Xfile cabinet\Current Reso's\pers.contract.res.doc CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ,~MPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Actuarial and Employer Services Division Public Agency Contract Services P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 (916) 326-3420 CERTIFICATION OF GOVERNING BODY'S ACTION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the of the (governing body) on (date) (public agency) Clerk/Secretary Title PERS-CON-12 (rev. 1/96) CALIFORNIA PUBLIt., EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Actuarial and Employer Services Division Public Agency Contract Services P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 (916) 326-3420 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7507 I hereby certify that in accordance with Section 7507 of the Government Code the future annual costs as determined by the System Actuary and/or the increase in retirement benefit(s) have been made public at a public meeting of the of the (governing body) on (date) Resolution / Ordinance. (public agency) which is at least two weeks prior to the adoption of the Clerk/Secretary Title Date PERS-CON-12A (rev. 1/96) CalPERS California Public Employees' Retirement System EXHIBIT AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of South San Francisco The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective September 1, 1945, and witnessed September 12, 1945, and as amended effective September 1, 1949, December 1, 1953, January 1, 1960, January 1, 1963, February 1, 1967, January 1, 1968, January 1, 1969, November 1, 1973, April 19, 1974, January 21, 1977, November 11, 1977, December 19, 1980, August 23, 1985, January 23, 1987, December 22, 1989, January 1, 1992, October 9, 1993, April 23, 1994, June 13, 1996 May 11, 2001, and November 22, 2002 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: Paragraphs 1 through 12 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective November 22, 2002, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 12 inclusive: All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members and age 50 for local safety members. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" o Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after September 1, 1945 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: PERSONS WHO ARE COMPENSATED ON AN HOURLY BASIS WHO ARE EMPLOYED JANUARY 1, 1963 OR AFTER. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law subject to the reduction provided therein for Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Modified and Full). The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362.2 of said Retirement Law (3% at age 50 Full). Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: Section 21571 (Basic Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members only. b. Section 21222.1 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1970). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980. 10. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" Sections 21624 and 21626 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance). Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1976. e. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation). Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only. g. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave). h. Section 21548 (Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit) for local fire members only. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on November 11, 1977. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 11. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 12. .Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRATI~ PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RE'rzJ~EMENT SYSTEM B',' KENNETH W. MARZIO ~'~3HIEF ACTUARIAL & EMPL(~ER SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE,~_~-RETIREMENT SYSTEM /.,,. Witness Date CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FR~CISCO PRESIDING OFFICE~ Attest: /'-,. Clerk ~ AMENDMENT ER# 93 PERS-CON-702A (Rev. 8\02) StaffXeport DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council, City of South San Francisco, Authorizing the Establishment of a Public Agency Retirement System (PARS) Supplemental Retirement Plan to be Administered by Phase 1I Systems, PARS Trust Administrator RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving a supplemental retirement plan for the City Manager and approving related implementation agreements. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION During contract discussions with the City Manager, an enhancement to his retirement plan was proposed, accepted, and approved by the City Council. Creating a supplemental retirement plan supports the City Council's goal relative to retention of the City Manager. This employment agreement between the City and the City Manager provides for an enhanced retirement benefit for the City Manager resulting in up to a .5 percent stackable benefit to be administered through PARS. During his tenure with the City, the annual costs of the benefit will paid for by the City Manager through pre-tax payroll deductions. The attached resolution authorizes the adoption of a supplemental retirement plan, under the Public Agency Retirement System Trust Agreement, for the City Manager pursuant to his contract with the City. This staff report presents the second of a two-step process with the first step being the receiving of the actuarial report, and the second step the final adoption of the plan. As required by Government Code Section 7507, the City secured the services of an enrolled actuary to determine the future annual costs of providing the proposed plan benefits. The projected actuarial cost of the proposed plan is 15.5% of the employee's annual salary, which is approximately $27,700 per year plus administrative fees of approximately $2,400 to $3,000 per year. The City has completed its discussions and has received all the necessary valuations and documents from PARS. Attachment A is the PARS Trust Agreement and Attachment B is the Agreement for Administrative Services with Phase II Systems. As required by Government Code Section 7507, the City secured the services of an enrolled actuary to determine the future annual costs of providing the proposed plan benefits, which was presented Staff Report Subject: Resolution to Adopt PARS Contract Page 2 previously. Dire'ct6~gf Human Resources Steven ~. Mattas City Attorney Attachments JAB- 12/05/02 C:kDocuments and SettingsksmattasXMy DocumentskPARS StaffReport. doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PARS RETIREMENT ENHANCEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY MANAGER WHEREAS, the City is a member of the Public Agency Retirement System (PARS) for the purpose of providing tax qualified retirement benefits; and WHEREAS, it is to be determined to be in the best interest of the City and its employees to provide a Retirement Enhancement Program to eligible employees; and WHEREAS, the PARS Trust has made available a Retirement Enhancement Plan supplementing CalPERS and qualifying under the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the California Government Code. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that: The City Council, being a member of the PARS Trust, does hereby adopt the PARS Retirement Enhancement Plan, as part of the City Retirement Program, effective December 11, 2002; and The City Council hereby appoints the Director of Human Resources, or his/her successor or his/her designee as the City's Plan Administrator for the Public Agency Retirement System; and o The City's PARS Administrator is hereby authorized to execute the PARS legal and administrative service documents, including the Agreement for Administrative Services, on behalf of the City to implement a PARS supplement plan to CalPERS and to take whatever additional actions are necessary to maintain the City's participation in PARS and to maintain PARS compliance of any relevant regulation issued or as may be issued; therefore, authorizing him/her to take whatever additional actions are required to administer the City's PARS plan(s). ° In addition, if the City's PARS Administrator finds that the PARS supplemental plan benefit must be limited under Section 415 of Internal Revenue Code, then the Plan Administrator will implement replacement benefit programs at no additional cost to the City. 603466-1 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 __ day of ,2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 603466-1 PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PARS) TRUST AGREEMENT PREAMBLE The Huntington Beach City School District and State Center Community College District formed and adopted the Public Agency Retirement System Trust ("PARS Trust") on July 1,1991 ("Effective Date"). Subsequent to the Effective Date other California public agencies adopted the PARS Trust as the funding vehicle for tax qualified retirement plans for employees. Subsequent to the Effective Date the PARS Trust was amended. Effective as of July 1, 1999 ("Amended Effective Date") the PARS Trust was amended and restated in its entirety as contained herein. This amended and restated Trust shall supersede all prior versions of the PARS Trust as of the Amended Effective Date. TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS ARTICLE II THE PARS TRUST PROGRAM ARTICLE III ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ARTICLE IV THE TRUSTEE ARTICLE V INVESTMENTS ARTICLE VI FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES ARTICLE VII AMENDMENT, TERMINATION AND MERGER ARTICLE VIII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ARTICLE IX ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND ACCEPTANCE PAGE 3 4 7 12 18 25 28 3O 32 2567_12 PEL Article I DEFINITIONS 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 "Act" shall mean California Government Code Sections 53215 - 53224, or their successor sections. "Agreement for Administrative Services" shall mean the agreement executed between the Member Agency and the Trust Administrator which authorizes the Trust Administrator to perform specific duties of administering the Member Agency Plan and related Agency Trust. "Amended Effective Date" shall mean July 1, 1999, the date the PARS Trust Agreement was amended and restated in its entirety. "Assets" shall mean all contributions and transfers of assets received by an Agency Trust on behalf of a Member Agency's Plan, together with the income and earnings from such contributions and transfers and any increments accruing to them. "Agency Trust" shall mean the legally separate and individual trust, whose provisions are identical to those of the PARS Trust Agreement, that is established by a Member Agency when it adopts the PARS Trust by executing an Adoption Agreement. "Alternate Trustee" shall mean a trustee, other than the Trustee of the PARS Trust Program, apPointed by a Member Agency to serve as a trustee of a portion of such Agency Trust's assets as to which the Trustee serves as custodian. "Code" shall mean the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended from time to time. "Custodian" shall mean Union Bank of California, N.A. whose duties are limited to those specified in Section 4.3. "Delegatee" shall mean an individual or entity, appointed by the Plan Administrator or Member Agency to act in such matters as are specified in the appointment. "Effective Date" shall mean July 1, 1991, the date the PARS Trust Program was established. "Investment Fiduciary" shall mean the fiduciary with the authority and duty to direct the investment and management (including the power to direct the 2567_12 PEL 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 acquisition and disposition) of some or all of the Assets of the Agency Trust appointed by a Member Agency for its Agency Trust. "Omnibus Account" shall mean an account, established for record keeping purposes only, to commingle the Assets of the Ag(~rl(;;y Trust, "Member Agency" shall mean a California public agency that adopts the provisions of the PARS Trust Agreement. "Plan" shall mean the tax qualified plan whose assets the Agency Trust holds. "Plan Administrator" shall mean the individual designated by position of employment at the Member Agency to act on its behalf in all matters relating to the Member Agency's participation in the PARS Trust Program and Agency Trust. "PARS Trust Agreement" or "Trust Agreement" shall mean the pro forma Public Agency Retirement System trust document adopted by each Member Agency upon execution of an Adoption Agreement, as amended from time to time. "PARS Trust Program" shall mean the Public Agency Retirement System trust arrangement. "Participant" shall mean individual participating in a Member Agency Plan or that individual's beneficiary. "Trust Administrator'' shall mean Phase II Systems. "Trustee" shall mean the entity appointed as trustee of the PARS Trust that shall also serve as trustee of each Agency Trust established pursuant to the provisions of this trust agreement except where an Alternate Trustee has been appointed. Article II THE PARS TRUST PROGRAM 2.1 Multiple Employer Trust The PARS Trust Program is a multiple employer trust arrangement established to provide economies of scale and efficiency of administration to public agencies that adopt it to hold the assets of their Member Agency Plans maintained for the benefit of their employees. The PARS Trust Program consists of the Agency Trusts adopted and not terminated by Member Agencies. 2567_12 PEL 2.2 2.3 2.4 Qualified Governmental Retirement Trust The PARS Trust Program is established pursuant to the provisions of Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and -California Government Code Sections 53215 through 53224 providing for pension trusts established by public agencies.' Date of Adoption The date as of which each Member Agency adopts the PARS Trust Program shall be the "Effective Date" of the PARS Trust Agreement and the Agency Trust, as defined in Section 2.5, as to that Member Agency. Member Agencies Any California public agency may, by action of its governing body in a writing accepted by the Trustee, adopt the provisions of the PARS Trust Agreement as the trust portion of a qualified governmental retirement plan established for the benefit of its employees. Executing an adoption instrument for the PARS Trust Program ("Adoption Agreement"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A", shall constitute such adoption, unless the Trustee requires additional evidence of adoption. In order for such adoption to be effective, the public agency must also execute an Agreement for Administrative Services with Phase II Systems, the Trust Administrator, pursuant to section 3.6 of this PARS Trust Agreement. Such adopting employer shall then become a Member Agency of the PARS Trust Program. Each such Member Agency shall, at a minimum, furnish the Trust Administrator with the following documents to support its adoption of the PARS Trust Program: (a) a certified copy of-the Member Agency governing body resolution authorizing the adoption of the PARS Trust Agreement and the appointment of an individual designated by position of employment at the Member Agency to act on its behalf in all matters relating to the Member Agency's participation in the PARS Trust Program and Agency Trust ("Plan Administrator"); (b) an original of the Adoption Agreement executed by the Plan Administrator or other duly authorized Member Agency employee; (c) an original of the Agreement for Administrative Services with Phase II Systems executed by the Plan Administrator or other duly authorized Member Agency employee and Phase II Systems; (d) an address notice; and 2567_12 PEL IO (e) such other documents as the Trustee may reasonably request. 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Agency Trust By adopting the PARS Trust Agreement, as provided in Section 2.4, a Member Agency shall be deemed to have adopted a legally separate and individual Agency Trust whose provisions are identical to those of the PARS Trust Agreement. The Assets of an Agency Trust shall be available only to pay benefits pursuant to the provisions of the Plan to participants and beneficiaries of the Member Agency entitled to receive benefits under the provisions of the Plan. The Agency Trust is created for the purpose of receiving contributions made to fund the Member Agency's Plan; accumulating, managing and investing those contributions; and providing benefits to active or retired participants of the Plan, their joint annuitants,, or their beneficiaries. Each Agency Trust shall be used to fund only a single Plan maintained by the Member Agency. A Member Agency may establish additional Agency Trusts to fund the assets of additional Plans by executing one or more additional Adoption Agreement(s). Assets of Agency Trust The assets of the Agency Trust shall consist of all contributions and transfers received by the Agency Trust on behalf of the Member Agency's Plan, together with the income and earnings from such contributions and transfers, and any increments accruing to them ("Assets".). All contributions or transfers shall be received by the Trustee in cash or in other property acceptable to the Trustee. The Trustee shall manage and administer the Assets of the Agency Trust without distinction between principal and income. The Trustee and the Trust Administrator shall have no duty to compute any amount to be transferred or paid to the Agency Trust by the Member Agency and the Trustee and the Trust Administrator shall not be responsible for the collection of any contributions or transfers to the Agency Trust. Commingling for Investment and Administration The Assets of more than one Agency Trust may be commingled by the Trustee or Investment Fiduciary in one or more Omnibus Accounts for investment and administrative purposes, to provide economies of scale and efficiency of administration to the Agency Trusts. The responsibility for Plan level accounting within this Omnibus Account(s) shall be that of the Trust Administrator. Trustee Accounting The Trustee shall be responsible only for maintaining records and maintaining accounts for the aggregate assets of the PARS Trust Program. The 2567_12 PEL 2.9 2.10 responsibility for Plan level accounting for each Agency Trust, based upon the Omnibus Account(s), shall be that of the Trust Administrator. No Diversion of Assets The Assets in each Agency Trust shall be held in trust for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the Participants of the Plan for which the Agency Trust is holding assets and defraying the reasonable expenses of such Plan. The Assets shall not be used for or diverted to, any other purpose. Type and Nature of Trust Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of each Member Agency, the State of California or any political subdivision thereof other than each Member Agency is pledged to the distribution of benefits hereunder. Except for contributions and other amounts hereunder, no other amounts are pledged to the distribution of benefits hereunder. Distributions of benefits are neither general nor special obligations of any Member Agency, but are payable solely from the Assets of each Agency Trust, as more fully described herein. No employee of any Member Agency or beneficiary may compel the exercise of the taxing power by any Member Agency. Distributions of Assets under any Agency Trust are not debts of any Member Agency, the State of California or any of its political subdivisions within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or restriction. Such distributions are not legal or equitable pledges, charges, liens or encumbrances, upon any of a Member Agency's property, or upon any of its income, receipts, or revenues, except amounts in the accounts which are, under the terms of each Plan, Agency Trust and the Act, set aside for distributions. Neither the members of the legislative body. of any Member Agency nor its officers, employees, agents or volunteers are liable hereunder. Article III ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 3.1 Appointment of Trustee Two thirds or more of the Member Agencies acting jointly, may by a two-thirds or greater vote, act to appoint a bank, trust company, retirement board, insurer, committee or such other entity as permitted by California law, to serve as the trustee of the PARS Trust Program ("Trustee"). Such action must be in writing. Upon the wdtten acceptance of such entity it shall become the Trustee of the PARS Trust Program and, subject to the provisions of Section 3.10, the trustee of each Agency Trust. By executing an Adoption Agreement, the adopting Member 2567_12 PEL 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Agency hereby appoints the Union Bank of California, N.A. as the Trustee as of the Amended Effective Date. Removal of Trustee Two thirds or more of the Member Agencies acting jointly, may by a vote of two - thirds or greater, act to remove the Trustee. Such action must be in writing and delivered to the Trustee and the Trust Administrator. Upon such removal from the PARS Trust the Trustee shall also be removed as trustee of each of the Agency Trusts. The Plan Administrator may remove the Trustee as trustee of an Agency Trust by giving at least ninety (90) days prior written notice to the Trustee and the Trust Administrator and withdrawing from the PARS Trust Program. Resignation of Trustee The Trustee may resign as trustee of the PARS Trust Program at any time by giving at least ninety (90) days prior written notice to the Trust Administrator and to each Plan Administrator of each Member Agency that has adopted the PARS Trust Agreement and not terminated its participation in the PARS Trust Program. Such resignation shall also be deemed a resignation as trustee of each of the Agency Trusts. The Trustee may resign as trustee of an Agency Trust by giving at least ninety (90) days written notice to the Plan AdminiStrator of such Agency Trust and to the Trust Administrator. The Member Agency's appointment of a successor trustee to the Agency Trust will vest the successor trustee with title to the Assets of its Agency Trust upon the successor trustee's acceptance of such appointment. The Plan Administrator The governing body of each Member Agency shall have plenary authority for the administration and investment of the Agency Trust pursuant to the laws and Constitution of the State of California and applicable federal laws and regulations. Each Member Agency shall by resolution designate a Plan Administrator. Unless otherwise specified in the instrument the Plan Administrator shall be deemed to have authority to act on behalf of the Member Agency in all matters pertaining to the Member Agency's participation in the PARS Trust Program and in regard to the Agency Trust of the Member Agency. Such appointment of a Plan Administrator shall be effective upon receipt and acknowledgment by the Trustee and the Trust Administrator and shall be effective until the Trustee and Trust Administrator are fumished with a resolution of the Member Agency that the appointment has been modified or terminated. Failure to Appoint Plan Administrator If a Plan Administrator is not appointed, or such appointment lapses, the Member Agency shall be deemed to be the Plan Administrator. As used in this document 2567_12 PEL Plan Administrator shall be deemed to mean Member Agency when a Plan Administrator haS not been appointed. 3.6 3.7 3.8 Delegatee The Plan Administrator, acting on behalf of the Member Agency, may delegate certain authority, powers and duties to an entity to act in those matters specified in the delegation ("Delegatee"). Any such delegation must be in a writing that names and identifies the Delegatee, states the effective date of the delegation, specifies the authority and duties delegated, is executed by the Plan Administrator and is acknowledged in writing by the Delegatee, the Trust Administrator (if not the Delegatee) and the Trustee. Such delegation shall be effective until the Trustee and the Trust Administrator are directed in writing by the Plan Administrator that the delegation has been rescinded or modified. Certification to Trustee The governing body of each Member Agency, or other duly authorized official, shall certify in writing to the Trustee and the Trust Administrator the names and specimen signatures of the Plan Administrator and Delegatee, if any, and all others authorized to act on behalf of the Member Agency whose names and specimen signatures shall be kept accurate by the Member Agency acting through a duly authorized official or governing body of the Member Agency. The Trustee and the Trust Administrator shall have no liability if it acts upon the direction of a Plan Administrator or Delegatee that has been duly authorized, as provided in Section 3.6, if that Plan Administrator or Delegatee is no longer authorized to act, unless the Member Agency has informed the Trustee and the Trust Administrator of such change. Directions to Trustee Except as provided in Section 5.18 of this Trust Agreement, all directions to the Trustee from the Plan Administrator or Delegatee must be in wdting and must be signed by the Plan Administrator or Delegatee, as the case may be. For all purposes of this Trust Agreement, direction shall include any certification, notice, authorization, application or instruction of the Plan Administrator, Delegatee or Trustee appropriately communicated. The above notwithstanding direction may be implied if the Plan Administrator or Delegatee has knowledge of the Trustee's intentions and fails to file written objection. The Trustee shall have the power and duty to comply promptly with all proper direction of the Plan Administrator, or Delegatee, appointed in accordance with the provisions of this PARS Trust Agreement. In the case of any direction deemed by the Trustee to be unclear or ambiguous the Trustee may seek written instructions from the Plan Administrator, the Agency or the Delegatee on such 2567_12 PEL 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 matter and await their written instructions without incurring any liability. If at any time the Plan Administrator or the Delegatee should fail to give directions to the Trustee, the Trustee may act in the manner that in its discretion seems advisable under the circumstances for carrying out the purposes of the PARS Trust Program and/or any Agency Trust which may include not taking any action. The Trustee may request directions or clarification of directions received and may delay acting until clarification is received. In the absence of timely direction or clarification, or if the Trustee considers any direction to be a violation of the PARS Trust Agreement or any applicable law, the Trustee shall in its sole discretion take appropriate action, or refuse to act upon a direction. Alternate Trustee A Member Agency may appoint a trustee, other than the Trustee, as to a portion of the assets in the Agency Trust by designating such person or entity as an Alternate Trustee on the Adoption Agreement and by specifying which assets shall be subject to the fiduciary management of the Alternate Trustee. Such appointment shall not be effective unless it is in writing, specifies clearly the assets as to which the Alternate Trustee is to have trustee powers, is acknowledged in writing by the Alternate Trustee, is delivered to and acknowledged by the Trustee and the Trust Administrator. Only a bank, trust company, retirement board, insurer, the Member Agency or such entity as permitted by California law to be a trustee may be appointed an Alternate Trustee. Such appointment will become effective upon acceptance by the Alternate Trustee. Powers Of Alternate Trustee The Alternate Trustee shall be deemed to have all of the powers and duties and responsibilities specified in the PARS Trust Agreement for the PARS Trustee in Article IV unless otherwise specified in the Adoption Agreement. Responsibility of Trustee Upon Appointment of Alternate Trustee Upon the appointment of an Alternate Trustee, the Trustee shall have no liability or responsibility for any matters relating to the management, investment or administration of those assets as to which the Alternate Trustee has been appointed and shall only have the duties set forth in Section 4.3. Trust Administrator The Member Agencies have appointed Phase II Systems as the Trust Administrator. The Trust Administrator has accepted its appointment subject to each Member Agency's delegation of authority, to act as such, pursuant to Section 3.6 of this PARS Trust Agreement. The Trust Administrator's duties 2567_12 PEL involve the performance of the following services pursuant to the provisions of this trust agreement and the Agreement for Administrative Services: (a) Performing pedodic accounting of the Agency Trust; (b) Directing the Trustee to make distributions from the Agency Trust to Participants pursuant to the provisions of the Member Agency's Plan and liquidate assets in order to make such distributions; (c) Notifying the Investment Fiduciary of the amount of Assets in the Agency Trust available for further investment and management by the Investment Fiduciary; (d) Allocating contributions, earnings and expenses to each Agency Trust; (e) Directing the Trustee to pay insurance premiums, to pay the fees of the Trust Administrator and to do such other acts as shall be appropriate to carry out the intent of the Agency TruSts. Such other services as the Member Agency and the Trust Administrator may agree in the Agreement for Administrative Services Pursuant to Section 2.4. 3.13 3.14 The Trust Administrator shall be entitled to rely on, and shall be under no duty to question, direction and/or data received from the Plan Administrator, or other duly authorized entity, in order to perform its authorized duties under this trust agreement. The Trust Administrator shall not have any duty to compute contributions made to the Agency Trust, determine or inquire whether contributions made to the Agency Trust by the Plan Administrator or other duly authorized entity are adequate to meet and discharge liabilities under the Plan; or determine or inquire whether contributions made to the Agency Trust are in compliance with the Plan; The Trust Administrator shall not be liable for non performance of duties if such non. performance is directly caused by erroneous, and/or late delivery of, directions or data from the Plan Administrator, or other duly authorized entity. Additional Trust Administrator Services The Plan Administrator may at any time retain the Trust Administrator as its agent to perform any act, keep any records or accounts and make any computations which are required of the Member Agency or the Plan Administrator by this PARS Trust Agreement or by the Member Agency's Plan. The Trust Administrator shall be separately compensated for such service and such services shall not be deemed to be contrary to the PARS Trust Agreement. 2567_12 PEL 3.15 Trust Administrator's Compensation 3.16 As may be agreed upon from time to time by the Member Agency and Trust Administrator, the Trust Administrator will be paid reasonable compensation for services rendered or reimbursed for expenses properly and actually incurred in the performance of duties with respect to the Agency Trust and to the PARS Trust Program in accordance with Section 53217 of the Act. Resignation or Removal of Trust Administrator The Trust Administrator may resign at any time by giving at least one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to each Member Agency of the PARS Trust Program and the Trustee. The Member Agencies, by a two-thirds or greater vote, may remove the Trust Administrator by delivering, at least one hundred' twenty (120) days prior to the effective date of such removal, written notice to the Trust Administrator and to the Trustee. , Article IV THE TRUSTEE 4.1 Powers and Duties of the Trustee Except as otherwise provided in Adicle V and subject to Article VI, the Trustee shall have full power and authority with respect to property held in the Agency Trust to do all such acts, take all proceedings, and'exercise all such dghts and privileges, whether specifically referred to or not in this document, as could be done, taken or exercised by the absolute owner, including, without limitation, the following: (a) To invest and reinvest the Assets or any part hereof in any one or more kind, type, class, item or parcel of property, real, personal or mixed, tangible or intangible; or in any one or more kind, type, class, item or issue of investment or security; or in any one or more kind, type, class or item of obligation, secured or unsecured; or in any combination of them. To retain the property for the period of time that the Trustee deems appropriate; (b) To acquire and sell options to buy securities ("call" options) and to acquire and sell options to sell securities ("put" options); (c) To buy, sell, assign, transfer, acquire, loan, lease (for any purpose, including mineral leases), exchange and in any other manner to acquire, manage, deal with and dispose of all or any part of the Agency Trust 2567_12 PEL (d) (e) property, for cash or credit and upon any reasonable terms and conditions; To make deposits, with any bank or savings and loan institution, including any such facility of the Trustee or an affiliate thereof provided that the deposit bears a reasonable rate of interest; To invest and reinvest the Assets, or any part thereof in any one or more collective investment trust funds, including common and group trust funds that consist exclusively of assets of exempt pension and profit sharing trusts and individual retirement accounts qualified and tax exempt under the Code, that are maintained by the Trustee or an affiliate thereof. The declaration of trust or plan of operations for any such common or collective fund is hereby incorporated herein and adopted into this PARS Trust Agreement by this reference. The combining of money and other assets of the .Agency Trust with money and other assets of other qualified trusts in such fund or funds is specifically authorized. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this trust agreement, the Trustee shall have full investment responsibility Over assets of the trust invested in such commingled funds. If the plan and trust for any reason lose their tax exempt status, and the Assets have been commingled with assets of other tax exempt trusts in Trustee's collective investment funds, the Trustee shall within 30 days of notice of such loss of tax exempt status, liquidate the Agency Trust's units of the collective investment fund(s) and invest the proceeds in a money market fund pending investment or other instructions from the Plan Administrator. The Trustee shall not be liable for any loss or gain or taxes, if any, resulting from said liquidation; (f) To place uninvested cash and cash awaiting distribution in one or more mutual funds and/or commingled investment funds maintained by or made available by the Trustee, and to receive compensation from the sponsor of such fund(s) for services rendered, separate and apart from any Trustee's fees hereunder. Trustee or Trustee's affiliate may also be compensated for providing investment advisory services to any mutual fund or commingled investment funds; (g) To borrow money for the purposes of the Agency Trust from any source with or without giving security; to pay interest; to issue promissory notes and to secure the repayment thereof by pledging all or any part of the Assets; (h) To take all of the following actions as directed by the Investment Fiduciary or other person with investment discretion over the trust assets: to vote proxies of any stocks, bonds or other securities; to give general or special proxies or powers of attorney with or without power of substitution; to exercise any conversion privileges, subscription rights or other options, 2567_12 PEL (i) 0) (k) (m) and to make any payments incidental thereto; to consent to or otherwise participate in corporate reorganizations or other changes affecting corporate securities and to delegate discretionary powers and to pay any assessments or charges in connection therewith; and generally to exercise any of the powers of an owner with respect to stocks, bonds, securities or other property held in the Agency Trust; To make, execute, acknowledge and deliver any and all documents of transfer and conveyance and any and all other instruments that may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the powers herein granted; To raze or move existing buildings; to make ordinary or extraordinary repairs, alterations or additions in and to buildings; to construct buildings and other structures and to install fixtures and equipment therein; To pay or cause to be paid from the Agency Trust any and all real or personal property taxes, income taxes or other taxes or assessments of any or all kinds levied or assessed upon or with respect to the Agency Trust or the Plan; As directed by the Trust Administrator, to hold term or ordinary life insurance contracts on the lives of Participants (but in the case of conflict between any such contract and the Plan, the terms of the Plan shall prevail); to pay from the Agency Trust the premiums on such contracts; to distribute, surrender or otherwise dispose of such contracts; to pay the proceeds, if any, of such contracts to the proper persons in the event of the death of the insured Participant; to enter into, modify, renew and terminate annuity contracts of deposit administration of immediate participation or other group or individual type with one or more insurance companies and to pay or deposit all or any part of the Agency Trust Assets thereunder; to provide in any such contract for the investment of all or any part of funds so deposited with the insurance company in securities under separate accounts; to exercise and claim all dghts and benefits granted to the contract holder by any such contracts; To exercise all the further rights, powers, options and privileges granted, provided for, or vested in trustees generally under applicable federal or California laws, as amended from time to time, it being intended that, except as herein otherwise provided, the powers conferred upon the Trustee herein shall not be construed as being in limitation of any authority conferred by law, but shall be construed as consistent or in addition thereto. 2567_12 PEL 4.2 Additional Trustee Powers In addition to the other powers enumerated above, and whether or not the Member Agency has retained investment authority or delegated it to an Investment Fiduciary or Participants in Participant Directed Accounts, the Trustee in any anti all events is authorized and empowered: To invest funds pending required directions in any type of interest-bearing account including without limitation, time certificates of deposit or interest- bearing accounts issued by Union Bank of California N.A., or any mutual fund or short term investment fund ("Fund"), whether sponsored or advised by Union Bank of California or any affiliate thereof; Union Bank of California, N.A. or its affiliate may be compensated for providing such investment advice and providing other services to such Fund, in addition to any Trustee's fees received pursuant to this Trust Agreement; (b) To cause all or any part of the Agency Trust to be held in the name of the Trustee (which in such instance need not disclose its fiduciary capacity) or, as permitted by law, in the name of any nominee, and to acquire for the Agency Trust any investment in bearer form, but the books and records of the Agency Trust shall at all times show that all such investments are a part of the Agency Trust and the Trustee shall hold evidences of title to all such investments; (c) To serve as sole custodian with respect to the Agency Trust Assets; (d) To employ such agents and counsel as may be reasonably necessary in managing and 'protecting the Assets and to pay them reasonable compensation; to employ any broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer affiliated with the Trustee, and pay to such broker-dealer at the expense of the Agency Trust, its standard commissions; to settle, compromise or abandon all claims and demands in favor of or against the Agency Trust; and to charge any premium on bonds purchased at par value to the principal of the Agency Trust without amortization from the Agency Trust, regardless of any law relating thereto; (e) In addition to the powers listed herein, to do all other acts necessary or desirable for the proper administration of the Agency Trust, as though the absolute owner thereof; (f) To abandon, compromise, contest, arbitrate or settle claims or demands; to prosecute, compromise and defend lawsuits, but without obligation to do so, all at the risk and expense of the Agency Trust; (g) To exercise and perform any and all of the other powers and duties specified in this Trust Agreement or the Plan; 2567_12 PEL (h) (k) (m) (n) (o) To permit such inspections of documents at the principal office of the Trustee as are required by law, subpoena or demand by United States agency; To comply with all requirements imposed by applicable provisions of law; To seek written instructions from the Plan Administrator or other fiduciary on any matter and await their written instructions without incurring any liability. If at any time the Plan Administrator or the fiduciary should fail to give directions to the Trustee, the Trustee may act in the manner that in its discretion seems advisable under the circumstances for carrying out the purposes of this Agency Trust; As directed by the Plan Administrator or Delegatee if duly authorized, to cause the benefits provided under the Plan to be paid directly to the persons entitled thereto under the Plan, and in the amounts and in the manner specified, and to charge such payments against the Agency Trust with respect to which such benefits are payable; To compensate such executive, consultant, actuarial, accounting, investment, appraisal, administrative, clerical, secretarial, medical, custodial, depository and legal firms, personnel and other employees or assistants as are engaged by the Plan Administrator in connection with the administration of the Plan and to pay from the Agency Trust the necessary expenses of such firms, personnel and assistants, to the extent not paid by the Plan Administrator; To act upon proper written directions of the Plan Administrator or Delegatee, including directions given by photostatic transmissions using facsimile signature; To pay from the Agency Trust the expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of the Agency Trust as provided in the Plan; To maintain insurance for such purposes, in such amounts and with such companies as the Plan Administrator shall elect, including insurance to cover liability or losses occurring by reason of the acts or omissions of fiduciaries but only if such insurance permits recourse by the insurer against the fiduciary in the case of a breach of a fiduciary obligation by such fiduciary. 2567_12 PEL 4.3 Custodial Powers If an Alternate Trustee has been appointed pursuant to Section 3.9, Union Bank of California, N.A., ("Bank") as Custodian, shall only have the following responsibilitieS: (a) Keep records of all transactions entered into for the Agency Trust and furnish to Alternate Trustee statements no less frequently than quarterly showing all principal and 'income transactions and Agency Trust Assets, which shall be deemed ratified and approved by Alternate Trustee unless Custodian is advised to the contrary within ninety (90) days of Custodian's mailing thereof by first class mail to Alternate Trustee; (b) Receive payments of income and principal on Agency Trust Assets, and retain or remit in accordance with Alternate Trustee's written instructions; (c) Hold Agency Trust Assets in Bank's name as Custodian for Alternate Trustee or in Bank's nominee name, or, as to securities eligible to be held by the depository trust company or other depository, in its nominee name; (d) Purchase and sell securities, attend to the exchange of securities, deposit or exchange securities of companies in reorganization, and tender securities on redemption or tender offer solely upon direction of Alternate Trustee; (e) Sign the name of Alternate Trustee to stock and bond powers and any other instruments required for the proper exercise of Bank's duties, and Bank is appointed Alternate Trustee's attorney-in-fact for these purposes; (f) Forward all proxies and accompanying materials to Alternate Trustee to be voted unless directed in writing to the contrary. Disclose Alternate Trustee's name and address in response to requests from issuers of securities and others to facilitate direct communication for proxy and tender offer response; (g) Sell all fractional shares of stock received as a result of stock dividends or other corporate 'action; (h) Notify Alternate Trustee of any inability to collect income or principal if the securities or other property constituting Assets upon which such amount is payable is in default, or if payment is refused after due demand. Bank shall be under no obligation or duty to take any action to effect collection of defaulted payments, or to file or pursue any bankruptcy or class action claims with respect to Agency Trust. 2567_12 PEL Perform a telephonic verification to Alternate Trustee or Alternate Trustee's authorized representative or such other security procedure selected by Alternate Trustee prior to wiring funds or following facsimile directions as Bank may require. Alternate Trustee assumes all risk of delay of transfer if Bank is unable to reach Alternate Trustee or Alternate Trustee's authorized representative, or in the event of delay as a result of attempts to comply with any other-security procedure selected by Alternate Trustee. 5.1 Article V INVESTMENTS Investment Fiduciary Except as herein provided, the Plan Administrator shall be the Investment Fiduciary. 5.2 5.3 5.4 Appointment of Trustee or an Investment Manager as Investment Fiduciary The Plan Administrator may appoint the Trustee or an investment manager as the Investment Fiduciary, with the authority and duty to direct the investment and management of all or any portion of the Assets of the Agency Trust. Appointment of Investment Fiduciary No action of the Plan Administrator pursuant to 5.2 shall be effective until a certified copy of the revised Adoption Agreement and, if required, any such resolution of the governing body of the Member Agency or Plan Administrator action is delivered to the Trustee. Upon receipt and acceptance, the Trustee or investment manager, as the case may be, shall assume fiduciary responsibility with respect to the investment and management of such assets of the Agency Trust as are specified in the resolution or action. Any transfer of investment authority to the Trustee or to an investment manager may be revoked by delivering to the Trustee or the investment manager a written notice from either the Member Agency governing body or the Plan Administrator, as the case may be. Reliance by Trustee on Investment Fiduciary The appointment, selection and retention of an Investment Fiduciary shall be solely the responsibility of the Member Agency acting through its governing body or the Plan Administrator. The Trustee may rely upon the fact that the 2567_12 PEL 5.5 5.6 Investment Fiduciary is authorized to direct the investment and management of the Assets of the Agency Trust until such time as the Plan Administrator shall notify the Trustee in writing that another Investment Fiduciary has been appointed to replace the Investment Fiduciary named, or, in the alternative, that the Investment Fiduciary named has been removed, When Trustee is not Investment Fiduciary The Trustee shall not be the Investment Fiduciary and shall have no responsibility or authority for the investment and management of assets unless specifically designated as the Investment Fiduciary as to some or all of the assets in the Agency Trust and accepts such designation. (a) During such period or periods of time, if any, as the Plan Administrator or an Investment Fiduciary is authorized to direct the investment and management of the Assets of the Agency Trust, the Trustee shall (subject to the overriding limitations hereinafter set forth) effect and change investment of the Assets of the Agency Trust as directed in wdting by the Plan Administrator, or Investment Fiduciary, as the case may be, and shall neither effect nor change any such investments without such direction and shall have no right, duty or responsibility to recommend investments or investment changes. The following provisions shall govern the Trustee during such period or periods of time, if any, during which the Plan Administrator or an Investment Fiduciary is authorized to direct the investment and management of the Assets of any Agency Trust: (b) So long as the Plan Administrator retains or reacquires full power and responsibility to direct the Trustee with respect to the investment and management of all or any portion of the Assets of the Agency Trust, the Trustee shall not be liable nor responsible for losses or unfavorable results arising from the Trustee's compliance with proper directions of the Plan Administrator which are made in accordance with the terms of this Trust Agreement and which are not contrary to the provisions of any applicable federal or state statute regulating such investment. (c) In the event an Investment Fiduciary is given authority and responsibility with respect to the investment and management of the Assets of the Agency Trust, neither the Trustee nor the Plan Administrator shall be liable or responsible in any way for any losses or other unfavorable results arising from the Trustee's compliance with investment or management directions received by the Trustee from the Investment Fiduciary. Investment Directions Must be in Wdting Subject to the provisions of Section 5.18, in order to be valid all directions concerning investments made by the Plan Administrator, or the Investment 2567_12 PEL 5.7 5.8 Fiduciary, or PARS Trustee must be signed by the authorized person or persons acting on behalf of the Plan Administrator, Investment Fiduciary or Trustee, as the case may be. Trustee Reliance On Directions (a) The Trustee shall be entitled to rely upon directions which the Trustee receives. The Trustee shall be under no duty to question any directions of the Investment Fiduciary or Plan Administrator nor to review any securities or other property of the PARS Trust or Agency Trust constituting assets thereof with respect to which an Investment Fiduciary or the Plan Administrator has investment responsibility, nor to make any suggestions to the Investment Fiduciary or Plan Administrator in connection therewith. The Trustee shall, as promptly as possible, comply with any wdtten directions given by the Plan Administrator or an Investment Fiduciary hereunder. The Trustee shall not be liable, in any manner nor for any reason, for the making or retention of any investment pursuant to such directions, nor shall the Trustee be liable for its failure to invest any or all of the Assets of the Agency Trust in the absence of such written directions. The Trustee shall be under no obligation to seek written clarification in the event of ambiguity. (b) During such pedod of time, if any, as the Plan Administrator, or an Investment Fiduciary, is authorized to direct the Trustee, the Trustee shall have no obligation to determine the existence of any conversion, redemption, exchange, subscription or other right relating to any securities purchased of which notice was given prior to the purchase of such securities, and shall have no obligation to exercise any such right unless the Trustee is informed of the existence of the right and is instructed to exercise such right, in writing, by the Plan Administrator or the Investment Fiduciary, as the case may be, within a reasonable time pdor to the expiration of such right. (c) In any event, neither the Plan Administrator nor any Investment Fiduciary referred to above shall direct the purchase, sale or retention of any Assets of the Agency Trust if such directions are not in compliance with applicable law. Trustee Fees As may be agreed upon, in wdting, between the Plan Administrator and Trustee, the Trustee will be paid reasonable compensation for services rendered or reimbursed for expenses properly and actually incurred in the performance of duties with respect to the Agency Trust or the PARS Trust. 2567_12 PEL 5.9 Contributions 5.10 5.11 5.12 The Plan Administrator shall make all of its contributions to the Trustee; and shall also transmit all contributions of Plan participants, as may be required or allowed by the Plan, to the Trustee. Such contributions shall be in cash unless the Trustee agrees to accept a contribution that is not in cash. All contributions shall be paid to the Trustee for investment and reinvestment pursuant to the terms of this Trust Agreement. The Trustee shall not have any duty to determine or inquire whether any contributions to the Agency Trust made to the Trustee by any Plan Administrator are in compliance with the Plan; nor shall the Trustee have any duty or authority to compute any amount to be paid to the Trustee by any Plan Administrator; nor shall the Trustee be responsible for the collection or adequacy of the contributions to meet and discharge liabilities under the Plan. The contributions received by the Trustee from each Member Agency shall be held and administered pursuant to the terms hereof without distinction between income and principal. Money Market Fund Pending any investment directions, such cash in the Agency Trust in an amount as is reasonable in the discretion of the Trustee, may be deposited in a money market fund selected by the Trustee or the Member Agency. Purchase of Contracts The Trustee shall have the authority to purchase individual or group insurance, annuity, preliminary term, group pension, and variable annuity contracts in accordance with the directions of the Plan Administrator or other insurance contracts at the direction of the Plan Administrator or Investment Fiduciary if such contracts are acceptable to the Trustee. The Trustee shall act as custodian of such contracts if an Alternate Trustee is appointed as to such contracts. Records (a) The Trustee shall maintain accurate records and detailed accounts of all investments, receipts, disbursements and other transactions hereunder at the PARS Trust level. Such records shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Trust Administrator. The Trustee shall, at the direction of the Trust Administrator, submit such valuations, reports or other information as the Trust Administrator may reasonably require. (b) Valuation. The assets of the Agency Trust shall be valued at their fair market value on the date of valuation, as determined by the Trustee based upon such sources of information as it may deem reliable; provided, however, that the 'Plan Administrator shall instruct the Trustee as to valuation of assets which are not readily determinable on an established 2567_12 PEL 5.13 5.14 5.15 market. The Trustee may rely conclusively on such valuations provided by the Plan Administrator and shall be indemnified and held harmless by the Plan Administrator with respect to such reliance. If the Plan Administrator fails to provide such values, the Trustee may'take whatever action it deems reasonable, including employment of attorneys, appraisers or other professionals, the expense of which will be an expense of administration of the Agency Trust. Transactions in the account involving such hard to value assets may be postponed until appropriate valuations have been received and Trustee shall have no liability therefore. Statements (a) Periodically as specified, and within sixty days after June 30, or the end of the PARS Trust's fiscal year if different, Trustee shall render to the Trust Administrator as directed, a wdtten account showing in reasonable summary the investments, receipts, disbursements and other transactions engaged in by the Trustee during the preceding fiscal year or period with respect to the PARS Trust. Such account shall set forth the assets and liabilities of the PARS Trust valued as of the end of the accounting period. (b) The Trust Administrator may approve such statements either by written notice or by failure to express objections to such statements by written notice delivered to the Trustee within ninety (90) days from the date the statement is delivered to the Trust Administrator. Upon approval, the Trustee shall be released and discharged as to all matters and items set forth in such statement as if such account had been settled and allowed by a decree from a court of competent jurisdiction. Wire Transfers The Trustee shall follow the Plan Administrator's, Delegatee's, or Trust Administrator's wire transfer instructions in compliance with the written security procedures provided by the party providing the wire transfers. The Trustee shall perform a telephonic verification to the Plan Administrator, Trust Administrator, or Delegatee, of such other security procedure, as selected by the party providing wire transfer directions, prior to wiring funds or following facsimile directions as Trustee may require. The Plan Administrator assumes the risk of delay of transfer if Trustee is unable to reach the Plan Administrator, or in the event of delay as a result of attempts to comply with any other secudty procedure selected by the directing party. Exclusive Benefit The Assets of the Agency Trust shall be held in trust for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the participants and their beneficiaries of the Member Agency Plan, and defraying reasonable expenses of the Plan, and shall not be 2567_12 PEL 5.16 5.17 used for or diverted to any other purpose. No party shall have authority to use or divert such Plan's Assets for the payment of benefits or expenses of any other Member Agency's Plan. Delegation of Duties The Plan Administrator, Delegatee, or Trust Administrator, may at any time retain the Trustee as its agent to perform any act, keep any records or accounts and make any computations that are required of the Plan Administrator, Delegatee or Trust Administrator by this Trust Agreement or by the Plan. The Trustee may be compensated for such retention and such retention shall not be deemed to be contrary to this Trust Agreement. Distributions All benefits payable pursuant to the Plan shall be paid out of the Assets of the Agency Trust by the Trustee pursuant to the direction of the Plan Administrator or Delegatee. The Trustee shall, from time to time, upon the written direction of the Plan Administrator or Delegatee, make distributions from the Assets of the Agency Trust to or for the benefit of such persons, in such manner in such form(s), in such amounts and for such purposes as may be specified in such directions. The Trustee at the direction of the Plan Administrator or Delegatee may make any. distribution required to be made by it hereunder by delivering to the Plan Administrator or Delegatee: Its check payable to the person to whom such distribution is to be made, for delivery to such person; or Its check payable to an insurer for the benefit of such person, for delivery by such insurer; or insurance contracts held on the life of the Participant to whom or with respect to whom the distribution is being made, for redelivery to the person to whom such distribution is to be made; provided that any contract distributed shall be endorsed as non-transferable. In directing the Trustee to make distributions, the Plan Administrator or Delegatee shall follow the provisions of the Plan and shall not direct that any distribution be made either during the existence or upon discontinuance of the Plan, which would cause any part of the Assets of the Agency Trust to be used for or diverted to purposes other than as provided in the Plan and this PARS Trust. in no event shall the Trustee have any responsibility respecting the application of such distributions, nor for determining or inquiring into whether such distributions are in accordance with the Plan. 2567_12 PEL 5.18 Participant Directed Accounts The Member Agency may, by written resolution and execution of the Adoption Agreement, terminate the Plan Administrator's right to direct the investment and management of all or any portion of the Assets of the Agency Trust and allow Participants to direct their own account balances ("Participant Directed Accounts"). Notwithstanding any other provision of this Trust Agreement, for Participant Directed Accounts, the Trustee shall be entitled to act upon proper directions of the Plan Administrator, Trust Administrator, and Participants including directions in wdting, or oral instructions which Trustee in its discretion may follow without receipt of written instructions, instruction given by photostatic teletransmission using facsimile signature, or those instructions which are digitally recorded on the UBOC Voice Response Unit ('¥RU") or internet website. Trustee is hereby authorized to record conversations and transmissions made in connection with the Agency Trust. Trustee's recording or lack of recording of any such oral, intemet or digital instructions, and/or receipt or lack of receipt of facsimile transmissions, as reflected in the Trustee's records maintained in the ordinary course of business shall constitute conclusive proof of Trustee's receipt or non-receipt of such instructions. The Trustee and/or Trust Administrator shall not be liable in any manner for investment or other losses or other liability attributable to Participant's directions, or lack thereof, or exercise of control over the investments of their Participant Directed Accounts. Likewise, the Trustee and/or Trust Administrator shall have no duty or responsibility to review, monitor or make recommendations regarding investments made at the direction of the Participants or the Plan Administrator. In order for Member Agency to be relieved of investment fiduciary liability, the requirements of California law including Section 53213.5 of the California Government Code must be met. The Plan Administrator shall establish uniform and nondiscriminatory rules for the operation of the Participant Directed Accounts, including whether the Participant shall direct the Trustee or direct the Plan Administrator who directs the Trust Administrator who forwards such directions to the Trustee. Member Agency shall designate whether Participant Directed Accounts are to be established pursuant to the provisions of section 5.18(a) or 5.18(b), below: (a) Participant Direction in Individually Directed Accounts. If the Member Agency has so elected, Participants may have investment direction power over their own segregated account balances ("Individually Directed Account" or "IDA"). Investments may be directed by Participants into assets administratively acceptable to Trustee, as limited by guidelines developed by the Plan Administrator (the "Permissible Investment Guidelines"). Plan Administrator shall notify Participants of the Plan's Permissible Investment Guidelines as in effect from time to time. In the absence of directions from a Participant, the Plan Administrator may direct the investment of the IDA. The Trustee may refuse to comply with the 2567_12 PEL directions of the Participant to invest in assets other than those listed in its Permissible Investments Guidelines or with directions which the Trustee deems to be improper or contrary to the provisions of the Plan and Agency Trust or the Internal Revenue Code and shall have no liability for such refusal. (b) (c) Participant Directed Account within Plan Administrator Selected Investment Options ("SelectBENEFIT Accounts"): If the Member Agency so elects, the Participant's Account Balance shall be segregated into a Participant Directed Account ("SelectBENEFIT Account"), over which the Participant may direct investment into one or more investment alternatives ("Investment Options"). The Plan Administrator or its appointed Investment Fiduciary shall have full responsibility for designating the Investment Options under the Plan and for selecting the underlying investment vehicle(s) for each designated Investment Option into which a Participant may direct investment of his or her SelectBENEFIT Account. To the extent allowed by law, neither the Member Agency, the 'Plan Administrator, the Trust Administrator nor the Trustee shall have any responsibility for monitoring the directions of the Participant nor shall the Member Agency, the Plan Administrator, the Trust Administrator or the Trustee be liable in any manner for investment or other losses or other liability for following directions of a Participant. If SelectBENEFIT Accounts are established, notwithstanding any other provision of this Trust Agreement, the Member Agency may appoint the Trustee to provide ministerial services as recordkeeper for such accounts by so indicating in the Member Agency's Adoption Agreement, provided that an acceptable service agreement has been executed by and between the Member Agency, the Plan Administrator, the Trustee and the Trust Administrator. Article VI FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1 More Than One Fiduciary Capacity Any one or more of the fiduciaries with respect to the PARS Trust Agreement or the Agency Trust may, to the extent required thereby or as directed by the Plan Administrator pursuant to this PARS Trust Agreement and the Plan, serve in more than one fiduciary capacity with respect to the PARS Trust Agreement, the Agency Trust and the Plan. 2567_12 PEL 6.2 Fiduciary Discharge of Duties 6.3 Except as otherwise provided in the Code and applicable law each fiduciary shall discharge such fiduciary's duties with respect to the PARS Trust Agreement and the Plan: Solely in the interest of the Participants and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to Participants, and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the Plan. With the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims. By diversifying the investments of the Plan and the Agency Trust so as to minimize the risk of loss and to maximize the rate of return, unless under the circumstances it is cleady prudent not to do so. Limitations on Fiduciary Responsibility To the extent permitted by applicable law: No fiduciary shall be liable with respect to a breach of fiduciary duty by any other fiduciary if such breach was committed before such party became a fiduciary or after such party ceased to be a fiduciary. No fiduciary shall be liable for a breach by another fiduciary unless the non- breaching fiduciary knowingly participates in such a breach, knowingly undertakes to conceal such breach, or has actual knowledge of such breach and fails to take reasonable steps to remedy such breach. No fiduciary shall be liable for carrying out a proper direction from another fiduciary, including refraining from taking an action in the absence of a proper direction from the other fiduciary possessing the authority and responsibility to make such a direction, which direction the fiduciary in good faith believes to be authorized and appropriate. 6.4 Indemnification of Trustee by Member Agency The Trustee shall not be liable for, and Member Agency shall indemnify, defend (as set out in 6.8 of this Trust Agreement), and hold the Trustee (including its officers, agents, employees and attorneys) and other Member Agencies and AItemate Trustees, harmless from and against any claims, demands, loss, costs, expense or liability imposed on the indemnified party, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the indemnified party, arising as a result of Member Agency's active or passive negligent act or omission or willful misconduct in the execution or performance of its duties under this Trust Agreement. 2567_12 PEL 6.5 Indemnification of Member Agency by Trustee 6.6 6.7 6.8 The Member Agency shall not be liable for, and Trustee shall indemnify, defend (as set out in 6.8 of this Trust Agreement), and hold the Member Agency (including its officers, agents, employees and attorneys) and other Member Agencies and Alternate Trustees, harmless from and against any claims, demands, loss, costs, expense or liability imposed on the indemnified party, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the indemnified party, arising as a result of Trustee's active or passive negligent act or omission or willful misconduct in the execution or performance of its duties under this Trust Agreement. Indemnification of Trustee by Trust Administrator The Trustee shall not be liable for, and Trust Administrator shall indemnify and hold the Trustee (including its officers, agents, employees and attorneys) harmless from and against any claims, demands, loss, costs, expense or liability imposed on the indemnified party, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the indemnified party, arising as a result of Trust Administrator's active or passive negligent act or omission or willful misconduct in the execution or performance of its duties under this Trust Agreement. Indemnification of Trust Administrator by Trustee The Trust Administrator shall not be liable for, and Trustee shall indemnify and hold the Trust Administrator (including its officers, agents, employees and attorneys) harmless from and against any claims, demands, loss, costs, expense or liability imposed on the indemnified party, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the indemnified party, arising as a result of Trustee's active or passive negligent act or omission or willful misconduct in the execution or performance of its duties under this Trust Agreement. Indemnification Procedures Promptly after receipt by an indemnified party of notice or receipt of a claim or the commencement of any action for which indemnification may be sought, the indemnified party will notify the indemnifying party in writing of the receipt or commencement thereof. When the indemnifying party has agreed to provide a defense as set out above that party shall assume the defense of such action (including the employment of counsel, who shall be counsel satisfactory to such indemnitee) and the payment of expenses, insofar as such action shall relate to any alleged liability in respect of which indemnity may be sought against the indemnifying party. Any indemnified party shall have the dght to employ separate counsel in any such action and to participate in the defense thereof, but the fees and expenses of such counsel shall not be at the expense of the 2567_12 PEL indemnifying party unless (i) the employment of such counsel has been specifically authorized by the indemnifying party or (ii) the named parties to any such action (including any impleaded parties)include both the indemnifying party and the indemnified party and representation of both parties by the same counsel would be inappropriate due to actual or potential differing interest between them. The indemnifying party shall not be liable to indemnify any person for any settlement of any such action effected without the indemnifying party's consent. 6.9 No Joint and Several Liability This document is .not intended to and does not create any joint powers agreement or any joint and several liability. No Member Agency shall be responsible for any contributions, costs or distributions of any other Member Agency. Article VII AMENDMENT, TERMINATION AND MERGER 7.1 No Obligation to Continue Plan and Trust Continuance of the Agency Trust, participation in the PARS Trust Program and continuation of the Plan are not assumed as a contractual obligation of the Member Agency. 7.2 Amendments (a) The PARS Trust Agreement may only be amended or terminated as provided herein. A two-thirds majority or greater of the Member Agencies shall have the dght to amend this Trust Agreement from time to time, and to similarly amend or cancel any amendments. A copy of all amendments shall be delivered to the Trustee, the Trust Administrator and _Plan Administrators promptly as each is made. (b) Such amendments shall be set forth in an instrument in writing executed by the amending party, the Trust Administrator and the Trustee. Any amendment may be current, retroactive or prospective, provided, however, that no amendment shall: Cause the Assets of any Agency Trust to be used for or diverted to purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of Participants who have an interest in such Agency Trust or for the purpose of defraying the reasonable expenses of administering such Agency Trust. 2567_12 PEL 7.3 7.4 (2) Have any retroactive effect so as to reduce the benefits of any Participant having an interest in the Agency Trust as of the date the amendment is adopted, except that such changes may be made as may be required to permit this PARS Trust Agreement to meet the requirements of applicable law. (3) Change or modify the duties, powers or liabilities of the Trustee or the Trust Administrator hereunder without its consent. (4) Permit the Assets of any Agency Trust to be used for the benefit of any other Plan of the Member Agency unless the Member Agency agrees to such use. Termination of Plan A termination of the Plan for which the Agency Trust was established shall not, in itself, effect a termination of an Agency Trust. Upon any termination of the Plan, the Assets of the Agency Trust shall be distributed by the Trustee as and when directed by the Plan Administrator. From and after the date of such termination of the Plan and until final distribution of the Assets the Trustee shall continue to have all the powers provided herein as are necessary or expedient for the orderly liquidation and distribution of such assets and the Agency Trust shall continue until the interests of all Participants have been completely distributed to or for the benefit of the Participants in accordance with the Plan. Reversion In the event a Member Agency's Plan is terminated, the vested interest of any Participant shall not be diminished or adversely affected. Except as may be provided in this Trust Agreement or the Plan, such termination shall not vest in the Member Agency any corpus or income under the Agency Trust, nor permit the Plan to discriminate as to coverage, or as to allocation of contributions or earnings, in favor of employees who are officers, shareholders, or highly compensated, nor cause the Agency Trust to lose its exemption pursuant to 501(a) of the Code. No modification, amendment or termination of the Plan shall be construed to be a termination of the Agency Trust so as to require the Trustee to make a distribution of any of the Assets of the Agency Trust to any Participant. In order to make such distribution the Trustee must receive written instructions from the Plan Administrator or Delegatee in a form acceptable to the Trustee. If any Member Agency adopts a Plan whose assets are maintained in an Agency Trust and makes application to the Internal Revenue Service, within one year from the date of adoption of such Plan, for a determination that such Plan is a qualified plan under Section 401 (a) of the Code, and if such Plan is determined by the Internal Revenue Service not to be a qualified Plan, then all contributions 2567_12 PEL 7.5 7.6 7.7 and investment income attributable to such Plan shall be returned to the Member Agency upon application to the Trustee. Fund Recovery Based on Mistake of Fact Except as hereinafter provided, the Assets of the Agency Trust shall never inure to the benefit of the Member Agency. The Assets shall be held for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to Participants having an interest in the Plan and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the Agency Trust. The sole exception to the foregoing is as follows: Mistake of Fact. In the case of a contribution which is made by the Plan Administrator because of a mistake of fact, that portion of the contribution relating to the mistake of fact (exclusive of any eamings or losses attributable thereto) may be returned to the Plan Administrator, provided such return occurs within one (1) year after discovery by the Plan Administrator of the mistake. If any repayment is payable to the Plan Administrator, then, as a condition to such repayment, and only if requested by Trustee, the Plan Administrator shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Trustee its written undertaking, in a form satisfactory to the Trustee, to indemnify, defend and hold the Trustee harmless from all claims, actions, demands or liabilities arising in connection with such repayment. Transfers from Other Qualified Plans Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, there may be transferred to the Trustee, upon direction of the Plan Administrator, all or any of the assets held (whether by a trustee, custodian or otherwise) on behalf of any other plan which satisfies the applicable requirements of Section 401 of the Code, and which is maintained for the benefit of any persons who are or wilt become Participants in the Plan. Termination The PARS Trust Agreement may be terminated only by a unanimous agreement of all Member Agencies. Such action must be in writing and delivered to the Trustee and Trust Administrator. 8.1 Article VIII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Nonalienation To the maximum extent permitted by law, a Participant's interest in the Agency Trust shall not in any way be liable to attachment, garnishment, assignment or 2567_12 PEL other process, or be seized, taken, appropriated or applied by any legal or equitable process, to pay any debt or liability of the Participant or any other party. Agency Trust Assets shall not be subject to the claims of the Member Agency or the claims of its creditors. 8.2 Saving Clause In the event any provision of this PARS Trust Agreement and each Agency Trust is held illegal or invalid for any reason, said illegality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining parts of the PARS Trust and/or Agency Trust, but this instrument shall be construed and enforced as if said provision had never been included. 8.3 Applicable Law This PARS Trust Agreement and each Agency Trust shall be construed, administered and governed under the Code and the applicable provisions of California law. To the extent any of the provisions of this Trust Agreement or the Plan are inconsistent with the Code or applicable California law, the provisions of the Code or California law shall control. In the event, however, that any provision is susceptible to more than one interpretation, such interpretation shall be given thereto as is consistent with the Trust Agreement and the Plan being a qualified governmental retirement trust and plan within the meaning of the Code. 8.4 Joinder of Parties In any action or other judicial proceedings affecting this Trust Agreement, it shall be necessary to join as parties only the Trustee, the Plan Administrator or Delegatee. No participant or other persons having an interest in any Agency Trust shall be entitled to any notice or service of process unless otherwise required by law. Any judgment entered in such a proceeding or action shall be binding on all persons claiming under this Trust Agreement, provided, however, that nothing in this Trust Agreement shall be construed as to deprive a participant of such participant's right to seek adjudication of such participant's rights under applicable law. 8.5 Employment of Counsel The Trustee may consult with legal counsel (who may be counsel for the Trustee or Member Agency Plan Administrator) and charge the Agency Trust. 8.6 Gender and Number Words used in the masculine, feminine or neuter gender shall each be deemed to refer to the other whenever the context so requires; and words used in the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to refer to the other whenever the context so requires. 2567_12 PEL 8.7 Headings 8.8 Headings used in this Trust Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and any conflict between such headings and the text shall be resolved in favor of the text. Counterparts The Adoption Agreement of this Trust Agreement may be executed in an original and any number of counterparts by the Plan Administrator (executing an Adoption Agreement), the Trust Administrator and the Trustee, each of which shall be deemed to be an original of the one and the same instrument. Article IX ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND ACCEPTANCE The provisions of the PARS Trust Agreement as contained herein are hereby amended and restated as of July 1, 1999 (the "Amended Effective Date") IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan Administrator (by executing the Adoption Agreement) the Trust Administrator and Trustee have executed this Trust Agreement by their duly authorized agents on this19th day of January, 2000. ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED this 19th day of January, 2000. THE TRUSTEE UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A. By: Title: Senior Vice President THE TRUST ADMINISTRATOR PHASE//~11 SYSTEF~_~ By: /._)---- ~¢'/¢' _ -. Title: President (~// 2567_'12 PEL AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES This agreement ("Agreement") is made this__ day of , 2002, between Phase II Systems ("Phase II Systems"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and the City of South San Francisco ("Agency"). WHEREAS, Agency is desirous of retaining Phase II Systems, as Trust Administrator to the PARS Trust, to provide administrative and consulting services with respect to the City of South San Francisco PARS Retirement Enhancement Plan (the "Plan"); NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1. Services. Phase II Systems will provide the services pertaining to the Plan as described in the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit IA" ("Services) in a timely manner, subject to the further provisions of this Agreement. 2. Fees for Services. Phase II Systems will be compensated for performance of the Services as described in the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit lB". Payment Terms. Payment for Services will be remitted directly from Plan assets unless otherwise stated in Exhibit lB. In the event that the Agency chooses to make payment directly to Phase II Systems, it shall be the responsibility of the Agency to remit payment directly to Phase II Systems based upon an invoice prepared by Phase 11 Systems and delivered to the Agency. If payment is not received by Phase II Systems within thirty (30) days of the invoice delivery date, the balance due shall bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. If payment is not received from the Agency within sixty (60) days of the invoice delivery date, payment plus accrued interest will be remitted directly from Plan assets, unless Phase 11 Systems has previously received written communication disputing the subject invoice that is signed by a duly authorized representative of the Agency. Fees for Services Beyond Scope. Fees for services beyond those specified in this Agreement will be billed to the Agency at the rates indicated in Phase II Systems' standard fee schedule in effect at the time the services are provided and shall be payable as described in Section 3 of this Agreement. Before any such services are performed, Phase II Systems will provide the Agency with written notice of the subject services, terms, and an estimate of the fees therefore. Information Furnished to Phase II Systems. Phase II Systems will provide the Services contingent upon the Agency's providing Phase II Systems the information specified in the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit lC" ("Data"). It shall be the responsibility of the Agency to certify the accuracy, content and completeness of the Data so that Phase II Systems may rely on such information without further audit. It shall further be the responsibility of the Agency to deliver the Data to Phase 1I Systems in such a manner that allows for a reasonable amount of time for the Services to be performed. Unless specified in Exl'fibit lA, Phase II Systems shall be under no duty to question Data received bom the Agency, to compute contributions made to the Plan, to determine or inquire whether contributions are adequate to meet and discharge liabilities under the Plan, or to determine or inquire whether contributions made to the Plan are in compliance with the Plan or applicable law. In addition, Phase II Systems shall not be liable for non- performance of Services if such non-performance is caused by or results from erroneous and/or late delivery of Data from the Agency. In the event that the Agency fails to provide Data in a complete, accurate and timely manner, and pursuant to the specifications in Exhibit lC, Phase II Systems reserves the right, notwithstanding the further provisions of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement upon no less than ninety (90) days written notice to the Agency. Suspension of Contributions. In the event contributions are suspended, either temporarily or permanently, prior to the complete discharge of Phase II Systems' obligations under this Agreement, Phase II Systems reserves the right to bill the Agency for Services under this Agreement at the rates indicated in Phase II Systems' standard fee schedule in effect at the time the services are provided, subject to the terms established in Section 3 of this Agreement. Before any such services are performed, Phase II Systems will provide the Agency with written notice of the subject services, terms, and an estimate of the fees therefore. o Records. During the term of this Agreement, and for a period of five (5) years after termination of this Agreement, Phase II Systems shall provide duly authorized representatives of the Agency access to all records and material relating to calculation of Phase II Systems' fees under this Agreement. Such access shall include the right to inspect, audit and reproduce such records and material and to verify reports furnished in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. All information so obtained shall be accorded confidential treatment as provided under applicable law. Confidentiality. Without the Agency's consent, Phase II Systems shall not disclose any information relating to the Plan except to duly authorized officials of the Agency and to parties retained by Phase II Systems to perform specific services within this Agreement. The Agency shall not disclose any information relating to the Plan to individuals not employed by the Agency without the prior written consent of Phase.II Systems, except as such disclosures may be required by applicable law. Independent Contractor. Phase II Systems is and at all times hereunder shall be an independent contractor. As such, neither the Agency nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have the power to control the conduct of Phase II Systems, its officers, employees or agents, except as specifically set forth and provided for herein. Phase II Systems shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due its employees in connection with this Agreement and shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them, such as social security, income tax withholding, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation and similar matters. 10. Indemnification. Phase II Systems and Agency hereby indemnify each other and hold the other harmless, including their respective officers, directors, employees, agents and attorneys, from any claim, loss, demand, liability, or expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, incurred by the other as a consequence of Phase II Systems' or Agency's, as the case may be, acts, errors or omissions with respect to the performance of their respective duties hereunder. 11. Compliance with Applicable Law. The Agency shall observe and comply with federal, state and local laws in effect when this Agreement is executed, or which may come into effect during the term of this Agreement, regarding the administration of the Plan. Phase II Systems shall observe and comply with federal, state and local laws in effect when this Agreement is executed, or which may come into effect during the term of this Agreement, regarding Plan administrative services provided under this Agreement. 12. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event any party institutes legal proceedings to enforce or interpret this Agreement, venue and jurisdiction shall be in any state court of competent jurisdiction. 13. Force Majeure. When a party's nonperformance hereunder was beyond the control and not due to the fault of the party not performing, a party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by such cause, including but not limited to: any incidence of fire~ flood, acts of God, acts of terrorism or war, commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government, or a material act or omission by the other party. 14. Ownership of Reports and Documents. The originals of all letters, documents, reports, and data produced for the purposes of this Agreement shall be delivered to, and become the property of the Agency. Copies may be made for Phase II Systems but shall not be furnished to others without written authorization from Agency. 15. Designees. The Plan Administrator of the Agency, or their designee, shall have the authority to act for and exercise any of the rights of the Agency as set forth in this Agreement, subsequent to and in accordance with the written authority granted by the Governing Board of the Agency, a copy of which writing shall be delivered to phase II Systems. Any officer of Phase 11 Systems, or his or her designees, shall have the authority to act for and exercise any of the rights of Phase II Systems as set forth in this Agreement. 16. Notices. All notices hereunder and communications regarding the interpretation of the terms of this Agreement, or changes thereto, shall be effected by delivery of the notices in person or by depositing the notices in the U.S. mail, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: (A) To Phase II Systems: Phase II Systems; 3961 MacArthur Boulevard, Ste. 200; Newport Beach, CA 92660; Attention: President (t3) To Agency: City of South San Francisco; 400 Grand Avenue; South San Francisco; Attention: Director of Human Resources Notices shall be deemed given on the date received by the addressee. 17. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for the period beginning September 1, 2002 and ending August 30, 2005 ("Term"). This Agreement will continue unchanged for successive twelve-month periods following the Term unless either party gives written notice to the other party of the intent to terminate prior to ninety (90) days before the end of the Term. 18. Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended orally, but only by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto. 19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including exhibits, contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter set forth in this Agreement. In the event a conflict arises between the parties with respect to any term, condition or provision of this Agreement, the remaining terms, conditions and provisions shall remain in full force and legal effect. No waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement by any party shall be construed by the other as a continuing waiver of such term or condition. 20. Attorneys Fees. In the event any action is taken by a party hereto to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party therein shall be entitled to receive it's reasonable attorneys fees. 21. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and in that event, each counterpart shall be deemed a complete original and be enforceable without reference to any other counterpart. 22. Headings. Headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret or construe its provisions. 23. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective on the date first above written, and also shall be the date the Agreement is executed. AGENCY: BY: TITLE: DATE: By:PHASE H SYSTE~/7_:,~., TITLE: SeniSr Vi~e Pr~side~Y// DATE: August 30, 2002 EXHIBIT lA SERVICES Phase II Systems will provide the following services for the City of South San Francisco: o Plan Installation Services: (A) Assisting appropriate Agency personnel to finalize plan provisions, implementation timelines, benefit communication strategies, data reporting and contribution submission requirements; (B) Providing the necessary analysis and advisory services to finalize these elements of the Plan; (C) Providing for review by Agency legal counsel the documentation needed to establish the Plan; (D) Upon Agency authorization, preparing and submitting application to the Internal Revenue Service for a determination that the Plan is qualified (the application fee for which shall be paid by the Agency). Plan Administration Services: (A) Monitoring the receipt of Plan contributions made by the Agency to the trustee of the PARS Trust Program ("Trustee"), based upon information received l~om the Agency and the Trustee; 03) Performing periodic accounting of Plan assets, including the allocation of employer contributions, distributions, investment activity and expenses (if applicable), based upon information received fi:om the Agency and/or Trustee; (C) Acting as ongoing liaison between the Participant and the Agency in regard to distribution payments, which shall include use by the Participants of toll-free telephone communication to Phase II Systems; (D) Producing benefit illustrations and processing enrollments; (E) Coordinating the processing of Participant distribution payments pursuant to authorized written Agency certification of distribution eligibility, authorized direction by the Agency, and the provisions of the Plan, and, to the extent possible, based upon Agency-provided Data; (F) Directing Trustee to liquidate Plan assets (if necessary) and make Participant distribution payments, and providing required tax filings in regarding said distribution payments; (G) Notifying the Trustee of the amount of Plan assets available for further investment and management, or, the amount of Plan assets necessary to be liquidated in order to fund Participant distribution payments; (I-I) Coordinating actions with the Trustee as directed by the Plan Administrator within the scope this Agreement; (I) Preparing and submitting a monthly report of Plan activity to the Agency, unless directed by the Agency otherwise; (J) Preparing and submitting an annual report of Plan activity to participants and to the Agency; (K) Coordinating and selecting a licensed actuary to perform actuarial valuation on a periodic basis to comply with state and federal laws (the actuarial certification fee for which shall be paid by the Agency); (L) Preparing and submitting the Annual Report of Financial Transactions to the California State Controller, as required by law, for the PARS Trust Program, including the required certified audit of the PARS Trust. Phase II Systems is not licensed to provide and does not offer tax, accounting, legal, investment or actuarial advice. In providing the services specified above, Phase II Systems will retain qualified professional service providers at its cost as it deem necessary if the service lies outside its area of expertise. EXHIBIT 1B FEES FOR SERVICES (1) Phase II Systems will be compensated for performance of Services, as described in Exhibit lA based upon the following schedule: (A) A one-time IRS Letter of Determination fee of $700.00, which is paid directly to the Internal Revenue Service. (B) A one-time set-up fee upon implementation of Plan $5,000 ("Set-up Fee"), which shall be paid directly by the Agency to Phase II Systems. (C) The following ongoing administration fees equal to the sum of 1.) and 2.) below: 1.) A monthly fee of $300.00 ("Monthly Fee") which shall be paid directly by the Agency to Phase II Systems. 2.) An annual asset fee equal to 0.50% of the first $1 million in plan assets, 0.30% of plan assets between $1 million and $2 million, and 0.10% of plan assets above $2 million, as calculated at the end of each plan year, which shall be paid from plan assets. This fee is to be calculated before payment of trustee and investment management fees (and is in addition to). (D) A fee equal to actuarial expenses charged to Phase II Systems by an outside contractor for an actuarial valuation of the Agency's plan ("Actuarial Valuation Fee"). (2) Fees for services beyond the scope of this Agreement will be charged at Phase II Systems hourly rate at the time services are performed. Before any such services are performed, Section 4 "Fees for Services Beyond Scope" of this agreement must be satisfied. Phase II Systems hourly fee schedule as of July 1, 2002: Senior Vice President=- $205.00 Vice President= $165.00 Manager=S140.00 Analyst=S105.00 Clerical=S60.00 EXHIBIT lC DATA REOUIREMENTS Phase II Systems will provide the Services under this Agreement contingent upon receiving the following information: 1. Participant Data (Submitted By Agency) (A) Participant's Legal Name (B) Participant's Position (C) Participant's Birth Date (D) Participant's Hire Date (E) Participant's Salary (F) Years of Agency Service (G) Retirement Date 2. Executed Legal Documents (Submitted by Agency) (A) Certified Council Resolution (B) PARS Trust Adoption Agreement (C) Plan Document (D) Trustee Investment Forms (E) IRS Information Form 3. Application for PARS Benefit Form (Submitted by Agency) 4. Completed Enrollment Forms (Submitted by Participant) (A) Enrollment Form (B) Beneficiary Designation Form (C) Tax Withholding Request Form (D) Proof of Age 5. Other information requested by Phase II Systems StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A VOLUNTARY PAYROLL CONTRIBUTION PROGRAM FOR CITY EMPLOYEES TO PROTECT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing a voluntary payroll contribution program for City Employees to protect local government services. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION Action for Better Cities (ABC) is a non-profit corporation affiliated with the League of California Cities created in 1998 to help California cities protect and strengthen decision-making control and stabilize city finance. The ABC has set up a program to educate the electorate and the Legislature, and has requested that cities set up voluntary payroll deduction programs to fund its efforts with a "Save Our Services" Fund (SOSF). Since 1980, hundreds of millions of dollars have been diverted from city governments. Examples of local revenues that the state has taken away and not yet restored include: · property taxes shifted to school (ERAF), · liquor license fees, · financial aid to local governments, · cigarette tax, · highway carrier's uniform business tax, · trailer coach/mobile home fees, · business inventory exemption reimbursements. ABC will inform audiences about what local government means to average citizens - from police on the streets to grass in the parks, and from necessities such as water and waste disposal to human services such as libraries and museums- and how the lack of local control paralyzes a city' s ability to provide needed services. ABC will work to ensure that city officials have the resources they need to be responsive, accountable and effective in serving their constituencies and that cities' already limited resources are not diverted for other purposes. Staff Report Subject: Resolution Authorizing A Voluntary Payroll Contribution Program For City Employees Page 2 ABC will help ensure that the Legislature is informed of financial challenges facing local governments and will work to secure approval for proposed solutions that constitutionally protect city revenues from other levels of government. ABC is privately funded and uses no tax money. While ABC can engage in political activities, it will not make candidate contributions. The voluntary contributions to SOSF are political and as such are not deductible. This check-off program will be made available initially to the City Council and other elected officials, to Executive Management, Mid-Management employees, and Public Safety Managers. It can be distributed to city employees who are represented by unions only through the meet and confer process. By: 3im Director of Finance City Manager Attachment: Resolution Information packet from ABC RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY PAYROLL CONTRIBUTION PROGRAM FOR CITY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, generally, cities, rather than State Government, are better able to make decisions governing local affairs, educate the citizenry as to the benefits of strong local government, and advocate on behalf of cities; and WHEREAS, measures enacted through the legislative process, as well as by statewide ballot initiatives, over the past 20 years have resulted in destabilizing city finances and have weakened the ability of city residents to govern local affairs through their elected community representatives; and WHEREAS, several statewide commissions and study groups are preparing recommendations for local government reform which may be considered by the voters through the initiative process which cities may wish to propose changes proactively; and WHEREAS, many of the "local government reform" changes proposed which may appear on a statewide ballot are likely to further weaken constitutional protections of local self- determination unless information is provided to the voters using conventional campaign methods; and WHEREAS, Action for Better Cities was created by the Board of Directors of the League of California Cities for that purpose; and WHEREAS, elected and appointed officials in local government have the opportunity to provide leadership in Action for Better Cities through voluntary financial assistance; and WHEREAS, monies collected by Action for Better Cities shall be limited to those programs and efforts intended specifically for strengthening the position of local government. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes that: Section One. There is hereby established the Voluntary Contribution Check-OffProgram of the City of South San Francisco. Section Two. Any unrepresented employee or member of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco is eligible to participate in the Program. Employees represented by a bargaining unit only may participate in the Voluntary Contribution Check-Off Program if authorized by their representatives. Section Three. The purpose of the Program is to allow an employee or a member of the City Council to direct the City of South San Francisco to remit a portion of the salary payable to charitable, educational, governmental, or other purposes for which non-profit mutual benefit corporation are organized. Section Four. Participation in the Program is voluntary. Section Five. The City Manager is directed to do all things necessary and proper to implement the Program established by this Resolution including, but not limited to, preparing appropriate forms to be completed by participating employees and city council members, informing city council members of the full range of charitable, educational, governmental, or other purposes for which non-profit mutual benefit corporations are organized, carrying out the participating employees or city council members requests by remitting a portion of their salary as stated in the appropriate forms. Section Six. In establishing this Program, the City Council specifically wishes to make its support known for a voluntary contribution check-in to support the mission and objectives of Action for Better Cities. 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 F:\file cabinet\Current Reso's\l 1-13voluntary.payroll.res.doc Action Ior getter C~t~es Page 1 of 2 [ Home ] [ Guiding Principles ] [About ABC] [ Bylaws ] [_LegQI/Ethical Issues]_ [ Check-off] [_Newsletter] [How Can I Help?] [ Who We Are~ SAN BREA FORT BRAGG MORGAN HILL BERNARDINO CATHEDRAL CITY FORTUNA CHINO HILLS FOSTER CITY CITRUS HEIGHTS FREMONT CLOVIS GRAND TERRACE CORNING HEMET CORTE MADERA JDELANO HIGHLAND IILAKEWOOD DUARTE LARKSPUR IEMERYVILLE IESCONDIDO tl LOMPOC I NEWMAN SAN LUIS OBISPO NOVATO SANTA FE SPRINGS OAKLEY SIGNAL HILL PALM DESERT PARAMOUNT PINOLE ST. HELENA THOUSAND OAKS TRUCKEE ITULARE TWENTYNINE PALMS I UNION CilY Action for Better Cities thanks you for your support! http://www, bettercities.org/check-ofrdcities.htm 11/18/02 ^cuon tor getter L;~t~es Page 1 of 7 [ Home ] [_Guiding Principles ] [About ABC ] [ Bylaws ] [ Legal/Ethical Issues ] [ Check-off] [~_ewslett_er_j [ How Can I Help? ] [ Who We Are ] Betsy Strauss, Attorney at Law Marin, Napa & Sonoma/Mendocino Area City Managers/County Administrators Meeting March 25, 1999 Legal Constraints ~- Ethical Constraints Although it is common knowledge in the city/county community that "public funds may not be spent for political purposes", in order to understand the way in which common wisdom constrains ABC, it is important to further define "political purposes" as the following three activities: !! "election campaigning": means urging voters to vote for or against a particular candidate or ballot measure. !! "grassroots lobbying": means urging members of the public to contact their legislators (or other elected or appointed officials) to take a particular position on some matter within the legislators' jurisdiction. !! "lobbying" means contacting or meeting with members of other legislative bodies (or administrative agencies), to urge passage or defeat of particular legislation (or administrative regulation) that is being considered by that other legislative body. In addition, the California Penal Code provides the following inclusive definition of "public funds": "public funds" are all bonds, and evidence of indebtedness, and all moneys belonging to the state, or any city, county, town, district, or http://www, bettercities, org/ethical_issues.htm 11/18/02 Action fi~r Better Cities Page 2 of 7 public agency therein, and all moneys, bonds and evidences of indebtedness received or held by state, county, district, town, or public agency officers in their official capacity~. A fundamental precept of the role of the government in a democracy is that it may not take sides in election contests or give an unfair advantage to one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country's founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority woUld use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office. The selective use of public funds in election campaigns raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process. Stanson v. Mott 17 Cal.3d 206.217. The Stanson court focused on issues arising under the First Amendment: if the government uses its funds to support one side against another in an election contest, it is trampling on the First Amendment rights of the unsupported side. In addition to First Amendment claims, the cases also have responded to a constitutional claim for alleged violation of plaintiffs' equal protection under the law. Having determined that there was a serious constitutional problem with the expenditure of public funds for political activity, the courts responded by drawing a distinction between permissible informational activities and impermissible promotional activities. The following is a partial list of permissible informational activities: !! Adopt a resolution supporting or opposing a ballot measure or other political activity (League of Women Voters v. Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (1988) 203 CaI.App.3d 529~; !! Preparation of a ballot measure, including appointment of a legislative committee: (a) to consider possible reform measures; (b) to explore the possibility of an initiative measure as the vehicle to attain the desired reforms; (c) to conduct research into the need for various types of reform; (d) to gather statistical information concerning the problems associated with possible reform; (e) to propose various substantive reforms; (f) to seek a sponsor of the measure and (g) to draft a proposed initiative measure. Id. at 522, 555; !! As individuals, elected and appointed officials joining a citizen's group supporting the legislative goals expressed in a county- sponsored proposed initiative and, as individuals, advocating http://www.bettercities, org/ethical issues.htm 11/18/02 Action tier Better Cities Page 3 of 7 qualification and passage of initiative. Id. at 555-556; [] Use of agency-owned vehicles and paid staff to attend even obviously political meetings, if the officials using the vehicles are on 24-hour duty and must have vehicles available at all times for their jobs. I__d; !! When requested by a public or private organization, authorization of a city employee to present the city's view of a ballot proposal at a meeting of such organization. Stanson v. Mott at 221; "-! Preparation of and sending a neutral, informational letter, a fair presentation of the facts pertaining to a ballot measure. Id. at 221. Impermissible Promotional Activities The following is a partial list of impermissible promotional activities: [] After an initiative has been filed, any act of advocacy by the public agency or public official acting in his or her official capacity. League of Women Voters at 555. [] Use of public funds to purchase such items as bumper stickers, posters, advertising "floats", or television and radio spots. Stanson v. Mott at 221. [] Dissemination at public expense of campaign literature prepared by private proponents or opponents of a ballot measure. Id_~. [] Use of city employees to solicit contributions, to plan campaign strategy, to coordinate volunteers, and to prepare a campaign budget. FPPC v. Suitt 90 Cal. App. 3d 125, 132 (1983). [] Use of sheriff's department funds and personnel to distribute postcards to citizens that urged a particular state supreme court justice to resign her position (grassroots lobbying). California Common Cause v. Duff-y 200 CaI.App.3d 730 (1987). [] Wearing a city uniform while participating in political activity. (Gov't Code § 3206). Drawing the Line The cases on this subject draw the following lines: [] between informational and promotional activities; [] between the time when a ballot measure is being developed and the time the ballot measure is filed with the elections officer. Proposed Activities of ABC ABC will be involved in the following activities for which public funds may be used: [] building coalitions; [] drafting an initiative; [] lobbying the legislature; http://www.bettercities, org/ethical_is sues.htm 11/18/02 , Action I6r Better Cities Page 4 of 7 !! educating the public through informational items. ABC will be involved in the following activities for which public funds may not be used: ffi grassroots lobbying; ..m fundraising; !! making contributions to ballot measure campaigns. Special consideration must be given to members of the Board of Directors of ABC. Because the Board will discuss and consider a variety of activities and issues, and because some of these activities are eligible for public funds and others are not, we believe that it is advisable for the public agencies represented by the members of the Board of Directors not expend public funds to support the work of these officials~-. Back to Top Ethical Constraints Participation of City Managers in ABC City Managers have been asked to participate in the work of ABC: through membership on the Board of Directors; through development of a strategy to secure local government fiscal reform; through providing information to their local communities about the status of local government fiscal reform efforts and the state/ local fiscal relationship; through fundraising accomplished by developing an organizational structure in every community and by recruiting and involving committed persons who care deeply about cities and the services only cities can and must provide. The prohibition on the expenditure of public funds for political purposes must be analyzed for each of these activities to the extent that the city manager is supported by public funds in his/her efforts. However, the focus of this section is the ethical constraints and questions raised by these activities. The ICMA Code of Ethics The Code of Ethics, first adopted by the Executive Board of ICMA in 1924 and most recently revised in July 1998, defines conduct which may be lawful, but is not appropriate. The ethical guidelines of the Code of Ethics were developed to achieve the purposes of ICMA: to enhance the quality of local government and to support and assist professional local administrators in the United States and other countries. Every member of ICMA is governed by the Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics is organized into 12 principles. Each principle (rule) is further explained through guidelines. Rule 7 of the ICMA Code of Ethics Rule 7 of the ICMA most closely responds to the participation of city managers in the work of ABC. Rule 7 requires city managers to "refrain from all political activities http://www.bettercities.org/ethical issues.htm 11/18/02 ~ Acuon tor t~etter umes Page 5 of 7 which undermine public confidence in professional administrators". Although the rule seems to require a city manager to refrain only from those political activities which undermine public confidence, the guideline interpreting Rule 7 makes it clear that a city manager may not participate in any political activities for "representatives to city, county, special districts, school, state, or federal offices-s?' The purpose of this prohibition is to make sure city managers' effectiveness on behalf of the local governments they serve is not impaired. Examples of political activities prohibited by the Rule 7 Guideline are: fundraising, endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions. Interpretation of a Rule of Conduct contained in the ICMA Code of Ethics most commonly arises by a complaint filed against specific conduct. However, the Committee on Professional Conduct will consider a question of interpretation submitted to it for resolutions-. The Committee will either give specific guidance, or will undertake a process with ICMA members throughout the county to develop a guideline. ICMA Guidance for Serving on Boards and Commissions Because city managers are often asked to serve on the boards of directors of a variety of nonprofits corporations, ICMA developed a "Checklist for Serving on Nonprofit Boards and Commissions" to help city managers avoid any ethical problems related to their serving on nonprofit boards and commissions. The Checklist poses the following questions: ffi Could your board service lead a reasonable person to question the member's first loyalty which is owed to the local government? !! Does, or is there a likelihood that, the organization will come before your local government to request funding or some other consideration? !! Would your involvement appear to lend support to one group in the community over another? ffi Will you be expected to engage in fundraising? !! Are there rules about soliciting for donations within the local government organization? .m. Are potential donors, whether employees or developers or individuals who have no specific relationship with the local government, really free to "just say no?" 1! Having said yes to your favorite charity or cause, will the donor expect special consideration, treatment, or access? !! Could you be just as effective by devising a fundraising strategy but not making the direct solicitation? .m, Will the local government be a beneficiary of a successful fundraising effort? !! How might your participation be reported factually by the media? !! Are you free to terminate the outside involvement without difficulty in the event that a conflict of interest arises that cannot otherwise be avoided? http://www.bettercities.org/ethical_issues.htm 11/18/02 Action I0r Better Cities Page 6 of 7 Each city manager must answer these questions for himself/herself. However, this Checklist has led ICMA to advise city managers that it is ethical to be involved in developing strategies for fundraising but that it is not ethical to be involved in the activities associated with fundraising itself (e.g. asking for money). The prohibition on use of public funds for political purposes makes it unlawful for a city manager to participate in certain ABC activities supported by public funds (e.g. fundraising for a ballot measure). For other city officials, not governed by a code of ethics, participation in these activities, unsupported by public funds, might be both lawful and ethical. City managers, however, must consider the ICMA Code of Ethics which makes participation in these activities unethical, without regard to the use of public funds. The purpose of the ICMA Code of Ethics is to establish rules and interpretive guidelines to help city managers insure that their conduct will not undermine public confidence in professional administrators. The Code of Ethics has drawn a bdght line between activities involving the solicitation of funds (unethical) and activities involving strategizing on the solicitation of funds. Each city manager must consider the ICMA Checklist for Serving on Nonprofit Boards and Commissions, the distinction between developing fundraising strategy and soliciting funds, the legal constraints on the use of public funds for political activities, and determine whether the requested conduct will undermine public confidence in professional administrators. ENDNOTES: {The liability for the unlawful expenditure of public funds rests with each city that proposes to spend public funds to support the work of ABC. Therefore all city officials should consult their own City Attorney on this issue before taking action or formulating a policy position. g Penal Code § 424. In-kind resources, such as public agency staff time, equipment and supplies, also may not be used for advocacy efforts. See Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 106, 122; People v. Battin (1978) 77 CaI.App.3d 635, 650. -~ The Fair Political Practices Commission brought an enforcement proceeding against the City of Sacramento for failing to report campaign expenditures under the Political Reform Act. The unreported campaign expenditures were the public funds used to prepare, publish, and distribute materials regarding a ballot measure. The FPPC regarded the materials as advocacy; the County regarded the materials as informational. The Commission considered the fact that the Board of Supervisors had voted to support the ballot measure as evidence that the subsequently prepared and challenged informational materials were truly advocacy, and not informational materials. In the Matter of County of Sacramento, FPPC No. 93/345 (July 3, 1996). 4_ A complete analysis of the legal restrictions on Board members is found in a memo to the Board of Directors of ABC dated March 25, 1999. s_ The ICMA Code of Ethics does not address ballot measure campaigns. _6 Beth Kellar is in charge of Ethics Education for ICMA and is the State Liaison for the West Coast Region (including California). Back to Top http://www.bettercities.org/ethical issues.htm 11/18/02 8. Motion to cancel regular meeting of December 25, 2002 StaffReport DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Many Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update: Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update, as attached. Case Numbers: P02-0021, GP02-0021 and ND02-0021 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration ND02-0021 and adopt the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update GP02- 0021, as attached. BACKGROUND: The City of South San Francisco is required by law to update the General Plan Housing Element. The existing Housing Element of the South San Francisco General Plan was certified by the State in 1994. The 2002 Housing Element Update, a component of the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan, presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and actions designed to address the City housing needs and the State housing element requirements. The Housing Element builds on an assessment of the City's housing needs and evaluation of housing programs, available land, and constraints on housing production that began with the General Plan Update process in 1997. DISCUSSION: Since August 2002, the City Council and the Planning Commission conducted several study sessions and the Planning Commission conducted study sessions, a tour/workshop and public hearings to prepare the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element. On March 20, 2002, the City Council directed staff to submit the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comments. On October 15, 2002, HCD notified the City that the draft Housing Element would be in compliance with the State housing element law. Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Page 2 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marry Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element December 11, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation The Planning Commission held a final public hearing on November 21,2002 to complete its review of the General Plan Housing Element policies and recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt the Housing Element, as revised. Final discussion points focused on policies for second unit developments in existing residential neighborhoods, the nature of housing development in the E1 Camino Real Corridor, the State responsibilities, and the City's review process for future housing proposals (See attached Planning Commission Staff Report and Public Hearing Minutes). The Planning Commission voted, six in favor and one opposed, to recommend that the City Council adopt both the Negative Declaration and Housing Element. Consistency with the South San Francisco General Plan State general plan law requires that the General Plan Housing Element shall be internally consistent with the adopted 1999 General Plan. The revised draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not propose any changes to land use classifications, land use, or densities that has been adopted in the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. Negative Declaration The City prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration and has distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate responsible agencies and interested parties on October 16, 2002 for a 30-day public review period. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration concludes that the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not have a significant environmental impact. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration ND02- 0021 and adopt the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update GP02-0021, as attached. Director of Economic and Community Development ~Approved Miciael City Manager Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Many 'Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Comnmnity Development South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element December 11,2002 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS' 2. 3. 4. 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, with Attachments, dated November 21, 2002 Minutes, Planning Commission Public Hearing, November 21,2002 Planning Commission Resolution City Council Resolution, with Exhibits Minutes, City Council Special Meeting, March 20, 2002 ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commission Staff Report November 21, 2002 -,,-.001 Planning Commission Staff Repo rt DATE: November 21, 2002 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update: Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update. Case Numbers: P02-0021, GP02-0021 and ND02-0021 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration ND02-0021 and adopt the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update GP02-0021. BACKGROUND: The City of South San Francisco is required by law to update the General Plan Housing Element. The existing Housing Element of the South San Francisco General Plan was certified by the State in 1994 and is currently in compliance with the laws of the State of California. However, the City is required by State law to update its Housing Element and receive certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City Housing Element must also incorporate housing allocation numbers, prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). In March of 2001, ABAG released its housing allocation numbers that projects the number of housing units required for the City based on projected job growth. The City of South San Francisco received a fair-share allocation of 1,331 housing units for the years 1999 to 2006. The Housing Element, a component of South San Francisco's General Plan, presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and actions designed to address the City housing needs and the State housing element requirements. It builds on an assessment of the City's housing needs and evaluation of housing programs, available land, and constraints on housing production that began with the General Plan Update process in 1997. During the General Plan Update process (1997-1999), the City has identified several infill sites for mixed-use and high-density housing development, as reflected in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and Downtown South Francisco. .. ,... 00£ Staff Report To: Subject: Date: Page 2 Planning Commission South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element November 21, 2002 In the past, the City has successfully provided housing for all income groups. However, as San Francisco Bay Area housing prices have increased to where only seventeen percent of residents can afford to purchase a home, the City Council has sought ways to ensure that "workforce" housing will be built over the next decade. Prior to commencement of this Housing Element process, the City Council and the Planning Commission participated in several study sessions, public hearings and community meetings to adopt the Inclusionary Housing, Density Bonus, Child Care and SSF Bart Transit Village ordinances. In addition to the ordinances, the City continues to explore new initiatives to encourage affordable housing in the City, including the implementation no-fee technical support and permit streamlining for for-profit residential developers, purchase and rehabilitation of deteriorating residential sites for low-income families, joint partnership with private non-profit housing developers to produce new housing for low income households, and implementing density bonus and parking reduction standards for new residential development. These ordinances and initiatives demonstrate the City's compliance the State's housing element requirements. South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update Public Review Process The Since August 2002, the City Council and the Planning Commission conducted several study sessions and the Planning Commission conducted study sessions and a tour/workshop to prepare the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element. The following table summarizes the key actions and documents that define the Housing Element process. Date November 17, 2001 January 17, 2002 March 20, 2002 Document/ Action Analysis of Availability of Land and Adequate Sites Background Report Draft Housing Element Policy Document Description The Planning Commission held a workshop and tour to review the suitable sites. The Consultant prepared maps of various medium- and high-density neighborhoods that show where potential sites exist and a tour o£neighborhoods to look at the sites in context with the area. The Background Report provides baseline information on existing conditions in the City and preliminary planning issues for the Housing Element stemming from the analysis of existing information. The Housing Element must include the community's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. This Housing Element includes six goal statements. Under each goal statement, the element establishes specific implementing policies and actions. ..,u .. 003 Staff Report To: Subject: Date: Page 3 Planning Commission South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element November 21, 2002 March 26, 2002 October - November 2002 November 21, 2002 December 2002 January 2003 State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) Review Negative Declaration Planning Commission action City Council action HCD Certification City staff submitted the list of adequate sites, the Background Report and draft Policy Document to HCD for review. Local governments are required to submit draft and adopted housing elements to HCD for review for compliance with State law. State law requires that the HCD must approve the City's proposed policies and actions prior to City holding community meetings, public hearings and adoption of the Housing Element by the City Council. City staff prepared the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and distributed it to all interested agencies, neighboring cities and individuals for a 30-day review period. The Planning Commission reviews the revised draft Housing Element, incorporating HCD comments, and recommends an action to the City Council. City Council review of the draft Housing Element, incorporating Planning Commission comments, and action. If adopted, the City submits the adopted Housing Element to HCD for certification. Community Outreach A key part of the General Plan Housing Element Update process is the use of study sessions, tours, community meetings, and presentations to the City Council, Planning Commission, community groups and organizations to present and discuss growth and development issues, opportunities and concerns that are important to South San Francisco. Interested parties, including the Peninsula Policy Partnership, Bridge Housing, the Tri-County Apartment Association, and Bay Area Legal Aid, received copies of the Housing Element Background Report, the draft Housing Element policy document, the Negative Declaration, and the current draft of Housing Element, incorporating HCD's comments. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this public hearing is to allow the Planning Commission to review the revised draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element. The revised Housing Element incorporates text changes and two new policies that are designed to respond to the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) staff comments. On March 26, 2002, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to HCD for review. HCD staff returned comments to the City on October 15, 2002. This staff report summarizes HCD staff's comments, identifies the sections of the Background Report and Policy Document where changes to the text and policies were made, and summarizes the goals and policies in the Policy Document. A copy of the Public Hearing Draft Housing Element, 2001-2006, which includes the changes in text and policies, .004 Staff Report To: Subject: Date: Page 4 Planning Commission South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element November 21, 2002 was distributed to the City Council, the Planning Commission, responsible agencies, neighboring cities, interested groups, and interested residents on November 1, 2002. State Housing and Communi~ Development Department (HCD) Comments The City of South San Francisco submitted the draft Housing Element to the Housing and Community Development Department on March 26, 2002. During the comment period, HCD staff requested detailed information from City staff to demonstrate that the City has the ability to support additional housing on the sites identified in the draft Background Report. In response to the State's comments, City staff provided additional information, in the form of flow charts, tables and detailed descriptions of past projects, to show how the City works with both for-profit and non-profit residential developers to prepare a project for public hearings. On October 15, 2002, the State informed the City that the revised draft Housing Element policies, incorporating HCD's comments, would meet the State's housing element law. State staff also commended the City for its efforts to help residential developers and low-income residents (see attachment). Responding to HCD staff comments, City staff added new information and changed the text in following sections of the Background Report: 4.1 6.1 6.5 8.0 Housing Costs Compared to Ability to Pay (page 1-39) Governmental Constraints (pages 1-59 - 1-70) Non-Governmental/Market Constraints (pages ~-74 - 1-77) Current and Past Housing Programs in South San Francisco (pages 1-79 - 1-90) City staff also revised the following two policies in the Policy Document section of the Housing Element to encourage residential development on infill sites. The revised policies, located on pages 1I-4 and II-5 in the Housing Element, state: "Policy 1-9 The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. Policy 1-10 Where appropriate, the City shall encourage the consolidation of parcels designated for multi-family residential development when it facilitates efficient development of the parcels. Program 1-10A The City shall establish development standards in the Municipal Code that would determine the lobsize requirements for sites designated as High Density Residential, Downtown High Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential in order to promote the consolidation of parcels designated for multi-family residential or mixed-use multi-family residential/commercial development." _.. 005 Staff Report To: Subject: Date: Page 5 Planning Commission South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element November 21, 2002 The revised policies in the Policy Document and the changes in text to the Background Report are consistent with the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. General Plan Policy 2-G-6 states, "Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations." Summary of Goals and Policies This section of the staff report summarizes the goals and policies listed in the draft Housing Element. Goal ]. New Residential Construction Goal 1 continues several policies found in the existing Housing Element and creates new policies and actions that reflect both the 1999 General Plan and recent Zoning amendments for inclusionary housing and density bonuses. Goal 1 policies include: · Promoting the provision of housing by both private and public sector developers for all income groups; · Promoting the lnclusionary Housing and Density Bonus ordinances; investigating other methods for providing affordable housing; · Working with developers to consolidate properties for infill development; · Encouraging mixed-use development; and, · Supporting the development of second units on single-family parcels. Goal 2. Maintenance of Existing Affordable Housing Stock Goal 2 provides specific policies and actions that encourage the City to preserve the existing housing stock, including: · Encouraging private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods; using state and federal funds to the fullest extent to rehabilitate housing; · Seeking to eliminate incompatible land uses or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods; Using City and Redevelopment Agency programs to arrest neighborhood deterioration; · Limiting the conversions of apartments to condominium units; and, · Providing financial assistance where appropriate. Goal 3. Special Needs O06 Staff Report To: Subject: Date: Page 6 Planning Commission South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element November 21, 2002 Goal 3 includes policies and actions that encourage the City and private developers to provide housing for groups with special needs. Goal 4. Equal Opportunity Goal 4 includes policies and actions that support equal Opportunity in housing. Policies and actions include promoting equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of age, race, sex, religion, marital status, national origin, disability, and other arbitrary faclors. Goal 5. Neighborhood Safety Goal 5 includes policies and actions protecting neighborhoods and housing from natural and manmade disasters. Goal 6. Energy Conservation Goal 6 includes policies and actions that encourage energy efficiency in all new and existing homes. Consistency with the South San Francisco General Plan State general plan law requires that the General Plan shall be internally consistent, meaning that the policies identified in the Housing Element, such as in "New Residential Development," must be consistent with the adopted 1999 General Plan, such as the density and land use designations listed in the Land Use and Planning Sub-Areas elements. The revised draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not propose any changes to land use classifications, land use, or densities that has been adopted in the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. The Housing Element encourages second units in single-family residential neighborhoods, which is consistent General Plan Policy 2-I-10 which states, "Establish regulations to permit second units in single-family residential developments in accordance with State law." Therefore, City staff believes that the revised draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element is consistent with the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan, as amended. Negative Declaration The City prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration and has distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate responsible agencies and interested parties on October 16, 2002 for a 30-day public review period. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration tiers off the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report (1999) which focuses on the overall effects of the General Plan policies. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the South San Francisco General 007 Staff Report To: Subject: Date: Page 7 Planning Commission South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element November 21, 2002 Plan Housing Element and does not examine the effects of specific projects that may occur. The South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not propose any changes to land use classifications, land uses on sites, densities, or intensification of residential uses over those identified in the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan, as amended. Therefore, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration concludes that the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not have a significant environmental impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration ND02-0021 and adopt the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update GP02-0021. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Lappen Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Letter from the State Housing and Community Development Department, October 15, 2002 Planning Commission Resolution, with Exhibits 003 STATE OF CAI IFORNIA -BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION. A? QUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND C~.,dMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development 1800 Third S~'eel, Suite 430 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3176 / FAX: (916) 327-2643 GRAY DAVIS Governor ~c°lNG ~1 October 15, 2002 Mr. Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94083 Dear Mr. Sparks: RE: Review of the City of South San Francisco's Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting South San Francisco's revised draft housing element for our review, received August 19, 2002. The Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is required to review housing elements, and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). Conversations with Mr. Derek DiManno, the City's consultant, between October 3, and October 11, 2002, facilitated our review. South San Francisco's revised element and subsequent information provided on October 11, 2002 addresses the statutory requirements described in our May 13, 2002 review letter. Therefore, once the City adopts the element, incorporating information received on August 19 and October 11, 2002 the element will comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The City is commended for providing technical assistance to support housing developers through the City's permit approval process and for its financial assistance to preserve low-income housing units. Additionally, the City's program to use redevelopment funding beyond the mandated 20 percent set- aside demonstrate the City's commitment and leadership to rehabilitate affordable housing and facilitate the development of new housing for low- and moderate-income households. We appreciate South San Francisco's ongoing efforts to meet the statutory requirements of housing element law and address the housing and community development needs of its residents. We look forward to receiving the City's adopted housing element and look forward to receiving the City's annual report, reflecting the progress in implementing the element. If you have any questions, please telephone Paul Dirksen Jr., of our staff, at (916) 445-5307. OO9 Mr. Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Page 2 In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Cathy E. Creswell Deputy Director Enclosure CC: Derek DiManno, Mintier & Associates Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development Catherine Ysrael, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Kimberley Dellinger, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon Ruben Duran, Law Firm of Neufield, Jaffe & Levin Ilene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. David Booher, California Housing Council Sue Hestor, Attorney at Law Gary Hambly, Building Industry Association Paul Campos, Home Builders Assoc. of Northern California Shannon Dodge, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Eve Bach, Arc Ecology William Litt, Bay Area Legal Aid .. 010 ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes November 21, 2002 .~ 01t CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE November 21, 2002 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPE 1 7:30 i~.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Building Division: City Attorney: Engineering Division: Police Department: Water Quality: Fire Prevention. Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Barry Mammini, Senior Building Inspector Kimberly Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Richard Harmon, Development Review Coordinator Sergeant Mike Newell, Planning Liaison Ray Honan, Environmental Compliance Coordinator Maurice Dong, Assistant Fire Marshall AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * Commissioner Teglia arrived at 7:34 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2002. Wong, Manton E Lessee-owner Belinda Nacilla~applicant 2211-2213 Gellert Blvd P02-0085 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities (Recommend continuance to December 5, 2002) LING NAM NOODLE HOUSE-Use Permit Modification of UP 93-939/MOD 1 allowing a reduction in business hours from 11 P.M. to 5 A.M. to 11 P.M. to 4 A.M. and to amend condition of approval # 3 to require only one (1) security guard instead of two (2) guards from 11:00 P.M. to 4:00 A.M., in accordance with SSFMC 20.81. Motion Meloni / Second Sim to approve Item 2. Approved by unanimous voice vote. S:\Minules\l 1-21-02 RPC.doc Page 1 of 7 Approved Pulled Approved 012 1. Approval of Minutes of November 7, 2002. Approved Chief Planner Sparks pointed out that Commissioner Teglia was concerned with his comments, as reflected in the, regarding the Bingo permit and the conditions. The tape was reviewed and a verbatim copy of his comments was provided to the Commissioner. His concerns are correct and the minutes have been revised to reflect what was actually said. He made it clear that his position is opposite from what the draft minutes reflected. Commissioner Teglia agreed to revisions. Motion Teitlia / Second D'Angelo to approve the minutes as revised. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Costco Wholesale Corporation-applicant Price Company-owner 479 So. Airport Blvd. UP01-0004 and Negative Declaration ND01-0004 Denied (Continued from November 7, 2002 with direction to draft Findings of Denial) The proposed project includes the development of an automated self-serve vehicle fueling facility, including 5 pump islands containing 10 gasoline dispensers (20 fueling positions), a pump island canopy, three 30,000 gallon underground fuel tanks, and minor accessory structures on a site located at the southeasterly corner of South Airport Boulevard and Belle Air Road, on property presently developed as overflow parking for the adjacent Costco Wholesale warehouse in the P-C, Planned Commercial Zone District. Assistant City Attorney Johnson reminded the Commission that they could vote in to certify or not certify the Negative Declaration under one motion, and with another deny the project based on the Findings of Denial. Commissioner Teglia noted that the findings in the Negative Declaration are of an environmental nature. He felt that the impacts addressed in the document and the mitigation measure for those impacts were not properly addressed and would not feel comfortable approving the document. Motion Teglia / Second Meloni to not certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Roll call: Ayes: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner, Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Romero Noes: Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt Absent: None Abstain: None Motion Meloni / Second Honan to deny UP-01-0004 based on the Findings of Denial presented to the Commission on November 2 l, 2002. Roll call: Ayes: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner S/m, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Romero Noes: Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt Absent: None ... 013 S:\Mimnes\l 1-21-02 RPC.doc Page 2 of 7 Abstain: None Richard Elmo Haskins-owner Alexandria Real Estate Equities-applicant P02-0042 and Mitigated Negative Declaration MND02-0042 Approved (Continued from November 7, 2002) Project Title: East Jamie Court Office/R&D Project P02-0042 Project Location: Approximately 6.13 acre site located approximately one mile east of Highway 101 via East Grand Avenue, at the southeastern corner of Haskins Way and East Jamie Court. The site is bordered on the south by San Francisco Bay, on the east by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility/Transfer Station, on the north side orE. Jamie Ct. by Yellow Freight Trucking, and on the west side of Haskins Way by multi-tenant office/warehouse businesses. (APN 015-102-250) Project Description: Use Permit to construct a two building office/R & D complex on a 6.13-acre site adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. The project consists of two buildings totaling 133,000 sq. ft.: Bldg. 1 -two stories over a parking level (57,700 sq. ft.); and Bldg. 2-three stories (75,300 sq. ft.) in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. She added that there is a modification to the Engineering Division's Conditions of Approval that has been distributed to the Commission. Steve Richardson, Alexandria Real Estate, noted that City staff has challenged them on the site design and they have in mm worked hard to meet the City's high standards. Public Hearing opened. There being no speaker the Public Hearing was closed. Commission discussion with applicant: They felt that they needed more detail such as a material board, a color board, and more detailed drawings. Commissioner Sim asked for an overview of the design of the project. Niall Malcolmson, Dowler Gruman Architects, gave a detailed description of the materials used on the buildings and the entryway. He added that the stair tower elements were triangular and were changed from their previous rectangular shape at the direction of the DRB. Commissioner Teglia was concerned with rusting of the metal and pointed out that there is some rusting on other properties bordering the Bay. He questioned if there were options to metal. Mr. Malcolmson noted that the material being used is very durable and many problems due to corrosion would not occur with the proposed materials. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked for clarification about the open-air garage. Mr. Malcolmson noted that it allows for natural ventilation on two sides and will not require mechanical ventilation. Commissioner Honan was concerned with the size of the buildings and the lack of parking spaces. She recognized that a TDM program has been developed for this site, but pointed out that the TDM program has not been proven to work in the City and asked what the procedure for the review is. Principal Planner Kalkin stated that staff is comfortable with the parking ratios that have been approved in the past and staff has not encouraged an overabundance of parking. She noted that the Institute of Transportation S:\.Minutes\l 1-21-02 RPC.doc Page3of 7 . ~. 014 Engineer (ITE) Standards indicate that the parking at office buildings would be 2.79 spaces per 1000 square feet even without TDM measures, and ITE suggests a lower ration R & D. Projects have different requirements for the types of TDM programs due to FAR requests. An increase in FAR requires a higher level of TDM measures and increased monitoring. Projects such as this one, with .5 FAR, are required to do annual surveys and a full parking review every three years. If the program is not met additional TDM measures can be implemented. The Commission discussed the TDM programs and concern with a potential lack of parking in the East of 101 area. Some Commissioners noted that the TDM programs work to reduce trips to the East of 101 area. Chairperson Romero felt that the setback of 10 feet on East Jamie Court was inadequate because this is the primary entrance, rather than Haskins. He noted that Haskins has a 20-foot setback and that these requirements should be reverted. H pointed out that the landscaping at the entryway needs to be enhanced. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that by definition of the zoning code, on a comer lot, the shorter street frontage is defined as the front of the lot. Commissioner Teglia would like to see a landscaping plan return to the Commission and felt comfortable with the setbacks as they are. He added that there needs to be substantial landscaping on the Bay trail. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that if there is not going to be retail in the building this will create traffic because employees will have to go out to eat. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt noted that the TDM plan can include various City programs, including the downtown Dasher program, available for those in the East of 101 area to help ease this concern. Chairperson Romero asked what type of trucks are going to be going to the building and can the loading docks accommodate that site. Mr. Malcolmson noted that they would be bobtail type of trucks. Development Review Coordinator Harmon noted that this would be reviewed in final design stage with regard to turning radius' and the type of trucks that would be used. Motion Teglia / Second Meloni to approve ND-02-0042 and P02-0042 with the additional condition that the applicanI return with a more detailed landscape plan and a color and materials board. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess called at 8:30 p.m. Recalled at 8:53 p.m. General Plan Housing Element Update City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide P02-0021 and Negative Declaration ND-02-0021 Approved Recommendation that Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Housing Element is a General Plan Element and is mandated and reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to find that it complies with State Housing Element Law requirements. The process is technical but it works to the City's advantage in that a non certified element can stop development. The Housing Element has to be consistent with the rest of the General Plan and the City's Housing Element meets that requirement. It also meets the ABAG S:\Minutes\l 1-21-02 RPC.doc Page 4 of 7 .... 015 housing allocations. Senior Planner Lappen gave a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation summarized the state Housing Element Law, the City's Housing Element review process since August 2002, the State's Housing and Community Development Department review, and listed policies for review and comments. TAPE2 Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the Planning Commission received a memo with regard changes in state law that might have an affect on future project review and approval. She noted that the Commission is constrained by State Law to require a lower density than that which has been approved in the General Plan and the General Plan Housing Element. She added that second residential unit law has been amended to eliminate the discretion of the City to require a conditional use permit. It requires that residential second units be approved ministerially and this change will need to be reflected in the Zoning Ordinance update when it goes before the Commission and Council. Public Hearing opened. Mr. Mason, 10 Arlington Drive, noted that setbacks are being reduced more and more each year and questioned if he can build in the rear of the lot. Chief Planner Sparks noted that he would respond to Mr. Mason's question after the meeting. Assistant City Attorney Johnson clarified that although residential second unJls are now considered minister/al, the changes in state law have not taken away the requirements authorized by state law, such as, setbacks and parking requirements. It only changes the approval process and not the underlying criteria, which they are still required to meet. Commissioner Teglia pointed out that this will be a ministerial approval and the design guidelines need to reflect a project that the City is going to proud. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Honan asked if tandem parking would be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. Senior Planner Lappen noted that a policy has been incorporated into the Housing Element that says that second units will be encouraged with special development parking standards. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that the City supported a transit village. There will be 600 units in the future in one area. There will be close to 800 along Mission Road. He felt that this was unacceptable because this will not preserve the area. He also stated that he was not comfortable with approving the Negative Declaration on this element. Chief Planner Sparks noted that high-density development is being considered as close to BART as possible. Twenty percent of those units are required to be below market rate units. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that half of the Housing Element would be going in the el Camino Real Corridor. Chairperson Romero noted that it is disturbing to see the amount of development going into one area. The fact of the matter is that the City has to meet a certain number of affordable housing that provides a means for those not making a significant amount of money to be able to have a place to live. It means affordable housing, which will help those that want to stay in this area and not force them to move away. Many areas are identified, as underutilized size and the City will probably need to encourage owners to redevelop their sites. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commissioners concerns are valid and pointed out that Policy 1-9 which talks about maximizing development without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. He was concerned that the City does not have the latitude for proper S:\M inmes\l 1-21-02 RPC.doc Page 5 of 7 016 planning and the City's discretion is gone. The character of the City would be lost. It is important to put higher density near BART. Policy 1-9 gives the Commission leeway in considering those impacts. He noted that the BART station in San Bruno abuts to South San Francisco and this could be considered for high density. He asked where the City is being constrained on the Housing Element. There needs to be a transition between low-density developments to a high-density development. There are issues with rehabilitation tied to only one area, such as, depressing the area to the point of deterioration. There has to be a consideration for market rate income that will pay for low and market rate income that will pay for the services and infrastructure. Chief Planner Sparks replied that the State would constrain cities more and more. Any policy is subject to interpretation. There does appear to be internal consistency. Human enterprise will affect the surroundings. The State clearly is moving in direction of removing City discretion with housing. Short answer is constraints are developing and are largely beyond the City's control. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the Council and Commission are not prohibited in reducing a density that has been permitted under the General Plan Housing Element. It means that in order to reduce such density, the Council and Commission have to make specific findings that these bodies have not had to make before and are increasingly difficult to make. An example is that if a particular site has been identified in the Housing Element as a high density site and the density is reduced, the governing body needs to identify other suitable sites that can accommodate additional residential units in order to remain consistent with the Housing Element. Commissioner Teglia asked if the San Bruno BART station area could be designated for future redevelopment. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the problem with the BART station is that it is right below the take-off pattern and reduces its suitability for housing. Commissioner Meloni noted that the City has to meet the numbers mandated by the State. Staff has done an excellent job with this document because it is not an easy task. He added that the Commission can require real class development. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt noted that the character of the City is being changed and evolving with time. Commissioner Sim pointed out that cities need to grow and change. He added that insurance has been difficult to obtain for condominium project which are high density projects and asked Assistant City Attorney Johnson if this impacts the City's decision on whether these projects will be built out or not. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that condominiums have been viewed as the alternative to single family home to achieve the desired density and affordability. Assistant City Attorney Johnson clarified whether Commissioner Sim was referring to the construction defect litigation that had, in the 80's and 90's, been prevalent. The construction industry suffered tremendous liability to the point that it became infeasible for developments to construct condo developments for financing and insurance purposes. However, changes in recent years have limited the exposure of developers such that it is becoming a more viable option. Motion Te~lia / Second Ochsenhirt to recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Housing Element. Approved by a 6-1-0 vote with Commissioner D'Angelo in opposition. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 6. Items from Staff 017 S:~Milmtes\l 1-21-02 RPC.doc Page 6 of 7 Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Council reorganized on November 20, 2002 and Pedro Gonzalez was selected as Mayor and for Mayor Pro-tern it was Karyl Matsumoto. He added that the School Distr/ct formerly appealed the Bingo denial. Assistant City Attorney Johnson pointed out that she had been with the City for two years. The Commission congratulated her on her second year anniversary with them. Chairperson Romero congratulated Mayor Gonzalez and Mayor Pro-tern Matsumoto. 7. Items from Commission Commissioner Meloni asked if TDM yearly reviews were being done. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff is negotiating with the Alliance to formalize the process and annual reviews were not being done. Commissioner Meloni asked that a report be given to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission has had conversations on increasing the development quality that is required by the Commission. He wanted staffto find a way to communicate this to developers. He added that there could be a checklist for applications and that there could be a reminder list for them. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff has been making significant progress along these lines. At this moment some applicants have been perturbed because they have not been before the Commission and it is because they do not have a good application. Commissioner Sim noted that the Design Review Subcommittee had the opportunity to attend the Design Review Board meeting. There was a lot of interaction between the Board and the Commission and he commended the Board on the work that they are doing. Chairperson Romero noted they are doing a great job. They give good guidance on what is acceptable. The Commission wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. 8. Items from the Public None 9. Adjournment Motion Honan / Second Tel~lia to adjourn the meeting. Approve by unanimous voice vote. 10:08 P.M. Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco William Romero, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting December 5, 2002, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA TCS/blh S :\Mimltes\l 1-21-02 RPC.doc Pagc 7 of 7 ... 018 ATTACHMENT 3 Planning Commission Resolution With Exhibits 019 RESOLUTION 2622 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COLrNC[L ADOPT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE GP02-0021 AND ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND02-0021 AFFECTING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AREA WHEREAS, on November 17, 2001, February 7, 2002, March 20, 2002 and November 21, 2002 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed workshop/tour, two study sessions and a public heating to consider the Draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Section 65580 et sequiter of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires every city to adopt a housing element; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 "Housing element content" of the California Government Code, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update provides detailed background information, an analysis of adequate sites for residential development, an analysis of special needs housing, an analysis of housing for the homeless, and the descr/ption of goals and policies for the creation of new residential development and the preservation of the existing housing stock; and WHEREAS, for purposes of Section 65583, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element incorporates the City's housing allocation of 1,331 residential units, determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a general plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update policies are internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan policies for Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, Parks, Recreation and Services, Economic Development, Open Space and Conservation, Health and Safety, and Noise; and WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with Section 65351 of the California Government Code, has facilitated public participation in the preparation of the General Plan Housing Element Update by conducting City Council public hearings and study sessions, Planning Commission public hearings, study sessions, and workshops and joint City Council/Planning Commission study sessions since 2000; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has provided decision makers and the public with background information, including land use diagrams, and policy documents; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a public participation program that accomplished the following: a. Informed the public of the ongoing General Plan Housing Element Update. b. Obtained public input regarding major issues, community objectives, and plan policies. c. Provided the public with opportunities to evaluate policies. 1 020 d. Informed decision makers of public opinions. e. Worked toward community consensus. WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration and has distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate responsible agencies and interested parties on October 16, 2002 for a 30-day public review period and concludes that the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not have a significant environmental impact. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 21, 2002 on the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: The General Plan and elements, including the attached Public Hearing Draft Housing Element 2001-2006, comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City of South San Francisco; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the South San Francisco Planning Commission that it is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt GP02-0021 and adopt the Negative Declaration ND02-O021. The Planning Commission recommends Io the City Council adoption of the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update and as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, Exhibit B. 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 21s' day of November 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero NOES: Commissioner D'Angelo ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTESTs: . .,"z~-/,.'..,4:.. ,.'. //,-;...',;,;.-2/' Commis~iOn_Seer:e,'~' Thomas C. Sparks 2 021 EXHIBIT A CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT 2001 -2006 AUGUST 12, 2002 (A copy of the Draft General Plan Housing Element was provided to the City Council, the Planning Commission, and interested parties on November 1, 2002) O22 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 31, 2002 Planning Commission Michael Lappen, Senior Planning South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Attached is a copy of the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element for your review. Now that the City has received confirmation from the State, Planning Division staffis preparing to present the draft Housing Element to the Planning Commission and the City Council for adoption. The General Plan Housing Element and the Negative Declaration is scheduled for the November 21, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the project will be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. 003 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 31, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Mart3, Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Attached is a copy o£the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element for your review. Now that the City has received confirmation fi.om the State, Planning Division staff is preparing to present the draft Housing Element to the Planning Commission and the City Council for adoption. The General Plan Housing Element and the Negative Declaration is scheduled for the November 21, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the project will be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. 024 EXHIBIT B CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (The Initial Study/ Negative Declaration is attached to the City Council Resolution in Attachment 4 of the City Council Staff Report) O25 ATTACHMENT 4 City Council Resolution With Exhibits 0 0 RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND02-0021 AND ADOPTING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE GP02-0021 AFFECTING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AREA WHEREAS, on March 20, 2002 and December 11, 2002 the City Council held a duly noticed study session and a public heating to consider the Draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Section 65580 et sequiter of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires every city to adopt a housing element; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 "Housing element content" of the California Government Code, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update provides detailed background information, an analysis of adequate sites for residential development, an analysis of special needs housing, an analysis of housing for the homeless, and the description of goals and policies for the creation of new residential development and the preservation of the existing housing stock; and WHEREAS, for purposes of Section 65583, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element incorporates the City's housing allocation of 1,331 residential units, determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a general plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update policies are internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan policies for General Plan Land Use Element policies (2-I-6, 2-I-10, 2-I-15, 2-I-18, 2-I-19, 2-G-l, 2-G-5, 2-G-6, 2-G-7, 2-I-3, 2- I-7, 2-I-8, 2-I-9, 2-I-15, 3.1-G-3, 3.1-I-1, 3.1-I-3, 3.3-I-5, 3.3-I-12A, 3.4-I-8, 3.4-I-9, 3.4-I-16, 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.10-G-I, 3.10-I-1, 3.11-I-1, 3.1-G-2, 3.1-G-4, 3.1-I-2, 3.1-I-5, 3.1-I-12, 3.4- G-4, 3.2-G-4, 3.3-G-1, 3.5-I-3.3.4-I-2, 3.6-I-2, 3.7-I-2, 3.8-G-1, 3.8-I-1, 3.8-I-3, and 3.12-G-1), General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policy (7.5-I-1), and General Plan Health and Safety Element policies (8.1-G-I, 8.1-1-3, 8.2-I-2, 8.5-G-2, 8.5-I-3, 9-G-l, 9-G-2, 9-I-3, and 9-I-4); and WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with Section 65351 of the California Government Code, has facilitated public participation in the preparation of the General Plan Housing Element Update by conducting City Council public hearings and study sessions, Planning Commission public hearings, study sessions, and workshops and joint City Council/Planning Commission study sessions since 2000; and 027 WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has provided decision makers and the public with background information, including land use diagrams, and policy documents; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a public participation program that accomplished the following: a. Informed the public of the ongoing General Plan Housing Element Update. b. Obtained public input regarding major issues, community objectives, and plan policies. c. Provided the public with opportunities to evaluate policies. d. Informed decision makers of public opinions. e. Worked toward community consensus. WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration and has distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate responsible agencies and interested parties on October 16, 2002 for a 30-day public review period and concludes that the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not have a significant environmental impact. WHEREAS, on November 17, 2001, February 7, 2002, March 20, 2002 and November 21, 2002 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed workshop/tour, two study sessions and a public heating to consider the Draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element; WHEREAS, on November 21, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element update. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the South San Francisco City Council does hereby find that. The General Plan and elements, including Exhibit A (Public Hearing Draft Housing Element 2001-2006), comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City of South San Francisco; and The Initial Study/Negative Declaration concludes that the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not have a significant environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Initial Study/Negative Declaration as set forth in Exhibit B and adopts the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element update, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 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 December 2002, by the following vote: 028 AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: ATTEST City Clerk EXHIBIT A CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT 2001 -2006 AUGUST 12, 2002 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT HO USING ELEMENT Prepared by: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES VERNAZZA WOLFE ASSOCIATES~ Inc. August 12, 2002 HOUSING ELEMENT CREDITS CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL Eugene Mullin, Mayor Pedro Gonzalez - Mayor Pro-Tern Joseph A. Femekes - Councilmember Raymond L. Green - Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto - Councilmember PLANNING COMMISSION William Romero, Chairperson Rick Ochsenhirt, Vice Chairperson Joseph D'Angelo, Commissioner Judith Honan, Commissioner Michael Meloni, Commissioner Eugene Sim, Commissioner Marc Teglia, Commissioner CITY STAFF Michael Wilson, City Manager Marty Van Duyn, Director of the Department of Economics & Community Development Tom Sparks, Chief Planner Norma Fragoso, Housing & Community Development Manager Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Armando Sanchez, Department of Economic & Community Development Manager CONSULTANTS J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES Larry Mintier, Principal Derek DiManno, Associate VERN/t77~. WOLFE ASSOCIATES Lucina Vernazza, Principal 2.4 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK ................................ 1-31 Number and Types of Units ............................................ I-3 ] Condition o£ the Housing Stock .......................................... I-31 Overcrowding ....................................................... 1-33 3.0 FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS ............................. 1-34 3.1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S SHARE OF 1999 TO 2006 HOUSING NEEDS ..................................................... 1-34 3.2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (1999 TO 2001) ........ 1-36 4.0 HOUSING OVERPAYMENT .............................. 1-39 4.1 HOUSING COSTS COMPARED TO ABILITY TO PAY ............. 1-39 Ability to Pay ........................................................ 1-40 Existing Housing Costs ................................................ 1-42 Existing Income Levels ................................................ 1-45 Owner and Renter Overpayment ......................................... 1-47 5.0 AVAILABILITY OF LAND AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 1-48 5.1 AVAILABLE LAND INVENTORY .............................. 1-48 Vacant and Underutilized Land Currently Planned for Residential Use ........... 1-48 Vacant Residential Land ............................................... 1-48 Underutilized Residential Land .......................................... 1-49 Special Study Area .................................................... 1-49 Planned Housing Projects .............................................. Io56 5.2 ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL VS. PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS ..................................................... 1-57 5.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ......................... 1-58 Water .............................................................. 1-58 Wastewater ......................................................... 1-58 Schools ............................................................. 1-58 6.0 CONSTRAINTS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ............. 1-59 6.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ............................ 1-59 General Plan Land Use Controls ......................................... 1-59 Zoning Ordinance .................................................... 1-60 ii Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing .............................. 1-66 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance ......................................... 1-66 Persons with Disabilities ............................................... 1-67 Building Codes ...................................................... 1-69 On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements ............................... 1-70 City Permit Processing and Fees ......................................... 1-70 6.5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL/MARKET CONSTRAINTS ............... 1-74 [,and Costs .......................................................... 1-75 Construction Costs .................................................... 1-75 Cost and Availability of Financing ....................................... 1-76 7.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION .......... 1-77 8.0 CURRENT AND PAST HOUSING PROGRAMS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ............................................. 1-79 8.1 CURRENT PROGRAMS .................................... 1-79 HOME Investment Partnership Act Program Funds .......................... 1-81 Section 8 Voucher Program ............................................. I-81 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program ............................... 1-82 First-Time Homebuyer Program ...................................... 1-82 8.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO . 1-82 Inclusionary Housing Program .......................................... 1-88 At-Risk Units ........................................................ 1-88 8.3 POTENTIAL FUNDING PROGRAMS .......................... 1-90 9.0 EVALUATION OF 1992 HOUSING ELEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS ...................................... 1-92 Evaluation of 1992 Housing Element Policies and Programs ................... 1-93 Evaluation of Existing (1992) Housing Element Policies ...................... 1-93 What Was Learned from the 1992 Housing Element ......................... 1-93 I1. POLICY DOCUMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS .................. I1-1 NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ................................... 11-2 Availability of Sites for New Construction ................................. 11-2 Administrative Support, Housing Funding and Permit Streamlining ................................................... II-5 August 12, 2002 iii Public Hearing Draft RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES .................................. 11-8 MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK ............. 11-8 RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES ................................. I1-11 SPECIAL NEEDS ................................................... 11-12 Senior Programs ..................................................... II-12 Disabled Programs ................................................... II-13 Homeless Programs .................................................. II-14 fiQOAL OPPORTUNITY ............................................. I1-15 N£1GHBORHOOD SAFETY ........................................... 11-16 RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES ................................. 11-18 ENERGY CONSERVATION ........................................... 11-19 Public Hearing Draft iv August 12, 2002 LIST OF TABLES BACKGROUND REPORT TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE I-1: HISTORIC POPULATION TRENDS ................................. I-7 I-2: BUILDOUT POPULATION ........................................ I-8 I-3: POPULATION PROJECTIONS ..................................... I-9 I-4: POPULATION BY AGE GROUP ................................... 1-10 I-5: POPULATION BY RACE ......................................... I-11 I-6: EMPLOYMENT BUILDOUT ....................................... 1-13 I-7: EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ................................... 1-14 I-8: JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE ....................................... 1-15 I-9: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE .................. 1-16 1-10: MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME .................................... 1-17 1-11: NUMBER, TYPE OF UNITS, AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE ................. 1-17 1-12: HOUSING OCCUPANCY STATUS ................................ 1-19 1-13: NUMBER OF PERSONS IN UNITS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE .......... 1-20 1-14: NUMBER OF SENIORS ........................................ 1-21 1-15: HOUSING TENURE ............................................ 1-22 1-16: COMPARISON OF COST BURDENS BY AGE AND TENURE ........... 1-23 1-17: MOBILITY/SELF-CARE LIMITATION - PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OLDER . 1-24 1-18: NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, BY YEAR AND TYPE ................. 1-31 1-19: HOUSING CONDITIONS BY NEIGHBORHOOD ...................... 1-32 1-20: SIZE OF UNITS COMPARED WITH SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS ........... 1-33 1-21: HOUSING NEED BY INCOME CATEGORY ......................... 1-35 1-22: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION .................... 1-36 1-23: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY .......................... 1-39 1-24: BALANCE OF NEED ........................................... 1-40 1-25: DEFINITION OF HOUSING INCOMES ............................. 1-41 TABLE 1-26: ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR VERY LOW, LOW-, AND MODERATE INCOME ............................................... 1-43 TABLE 1-27: FAIR MARKET RENT ........................................... 1-44 TABLE 1-28: TABLE 1-29: TABLE 1-30: TABLE 1-31: TABLE 1-32: TABLE 1-33: TABLE 1-34: TABLE 1-35: TABLE 1-36: TABLE 1-37: TABLE 1-39: TABLE TABLE ASKING PRICES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ..................... 1-44 AVERAGE RENT LEVELS ....................................... 1-45 COMPLETED HOME SALES .................................... 1-46 AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES ...................... 1-46 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ...... 1-50 VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 1-53 SPECIAL STUDY AREAS ....................................... 1-55 PENDING HOUSING PROJECTS ................................. 1-56 FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS .................. 1-61 STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND INTENSITY ....................... 1-63 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BART TRANSIT VILLAGE DISTRICT 1-64 1-40: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP HOMES .................... 1-69 1-41: PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE ..................................... 1-74 August 12, 2002 v Public Hearing Draft TABLE 1-42: TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME COST COMPONENTS .............. 1-75 TABLE 1-43: HOUSING PROGRAMS ......................................... 1-80 TABLE 1-44: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS ............................. 1-86 TABLE 1-45: SINGLE OCCUPANCY HOTELS .................................. 1-87 TABLE 1-46: ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST OF UNITS AT FAIRWAY APARTMENTS TABLE 1-47: ANNUAL HOUSING PRODUCTION IN PREVIOUS HOUSING PERIOD ... 1-92 TABLE 1-48: COMPARISON OF HOUSING NEED TO HOUSING PRODUCTION, PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT PERIOD (1990-1999) .............................. 1-93 POLICY DOCUMENT TABLE I1-1: SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME LEVEL ......... 11-21 Public Hearing Draft vi August 12, 2002 LIST OF FIGURES BACKGROUND REPORT Following page FIGURE 1: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES .............................. 1-48 FIGURE 2: TRANSIT VILLAGE PRE-APPLICATION PREPARATION ................ 1-71 FIGURE 3: FAIRFIELD AND CITY INPUT ON THE PROJECT PROCESS PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION PACKAGE .......................... 1-71 FIGURE 4: PERMIT STREAMLINING PROCESS FOR TRANSIT VILLAGE ........... 1-72 August 12, 2002 vii Public Hearing Draft INTRODUCTION The City of South San Francisco last updated its Housing Element in December 1992. The Element was subsequently "certified" as legally adequate by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The document was intended to serve a planning period from 1991 to 1996, but State law extended the housing element planning period for the Bay Area to 2001 due to a Statewide slowdown in housing construction during the 1990s. This Housing Element is a comprehensive update of the 1992 Housing Element. Upon its adoption, this element will become part of the General Plan, which was updated in 1999. The General Plan includes the following elements: Land Use Element; Planning Sub-Area Element; Transportation Element; Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element; Economic Development Element, Open Space and Conservation Element; Health and Safety Element; and Noise Element. The adoption of this Housing Element may necessitate revisions of some of the other General Plan elements to maintain consistency with those elements as mandated by State law. OVERVIEW OF STATE REQUIREMENTS State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city or county. The housing element is one of the seven mandated elements of the local general plan. State law requires local governments plan to address the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community through their housing elements. The law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in the state rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements. The purposes of the housing element are to identify the community's housing needs, to state the community's goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs, and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives. State law requires cities and counties to address the needs of all income groups in their housing elements. The official definition of these needs is provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for each city and county within its geographic jurisdiction. Beyond these income-based housing needs, the housing element must also address special needs groups such as persons with disabilities and homeless persons. Housing Element Background Report Requirements The Housing Element is composed of two parts: the Background Report and Policy Document. The following detail the primary requirements for the Background Report. Requirements for the Policy Documents are described in the second part of this Housing Element. Under State law the housing element must contain extensive documentation of housing stock, housing needs, resources available to meet those needs, and constraints on housing production. Specifically, the housing element must include all of the following: August 12, 2002 I-1 Public Hearing Draft Background Report t of South San Francisco An analysis of population/employment trends, documentation of projections, and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels; An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition; An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites; An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures; An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction; An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the disabled, single parent families, elderly, large families, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter; An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development; and · An analysis of assisted housing development eligible to change to non-low-income housing. The following implementation as follows: sections satisfy these requirements and provide the foundation for the goals, policies, measures, and quantified objectives. The Housing Element Background Report is organized Section 1: Population, employment, and housing trends and needs Section 2: Housing and household characteristics Section 3: Existing and future housing needs Section 4: Housing overpayment Section 5: Available sites and services to meet identified needs Section 6: Governmental and non-governmental constraints Section 7: Energy conservation Section 8: Past and current housing efforts in South San Francisco Section 9: Evaluation of ! 992 Housing Element Accomplishments These chapters draw on a broad range of informational sources. Information on population, housing stock, and economics comes primarily from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census (most of the 2000 census data was not available at the time this report was prepared), the California Department of Finance, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and City of South San Francisco records. Information on available sites and services for housing comes from numerous public agencies. Information on constraints on housing production and past and current housing efforts in South San Francisco comes from City staff, other public agencies, and a number of private sources. Public Hearing Draft I-2 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco. Background Report HOUSING ELEMENT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN General Plan Overview State law requires each California city and county to prepare a general plan. A general plan is defined as "a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." State requirements call for general plans that "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." A city's general plan has been described as its constitution for development - the framework within which decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment must be made. California's tradition of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that the State's cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans. The California Government Code establishes both the content of general plans and rules for their adoption and subsequent amendment. Together, State law and judicial decisions establish three overall guidelines for general plans. The General Plan Must Be Comprehensive. This requirement has two aspects. First, the general plan must be geographically comprehensive. That is, it must apply throughout the entire incorporated area and it should include other areas that the City determines are relevant to its planning. Second, the general plan must address the full range of issues that affects the city's physical development. The General Plan Must Be Internallv Consistent. This requirement means that the General Plan must fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to each other without conflict."Horizontal" consistency applies as much to figures and diagrams as to the general plan text. It also applies to data and analysis as well as policies. All adopted portions of the general plan, whether required by State law or not, have equal legal weight. None may supersede another, so the general plan must resolve conflicts among the provisions of each element. The General Plan Must Be Long-range. Because anticipated development will affect the city and the people who live or work there for years to come, State law requires every general plan to take a long- term perspective. The South San Francisco General Plan, adopted by the City Council on October 13, 1999, serves several purposes. It: Outlines a vision for South San Francisco's long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community; Provides strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished; Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans. August 12, 2002 I-3 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~ j of South San Francisco The South San Francisco General Plan has been a result a community effort. Its major policy directions have been defined through close involvement of the City Council, the Planning Commission, other boards and commissions, residents, and the business community, in all phases of the General Plan process. General Plan and Housing Element Differences The housing element is one of seven State-mandated elements that every general plan must contain. Although the housing element must follow all the requirements of the general plan, the housing element has several State- mandated requirements that distinguish it from other general plan elements. Whereas the State allows local government the ability to decide when to update their general plan, State law sets the schedule for periodic update (5-year timefi'ame) of the housing element. Local governments are also required to submit draft and adopted housing elements to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review for compliance with State law. This review ensures that the housing element meets numerous State mandates. Should the City satisfy these requirements, the State will "certify" that the element is legally adequate. Failing to comply with State law could result in potentially serious consequences that extend beyond the realm of residential land use planning. Public Hearing Draft I-4 August 12, 2002 City of South San FrancisC. Background Report 1.0 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING TRENDS AND NEEDS This section includes information on South San Francisco's population, employment, and housing stock. In most cases, information about South San Francisco is compared with information from the neighboring cities of Daly City, San Bruno, and Colma, as well as the county as a whole. The information is oriented to identify trends, potential shortcomings, and issues requiring a policy position. 1.1 HISTORIC GROWTH AND POPULATION TRENDS South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically located along maj or transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, the Union Pacific Railroad, (formerly Southem Pacific Railroad) and the San Francisco Intemational Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive landmark. The modem history of South San Francisco began in 1827, when the 15,000-acre Rancho Buri Buri was given to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant. In 1856, Charles Lux purchased 1,500 acres of the Rarlcho and founded the town of Baden, named for Lux's native region in Germany. At that time, the Baden area was used for cattle grazing and dairy operations. The meat industry played an important role in South San Francisco's evolution. The Gustavus Swift meat packing plant, established on Point San Bruno in 1888, was the City's first industrial development. Swift organized a "beef trust"with other Midwestem meat packing companies to join in building a community of stockyards and packing plants on Point San Bruno, and organized for the development of an industrial town. In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased 3,400 acres on the former site of the Rancho Buri Buri for development of the town. The arrangement of residential and industrial uses intentionally took advantage of stable ground and Bay access at Point San Bruno, as well the prevailing winds from San Bruno Gap that blew offensive odors away from residential areas and over the Bay. Industry and community growth have been closely intertwined throughout South San Francisco's history. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line between San Francisco and San Jose in 1904-1907 expanded opportunities for goods shipping from South San Francisco, and steel mills began to take advantage of the city's abundant land with excellent transportation access. A major lack of housing and services and a battle over a copper smelter precipitated incorporation, allowing South San Francisco to control its industrial furore and provide the services needed to attract resident workers. When the City incorporated on September 19, 1908, it had 1,989 residents and 14 major industries. By 1920, the city had grown to a population of more than 4,000 (see Table I-1). Industries continued to locate and grow in South San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some of the city's major establishments whose products helped build California's modem transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more attractive as a shipping terminal, and the city became the central distribution point for the entire Peninsula. In the years following incorporation, South San Francisco's civic improvements kept pace with its growing industry. The City Hall was opened in 1920 and the 20-acre Orange Memorial Park was developed in 1925. August 12, 2002 I-5 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~j of South San Francisco Constrained by marshlands to the south, residential development began to extend north around and along the slopes of Sign Hill as the city grew, requiring the introduction ora curvilinear street form. Industries expanded to the south and west, taking advantage of the SPRR and spurs along Railroad Avenue and other streets west of the rail right-of-way. The growth of South San Francisco's steel and, later, shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War 1I helped spur residential growth. Between 1940 and 1960, South San Francisco's population increased more than six-fold from 6,290 to 39,418.2 Over 46 percent of South San Francisco's existing housing units were constructed between 1940 and 1959. By the end of the 1950s, South San Francisco had essentially reached its present level of urbanization between U.S. 101 and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Many of the residential subdivisions west of Sign Hill and E1 Camino Real were complete. Except at the city's northwestern comer, Junipero Serra Boulevard formed the city's westem edge, and Hillside Boulevard/Randolph Avenue was the northem boundary. As shown in Table I-1, the 1940s and 1950s saw the most rapid increases in population. With some important exceptions, land use in South San Francisco since the 1960s has stemmed from intemal change rather than outright expansion. Infill development has occurred along E1 Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and U.S. 101. Major expansion has occurred in the Westborough area and the East of 101 area, enabled respectively by the construction of Interstate 280 and landfill at Oyster and Sierra Points. The city has recently entered its last phase of expansion with multi-use development at Terrabay on the south slopes of San Bruno Mountain. The rate of population growth slowed in the 1960s and 1970s, increasing by only six percent in the 1970s. Population growth increased by 10 percent in the 1980s and by roughly the same percentage in the 1990s. By 2000, South San Francisco had a population over 60,552, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. With 8.5 percent of the county's population, South San Francisco is San Mateo County's fourth-largest city. Future opportunities for growth other than redevelopment are limited to remaining unincorporated islands. Public Hearing Draft I-6 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisc_ Background Report TABLE I-1 HISTORIC POPULATION TRENDS City of South San Francisco 1920-2000 Population Year 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: U.S. Census, various years. Population Projections General Plan Buildout Population Percentlncrease 4,411 -- 6,193 40% 6,290 2% 19,351 308% 39,418 I04% 46,646 18% 49,393 6% 54,312 10% 60,552 11% According to buildout projections in the 1999 General Plan, South San Francisco will accommodate a population of approximately 67,400, an increase of 14 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200. If buildout were to occur over 20 years, South San Francisco will moderately increase its share of the San Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 8.4 percent. Population growth rate over the plan horizon will be much slower than growth experienced by the city over the last ten years. August 12, 2002 I-7 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~ ~ of South San Francisco TABLE I-2 BUILDOUT POPULATION City of South San Francisco 1990-2020 Jurisdictio 1990 1998 1990-1998 Buildout 1990-2020 Population Population Share of Annual Population Share of Annual County Growth County Growth Rate Rate South San 54,312 59,208 8.3% 1.0% 67,400 8.4% 0.6% Francisco San Mateo 649,623 715,382 100% 1.2% 789,600* 100% 0.5% County *Projected year 2020 population for San Mateo County Source: 1999 General Plan ABA G Projections According to population projections produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in Projections 2002, South San Francisco's population is expected to grow relatively slowly through 2020, with an average annual growth rate of 0.51 percent between 2000 and 2020. As Table I-3 indicates, the city's population is projected to grow to 67,000 by 2020, representing an increase of 6,448 residents from ABAG's estimated 2000 South San Francisco population of 60,552. Compared to its neighboring communities, South San Francisco ranks in the middle in terms of annual growth rates. Public Hearing Draft I-8 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE I-3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities 2000 to 2020 2000-2020 5urisdiction 2000 2005 2010 2020 Annual lncrease in Growth Population Rate South San Francisco 60,552 62, 600 63,600 67, 000 6, 448 O. 51% Daly City 103,621 106,500 108,200 111,000 7,379 0.34% San Bruno 40,165 41,500 42,000 43,800 3,635 0.43% Colma 1,191 1,230 1,270 1,370 179 0.70% San Mateo County 707,161 739,100 754,600 795,100 87,939 0.68% Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2002, October 2001. Age of the Population Table I-4 shows South San Francisco's age trends from 1970 through 2000. The age of South San Francisco's residents increased in two age categories during the last decade. Two of the most significant trends over the last 30 years has been the decrease in the city's younger population (i.e., 0-14) and the increase in the city's senior population (i.e., 65 and older). In 1970, those under 14 years old were approximately 30 percent of the population. By 1980, that group's population fell to roughly 20 percent. Over the next 20 years, that percentage has remained relatively constant. In 1970, the senior population was 5.0 percent. This percentage has been steadily increasing over the last 30 years (8.3 percent in 1980, 11.4 percent in 1990, and 12.6 percent in 2000). Between 1990 and 2000, the median age of South San Francisco's residents remained relatively constant, increasing from 35.1 in 1990 to 35.7 in 2000. August 12, 2002 I-9 Public Hearing Draft Background Report C of South San Francisco TABLE I-4 POPULATION BY AGE GROUP City of South San Francisco 1970 through 2000 Age Groups 1970 1980 1990 2000 0-14 30.6% 20.8% 20.7% 20.3% 15-24 17.0% 19.2% 13.7% 13.2% 25-34 13.2% 17.2% 18.6% 15.4% 35-44 13.6% 12.0% 15.4% 16.6% 45-54 13.0% 12.0% 10.5% 13.3% 55-64 7.6% 10.6% 9.7% 8.7% 65 5.0% 8.3% 11.4% 12.6% Source: U.S. Census, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 Race and Ethnicity Table I-5 demonstrates that South San Francisco is a very ethnically and racially diverse community almost evenly divided among three ethnic groups.. South San Francisco's ethnic/racial make-up is made primarily of Whites (30.5 percent), Hispanics/Latinos (31.8 percent), and Asians (28.6 percent). The city's largest ethnic/racial population consists of Hispanics and Latinos with nearly 32 percent of the city's population. South San Francisco also has a larger Hispanic/Latino population than surrounding communities such as Daly City, San Bruno, and San Mateo County. South San Francisco and Daly City are home to the largest population of Filipinos in the Bay Area. African Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and those of two or more races make up only 4.7 percent of South San Francisco's entire population. Public Hearing Draft 1-10 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE I-5 POPULATION BY RACE (INCLUDING HISPANIC AND LATINO POPULATIONS) City of South San Francisco and Surrounding Communities 2000 South San Francisco Daly City San Bruno Group Pop. Percent Pop. Percent Pop. Percent White 18,487 30.5% 18,344 17.7% 18,822 46.8% Hispanic/Latino 19,282 31.8% 23,072 22.2% 9,686 24.1% Asian 17,312 28.6% 52,154 50.3% 7,393 18.4% African American 1,621 2.6% 4,482 4.3% 753 1.8% Native American 197 0.3% 199 0.1% 103 0.2% Pacific Islander 896 1.4% 904 0.8% 1,118 2.7% Two or more races 264 0.4% 414 0.3% 211 0.5% TOTAL 60,552 100.0% 103,621 100.0% 40,165 100.0% Source: U.S. Census, 2000 San Mateo County Pop. Percent 352,355 49.8% 154,708 21.8% 140,313 19.8% 23,778 3.3% 1,546 0.2% 1,546 0.2% 2,217 0.3 % 707,161 100.0% August 12, 2002 1-11 Public Hearing Draft Background Report 1.2 EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT (. of South San Francisco Employment South San Francisco's notable competitive locational advantages within the region, and a positive business environment position it well to capture significant new development with resultant economic benefits for the City. The city's location is highly strategic, between between two world-class universities--Stanford and UCSF--and three major centers of economic activity: (1) the rapidly expanding San Francisco International Airport (SFO); (2) downtown San Francisco; and (3) the Silicon Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area's primary economic engine, which is producing tremendous growth in business and employment activity. The Silicon Valley, once synonymous with Santa Clara County, has expanded into southern San Mateo County. South San Francisco's economy was historically based upon manufacturing and processing industries, many of which slowly gave way to warehousing and distribution businesses. Growth in recent years has focused on the information-based economy, as more high-technology and service firms have located to the eastern portion of the city. With Genentech serving as a major high-technology/biotechnology anchor in East of 101, a significant cluster of bio-technology establishments exists today. The ability of the City to attract uses that generate economic benefits will depend on maintaining a positive business climate and availability of land, particularly sites suited to the needs of large office or research and development campuses, or regional-scaled commercial centers. The 1999 General Plan states that while non-residential building space in South San Francisco will increase from an estimated current 18.1 million square feet to 24.6 million square feet at buildout (an increase of 31 percent), the General Plan at buildout will accommodate an employment increase from 39,100 currently to as much as 71,400 at buildout (an increase of 83 percent; including construction and at-home workers), primarily as sites with low-intensity warehousing and distribution uses (with an estimated average 960 square feet per employee in South San Francisco) are succeeded by higher intensity R&D, office, retail, and other similar uses. Attaining this level of employment will likely take more than 20 years. Table 1-6 shows existing and buildout employment by broad land use categories. Public Hearing Draft 1-12 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Land Use Commercial/Retail Hotels/Visitor Services Office and Business Park (inc.R&D) Warehouse/Mixed Industrial Public and Schools Construction and Miscellaneous Others (including) TOTAL Source: 1999 General Plan. TABLE I-6 EMPLOYMENT BUILDOUT City of South San Francisco 1997 to Buildout Estimated 1997 Increase to Employment~ Buildout 10,400 1,800 5,700 Buildout Employment 3,100 13,500 3,900 5,700 23,500 29,200 13,400 (3,200) 10,200 1,500 1,500 2,500 1,800 4,300 3,800 3,200 7,000 39,100 32,300 71,400 ABAG Projections According to ABAG's 2002 projections, South San Francisco had a total of 53,190 jobs and 32,206 employed residents in 2000. This gives the city a jobs/housing ratio of 1.65 which means that South San Francisco is a job center that brings in employees from surrounding communities. As Table I-7 shows, ABAG projects the number of jobs to increase to 62,880 and the number of employed residents to grow to 36,000 by the year 2020. Table I-7 also shows South San Francisco's economic strength compared to surrounding jurisdictions. August 12, 2002 1-13 Public Hearing Draft Background Report , ./of South San Francisco TABLE I-7 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities 2000 to 2020 Jurisdictio n Job Type 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 South San Total Jobs Francisco Employed Residents Colma Total Jobs Employed Residents Daily City Total Jobs Employed Residents San Bruno Total Jobs Employed Residents San Mateo Total Jobs County Employed Residents Percent Increase 2000-2020 53,190 55,330 58,020 60,650 62,880 15.5% 32,206 33,300 33,900 35,000 36,000 10.5% 2,510 2,640 2,770 2,950 3,140 20.1% 739 830 850 890 950 22.1% 24,650 25,750 26,750 28,290 29,180 15.5% 57,244 59,200 60,100 61,700 62,400 8.2% 15,810 16,160 17,620 19,850 21,300 25.8% 23,779 24,500 24,600 25,500 26,200 9.2% 395,890 413,380 434,740 458,750 482,050 17.8% 403,083 422,000 430,900 446,100 458,000 12.0% Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2002. Jobs/Housing Balance The 1999 General Plan notes that where once the residential and commercial portion of South San Francisco was a company town for the "beef trust" packers on Point San Bruno, improved transportation access and extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco into a commuter suburb. In 1999, only 23 percent of employed residents work in the city, despite a surplus of jobs, indicating regional jobs-housing interdependencies. The city has continued to add jobs at a faster rate than population for the last 15 years, and in 1995, there were 13,610 more jobs than employed residents in the city. In contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall shortage of jobs; however, during the last 15 years, the overall jobs/employed residents ratio in San Mateo County has crept closer to balance. Given that much of the land in the city--including all of the East of 101 area-- is not suited for residential development, it is unlikely that a balance between jobs and housing can be attained. However, continued job growth in the city will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit--including air and rail, and in the near future BART and ferry Public Hearing Draft 1-14 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report service--employment growth in the city will support regional transit as well. Nonetheless, availability of housing in South San Francisco serves not only regional interest, but is important to attracting high-technology and biotechnology jobs that the city seeks. Increased residential development within the city will help partly alleviate traffic impacts resulting from job growth, and provide residential opportunities to those that work in the city but live elsewhere. Thus, the General Plan seeks to maximize residential development opportunities on infill sites. TABLE I-8 Jobs Employment Residential Jobs/Employed Residents JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE South San Francisco 1997 and Buildout Estimated 1997 Employment* Buildout 39, 100 71,400 27,900 32,352 1.4 2.2 *Using information from Claritas Inc.(for the Planning Area) collected as part of the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report. Source: 1999 General Plan. 2.0 HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Section 2 assesses current and projected housing and household characteristics, the condition of the housing stock, and the potential impact on future housing needs. This analysis identifies key trends that will affect both near-term and long-term housing needs. 2.1 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND INCOME Household Composition The 2000 Census defines the term "household" as the person or persons occupying a housing unit. This general category includes families, defined as two or more persons, including the householder, who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption and who live together as one household. The family definition includes both married couples and single-parent families. Despite increases in single-parent families and unrelated households, married couples remain the majority of households in South San Francisco. Table I-9 shows the number and percentage of different types of households. Households that do not meet the definition of "family" are classified as "non-family households." August 12, 2002 1-15 Public Hearing Draft Background Report , ~ of South San Francisco TABLE I-9 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE City of South San Francisco 2000 Type of Household Number Percent of Households Total Households 19,677 100.0 Family Households 14, 650 74. 5 Married Couple 10,977 55.8 Female Headed household 2,596 13.2 Non-Family Households 5,027 25.5 Seniors 1,771. 9.0 Householder living alone 3,923 19.9 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Household Income General Plan Household Income The General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report noted that the South San Francisco median household income in 1990 was lower than San Mateo County's but slightly higher than the median income in the Bay Area as a whole. Since that time, real incomes have risen somewhat based on 1999 estimates. A particularly pertinent issue for economic development efforts is the education and employment profile of South San Francisco residents. In general, residents have lower levels of educational attainment and hold lower level jobs than residents in the Bay Area as a whole. This discrepancy is particularly notable with regard to executive and administrative jobs: South San Francisco has a much lower concentration of residents with managerial positions and a higher proportion of residents in administrative positions than the region as a whole. The most prevalent industries in which SSF residents are employed are transportation, retail trade, finance, insurance, real estate, and manufacturing. The city has a low proportion of residents in nondurable goods manufacturing and professional services than the rest of the Bay Area. ABA G Income Projections Mean household income in South San Francisco (in constant 1995 dollars) was $55,800 in 1990, and increased to $68,000 in 2000. ABAG projects that the city's mean household income will continue its upward trend, increasing to $73,200 in 2005, $76,100 in 2010, $77,500 in 2015, and $79,300 in 2020. This represents a 15 percent increase between 2000 and 2020. By comparison, mean household income for San Mateo County as a whole is estimated at $88,700 in 2000, and is projected to increase by 19 percent to $109,100 by 2005. Thus, the average income for the county is not only higher than that of South San Francisco, but will increase at a greater rate than the city (ABAG Projections 2000, December 1999, page Public Hearing Draft 1-16 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco, 88). Background Report TABLE 1-10 MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME City of South San Francisco and Surrounding Communities 1990 - 2020 Jurisdiction 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 South San 55,800 68,000 73,200 76,100 77,500 79,300 Francisco* Colma** 47,000 51,000 53,500 56,000 59,000 62,400 Daly City* 57,000 69,100 74,300 77,500 79,800 81,600 San Bruno* 59,000 71,000 76,200 80,200 83,400 85,900 San Mateo 72,900 88,700 95,200 ! 00,100 104,800 109,100 County * City Sphere of Influence **City limits Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999. 2.2 HOUSING UNIT MIX AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE Housing Stock Composition South San Francisco's city limits encompass 4,300 acres. According to the 1999 General Plan, single-family residential is the predominant use, occupying 33 percent of the land. Only ten percent of the land in the city is vacant, and development has been approved or is under review on over half of this land. Development that has been approved or under review includes 1,002 housing units on 1 ! 0 acres (October 1998). The 160 acres of remaining vacant land is primarily concentrated in the east of US 101 area, which prohibits residential development. South San Francisco's housing stock reflects the city's history as an industrial town and its later role as a convenient suburb of San Francisco. The city's residential development is fairly unusual, with small single family homes clustered in flat areas and multifamily housing and townhomes on hillsides surrounding the town. This development not only reflects the history of the city but also the land use constraints that have influenced land use decisions. Noise and safety impacts resulting from aircraft operations at the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) include height restrictions within the airport approach zone. Likewise, no residential development is permitted in the area east of 101 according to a Memorandum of Understanding between SFIA and the City. The Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report (1997) indicates that the composition of South San Francisco's housing is similar to that of the rest of San Mateo County, with the exception that South San Francisco has a greater concentration oftownhomes and other attached single-family units. While South San Francisco has eight percent of the housing in San Mateo County, it contains 11 percent of the county's townhomes and other attached single-family units. Market conditions also dictate the development patterns in the South San Francisco. Between 1990 and 1997, housing growth was modest in both the county and the city. During that period, approximately equal amounts of single-family and multiple-family development occurred August 12, 2002 1-17 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~ of South San Francisco in South San Francisco. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the city of South San Francisco has a total of 20,13 8 housing units. After a sharp decline in the 1970s, average household size in the 1980s and again in the 1990s increasing from 2.91 to 3.05. The housing stock has remained primarily single family residential with roughly 70 percent of homes being single family and 30 percent being multi family in 1990 and 2000. A detailed breakdown of occupancy status and household size by type of dwelling unit is provided in Tables I-11, 1-12, and 1-13. Tables 1-12 and I-13 show 1990 Census information since the Census Bureau has not released 2000 data for these categories. TABLE I-11 NUMBER, TYPE OF UNITS, AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE City of South San Francisco 1990 and 2000 1990 2000 Total Units 19,130 Percent Single-Family 70% Percent Multi-Family 30% Vacant Units 562 Percent Vacant 2.9% Household Population* 53,975 Persons per Occupied Unit 2.91 *Household population excludes persons in group quarters. **Based on 2000 DOF estimates. Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census; Department of Finance, 2000. 20,138 7t%** 29%** 461 2.3% 60,109 3.05 Public Hearing Draft 1-18 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Number of Occupied units in Units structure Single-family 10,743 detached Single-family 2,264 attached 2-unit 551 3- or 4-unit 1,002 5 or more 3,347 Mobile homes 336 Other 325 Total 18,568 Source: U.S. Census, 1990. TABLE 1-12 HOUSING OCCUPANCY STATUS City of South San Francisco 1990 % Owner- % Occupied Renter- Occupied 57.9 8,767 76.8 1,976 27.6 12.2 1,594 14.0 670 9.4 3.0 93 0.8 458 6.4 5.4 169 1.5 833 11.6 18.0 264 2.3 3,083 43.1 1.8 297 2.6 39 0.5 1.8 226 2.0 99 1.4 100.0 11,410 61.4 7,158 38.6 August 12, 2002 1-19 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ! of South San Francisco TABLE 1-13 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN UNITS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE City of South San Francisco 1990 All Units Owner-occupied Renter-occupied Units in Total Persons Per Unit Total Persons Per Unit Total Persons Structure Single-family 33,403 3.11 26,203 2.99 7,200 detached Single-family 7,448 3.29 5,018 3.15 2,430 attached 2-unit 1,597 2.90 244 2.62 1,353 3- or 4-unit 2,853 2.85 379 2.24 2,474 5 or more 7,389 2.21 614 2.33 6,775 Mobile homes 485 1.44 413 1.39 72 Other 800 2.46 521 2.31 279 Total 53,823 2.91 33,258 2.93 20,565 Source: U.S. Census, 1990. Per Unit 3.64 3.63 2.95 2.97 2.20 1.85 2.82 2.88 Public Hearing Draft 1-20 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report 2.3 HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS Within the general population there are several groups of people who have special housing needs. These needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The following subsections discuss the special housing needs of six groups identified in State housing element law (Government Code, Section 65583(a)(6)). Specifically, these include senior households, persons with disabilities, large households, single-headed households, farmworkers, and the homeless. Where possible, estimates of the population or number of households in South San Francisco falling into each group is presented. Senior Households Senior households are defined as households with one or more persons over the age of 65 years. To date (January 2002), the 2000 Census has not yet reported on the number of households headed by a senior. However, information is available on the number of persons over the age of 65 years as well as the number of households in which a person over the age of 65 resides. This information is presented in Table I-14 below. Approximately 28 percent of all households in South San Francisco included one or more senior individuals, and 12.6 percent of all persons living in South San Francisco are seniors. Women make up approximately 59 percent of the senior population. TABLE 1-14 NUMBER OF SENIORS City of South San Francisco 2000 Number of Persons 65 years and Over 7,632 Number of Households with 5,586 Individuals 65 Years and Over Seniors as a Percentage of the Total 12.6% Population Percentage Male 41.3% Percentage Female 58.7% Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Percentage of All Households 28.4% As of 1990, the majority of senior households in South San Francisco were homeowners. Of all 1990 households headed by a person 65 years or older, 71.8 percent owned their homes and 28.2 percent rented. August 12, 2002 1-21 Public Hearing Draft Background Report (. of South San Francisco TABLE 1-15 HOUSING TENURE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S SENIOR AND NON-SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS City of South San Francisco 1990 Household Type and Tenure* Number Percent Senior-Headed Households 3,838 100.0% Renter 1,083 28.2% Owner 2,755 71.8% Households Headed by a Non-Senior Person 14,681 100.0% Renter 6,069 41.3% Owner 8,612 58.7% * Based on occupied housing units. Source: U.S. Census, 1990. A much larger percentage of senior renter households (55 percent) than non-senior households (37 percent) paid 30 percent or more of their incomes for housing costs. Only 11 percent of senior homeowners reported paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing. Public Hearing Draft 1-22 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF COST BURDENS BY AGE AND TENURE City of South San Francisco 1990 Cost Burden Total Cost Burden Total Renters Greater Than 30% Homeowners Greater Than 30% Age Category Number Number Percentage Number Number Percentage 15-64 years 6,048 2,231 36.9% 7,689 2,531 32.9% 65 years and 1,083 594 54.8% 2,506 286 11.4% over Total 7,131 2,825 39.6% 10,195 2,817 27.8% Sources: Census, 1990; Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. These data indicate that there is need in South San Francisco for additional programs to assist senior renters. Although there are more senior homeowners, it is the renters who experience the greatest housing needs due to fixed incomes and rising rental rates. Senior homeowners, often on fixed incomes, do face the problem of maintaining their homes. According to statistics from the Social Security Administration, as of December 1996, there were 954 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients 65 years and over in South San Francisco. SSI is a needs-based program that pays monthly benefits to persons who are 65 or older, blind, or have a disability. Seniors who have never worked or have insufficient work credits to qualify for Social Security disability often receive SSI benefits. In fact, SSI is the only source of income for a number of low-income seniors. With the maximum monthly benefit cun-ently $712, SSI recipients are likely to have difficulty in finding housing that fits within their budgets since they could afford to pay only $214 for rent. The Chestnut Creek Senior Project will help address the need for housing for very low-income seniors, adding 40 units. Information from Service Providers The City's Senior Services operates two senior centers, E1 Camino and Magnolia, as well as an Adult Day Care Center. The centers include an Information and Referral service, which provides information on senior housing. Staff reports receiving approximately 40 inquiries per week regarding housing. Most requests are from seniors seeking affordable and/or Section 8 apartments. There are also quite a few requests for information concerning assisted-living and board and care homes -- probably an additional 20 per week. There are three senior housing developments with 321 affordable units located in South San Francisco (Fairway Apartments, Magnolia Plaza and Rotary Plaza), all with long waiting lists. The Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Development, currently under construction, will add another 40 units. Seniors also participate in the Shared Housing Program operated by the Human Investment Project (HIP). August 12, 2002 1-23 Public Hearing Draft Background Report t . of South San Francisco Persons with Disabilities Since it is difficult to obtain data on South San Francisco's disabled population, Table 1-17 presents information derived from the 1990 U.S. Census. (2000 Census data on disabilities are not yet available.) With regard to disability status, the 1990 U.S. Census provides information on whether persons 16 years of age or older have a mobility problem, self-care limitation or both. TABLE 1-17 MOBILITY/SELF-CARE LIMITATION - PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OLDER City of South San Francisco 1990 16-64 Years 65-74 Years 75 Years and Older Total Population 16 Years and Older Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Mobility/ Self-Help Limitation 1,964 5.4% 10.6% 550 28.0% 2,942 7.0% 428 No 34,156 94.6% 3,591 89.4% 1,412 72.0% 39,159 93.0% Limitation Total 36,120 100.0% 4,019 100.0% 1,962 100.0% 42,101 100.0% Persons Sources: 1990 U.S. Census; Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. In 1990, approximately 95 percent of South San Francisco's population 16 years of age or older had no self-care or mobility limitation. However, when this same information is separated by age group, it is clear, that, as the population ages, the incidence of disability increases. Among the population that is age 75 and older, 28 percent experienced either a self-care or mobility limitation or both. In summary, a total of 2,942 persons who were 16 years or older in 1990 had a mobility limitation, a self-care limitation, or a combination of these conditions. The statistics for the SSI program also provide information on the number of persons with disabilities who may have housing needs because of their low incomes. As of December 1996, there were 751 SSI recipients in South San Francisco who were receiving benefits because they are blind or disabled. Although these figures can give a sense of the proportion of the population with different types of disabilities, a much smaller proportion of the population may actually require specially adapted housing to accommodate disabilities. In addition to these mobility and self-care limitations, there is also a significant population of people with mental illness and developmental disabilities. As of January 2002, the County's Mental Health Department reported that 969 of its clients resided in South San Francisco. Although accessibility may be a lesser concem, housing with supportive services is critical for mentally ill individuals. The Golden Gate Regional Center serves developmentally disabled people in San Mateo County. As of January 2002, this Center reported that 162 of its adult clients reside in South San Francisco. Over one half of them are living with their families; only 20 currently live independently in their own apa~hnents. A number of these clients are 45 years or older. This aging of their clientele is of concern to the Center, since many of their clients Public Hearing Draft 1-24 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report live with their older parents. At some point, these parents will be unable to care for their adult, disabled children, and their children will require a supportive living situation. Information from Service Providers The State Independent Living Council's (SILC) 1998 report, Independent Living, provides a perspective on the housing needs of persons with disabilities. SILC polled the independent living centers across the state to determine the major factors that hinder people with disabilities from living independently. The SILC identified housing as a critical issue, as follows: Housing is a huge problem for most people with disabilities. Not only is there a scarcity of low-income housing located in each community, there is even less barrier-free low-income housing. For individuals who are receiving a total gross income of $640 on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), paying market rate for any type of apartment or house is a virtual impossibility. South San Francisco does not have any affordable housing development built specifically for persons with disabilities, though some units at some of the affordable projects have handicap- accessible units. The Peninsula Association for Retarded Children and Adults (PARCA) provides housing for 11 clients and supplements the rent at four apartments at Peninsula Pines and a house in Westborough. The City provides CDBG funding to the Center for Independence of Disabled to make accessibility modifications to enable persons with disabilities to stay in their homes or move to new housing. Additionally, the minor repair programs sponsored by the City provide assistance to persons with disabilities to undertake home repairs that increase access. The housing coordinator for the Golden Gate Center is organizing a coalition of agencies such as PARCA and Life Steps, nonprofit developers, and parents to address the housing needs of developmentally disabled persons in San Mateo County. The coalition plans to request each city as well as the county to include units for developmentally-disabled in their affordable housing developments and to request the San Mateo Housing Authority to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers for this group. The City also provides funding for the Human Investment Project Home Sharing Program. Large Households Large households require housing units with more bedrooms than housing units needed by smaller households. In general, housing for these households should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and should be located next to schools and child-care facilities. These types of needs can pose problems particularly for large families that cannot afford to buy or rent single-family houses, as apartment and condominium units are most often developed with childless, smaller households in mind. According to the 1990 Census, there were 1,725 large family owner-occupied housing units and 1,105 large-family renter occupied units. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines a large household or family as one with five or more members. According to the 1990 Census, 2,922 households, or 15.7 percent of the total households in South San Francisco, had five or more members. Approximately three percent of all households (500) had seven or more members. Furthermore, most of the affordable housing projects have smaller units. However, the Greenridge project includes 13 three-bedroom units and 4 four-bedroom units. Single-Headed Households According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least August 12, 2002 1-25 Public Hearing Draft Background Report C . of South San Francisco one dependent, which could include a child, an elderly parent, or non-related child. The 2000 Census information released thus far indicates that there are 2,596 households headed by a female, representing 13.2 percent of all South San Francisco households. Less than one-half of these female-headed households (1,099) have children living in them who are under 18 years of age. (Data on the number of male single-headed households is not yet available.) Due to lower incomes, single-headed households often have more difficulties finding adequate, affordable housing than families with two adults. Also, single-headed households with small children may need to pay for childcare, which further reduces disposable income. This special needs group will benefit generally from expanded affordable housing opportunities. More specifically, the need for dependent care also makes it important that housing for single-headed families be located near childcare facilities, schools, youth services, medical facilities, or senior services. Homeless As part of its Consolidated Plan for Housing, Community and Economic Development for 1998-2003, the City of South San Francisco established as one of its priorities to "provide service enriched shelter and transitional housing for homeless persons and families." As stated in the report, the rationale for this priority is that: It is now accepted that a continuum of care approach is required to assist families and individuals to break the cycle of homelessness. The City attempts to offer an array of services that will assist families at risk of becoming homeless: by providing support services, transitional housing, and permanent housing solutions. As elsewhere in the nation, homelessness is usually the end result of multiple factors that converge in a person's life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for retraining, and the high housing costs in this county lead to some individuals and families losing their housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities, or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and long-term support needed to address these conditions. To estimate the number of homeless in South San Francisco is difficult due to the lack of current data. For the entire County of San Mateo a count by the County's Office on Homelessness for the calendar year 2000 indicated that there are at least 4,800 unduplicated homeless people (based on a survey of 16 agencies serving the homeless). Because this count did not capture individuals who did not receive services or who declined to give their social security numbers, the Shelter Network of San Mateo County estimates that the number of homeless was closer to 6,000 people. In June 2001 the San Mateo Humans Services Agency, Office of Housing reported on the results of a special needs assessment for emergency shelter services. The study, which includes a survey of 49 clients staying at the Safe Harbor winter shelter, provides additional insights about the homeless population in San Mateo County. The findings included the following: The population staying at the shelter was older than in a 1995 survey of the homeless. Seventy percent of the survey participants were between the ages of 36 and 55 years old, and 10 percent were over 55 years old. The majority of the homeless population is either recently homeless or chronically homeless, indicating a need for a variety of services and interventions to break the cycle and prevent further cultural homelessness. (Forty percent of the survey participants had Public Hearing Draft 1-26 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report been homeless for less than six months, while 27 percent has been homeless for over two years. The incidence ofhomelessness in San Mateo County appears to be steadily increasing over time, based on one-night homeless counts by the Office of Housing. From February 1998 to March 2002 there was a 26 percent increase. Conversations with organizations operating emergency shelters and transitional housing, and providing services in the area, reveal the following about the homeless population in South San Francisco: St. Vincent de Paul Society, South San Francisco: This agency provides a meal program between 10:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon each day through the "Caf~ St. Vincent" located at 344 Grand Avenue. Staff report that the number of participants in the meal program has increased dramatically during the fall of 2001. During the spring and summer of 2001, the average number of people eating at the dining hall was 50 to 70, and increased to an average of 70 to 100 in October. A majority of the participants are from South San Francisco. Most are homeless or come from neighboring Single Room Occupancy Hotels. The dining room serves primarily single adults; families are referred to North Peninsula Neighborhood Services. Staff described their clientele as needing support services -- many suffer from mental illness and substance abuse. Besides the meal service, the St. Vincent de Paul Society provides referrals and can sometimes cover the cost of alcohol and drug rehabilitation services, and provide bus passes, shoes, short-term and emergency rent subsidies and other necessities. St. Vincent de Paul, San Mateo County District Council, San Mateo: This office of St. Vincent de Paul's operates a motel voucher distribution program. In the calendar year 2001, eleven families comprised of 21 people (twelve adults and nine children) were placed in m otels in South San Francisco. The motels used were the Metropolitan and Grand Hotels. Safe Harbor, South San Francisco: This 90-bed shelter is known as the "winter shelter" for the County, and is located near the San Francisco Airport at 295 North Access Road. The shelter is operated by a San Mateo-based non-profit organization, Samaritan House. The director of the shelter reports that the facility is full every night. Referrals are obtained from local "core" service agencies throughout the County who make their requests through the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Neither the director nor staff at St. Vincent de Paul's had statistics on the exact number of people served from South San Francisco, but believed that "many" or "most" were from that South San Francisco. The shelter serves only adults and is located in a dormitory-like facility with 45 bunk beds. It is open from 5:30 P.M. until 7:00 A.M., and staff provide a hot breakfast to guests. Bus tickets are provided, and Samaritan House plans to open a treatment center as part of the facility in the near future. Due to increasing and steady demand, Samaritan House also intends to keep the shelter open year-round rather than only during the winter months. · The Salvation Army, South San Francisco: The Salvation Army is located at 409 South Spruce Avenue, and serves a hot breakfast to about 30 people every Saturday morning. · North Peninsula Neighborhood Service Center, South San Francisco: This agency is the designated lead agency for homeless services in San Mateo County. They coordinate services August 12, 2002 1-27 Public Hearing Draft Background Report C. of South San Francisco in San Mateo County and provide case management for homeless services. This agency is partially supported by the City through CDBG funding. From 1999 through 2001 this group served 165 homeless people from South San Francisco (an average of 55 per year) through its blanket, food, and information and referral services.. Human Investment Program (HIP Housing), South San Francisco: This San Mateo-based non-profit organization has a satellite office in South San Francisco to conduct its Home Sharing program which provides assistance to low income people seeking permanent affordable housing by matching them with roommates. From 1999 through 2001, staff interviewed 25 people from South San Francisco who were homeless and 28 people who were "at-risk" of homelessness. The City of South San Francisco helps support this agency with Redevelopment Agency funding. Shelter Network of San Mateo County, Burlingame: Shelter Network serves South San Francisco residents primarily at the following two shelters: 1) Family Crossroads in Daly City, a former apartment house serving 12 families at a time for four month intervals; 2) Maple Street Shelter in Redwood City, a program for single adults that includes 32 emergency beds available for 60-day stays, and an additional 44 beds reserved to provide transitional housing for six-month periods. From FY 1998/99 through the FY 2000/01, 24 families from South San Francisco stayed at Family Crossroads. During that same period, the number of single adults from South San Francisco staying at Maple Street Shelter steadily increased - from ten in FY 1998/99 to 18 in FY 1999/00 to 24 in FY 2000/01- a total of 52 individuals. Shelter Network also provides supportive services to homeless people through the "First Step for Families" and "Bridges" programs. From FY 1998/99 through FY 2000/01 First Step served 13 families comprised of 50 children and adults from South San Francisco. Families live at the First Step facility in San Mateo for up to two months and receive case management, tutoring, childcare, and support for locating and affording permanent housing. Three South San Francisco families have been served by "Bridges", which provides up to two years of transitional housing to homeless families in apartments located throughout the county. During their stay families receive job training, credit counseling and money management, and other services that will enable them to increase their incomes. The City of South San Francisco assists this non-profit organization through Redevelopment Agency funding. Clara-Mateo Alliance, Inc., Menlo Park: This private non-profit organization operates a comprehensive emergency shelter and transitional housing program in the Veteran's Hospital. Veterans are given preference for certain programs, but the facilities are open to all homeless people. Staff report that since the beginning of FY 2000/01 through the first half of FY 2001/02, they have served 17 individuals and two couples from South San Francisco in the following facilities: - The Family Center: Includes six rooms for families with children. Public Hearing Draft 1-28 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report - Shelter for Adults: Includes 63 beds for adults, and four rooms are reserved for couples. - Transitional Housing Center: Includes 28 beds for adults. Services are provided by the Clara-Mateo Alliance to assist residents to obtain employment and find permanent housing. The Homeless Veterans Emergency Facility, Menlo Park: The Homeless Veterans Emergency Facility, a private nonprofit organization, operates a shelter with 112 emergency and transitional beds located in a building adjacent to the Clara-Mateo Alliance facilities mentioned above. This shelter served over 500 veterans in the year 2001 with a significant number coming from the County of San Mateo. Staff did not know how many veterans were served from the City of South San Francisco, but reported that they saw "quite a few". Veterans served by the emergency shelter are waiting for inpatient treatment through the drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health programs available at the Veteran's Hospital. Veterans eligible for the transitional beds are being assisted with employment and training. Spring Street Shelter, Redwood City: The San Mateo Mental Health Association, a nonprofit organization runs this 16-bed shelter for single adults diagnosed with a mental illness. Approximately six persons served by the shelter in the last six months were from North County including the City of South San Francisco. The San Mateo Hospitality Network, Burlingame: Twenty-two churches and synagogues in San Mateo County provide shelter on a rotating basis, as well as services, donations, meals, information and referral, shower facilities and computer access to approximately 30 homeless families per year. Staff report that last year the program served three families from South San Francisco. Currently, staff is working on expanding their program and is contacting congregations in South San Francisco to gain their participation in the network, which currently includes 800 volunteers. Another source of affordable housing often sought by individuals who cannot afford an apartment or by local service agencies seeking to place very low-income clients are the single-room occupancy hotels (SROs) in South San Francisco. Currently (January 2002), there are 192 SRO units in the city. Generally, these facilities do not include bathrooms or kitchens in the units. (The latter is one reason that St. Vincent de Paul staff report they see so many residents from the SROs in their dining room - this population cannot afford to eat out as well as pay rent). Two SRO buildings in South San Francisco have received City funding for rehabilitation and are restricted to occupancy by very low-income tenants. They are the Grand and the Metropolitan Hotels, which are comprised of a total of 82 units. North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center, a nonprofit organization supported by the City, is able to place homeless families in these hotels. As recognized by the City of South San Francisco in its Consolidated Plan, homelessness is best mitigated by a continuum of care approach. To implement this strategy continued collaboration between South San Francisco, the County of San Mateo, service and housing providers, and the interfaith community is essential. Farmworkers South San Francisco has a history of small truck farms and local farms. However, farmworkers accounted for slightly less than one percent of the employed persons living in South San Francisco in 1990. The 1990 August 12, 2002 1-29 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ( of South San Francisco Census reported 255 South San Francisco residents who were employed in the farming, forestry, and fishing, industries. Public Hearing Draft 1-30 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report 2.4 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK Number and Types of Units As Table I-18 indicates, the existing housing stock in South San Francisco is predominantly (over 70 percent) single-family dwellings and has been that way since 1990. Apartment buildings with three to 49 units account for 20 percent of housing units, while 3 percent of units are found in buildings with more than 50 units. The remainder of the housing stock is made up of duplexes, mobile homes, and houseboats. TABLE 1-18 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, BY YEAR AND TYPE City of South San Francisco 1991-2000 Duplex/ Multi- Year Single-Family Townhom~ Condo Family Mobilehomes Total 1991 11,009 2,336 5,411 405 19,161 1992 11,030 2,336 5,426 405 19,197 1993 11,053 2,336 5,479 405 19,273 1994 11,066 2,336 5,511 405 19,318 1995 11,088 2,336 5,513 405 19,342 1996 11,120 2,336 5,545 405 19,406 1997 11,145 2,336 5,560 405 19,446 1998 11,295 2,408 5,581 405 19,689 1999 1t,535 2,654 5,581 405 20,175 2000 11,945 2,654 5,657 405 20,661 Increase 91-00 936 318 246 0 1,500 Source: California Department of Finance, 1990 through 2000. Condition of tho Housing Stock Recent information relating to condition of housing stock is not available because the U.S. Census Bureau has not released (as of January 2002) housing stock condition data, and the City has not conducted comprehensive surveys of South San Francisco's housing stock in the last 12 years. The only available data is from a windshield survey of housing conditions conducted by the City in May 1990. The following rating system was used in the survey: · Good: structures needing no repairs or only cosmetic repairs, e.g., paint; · Fair: structures requiring some minor structural repairs--visible cracks, minor roof problems, etc.; and · Poor: structures needing major repairs--dilapidated/substandard housing. August 12, 2002 1-31 Public Hearing Draft Background Report C of South San Francisco Overall, South San Francisco's residential structures are in good condition. Of the 1,862 structures surveyed, 87.3 percent were found to be in good condition, 10.7 percent in fair condition, and 2 percent in poor condition. Applying these percentages to the city as a whole, suggest that approximately 2,000 units need minor structural repairs, and 380 units need either major repairs or replacement. (The low rate of demolitions, averaging five per year, indicates that relatively few units need to be replaced.) Table 1-19 shows a percentage breakdown of structural conditions by neighborhood. TABLE 1-19 HOUSING CONDITIONS BY NEIGHBORHOOD City of South San Francisco 1990 Good Neighborhood Structures Surveyed Avalon/Brentwood i 98 Buri-Buri/Serra 193 Highlands Grand Avenue Area 103 Irish Town 277 Mayfair I 19 Village/Francisco Terrace Paradise Valley 166 Parkway 119 Peck's Lots 77 Southwood 78 Sunshine Gardens 136 Town of Baden 85 Westborough 155 Winston Manor 156 TOTAL 1,862 Condition Fair Poor 95.5% 4.5% 0.0% 93.0% 7.0% 0.0% 88.4% 11.6% 4.8% 73.3% 26.7% 10.1% 82.4% 17.6% 0.0% 88.6% 10.8% 0.6% 98.3% 1.7% 0.0% 83. i % 13.0% 3.9% 93.6% 6.4% 0.0% 91.2% 8.8% 0.0% 84.7% 14.1% ! .2% 95.5% 4.5% 0.0% 93.6% 6.4% 0.0% 87.3% 10.7% 2.0% Source: Economic and Community Development Department Windshield Survey, May 1990 Based on the Planning Commission tour in November 2001, Irish Town, located north of the downtown commercial area has by far the greatest percentage of structures in need of rehabilitation. This is the Downtown Target Area, where Community Development Block Grant funds are concentrated for rental and single-family rehabilitation. In five other neighborhoods, over 10 percent of the structures were in fair to poor condition: Grand Avenue, Paradise Valley, Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace, Town of Baden, and Peck's Lots. Public Hearing Draft 1-32 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Overcrowding The Census Bureau defines overcrowded conditions as dwelling units housing more than one person per room. Overcrowding is a significant and increasing problem in South San Francisco: between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of overcrowded units nearly doubled, from 6.7 percent to 12.8 percent. Overcrowding affects more rental households than owner households. While the rate of overcrowding was less than 8 percent for owners, it was over 20 percent for renters. Overcrowding is also distributed unevenly throughout the city. The three census tracts immediately west of U.S. 101 (6021, 6022, and 6023) have the highest rates, (30.4 percent, 22.3 percent, and 17.7 percent). Overcrowding is lowest in the area between E1 Camino Real and Interstate 280 (tracts 6017, 6018, and 6024). Table 1-20 shows that the number of larger units exceeds the number of larger households, while the number of small units is less than the number of small households. If every household could compete effectively in the housing market, there are enough units to accommodate all households without overcrowding. Overcrowding is primarily a problem of distribution caused by households lacking sufficient income to bid for units of suitable size. TABLE 1-20 SIZE OF UNITS COMPARED WITH SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS Number of Rooms City of South San Francisco 1990 Number of Units 1 679 2 1,375 3 2,740 4 3,304 5 4,115 6 3,837 7 or more 3,080 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or more Number of Householders 3,876 5,317 3,450 3,079 1,531 700 615 August 12, 2002 1-33 Public Hearing Draft Background Report .y of South San Francisco 3.0 FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS Under the State housing element requirement, housing needs are defined in three categories: existing needs, needs of special groups within the community, and projected needs over the next five year period. Previous sections of this chapter have identified existing needs and needs of special groups. This section focuses on projected housing needs for the period from 2002 to 2006. Projected housing needs are the total additional housing units required to adequately house a jurisdiction's projected population in five years in units that are affordable, in standard condition, and not overcrowded. These needs, therefore, include those of the existing population as well as the needs of the additional population expected to reside in the city five years hence. 3.1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S SHARE OF 1999 TO 2006 HOUSING NEEDS Government Code Section 65584 assigns responsibility for developing projections of regional housing need and for allocating a share of this need to localities within the region to regional councils of government. For the San Francisco Bay Area, these determinations were prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Based on a methodology that weighs a number of factors (e.g., projected population growth, employment, commute patterns, available sites), ABAG determined quantifiable needs for housing units in the region according to various income categories. Table 1-21 depicts the South San Francisco's estimated need for the 7 V2 year period. In its final Regional Needs Determination (RHND) figures, ABAG allocated 1,331 housing units to the City of South San Francisco. The allocation is equivalent to a yearly need of 177 housing units for the 7 ½ year period. The total allocation is broken down into four income categories: very low (277 units or 20.8 percent of total units), low (131 units or 9.8 percent of total units), moderate (360 units or 27.0 percent of total units), and above moderate (563 units or 42.3 percent of total units). In other words, of the 1,331 units allocated, 57.6 percent must be in the affordable range (very low, low, moderate) and 44.3 percent in the above range. Public Hearing Draft 1-34 August 12, 2002 City of South San Franciscc Background Report TABLE 1-21 HOUSING NEED BY INCOME CATEGORY South San Francisco 1999 to 2006 Income Category ABAG Need Determination Percentage of Total Very Low 277 20.8 Low 131 9.8 Moderate 360 27.0 Above Moderate 563 42.3 Total 1,331 100 % Average Yearly Need 177 -- Unincorporated Sphere of Influence 0 -- Need Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, March 2001. Table 1-22 shows the total 1999-2006 RHND allocation and the 1999 housing unit count for South San Francisco, San Mateo County, and the entire nine-county ABAG region. When applied to the 1999 DOF estimate of 20,175 housing units in the incorporated area of South San Francisco, the 1,331 total housing unit allocation for 1999-2006 is equivalent to a 6.2 percent total increase, or a 0.92 percent annual average growth rate for the 7½-year period. South San Francisco's RHND allocation represents 8.1 percent of the total San Mateo County RHND of 16,305. This share is slightly larger than South San Francisco's 7.7 percent share of the total San Mateo County housing stock in 1999. South San Francisco's 1999 housing stock represented 0.8 percent of the total 1999 Bay Area regional housing supply. However, South San Francisco has been assigned a RHND equivalent to 0.6 percent of the regional total, a share that is almost equivalent to South San Francisco's share of the 1999 housing stock. South San Francisco's annual average growth rate of 0.92 percent implied in its RHND is relatively close to the growth rate of San Mateo County (0.87 percent) and slightly less than the entire Bay Area region (1.17 percent). August 12, 2002 1-35 Public Hearing Draft Background Report y of South San Francisco TABLE 1-22 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION South San Francisco, San Mateo County, and ABAG Regions 1999 to 2006 Regional Housing Needs (Units) Allocation - Current Jurisdictional Boundaries 1999 Housing Units Allocated Growth Jurisdictio U South San Francisco San Mateo County ABAG Regional Total % of Total County 1,331 8.1% Average % of Yearly Regional Need (7.5 Share Years) Annual Average 1999 % of % Total Growth Housing % of Region Growth Rate: Units County al : 1999- 1999- (DOF) Share Share 2006 2006 0.6% 177 20,175 7.7% 0.8% 6.2% 0.92% 16,305 100.0% 7.1% 2,174 261,434 100.0% 10.3% 5.9% 0.87% 230,743 -- 100.0% 30,766 2,529,529 -- 100.0% 9.1% 1.17% Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, March 15, 2001; California Department of Finance, January !, 2000. 3.2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (1999 TO 2001) Between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, which is within the planning timeframe of the Housing Element, South San Francisco approved or built 1,688 new units. By comparison, between January 1, 1989, and January 1, 1999, the City of South San Francisco issued building permits for only 1,247 new units. Table 1-23 summarizes building permits issued and units constructed by year and type of unit. Of the 1,688 permits issued and units constructed between 1999 and 2001,264 of those units were considered affordable housing units (i.e., affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households). Public Hearing Draft 1-36 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Project 1999 Grand Hotel TerrabayVillage (Phase 1) Terrabay Park(Phase I) Metro Hotel SUBTOTAL 2000 Greenridge Promenade Bay View Villas Avalon Terrace Chestnut Estates Westborough Court El Rancho Highlands Caner Park TABLE 1-23 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY City of South San Francisco 1999-2001 Location Total Units Affordable units -- 24 North side of Hillside 161 Blvd. North side of Hillside 125 Blvd. 65 375 Description/ Comments 1450 El Camino Real 34 179 35 21 80 85 63 50 1450 El Camino Real Comer of Gellert and Appian Way 375 Dorado Way 9-132 Nursery Way 3851-3893 Carter Dr. 735 Del Monte Ave. 3721-3741 Caner Dr. 24 Rehabilitated units (completed) Townhomes (completed) 0 Single Family Residential (completed) 65 Rehabilitated units (completed) 89 34 townhomes and manager's unit on 2.6 acres (completed) 0 Single family detached units on 28.5 acres (completed) 0 Single family detached units on 3.9 acres (completed) 0 Single family detached units on 5.2 acres (completed) 0 Single family detached units on 12.8 acres (completed) 0 Condos on a 4 acre site (phase I of II completed) 0 Single family units on 10.5 acres. (completed) 0 Planned condos on a 2 acre site (approved) August 12, 2002 1-37 Public Hearing Draft Background Report .y of South San Francisco Project SUBTOTAL TABLE 1-23 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY City of South San Francisco 1999-2001 Location Total Units Affordable units 547 34 Description/ Comments 2001 Oak Farms Oakmont Vistas Parc Place Chestnut Creek/ Bridge Senior Housing Terrabay Woods (Phase III) Oak Avenue Apartments Marbella Commercial Avenue Apartments Aegis Terrabay Pointe (Phase III) SE comer of Oak and 34 Grand Avenues Oakmont Drive and 34 Westborough Blvd. Orange and Railroad 153 Avenues Comer of Mission 40 Rd. & Chesnut Avenue North side of Sister 135 Cities Blvd. 90 Oak Avenue 15 Gellert Boulevard 280 Commercial Avenue 4 71 182 5 Single family detached units on 2.6 acres (approved) 0 Single family detached units on 4.9 acres (approved) 0 Single family detached units on i 8.9 acres (completed) 40 One- and two- bedroom units (completed) 0 Single family residential (under construction) 0 Apartment complex on 0.45 acre site (under review) 70 Condominium (approved) 4 Rehabilitated units (completed) 0 Elderly residential care (completed) 22 112 unit residential tower, 70 single family homes (approved) SUBTOTAL 948 141 TOTAL 1,870 264 Source: Economic & Community Development Department, January 1, 1999, through December 3 i, 2001. In an effort to relate this building permit activity to the 1999-2006 ABAG need determination figures, the South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department assigned each new unit to one of Public Hearing Draft 1-38 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report the four income categories specified in the ABAG needs determination. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1-24. After accounting for approved and constructed housing units between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, South San Francisco's remaining fair share need is 504 new units (110 very low, 131 low, and 263 moderate). The City has satisfied its need for above moderate, having a surplus of 1,021 units above the 563-unit allocation. TABLE 1-24 BALANCE OF NEED City of South San Francisco 2002 Units Constructed/Planne 1999 to 2006 ABAG d and Adjustments Percentage of Need Balance of Existing Income Category Need Determination 1999-2001' Met Need Very Low 277 167 60.3% 110 Low 131 0 0.0% 131 Moderate 360 97 26.9% 263 Above Moderate 563 1,584 281.0% 1,021 (surplus) Total 1,331 1,848 -- 504 *Units include both units constructed and those receiving building permits between January 1, 1999 - December 31, 2001. ** For the 4 ~A year period January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006. Source: Economic & Community Development Department, November 2001; Association of Bay Area Governments, December 2000. 4.0 HOUSING OVERPAYMENT Section 4 assesses the ability of South San Francisco residents to pay for housing (owner-occupied and rental units) within the city. 4.1 HOUSING COSTS COMPARED TO ABILITY TO PAY The following section discusses current income levels and ability to pay for housing compared with housing costs. Housing is classified as "affordable" if households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for payment of rent (including monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly mortgage (including taxes). Since above moderate-income households do not generally have problems in locating affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that are low- to moderate-income. Table 1-25 below shows the definition of housing income limits as they are applied to housing units in South San Francisco, which is part of the San Francisco PMSA (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties). August 12, 2002 1-39 Public Hearing Draft Background Report .y of South San Francisco TABLE 1-25 DEFINITIONS OF HOUSING INCOME LIMITS Very Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or lower than 50% of the median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A household of four is considered to be very Iow-income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $42,500 or less for the year 2001. Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 50% to 80% of the median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be low-income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $68,000 or less for the year 2001. Median Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 81% to 100% of the median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be median income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $80,100 or less for the year 2001. Moderate-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 101% to 120% of the median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be moderate-income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $96,100 or less for the year 2001. Above Moderate-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is above 120% of the median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be moderate-income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income exceeds $96,100 for the year 2001. Affordable Units are affordable if households do not spend more than 30% of income on rent (including monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly mortgage. Since above moderate-income households do not generally have problems in locating affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that are Iow- to moderate-income. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2001. Ability to Pay Table 1-26 shows the 2001 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-defined family income limits for Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-Income households in the San Francisco PMSA (including South San Francisco) by the number of persons in the household. It also shows maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes. For example, a three-person household is classified as Low-Income (80 percent of median) with annual income of up to $61,200. A household with this income could afford to pay $1,530 for monthly gross rent (including utilities) or to purchase a $213,308 house or condominium. A Very Low-Income household of the same size could afford to spend only $956 for gross rent. Public Hearing Draft 1-40 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-26 ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR VERY LOW-,LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS City of South San Francisco 2001 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2001 Median Family Income (1) Unit Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom Number Persons I 2 3 4 5 6 Income Level $29,750 $34,000 $38,250 $42,500 $45,900 $49,300 Max. monthly $744 $850 $956 $1,063 $1,148 gross rent (2) Max. purchase $103,691 $118,504 $133,317 $148,131 $159,981 price (3) Low-income Households at 80% of 2001 Median Family Income (1) Unit Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Number Persons 1 2 3 4 5 Income Level $47,600 $54,400 $61,200 $68,000 $73,450 Max. monthly $1,190 $1,360 $1,530 $1,700 $1,836 gross rent (2) Max. purchase $165,906 $189,607 $213,308 $237,009 $256,004 price (3) Moderate-Income Households at 100% of 2001 Median Family lncome (1) Unit Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Number Persons I 2 3 4 5 Income Level $56,050 $64,100 $72,100 $80,100 $86,500 Max. monthly $1,401 $1,603 $1,803 $2,003 $2,163 gross rent (2) Max. purchase $195,358 $223,416 $251,299 $279,183 $301,489 price (3) Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2001 Median Family lncome (l) Unit Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Number Persons I 2 3 4 Income Level $67,250 $76,900 $86,500 $96,100 $1,233 $171,831 5 Bedroom 6 $78,900 $1,973 $275,000 5Bedroom 6 $92,900 $2,323 $323,796 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom 5 6 $103,800 $111,500 August 12, 2002 1-41 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ,y of South San Francisco TABLE 1-26 ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR VERY LOW-,LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS City of South San Francisco 2001 Max. monthly $1,681 $1,923 $2,163 $2,403 $2,595 gross rent (2) $2,788 Max. purchase $234,395 $268,029 $301,489 $334,949 $361,787 price(3) $388,625 Assumptions and Notes: (1) Since the San Francisco PMSA is a high-income area, HUD median income categories do not follow the exact percentages. For example Low-Income is capped at 75% of median income, rather than 80%. (2) 30% of income devoted to maximum monthly rent, including utilities (3) 33% of income devoted to mortgage payment and taxes, 95% loan ~ 8%, 30 year term Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. Existing Housing Costs Table 1-27 below shows HUD-defined fair market rent levels (FMR) for the San Francisco PMSA (including South San Francisco) for 2001 as well as the proposed FMR rents for 2002. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. FMRs are estimates of rent plus the cost of utilities, except telephone. FMRs are housing market-wide estimates of rents that provide opportunities to rent standard quality housing throughout the geographic area in which rental housing units are in competition. The rents are drawn from the distribution of rents of all units that are occupied by recent movers. Adjustments are made to exclude public housing units, newly built units, and substandard units. Public Hearing Draft 1-42 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-27 FAIR MARKET RENT San Francisco PMSA (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties) 2001 Bedrooms in Unit 0 BR I BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Fair Market Rent $891 $1,154 $1,459 $2,001 (FMR) $2,118 Proposed 2002 $1,067 $1,382 $1,747 $2,386 Fair Market Rent $2,536 Notes: 40th percentile of market rents for Fiscal Year 2001 (January 2, 2001) for the San Francisco PMSA (Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties) Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (24 CFR Part 888) Comparing this table to Table 1-26, a three-person household classified as Low-Income (80% of median) with an annual income of up to $61,200 could afford to pay $1,530 monthly gross rent (including utilities). The FMR for a 2-bedroom unit is $1,459, which is affordable to the household, assuming such a unit were available in South San Francisco. A three-person household classified as Very Low-Income (50% of median) with an annual income of up to $38,250 could afford to pay $956 monthly gross rent. A FMR 2-bedroom unit would not be affordable to this household. The proposed 2002 FMRs reflect the increase in rental rates in this market. For example, the proposed 2002 FMR for a 2-bedroom unit is $1,747, which is not affordable for either a Very Low or Low-income household. Table 1-28 presents information on asking prices of homes in South San Francisco from several sources including the Multiple Listing Service (October 10, 2001) and Realtor.corn (December 2001). At that time there were 43 detached homes advertised, ranging from $279,000 to $950,000. The average asking price of the listings was $545,682. There were also two condominiums or townhouses for sale ($223,000 and $359,000). August 12, 2002 1-43 Public Hearing Draft Background Report .y of South San Francisco TABLE 1-28 ASKING PRICES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES City of South San Francisco October 2001 Bedrooms in Unit 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR Number of Homes 11 26 4 2 Advertised Average Asking Price $383,613 $472,366 $564,250 $762,500 Range of Asking $279,950-435,000 $369,000-569,000 $429,000-738,000 $575,000-950,000 Prices Source: San Mateo County Association of REALTORS, October 10, 2001; Realtor.com, December 2001; Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. Table 1-29 below illustrates typical rent levels in South San Francisco. The average rent level ranged from $700 for a single bedroom in a single family house to $2,113 for a four bedroom apartment. These costs were compiled from approximately 30 listings appearing on Places4rent.com and Craiglist.org for December 2001. TABLE 1-29 AVERAGE RENT LEVELS City of South San Francisco December 2001 Number of Rooms Cost Range Average Cost Single Bedroom in house $500-850 $700 One-bedroom $995-1,350 $1,217 Two-bedroom $1,425-2,000 $1,639 Three-bedroom $1,800-2,200 $2,070 Four-bedroom $1,975-2,250 $2, l 13 Source: Places4Rent, Craiglist.org, December 2001. Home sales prices have escalated rapidly during the past few years. Table 1-30 shows the median and average sales prices for South San Francisco for 1999-2001, January through June. The median price for single-family homes was $320,500 in 1999 and had increased to $453,000 by the end of the June 2001. This represents an increase of more than 40 percent. Prices for condominiums and townhouses showed a greater percentage increase (72 percent), from $203,500 to $350,000. Theses median sales prices would Public Hearing Draft 1-44 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisc(, Background Report be considered unaffordable even for a four-person household classified as Moderate-Income (120 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $96,100. This household could afford to buy a three-bedroom house at $334,949. Period Single Family Homes Jan-June 1999 Jan-June 2000 Jan-June 2001 Increase (1999-2001) Condos/Townhouses Jan-June 1999 Jan-June 2000 Jan-June 2001 Increase (1999-2001) TABLE 1-30 COMPLETED HOME SALES City of South San Francisco 1999 - 2001 No. of Sales Median Price % Change Average Price % Change 164 $320,500 -- $342,146 -- 159 $385,000 20.1% $411,688 20.3% 145 $453,000 17.7% $489,963 19.0% -- $132,500 41.3% $149,817 43.2% 52 $203,500 -- $212,082 -- 36 $285,500 40.3% $290,519 37.0% 47 $350,000 22.6% $358,574 23.4% -- $146,500 72.0% $146,492 69.1% Source: San Mateo County Association of REALTORS; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. Existing Income Levels Table I-31 is an abbreviated list of occupations and annual incomes for South San Francisco residents such as city employees, employees of the South San Francisco Unified School District, retired individuals and minimum wage earners. The table shows the amounts that households at these income levels could afford to pay for rent as well as the purchase prices that they could afford to pay to buy a home. Most of these households could not afford to pay rent at the 2002 FMR levels, $1,747 for a two-bedroom unit or $2,386 for a 3-bedroom unit. None would be able to afford to pay the average listing price for a three-bedroom home in South San Francisco ($433,300). Only a few would be able to afford the lowest price listing, a one-bedroom condominium ($223,000). August 12, 2002 1-45 Public Hearing Draft Background Report .y of South San Francisco TABLE 1-31 AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES AND INCOMES FOR SELECTED FAMILIES AND OCCUPATIONS Category City of South San Francisco 2001 Annual Income Monthly Affordable Rent (1) Computer Engineer $70,280 Electrical Equipment Assembler $28,380 Precision Retail Salesperson $16,600 Computer Support Specialist $46,080 City of South San Francisco Employee Police Officer (recruit) Police Officer (lateral, top of salary range) Communications Dispatcher $51,144 Paramedic/Firefighter (top of $70,908 range) Two Wage Earners Police Officer (lateral) and Retail $77,668 Salesperson Electrical Assembler and Teacher, $66,353 Step 4 Communications Dispatcher and $97,224 Computer Support South San Francisco Unified School District Teacher, BA + 30, Step 4 $37,973 Teacher, BA + 60, Step 10 $50,834 Retired - Average Social Security One person household with only SS $11,960 Two person household - both $23,920 retired - only SS Minimum Wage Earners (effective 1/1/02) Single Wage Earner Two Wage Earners SSI (Aged or Disabled) $1,757 $710 $415 $1,152 Affordable House Price (2) $244,956 $98,916 $57,858 $160,608 $45,300 $1,133 $157,890 $61,068 $1,527 $212,848 $1,279 $1,773 $178,259 $247,144 $1,942 $1,659 $2,431 $270,706 $231,268 $338,867 $949 $1,271 $132,352 $177,178 $299 $598 $41,686 $83,371 $13,500 $338 $27,000 $675 $47,053 $94,106 Public Hearing Draft 1-46 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-31 AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES AND INCOMES FOR SELECTED FAMILIES AND OCCUPATIONS City of South San Francisco 2001 Category Annual Income One person household with only SSI Monthly Affordable Rent (1) $8,544 $214 Affordable House Price (2) $29,779 HUD-Defined Income Groups (3-person HH) Extremely Low Income (below $22,950 30%) Very Low-lncome (below 50%) $3g,250 Low-Income (below 80%) $61,200 $574 $956 $1,530 $79,990 $133,317 $213,308 Moderate Income (below 120%) $86,500 $2,163 (1) Assumes 30% of income devoted to monthly rent, including utilities. (2) Assumes 33% of income devoted to mortgage payment and taxes, 95% loan ~ 8%, 30 year term. Source: Employment Development Department, City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Unified School District and Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. $301,489 Owner and Renter Overpayment According to the Regional Housing Needs Determination for the San Francisco Bay Area, South San Francisco had a total of 2,755 low-income owners and 3,262 low-income renters as of June 2001. Of those Iow-income owners, 933 or 33.9 percent were overpaying for their homes. Of those low-income renters, 1,670 or 51.2 percent were overpaying for their homes. August 12, 2002 1-47 Public Hearing Draft Background Report iy of South San Francisco 5.0 AVAILABILITY OF LAND AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Section 5.0 assesses the availability of land and services to meet the needs documented in Section 3.0. This section inventories South San Francisco's available residentially-designated land, calculates the buildout potential of this land, and reviews the adequacy of services to support future housing development. 5.1 AVAILABLE LAND INVENTORY In 1999, the City conducted a buildout analysis as part of the General Plan Update that identifies a potential for 1,630 additional housing units that could theoretically develop over the life of the General Plan (i.e., 2020). Since that time, City Staff conducted a detailed analysis of remaining development potential based on the existing General Plan. In November 2001, the Economic & Community Development Department and Housing Element Consultants (Mintier & Associates) completed an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites for residential development within the city limits. The analysis factored in residential development activity that has occurred from the adoption of the General Plan to December 31, 2001. A more detailed description is identified in the following paragraphs. Vacant and Underutilized Land Currently Planned for Residential Use In November 2001, City Staff and Mintier & Associates prepared a draft list of suitable sites for housing for Planning Commission review and comment. The list was based on the following: 2. 3. 4. Identify of suitable sites for housing; Review General Plan residential densities; Identify efficiently designed multi-family units (including mixed-income units in other cities); and Investigate potential redevelopment of older industrial and commercial sites. On November 17, 2001, the Consultants and Planning Division staff facilitated a Planning Commission workshop and tour that reviewed sites on the list. The Consultants prepared maps of various medium and high density neighborhoods that show where potential sites exist and a tour of neighborhoods to look at the sites in context with the area. During the tour, the Planning Commission commented on the feasibility of the proposed housing sites. In addition to the sites on the list, the Planning Commission indicated that staff should prepare an inventory of available sites on Grand Avenue from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard. The Commission was also interested in finding potential sites in the Lindenville area. The Economic & Community Development Department survey identified 21 sites that are residentially- designated and are considered vacant or underutilized. Table 1-32 summarizes the location, size, potential constraints, and the estimated number of potential housing units which could be accommodated on each site. Figure 1 shows the location and boundaries of the areas referred to in Table 1-32. Public Hearing Draft 1-48 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Vacant Residential Land As indicated in Table 1-32, South San Francisco has vacant residential land that, at General Plan- approved densities, would allow for the development up to 695 new units on 18 acres. Most of these sites are located along the BART tracks and in the downtown area. Only one site -- Chestnut Avenue Land Use Study Area -- has a constraint that may temporarily impede development on that site. The site is currently (January 2002) zoned for commercial uses that does not permit residential uses. The City would need to rezone this area before it can be developed. Underutilized Residential Land Underutilized sites yield the potential for 704 additional units on nearly 41 acres of underutilized land. Although all of the sites have General Plan designations that allow for residential use, several parcels are subject to some form of development constraint. The two most prevalent constraints are zoning consistency with the General Plan and existing buildings on site. August 12, 2002 1-49 Public Hearing Draft Sout,5 San Franc./sco Hous/ng Element Update Figure 1: Residential Development Sites January 18, 2002 Ual Reh Study 4¸_ j P0tel ~rt Area Legend Vacant Land Underutilized Land Rehabilitation Study Area City Limits ~ City of South San Francisco Background Report Table 1-33 summarizes the information provided in Table 1-32 according to General Plan land use designation and density. Of the nearly 1,400 units (maximum capacity) that could be accommodated under the General Plan, 1,062 of those units fall within the high density range and could thus accommodate units in the low and very low income categories. TABLE 1-33 General Plan Land Use Designation MDR - Medium Density Residential MDR SUBTOTAL HDR - High Density Residential HDR SUBTOTAL DHDR - Downtown High Density Residential DHDR SUBTOTAL MU - Mixed Use Business Commercial and Medium Density Residential MIXED USE SUBTOTAL MU - Mixed Use Community Commercial, Public, High Density Residential, Office VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION City of South San Francisco January 2002 Maximum Density 18 units per net acre 30 units per net acre 40 units per net acre 18 units per net acre Site Area Mission Road Comer of Sequoia Avenue and Mission Road Church sites on Oak Avenue Oak Avenue Apartments Chesmut Avenue SF PUC Property 700 Linden Avenue 616 Linden Avenue Vacant/Underutilized Acres 1.71 0.71 2.42 1.34 0.32 0.52 8.63 10.81 0.32 0.32 30 and 50 units per net acre Sunshine Garden Center Comer of Railroad and Spruce Avenues North side of Mayfair Avenue South side of Mayfair Avenue BART Station parcel north BART Station parcel south 1410 E1 Camino Real Broadmoor Lumber 0.64 2.11 7.37 0.91 2.92 14.72 4.55 2.53 1.26 3.47 Maximum Units 51 21 72 40 15 16 260 351 12 12 24 38 133 16 53 265 228 127 63 174 August 12, 2002 1-53 Public Hearing Draft Background Report :y of South San Francisco TABLE 1-33 VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION City of South San Francisco January 2002 General Plan Land Use Maximum Designation Density Site Area corner of Mission Ave. & McLellan Drive Paradise Valley San Mateo County Municipal Courthouse MIXED USE (HIGH DENSITY) SUBTOT.4L Downtown BAE Project Commercial Learning Center DC SUBTOTAL TOTAL Vacant/Underutilized Acres 0.67 1.41 1.15 15.04 0.57 0.28 0.85 41.73 Source: Economic Community Development Department; Mintier & Associates; January 2002. Maximum Units 2O 25 35 672 40 2 42 1,399 Public Hearing Draft 1-54 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Special Study Areas South San Francisco contains several residential areas that are characterized by grid iron pattem of development that was established at the turn of the century, small blocks, and small parcels. The Downtown area is in the geographic heart of the city and includes the oldest commercial and residential areas. The typical block dimension in Downtown is 1,300 x 300 feet, with 20-foot wide mid block alleys. Resulting average lots are 140 feet deep and 50 feet wide, or 7,000 square feet in area. Located outside the Downtown areas, both the Town of Baden, near E1 Camino Real, and Peck's Subdivision, north of Linden Avenue, are older developments with narrow streets, insufficient parking, and homes showing signs of dilapidation and deferred maintenance. In November 1999, the Planning Commission toured Downtown (Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard) and Peck's Lots to investigate potential options for the City to encourage new residential development infill projects or focus City-supported rehabilitation efforts of existing buildings. Figure 1 and Table 1-34 identify four areas -- Town of Baden, Irish Town, Airport Boulevard, and Peck's lots -- upon which the City will concentrate its development standards, design standards, and rehabilitation efforts during the timeframe of this Housing Element (2002-2006). These areas have potential for both infill and redevelopment. However, these areas have special development constraints such as dense 2,500 square foot lots which might pose a challenge to new development. These areas also provide potential for providing additional housing units not described in Tables 11-30 and 11-33. TABLE 1-34 Study Area # of Lots Town of Baden 198 Irish Town 70 Airport Boulevard between Grand and Sister Cities Blvd. 32 Pecks Lots 245 SPECIAL STUDY AREAS City of South San Francisco Acres General Plan Zoning 20.4 Medium Density Residential and R-2-H Mixed Medium Density Residential/Community Commercial 9.2 Downtown High Density Residential C-1-L and Mixed Downtown High Density Residential/Community Commercial 6.4 Mixed Business P-C-L Commercial/Downtown High Density Residential 27.4 Low Density Residential and Medium R-2-H Density Residential TOTAL 545 63.4 -- Source: Economic and Community Development Department, Mintier & Associates, December 2001. August 12, 2002 1-55 Public Hearing Draft Background Report , j of South San Francisco Planned Housing Projects In addition to the potential number of housing units that could be developed on the land available for residential development in Tables 1-32 and Io33, Table 1-35 lists the project name, location, and number and type of housing units of three projects that are under preliminary review of have applied for a permit and are under development review by the South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department (ECD) as of February 2002. These three housing projects could provide an additional 386 new units -- 20 of which will be townhomes/condos (one affordable unit), 16 will be apartments (16 of which are affordable), and 350 will be mixed-use condos -- to the potential 1,399 units on vacant and underutilized land. All of these units are likely to develop during the time frame of the Housing Element, and will therefore contribute to satisfying South San Francisco's fair share responsibility for 1999 to 2006. TABLE 1-35 PENDING HOUSING PROJECTS City of South San Francisco 2001 Project Name Location Stonegate Estates Hillside Blvd. & Stonegate Drive Willow Gardens -- BART development El Camino Real and sites Mclellan Drive in the BART Transit Village Zone Status Type of Units Number of Units Under review Townhomes 20 (4 off-site) Acquisition over next Apartments five years Preliminary review Mixed-use condos TOTAL - - Note: The number of units described in this table is subject to change. Source: Economic and'Community Development Department, December 200 I. 16 (all affordable) 350 (20 affordable) 386 (36 affordable) Public Hearing Draft 1-56 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report 5.2 ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL VERSUS PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS As shown in Table 1-24, South San Francisco has a net RHND allocation (after subtracting units already built and approved units in 1999 through December 2001) of 504 housing units for the 1999-2006 planning period. When breaking down that total by income group, there is a need of 110 units for the very low- income category, 131 for low income, and 263 for moderate income. The above-moderate income needs category has already been met (1,021 unit surplus) during the 1999 to 2001 time period. Tables 1-32 and 1-33 demonstrate that the City of South San Francisco has a total remaining residential holding capacity of 1,399 housing units. Because capacity for housing production exceeds South San Francisco's total need for new housing during the Housing Element planning period, a primary objective for the City over the Housing Element planning period will be to provide adequate sites to accommodate the housing needs of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) assumes, in general, that the higher the density, the more affordable the housing. It is HCD's position that local jurisdictions can facilitate and encourage affordable housing development by allowing residential development at higher densities, which helps to reduce per unit land costs. In compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(c)(1), the General Plan Land Use Element designates a sufficient portion of land in the medium density residential (i.e., MDR), high density residential (i.e., HDR) and DHDR), and mixed use/commercial designations (i.e., MU and DC) to meet its obligation to provide sites suitable for the production of needed housing affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate income households. The Residential Medium Density Residential (8.1 to 18.0 units per acre) designation, which allows for attached and detached single family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes, can also provide for low- and moderate-income housing. The High Density Residential (18.1 to 30 units per acre) and Downtown High Density Residential (25.1 to 40 units per acre) designations allow multi-family residential development such as apartments. These density ranges can accommodate moderate, low, and very low-income housing needs. Under the General Plan, there is a total capacity of 1,399 housing units (at maximum density) in the medium-high density residential, high density residential designations, mixed use, and commercial designations that allow residential use. The number of potential high density units (i.e., 1,012 units) provides adequate capacity to accommodate the combined needs of very low- and low-income households (241 unit need) during the remaining 2002 to 2006 Housing Element planning period. In addition, the number of potential medium density units (i.e., 337 units) provides adequate capacity to accommodate for moderate-income households (263 unit need) during the remaining 2002 to 2006 Housing Element planning period. Historically, typical developed densities in South San Francisco have been toward the high end of the density range -- usually 80 to 90 percent of the designation's allowable density. Therefore, it is likely that future development will continue with this trend and build out near the maximum allowable density. This analysis shows that there are enough sites to accommodate demand for all the remaining 504 housing units (very low, low, and moderate) allocated by ABAG for South San Francisco. August 12, 2002 1-57 Public Hearing Draft Background Report y of South San Francisco 5.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES In 1999, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. The document is a Program EIR and evaluates environmental impacts resulting from implementation and buildout of the General Plan. While the EIR identifies potentially significant impacts with full General Plan buildout, it does not preclude, and indeed, it assumes that individual development project proposals submitted to the City will necessitate an independent environmental assessment in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR is intended to be used for citywide and cummulative impact analysis of subsequent project proposals that are consistent with the General Plan as well as other implementation activities. The environmental setting for Land Use, Transportation, Urban Design and Aesthetics, Air Quality, Noise, Public Facilities and Services, Environmental Resources, Cultural Resources, and Parks, Recreation, and Open Space are decribed in the South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report (1997). This Background Report analyzes Public Services and Facilities based on General Plan EIR. Public services and facilities are not expected to pose a constraint on residential development within the timeframe of the Housing Element (2002 to 2006). The following paragraphs summarize the current status of each of those services essential to residential development. Water South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San Francisco's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The Company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entitles the city to 42.3 mgd per year. An additional 1.4 mgd can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of 1-280, an area not targeted for growth in this Housing Element. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet projected demand through the year 2020. Wastewater The city of South San Francisco's wastewater needs are met by the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant, which was constructed in the early 1970s and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The current design capacity of the treatment plant is 13 mgd and an actual capacity of 9 mgd average dry weather flow. The plant expansion, which occurred in the fall of 1998, increased the dry-weather operational capacity to 13 mgd. According to projections described in the 1999 General Plan, the average flow is expected to reach 13.1 mgd at buildout of the plan. Within the timeframe of this Housing Element (2006), the City expects to have expected capacity to accommodate new residential development. Schools South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) operates the public schools within the city of South San Francisco. SSFUSD operates 15 schools, including ten elementary (K-5), three middle (6-8), Public Hearing Draft 1-58 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco and two high schools. Background Report Based on Department of Finance school enrollment projections, SSFUSD will likely see a decline in enrollment within the timeframe of this Housing Element. The District has reduced class sizes (one teacher to 20 students) which has decreased the overall capacity of the schools. However, even with this change, SSFUSD expects that school capacity will be sufficient to meet enrollment demands through the year 2006. Should the SSFUSD experience enrollments exceeding capacity in the near future, the District has retained two closed school sites to accommodate unexpected growth. 6.0 CONSTRAINTS TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 6.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS It is in the public interest for the government to regulate development to protect the general welfare of the community. At the same time, government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing available in a community if the regulations limit the opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or make the development process so arduous as to discourage housing developers. State law requires housing elements to contain an analysis of the governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, and development (Government Code, Section 65583(a)(4)). General Plan Land Use Controls The City of South San Francisco's principal land use policy document is the General Plan. The City, which updated the General Plan in October 1999, contains eight elements including: Land Use; Planning Sub-Areas; Transportation; Parks, Public Facilities, and Services; Economic Development; Open Spaces and Conservation; Health and Safety; and Noise. Within the Land Use and the Planning Sub Areas Elements of the General Plan, there are six residential land use designations that allow for a range of densities and one commercial designation that allow for higher residential densities, transit- oriented development near transit centers, and residential units above ground floor commercial uses: Low Density Residential: Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per net acre. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached single-family units are also permitted. Medium Density Residential: Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre. Dwelling types may include attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses. Multi-family housing is not permitted. High Density Residential: Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units per net acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including single-family attached development. Downtown Low Density Residential: Single-family (detached or attached) residential development with densities ranging from 5.1 to 15.0 units per acre. Multifamily development is not permitted. Downtown Medium Density Residential: Residential development at densities ranging from 15.1 to 25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing types is permitted. Downtown High Density Residential: Residential development at densities ranging from 25.1 to 40.0 units per acre for lots equal to or greater than ½-acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots August 12, 2002 1-59 Public Hearing Draft Background Report y of South San Francisco smaller that ½ acre, maximum density shall be 30.0 units per acre. Downtown Commercial: This designation provides for a wide range of uses in the commercial core of downtown and allows residential uses on second and upper floors only. Residential units are subject to a use permit. The General Plan Land Use Element outlines City policy pertaining to various land uses within the city. The Planning Sub-Areas Element describes specific land use policies for each neighborhood, such as transit-oriented development near the South San Francisco BART Station, the San Bruno BART Station, and the Caltrain Station. The Element also promotes infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized properties. As described in the vacant/underutilized land survey in Section 5.0, there is enough vacant and underutilized land designated in the General Plan to meet South San Francisco's fair share of regional housing as determined by ABAG. Zoning Ordinance Zoning is one of the most important tools used to implement the policies and programs of the General Plan. Zoning establishes location and density constraints consistent with the General Plan and guides residential uses away from incompatible uses and environmental hazards and conflicts. Zoning can also create opportunities for housing, particularly affordable housing, to be developed with the use of mechanisms such as density bonuses and inclusionary housing requirements. Thus, zoning is not inherently a constraint to housing development. South San Francisco has four residential zoning districts: R-E (Rural Estates), R- 1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (Multi-Family Residential). In addition, residential uses are allowed in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village District, the Downtown Commercial District, and the City's commercial, industrial, and open space zoning districts, subject to conditional use permit approval. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance since adoption of the General Plan in 1999 include the South San Francisco BART Transit Village District, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Density Bonus ordinance. The Inclusionary Housing ordinance is described in detail in Section 8.0 of this report. However, the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance will need to be amended to be consistent with the 1999 General Plan and the 2002 Housing Element. Specific Zoning Ordinance provisions that affect residential uses are discussed below. On-Site Zoning Requirements and Specifications The Zoning Ordinance establishes setback requirements for structures in each residential zoning district (see Table 1-36). In addition, the Zoning ordinance employs a system of "density designators," whereby the maximum residential density allowed in each zoning district is indicated by an additional one-letter designation on the City's zoning map. In ! 999, the City Council adopted the General Plan which establishes higher density indicators than the 1985 Zoning Ordinance. The City Council, after reviewing the need for new incentives to encourage infill development, adopted higher densities in order promote new high-density housing and mixed use development in the Downtown area and older residential neighborhoods with very small lots. Table 1-37 shows the General Plan densities for all land use classifications. Tablc 1-37 illush atcs thc range of possible densitics allowed by this dcsi~.ation system. Table 1-38 shows the parking requirements for residential uses established in the Zoning Ordinance. Public Hearing Draft 1-60 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-36 FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REGULATIONS City of South San Francisco Minimum Yard Dimensions* (in feet) Zoning District Front Side Rear R-I 15 5 20 R-2 25 5 20 R-3 15 5 10-11.5 C-I 15 0-10 0 D-C 0 0 0 *All yard requirements subject to additional conditions and terms stated in Zoning Ordinance text. Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Table 20.71.030. The 1999 General Plan calls for the development of the BART Station area as a "vital pedestrian-oriented center," with intensity and a mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. The City implemented this goal through the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan. The Transit Village Plan is an area plan that includes zoning standards, design guidelines, and implementation recommendations to realize this vision. Some of the development standards for the Transit Village Plan are identified in Table 1-37. South San Francisco's zoning regulations for setbacks and parking are comparable to those in most other Peninsula cities, and park/ng requirements for senior housing and downtown residential uses are lower. Zoning regulations are not a constraint to housing development in South San Francisco. August 12, 2002 1-61 Public Hearing Draft Background Report [...y of South San Francisco TABLE 11-37 ZONING DENSITY REGULATIONS City of South San Francisco Dtsignator (Maxi-,um Units per Net Acre) Maxi,.,um Site Area per D~v~lling Unit (square feet) ~ 17.5 .... sc ~., .,,-_,,, ..... 1,452-2,000 ?,Tote: All density Jcquircmcnts subject t~ additional conditions and tc,,,,s stat-cd in Zoning Ordinance text. Public Hearing Draft 1-62 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-37 STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY City of South San Francisco Land Use Desienation Residential Density Units/net acres) Maximum Maximum Maximum Permitted with Permitted with Permitted FAR Incentives and Incentives and Bonuses Bonuses Residential Low Density Medium Density Units/Net Acres up to 8.0 0._.~5 10.0 8.1-18.0 1 ..._Q 22.5 FAR {see Table 2.2-2 Hieh Density 18.1-30.0 37.5 Downtown Commercial 15.0 Downtown Residential Low Density 5.1-15.0 0..__~7 15.0 15.1-25.0 1.25 31.3 25.1-40.0 - 50.0 Medium Density Hieh Density Office : 1.0 , 1 .._.Q : 2.0 Commercial Community : 0.__~5 Commercial Business Commercial : 1.:2 (hotel) Coastal Commercial Industrial - 0.~5 - Business and Technoloe¥ Park Mixed Industrial , 0._~4 , 0._._~6 Including carafes for residential development, but excluding parkine structures for non-residential develonment. 20 percent density bonus is available for development within 'A-mile of a fixed euidewav transit (Caltrain, BART station, or City desienated ferry terminal). 25 nercent bonus is available for ~rojects with affordable housine, housinu for elderly residents with sCecific amenities desiened for residents, or housine that meets community design standards that may be s~ecified in the Zonine Ordinance. Residential uses may be ~ermitted on second and unper floors only and are subject to a use permit. Ret~uired mrking must be structured. Permitted for research and development uses with Iow employment intensity, or other uses ~rovidine structured Carkine. Permitted for uses with low employment intensity, such as wholesaling, warehousine, and distribution. Source: South San Francisco General Plan August 12, 2002 1-63 Public Hearing Draft Background Report t,. 4 of South San Francisco TABLE 1-38 PARKING REQUIREMENTS City of South San Francisco Residential Use Type One-, two- and three-unit dwellings. Parking Requirement 2 spaces (1 enclosed) per unit for dwellings with fewer than five bedrooms and less than 2,500 square feet in size. 3 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit with five or more bedrooms, or for any dwelling unit with a gross floor area of 2,500 square feet or greater. Multi-family projects with four or more units. 2 spaces per unit (with at least one space covered), plus one guest space per every four units. Single family and townhouse units in planned developments. 2.25 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit if project has driveway aprons at least 18 feet long. Otherwise, 4.25 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit. Group residential uses, residential hotels. Senior citizen residential. I space for each sleeping room. 0.50 space to 1.25 spaces per unit (to be determined by Planning Commission). Family residential uses in Downtown Commercial District, and building with 4 or fewer units (1 bedrooms units with 800 square feet or less and/or studio units with 500 square feet or less). 1 covered space per unit plus 0.25 uncovered space per unit for guest parking. Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.040. Public Hearing Draft 1-64 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-39 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BART TRANSIT VILLAGE DISTRICT City of South San Francisco Standards TV-RM* TV-RH* Building Scale-Intensity of Use Minimum Lot Size (sq. feet) 5,000 5,000 Minimum Site Area per Unit (sq. feet) 1,500 1,000 Maximum Density (units per sq. acre) 30 50 Maximum Non-residential FAR 0.75 1.0 Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 75 75 Building Form and Location Minimum Yard (feet) Front Varies Side 5 5 Street Side 10 10 Rear yes yes Vehicle Accommodations-Driveways and Parkways Location of Parking Percent Allowable of parking 20 podium visible from Principle Street. Required distance (feet) behind building 20 20 facade *Transit Village Residential Medium Density ** Transit Village Residential High Density Source: South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, June 2001. Density Bonus In December 2001, the South San Francisco City Council adopted a Residential Density Bonus Ordinance along with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City adopted the Density Bonus Ordinance to provide incentives for developers for the production of housing affordable to lower-income households. The Density Bonus Ordinance allows a density bonus of up to 25 percent for housing developments that include affordable units, assuming build out at the maximum density is allowed for that site. Greater densities may be considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis; however, projects may be subject to further environmental review. August 12, 2002 1-65 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~.,,y of South San Francisco Secondary Units The Zoning Ordinance permits secondary living units in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), and D-C (Downtown Commercial) zoning districts, subject to use permit approval. The Ordinance (Section 20.79.020) allows one residential second unit on any parcel or lot that has one existing single-family detached dwelling unit. Second units are required to be within or attached to the existing single family unit and can be no larger than 640 square feet. Secondary units also are required to have one off-street parking space and comply with minimum housing code requirements. Since adoption of the Second Unit Ordinance in 1983, only two applications for a second unit have been approved. Manufactured Housing Manufactured housing can provide quality housing at a reasonable price. The recent trend in State legislation has been to encourage homeowners to place and finance manufactured homes on single-family lots. As a result, mobile homes as well as factory-built housing may now be taxed as real estate and may be set on permanent foundations, in common with conventional site-built housing. California SB 1960 (1981) prohibited local jurisdictions from excluding manufactured homes from all lots zoned for single-family dwellings; in other words, limiting the location of these homes to mobile home parks is forbidden. However, SB 1960 does allow the local jurisdiction to designate certain single-family lots for manufactured homes based on compatibility for this type of use. The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance allows manufactured housing in all zoning districts where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted. The regulations state that "a design review approval...shall be required for all manufactured homes on residential lots, provided that the scope of review shall be limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material. Manufactured homes on residential lots shall be treated in this title the same as single-family dwellings in all other respects" (Zoning Ordinance Sections 20.14.040 through 20.34.040). The City's zoning is thus not a constraint to manufactured housing, although the demand for such units in South San Francisco seems to be very limited. Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housin(~ The City has made significant efforts in not only accommodating emergency shelters and transitional housing within the city in terms of land use regulations, but also in financially supporting these uses The City's Zoning Ordinance allows transitional housing in the Downtown Commercial (DC) district and emergency shelters in the Industrial District (M-l). Currently (July 2002), the City has 249 SROs in the Downtown area and supports several non-profit organizations that provide shelter for the homeless (i.e., SAFE Harbor) and provide services (e.g., St. Vincent de Paul Society, Human Investment Program (HIP), and North Peninsula Neighborhood Service Center). The City's financial contributions include $102,000 for construction of Safe Harbor with $7,000 for operating funds and $25,000 for the HIP program from Redevelopment Agency. The City also provides funding to the following: $14,000 to the Shelter Network: $10,000 to Family Crossroads which supports ten families with children a year: and the Maple Street Shelter which provides transitional housing. Public Hearing Draft 1-66 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was adopted in December 2001. Since adoption, the City has continued to process permit applications for high-density residential developments. Residential developers prefer to provide below market rate units in their projects (e.g., the Marbella project is providing 25 percent of the total units at below market rate) rather than paying in-lieu fees. If the developer is unable to finance the project due to the affordability requirement, City staff would facilitate an agreement between the developer and the non-profit residential developers, such as Bridge Housing, to build the market rate and affordable components of the project. In 2001 and 2002, the City approved 280 units (with 25 percent of the units for low and moderate households) and 15 units (with 4 units for low and moderate households) high-density residential housing. The City is currently (July 2002) reviewing Fairfield Development's proposal to construct 350 units (with 20 percent of the units for low and moderate households) and is working with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to rezone ten-acres for approximately 400 units (with 20 percent of the units for low and moderate households). During the Inclusionary Housing review process, both Bridge Housing and Mid Peninsula Housing, non-profit housing developers, indicated to the City Council that 100 percent affordable housing projects could be built in the San Francisco Bay Area. Other private developers, Marbella and Fairfield, support the inclusionary requirement due to the high housing demand and thus high home sales prices in South San Francisco. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has told the City of South San Francisco that they have contacted private developers who are willing to build housing with 20 percent affordable units. Only KB Homes and Phillip Sema from the Home Builders Association opposed any form of inclusionary housing requirements on private residential developers. Persons with Disabilities The following describes the City's current (June 2002) regulations and practices for accommodating persons with disabilities: The City reviews development plans to assure consistency with State handicap and accessibility laws. The City also required ADA accessibility in the following affordable residential projects: 1) Metropolitan Hotel (67 units) - the SRO rehabilitation project includes wheelchair access: 2) Greenridge (34 units) - the City and Mid-Peninsula Housing requires wheelchair access to each unit and handicapped parking near key common areas: and 3) Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project (40 units) - the project includes wheelchair access off the emergency elevator, handicapped parking near entries. The City provides CDBG funds to non-profit organizations to make housing units accessible to the disabled. The City's Uniform Building Code, which was adopted in 1998, has not been amended to accommodate persons with disabilities. The City has not officially adopted any universal design elements to its building code: however, the City has worked with developers to encourage such elements. The City does not have any processes for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodations with respect to zoning, permit processing, or building laws. August 12, 2002 1-67 Public Hearing Draft Background Report {. ~ of South San Francisco Group Homes/Residential Care Facilities The Zoning Ordinance identifies two types of group homes: special residential care facility and residential care facilities for elderly. A special residential care facility is a State authorized, certified, or licensed family care home, foster home. or group home serving six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children, when such home provides care on a twenty-four-hour a day basis. Residential care facilities for elderly are group housing arrangements, licensed by the state Department of Social Services, serving seven or more persons, chosen voluntarily by residents who are over sixty-two years of age and who are provided varying levels of support service or care, but not skilled nursing. The permit requirements for group homes are detailed below in Table 1-40. Special residential care facilities are allowed by right in all residential districts and conditionally permitted in commercial and industrial districts, while residential care facilities require a conditional use permit in residential, commercial, and industrial districts. Public Hearing Draft 1-68 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-40 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP HOMES City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Zonim! District Grouo Home Type R.__~E R-__.[I R-__~2 R-._~3 C-I D-C .M-1 P-__[1 Special residential care P P P P CUP CUP NP CUP facility Residential care N__~.P N.~P CUP* CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP facilities for elderly P = Permitted CUP = Conditional Use Permit NP = Not Permitted *A use vermit pursuant to Chapter 20.81 shall be required for any residential care facility for the elderly serving seven to twelve residents. Residential care facilities for the elderly shall provide a minimum of four parking spaces, two of which must be in an enclosed garage. The following minimum standards must be met: (1) The facility shall not be located within an eight-hundred-foot radius of any other licensed residential care facility for the elderly. (2) No signage shall be allowed. (3) A minimum lot size of six thousand square feet is required. (4) A minimum of twenty percent of the lot area shall be devoted to usable open space for the facility's residents. (5) The site shall be conveniently located to access services for the facilitVs residents such as transit, medical services, shopping and recreational facilities. (6) Any new construction shall be designed to maintain the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. (7) The maximum number of beds per lot size shall be based on a ratio of one bed per six hundred feet of lot area. Any fractional area of a lot shall be rounded down. (8) Bedroom dimensions shall provide a minimum of one hundred ten square feet for single occupancy and one hundred forty-four square feet for double occupancy. Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance. Building Codes Building and housing codes establish minimum standards and specifications for structural soundness, safety, and occupancy. The State Housing Law requires cities and counties to adopt minimum housing standards based on model industry codes. In addition to meeting the requirements of State Housing Law, local governments enforce other state requirements for fire safety, noise insulation, soils reports, earthquake protection, energy conservation, and access for the physically handicapped. The enforcement of building and housing codes for all homes is per the minimum standards and requirements set forth in the codes listed in the attached table. Standards for rehabilitation are no more rigorous than those contained in the California Health and Safety Codes and the Uniform Building Codes. The 1998 edition of the Uniform Building Code is currently (2002) enforced in South San Francisco. The City Building Division ensures that new residences, additions, auxiliary buildings, and other structures meet current construction and safety standards. Building permits are required for any construction work. August 12, 2002 1-69 Public Hearing Draft Background Report .y of South San Francisco Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this way, building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the amount of housing and its affordability. However, the codes enforced by South San Francisco are similar to the codes enforced by most other cities in the region, and are necessary to promote the minimum standards of safety and accessibility to housing. Thus, the codes are not considered to be an undue constraint on housing investment. On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements The City of South San Francisco requires the installation of certain on-site and off-site improvements to ensure the safety and livability of its residential neighborhoods. Many of the on-site and off-site improvements are necessary to mitigate potential impacts from the project on adjacent neighborhoods, as required by the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA). On-site improvements typically include streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and utilities, and amenities such as landscaping, fencing, streetlights, open space, and park facilities. Off-site improvements typically include the following: Road improvements, including construction of sections of roadway, medians, bridges, sidewalks. bicycle lanes, and lighting. Drainage improvements, including improvement to sections of channel, culverts, swales, and pond areas. Sewage collection and treatment Water systems improvements, including lines and storage tanks Public facilities for fire. school, and recreation. Geological hazard repair and maintenance where appropriate. The City works with the residential developer to minimize on-site and off-site improvement costs by applying for outside funding sources in order to provide incentives for developers to build affordable units. The funding sources include MTC Transportation for Livable Communities grants. Safe Routes to Schools. Housing Incentive Program funding, redevelopment funding, and various federal grants. City Permit Processing and Fees Permit Process In 1999, the City of South San Francisco established a "One-Stop Shop" permit processing center. The Center's objective is to provide the applicant with a clear understanding of what is involved in the development and building permit application procedure, process applications as quickly as possible, and supply the Planning Commissioners and the City Council members with complete and accurate information. The City also complies with the Permit Streamlining Act and has worked with SAMCEDA (Sam Mateo County Economic Development Agency) to develop countywide processing standards. Most planning applications follow a similar process. The following outlines the steps needed for a permit applicant. Pre-Application Meeting- When the project applicant has a plan of the existing site conditions but before the applicant has developed detailed architectural and planning drawings, the applicant can meet with City staff to discuss what the applicant can expect during the review and approval process. Public Hearing Draft 1-70 August 12, 2002 Background Report ~,ity of South San Francisco Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this way, building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the amount of housing and its affordability. However, the codes enforced by South San Francisco are similar to the codes enforced by most other cities in the region, and are necessary to promote the minimum standards of safety and accessibility to housing. Thus, the codes are not considered to be an undue constraint on housing investment. On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements The City of South San Francisco requires the installation of certain on-site and off-site improvements to ensure the safety and livability of its residential neighborhoods. Many of the on-site and off-site improvements are necessary to mitigate potential impacts from the project on adjacent neighborhoods, as required by the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA). On-site improvements typically include streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and utilities, and amenities such as landscaping, fencing, streetlights, open space, and park facilities. Off-site improvements typically include the following: · _ Road improvements, including construction of sections of roadway, medians, bridges, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and lighting. · _ Drainage improvements, including improvement to sections of channel, culverts, swales, and pond areas. · _ Sewage collection and treatment · _ Water systems improvements, including lines and storage tanks · _ Public facilities for fire, school, and recreation. · _ Geological hazard repair and maintenance where appropriate. The City works with the residential developer to minimize on-site and off-site improvement costs by applying for outside funding sources in order to provide incentives for developers to build affordable units. The funding sources include MTC Transportation for Livable Communities grants, Safe Routes to Schools, Housing Incentive Program funding, redevelopment funding, and various federal grants. City Permit Processing and Fees Permit Process In 1999, the City of South San Francisco established a "One-Stop Shop" permit processing center. The Center's objective is to provide the applicant with a clear understanding of what is involved in the development and building permit application procedure, process applications as quickly as possible, and supply the Planning Commissioners and the City Council members with complete and accurate information. The City also complies with the Permit Streamlining Act and has worked with SAMCEDA (Sam Mateo County Economic Development Agency) to develop countywide processing standards. Most planning applications follow a similar process. The following outlines the steps needed for a permit applicant. Pre-Application Meeting- When the project applicant has a plan of the existing site conditions but before the applicant has developed detailed architectural and planning drawings, the applicant can meet with City staff to discuss what the applicant can expect during the review and approval process. Public Hearing Draft 1-70 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report · Application Submittal -- Applications may be submitted at any time but the deadline for each planning cycle is always the first Friday of each month. Design Review Board-- Most applications require review by the Design Review Board (DRB). This is a panel composed of lay and professional community members who provide recommendations to the Chief Planner and the Planning Commission regarding the project's site planning, building design, and landscaping. Application Completeness -- After the DRB meeting and a review by Planning staff, a letter may be sent to the applicant describing new information, or corrections to their plans, that they may need to submit to the Planning Division in order to complete their application. If they do not receive this letter within thirty days after their submittal, they may assume that your application is complete. Environmental Determination -- Normally, within the thirty day period after the application is accepted as complete Planning staff will review the application to determine what category of the State's environmental regulation (i.e., California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)) apply to the project. In some cases additional studies will be required to meet CEQA objectives. A Planner will contact the applicant if the project requires further study. These studies will be prepared in the form of either a "Negative Declaration" or an "Environmental Impact Report." Public Notice -- At least ten days before the Planning Commission reviews the project, the City sends out a notice of a Public Hearing to property owners within a three-hundred foot radius surrounding your project site. The notice, which is published in the San Mateo Times and mailed to the property owners, describes the project and announces the hearing date. Planning Commission Meeting -- The Planning Commission holds public hearings at the Municipal Services Building on the first and third Thursday of each month. Items are normally scheduled for the public hearing six to eight weeks after the application has been accepted as complete. During the hearing, Planning staff will present their report and recommendation to the Commission. Applicants and their representatives also have an opportunity to make a presentation in support of your project. · Notice of Action -- About a week after the Commission's action, the applicant receives by mail a written statement of the Commission's action and the conditions of approval. Appeal -- Following the Commission's action, there is a fifteen day period during which anyone may appeal all or any portion of the action to the City Council. During this appeal period, the City may not take any further actions regarding the project, including issuing building permits. Both single family and multi-family residential projects must go through a discretionary review process. As noted above and illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, the City of South San Francisco uses the "One-Stop Shop Permit Center" model to "fast track" development applications. City Staff incorporates the Design Review Board meeting and the CEOA process into a compact review period. As noted above, City Staffprovides technical support to help the applicant prepare the application, prepare for the Design Review Board meeting, and to comply with State mandated requirements under the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA). Where appropriate, the City self-finances the General Plan and zoning amendments to create the conditions that would encourage new residential development. The following projects benefited from the City's efforts and technical support. In 2001-2002, the City processed the 280-unit Marbella Housing project (approved in 2002) on a previously undevelopable site (due to the steep slope). With City technical assistance, the developer was able to provided twenty-five percent below market rate units. Currently, City staff is assisting an applicant, Fairfield Development, to August 12, 2002 1-71 Public Hearing Draft FIGURE 2 Pr~je~ Pre Appllc. eti~ Developer p~'epa~es the required plans & studies for CH revi~, Deve~er meets ~ City staff to draft the Affordable Housing Agreement, Childcare Agreement, and Development ~reerrmm Planning Staff coordinates schedule and works with Buildir~, Police, Fire & Er~ineering Staffs Plannina ApHi~n Sign~ Application Housing Agreement Application fees City A~omey Deposit 35-sets 11 x 17 plans (folded) 8-sets 24 x 32 plans (folded) Dra~ traffic study & other related studies ~ Pl~mng Staff initiates l~e Enlitlemenl ReVi~ Process ~d deter~nes :sche~le Ci~ S~ff Tec~i~l C~=aA Initial :Study: Final traffic study & other related studies for the CEQA document for CitY Repre~ntative (Peter) City Staff prepares · the CEQA Document for Deveieper & A~ch~e~ teem p~esents pro~ to the Destg~n Revi~ Board Planr~ng Staff I~res a Letter of Completion FIGURE 3 FAIRFIELD & CITY INPUT ON THE PROJECT PROCESS PRIOR :TO SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION PACKAGE Preliminary Project Phasing ~ Concept / Archilecture & i I Projecl E~nee~i~,g : ~ Schedule Faidield det~ir~es project schedule. Schematic Design Transit Village Plan/Zoning Consist~y Design Fainr~eld and Planning Staff determine project consistency with the Transit Village Plan Design and Development Standards. Plann~ Staff and City Consullant meels with Faid~ld represer~tatives. ECD Staff meets with Fairfield representatives on Housing Agreement, Ch~dcare Agreement, and potenlia; Development Agreement. Pm-Applical~ion PaCkage Materials Needed; Sile plans, landscaping plans, e~ation drawir~gs, ~'esental~n malerieJs, tees Fairfield provides information on similar projects to Planning Staff lor the City Council Fairfield and Planning Division Slalf coordinate the preparatio~ of the App!i~tion Package City Staff schedules a Planning Commission tour of high-density projects in the Bay Area. City Staff schedules a joint ~ ~sston with Ihe City Council and Ptanning Commission to review propo~ design, Background Report City of South San Francisco construct a 350-unit apartment complex (including twenty percent below market rate units) in the Transit Village District. The City's technical assistance is designed to fast-track the project through the review process. City staff provides technical assistance, coordinate meetings and tours, disseminate information, prepared the appropriate data for project approval. In anticipation of high-density development in the Transit Village area, the City rezoned the area from Commercial to mixed-use high-density residential and commercial. Beyond technical assistance to the developer, the City prepared the necessary zoning and development standards on the sites in anticipation of the mixed use project at its own expense. In 2001, the City initiated its own (self financed process) process to rezone several parcels near the South San Francisco BART station from commercial to mixed-use residential with local serving commercial. The nine-month process included 1) hiring a urban design consultant to prepare development standards and housing prototypes for the sites at taxpayers expense, 2) preparing the master environmental document for adoption, 3) holding three study sessions and two community meetings with local officials and neighborhoods, 4) organizing a Planning Commission/Design Review Board/property owners Stakeholder Committee to review the plans and alternatives, and 5) adopting a Transit Village Zoning District before the applicant was ready to submit an application. Following adoption of the Zoning Amendment, City staffprepared a Request for Proposals, for the property owner, to both private and non-profit developers. Prior to the sale of the site from previous property owner, the City met with all the potential applicants to analyze methods to provide below market rate and construct a high-quality project on the site. City staff also consulted directly with Mid-Peninsula Housing (a non-profit housing provider) to determine specific construction costs, parking standards, and appropriate unit sizes (for the targeted families) to make the projects work. If the potential private developer could not afford the below market rate units, the non-profit providers were willing to build those units on each site and let the private developer build the market rate units. In both cases, the private developer chose to build the below market rate units on their own. Since the City provided the necessary conditions to proceed with the development, the applicant will be required to provide plans and complete the Environmental Checklist for Planning Commission approval. According to Figure 4, the City anticipates that the Fairfield Housing project will take approximately 95 days from application submittal to Planning Commission public hearing. Design Review As in most cities in California, the City of South San Francisco's Design Review process is designed to assist applicants, by providing specific physical design and landscaping comments, while anticipating community concems prior to presenting the project to the Planning Commission or City Council. The Design Review Board reviews design review applications within the existing review period; the Board does not hinder or extend the application review process. Applicants provide site plans, elevation drawings and landscaping plans for comment during a noticed public meeting. The Board then makes recommendations to the Planning Commission and Chief Planner in accordance with the Design Review Guidelines. The Planning Commission has design review authority for all projects requiring Planning Commission approval (such as PUD permits, use permits and variances) and all new commercial, office and multifamily developments. The Commission considers the Design Review Board's recommendations and can approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application. In practice, the Design Review process has been not used to deny projects or reduce the overall density of the project. The Design Review process is part of the application process and has not added additional costs, fees, or time on the applicant. Public Hearing Draft 1-72 August 12, 2002 FIGURE 4 The City of South San Francisco's Permit Streamlining Process For Transit Village A B C D 18 days 1.2 days 20 days 30 days 15 days Te~nicat Lelter of , Fairfield subml,s Advt~0n/ / Completenes~ .~ Pre. ! Planning -I~ Group ~; At~llcatio~ ~Al~llcatio~onlst ...... -' ,:: ........ Review i Friday ol We month Deslg~ Planning Staff ~ see requirements) Review Condlllons of ~ Reporl ~ Cl~y ~atf prepares ~ 7" ~ lhe CEQA 25-$$ d~ CEQA Publ~ I~V~w Pedal & Respor~ to ~ Document (i4 Commer~ts Planning Commis~on Public He~tng 95 day Permit Process No1~e of A B C D-E F Fairfield meets with Planning Staff to ~'eview: 1. Review schedule 2. Coordination with Engineering ~'equireme~ts 3. Submittal package Fairfield provides Planning Staff with Application package and prepared reports lor CEQA Document Fairfield. with Architect and Landscape Architect, presents the project to the DRB Fairfield reviews the draft Conditions and staff report. Fairfield, with Architect and Landscape Architect, presents the project to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Background Report Permit Processing Fees Project application fees, permit fees, and developer fees add to housing development costs. Several fees apply to housing developments. These include: 1) fees charged by the planning department for processing use permits, zoning amendments and variances, tentative subdivision maps, design and environmental review, and appeals; 2) fees levied by the Building and Public Works Departments for plan checks and inspections; 3) fees charged for City-provided utility connections such as sewer and water; and 4) fees for infrastructure improvements, schools, roads and public transit, parks and recreation, police and fire services, and affordable housing funds. Whereas the first three fee categories have been enforced by local governments for many years, the fourth category, often called growth fees, have been instituted recently to offset the costs of new development. State law requires that local permit processing fees charged by local governments must not exceed the estimated actual cost of processing the permits. Table 1-40 lists the fees that the City charges for processing various land use permits based on the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule. The City has not increased fees for all development applications since the early 1990s. The City charges a flat fee for development applications and does not use a cost recovery method for any project. In 1997. the City analyzed its comparative cost of doing business in the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report. Permit Processing Times The time required to process residential project applications depends on the size and scope of the project. Any delays in processing can ultimately result in added costs to a housing project. While the City of South San Francisco has a reputation for rapidly processing development applications, some delays can occur that are outside the control of the city. Delays in processing can occur if environmental review, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires an EIR to be prepared. At times, approval from State or other agencies may also be required for certain types of projects. Overall, project processing is not a constraint on the development of housing in South San Francisco. August 12, 2002 1-73 Public Hearing Draft Background Report (. of South San Francisco TABLE 1-41 PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE City of South San Francisco 2001- 2002 Type Planned Unit Development Use Permit Use Permit Modification Minor Use Permit Zoning Amendment (Text) Specific Plan Variance General Plan Amendments Environmental Impact Report (E1R) Negative Declaration Tentative Subdivision Map Final Subdivision Map Tentative Parcel Map Final Parcel Map Amount $650.00 $650.00 $350.00 $100.00 $600.00 $2,000.00 5;385.00 $650.00 Consultant Contract, plus $900.00 or 5% of the contract amount, whichever is greatest. Consultant Contract, plus $75.00 $500.00 plus $25.00 for each lot or dwelling unit. $500.00 plus $50.00 for each lot or dwelling unit $500.00 plus $25.00 per lot or dwelling unit $500.00 Source: City of South San FranciSco Master Fee Schedule, 2001-2002 6.2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL/MARKET CONSTRAINTS All resources needed to develop housing in South San Francisco are subject to the laws of supply and demand, meaning that these resources may not always be available at prices which make housing development attractive. Thus, cost factors are the primary non-governmental constraints upon development of housing in South San Francisco. This is particularly true in the case of housing for low- and moderate-income households, where basic development cost factors such as the cost of land, required site improvements, and basic construction, are critical in determining the income a household must have in order to afford housing. Public Hearing Draft 1-74 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Land Costs Land costs in the Bay Area have been increasing since World War II as a result of inflation, increased immigration, and decreasing land supply. Clearly, rising land costs have constrained the development of affordable housing. This cost increase has an adverse effect on the ability of households, particularly low- and moderate-income households, to pay for housing. Costs associated with the acquisition of land include the market price of raw land and the cost of holding land throughout the development process. These costs can range from about 15 percent of the final sales price of new homes to nearly half in very small developments or in areas where land is scarce. Among the variables affecting the cost of land are its location, its amenities, the availability of public services, and the financing arrangements made between the buyer and seller. As South San Francisco gets closer to full build-out of its developable land, land costs will likely increase significantly. Raw land in South San Francisco has been estimated to be worth approximately $248,000 per acre, or about $183,000 for a typical improved single-family lot. Smaller infill parcels with services available would be worth up to 25 percent more depending on their location. In addition to the cost of the raw land, new housing prices are influenced by the cost of holding land while development permits are processed. The shorter the period of time that it takes a local government to process applications for building, the lesser the effect inflation will have on the cost of construction and labor. Permit processing times are discussed earlier in this chapter in the context of governmental constraints on the development of affordable housing. Construction Costs Table 1-42 presents a hypothetical composite of all the associated costs that contribute to the final cost of a typical single-family home (i.e., 2,000 square-feet, 3-bedroom home on a 4,000 square-foot lot) in South San Francisco. It should be noted that the totals in Table 1-42 represent a likely scenario and that the actual development costs will vary with the size, quality, and location of the development. TABLE 1-42 TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME COST COMPONENTS South San Francisco January 2002 Cost Item Amount Construction Costs Construction Loan Interest Land Cost Land Financing Permits and Fees Developer Profit and Marketing (20%) Total Cost Source: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates; Standard Builders, January 2002. August 12, 2002 1-75 $216,000 $5,000 $183,000 $7,000 $20,000 $86,200 $517,200 Public Hearing Draft Background Report L ~ of South San Francisco Cost and Availability of Financing In the early 1990s there was much discussion in the regional and national press of a "credit-crunch" that made it difficult for developers to obtain financing for new real estate projects. In fact, financial institutions did reduce lending activity in response to more stringent regulations. However, these reforms addressed lending abuses associated primarily with very risky projects which were conceived with little relation to project economics and underlying market conditions. Bankers and regulators assert that financing is currently available for well-planned projects that are financially sound and target a demonstrated market demand. One current aspect of financing that does differ from the early 1990s is that lending institutions generally require greater contributions of equity from developers to ensure that developers share in the risk of the project by committing their own money. In this respect, financing is less likely to be available to developers who are not financially sound and lack the appropriate contribution of their own capital. For credit-worthy projects, residential construction loan rates in the early 2000s are at relatively low due to the low inflation levels that have prevailed over the last several years. Expectations of continued low inflation should help to keep financing rates at reasonable levels for the remainder of the Housing Element planning period. This is a benefit to home builders, who can take advantage of the interest savings on construction financing to reduce their overall cost to develop new housing. Public Hearing Draft 1-76 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report 7.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION State Housing Element Law requires an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. Energy efficiency has direct application to affordable housing because the more money spent on energy, the less available for rent or mortgage payments. High energy costs have particularly detrimental effects on low-income households that do not have enough income or cash reserves to absorb cost increases and many times they must choose between basic needs such as shelter, food, and energy. Energy price fluctuations in the late 1990s, and energy price increases in early 2001 combined with rolling electricity blackouts have led to a renewed interest in energy conservation. The City of South San Francisco receives both electricity and natural gas services from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 1998 (effective date of July 1, 1999). Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process. All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made. The California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66473-66498) allows local governments to provide for solar access as follows: 66475.3. For divisions of land for which a tentative map is required pursuant to Section 66426, the legislative body of a city or county may by ordinance require, as a condition of the approval of a tentative map, the dedication of easements for the purpose of assuring that each parcel or unit in the subdivision for which approval is sought shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent parcels or units in the subdivision for which approval is sought for any solar energy system, provided that such ordinance contains all of the following: (1) Specifies the standards for determining the exact dimensions and locations of such easements. (2.) Specifies any restrictions on vegetation, buildings and other objects which would obstruct the passage of sunlight through the easement. (3) Specifies the terms or conditions, if any, under which an easement may be revised or terminated. (4) Specifies that in establishing such easements consideration shall be given to feasibility, contour, configuration of the parcel to be divided, and cost, and that such easements shall not result in reducing allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or a structure under applicable planning and zoning in force at the time such tentative map is filed. (5) Specifies that the ordinance is not applicable to condominium projects which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing building where no new structures are added. The City of South San Francisco recognizes the need for greater energy efficiency in both existing dwelling units and in new construction. The existing City of South San Francisco Housing Element contains one policy (5.E) and two implementation programs (5E-1 and 5E-2) under Goal E related to energy conservation: Policy 5E. Foster efforts to conserve energy in residential structures. August 12, 2002 1-77 Public Hearing Draft Background Report / of South San Francisco Action SE-1 Continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for residential buildings (e.g., brochures and other information.). The City promotes the use of passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential buildings. It will continue to ensure that State residential energy conservation building standards are met. Responsibility of' Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame:On-going Funding Source: City Budget Quantified Objective: State Standards enforced in all new construction. Action 5E-2 Assist energy and water conserving modifications in existing residential buildings. The CDBG division will work with Neighborhood Services and PG&E to provide winterization and minor repairs. Responsibility of.'CDBG Division Time Frame:On-going Funding Source: CDBG funds Quantified Objective: ten units annually. The 1999 General Plan does not contain any policies or programs that address energy efficiency. Public Hearing Draft 1-78 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report 8.0 CURRENT AND PAST HOUSING PROGRAMS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 8.1 CURRENT PROGRAMS The City of South San Francisco utilizes local, State, and Federal funds to implement its housing strategy. Because of the high cost of new construction, more than one source of public funds is required to construct an affordable housing development. The City does not act as a developer in the production of affordable units, but relies upon the private sector or NGOs to develop new units with the assistance of these various funding sources. The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is the primary source of housing funds for the city's housing programs. According to current Five Year Implementation Plan, the City is expected to have approximately $7 million in housing set-aside funds that will be available to support affordable housing activities within the City over the five-year period (FY2000 - FY 2004). The Agency anticipates using the majority of these funds for the Willow Gardens acquisition and rehabilitation project and for the Chestnut Senior Housing Project. The major housing programs included in the Agency's Five Year Plan are as follows: · Program #1: Encourage the development of affordable housing. · Program #2: Provide housing opportunities and support services for very low-income renters and persons with special needs. · Program #3: Provide services-enriched shelter and transitional housing for homeless persons and families and prevent households at-risk from becoming homeless. · Program #4: Provide opportunities for low and moderate-income homeowners to maintain and repair their homes and promote neighborhood revitalization. · Program #5: Provide homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers earning less than 120 percent of income. During the past five years, the City has used housing set-aside funds for the following projects: · Metropolitan Hotel - This hotel, consisting of 66 SRO units, was rehabilitated with a combination of housing set-aside funds ($853,000) and HOME funds ($430,000). · Grand Hotel - The City provided $900,000 in redevelopment funds for substantial rehabilitation and seismic upgrade of this hotel (16 SRO units), which opened in early 1999. Greenridge Housing - This project of 34 townhouse units for very low-income residents developed by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition was completed in 1999. The Agency required Greystone Homes, the developer of the McClellan single family home site, to provide one acre of land for the development of affordable housing units to meet the Agency's housing production requirement. The Agency committed $940,000 of housing set-aside funds for this development. August 12, 2002 1-79 Public Hearing Draft Background Report C of South San Francisco Commercial Avenue Duplexes -Four units at 339-341 Commercial Avenue were acquired and rehabilitated for very low-income households. Funding included housing set-aside funds ($107,500), CDBG ($430,000), and HOME ($322,500). The City currently (January 2002) operates a number of housing programs. These are summarized in Table 1-43 and include the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, the Minor Repair Program, and the Voucher Program for housing repairs, which are funded with CDBG and/or housing set-aside funds. Housing Programs Housing CDBG Rehabilitation Loan Program Emergency Code CDBG Violation Vouchers Window Bar Replacement Vouchers CDBG Debris Box Vouchers CDBG Minor Home Repair CDBG (House Helpers) Transitional Housing HIP (Human Investment Project) Housing TABLE 1-43 Center for Independence of the Disabled - Housing Accessibility Program HOUSING PROGRAMS City of South San Francisco Funding Target Group # of Households Source Benefits Assisted RDA funds RDA funds Provides Iow-interest and/or deferred loans for housing repairs. Maximum loan is $25,000. Provides homeowners a grant of up to $2,500 to clear up code violations in their homes. Provides grants to owners to replace dangerous fixed window bars that prevent exit from a building. Helps residents remove accumulated debris and yard waste from their properties. Low and moderate-income households Low-income households Low-income households Low and moderate-income households in the CDBG target area Low-income homeowners Very low and Iow-income homeless families Very Iow and Iow-income homeless families Very low and Iow-income households CDBG Provides home repairs such as roof and gutter repairs, water heater replacement and installation of security devices free of charge. The program is administered by the North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center. Shelter-Network (Crossroads and Maple Street) provides two to four months of transitional housing and comprehensive support services. Offers affordable housing services including a home equity conversion program for seniors, shared housing referrals and a homeless prevention program. Helps eliminate architectural barriers and provides modifications such as grab bars to make homes safer and more accessible for persons with disabilities and/or frail elderly. Funding available to assist 3 to 5 per year. Funding available to assist 12 per year. As needed Funding available to assist 10 per year. Funding available to assist 50 per year. Funding available to serve 30 families annually at the two shelters. HIP is expected to provide referrals to 80 households during the year. Funding available to assist 30 per year. Public Hearing Draft 1-80 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-43 Housing Programs Fair Housing Counseling Funding Source HOME HOUSING PROGRAMS City of South San Francisco Target Group Benefits Primarily Iow and moderate-income households Project Sentinel and La Raza Centro Legal provide fair housing education and counseling as well as dispute resolution Source: City of South San Francisco and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc., December 2001. # of Households Assisted Project Sentinel is expected to provide casework for 12 residents experiencing housing discrimination and respond to 120 telephone inquiries. La Raza will provide 200 residents with information and referral, legal advice, counseling and legal representation. South San Francisco residents may also benefit from programs that are administered by the San Mateo County, such as the Section 8 Voucher Program or the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. HOME Investment Partnership Act Program Funds The Urban County and the cities of Daly City and South San Francisco formed San Mateo County HOME Consortium for the purpose of applying to HUD for HOME funds. Approximately $1.9 million in HOME funds are allocated to the Consortium annually. All projects funded with HOME funds must be targeted to very low and low-income households and must have permanent matching funds from non-federal resources equal to 25 percent of the requested funds. Section 8 Voucher Program Rental assistance is available from the San Mateo County Housing, which administers the Section 8 Voucher Program. As of January 2002, 455 households in South San Francisco were receiving rental assistance from this program, which is funded by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The low vacancy rate of rental housing in the county has meant that the Housing Authority has had difficuIties in getting Iandlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. The lack of knowledge of Section 8 on the part of landlords as well as cultural barriers have also contributed. The waiting list for Section 8 has been closed since 1994, but is expected to be opened for new applications in 2002. August 12, 2002 1-81 Public Hearing Draft Background Report (. of South San Francisco Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (authorized via Section 25 of the IRS code) is targeted to households whose incomes do not exceed 115 percent of area median income. This program permits public jurisdictions to issue tax credit certificates for a portion of the mortgage interest paid by first-time homebuyers. In this program, the buyer and the lender cover most of the direct expenses. The County Office of Housing administers this program in the county. From 1999 through 2001, eight South San Francisco residents participated in the MCC program. First-Time Homebuyer Program The City is pursuing several options to increase opportunities for first-time homebuyers in South San Francisco. First, the City is participating in the Countywide Housing Investment Project (CHIP). This is a consortium of several San Mateo cities, the County of San Mateo, lenders, school districts, and other interested parties to establish a countywide first-time homebuyer program. CHIP members are working to create a set of common loan documents pre-authorized by the lending community and are seeking investment capital from county employers and pension funds. These funds will be used to leverage public funds. 8.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Subsidized housing projects in South San Francisco, not including Housing Authority units, are summarized in Table 1-44 below. Public Hearing Draft 1-82 August 12, 2002 I o o 7-- August 12, 2002 pubtiC Hearing Draft I-- LU 0 <o .< Z Public Hearing Draft 1-87 August 12, 2002 LU 0 ,~o i Public Hearing Draft 1-88 August 12, 2002 Background Report C of South San Francisco In 1999 the first residents moved into Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition's Greenridge project, the first new affordable housing project in the city in ten years. The project provides 34 units for very low and low-income families, with over half of the units serving large families (three or more bedrooms). The project was financed with redevelopment funds ($940,000) as well as tax credits. Another new development, Chestnut Senior Housing (40 units), is expected to be available for occupancy before the end of 2002. This project received HUD Section 202 funding and redevelopment funds ($2.7 million). In 1998 the City initiated the Willow Gardens Revitalization Project with Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition. The project involves the acquisition and rehabilitation of 17 four-plex structures, or 64 units in the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. The units will be converted to permanently affordable housing for households at 50 to 60 percent of median income. The project leverages redevelopment housing funds with public/private bonds and tax credits in a $14 million financial package. Thus far (January 2002), the City and Mid-Peninsula have acquired three buildings (12 units), which are being rehabilitated. The City will continue to acquire buildings as they become available. The South San Francisco Housing Authority manages 80 units of public housing in the city, which serve very low-income residents. The units, built in 1977 and 1980, include 22 one-bedroom units, 26 two-bedroom units, 26 three-bedroom units, and 6 four-bedroom units. Federal funds ($700,000) were allocated to rehabilitate these units and bring them up to code. This work was completed in 1998. There is a waiting list of more than 150 families. It would take a new applicant from three to five years to reach the top of the list and have the opportunity to rent a unit. In addition to the housing units included in Table 1-44, there are 249 SRO units in the city that are an important part of the affordable housing market (see Table 1-45). SROs generally do not have either kitchens or bathrooms within individual units. They serve as residences primarily for low- and very low-income single people. This type of housing unit is found primarily in the downtown area. The City has helped to upgrade and preserve this housing by providing funds for rehabilitation and seismic upgrade of the Grand and Metropolitan Hotels. Work on both was completed in 1999. Occupancy is restricted to very low-income persons. Public Hearing Draft 1-86 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-45 Name Welte's Doon Building Christie's Grand Hotel (1) Metropolitan Hotel (2) S&L Hotel Industrial Hotel El Escape Building Merriam Building SUBTOTAL Units Not on the Rental Market Giffra Buildings SINGLE OCCUPANCY HOTELS City of South San Francisco Location 254 Grand Avenue 317 Grand Avenue 309 Airport 309 Airport 220 Linden Avenue 400 Miller Avenue 505 Cypress Avenue 204-206 Grand Avenue Comer of Airport and Grand Avenue 230 Grand Avenue Bertolucci's Restaurant Building SUBTOTAL 421 Cypress Avenue TOTAL No. of Rooms 6 9 16 16 68 23 45 8 19 210 40 (units have not been retired for 30 years) 9 39 249 (1) Rehabilitated with City redevelopment funds ($900,000) and reopened in 1999. Restricted to very low income until 2019. (2) Renovation was initiated in 1993 and completed in 1999 with funding from redevelopment and HOME funds. The units are restricted to very low income through 2029. Source: City of South San Francisco Police Department, Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. August 12, 2002 1-87 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ! of South San Francisco Inclusionary Housing Program In December 2001, the City Council adopted the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure that all residential development including all master planned and specific planned communities provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the community, including households of lower and moderate income. The following are the major requirements of the ordinance: · All new housing developments in the city consisting of four or more units, must make 20 percent of those units available to and affordable to low and moderate income households; Of that 20 percent, 12 percent (or 60 percent of inclusionary units) must be affordable to households earning 81 to 120 percent of median income and eight percent (or 40 percent of inclusionary units) affordable to households earning 50 to 80 percent of median income (adjusted for family size); · Housing Developments consisting of four to nine units may pay an in-lieu fee rather that producing the affordable units; · Fractional units will be subject to an in-lieu fee or the fractional unit rounded to a whole and constructed at the developer's option; · The in-lieu fee shall amount to the developers cost of producing the market-rate unit; · A density bonus of up to 25 percent will be available to housing developments which include affordable units, assuming build out at the maximum density allowed for that site; · Housing development consisting of 10 or more units must produce the units on site; and Alternatives to in-lieu fees and the production of the affordable units, at the sole discretion of the City Council, may include: off-site development, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units, project subsidies, and/or other, to be defined. At-Risk Units The owners of the Skyline View Gardens, a 160-unit project that was funded under the HUD Section 236 program, prepaid the project's HUD loan in July 1996 and opted out of the program. As a result, 78 project-based Section 8 units were lost, and all of the units at the project are now market-rate. The California Housing Partnership's database lists the Fairway Apartments, a senior project with 74 units with Section 8 subsidies, expiring July 30, 2000. However, the Section 8 contract has been extended to July 30, 2005. According to the owner's representative, there are no plans at the present to opt out of the program. The estimated cost to replace these units is approximately $12.9 million as shown below. The cost to preserve the units will depend on the potential financing arrangements. The most promising is acquisition and rehabilitation under the tax credit program. In allocating tax credits to potential projects, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee gives additional points to at-risk projects. A potential purchaser would probably also request financial assistance from the City. Public Hearing Draft 1-88 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-46 ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST OF UNITS AT FAIRWAY APARTMENTS City of South San Francisco 1 bd/lbath 2bd/lbath Unit Size in Square Feet 600 85O Development Cost ~ $195' Land Cost ($50 sf.) - 40 units/acre Total Development Cost $117,000 $165,750 54,500 54500 $171,500 $220,250 No. of Units in Fairway Apartments Replacement Costs 70 4 $12,005,000 $881,000 Total Estimated Replacement * Includes all costs except land $12,886,000 Source: Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. The estimated cost of continuing to subsidize the 74 assisted units at the Fairway Apartments if the Section 8 subsidy is lost is $900,000 per year based on the average monthly HUD subsidy payment under the current Section 8 contract ($75,000). The City will monitor the status of projects with expiring affordability covenants and contact owners concerning their plans to continue or opt out of the programs. As necessary, the City will identify potential buyers and possible sources of City funding, for example housing set-aside funds, to supplement primary sources, such as the low income tax credits. The City will refer to HCD's Intemet site (www.hcd.ca.gov) for the listing of individuals and organizations interested in the first-right-of-refusal program. August 12, 2002 1-89 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~ · of South San Francisco 8.3 POTENTIAL FUNDING PROGRAMS There are several local, State, and Federal funding programs that can be used to assist first-time homebuyers, build affordable housing, and help special needs groups, such as seniors and large households meet their housing needs. Because of the high cost of new construction, more than one source of funds is almost always required to construct an affordable housing development. Funds provided may be low-interest loans that need to be repaid, or in some instances, grants are provided that do not require repayment. In most cases other entities, including for-profit and non-profit developers apply for funds or other program benefits. For example, developers apply directly to HUD for Section 202 and Section 811 loans or to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for low-income tax credits. The City of South San Francisco does not act as a developer in the production of affordable units, but relies upon the private sector to develop new units with the assistance of these various funding sources, such as BRIDGE Housing Corporation's Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project with $3.5 million in Section 202 funding and $2.7 million in redevelopment housing set-aside funds. The City can help sponsor grant and loan applications, provide matching funds, or furnish land at below market cost. However, there are also programs, such as the HOME Investment Parmership Act Program (HOME), to which the City applies directly to the San Mateo HOME Consortium. Finally, there are a few programs, such as the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program or the Lease Purchase Program, to which individual households apply to directly. City financial support of private sector applications for funding to outside agencies is very important. Funding provided by the City can be used as matching funds required of some programs. Local funding is also used for leverage. City support of private sector applications enhances the competitive advantage of each application for funds. ha additim~, as mentioned abovc thc South San Francisco Rcdcvclopment Agcncy providcs funds for housing and is cxpcctcd to have approximately $2 million in availablc housing set-.aside funds du, hag thc five-year pcliod ending in June 2004. ha additim~, Ci~./receives $748,000 annually in CDBG funds, which includes funding for co,mnunity se, viccs and econeanic dcvclopmcnt as well as housing activities. The City rcccntly (Octobcr 200 l) adopted an inclusiona~ y housing policy, which allows for payi,aelat of an in-lieu fcc if affordablc units arc not provided. If developers choosc to pay in-lieu fccs they will augm¢,lt thc Agency's housing sct-asidc and CDBG ful~ds and increase thc City's ability to encourage and assist affordable housing dcvclopn~cnt. The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is the primary source of housing funds for the City's housing programs. The Agency is expected to have approximately nine million dollars in housing set-aside funds available to support affordable housing activities through the end of the planning period (June 2006). The Redevelopment Agency has one-million dollars ($1,000.000) a year in the 20 percent fund. The Agency is considering increasing the allocation to one and one-half million dollars ($1.500.000). The projects being funded with housing set-aside funds or planned include the following: Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project. The 40-unit senior housing project is expected to be completed before the end of 2002. The Agency is providing $3.4 million in housing set-aside funds. Willow Gardens Acquisition and Rehabilitation. Three buildings have been acquired to date. The Agency expects that three or four more (four units each) will be acquired during the planning period. Redevelopment funds are being used to leverage other sources of funding. These units are targeted for households at 50 to 60 percent of AMI. Public Hearing Draft 1-90 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report Transitional Housing. The Agency provides approximately $60,000 annually in funding to support transitional housing. First-Time Homebuyer Program. The Agency is planning to initiate a first-time homebuyer program with CDBG funding and then use housing set-aside funds (up to $200,000 annually). Affordable Housing Development Activities. One of the Agency's priorities is to assist in the development of additional affordable housing units in the city. Redevelopment funds will be used to leverage other funding for proposed affordable housing projects. Several projects under discussion that would be 100 percent low-income project include: Developing approximately 50 units on the vacant site on the Oak Avenue. Developing of a 40-unit mixed-use residential/commercial project on Grand Avenue in Downtown. Offering to purchase two parcels to rehabilitate six units for low income households using RDA and Home funding. Developing up to 46-units for low-income households on a City-owned parcel on the comer of Hillside and Linden Avenue. The Redevelopment Agency has plans to develop the site and fund the site clean-up of the former gas station. August 12, 2002 1-91 Public Hearing Draft Background Report (. of South San Francisco 9.0 EVALUATION OF 1992 HOUSING ELEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS The following section reviews and evaluates the City's progress in implementing the 1992 Housing Element. It reviews the results and effectiveness of programs, policies, and objectives for the previous Housing Element planning period. It also analyzes the difference between projected need and actual housing production. The 1992 Housing Element was intended to serve a planning period from 1991 to 1996. However, this planning period was extended by State law to 2001. Table 1-47 shows the total number of all housing units (single family, multi-family, and townhomes/condos) receiving permits in the city by year from 1989 to 1999. During this period, 1,247 units were built or approved including 758 single family units, 154 multi-family units, and 335 townhomes/condos. TABLE 1-47 ANNUAL HOUSING PRODUCTION PREVIOUS HOUSING PERIOD 1989-1999 Year Single Family 1989-1994 193 1995-1999* 565 TOTAL 758 *Includes units built and approved. Townhomes/ Multi Family Condos Total 154 8 355 0 327 892 154 335 1,247 Source: Economic and Community Development Department; South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report, 1997. Table 1-48 shows a comparison of the ABAG-assigned regional fair share allocation of housing units for the 1990 to 1995 period for South San Francisco to the housing produced between 1989 and 1999, by income group. Public Hearing Draft 1-92 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-48 COMPARISON OF HOUSING NEED TO HOUSING PRODUCTION, PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT PLANNING PERIOD 1990-1999 Total Allocation Total Built: 1989- 1999 Net Deficit/Surplus Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate 535 450 619 1,210 104 0 0 1,143 Total 2,814 1,247 431 450 619 67 1,567 Source: Economic and Community Development Department. Evaluation of 1992 Housing Element Policies and Programs Tables 1-49 and 1-50 provide an evaluation of existing City of South San Francisco Housing Element policies and implementation programs. August 12, 2002 1-93 Public Hearing Draft Background Report L of South San Francisco TABLE 1-49 EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES City of South San Francisco Housing Element Policy # Goal I lA: lB: lC: Goal 2 2A: Existing Policy I Evaluation Encourage a supply of housing units sufficient to assure each resident an attractive, healthful, safe environment within a wide range of desi§ns, types, sizes, and prices Avoid deterioration due to lack Housing and Community Development (HCD) oversees a program that funds minor repairs for South San Francisco residents. The Building Division is expanding its code enforcement staff to respond to code violations. of maintenance of existing dwelling units and provide low cost rehabilitation programs for their improvement Provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing units in well planned neighborhoods Since 1997, thc City has apl~ovcd over 1,500 new residential units, gn imat ily ,,~a~kct ~atc. Thc Pr~cnadc and Grccr, l ~gc residential project was appro~d on land fo, mcrly dcsignat~ f~ a co,il~l~crcial usc. Thc General Plan one.rages thc dc~l~,ncnt ~highcr density residential h~sing in thc t, ansit ~icn~d dc~l~nicnt a~as and in Do~,t~l South San F, ai~ci~o. The City provides technical assistance to each residential developer and has not adopted any cost recovery profframs to pay for the service. For detailed discussion, see Evaluation for Policy I.B followine this table. Thc Gcncl al Plan land usc policies cncou, age thc dcvclor4~cnt of a vaJ icty ~ housing types. Thc Planned Unit Dcvclop,i,cnt ploecss cnsm cs that subdivisions confo .... to at ca standaMs and ncighbo~ hood charactc, istics. The General Plan requires the hieh-densitv housing twes and infill development on the remainin[ vacant sites and in older commercial and industrial areas. In high-density residential areas, the City has implemented development standards that permit the hiehest possible densities without impacting existine residential neighborhoods. For all residential nei[hborhoods, the Planned Unit Development process ensures that subdivisions conform to area standards and neighborhood characteristics. Continue to support the provision of housing by both the private and public sector for all income groups in the community. Eliminate constraints to The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was approved by the City Council in affordable housing December 2001. It requires that the developer reserve 20% of the proposed housing for moderate and Iow income households. Public Hearing Draft 1-94 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-49 EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES City of South San Francisco Housing Element Policy # 2B: Existing Policy Stimulate thc construction of lower cost units by providing incentives and encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, and manufactured housing. Evaluation Thc Inclusieq~ary llousing Ordinance was approved by thc City Council in Dcccmb~r 2001. It rcquircs that thc dcvclopcr rcsc~vc 20% of thc proposed housing f~ moderate and low income hrsuscholds. Thc City Council also adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance and thc South San Francisco Transit Village Ordinance. The City provides a combination of direct technical assistance, permit streamlining (including compliance with CEOA). and adoption of specific development and design standards to encourage development of residential units, including affordable units. As noted above, the City is constructing a 40-unit senior housing proiect (100 percent below market rate), has recently approved 280 units (with 70 units reserved for below market rate), has approved a 15 unit apartment complex (with four units below market rate), and is reviewing a 350-unit mixed use development (with 70-units below market rate) in the Transit Village District. The City is also pursuing the following: l) Second Units - During the General Plan Uvdate process, City analyzed the Zonin~ Ordinance standards re~arding the construction of second units in single-family residential neighborhoods. The kev development impediment to the development of second units is the existing small lot sizes in many neighborhoods (ranging from 3,000 to 4,000 square feet). Since 1997, the City began to review the existing requirement for on-site parkin~ for the additional unit. The City contacted neighborhood grour)s and found that residents were concerned that if the parking standard is removed, the additional cars usin~ on-street parking would have a negative impact on the adjacent homes. City staff, therefore, investigated a design solution which would permit the additional units without impactin~ the neighborhoods. The Zoning Ordinance amendments, currently (JuN 2002) under review, would relax the parking reauirements by permittin~ the applicant to use tandem parkin~ on lots with large driveways (over 15 feet long). 2) Density Bonus - The residential projects noted above have been approved with a density bonus for the construction of the affordable units. 3) Manufactured housin~ - The City Design Review procedure does not limit the use of innovative materials in residential development. The Zoning Ordinance permits manufactured housin~ that is subiect to the same review procedure as tvnical residential development. City staff would provide direct technical assistance to hell> the applicant nrepare the project for Design Review Board review (for sin[le family) and Plannin~ Commission approval for Planning Commission review. 4) Mixed use development - In 2001, the City Council adopted the Transit Village Plan and Zonin~ Ordinance. The Plan orovides for a range of densities and housin~ Woes. At this time, the City is processin~ an aoplication to construct 350 rental units, with 20 percent of those units fallin~ below market rate. August 12, 2002 1-95 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~, d of South San Francisco TABLE 1-49 EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES City of South San Francisco Housing Element Policy # 2C: 2D: 2E: Goal 3 3A: 3B: Existing Policy Support efforts of non- governmental sponsors to generate affordable housing Evaluation The City ccmtl ibutcd to the dcv~lot,m~cnt of v~l v low inecnnc senior housine r~ oiect with Bi idgc l lousing (Chestnut Creek) alld will be pu,'chasine units at Willow Gardens for rehabilitation fo~ rely Iow income households, in ecmjunction with Mid-l%ninsula llousing. The City has been successful in securine land in advance of a project and negotiating with market rate developers to dedicate land (in exchange for vlanned develovment standards) at no cost to the City. The City vrovides fundine to acauire sites for future residential projects. Furthermore, by creatine the vosition of Housing and Community Development Manager, the City has institutionalized its relationshi~ with non-vrofit housine developers in San Mateo County. The followine recent vroiects illustrate how the City acauires property in anticivation of a project and works directly with both private, for-profit, and non-vrofit developers. Involve the City directly in retaining and increasing the supply of affordable housing Continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an active interest in seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems 1 } Greenrid~e (34 below market rate units}: In 1997, the City worked with the private for-profit developer of the Promenade project to make the land available for the Greenridge project. The project is adjacent to the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. By law, the develover was not reauired to vrovide affordable housing at the time. As vart of the develovment aereement, City negotiated with the develover for the land. The City also contributed $100,000 in uap financing to Mid-Peninsula Housine and $3.4 million in other funds to suvvort the construction of the 34 units. 2) Willow Gardens: The City is assistin~ Mid-Peninsula to acauire and rehabilitate existine units in the area. The City is committine $12 million dollars to purchase and rehabilitate twelve fourplexes in Willow Gardens area. 3} Summerhill (Parc Place): The develover contributed $900,000 to eo svecificallv to the Chestnut Creek senior housine vroiect. The City worked directly with Bridue Housinu to secure the land from California Water Company and vrocess the proiect for avvroval, as described under Policy 1B -- vermit streamlining. Refer to 2C. The City participates in several regional planning groups, including maintaining a representative on ABAG, SAMCEDA, C/CAG, and the Bay Area Council. Provide housing for groups with special needs. Encourage non-profit groups to Refer to 2C. provide housing for the elderly citizens of South San Francisco Encourage the establishment of residential board and care facilities for the elderly in the community The City approved the Aegis project last year. The City funds the Magnolia Senior Center programs. Public Hearing Draft 1-96 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-49 EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES City of South San Francisco Housing Element Policy # Existing Policy 3C: Require the inclusion of handicapped accessible units in all housing projects 3D: 3E: 3F: 3G: Goal 4 4A: Goal 5 5A: Continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the needs of disabled citizens Foster amenities needed by female-headed households Insure provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large families Assist the homeless and those at risk of being homeless Evaluation The City has bccn c~asistcnt with state law and building codes. The City currently funds "house helpers" and the Center for Independence for the Disabled" to retrofit existin~ housin~ units for seniors and the disabled. House Helvers will assist three to four houses each year. The Center retrofits ten units vet year. The City also reauired ADA accessibility in the following affordable residential erojects: 1) Metrovolitan Hotel (67 units) - the SRO rehabilitation project includes wheelchair access: 2) Greenrid~e (34 units) - the City and Mid-Peninsula Housing requires wheelchair access to each unit and handicapved parkin~ near key common areas; and 3) Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project (40 units) - the ¢roiect includes wheelchair access off the ememencv elevator and handicapved parkin~ near entries. Thc City has been active in supporting programs to modify existing units to bctm serve thc needs of disabled citizens. Refer to Policy 2C and 3C. This should be changed to reflect single parent households. No policy or program exists at this time. Follow-up to thc Inelusicn~ary Ordinance will include requite.ncnts for number ,f bedrooms. As a follow-ur to the Inclusionarv Ordinance, the City will include a requirement that the developer vrovide units with three or more bedrooms. Currently (JuN 2002), the City works directly with vrivate non-profit housine develovers to build units with more bedrooms, such as: Greenridee: The City worked with Mid-Peninsula Housine to find fundine to build 3-4 bedroom units for the entire vroiect that would meet the needs of lamer families. Willow Gardens: The City's rehabilitation strategy is to redesien the existine 2-bedroom units to become 3-bedroom units and a family room to meet larger family needs. Thc City has wxr, rked with San Matco County to build a homeless center on No, th Ai, t,o, t Boulevard. Thc City has assisted SAFE I IARBOR which has been in operation for the past two y~:a~ s. In FY 2000, thc City allocated in CDBG money. The City has worked with San Mateo County to build a homeless center in South San Francisco on North Aimort Boulevard. The City has assisted SAFE HARBOR which has been in operation for the vast two years. In Fiscal Year 2000, the City allocated CDBG money to support the project. Assist citizens in locating and retaining affordable housing without discrimination. Strive to eliminate housing Through Staff direct assistance and funding, the City actively strives to discrimination by race, sex, age, eliminate housing discrimination. The City funds LaRaza and Project religion, and natural origin. Sentinnel. Protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards. Prohibit new residential development in the areas containing major environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation measures are taken Thc City limits rcsidcntial dcvclo~nent in thc East of 101 Ama Plan and has thc agreement with thc San Francisco Intc,,,ational Al, ~,o, t which limits housing no, th of thc al, },o, t. As required by the San Francisco International Airvort. the City is required to limit residential development in the East of 101 Area. The Airvort requirement is in place until 2006. August 12, 2002 1-97 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~ of South San Francisco TABLE 1-49 EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES City of South San Francisco Housing Element Policy # 5B: 5C: 5D: 5E: Existing Policy Require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property- related crimes. Require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan Assist owners of existing dwellings to mitigate the impact of airport noise Foster efforts to conserve energy in residential structures Evaluation The Police Department reviews of all development applications and includes specific requirements for lighting. This is accomplished through General Plan policies, C/CAG requirements, and the agreement with the San Francisco International Airport. The City is involved with the Airport Noise Program to fund the installation of new windows. This is accomplished through building code requirements. Source: City of South San Francisco Planning Department, January 2002. Evaluation for Policy 1.B The City utilizes permit streamlining programs that are established by the State of California's Department of Trade and Commerce and endorsed by local economic development organizations, such as CALED. In 1997. the City worked with the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) to prepare the permit streamlining and regulatory reform program in San Mateo County. The attachment to this memorandum indicates that the City of South San Francisco is a member of the Permit Streamlining and Regulatory Reform Team that prepared the report and implemented SAMCEDA's recommendations. The City of South San Francisco uses the "One-Stop Shop Permit Center" model to "fast track" development applications. The City provides technical support to help the applicant prepare the application and to comply with State mandated requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CE@A). In targeted areas -- such as redevelopment project areas, downtown and next to the transit stations - the City prepared program environmental impact reports (El Camino Real Corridor EIR and the General Plan EIR) at taxpayers expense to analyze potential project impacts and provided for a community outreach program. Specific projects could build off of the program EIR with a focused Negative Declaration or an environmental determination as previously assessed. See Figure 2 which shows how the City assists residential developers. Where appropriate, the City self-finances the General Plan and zoning amendments to create the conditions that would encourage new residential development. In 1997. the City began the General Plan Update process and evaluated a variety of alternative approaches to providing affordable housing from local employees and residents. In 1999, with the adoption of the General Plan, the City continued a two-year evaluation of the local housing market, including determining the level of affordability and evaluating the review process to stimulate affordable housing construction. Public Hearing Draft 1-98 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report The following project benefited from the City's efforts and technical support. In 2001-2002, the City processed the 280-unit Marbella Housing project (approved in 2002) on a previously undevelopable site (due to the steep slope). With City technical assistance, the developer was able to provide twenty-five percent below-market-rate units. Currently, City staff is assisting the applicant, Fairfield Development, to construct a 350-unit apartment complex (including twenty percent below-market rate units) in the Transit Village District. The City's technical assistance is designed to fast-track the project through the review process. City staff provides technical assistance, coordinate meetings and tours, disseminate information, prepared the appropriate data for project approval. In anticipation of high-density development in the Transit Village area, the City rezoned the area from Commercial to mixed-use high-density residential and commercial. Beyond technical assistance to the developer, the City prepared the necessary zoning and development standards on the sites in anticipation of the mixed use project at its own expense. In 2001, the City initiated its own (self financed) process to rezone several parcels near the South San Francisco BART station from commercial to mixed-use residential with local serving commercial. The nine-month process included 1) hiring a urban design consultant to prepare development standards and housing prototypes for the sites at taxpayers expense, 2) preparing the master environmental document for adoption, 3) holding three study sessions and two community meetings with local officials and neighborhoods, 4) organizing a Planning Commission/Design Review Board/property owners Stakeholder Committee to review the plans and alternatives, and 5) adopting a Transit Village Zoning District before the applicant was ready to submit an application. Following adoption of the Zoning Amendment, City staff prepared a Request for Proposals, for the property owner, to both private and non-profit developers. The City met with all the potential applicants to analyze methods to provide below-market-rate units and construct a high-quality project on the site. City staff also consulted directly with Mid-Peninsula Housing (a non-profit housing provider) to determine specific construction costs, parking standards, and appropriate unit sizes (for the targeted families) to make the projects work. If the potential private developer could not afford the below market rate units, the non-profit providers were willing to build those units on each site and let the private developer build the market rate units. In both cases, the private developer chose to build the below-market-rate units on their Since the City provided the necessary conditions to proceed with the development, the applicant will be required to provide plans and complete the Environmental Checklist for Planning Commission approval. According to the attached flow chart, the City anticipates that the Fairfield Housing project will take approximately 95 days from application submittal to Planning Commission public hearing. As noted above, South San Francisco has approved and built a significant percentage of the new housing in San Mateo County. However, since residential developers respond to the market, the City recognized that the majority of new housing was not affordable. Several residential developers promised the City that they were building homes that would be affordable ($350,000-400,000 range) when the received their approvals. The houses actually were marketed for $600,000 when the housing were ready for sale. The City Council adopted the Inclusionary Ordinance in order to encourage private developers to build affordable (low and moderate) units or work with non-profit builders. The City would be responsible for building or rehabilitating units for very low income households. August 12, 2002 1-99 Public Hearing Draft Background Report ~ . of South San Francisco TABLE 1-50 EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM City of South San Francisco Program # IA-I IA-2 IB-I lB-2 IC-I 1C-2 Implementation Program Support thc Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding Accomplished? Comments CDBG and R¢&vclopmcnt Agency Ongoing: CDBG and Redevelovment Agency Aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, Yes and safety codes Support Private Market Construction Yes Work with the owner to develop a plan for annexation of the R.I. McClellan property (Site No. 10 on Figures 26 and 27) Review the Zoning Ordinance Provide adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city Yes Yes Yes The City contributed $400,000 to the Commercial Avenue rehabilitation, $130,000 to Willow Gardens rehab., and $50,000/yr. to other rehab, efforts. Code Enforcement division has been enlarged. Development approvals (see Major Projects List) The Promenade/Greenridge project formerly on Mclellan Nursery site and part of the County was annexed with the approval of the development. The City is currently (January 2002) reviewing the Zoning Ordinance. The City is completing the Water Quality Control Plant upgrade, Airport Boulevard improvements, roadway improvements on Chestnut and El Camino Real. 1C-3 2A-1 Ensure new development and rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings Promote affordable housing Yes Yes This is accomplished through General Plan policies, Transit Village Plan, Zoning Ordinance (Design Review process) The lnclusionary Housing Ordinance was approved by the City Council in December 2001. It requires that the developer reserve 20% of the proposed housing for moderate and low income households. Refer also to comment on Policy 1 .B. 2B-I Encourage a mix of uses in Commercial and Office Zoning Districts 2Bo2 Support the development of "Second Housing Units" 2B-3 2B-4 Grant a "Density Bonus" to developments that include low-income, very low-income, or senior citizen units Complete a study of increasing residential densities around future BART station and required implementation Yes Yes Yes Yes This was accomplished with the South San Francisco Transit Village District and Ordinance; General Plan policies in Downtown. The Zoning Ordinance permits second unit housing in residential areas, subject to specific development and parking standards. In December 2001, the City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance that allows for a 25% bonus for developments that include affordable units. The City created the South San Francisco BART Transit Village District, which permits higher density development and reduced parking Public Hearing Draft 1-100 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Background Report TABLE 1-50 EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM City of South San Francisco Program # Implementation Program Accomplished? Comments 2B-5 Study the land use compatibility of increasing Yes residential densities along major streets in the downtown redevelopment area 2B-6 2C-1 Appoint a Housing Programs Administrator to Yes oversee Housing Element Programs and maintain the element Maintain a list of major agencies and Yes organizations participating in housing-related activities 2C-2 2C-3 2D-I Allocate Redevelopment funds to non-profit housing agencies that assist in providing or developing low-income housing Support non-profits in the placement of individuals and small households needing housing with people who have excess space in their homes and who are willing to share that space Continue to operate and rent 80 units of public housing 2D-2 Provide financial assistance for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies 2D-3 Acquire land for rental projects 2D-4 Subsidize purchases or buy down the developer's cost of rental units in new for-profit developments Yes Yes IISG Authority Ongoine:: HSG Authoritv-SSF Yes Yes Yes standards. The 1999 General Plan increased residential densities in designated residential and commercial neighborhoods. The Transit Village District permits high density development (up to 50 units/acre) along the El Camino Real corridor. The HCD was reorganized and expanded (with new staff) to incorporate required tasks. HCD staff coordinates with San Mateo County and non-profit housing groups in supporting housing projects, programs, social services, and shared funding. See above project, including Commercial Avenue, Willow Gardens, Greenridge, and Downtown (Metropolitan Hotel) The City has cooperated with Human Investment Project (HIP). The City has allocated $700,000 to support the project The City assists rehabilitation of existing units by provided $1.2 million in improvements for the Grand Hotel and $1.2 million for the Metropolitan Hotel. Mission/Chestnut Senior Housing Project $1.0 million, 2 units on Pine and 1 unit on Hillside. The City adopted the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that provides the developer flexibility to provide rental units. The City will vurchase one unit from a vrivate developer (the Pine Hsu proiect) and will sell it to a low income household at 80 vercent of median income. The City also neeotiated with a developer to include five below market rate units in the Oak Farms develovment. The developer will build the units for medium-income families. The City contributed CDBG funds to bring the affordabilitv level for the five units down to 100 percent of median August 12, 2002 1-101 Public Hearing Draft Background Report C of South San Francisco TABLE 1-50 EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM City of South San Francisco Program # Implementation Program Accomplished? Comments 2D-5 Continue to enforce limits on conversion of Yes apartment units to condominiums 2D-6 2E-I 2E-2 2E-3 Retain 268 units subsidized under Department No of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 contracts for lower-income seniors and families Support State and federal legislation to make Yes housing more affordable for owners and renters Participate with San Marco County in its Yes Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs Continue to support San Marco County's Yes Federal Section 8 Housing Assistance Program 2E-4 3A-I Provide Interest-free loans for rehabilitating Discontinued apartments Yes Offer a density bonus for senior housing Yes 3A-2 3B-1 Provide funding for minor repairs of homes Yes owned and occupied by Iow-income senior citizens Continue to allow reduced parking requirements Yes for this use 3C-1 3D-I 3E-I Review development plans and require Yes modification for accessibility Provide CDBG funds to the Center for the Yes Independence of the Disabled to make housing units accessible to the disabled The City will strongly encourage the inclusion Yes of childcare and after-school-care facilities within or near affordable and higher density housing and mixed use developments 3F-I Require that 20 percent of all below-market-rate No The Municipal Code includes the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, which requires $ percent vacancy prior to conversion. San Mateo County is losing the Skyline project. City HCD has lobbied to extend Section 8 another 2 years. This is accomplished through the Inclusionary Ordinance and General Plan policies. Ongoing. The County of San Mateo manages the program. However, HCD staff works directly with Federal Agencies and the County of San Marco to inspect The City still provides loans based on available funding. The 1999 General Plan include policies that encourage a density bonus for senior housing. The Density Bonus Ordinance permits a density bonus for all residential projects with affordable housing. The City expanded services include $40,000/yr. for home improvements and $25,000/yr. For vouchers. Transit Village Ordinance and General Plan policies specifically permit reduced parking standards near transit centers. Zoning Ordinance development standards and review criteria. $13,000/yr is allocated from HCD. The General Plan contains policies that require child care facilities in both residential and commercial developments, The Transit Village Ordinance designates a specific parcel for development of a child care facility. The City recently adopted the Child Care Ordinance which creates a development fee to support child care services in the city. Not required at this time. The City Public Hearing Draft 1-102 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisc(, Background Report TABLE 1-50 EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM City of South San Francisco Program # Implementation Program Accomplished? Comments housing are three- and four-bedroom units 3G-I 3G-2 Provide emergency rent funds to assist eligible Yes persons to avoid eviction, or to rent an apartment Provide funds for transitional housing Yes does enter into specific Development Agreements with developers to ensure that there is a variety of units for all families. Industrial Hotel residents were provided direct assistance HIP program - $25,000 Home Admin - $38,000 over three years 4A-1 5A-I 5B-1 Provide legal counseling and other advice and Yes services concerning fair housing laws, rights, and remedies to those who believe they have been discriminated against Residential Projects will be reviewed for major Yes environmental hazards during the environmental review process Continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Yes Minimum Building Security Standards, of the Municipal Code 5C-1 All new residential development shall be Yes reviewed for compliance with the County Airport Land Use Plan 5D-1 Continue to assist homeowners in insulating Yes units adversely affected by airport noise, pursuant to the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 5E-I Continue to provide information on energy- Yes efficient standards for residential buildings 5E-2 Assist energy and water conserving Yes modifications in existing residential buildings Source: Economic and Community Development Department, January 2002. The HCD provides the following funding: La Raza - $15,000/year and Project Sentinnel - $6,000 Environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code set standards for security. The City's Police Department enforces requirements through the City's development entitlement process. The General Plan contains policies that require review of certain projects by the San Francisco International Airport. Airport Land Use review is also a requirement of C/CAG. The SFO/City Agreement gave the City funds to create the Noise Insulation Program, which is nearly completion. Building Code requirements Building Code requirements August 12, 2002 1-103 Public Hearing Draft City of South San Francisco Background Report · Designates a Loft Overlay District in the older industrial area. · The City has amended the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to implement General Plan policies, including the following: · Designation of the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District which contains standards for higher density development on infill sites and reduced parking standards · Adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as a necessary to encourage affordable housing production. · Adoption of the Density Bonus Ordinance. · Adoption of the Childcare ordinance. In summary, South San Francisco is well positioned to meet the General Plan housing goals and meet the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination allocation. Indeed, of 768 very-low, low, and moderate income units required, the City of South San Francisco has already approved or built 264 units. The remaining 504 units should result from a continuation of efforts between now and 2006. August 12, 2002 1-105 Public Hearing Draft GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Under California law, the housing element must include the community's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. This Housing Element includes six goal statements. Under each goal statement, the element sets out policies that amplify the goal statement. Implementation programs are listed at the end of the corresponding policy or group of policies and describe briefly the proposed action, the City agencies or departments with primary responsibility for carrying out the program, and the time frame for accomplishing the program. Several of the implementation programs also have quantified objectives listed. The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element Policy Document: Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable. Policy: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. Implementation Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy. Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated time frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the calendar year in which the activity is scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary considerations. Quantified objectives (where applicable to individual implementation programs) are the number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated. Quantified Objective: the number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated, and the number of households the City expects will be assisted through Housing Element programs based on general market conditions during the time frame of the Housing Element. The housing element law recognizes that in developing housing policy and programs, identified housing needs may exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy these needs. The quantified objectives of the housing element, therefore, need not be identical to the identified housing need but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. August 12, 2002 I1-1 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION GOAL 1 To promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community. (Existing HE Goal 2) Availability of Sites for New Construction Policy 1-1 The City shall maintain an adequate supply of land to meet its 1999-2006 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) of 277 very low income units, 131 low income units, 360 moderate income units, and 563 above moderate units. (New Policy) Program 1-1A The City shall annually update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcel identified in Tables 1-32 and 1-33 of the Housing Element Background Report. The City shall also conduct an annual review of the composition of the housing stock, the types of dwelling units under construction or expected to be constructed during the following year, and the anticipated mix, based on development proposals approved or under review by the City, of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the period covered by the Housing Element. This analysis will be compared to the City's remaining 1999-2006 Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) to determine if any changes in land use policy are warranted. (New Program) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: Annually Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-2 The City shall implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (New Policy) Program 1-2A The City shall adopt and implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring new residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percent low- and moderate-income housing. (New Program) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council Time Frame: FY 2001-2002, Ongoing Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: 111 low-income units and 167 moderate-income units Program 1-2B The City shall prepare an Annual Report summarizing by project the number of units developed under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (New Program) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council Time Frame: Annually Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Public Hearing Draft 11-2 August 12, 2002 0 0 City of South San Francisco Policy Document Policy 1-3 In addition to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City shall investigate other methods for providing affordable housing units. (New Policy) Program 1-3A The City shall determine the feasibility of establishing a commercial linkage fee. (New Program) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; City Council Time Frame: FY 2002-2003 Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-4 The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers in consolidating infill parcels designated for multi-family residential development when it facilitates efficient development of the parcels. (New Policy) Program 1-4A The Redevelopment Agency shall acquire sites that are either vacant or were developed with vacant, underutilized, blighted, and nonconforming uses and will make the sites available to non-profit developers. (Existing Program 2D-3). Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: 1999 - 2006 Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund Quantified Objective: Acquire land sufficient for 60 units by 2006. Policy 1-5 The City shall promote the construction of lower cost units by providing incentives and encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, loft-style units, and manufactured housing. (Existing Policy 2B) Program 1-5A The City shall review its Zoning Ordinance to assure that it has the tools and flexibility needed to encourage a variety of unit sizes and mix of housing types including single family condominiums, cluster projects, PUDs, townhomes, cooperatives, mobile homes, senior projects, and manufactured housing. The Zoning Ordinance may include the following criteria and standards: establishment of a residential FAR establishment of specific parking standards for residential second units establishment of specific design and development standards for all housing types Responsibility: Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; City Council Time Frame: Complete review and amendments by December 2002. Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ August 12, 2002 11-3 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco Policy 1-6 The City shall implement the Density Bonus Ordinance. (New Policy) Program 1-6A The City shall adopt and implement the Density Bonus Ordinance for projects that include affordable housing in over 20 percent of the project. (Existing Program 2B-3) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; City Council Time Frame: FY 2001-2002 Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: 50 units between 1999 and 2006 Policy 1-7 The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas designated as Do~vntown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District. (New Policy) Policy 1-8 The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family designated and zoned parcels. (New Policy) Program 1-8A The City shall revise the Zoning Ordinance to remove constraints to the development of second units, such as overly restrictive parking standards and setback requirements. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, City Council Time Frame: FY 2002-2003 Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: 20 second units Program 1-8B The City shall actively promote community education on second units by posting information regarding second units on the City's website and providing brochures at the public counter in the Department of Economic and Community Development. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: FY 2002-2003 Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: see 1-8A Policy 1-9 The City shall maximize oppommities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. Policy 1-10 Where appropriate, the City shall encourage the consolidation of parcels designated for multi-family residential development when it facilitates efficient development of the parcels. Public Hearing Draft 11-4 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document Program 1-10A The City shall establish development standards in the Municipal Code that would determine the lot-size requirements for sites designated as High Density Residential, Downtown High Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential in order to promote the consolidation of parcels designated for multi-family residential or mixed-use multi-family residential/commercial development. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: 2003 Funding Source: City Funds Quantified Objective: NQ Administrative Support, Housing Funding and Permit Streamlining Policy 1-11 The City shall continue to operate the "One Stop Permit Center" in order to provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. (Revised Existing Policy lB) Program 1-1 lA To support private market construction, the City shall work with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; design housing projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; providing timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval; and interfacing with community groups and local residents to ensure public support of maj or new housing developments. (Existing Program 1B-l). Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division and Housing and Community Development Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-12 The City shall support efforts to generate affordable housing. (Existing Policy 2C) Program 1-12A The City shall allocate redevelopment funds to non-profit housing agencies that assist in providing or developing low-income housing through such means as providing funds for land purchase and rehabilitation. (Revised Program 2C-2) Responsibility off Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: FY 1999 - 2006 Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund Quantified Objective: 60 units by 2006. August 12, 2002 11-5 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco Program 1-12B The City should negotiate with the South San Francisco Unified School District to reduce school impact fees. Responsibility of: City Council, Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: FY 2002-2003 Funding Source: City Funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-13 The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements are already committed. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public rights-of-way. (Existing Program 1C-2) Policy 1-14 The City shall continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an active interest in seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems. The City supports the concept that all communities should make a good faith effort to meet the housing needs of very low-, low- and moderate-income households in their area in a manner that is not disproportionate for any community and which recognizes the degree of effort made in prior years. (Existing Policy 2E) Program 1-14A The City shall participate with San Mateo County in its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: California Debt Limit Allocation Committee Quantified Objective: Assist 20 moderate income households with home purchases Program 1-14B The City shall continue participating in the San Mateo County Housing Investment Project (CHIP), which is a consortium of several cities located in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, lenders, school districts, and other interested parties that seek to establish a countywide first-time home buyer program. (New Program) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: Annually Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-15 The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes with Public Hearing Draft 11-6 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy lC) Policy 1-16 The City shall support excellence in design through the continued use of the design review board and/or staff and adherence to CEQA while ensuring that this process carried out expeditiously. Policy 1-17 The City shall ensure that the objectives of this Housing Element are carried out within the Element's time frame (1999-2006). (New Policy) Program 1-17A The City shall continue to maintain Housing Element and the Element's programs. Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund, CDBG funds, and General Fund for remaining non-qualifying functions Quantified Objective: NQ Program 1-17B The City shall maintain and regularly update a list of major agencies and organizations participating in housing-related activities, including address, telephone, and brief description of their function. Responsibility off Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-18 The City shall ensure that developers and city residents are made aware of key housing programs and development opportunities. (New Policy) Program 1-18A To widen the availability of information to interested residents, the City shall update its website to include information on affordable housing, housing programs, and inclusionary units. (New Program) Responsibility of.' Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: FY 2002-2003 Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ August 12, 2002 11-7 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco Related General Plan Policies · See also General Plan Land Use Element policies 2-I-6, 2-I-10, 2-I-15, 2-I-18, and 2-I-19. See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element policies 3. l-G-3, 3.1-I-l, 3.1-I-3, 3.3-I-5, 3.3-I- 12A, 3.4-I-8, 3.4-I-9, 3.4-I-16, 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.10-G-I, 3.10-I-1, and 3.11-I-1 · See also General Plan Economic Development Element policies 6-I-2, and 6-I-13, MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK GOAL 2 To conserve and enhance existing residential neighborhoods while maintaining affordability in existing neighborhoods and neighborhoods with low-income families. Policy 2-1 The City shall continue to encourage private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and private rehabilitation of housing. (New Policy) Policy 2-2 As appropriate, the City shall use State and Federal funding assistance to the fullest extent these subsidies exist to rehabilitate housing. The City shall continue to give housing rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. (New Policy) Policy 2-3 The City shall prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds for acquisition and rehabilitation of housing in older residential neighborhoods. The City would target funds in order to preserve the older housing stock that exist in older neighborhoods with low income families. Policy 2-4 The City shall maintain and improve neighborhoods through the use of systematic code enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs and other available incentives. The City shall focus on properties in older neighborhoods with low- income families, such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck's Lots. Program 2-4A The City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes. (Existing Program 1.A-2) Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Public Hearing Draft 11-8 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document Program 2-4B The City shall seek to eliminate incompatible land uses or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures. (New Policy) Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 2-5 The City shall ensure that all rental properties in the community are well maintained. To this end, the City shall aggressively enforce health and safety code regulations on these units. (New Policy) Policy 2-6 The City shall continue to support the revitalization of older neighborhoods by keeping streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in good repair. The City shall continue to work cooperatively with other agencies and utilities concerning the maintenance of their properties and equipment in South San Francisco. (New Policy) Program 2-6A As appropriate, the City shall create a capital improvement and housing rehabilitation program to upgrade housing in older neighborhoods with low income housing, such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck's Lots. (New Program) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: General Fund, RDA and CDBG Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 2-7 The City shall ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy lC) Policy 2-8 The City shall use City and Redevelopment Agency rehabilitation and other programs as appropriate to arrest the deterioration of newer housing and neighborhoods that are already showing signs of deterioration before repair costs become excessive. (New Policy) Policy 2-9 The City shall strive to maintain the existing multi-family housing stock. (New Policy) Program 2-9A The City shall provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of owner-occupied single-family homes by supporting the Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding. The City shall give priority is given to homes in the Downtown Target Area. (Revised Program 1.A-l) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division August 12, 2002 11-9 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG Quantified Objective: 40 Units by 2006. Program 2-9B The City shall support the South San Francisco Housing Authority in the continued operation and renting of 80 units of public housing. (Existing Program 2D-1) Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents Quantified Objective: Preserve 80 units. Policy 2-10 The City shall strive to preserve existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies. (New Policy) Program 2-10A The City shall provide financial assistance for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area. (Existing Program 2D-2) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Time Frame: 1999 - 2006 Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund Quantified Objective: Upgrade 60 Single Rooms between 1999 and 2006. Policy 2-11 The City shall sthve to limit the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. (New Policy) Program 2-11A The City shall continue to enforce limits on conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are allowed only if they meet the following general criteria: a) b) c) d) e) A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least 5 percent exists; The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City's available housing stock; Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting condominium projects; The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the time of conversion; and The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan. Since the Ordinance was adopted, no conversions have occurred. This has helped retain a rental housing stock in the community that provides a substantial source of housing for low- and moderate-income families. (Existing Program 2D-5) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: NQ Public Hearing Draft I1-10 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document Policy 2-12 The City shall support State and Federal legislation to make housing more affordable for owners and renters, and to permit rehabilitation of existing deteriorated housing without an increase in tax assessments. (Existing Program 2E-l) Policy 2-13 The City shall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing units at risk of converting to market rate housing. (New Policy) Policy 2-14 The City shall track affordability levels in the City by monitoring changes in housing sales prices and rental rates. (New Policy) Program 2-14A The City shall regularly monitor housing sales price trends of existing units and new units to determine housing affordability levels. (New Program) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: Annually Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Program 2-14B The City shall regularly monitor rental rates to document any trends of unwarranted and unreasonable rent increases. If there are signs of unwarranted and unreasonable rent increases, the City shall investigate the feasibility of establishing a mediation board (New Program) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: Annually Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Related General Plan Policies See also General Plan Land Use Element policies 2-G-l, 2-G-5, 2-G-6, 2-G-7, 2-1-3, 2-I-7, 2-1-8, 2-1- 9, and 2-I- 15. See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element Policies 3. l-G-2, 3. l-G4, 3.1-1-2, 3.1-I-5, 3.1-I- 12, 3.4-G-4, 3.4-I-2, 3.6-I-2, 3.7-I-2, 3.8-G-1, 3.8-I-1, 3.8-I-3, and 3.12-G-1. · See also General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policy 7.5-1-1. August 12, 2002 I1-11 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco SPECIAL NEEDS GOAL 3 To provide housing for groups with special needs. Policy 3-1 The City shall continue to give special attention in housing programs to the needs of special groups, including the disabled, large families, the elderly, and families with low incomes. (New Policy) Senior Programs Policy 3-2 The City shall encourage the development of housing for elderly. (New Policy) Program 3-2A The City shall monitor the demand for senior housing to ensure that their needs are being met on an ongoing basis. (New Policy) Policy 3-3 The City shall encourage non-profit groups to provide housing for the elderly citizens of South San Francisco. The City should encourage the development of senior housing in higher density areas close to shopping and transportation. (Existing Policy 3A) Program 3-3A The City shall continue to grant density bonuses for senior housing projects. The City shall allow up to 50 units per acre for senior housing projects and permit reduced parking standards. (Revised Program 3A-l) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division and Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: 100 senior housing units between 1999 and 2006. Program 3-3B The City shall continue to provide funding for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by low-income senior citizens. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. (Revised Program 3A-2) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG funds Quantified Objective: 100 units from 1999 to 2006 Policy 3-4 The City shall encourage the establishment of a range of housing types for seniors including residential board and care facilities for the elderly in the community. (Existing Policy 3B) Program 3-4A The City shall continue to allow reduced parking requirements for residential board and care facilities. (Existing Program 3B-l) Public Hearing Draft 11-12 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: NQ Disabled Programs Policy 3-5 Consistent with State law, the City shall require the inclusion of handicapped accessible units in all housing projects. In all new apartment projects with five or more units, State law requires that 5 percent of the units constructed be fully accessible to the physically disabled. (Existing Policy 3C) Program 3-5A The City shall review development plans to assure consistency with state handicap and accessibility laws and require modifications for accessibility. (Existing Program 3C. 1) Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: Enforcement of applicable State and federal standards. Program 3~5B The City shall review its Zoning Ordinance and other development procedures to ensure compliance with fair housing laws and ensure that these regulations do not create a hardship for persons with disabilities. The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance and change its permit processing procedures, as needed, to facilitate accessibility for disabled persons. Policy 3-6 Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Timeframe: 2003 Funding Source: City funds Ouantified Objective: NQ The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the needs of disabled citizens. (Existing Policy 3D) Program 3-6A The City shall continue to provide funds to make housing units accessible to the disabled. (Existing Program 3D-l) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG funds Quantified Objective: 125 units from 1999 to 2006 August 12, 2002 11-13 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco Policy 3-7 The City shall provide reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities to ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of this is to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City. Program 3-7A The City shall amend its Municipal Code as necessary to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development Timeframe: 2003 Funding Source: City funds Ouantified Objective: NO Program 3-7B The City shall create a public information brochure on reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and provide that information on the City's website. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development Timeframe: 2003 Funding Source: City funds Ouantified Objective: NO Large Families Programs Policy 3-8 The City shall encourage provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large families. (Existing Policy 3F) Homeless Programs Policy 3-9 The City shall assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. (Existing Policy 3G) Policy 3-10 The City shall be an active participant in the County of San Mateo "Continuum of Care" planning process that supports emergency shelters, temporary housing, transitional programs, and general housing assistance for the homeless. (New Policy) Program 3-10A The City shall continue to be an active participant in the Continuum of Care planning process with the appropriate homeless agencies in its efforts to address the needs of South San Francisco residents in need of emergency shelter or temporary housing. (New Program) Responsibility of: Dept. of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Fund Public Hearing Draft 11-14 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document Quantified Objective: NQ Program 3-10B The City shall support non-profits, such as Human Investment Project, Inc (HIP), in the placement of low-income individuals and small households needing housing with individuals who have excess space in their homes and who are willing to share that space. (Revised Program 2C-3) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund Quantified Objective: 350 placements between 1999 and 2006. Program 3-10C The City shall continue to provide funds to organizations that provide transitional housing. (Revised Program 3G-2) Responsibility off Dept. of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Fund Quantified Objective: 210 placements of families and/or individuals between 1999 and 2006 Program 3-1 OD The City shall sponsor the construction and operation of a 90-bed year round homeless shelter with city limits. Once the shelter is completed and operational, the City shall provide on-going support to ensure the continued operation of the shelter. (New Program) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: FY 2001-2002 Funding Source: CDBG, RDA Housing & Set Aside. Quantified Objective: Construction and operation of a 90-bed year round homeless shelter. Program 3-10E The City shall continue to provide financial assistance to organizations helping families with social services including case management and referrals for housing and homeless prevention. (New Program) Responsibility of.' Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG Quantified Objective: Case management and referrals for 500 individuals and families per year from 1999 to 2006. August 12, 2002 11-15 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Goal 4 To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of age, race, gender, religion, marital status, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary factors. Policy 4-1 The City shall promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of age, race, sex, religion, marital status, national origin, disability, and or other barriers that prevent choice in housing. (New Policy) Policy 4-2 The City shall provide information and referrals regarding fair housing complaints, tenant- landlord conflicts, habitability, and other general housing assistance. (New Policy) Program 4-2A The City shall provide access to legal counseling and advocacy concerning fair housing laws, rights, and remedies to those who believe they have been discriminated against. Persons requesting information or assistance related to housing discrimination are referred to one or more fair housing group (s). (Existing Program 4.A-l) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG Quantified Objective: 5 discrimination cases and 10 tenant-landlord cases pursued each year between 1999 and 2006. Program 4-2B The City shall provide funding assistance to organizations that provide counseling and tenant-landlord issues, habitability and other general housing assistance. Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG Quantified Objective: 100 habitability cases pursued each year between 1999 and 2006. NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY Goal 5 To protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards. Policy 5-1 The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation measures are taken. (Existing Policy 5A) Policy 5-2 The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with Public Hearing Draft 11-16 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property-related crimes. (Existing Policy 5B) Policy 5-3 As appropriate and required by law, the City shall continue the abatement of unsafe structures. (New Policy) Program 5-3A The City shall review residential projects for major environmental hazards during the environmental review process. The City shall not approve the projects unless the hazards are adequately mitigated. (Existing Program 5A-l) Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: General Fund Quantified Objective: All residential projects. Program 5-3B The City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security Standards, of the Municipal Code. (Existing Program 5B-l) Responsibility: Police Department Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: General Fund Quantified Objective: All new residential units shall comply with City standards. Policy 5-4 The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing Policy 5C) Program 5-4A The City shall review all new residential development for compliance with the County Airport Land Use Plan. Any incompatible residential use will either be eliminated or mitigation measures will be taken to reduce interior noise levels within the acceptable range in accordance with the Noise Element. (Existing Program 5C-1) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: General Fund Quantified Objective: All new residential projects. Program 5-4B The City shall investigate the feasibility of pursuing additional funding to support the Airport Noise Insulation Program to assist homeowners in insulating units adversely affected by airport noise, pursuant to the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Section 49 USC 2101 et seq.). This is a broad-based project to reduce aircraft-associated noise inside residences. This program is available regardless of income level. (New Policy) August 12, 2002 11-17 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco Responsibility: Department of Public Works Time Frame: 1999-2006 Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: To insulate existing homes within the 65 CNEL zone. Related General Plan Policies · See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element policies 3.2-G-4, 3.3-G-1, and 3.5-I-3. See also General Plan Health and Safety Element policies 8.1-G-I, 8.1-I-3, 8.2-I-2, 8.5-G-2, 8.5- I-3, 9-G-l, 9-G-2, 9-I-3, and 9-I-4. ENERGY CONSERVATION Goal 6 To encourage energy efficiency in all new and existing homes. (New Goal) Policy 6-1 The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new residential structures. (New Policy) Program 6-lA The City shall assist with energy and water conserving modifications features in existing residential rehabilitation projects.(Existing Program 5E-2) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: CDBG funds Quantified Objective: Ten units annually. Policy 6-5 When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to respond to climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shadow patterns. (New Policy) Program 6-5A The City shall continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for residential buildings (e.g., brochures and other information). The City shall promotes the use of passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential buildings to ensure that State residential energy conservation building standards are met. (Existing Program 5E-l) Responsibility of: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: State standards enforced in all new construction. Policy 6-6. The City shall promote the use of weatherization programs for existing residential units especially among low-income households. (New Policy) Public Hearing Draft 11-18 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document Policy 6-7 The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving design and construction techniques in all types of projects (including new construction and remodeled and rehabilitated structures). (New Policy) Program 6-7A The City shall continue to enforce State requirements, including Title 24 requirements, for energy conservation in residential development and encourage residential developers to consider employing additional energy conservation measures with respect to the following: (New Program) Street and driveway design Lot pattern and configuration Siting of buildings Landscaping Solar access Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: City Budget Quantified Objective: NQ August 12, 2002 11-19 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES Table II-1 summarizes the quantified objectives by program and income level that are expected to contribute to the construction, rehabilitation, or conservation of units during the time frame of the Housing Element (2001-2006). These objectives represent a reasonable expectation for the new housing units that will be developed and the households that will be assisted based on the policies and implementation programs outlined in this Housing Element and general market conditions. Table II-1 also indicates ABAG's net new construction need for South San Francisco by income group. The programs in this section commit the City of South San Francisco to a construction objective of 528 new affordable units, a number that will exceed the City's fair share of regional needs as determined by ABAG. In addition, the City plans the rehabilitation or improvement of 325 units and the conservation of 80 public housing units. All these units would be available to low- and very-low-income households, and 125 would be for handicapped households. Other housing assistance programs will provide help for 560 households annually, majority (515) of which will be very low- or low-income households. Public Hearing Draft 11-20 August 12, 2002 City of South San Francisco Policy Document TABLE I1-1 SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME LEVEL City of South San Francisco Construction Programs Total Units Very Low Low Moderate NEW CONSTRUCTION South San Francisco Fair Share Allocation ABAG Housing Need Determination 1,331 277 131 360 (1999-2006) Permit Development Activity (July 1,848 167 0 97 1, 1999 - December 31, 2001) Remaining Need (January l, 2002 - 504 110 131 263 July l, 2006) Pending Projects BART Development Parcels 350 -- 28 40 Stonegatc Estates 24 -- 4 -- Willow Gardens 16 8 8 -- Units Developed Through Implementation Measures Program 1-2A - Inclusionary 278 -- 111 167 Housing Ordinance Program I-4A - Acquire land by 60 40 20 -- RDA for non-profit developers Program I-6A - Density Bonus 50 -- 25 25 Ordinance Program I-SA - Promote second 20 -- 10 l 0 units Program 1-12A: MCC Program 20 .... 20 Program 3-3A - Density Bonuses for 100 60 40 -- senior housing projects Total Construction 528 100 206 222 REHABILITATION PROGRAMS Program 2-9A - Support Housing 40 20 20 -- Rehabilitation Program Above Moderate 563 1,584 1,021 (surplus) 282 20 August 12, 2002 11-21 Public Hearing Draft Policy Document City of South San Francisco TABLE I1-1 SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME LEVEL City of South San Francisco Construction Programs Total Units Very Low Low Program 2-10A - Provide physical 60 60 -- improvements to SROs Program 3-3B - Repairs for Iow 100 95 5 income senior housing Program 3-6A - Funds for disabled 125 120 5 access Total Rehabilitation 325 295 30 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Program 2-9B - Support SSF 80 40 40 Housing Authoriry's operation of public housing Total Conservation 80 40 40 Assistance Programs Program 3-9B - Placement of Iow- 350 235 70 income individuals/seniors will to share space Program 3-9C -Provide funds for 210 210 -- transitional housing Moderate 45 Total Assistance 560 445 70 45 Above Moderate Public Hearing Draft ll-22 August 12, 2002 APPENDIX A HOUSING ELEMENT GLOSSARY Assisted Housing Developments - Multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of {}65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. The term also includes multifamily rental units that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to a quality for a density bonus pursuant to §65915. Below-Market-Rate (BMR) - Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low- or moderate- income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which households qualify as "low income" or "moderate income." The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - A State law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) - A State agency, established by the Housing and Home Finance Act of 1975, which is authorized to sell revenue bonds and generate funds for the development, rehabilitation, and conservation of low-and moderate-income housing. City - City with a capital "C" generally refers to the City of South San Francisco government or administration. City with a lower case "c" generally refers to the geographical area of the city, both incorporated and unincorporated territory (e.g., the city bikeway system). Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities, and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development. Compatible - Capable of existing together without conflict or ill effects. Consistent - Free from variation or contradiction. Programs in the General Plan are to be consistent, not contradictory or preferential. State law requires consistency between a general plan and implementation measures such as the zoning ordinance. Contract Rent - The monthly rent agreed to, or contracted for regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or services that may be included. Dedication, In lieu of- Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for a dedication of land, usually calculated in dollars per lot, and referred to as in lieu fees or in lieu contributions. August 12, 2002 A-1 Public Hearing Draft City of South San Francisco Appendix A. Housing Element Glossary Density, Residential - The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre. Density Bonus - The allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Under Government Code Section 65915, a housing development that provides 20 percent of its units for lower income households, or ten percent of its units for very low-income households, or 50 percent of its units for seniors, is entitled to a density bonus and other concessions. Developable Land - Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas. Dwelling Unit - A room or group of rooms (including sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation facilities, but not more than one kitchen), that constitutes an independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for occupancy by one household on a long-term basis. Encourage, v. - To stimulate or foster a particular condition through direct or indirect action by the private sector or government agencies. Enhance, v. - To improve existing conditions by increasing the quantity or quality of beneficial uses or features. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - A report that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area and determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action. Fair Market Rent - The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of administering the Section 8 Existing Housing Program. Family - (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2) An individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bonafide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [Califomia]. Feasible - Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. Goal -The ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable. Gross Rent - Contract Rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (water, electricity, gas) and fuels (oil, kerosene, wood, etc.) To the extent that these are paid for by the renter (or paid for by a relative, welfare agency, or friend) in addition to the rent. Household - All those persons -- related or unrelated -- who occupy a single housing unit. Households, Number of- The count of all year-round housing units occupied by one or more persons. The concept of household is important because the formation of new households generates the demand for housing. Each new household formed creates the need for one additional housing unit or requires that one existing housing unit be shared by two households. Thus, household formation can continue to take place even without an increase in population, thereby increasing the demand for housing. Public Hearing Draft A-2 August 12, 2002 Appendix A: Housing Elemen Jlossary ~ . of South San Francisco Housing and Community Development, Department of (HCD) - The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households. Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD) - A cabinet-level departrncnt of thc federal government that administers housing and community development programs. Housing Authority, Local (LHA) - Local housing agency established in State law, subject to local activation and operation. Originally intended to manage certain federal subsidies, but vested with broad powers to develop and manage other forms of affordable housing. Housing Unit - The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law. A housing unit has, at least, cooking facilities, a bathroom, and a place to sleep. It also is a dwelling that cannot be moved without substantial damage or unreasonable cost. Impact Fee - A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a city, county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. Inclusionary Zoning - Provisions established by a public agency to require that a specific percentage of housing units in a project or development remain affordable to very low-, and low-, or moderate income households for a specified period. Implementation Program - An action, procedures, program, or technique that carries out general plan policy. Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and a time frame for its accomplishment. Infill Development - Development of vacant land (usually individual lots or left-over properties) within areas that are already largely developed. Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio - The availability of affordable housing for employees. The jobs/housing ratio divides thc number of jobs in an area by thc number of employed residents. A ratio of 1.0 indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net out-commute. Lease - A contractual agreement by which an owner of real property (the lessor) gives the right of possession to another (a lessee) for a specified period of time (term) and for a specified consideration (rent). Low-income Housing Tax Credits: Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low-income households. Mean - The average of a range of numbers. Median - The mid-point in a range of numbers. Mitigate, v. - To ameliorate, alleviate, or avoid to the extent reasonably feasible. Mixed-use - Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant August 12, 2002 A-3 Public Hearing Draft City of South San Francisco Appendix A: mousing Element Glossary functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A "single site" may include contiguous properties. Mobile Itome - A structure, transportable in one or more sections, built on a permanent chassis and designed for use as a single-family dwelling unit and which (1) has a minimum of 400 square feet of living space; (2) has a minimum width in excess of 102 inches; (3) is connected to all available permanent utilities; and (4) is tied down (a) to a permanent foundation on a lot either owned or leased by the homeowner or (b) is set on piers, with wheels removed and skirted, in a mobile home park. Multi-family Dwelling Unit - A building or portion thereof designed for or occupied by two or more families living independently of each other, including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, apartments, and condominiums. Overcrowding - Households or occupied housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room. Parcel - A lot in single ownership or under single control, usually considered a unit for purposes of development. Poverty Level - As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or "poverty thresholds" varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index. Quantified Objective - The housing element must include quantified objectives which specify the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved by income level within a five- year time frame, based on the needs, resources, and constraints identified in the housing element (§65583 (b)). The number of units that can be conserved should include a subtotal for the number of existing assisted units subject to conversion to non-low-income households. Whenever possible, objectives should be set for each particular housing program, establishing a numerical target for the effective period of the program. Ideally, the sum of the quantified objectives will be equal to the identified housing needs. However, identified needs may exceed available resources and limitations imposed by other requirements of state planning law. Where this is the case, the quantified objectives need not equal the identified housing needs, but should establish the maximum number of units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved (including existing subsidized units subject to conversion which can be preserved for lower- income use), given the constraints. Redevelop - To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use. Regional Housing Needs Share - A quantification by a COG or by HCD of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region. Rehabilitation - The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing. Residential, Multiple Family - Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same or separate buildings. Residential, Single-family - A single dwelling unit on a building site. Rezoning - An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature, Public Hearing Draft A-4 August 12, 2002 Appendix A: Housing Element ,ossary C of South San Francisco density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area. Second Unit - A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. "Granny Flat" is one type of second unit intended for the elderly. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program - A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. Thc program operates by providing "housing assistance payments" to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up thc difference between thc "Fair Market Rent" of a unit (set by HUD) and thc houschold's contribution toward thc rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of thc houschold's adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). Section 8 includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation. Seniors - Persons age 65 and older. Shall - That which is obligatory or necessary. Should - Signifies a directive to be honored if at all feasible. Site - A parcel of land used or intended for one use or a group of uses and having frontage on a public or an approved private street. A lot. Subdivision - The division of a tract of land into defined lots, either improved or unimproved, which can be separately conveyed by sale or lease, and which can be altered or developed. Subdivision Map Act - Section 66410 et seq. of the California Government Code, this act vests in local legislative bodies the regulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions, including the requirement for tentative and final maps. Subsidize - To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting of terms or favors that reduce the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms of mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like. Substandard Housing - Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing. Vacant - Lands or buildings that are not actively used for any purpose. Zoning - The division of a city or county by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, which specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that implements policies of the General Plan. August 12, 2002 A-5 Public Hearing Draft APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PERSONS CONSULTED Bibliography Association of Bay Area Governments. Regional Housing Needs t 99%2006 Allocation: San Francisco Bay Area. November 16, 2000. Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections 2000. December 1999. Association of Bay Area Governments. Draft Projections 2002. October 2001. Bay Area Social Services Consortium. San Mateo County Human Service Agency and Hunger and Homeless Action Coalition of San Mateo County, San Mateo Homeless Needs Assessment. December 1995. Califomia, State of, Governor's Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. November 1998. California, State of, Department of Finance. City/County Population and Housing Estimates. January 1991 - January 2000. New Beginning Coalition. Strategic Plan for Services to Older Adults and Adults with Disabilities, 1995-2000. October 17, 1995. San Mateo County. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in San Mateo County, CA. San Mateo County Aging and Adult Services. Strategic Plan for Services for Older Adults and Adults with Disabilities. Fiscal Year 2000-Fiscal Year 2005. San Mateo County HOME Consortium. Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan. 1999-2003. Social Security Administration, Office of Research. Evaluation, and Statistics, SSI Recipients by ZIP Code Area, IX San Francisco Region. December 1996. South San Francisco, City of. BART Transit Village Plan: Zoning District Standards and Design Guidelines. June 2001. South San Francisco, City of. Consolidated Plan for Housing, Community and Economic Development. 1998-2003. South San Francisco, City of. Downtown Housing Survey. August 1999. South San Francisco, City of. General Plan. October 1999. South San Francisco, City of. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999. South San Francisco, City of. General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues. September 1997. August 12, 2002 B-1 Public Hearing Draft City of South San Francisco ppendix B: Bibliography South San Francisco, City of. Housing Element 1990-1995. December 9, 1992. South San Francisco, City of. One-Year Action Plan. 2001-2002. South San Francisco, City of. StaffReport: Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus Ordinances. September 26, 2001. South San Francisco, City of. Zoning Ordinance. May 1999. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, City of. Five Year Implementation Plan. January 2000. State Independent Living Council. Independent Living, Report to the California Legislature on State Services Which Foster the Ability of People to Live Independently. March 1998. United States Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing. 1990. United States Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing. 2000. Agencies/Organizations Consulted California Housing Partnership Corporation Clara-Mateo Alliance Center for Independence of the Disabled Economic & Community Development Department, City of South San Francisco Golden Gate Regional Center Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility Human Investment Project, Home Sharing Program North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Mental Health Association, Spring Street Shelter Peninsula Association for Retarded Children and Adults (PARCA) Rental Housing Owners Association Safe Harbor Shelter St. Vincent de Paul's Society The Salvation Army San Mateo County Association of Realtors San Mateo County Mental Health San Mateo County Office on Homelessness San Mateo Interfaith Hospitality Network Shelter Network of San Mateo County South San Francisco Unified School District South San Francisco Police Department Standard Builders City of South San Francisco- Senior Program San Mateo County Office of Housing Public Hearing Draft B-2 August 12, 2002 APPENDIX C PUBLIC PARTICIPATION As part of the Housing Element process, the City implemented the State's public participation requirements in Housing Element Law, indicated in Government Code Section 65583 (c) (6) (B), that jurisdictions "...shall make a diligent effort to achieve participation of all economic segments of the community." It is important to note that the Housing Element Update process is not an isolated review process, but a continuation of the General Plan Update process, the Inclusionary Ordinance, and the implementation of specific housing efforts. Since 1997, the City used several methods to solicit comprehensive and continued input and participation from local residents, housing developers, non-profit housing development and management organizations, social service providers, neighborhood associations, the business community, and City commissions. As outlined below, the City's public outreach program has been designed to obtain input from residents representing all income groups, non-profit and for-profit residential developers, and businesses. General Plan Update (1997-1999) The General Plan Update process introduced the city residents, businesses, and policymakers to key infill strategies that must be undertaken in order to provide needed housing over the next two decades. The City Council reclassified properties from commercial and industrial to high-density residential and adopted policies that increased densities near transit corridors and in Downtown South San Francisco. The process included a comprehensive outreach program that included: General Plan Mailing List. The list includes all property owners, interested South San Francisco residents, businesses, and community groups. Review of the General Plan process and announcements about upcoming meetings are sent to the mailing list. Cable TV Announcements. Announcements seeking participation in the General Plan update process are aired on the cable television channel. General Plan Update Community Meetings in residential neighborhoods. Public meetings were held in each of the residential neighborhoods identified in the General Plan Existing Conditions Report to discuss the General Plan update, including housing issues. General Plan Update Open House. The City advertised (in a full-page color newspaper advertisement) and held a city-wide open house to present the General Plan policies, including housing issues. General Plan Update Information. The City prepared city-wide notices and newsletter mailings for distribution to city property owners, interested residents, and businesses. General Plan Update Presentations. City Staff presented the General Plan Update to service organizations, homeowners associations, and merchant associations. City Council/Planning Commission. The City held joint study sessions, Planning Commission workshops, and public hearings to review the Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report, the Alternative Land Use strategies, and the Draft General Plan policy document. August 12, 2002 C-1 Public Hearing Draft City of South San Francisco Appendix B: Bibliography Inclusionary Housincj Ordinance (1999-2001) The South San Francisco City Council recognized during the General Plan Update process that there is a need to provide and preserve housing for lower-income households and senior citizens. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (December 2001) promotes the construction of affordable housing and provides incentives to residential developers through the exercise of its powers and the utilization of its resources. The process included a comprehensive outreach program that included: Inclusionarv Housing Mailing List. The list includes all property owners, interested South San Francisco residents, businesses, non-profit organizations, regional property management associations, the Home Builders Association, and low-income family support organizations. Review of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance process and announcements about upcoming meetings were sent to the mailing list. Ci.tv Staff Meetings with Special Interest Groups. City Staff met with representatives from Bridge Housing and Mid-Peninsula Housing to build on potential joint funding and parmerships to build affordable housing. City Staff met with the appropriate service agencies and organizations to outreach to low-income households. City Staff also met with private developers that support affordable housing, such as DUC Housing. Staff met with residential developers that oppose non-market rate requirements (such as the State's fifteen percent requirement in Redevelopment Project areas), including KB Homes and Phillip R. Sema from the Home Builders Association. City Council/Planning Commission. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session, the Planning Commission help workshops, the Planning Commission held public hearings, and the City Council held study sessions and public hearings to review housing issues, affordability issues, alternative strategies to provide affordable housing, and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. South San Francisco BART Transit'Villa{je Plan and Ordinance The South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan and Ordinance implements the General Plan policies promoting high-density housing, infill development and transit-oriented development near transit corridors. The process included a comprehensive outreach program that included: Transit Village Mailing List. The list includes all property owners in the study area, interested South San Francisco residents, businesses, non-profit organizations, property management associations, and the South San Francisco Unified School District. Review of the Transit Village Plan and Ordinance process and announcements about upcoming meetings are sent to the mailing list. Transit Village Subcommittee and Stakeholders Group. The Transit Village Subcommittee was formed in November 2000 and met once a month to discuss high-density housing issues. The Subcommittee includes Planning Commission members, Design Review Board members, representatives from the school district, and representative from the Redevelopment Agency Public Action Committee. The Stakeholders Group was also formed in November 2000 and met once a month. The Group included representatives from Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), Sam Mateo County Transit (SamTrans), property owners, housing developers, City staff, and interested C-2 Appendix B: Bibliography City of South San Francisco ._.I. residents. Transit Village Community. Meetings and Open House. The City held three community meetings in the at E1 Camino High School to discuss high-density housing and traffic issues. The City sponsored one Open House at the Magnolia Senior Center to present the proposals for high-density housing. Citv Council/Planning Commission. The City Council and Planning Commission held public workshops, study sessions, and public hearings to review the Ordinance. Downtown Housing Initiative (2002) The General Plan requires high-density housing, infill development and transit-oriented development in Downtown South San Francisco. The process to implement the General Plan policies included the creation of the following community outreach program: Downtown "Placemaking" Workshops. From January to May 2002, the City, San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans) and the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) held "placemaking" workshops with local merchants and Downtown homeowners association members to survey sites for high-density housing and implement pedestrian improvements in Downtown South San Francisco. Housing Element Update (2001-2002) The Draft Housing Element builds on the General Plan Update process that began in 1997. The General Plan process continued following the adoption of the General Plan in October 1999 through the implementation of the Transit Village Plan and Ordinance, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Housing Element process. To date, the process to update the Housing Element includes the following: Housing Element Mailing List. Utilizing the mailing lists since 1997, the mailing list includes all property owners, interested South San Francisco residents, businesses, non-profit organizations, regional property management associations, the Home Builders Association, and low-income family, homeless and poverty support organizations. Review of the Draft Housing Element and announcements about upcoming meetings are sent to the mailing list. Planning Commission Tour oflnfill Sites. In November 2001, City Staff sponsored a tour of potential infill sites with members of the Planning Commission and interested residents. The participants visited each site and discussed the potential for high-density housing, housing rehabilitation, and changes to development standards in existing low- and medium-density neighborhoods. Ci,tv Council/Planning Commission. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session, the Planning Commission held two workshops, the Planning Commission held one public hearing, and the City Council held one study session and a public hearing to review housing issues, affordability issues, alternative strategies to provide affordable housing, and the Draft Housing Element. Community. Meetings and Open House. City staff will sponsor community meetings in each residential neighborhood and an open house following approval of the Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. August 12, 2002 C-3 Public Hearing Draft City of South San Francisco Appendix B: Bibliography August 12, 2002 C-4 Public Hearing Draft EXHIBIT B CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 031 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) 877-8535 FAX (650) 829-6639 October 16, 2002 TO: RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TI-IE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE LEAD AGENCY: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 South Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 The City of South San Francisco has prepared a Negative Declaration for the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element and will be available for public review and c~mment for 30 days. The South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update has been prepared to meet the requirements of State Law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with other elements of the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in October 1999. The Housing Element is internally consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and does not propose any changes to the current General Plan land use designations. The City of South San Francisco is built out, and new housing development will occur on a limited number of infill and redevelopment sites that are currently zoned for residential uses. All housing oppommity sites identified in the Housing Element are in areas currently designated and Zoned for residential land uses. Housing estimates contained in the Housing Element are based on residential densities permitted under in the South San Francisco General Plan and analyzed in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report GEIR), certified in October 1999. .... 032 315 MAPLE AVENUE · P.O. BOX711 · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA94083 To: From: Subject: Date: State of California, Office of Planning and Research, State Clearing House City of South San Francisco Negative Declaration: General Plan Housing Element Update October 16, 2002 Page 2 Please address questions to Michael Lappen, Senior Planner, at (650) 877-8535 and mail comments lo the City of South San Francisco, City Hall, P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, California 94083. Sincerely, Michael~appen Senior t61anner -033 DEPARTMEN'r OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (650) 677-6535 FAX (650) 829.-66~9 October 16, 2002 TO: State of California Office of Planning and Research State Cleating House 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, California 95814 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE LEAD AGENCY: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 South Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 The City of South San Francisco has prepared a Negative Declaration for the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element. The South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update has been prepared to meet the requirements of State Law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with other elements of the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in October 1999. The Housing Element is internally consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and does not propose any changes to the current General Plan land use designations. The City of South San Francisco is built out, and new housing development will occur on a limited number of infill and redevelopment sites that are currently zoned for residential uses. All housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element are in areas currently designated and zoned for residential land uses. Housing estimates contained in the Housing Element are based on residential densities permitted under in the South San Francisco General Plan and analyzed in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in October 1999. I have included a copy of the Notice of Completion and 17 copies of the Negative Declaration for distribution to the appropriate reviewing agencies. Please issue a State Clearinghouse number. -034 315 MAPLE AVENUE · P.O. BOX 711 ° SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 To: From: Subject: Date: Stale of California, Office o£Planning and Research, State Clearing House City of South San Francisco Negative Declaration: General Plan Housing Element Update October 16, 2002 Page 2 Please address questions to Michael Lappen, Senior Planner, at (650) 877-8535 and mail comments to the City of South San Francisco, City Hall, P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, California 94083. Sincerely, Michael .Lhppen Senior l~lanner · .... 035 NEGATIVE DECLARATION/INITIAL STUDY FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OCTOBER 16, 2002 .~036 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 1. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM - NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................. 3 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 5 II1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................................................................................................... 6 IV. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................. '7 October 16, 2002 037 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update Introduction The South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of State Law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with other elements of the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in October 1999. The Housing Element is internally consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and does not propose any changes to the current General Plan land use designations. The City of South San Francisco is built out, and new housing development will occur on a limited number of infill and redevelopment sites that are currently zoned for residential uses. All housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element are in areas currently designated and zoned for residential land uses. Housing estimates contained in the Housing Element are based on residential densities permitted under in the South San Francisco General Plan and analyzed in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental lmpact Report (EIR), certified in October 1999. The City of South San Francisco General Plan Draft Housing Element Update may be viewed and printed by going 'to the City's web site at :,'ww.ci.ss~-.c~':.',~:-. or www.ssf, net. A copy of the Housing Element may be obtained at the Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Copies of the document may also be viewed at the Office of the City Clerk, West Orange Library and the Grand Avenue Library. For additional information, please call the Economic and Community Development Department, Planning Division at (650) 877-8535, or e-mail "mike.lappen~ssf. net." During the 30-day comment period, please mail comments on this Negative Declaration to the following address: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department, Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 October 16, 2002 2 038 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update I. Environmental Checklist Form - 1. Project title 2. Lead agency name and address 3. Contact person and phone number 4. Project location 5. Project sponsor's name and address 6. General plan designation 7. Zoning 8. Description of project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not lira/ted to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Anach additional sheets if necessary.) 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco Housing Element Update City of South San Francisco Econorrfic and Community Development Department P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Michael Lappen Senior Planner 650-829-6628 City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 City-wide; all designations allowing residential development City-wide; all zoning districts allowing residential development See Section Il below for full description. The 2002 Housing Element Update is a comprehensive statement by the City of South San Francisco of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs and set forth goals, policies, and programs that address those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of Slate law and local housing objectives. See Section III below. none October 16, 2002 3 .039 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San~r'ancisco General Plan Update ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impacI that is a "Polentially S/gnJficanl lmpacf' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ~-~ Aesthetics ~ Agriculture Resources [~ ~-] Biological Resources L---] Cultural Resources ~-] ~-] Hazards & Hazardous Materials L--] Hydrology / Water Quality [-~ [-~ Utilities / Service Systems [-~ Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Geology/Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing TransponatiordTraffic DETERMINATION: (To be compleled by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find 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 will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" 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 significanl effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or ~ pursuant to applicable standards, Co) been or NEGATIVE DECLARATION and have avoided 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. Signature Date October 16, 2002 4 040 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update II. Project Description The City of South San Francisco has prepared the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element to meet the requirements of State Law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with other elements of the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in October 1999. The Housing Element does not propose any changes to the current General Plan land use designations, zoning ordinances, redevelopment project areas, or district boundaries. The City of South San Francisco adopted its current Housing Element in December 1992. The Housing Element was subsequently "certified" as legally adequate by HCD. The 2002 Housing Element Update is a comprehensive statement by the City of South San Francisco of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs and set forth goals, policies, and programs that address those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives. 71t will not require any changes in the existing zoning densities or the City's existing General Plan's land use pattern. The City submitted the draft Housing Element for review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on April 3, 2002 for the State mandated 60-day review period. HCD reviewed the draft and submitted comments on the draft on May 31, 2002. The City addressed HCD comments and will send the draft to the City Council for approval in September. Following adoption of the Housing Element, the City will submit the final Housing Element to HCD for certification. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in its final Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) figures, allocated South San Francisco 1,331 housing units for the period from 1999 to 2006. The timeframe for this RHND process is January 1, 1999, through June 30, 2006, (a seven and a half year planning period). The allocation is equivalent to a yearly need of 177 housing units for the 7½-year time period. After accounting for new units constructed from January 1999 through December 2001 (1,870), South San Francisco has a remaining need for 504 housing units, including 110 very-low income units, 131 low-income units, and 263 moderate-income units. The City has a surplus of 1,021 above moderate-income units. The Housing Element, a component of South San Francisco's General Plan, presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and actions for the years 1999-2006. It builds on an assessment of the City's housing needs and evaluation of housing programs, available land, and constraints on housing production that began with the General Plan Update process in 1997. Since 1997, the City has identified several infill sites for mixed-use and high-density housing development, as reflected in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and Downtown South Francisco. In the past, the City has successfully provided housing for all income groups. However, as San Francisco Bay Area housing prices has increased to where only seventeen percent of residents can afford to purchase a home, the City Council has sought ways -,- 04i October 16, 2002 5 Initial Study/Negative Declaratio~ South San Francisco General Plan Update to ensure that "workforce" housing will be built over the next decade. Prior to commencement of this Housing Element process, the City Council adopted new initiatives to encourage affordable housing in the City, including the implementation of affordable housing requirements, no-fee technical support and permit streamlining for for-profit residential developers, purchase and rehabilitation of deteriorating residential sites for low-income families, joint partnership with pr/vale non-profit housing developers to produce new housing for low income households, and implementing density bonus and parking reduction standards for new residential development. The 2002 Housing Element represents minor modifications to the most critical existing policies and implementation programs in the 1992 Housing Element. Some of the larger changes to the 1992 Housing Element in the 2002 Housing Element Update include an expanded Energy Conservation section and new policies to remove barriers for persons with disabilities. Based on the State CEQA Guidelines and professional judgement, the proposed project would result in a significant impact on housing if it would: 1) Create a demand for additional housing without providing for accompanying housing development; or 2) Result in the displacement of substantial amounts of existing affordable housing. The updated Housing Element will not displace substantial amounts of existing housing and will not substantially alter the location or extent of designated residential land uses. As a result, adequate area is available to provide for anticipated housing demand. Based on these provisions, the updated Housing Element will have no adverse impacts related to housing issues. No mitigation measures are necessary. Housing construction may result in indirect impacts fi.om increased traffic, loss of natural resources, and the increase in demand for public services and facilities. The indirect impacts resulting from housing construction under the Housing Element Update do not extend beyond those anticipated under the 1999 General Plan are discussed in the appropriate sections of the EIR prepared for the existing General Plan. III. Environmental Setting The Housing Element Planning Area includes all land within the boundaries of the city limits, which encompasses 4,298 net acres. The South San Francisco Planning Area is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, the Union Pacific Railroad, (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad) and the San Francisco International Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive landmark. October l6, 2002 6 ' ~ 042, Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update IV. Evaluation of Polential Environmental Impacts 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial .adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially Significant Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic [__J buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Nolmpact Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of scenic resources, including Policy 2-1-2, 5.1-I-8, 3.8-I-2, 3.9-1-2, 2-G-l, 2-G-6, 2-I-7, 2-I-9, 2-G-8, 2-I-8. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. 11. 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? Discussion: The City of South San Francisco is located in a heavily urbanized area and has no agricultural resources within the city limits. 111. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable ak 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 [._.J 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 1---] ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? October 16, 2002 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's rernain/ng RHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies and Lmplementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of air quality, including the Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies in Section 7.3 (Air Quality) of the General Plan. Air quality impacts of specific projects will be assessed under procedures established in the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses. The Housing Element does not add additional population to what is already proposed under the General Plan. Therefore, the Housing Element would not add to traffic impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in [-~ [~ [~ ~ local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish 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 ~-~ ~ [-'-] [~3 Califorrda Department offish 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.) th_rough 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 txee ~'~ [~ [-~ [~ preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding-policies and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of biological resources, including the policies under Section 7.1 (Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation) of Chapter 7 (Open Space and Conservation) of the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update Mil be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. October 16, 2002 8 044 Initial Study/Negative Declaratio~ South Sa rancisco General Plan Update Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood [---1 Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ~ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ['~ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 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 wkich 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 [--'1 course of a stream or fiver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pauern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or fiver, 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 1-'-I drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolhited nmoft'?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Impact Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of water quality, including the policies under Section 7.2 (Water Quality) of Chapter 7 (Open Space and Conservation) and Section 8.2 (Flooding), and Section 8.6 (Emergency Management) of Chapter 8 (Health and Safety) of the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. IX. LAND USE - Would the project: 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 October 16, 2002 11 O45 Initial Study/Negative South General Plan Update Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation plan or natural commtmity conservation plan? Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining R_IqND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to land use, including the policies under Section 2.6 (Land Use Policies) in Chapter 2 (Land Use) and Sections 3.1 through 3.12 in Chapter 3 (Planning Sub-Areas) of the Genera] Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. X. 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? Discussion: There are no mineral resources located within the city limits. XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 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 m/les ora 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? Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining KHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the reduction of noise sources, including the policies under Section 9.3 (Noise Projections) in Chapter 9 (Noise) of the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land akeady designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for envixonmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes ~ [~] ~ [5~ and businesses) or indirectly (for example, thxough extension &roads or other infrastructure)? October 16, 2002 12 .... 0 4 6 ]nitial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update t~ ote n tially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation In corporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the sign/ficance of a historical resource as defined in [__] '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the sigrfificance of an archaeological resource pursuan! to ~ '15064.57 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or umque geologic [___J feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [.__] Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential un/ts to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of cultural resources, including the policies and programs under Section 7.4 (Historic and Cultural Resources) of Chapter 7 (Open Space and Conservation) of the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. VI. 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? 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 I---'] systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RI-IND allocation will be October 16, 2002 9 O47 Initial Study/Negative Declaratio~i South Sc General Plan Update Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related tO geology and soils, including the policies under Section 8.1 (Geologic and Seismic Hazards) of Chapter 8 (Health and Safety) of the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land akeady designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. VII. 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 n~terials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous mater/als 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 project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity ora private airstrip, residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of residents from man-made and natural hazards, including the policies under Section 8.3 (Waste Management and Recycling), Section 8.4 (Fire Hazards), Section 8.6 (Emergency Management), and Section 8.7 (Aircraft Safety) of Chapter 8 (Health and Safety) of the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land al.ready designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ['~ October 16, 2002 10 048 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South St General Plan Update Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant ImpaCt Mitigation Impact Incorporation b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ~ elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [-'-t the construct/on ofreplacemenl housing elsewhere? No Impact Discussion: All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. XIII. 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 constraction 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: Fire protection7 V1 V] Vi [23 Discussion: All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. There are numerous guiding policies and implementing policies throughout the General Plan that require the provision of public facilities, adequate services, and infrastructure concurrent with new development and require new development to provide its fair share of required services and infrastructure in a timely manner, including the policies under Section 5.1 (Parks, Recreation, and Open Space), Section 5.2 (Educational Facilities), and Section 5.3 (Public Facilities and Services) of Chapter 5 (Parks, Public Facilities and _ Services) of the General Plan. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RItND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related-to recreational resources, including the policies under Section 5.1 (Parks, Recreation, and Open Space) in Chapter 5 (Parks, Public Facilities, and Services) of the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. XV. TRANSPORTATIONFFRAFFIC - 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 October 16, 2002 13 049 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update either the number of veh/cle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a 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 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact In corporation No Impact Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to maintain an efficient transportation system, including the policies under Section 4.2 (Street Network, Classification, and Operations) and Section 4.3 (Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking), and Section 4.4 (Transit and Public Transportation) in Chapter 4 (Transportation) of the General Plan. All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses. The Housing Element does not add additional population to what is already proposed under the General Plan. Therefore, the Housing Element would not add to traffic impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the D 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 I'--"-I has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected [__J 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 .. 050 October 16, 2002 14 Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's rermining RHND allocation will be subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the provision of utilities and public services, including the policies under Section 5.3 (Public Facilities and Services) of Chapter 5 (Parks, Public Facilities, and Services) of the General Plan. All residential deve]opment provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General Plan. 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, o, comm ,, Z3 reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prekistory? 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 [--] D [~] [~ 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 either directly or indirectly? Discussion: All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the ELR for the General Plan. October 16, 2002 15 051 ATTACHMENT 5 City Council Special Meeting Minutes, March 20, 2002 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 20, 2002 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE (Cassette Tape No. 1) Call to Order Roll Call 5:31 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Femekes, Green and Matsumoto* and Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez Planning Commissioners D'Angelo, Honan, Melon/and Sim, Vice Chairman Oschsenhirt and Chakman Romero Absent: Mayor Mullin and Commissioner Teglia *Councilwoman Matsumoto arrived at 5:44 p.m. Staff present: City Manager Wilson, Assistant City Attomey Johnson, E&CD Director Van Duyn, H&CD Manager Fmgoso, Chief Planner Sparks, Sen/or Planner Lappen Consultants: Mr. Derek DiManno, Mintier & Assoc., Ms. Lucina Vemazza, Vemazza Wolfe Assoc. Public Comments None. Joint Study Session with Planning Commission - Review of Draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Staff report and visual presentation given by Chief Planner Sparks, Sen/or Planner Lappen, and project consukants, Mr. DiManno and Ms. Vemazza. A print-out of the presentation was distributed to Council. Mayor Pro Tern Gonzalez opened the discussion to the Planning Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Meloni questioned residential second units being designated below market housing. He felt title restrictions being placed on properties might tie property owners' hands to develop second units. He suggested this area be further studied. .. U53 Commissioner Honan voiced her concern that tandem parking be considered as an alternative to meet off-street parking requirements for bedroom addition applications. Although noting difficulty in overseeing the process, she advised caution with the development of second un/ts (in-law units) and recommended they be closely monitored as illegal units are usually not up to code. Chairman Romero suggested the time frame for the Zoning Ordinance be expedited and completed by the end of the year. He recommended a better word be used than "shall strive" in Policies 2-5, 2-10, and 2-11, and suggested "strongly discouraged". Commissioner Ochsenhirt reviewed each of the policies and stated his concerns have been addressed. Commissioner D'Angelo stated atmosphere and infrastmcmre must also be considered in the preservation of a neighborhood. He voiced his support for creating more residential second units and stated that the City's current off-street parking requirements have deterred the development of residential second units. In reference to the State Recommended Funding Approaches for First Time Homebuyers (page 54 of handout), Councilman Green suggested that the City negotiate with the South San Francisco School District to waive their developer fees or a percentage of it. Councilman Femekes stated his support for this recommendation and that the item be put on the next School Liaison Committee meeting agenda. Councilman Femekes stated support for second units, but expressed concern regarding parking. He concurred with the Planning Commission that tandem parking be considered. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated her support for tandem parking, and mentioned that she observed parking problems in neighborhoods due to multiple families living in single units. She stated support for a Housing Element policy on apartments as it provides work force housing. Councilwoman Matsumoto discussed with staffthe deterioration of the Treasure Island Mobile Home Park, noting that a majority of residents are senior citizens, and reasons why it was excluded from the E1 Camino Redevelopment Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez asked if there are incentives for property owners to provide affordable second units and staff responded that there is no formal program but one can be developed. Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez noted parking problems in his neighborhood and stated concern that garages are being converted to living units or used for storage purposes. He further commented that mixed-use developments and home occupations are escalating neighborhood parking problems. He felt the business license process should monitor this type of repercussion. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 20, 2002 PAGE 2 054 Chief Planner Sparks summarized the comments, as follows: ?? Replace the word "shall strive" in a number of policies with a word that reflects a stronger position; ?? Explore incentives for affordable second units; and ?? Negotiate with the South San Francisco School District the School Facility Fee. He stated that off-street parking is a regulatory issue covered under the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Adjournment Motion-Femekes/Second-Green: To adjoum the City Council meeting at 6:47 p.m. Approved by voice vote. Absent: Mayor Mullin. Planning Commission: Motion-Meloni/Second-Sim: To adjoum the Planning Commission meeting at 6:47 p.m. Approved by voice vote. Absent: Commissioner Teglia. Submitted by: Approved: /s/ Sylvia M. Payne, City Clerk City of South San Francisco /s/ Eugene tL Mullin, Mayor City of South San Francisco SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 20, 2002 PAGE 3 StaffXeport DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Economic and Community Development-Planning Division SUBJECT: Amendment to the Terrabay Zoning'District Affecting Accessory Structure Heights and Setbacks for Residential Land Uses ZA-01-020 RECOMMENDATION Approve ZA-01-020, of the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment as it pertains to residential land uses within the district. BACKGROUND Three sections of the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance are proposed to be amended. Two sections pertain to the definition, placement and maximum height permitted for accessory structures. The remaining section is the correction of a typographical error in the ordinance that refers the user incorrectly to a non-existent section of the Municipal Code. Since the adoption of the original ordinance, accessory structures have become more broadly defined to include a variety of structures. The setbacks as originally prescribed (eight and five feet) are largely ineffective, pose a hardship in many cases, and if applied result in implementing a random and sprawling land use pattern. Planning Commission Action December 5, 2002 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the Zoning Text Amendment. The Commission modified Section 20.63.130(vii) to stipulate a maximum size of 120 square feet for garden structures. A homeowner on the Mandalay Heights landscape committee testified in support of the ordinance amendment. DISCUSSION The three sections of the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning that would be amended are as follows: 1) Section 20.63.010 Definitions Staff Report City Council Subject: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA-01-020 Page 2 fences, and tiered or stepped retaining walls. Recommend to modify as follows: (a) "Accessory structure refers to structures such as landscape arbors, hot tub platforms, and decks and fences, and tiered or stepped retaining walls Reasoning: Currently the zoning ordinance captures review of retaining walls under section 20.63.130(i)(j) wherein it states that: "No owner shall alter the slope or contour of any lot or construct or alter any drainage pattern or facility without the approval of the City Engineer." The Building Division has authority to review and regulate retaining walls only if they carry a surcharge or are above a prescribed height. Ordinance Section 20.63.130 (d) states that "Accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63010(a) of this Chapter may be constructed upon obtaining City review and any required building permits." The language requires some review and approval; however, it is not a strong nexus. The importance of careful review of changes in Terrabay is underscored by both the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan which calls for City Engineer review and permission. Retaining walls were included in the accessory structure definition (two years ago) in order to assure Building and Planning review. The review was deemed necessary given that the Building Division is vested with the authority to review and issue building permits. Review of the structure and placement of retaining walls was identified as necessary to mitigate, as necessary, changes to lot drainage that could affect both the subject lot and adjoining properties. The ordinance currently requires a five foot side and rear setback for retaining walls (see below, Section 20.63.130(a) Special Regulations Applicable within the Terrabay Residential District.). While the setback requirement keeps all the drainage on an individual lot, pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, the setback provides the City with less authority to regulate drainage. According to the Building Official, retaining walls that do not have the potential to affect drainage on adjacent properties are reviewed for structural soundness only (in other words if the retaining wall is set back from a property line the hydrologic review becomes limited or non-existent). Therefore, on-site drainage is not reviewed. However, retaining walls that traverse the width of the lot and as such have the potential to impact adjacent properties are reviewed for structural soundness and hydrology. The required setback for retaining walls exacerbates the problem that the setback requirement was intended to correct. Eliminating the setback requirement enables the Building Division to review the retaining walls for structural and hydrologic purposes. The setback elimination in conjunction with the amendment proposed below Section 20.63.130 (x) enhances the City's review powers. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends dropping "retaining walls" from the definition of accessory structure which requires setbacks (see the following code amendment) and recommends adding Section 20.63.130 (x) which states: "If upon review of the applicable permit, modifications to a lot, including but not limited to landscaping, construction of accessory structures, retaining walls or Staff Report City Council Subject: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA-01-020 Page 3 paving the City determines the proposed project, based on standard engineering and hydrologic practices and the project plans, may adversely affect the performance of the drainage of the lot or slope stability, the applicant shall be required to apply for a Minor Use Permit which may, based on an Initial Study, necessitate further environmental review." 2) Section 20.63.130 Special Regulations Applicable within the Terrabay Residential District. Subsection (a) now reads: (a) No independent structure shall be built within eight feet of any other single independent structure except that retaining walls, fences and other similar accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63.010 (a) of this Ordinance may be setback no less than five feet from any independent structure and the Single-Family Paired Units (Hillcrest Neighborhood) may be designed with entry stairs and entry roofs that encroach into the side yard setback to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code. The proposal is to modify Section 20.63.130 to read: (a) Independent and accessory structures shall be governed by the following setbacks: No independent structure shall built within eight feet of any other single independent: that retaining walls, fences and other similar accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63.010 (a) of this Ordinance may be setback no less than five feet from any independent structure and the (i) Hillcrest Neighborhood Mandalay Point may be designed with entry stairs and entry roofs that encroach into the side yard setback to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code. (ii) Side and rear yards shall maintain a minimum setback of not less than three feet, except as provided in (i) above. Stairs that follow the grade may be constructed along the side yard setback between a primary structure (house) and a fence. (iii) Paving shall be not closer than a minimum of one foot from the side and rear property lines. (iv) Hot tubs or spas shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any side or rear property line. (v) Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures. Gazebos and arbors shall not exceed 12 feet in height at the ridge. Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of three feet. (vi) Fountains and similar water features shall be set back a minimum of one foot from side and rear property lines. (vii) Garden sheds and similar storage structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a StaffReport City Council Subject: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA-01-020 Page 4 minimum of five feet. The maximum height of garden sheds and similar structures shall be six feet. (viii) Fences installed as a part of the project shall be replaced in kind as required for upkeep and repair. View fences shall be replaced with view fences as necessary. (ix) Any structure which in the opinion of the Chief Planner adds significant bulk and/or mass to the building shall not be permitted. Examples of such types of structures included fixed and solid patio covers. (x) "If upon review of the applicable permit, modifications to a lot, including but not limited to landscaping, construction of accessory structures, retaining walls or paving the City determines the proposed project, based on standard engineering and hydrologic practices and the project plans, may adversely affect the performance of the drainage of the lot or slope stability, the applicant shall be required to apply for a Minor Use Permit which may, based on an Initial Study, necessitate further environmental review." Reasoning: In 1982 the Ordinance was drafted to require an eight foot setback between structures. The intent was to insure that residential units enjoyed an eight foot setback between each unit. As applied, two units adjacent to one another could have a four foot setback each, or a three and five foot combination for a total of eight feet, and a fence between the two structures. In recent years, the Uniform Building Code, as well as a written legal opinion provided by Adam Lindgren (the previous Assistant City Attorney) has been modified to define a fence as a structure. Therefore, technically all the houses would be required to be setback eight feet from the fence line. The blanket eight and five foot setback requirements pose other complications. Currently the Code requires an eight or five foot setback between all structures on the lot. Therefore a landscape arbor (an accessory structure) would have to be set back eight feet from the rear and both side property lines as both lines contain a fence (accessory structure), as well as the primary structure. Given the size of some of the rear yards (20 feet in depth), the setback requirement would result in a very tiny arbor in the middle ora backyard. Strictly applying the eight or five foot separation between structures on a lot, a gazebo, hot tub and built in bench would all be required to abide by the setback requirements (i.e., be set back from each other in addition to the fence and primary structure five to eight feet). The intent of a gazebo is to screen a hot tub. In this application the setback requirement would prohibit the screening of a hot tub. The Planning Commission recommends a one foot setback for fountains and paving. The setback would provide for maximum use of a small backyard while keeping accessory structures away from a fence that in eventuality would need to be replaced. The setback is intended to minimize damage to other structures on a lot in the event a fence (including footing) needs to be replaced. The gazebo and arbor heights are the same as applied to the City as a whole and would be in scale of the Terrabay development. The "Hillcrest Neighborhood" change to "Mandalay Point" reflects the new name of the neighborhood. The name change would be changed administratively throughout the Terrabay Ordinance. 3) Section 20.63.130 Special Regulations Applicable within the Terrabay Residential District Staff Report City Council Subject: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA-01-020 Page 5 (b) Accessory buildings as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.05.050(b) are only permitted when constructed at the time the residential structure is constructed Recommend to modify as follows: (b) Accessory buildings as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.06.050(b) are only permitted when constructed at the time the residential structure is constructed Reasoning: The correct citation in the Municipal Code is 20.06.050(b). SUMMARY The Planning Commission believes that the setback and height limitations are reasonable, comparable to the City at large, serve to protect the public safety and provide for privacy and a reasonable use of the property. As demonstrated in the current ordinance, the setback and height limitations are vaguely defined and largely ineffective. Environmental review for the zoning text amendment is addressed by the prior certified environmental documents consisting of the 1982 Environmental Impact Report, the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the 1998-99 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and addenda thereto for Terrabay. Under Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines this proposed amendment will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment over those previously analyzed in the aforementioned environmental documents. Should there be a potential for geologic or hydrologic impacts as identified in (Section 20.63.130 (x)), above, then project specific environmental review and an initial study under CEQA shall be prepared as part of the minor use permit procedure. CONCLUSION Approve ZA-01-020, of the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment as it pertains to residential land uses within the district. M Director of Economic &'"Community _ Approved: Development City Manager Attachments: II. III. Ordinance Amending Chapter 20 Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Staff Report December 5, 2002 Draft December 5, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes 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 and Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District Ordinance were amended by the City Council on June 26, 2002; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 20.63 is proposed to be amended to impose setback requirements based on the type of accessory structure constructed, implement a name change for the 70 unit paired housing development, remove retaining walls from the definition of accessory structure and to require a Minor Use Permit if a proposed project would adversely impact drainage or slope stability; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the ordinance are within the scope of the project as defined in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998-99 SEIR and Addenda, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and said documents adequately describe the activities regulated by the proposed amendments; and, WHEREAS, the adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project remains unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with the EIR's, SEIR's and Addenda thereto; and, SFDOCS 6153538vl WHEREAS, the amendments to Chapter 20.63 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 Addenda thereto; and, WHEREAS, based on all the evidence in the record, including but not limited to the contents of the above CEQA documents, the City has determined pursuant to section 15061 (3) the proposed amendments are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because the amendments merely clarify and implement development criteria already analyzed in prior CEQA documents, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the amendments are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(3); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e), "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures," the construction and location of accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences are categorically exempt; and, WHEREAS, provisions included in the amendments require further CEQA review if, due to the unique character of the individual project authorized under the ordinance, unusual circumstances exist that may give rise to the project having a potentially significant environmental effect; and, WHEREAS, on December 5, 2002, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments by a 7 to 0 vote; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 20.63 to implement the proposed regulations; and, WHEREAS, on December 11, 2002, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.63. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, based on all evidence in the record, including the foregoing recitals, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS. mo The proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 are consistent with the General Plan and Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended. Modifications to Chapter 20.63, as proposed, do not alter the approved land use, development intensity or design criteria articulated in the General Plan and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The purpose and effect of the amendments is to clarify existing regulations and provide an understandable means by which to administer the project. Therefore, the proposed amendments are implementing measures that do not affect the previously approved General Plan and Final Terrabay Specific Plan and are thus consistent with the approved Plans. In recommending approval, the City Council relies on the extensive findings in the record, including environmental analyses articulated at prior public hearings on the project, including the duly noticed public heating of December 11, 2002. As an implementing measure, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Proper environmental documentation has been prepared for the proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(3) and 15303(e). 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 as set forth below. Additions are shown as underlined text and deletions as strikeout. 1. 20.63.010 Definitions. (a) "Accessory structure" refers to structures such as landscape arbors, hot tub platforms, decks and fences., and tiered or stepped retaining walls. 2. 20.63.130 District. Special Regulations Applicable Within the Terrabay Residential The following special regulations shall apply to development within the Terrabay Residential District: (a) Independent and accessory structures shall be governed by the following setbacks:Nc single independent structure shall be built within eight feet of any other single independent structure except that retaining walls, fences and other similar accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63.010 (a) of this Ordinance may be setback no less than five feet from an indcpc, ndent structure (i) and the Single Family Paired Units (Hillcrest Neighborhood) Mandalay Point may be designed with entry stairs and entry roofs that encroach into the side setback to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code. (ii) Side and rear yards shall maintain a minimum setback of not less than three feet, except as provided in (i) above. Stairs that follow the grade may be constructed along the side yard setback between a primary structure (house) and a fence. (iii) Paving shall be not closer than a minimum of one foot from the side and rear property lines. (iv) Hot tubs or spas shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any side or rear property line. (v) Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures. Gazebos and arbors shall not exceed 12 feet in height at the ridge. Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of three feet. (vi) Fountains and similar water features shall be set back a minimum of one foot from side and rear property lines. (vii) Garden sheds and similar storage structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of five feet. The maximum height of garden sheds and similar structures shall be six feet. No garden shed or similar storage structure shall exceed 120 square feet in total area. (viii) Fences installed as a part of the project shall be replaced in kind as required for upkeep and repair. View fences shall be replaced with view fences as necessary. (ix) Any structure which in the opinion of the Chief Planner adds significant bulk and/or mass to the building shall not be permitted. Examples of such types of structures included fixed and solid patio covers. (x) If upon review of the applicable permit, modifications to a lot, including but not limited to landscaping, construction of accessory structures, retainine walls or paving the City determines the proposed project, based on standard engineering and hydrologic practices and the project plans, may adversely affect drainage or slope stability, the applicant shall be required to apply for a Minor Use Permit which may, based on an Initial Study, necessitate further environmental review. 3. In addition to the foregoing, where the name "Hillcrest" appears in Chapter 20.63 it shall be amended to state "Mandalay Point." Section 3: SEVERABILITY 4 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 Government Code Section 36933, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective 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 11th day of December, 2002. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of__., 2003 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 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: December 5, 2002 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Amendment to the Terrabay Zoning District Affecting Accessory Structure Heights and Setbacks for Residential Land Uses Case number: ZA-01-020 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval ZA-01-020, of the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment as it pertains to residential land uses within the district. BACKGROUND Staff is recommending an amendment to three sections of the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance. Two sections pertain to the definition, placement and maximum height permitted for accessory structures. The remaining section is the correction of a typographical error in the ordinance that refers the user incorrectly to a non-existent section of the Municipal Code. Since the adoption of the original ordinance, accessory structures have become more broadly defined to include a variety of structures. The setbacks as originally prescribed (eight and five feet) are largely ineffective, pose a hardship in many cases, and if applied result in implementing a random and sprawling land use pattern. DISCUSSION The three sections of the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning that would be amended are as follows: 1) Section 20.63.010 Definitions (a) "Accessory structure refers to structures such as landscape arbors, hot tub platforms, decks, fences, and tiered or stepped retaining walls. Recommend to modify as follows: (a) "Accessory structure refers to structures such as landscape arbors, hot tub platforms, and decks and fences, and tiered or stepped retaining walls STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Residential Land Uses Page 2 of 7 December 5, 2002 Reasoning: Currently the zoning ordinance captures review of retaining walls under section 20.63.130(i)(j) wherein it states that: "No owner shall alter the slope or contour of any lot or construct or alter any drainage pattern or facility without the approval of the City Engineer." The Building Division has authority to review and regulate retaining walls only if they carry a surcharge or are above a prescribed height. Ordinance Section 20.63.130 (d) states that "Accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63010(a) of this Chapter may be constructed upon obtaining City review and any required building permits." The language requires some review and approval; however, it is not a strong nexus. The importance of careful review of changes in Terrabay is underscored by both the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan which calls for City Engineer review and permission. Retaining walls were included in the accessory structure definition (two years ago) in order to assure Building and Planning review. The review was deemed necessary given that the Building Division is vested with the authority to review and issue building permits. Review of the structure and placement of retaining walls was identified as necessary to mitigate, as necessary, changes to lot drainage that could affect both the subject lot and adjoining properties. The Commission will recall the sensitive geologic and hydrologic conditions of San Bruno Mountain and Terrabay. The ordinance currently requires a five foot side and rear setback for retaining walls (see below, Section 20.63.130(a) Special Regulations Applicable within the Terrabay Residential District.). While the setback requirement keeps all the drainage on an individual lot, pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, the setback provides the City with less authority to regulate drainage. According to the Building Official, retaining walls that do not have the potential to affect drainage on adjacent properties are reviewed for structural soundness only (in other words if the retaining wall is set back from a property line the hydrologic review becomes limited or non- existent). Therefore, on-site drainage is not reviewed. However, retaining walls that traverse the width of the lot and as such have the potential to impact adjacent properties are reviewed for structural soundness and hydrology. The required setback for retaining walls exacerbates the problem that the setback requirement was intended to correct. Eliminating the setback requirement enables the Building Division to review the retaining walls for structural and hydrologic purposes. The setback elimination in conjunction with the amendment proposed below Section 20.63.130 (x) enhances the City's review powers. Therefore, staff recommends dropping "retaining walls" from the definition of accessory structure which requires setbacks (see the following code amendment) and recommends adding Section 20.63.130 (x) which states: STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Residential Land Uses Page 3 of 7 December 5, 2002 "If upon review of the applicable permit, modifications to a lot, including but not limited to landscaping, construction of accessory structures, retaining walls or paving the City determines the proposed project, based on standard engineering and hydrologic practices and the project plans, may adversely affect the performance of the drainage of the lot or slope stability, the applicant shall be required to apply for a Minor Use Permit which may, based on an Initial Study, necessitate further environmental review." On an informal level, staff (relying on sections 20.63.130(i)(j) and 20.63.130 (d) identified above) has been requiring that the geologist of record review of landscaping improvements. The process is working well. Additionally, the Homeowner's Association (HOA) will also have a licensed geologist or engineering geologist on the architectural review board. The proposed amendment is to underscore the City's review of retaining walls in order to protect public safety in terms of maintaining slope stability and controlling drainage. 2) Section 20.63.130 Special Regulations Applicable within the Terrabay Residential District. Subsection (a) now reads: (a) No independent structure shall be built within eight feet of any other single independent structure except that retaining walls, fences and other similar accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63.010 (a) of this Ordinance may be setback no less than five feet from any independent structure and the Single-Family Paired Units (Hillcrest Neighborhood) may be designed with entry stairs and entry roofs that encroach into the side yard setback to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code. The proposal is to modify Section 20.63.130 to read: (a) Independent and accessory structures shall be governed by the following setbacks: Nc independent structure shall built within eight feet of any other single independent: t~ retaining walls, fences and other similar acccssory structures as defined in Section 20.63.010 (a) of this Ordinance may be setback no less than five feet from any independent structure and the (i) Hillcrest Neighborhood Mandalay Point may be designed with entry stairs and entry roofs that encroach into the side yard setback to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Residential Land Uses Page 4 of 7 December 5, 2002 (ii) Side and rear yards shall maintain a minimum setback of not less than three feet, except as provided in (i) above. Stairs that follow the grade may be constructed along the side yard setback between a primary structure (house) and a fence. (iii) Paving shall be not closer than a minimum of one foot from the side and rear property lines. (iv) Hot tubs or spas shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any side or rear property line. (v) Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures. Gazebos and arbors shall not exceed 12 feet in height at the ridge. Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of three feet. (vi) Fountains and similar water features shall be set back a minimum of one foot from side and rear property lines. (vii) Garden sheds and similar storage structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of five feet. The maximum height of garden sheds and similar structures shall be six feet. (viii) Fences installed as a part of the project shall be replaced in kind as required for upkeep and repair. View fences shall be replaced with view fences as necessary. (ix) Any structure which in the opinion of the Chief Planner adds significant bulk and/or mass to the building shall not be permitted. Examples of such types of structures included fixed and solid patio covers. (x) "If upon review of the applicable permit, modifications to a lot, including but not limited to landscaping, construction of accessory structures, retaining walls or paving the City determines the proposed project, based on standard engineering and hydrologic practices and the project plans, may adversely affect the performance of the drainage of the lot or slope stability, the applicant shall be required to apply for a Minor Use Permit which may, based on an Initial Study, necessitate further environmental review." Reasoning: In 1982 the Ordinance was drafted to require an eight foot setback between structures. The intent was to insure that residential units enjoyed an eight foot setback between each unit. As applied, two units adjacent to one another could have a four foot setback each, or a three and five foot combination for a total of eight feet, and a fence between the two structures. In recent years, the Uniform Building Code, as well as a written legal opinion provided by Adam Lindgren (the previous Assistant City Attorney) has been modified to define a fence as a STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Residential Land Uses Page 5 of 7 December 5, 2002 structure. Therefore, technically all the houses would be required to be setback eight feet from the fence line. The blanket eight and five foot setback requirements pose other complications. Currently the Code requires an eight or five foot setback between all structures on the lot. Therefore a landscape arbor (an accessory structure) would have to be set back eight feet from the rear and both side property lines as both lines contain a fence (accessory structure), as well as the primary structure. Given the size of some of the rear yards (20 feet in depth), the setback requirement would result in a very tiny arbor in the middle of a backyard. Strictly applying the eight or five foot separation between structures on a lot, a gazebo, hot tub and built in bench would all be required to abide by the setback requirements (i.e., be set back from each other in addition to the fence and primary structure five to eight feet). The intent of a gazebo is to screen a hot tub. In this application the setback requirement would prohibit the screening of a hot tub. Staff recommends a one foot setback for fountains and paving. The setback would provide for maximum use of a small backyard while keeping accessory structures away from a fence that in eventuality would need to be replaced. The setback is intended to minimize damage to other structures on a lot in the event a fence (including footing) needs to be replaced. The gazebo and arbor heights are the same as applied to the City as a whole and would be in scale of the Terrabay development. The "Hillcrest Neighborhood" change to "Mandalay Point" reflects the new name of the neighborhood. The name change would be changed administratively throughout the Terrabay Ordinance. 3) Section 20.63.130 Special Regulations Applicable within the Terrabay Residential District (b) Accessory buildings as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.05.050(b) are only permitted when constructed at the time the residential structure is constructed Recommend to modify as follows: (b) Accessory buildings as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.06.050(b) are only permitted when constructed at the time the residential structure is constructed Reasoning: The correct citation in the Municipal Code is 20.06.050(b). STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Residential Land Uses Page 6 of 7 December 5, 2002 SUMMARY Staff believes that the setback and height limitations are reasonable, comparable to the City at large, serve to protect the public safety and provide for privacy and a reasonable use of the property. As demonstrated in the current ordinance, the setback and height limitations are vaguely defined and largely ineffective. Additionally, staff has discussed the proposed modification with two landscape architects that are currently providing services to many of the residents in the Mandalay neighborhood. The modifications to the ordinance are viewed as reasonable and workable. Western Pacific Housing has reviewed the standards and supports the changes, and will incorporate the language into the "Architectural Requirements" given to the homeowner's for Mandalay Point and Heights. The Architectural Review Committee of the Homeowner's Association (HOA) requires the residents of Terrabay to obtain their review and approval prior to approaching the City for review and permitting. The review by the HOA includes the signature from the geologist of record that the proposed improvements will not adversely affect the slope stability or drainage on the lot as well as an approval from the HOA. The homeowner is required to bring the form to the City to demonstrate that the HOA has signed off on the proposed improvements. Therefore, the HOA will largely implement the standards contained in the Ordinance. Staff and the HOA worked in tandem to develop standards agreeable to both. The standards are mainly applicable to Terrabay Mandalay Heights and Point. However, where setback requirements are silent for Phase I Terrabay Park and Village, the setbacks would apply to construction of new accessory structures. The environmental review for the zoning text amendment is addressed by the prior certified environmental documents consisting of the 1982 Environmental Impact Report, the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the 1998-99 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and addenda thereto for Terrabay. Under Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines this proposed amendment will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment over those previously analyzed in the aforementioned environmental documents. Should there be a potential for geologic or hydrologic impacts as identified in (Sec4ion 20.63.130 (x)), above, then project specific environmental review and an initial study'~nder ~EQA shall be prepared as part of the minor use permit procedure. C on sut(~nt'"PTas, ,cr son Knapp STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Terrabay Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Residential Land Uses Page 7 of 7 December 5, 2002 ATTACHMENTS I. Resolution Recommending Approval of Amendment to the City Council RESOLUTION NO. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT ZONING ORDINANCE 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 and approved a Precise Plan on May 9, 2001; and, WHEREAS, an amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Specific Plan Zoning District Ordinance was approved by the City Council on June 26, 2002; and, WHEREAS, over the last year, staff and Western Pacific Housing ("Owner") identified provisions in Chapter 20.63 that warranted clarification and/or modification; and, WHEREAS, staff and Owner propose amendments to Chapter 20.63 that result in changes to various setback requirements for accessory structures, define review procedures for the construction of accessory structures and propose technical revisions to the existing Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District Ordinance, as codified in the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.63; and, WHEREAS, the 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplement Environmental Impact Report which includes the 1982 EIR, the 1996 SEIR and Addenda to the 1998-99 SEIR, are the governing documents under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and, WHEREAS, the amendments to Chapter 20.63 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 Addenda thereto; and, WHEREAS, the revisions are within the scope of the project as defined in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998-99 SEIR and Addenda thereto adequately describe the activities regulated by the proposed amendments; and, WHEREAS, based on all the evidence in the record, including but not limited to the contents of the above CEQA documents, the City has determined pursuant to section 15061(3) the proposed amendments are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because the amendments merely clarify and implement development criteria already analyzed in prior CEQA documents, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the amendments are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(3); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e), "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures," the construction and location of accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences are categorically exempt; and, WHEREAS, provisions included in the amendments require further CEQA review if, due to the unique character of the individual project authorized under the ordinance, unusual circumstances exist that may give rise to the project having a potentially significant environmental effect; and, WHEREAS, on December 5, 2002, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance. 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 Final Terrabay Specific Plan and approved Precise Plan, including documents submitted in support of approval at the duly noticed public hearings of the Planning Commission and City Council; 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 Addenda to the 1998-1999 certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; 4) the facts set forth in the recitals of this Resolution; and, 5) testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on December 5, 2002: The Amendments do not alter the land use or result in an increased development intensity of the property. The Amendments clarify existing regulations related to the construction of accessory structures on individual lots within an approved subdivision. Specifically, the Amendments articulate set back requirements for accessory structures based on the proposed use of the structure and establish height limitations. As a result, the City obtains greater authority to review proposed projects to ensure they are in character with the existing neighborhood and do not result in drainage or slop stability issues. The Amendments also remove retaining walls from the definition of accessory structures and change the name of the 70 unit residential project from Hillcrest to Mandalay Point. The Amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District, Chapter 20.63, do not result changes that would affect the prior determination of Dave Carbone, Staff Administrator of the C/CAG San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC), who reviewed the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plan and found that they complied with the ALUC requirements (letter of October 25, 2000). The Amendments are consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Modifications to Chapter 20.63, as proposed, do not alter the approved land use, development intensity or design criteria articulated in the General Plan and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The purpose and effect of the amendments is to clarify existing regulations and provide an understandable means by which to administer the project. Therefore, the proposed amendments are implementing measures that do not affect the previously approved General Plan and Final Terrabay Specific Plan and are thus consistent with the approved Plans. In recommending approval, the Planning Commission relies on the extensive findings in the record, including environmental analyses articulated at prior public hearings on the project, including the duly noticed public heating of December 5, 2002. As the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance merely implements the particular standards, land uses, boundaries and development criteria of the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. As an implementing measure, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Commission Secretary Thomas £. Sparks 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 and Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District Ordinance were amended by the City Council on June 26, 2002; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 20.63 is proposed to be amended to impose setback requirements based on the type of accessory structure constructed, implement a name change for the 70 unit paired housing development, remove retaining walls from the definition of accessory structure and to require a Minor Use Permit if a proposed project would adversely impact drainage or slope stability; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the ordinance are within the scope of the project as defined in the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, 1998-99 SEIR and Addenda, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and said documents adequately describe the activities regulated by the proposed amendments; and, WHEREAS, the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project remains unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with the EIR's, SEIR's and Addenda thereto; and, SFDOCS 6153538vl WHEREAS, the amendments to Chapter 20.63 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 Addenda thereto; and, WHEREAS, based on all the evidence in the record, including but not limited to the contents of the above CEQA documents, the City has determined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (3) the proposed amendments are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because the amendments merely clarify and implement development criteria already analyzed in prior CEQA documents, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the amendments are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (3); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e), "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures," the construction and location of accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences are categorically exempt; and, WHEREAS, provisions included in the amendments require further CEQA review if, due to the unique character of the individual project authorized under the ordinance, unusual circumstances exist that may give rise to the project having a potentially significant environmental effect; and, WHEREAS, on December 5, 2002, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public heating to consider the proposed amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments by a to vote; and, 2 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 20.63 to implement the proposed regulations; and, WHEREAS, on December 11, 2002, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.63. NOW, THEREFORE, based on all evidence in the record, including the foregoing recitals, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS. mo The proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 are consistent with the General Plan and Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended. The amendments are consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Modifications to Chapter 20.63, as proposed, do not alter the approved land use, development intensity or design criteria articulated in the General Plan and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. The purpose and effect of the amendments is to clarify existing regulations and provide an understandable means by which to administer the project. Therefore, the proposed amendments are implementing measures that do not affect the previously approved General Plan and Final Terrabay Specific Plan and are thus consistent with the approved Plans. In recommending approval, the City Council relies on the extensive findings in the record, including environmental analyses articulated at prior public hearings on the project, including the duly noticed public hearing of December 11, 2002. As the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance merely implements the particular standards, land uses, boundaries and development criteria of the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and General Plan, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan and the Final Terrabay Specific Plan. Bo Proper environmental documentation has been prepared for the proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(3) and 15303(e) as demonstrated in the recitals to this Ordinance. 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 as set forth below. Additions are shown as underlined text and deletions as strikeout. 1. 20.63.010 Definitions. (a) "Accessory structure" refers to structures such as landscape arbors, hot tub platforms, decks and fences., and tiered or stepped retaining walls. 20.63.130 Special Regulations Applicable Within the Terrabay Residential District. The following special regulations shall apply to development within the Terrabay Residential District: (a) Independent and accessory structures shall be governed by the following setbacks:No single independent structure shall be built ~vithin eight feet of any other single independent structure except that retaining walls, fences and other similar accessory structures as definod in Section 20.63.010 (a) of this Ordinance may be setback no less than five feet from an independent structure (i) and the Single Family Paired Units (Hillcrest Neighborhood) Mandalay Point may be designed with entry stairs and entry roofs that encroach into the side setback to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code. (ii) Side and rear yards shall maintain a minimum setback of not less than three feet, except as provided in (i) above. Stairs that follow the grade may be constructed along the side yard setback between a primary structure (house) and a fence. (iii) Paving shall be not closer than a minimum of one foot from the side and rear property lines. (iv) Hot tubs or spas shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any side or rear property line. (v) Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures. Gazebos and arbors shall not exceed 12 feet in heiaht at the ridge. Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of three feet. (vi) Fountains and similar water features shall be set back a minimum of one foot from side and rear property lines. (vii) Garden sheds and similar storage structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of five feet. The maximum height of garden sheds and similar structures shall be six feet. (viii) Fences installed as a part of the project shall be replaced in kind as required for upkeep and repair. View fences shall be replaced with view fences as necessary. (ix) Any structure which in the opinion of the Chief Planner adds significant bulk and/or mass to the building shall not be permitted. Examples of such types of structures included fixed and solid patio covers. (x) If upon review of the applicable permit, modifications to a lot, including but not limited to landscaping, construction of accessory structures, retaining walls or paving the City determines the proposed project, based on standard engineering and hydrologic 4 practices and the project plans, may adversely affect drainage or slope stability, the applicant shall be required to apply for a Minor Use Permit which may, based on an Initial Study, necessitate further environmental review. 3. In addition to the foregoing, where the name "Hillcrest" appears in Chapter 20.63 it shall be amended to state "Mandalay Point." 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 Government Code Section 36933, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective 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 11 th day of December, 2002. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of__., 2003 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 6 CHAPTER 20.63 TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT Sections: 20.63.005 20.63.010 20.63.020 20.63.030 20.63.050 20.63.060 20.63.070 20.63.080 20.63.090 20.63.100 20.63.110 20.63.120 20.63.130 20.63.140 20.63.150 20.63.160 20.63.165 20.63.170 20.63.180 20.63.190 20.63.200 20.63.210 20.63.220 20.63.230 20.63-240 20.63.250 Terrabay Specific Plan District Established. Definitions. Regulations Generally. Uses Permitted. Site Design And Grading. Street Standards. Transportation Systems Management. Parking. Utilities. Landscaping. Parks & Recreation Facilities. Environmental Quality. Special Regulations Applicable Within The Terrabay Residential District. Special Regulations Applicable Within The Terrabay Commercial District. Development Procedure Generally. Precise Plan And Subdivision Maps---Generally. Tentative Subdivision Maps, Vesting Tentative Maps Or Parcel Maps - Submittal - Processing. Precise Plan ---Submittal--- Initial Reviews. Precise Plan---Contents. Precise Plan---Action By Secretary Of Planning Commission. Planning Commission Report On Precise Plan. Precise Plan ---Action By City Council. Mandatory Findings For Approval Of Precise Plan. Amendments To Approved Precise Plan. Expiration Of Precise Plan Approval. Permits From Other Agencies. November 27, 2002November 26, 2002 C:\tbayzoningord DecS.DOCC:\tbayzoningord. DOC 20.63.260 Permissible Types of Construction. 20.63.005 Terrabay Specific Plan District Established. A zoning district entitled "Terrabay Specific Plan District" is established consisting of, and in all respects consistent with, the regulations contained in the Terrabay Specific Plan. The district boundaries shall be as described in Exhibit A to Ordinance 915-83 and as shown on the map which is Exhibit B to Ordinance 915- 83, on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the specific plan map is reproduced at the end of this chapter. (Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 1050 § 29 (part), 1989) 20.63.010 Definitions. The following definitions supplement those contained in Chapters 1.04, 19.08 and 20.06. (a) "Accessory structure" refers to structures such as landscape arbors, hot tub platforms, decks andx fences_, and tiered or stepped retaining walls. (b) "Assisted Parking" refers to incoming passenger vehicles that are parked by their own drivers until all or most of the striped spaces in the garage are utilized. From that point, until the garage empties out to avail adequate striped spaces, incoming/outgoing driver/owners drop- off/pick-up their cars at a designated drop- off/pick-up point within the garage to/from valet parking personnel. (c) "Building," means the principal structure or structures on any site, including all projections or extensions thereof, and all garages, outside platforms, outbuildings, docks and other similar structures. (d) "Buffer Parcel" refers to the 2.69-acre parcel located adjacent to and south of the Preservation Parcel. Permitted uses in the Buffer Parcel may include, for example, Page 1 20.63.110 Parks and Recreation Facilities. All parks and recreation facilities in the Terrabay Specific Plan District shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in the Terrabay Specific Plan. (Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915 § 4 (part), 1983) 20.63.120 Environmental Quality. All measures necessary to protect environmental quality shall be implemented as set forth in the Terrabay Specific Plans, the Environmental Impact Reports for the Terrabay Specific Plans (1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1998- 99 SEIR) and the Habitat Conservation Plan, including any amendments to the Plans and any supplemental or subsequent environmental impact repons. (Ord. 1263 Exh. A (part), 1999: Ord. 1244 (part), 1999: Ord. 915§4 (part), 1983) 20.63.130 Special Regulations Applicable Within the Terrabay Residential District. The following special regulations shall apply to development within the Terrabay Residential District: (a) Independent and accessory structures shall be governed by the following setbacks:No single independent structure shall be built within eight feet of any other single independent structure except that retaining ~valls, fences and other similar accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63.010 (a) of this Ordinance may be setback no less than five feet from an independent structure (i) and the Single Family Paired Units (Hillcrest Neighborhood) Mandalay Point may be designed with entry stairs and entry roofs that encroach into the side setback to the extent permitted by the Uniform Building Code. (ii) Side and rear yards shall maintain a minimum setback of not less than three feet, except as provided in (i) November 27, 2002November 26, 2002 C:\tbayzoningord _Dec5.DOCC:\tbayzoningord. DOC above. Stairs that follow the grade may be constructed along the side yard setback between a primary structure (house) and a fence. (iii) Paving shall be not closer than a minimum of one foot from the side and rear property lines. (iv) Hot tubs or spas shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any side or rear property line. (v) Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures. Gazebos and arbors shall not exceed 12 feet in height at the ridge. Gazebos, Arbors and Similar Structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of three feet. (vi) Fountains and similar water features shall be set back a minimum of one foot from side and rear property lines. (vii) Garden sheds and similar storage structures shall be set back from side and rear property lines a minimum of five feet. The maximum height of garden sheds and similar structures shall be six feet. (viii) Fences installed as a part of the project shall be replaced in kind as required for upkeep and repair. View fences shall be replaced with view fences as necessary. (ix) Any structure which in the opinion of the Chief Planner adds significant bulk and/or mass to the building shall not be permitted. Examples of such types of structures included fixed and solid patio covers. Page 8 (x) If upon review of the applicable permit, modifications to a lot, including but not limited to landscaping, construction of accessory structures, retaining walls or paving the City determines the proposed project, based on standard engineerin~ and hydrologic practices and the project plans, may adversely affect the performance of the drainage of the lot or slope stability, the applicant shall be required to apply for a Minor Use Permit which may, based on an Initial Study, necessitate further environmental review. (b) No part of permitted structure shall be constructed within five feet of any projected curbline for a private road. (c) Accessory buildings, as defined in South San Francisco Municipal Code § 20.056.050(b), are only permitted when constructed at the time the residential structure is constructed. (d) Accessory structures as defined in Section 20.63.010 (a) of this Chapter may be constructed upon obtaining City review and any required building permits. (e) One sign not over four square feet in area and unlighted, pertaining only to the sale, lease or rental of the property upon which the sign is to be located is permitted. (f) Permitted Height: (1) Phase I - Village and Park Neighborhoods (Single-family detached and Townhomes) a. Maximum permitted height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. b. Height is measured from the roofline to the ground directly beneath it. November 27, 2002November 26, 2002 C:\tbayzoningord Dec5.DOCC:\tbayzoningord. DOC (2) Phase II - Woods Neighborhood (Single-family detached) a. Maximum permitted height shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet with sixty (60) percent of the roof plate being at or below thirty (30) feet. b. Height is measured from the highest point of the roof structure to a point below or directly parallel to that point where the exterior facade of the building intersects the finished grade. (3) Phase II/III - Residential Heritage Neighborhood (Condominium/Apartment Tower) - a. The maximum height shall not exceed 200 feet. b. Height is measured from the top of the uppermost parapet down to finished grade at the point below or directly parallel to that point where the exterior facade of the building intersects the finished grade. c. Below finished grade parking structures are not included in the maximum height calculation. (5) Mandalay PointHillcrest Neighborhood (Single-family Paired Units) a. Maximum height shall not exceed shall not exceed forty feet. b. Height is measured from the highest point of the roof structure to a point below or directly parallel to that point where the exterior facade of the building intersects finished grade. (g) Materials used in the Terrabay Residential District shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable Terrabay Specific Plan and the City's design review process. (h) Internal Roadway Systems Standards. (1) A public residential collector street shall be constructed in the Terrabay Residential Page 9 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2002 Terrabay San Bruno Mtn./Terrabay ZA-01-020 An amendment to the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance to establish accessory structure heights and setbacks for the residential component of Terrabay. Consultant Planner Knapp gave staff report and powerpoint presentation. Consultant Planner Knapp stated the reason for amending the ordinance was because the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance was adopted in the mid 80's and it very general in nature. Since the 80's, the definition of accessory structures has become more broad. The Uniform Building Code includes more structures than were originally defined as a structure. Commissioner Meloni asked if the fences, decks, arbors and hot tub platforms were defined by the Zoning Ordinance requirements for the development or by the Uniform Building Code. There's a problem between zoning code and building code because the building code does not require a building permit for a fence less than 6 feet. Consultant Planner Knapp stated that a previous city attorney made a legal opinion that fences are structures under the building code. Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated that fences are also defined by the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance as structures. Commissioner Teglia asked if all the fences were on the property lines, if they would have to maintain the fences where they are today and how this and the last set of amendments were being communicated to new owners. He thanked Consultant Planner Knapp and commended her on her outstanding attention to detail. Consultant Planner Knapp replied that all the fences were are the property lines except for the HCP fence which is 50-100 feet beyond the boundaries of Terrabay and they would have to maintained as they are today and the last amendment was hand delivered by Western Pacific. This amendment and the last are going in a newsletter and the homeowners association is going to include it in handout to the future homeowners. She spoke with one of the homeowners of the Mandalay Heights and they were planning to have a community workshop to explain. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked for clarification of the statement about accessory buildings are only permitted to be constructed at the time of the residential structure is constructed. Consultant Planner Knapp responded that the reference is to garages. Chairperson Romero asked why the square footage was not being identified as well as the maximum height on the accessory structures. He was concerned that homeowners think that they can go up to 40 percent of their lot so it should be specified how much of the lot should be used for garden shed to avoid 6 foot huge garden sheds. This should be addressed. Consultant Planner Knapp agreed and asked for recommendation. Assistant City Attorney Johnson suggested that the commission may want to consider defining the footprint of the building rather than percentage of lot size and specify a maximum square footage of the structure. Carol Ann Painter representing Western Pacific stated that revised guidelines are being adopted that are consistent with what has been present this evening. Agnes Cheung of the landscape committee, stated that the proposal is great, speaking as a homeowner as well as a member of the committee. Guidelines are needed. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked how the participation of the HOA is and if the previous action communicated to the HOA for the homeowners. Agnes Cheung stated that the association was small right now and a newsletter is being put together to give that information. Commissioner Honan asked Agnes Cheung if they have a problem with the storage shed restrictions. Agnes Cheung answered no because it is important to have the rules in place now prior to homeowners moving in. Bill Bush, construction manager for Western Pacific/Mandalay Heights confirmed that the notification was hand delivered and the paperwork is made a part of sales. Commissioner Sim asked if there was any thought about hillside issues. Consultant Planner Knapp replied that there should not be a problem being the maximum height is 6 feet. Commissioner Teglia was concerned with retaining walls on property line and building a shed above that. Consultant Planner Knapp recommended modifying the section that the shed can be no higher than 6 ft. Chief Planner Sparks stated that there is no way to make one size fit all. Do the best with regulations. Put together a good body of regulation to work with, but there will be issues that will have to be dealt with as they come up. Commissioner Sim asked if it could be set it back more. Chief Planner Sparks stated that is unknown depending on how big the yard is. Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated some issues would be addressed thru HOA. If there were circumstances needing to be addressed it would be handled by the Minor Use Permit process. Motion Teglia/Second Ochsenhirt to approve with the additional modification of the 120 square foot limitation on sheds. Approved by unanimous voice vote Sta22 Report DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: Lease Agreement - Bayfront Land at Haskins Way. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a ground lease between the City of South San Francisco and A.R.E. East Jamie Court, LLC ofbayfront land for Bay Trail improvements. Location: SE comer of East Jamie Court and Haskins Way (APN#015-102-250) Case No: P02-0042 Applicant: A.R.E. East Jamie Court, LLC Owner: Richard Haskins RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue this matter to the January 8, 2003 City Council meeting. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 21, 2002, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit to construct a two building office/R&D complex on a vacant 6.13-acre site adjacent to the San Francisco Bay at the southeast comer of East Jamie Court and Haskins Way. As required by the City's General Plan and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the project includes a 100-foot landscaped setback along the Bay shoreline that includes the bay trail, periodic seating areas, and other ancillary improvements; neither the buildings nor parking encroach into the shoreline band. This trail will provide a link to the trail improvements at the Scavenger site to the north, and will tie in with more informal trail improvements to the south. The proposed trail improvements encroach upon State lands which the State granted to the City in the early 1900's. The terms of the grant allow the City to lease the lands for any and all purposes so long as there is no interference with navigation or commerce. BCDC requested the applicant seek authorization from the City to provide the trail in this location as it would bring residents closer to Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council RE: Lease Agreement - Bayfront Land ~ Haskins Way Date: December 11, 2002 Page 2 the bay edge and would connect nicely with existing trail improvements on either end of the site. The Planning Commission supported this request as a beneficial use of these lands, and approved the project subject to the condition that the applicant obtains a lease with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant has subsequently formally requested to lease these bayfront lands from the City. As the specifics of the lease are still in the process of being finalized, staff recommends that the matter be continued to the January 8, 2003 City Council meeting. Marty Van Duyn, Dir~l~or of Economic and Community Development Michael A. Wilson City Manager StaffXeport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources Consideration of Resolution Amending Sections 2 and 9 of Resolution No. 105-01, Adopting a Military Leave Policy for Non-Career National Guard of Military Reserve Personnel B ACKGROUND/DIS CUSS ION A policy on extending Military Leave supplemental pay and benefits for employees who were called to active duty based on the events of 9/11 was brought to Council for consideration in October 2001, and it was approved. In early November it came before Council for consideration of extending the payment of supplemental salary and benefits. At the request of Council, this policy is being brought back forward for further deliberation. ~/'Director of Human Resources Appr°ved:~~ch a4 Wil~s cn City Manager JA B- 12/512002 SALOA's & DisabilityWlilitary LeaveWiil Leave Policy 12-02 Update.a.doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCI~L, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTIONS 2 AND 9 OF RESOLUTION NO. 105-01 ADOPTING A MILITARY LEAVE POLICY FOR NON- CAREER NATIONAL GUARD OR MILITARY RESERVE PERSONNEL WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco desires to accommodate the needs of its permanent employees who have successfully completed an initial one-year probationary period and who are called upon to perform military service because of the national tragedy of September 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City desires to partially mitigate the negative financial impact that uniformed military service may experience as a result of military service by providing greater benefits to those employees; and WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted Resolution No. 105-01, which made specified benefits available for up to twelve months for employees who have successfully completed an initial one-year probationary period and who were called upon to perform military service because of the national tragedy of September 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, for certain employees the twelve months has or will expire soon; and WHEREAS, the City desires to extend the provision of those benefits for up to an additional twelve (12) months for a total benefit period not to exceed twenty-four (24) months inclusive of the original twelve (12) months for which the specified benefits have already been provided. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Section 2 of the Military Leave policy set forth in Resolution No. 105-01 is hereby amended to read as follows: "2. Supplement of Salaries. The City will supplement an employee's salary beyond the gross amount received for uniformed military services pay for up to a total of twenty-four (24) full months of active duty actually served by the employee. This twenty-four month period is inclusive of any time for which an employee has already received the benefits provided pursuant to Resolution No. 105-01. Any employee requesting supplemental pay pursuant to this policy shall provide the City with written evidence of his or her gross monthly salary paid for his or her military service and shall also provide written evidence that he or she has been ordered to active duty, beyond the minimum service required as part of his or her commitment to serve in the Military Reserves or National Guard." 2. Section 9 of the Military Leave policy set forth in Resolution No. 105-01 is hereby amended to read as follows: "9. Duration of Benefits: The benefits payable pursuant to this policy shall continue for up to twenty-four (24) months from the first full day of active uniformed military service for each employee." 3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions of Resolution No. 105-01 shall remain in full force and effect and shall apply to the amended provisions set forth herein. 4. The amendments to Sections 2 and 9 of Resolution No. 105-01 set forth herein shall expire on December 31, 2003, and after that date be of no further force and effect unless reinstated by action of the City Council. 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 11th day of December, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTIONS 2 AND 9 OF RESOLUTION NO. 103-01 ADOPTING A MILITARY LEAVE POLICY FOR NON- CAREER NATIONAL GUARD OR MILITARY RESERVE PERSONNEL AND MAKING THESE SPECIFIED BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO SERVE IN ANY MILITARY CONFLICT WITH IRAQ WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco desires to accommodate the needs of its permanent employees who have successfully completed an initial one-year probationary period and who are called upon to perform military service because of the national tragedy of September 11, 2001, and WHEREAS, the City desires to partially mitigate the negative financial impact that uniformed military service may experience as a result of military service by providing greater benefits to those employees; and WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted Resolution No. 105-01, which made specified benefits available for up to twelve months for employees who have successfully completed an initial one-year probationary period and who were called upon to perform military service because of the national tragedy of September 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, for certain employees the twelve months has or will expire soon; and WHEREAS, the City desires to extend the provision of those benefits for up to an additional twelve (12) months for a total benefit period not to exceed twenty-four (24) months inclusive of the original twelve (12) months for which the specified benefits have already been provided; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that employees presently serving in active duty in response to the events of September 11, 2001 may also be required to serve in a military effort involving Iraq; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires, by adoption of this resolution amending Resolution No. 105-01, to provide those benefits set forth in Resolution No. 105-01 to employees who are called to active duty and required to serve in the Military as part of any military effort involving Iraq. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Section 2 of the Military Leave policy set forth in Resolution No. 105-01 is hereby amended to read as follows: "2. Supplement of Salaries. The City will supplement an employee's salary beyond the gross amount received for uniformed military services pay for up to a total of twenty-four (24) full months of active duty actually served by the employee. This twenty-four month period is inclusive of any time for which an employee has already received the benefits provided pursuant to Resolution No. 15-01 Any employee requesting supplemental pay pursuant to this policy shall provide the City with written evidence of his or her gross monthly salary paid for his or her military service and shall also provide written evidence that he or she has been ordered to active duty, beyond the minimum service required as part of his or her commitment to serve in the Military Reserves or National Guard." 2. Section 9 of the Military Leave policy set forth in Resolution No. 105-01 is hereby amended to read as follows: "9. Duration of Benefits: The benefits payable pursuant to this policy shall continue for up to twenty-four (24) months from the first full day of active uniformed military service for each employee." 3. Except as expressly modified herein including the recitals herein, all other provisions of Resolution No. 105-01 shall remain in full force and effect and shall apply to the amended provisions set forth herein. 4. The amendments to Sections 2 and 9 of Resolution No. 105-01 set forth herein shall expire on December 31, 2003, and after that date be of no further force and effect unless reinstated by action of the City Council. 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 11th day of December, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 6, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources Consideration of Modification to City Council Resolution Adopting a Military Leave Policy for Non-career National Guard or Military Reserve Personnel BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994 provides for reemployment protection and other benefits for veterans and employees who perform military service. While the City has always complied with these laws, a modification to the City's Military Leave policy was adopted in October 2001. The City developed a supplemental pay and benefits policy that could be modified at any time by the City Council if there was a substantial change in economic conditions. In particular, in the event that there was a recession (defined by the Federal Reserve as two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the United States economy) or if the State of California or the Federal government, through executive or legislative action, substantially affected the City's ability to provide funding, this program could have been modified without notice, as necessary. Policy The Military Leave Policy set in place for those employees who were called to serve in the non- career National Guard or Reserves on active duty as a result of 9/11 was essentially the following: · Full- and part-time regular employees were eligible to participate. · Employees must return to work within 6 months of being deactivated or would forfeit all supplemental pay provided by the City. · The period of time that this program would be in place for any one employee was 12-full months from first day of active military service. · In addition to the rights and benefits provided by law, the City would: · Supplement an employee' s salary beyond the amount received for uniformed services pay for up to 12-full months of active duty. · Maintain the employee's and covered dependents' medical, dental, and vision benefits, subject to the terms and conditions of the City's contracts with the providers. Several City employees have participated in this program. Many have been called for partial periods, and may be deployed to active status again soon. To date only one employee has used the full-12- month period of supplemented pay and benefits. It appears that several more employees may use this Staff Report Subject: Military Leave Policy Page 2 full 12-month amount within the next year. History: Many municipalities offered up to 12-months of supplemental pay and benefits for active military service based on the events of 9/11, some Cities provided up to 6 months of pay and benefits, and with other Cities providing no supplemental pay or benefits. Prior to this event, twice during the last decade, the City has supplemented pay and benefits for City employees who have been called to active military service due to national and international crises (Desert Storm and Kosovo). In both instances, while some employees served longer than the period of supplemented pay and benefits, the Council did not extend the policy past the original designated period. Outside of these events, several employees were called for active duty beyond the 30-day limit in which the City is legally obligated to provide full compensation and benefits, with no additional compensation by the City provided. Costs: Employees voluntarily serve in the military reserves or the National Guard for many reasons. All are aware of the potential of being called to active duty. As part of this duty, they receive benefits from the federal government. For example some of the benefits they receive are pay, and at retirement the employee receives a sizeable retirement disbursement, medical insurance for themselves and their dependents for life, to name just a few. Supplemental pay and benefits for active military employees would cost the City about $50,000 per employee. There are approximately 6 to 10 City employees who are part of the National Guard or military reserves who could be or have been called to active duty. The total cost for this benefit, if completely used by 6 employees, is up to $300,000, with an additional $300,000 for each year if extended. By: City Manager MM/JAB- 11/06/02 S :'~LOA*s & DisabiZityhMil/tary LeavehMil Leave Policy Update.doc StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 10, 2001 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources Mich Mercado, Personnel Analyst Resolution to Adopt Military Leave Policy for non-career National Guard or Military Reserves (for impending Military Action) RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution for a Military Leave Policy for employees who serve in the non-career National Guard or Military Reserves and are called to active duty as a result of the September 11th national tragedy. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION While the City has always complied with California and Federal law on Military Leave, a modification to the City's Military Leave policy is being recommended. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) provides reemployment protection and other benefits for veterans and employees who perform military service. Given the recent events and the projected likely period of active military service, the City recognizes the potential negative financial impact this obligation may have on its employees called to active duty. The City, therefore, proposes providing continued benefits in support of those who serve our country. Policy: It is recommended that the following Military Leave Policy be set in place for those employees who are called to serve in the non-career National Guard or Reserves on active duty as a result of the September 11th national tragedy. In addition to the rights and benefits provided by USERRA, the City will: · Supplement an employee's salary beyond the amount received for uniformed services pay for up to 12-full months of active duty. · Maintain the employee's and covered dependents' medical, dental, and vision benefits, subject to the terms and conditions of the City' s contracts with the providers. · Maintain the employee's life and accidental death and dismemberment benefits, subject to the terms and conditions of the City's contracts with the providers, such as Act of War exclusions. · Disallow leave benefit accruals (but will include mandatory pension benefits as provided by the Public Employee Retirement Law and Military and Veterans Code). Staff Report Subject: Military Leave Policy Page 2 Eligibility: All City employees in full or part-time regular status, who have passed their respective initial probationary periods are eligible. Return to Work Status: Upon the employee's release from active duty and if medically able, the City will require that the employee return-to-work for at least six months. Any employee who is provided this benefit must return to work consistent with the Military and Veterans Code. Any employee provided this supplemental compensation and who does not return to work for at least six months in accordance with the Military and Veterans Code will be required to repay all supplemental compensation. Duration: The duration of this program will vary depending on national objectives. However, the period of time that this program will be in place for any one employee is 12-full months from first day of active military service. Policy Modifications: This policy may be modified by the City Council if there is a substantial change in economic conditions. In the event there is a recession (defined by the Federal Reserve as two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the United States economy) or if the State of California or the Federal government, through executive or legislative action, substantially affect the ability of the City to provide funding, the City Council may modify this program without notice as necessary. yector of Human Resources Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachment: MM/JAB- 10/10/01 \WIULDERhtlR-SHARED~LOA's & DisabilityhMilitary Leave Policyb - September 11.doc Staff Xeport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COSTS RECOMMENDATION This staff report is being provided at Council's request. No recommendation is made. The City Treasurer has indicated she does not recommend acquiring the service of an outside investment advisor. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the November 13, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council asked staff to obtain quotes from independent consultants on providing investment oversight services. Concerns have been raised at the Investment Subcommittee level about the City's ability to adequately monitor the investment portfolio, particularly those investments that may suffer from rating downgrades over time (medium term corporate notes). A medium term note is a corporate bond with a maturity of longer than 180 days. Bonds of less than 180 days are called commercial paper, and are not of as big of a concern because credit quality does not typically deteriorate rapidly within a 180-day time frame. For Council's information, since the time of the Council meeting, the Finance Department began providing the City Treasurer with updated weekly Moody's Ratings on the five medium term notes in the City's portfolio that are rated below an A rating by either Moody's or Standard & Poor's Rating Services. Those ratings are as follows: Corporate Bond: Moody's Rating: CNA Financial: Baa2 DaimlerChrysler A3 Guidant Corporation: Baal Motorola: Baa2 WorldCom Ca (In the process of being sold) (BBB+ from Standard and Poor's) (A- from Standard and Poor's) (matures in February 2003) For Council's information, all of the current medium term notes and their ratings are attached, as well as rating definitions from Moody's Investor Services. Staff Report Subject: Investment Oversight Costs Page 2 Staff looked at several State and National websites for references for outside advisors, and surveyed other Finance Departments in the County. Three consultants were then contacted: Chandler Asset Management, the Public Financial Management Asset Management Program, and Egan-Jones credit services. The first two firms mentioned provide investment services for local government, while the last is a rating service that sends regular e-mail updates when a security gets its credit downgraded. Phone calls were placed to the three firms to discuss their qualifications, services, and prices. Of the three firms, Chandler Asset Management declined to participate. They provide investment management services for dozens of local governments in California, but would be reluctant to provide oversight if that meant monitoring credit status for investments they do not manage themselves, or which they might not have recommended purchasing in the first place. They typically either do one time studies for clients, or, more commonly, manage portfolios on behalf of clients. The second firm, PFM Asset Management LLC responded with a quote of $12,000 annually for a monthly review of the City's portfolio of medium term corporate notes and a written report on recommendations related to those specific holdings only. (The City currently owns 14 medium term corporate notes totaling $11.6 million. Of those, 5 have slipped in credit ratings to below the "A" rating required in the City's Investment Portfolio in either Moody's or Standard & Poor's ratings. Those holdings are attached to this report). PFM also provided a second quote of an additional $4,000 per quarter to provide a more extensive review of the City' s overall investment holdings, implications of current market conditions, and "a review of the City's portfolio showing the City's investments by sector diversifications, credit ratings, and maturity distribution... (as well as) an analysis of the portfolio's duration, performance, and relative liquidity." PFM's proposal is attached to this staff report for Council's information. The third firm, Egan-Jones would not provide actual oversight, but rather monthly updated credit information on the medium term corporate investments we own. That would cost $9,200 per year. FISCAL IMPACT: Acquiring the services of an outside financial advisor would require supplementing the City Treasurer's operating budget. By: Jin~?teele Dire[ ctor of Finance Michael A Wils City Manager cc: City Treasurer Attachments: Medium term corporate bonds held on November 1, 2002 Moody's rating definitions PFM Proposal As of November 1, 2002: Moody's Moody's Previous Current Issuer Rating Rating Bear Stearns Co A2 A2 CNA Financial Baa2 Baa2 Computer Sciences Corp Note A2 A2 Countrywide Home Loan A3 A3 Daimlerchrysler Series B A3 A3 Dean Witter Aa3 Aa3 Guidant Corp Baal Baal Hewlett-Packard Co Corp Notes A3 A3 Ina Holding A2 A2 Int Lease Finance Corp. A1 A1 Lehman Brothers Holding A2 A2 Merrill Lynch & Co Aa3 Aa3 Motorola Inc, Corporate Note Baa2 Baa2 Worldcom, Inc Ca Ca Total Book Value $ 1,006,688 1,001,955 1,113.420 429,803 1,003,310 251,325 989,604 1,044,123 1,009,969 1,018,868 552,968 253,976 998,729 1,000,000 $11,674,739 Market Value Maturity Date $ 1,047,074 15-Jan-04 997,812 15-Nov-03 1,173,149 15-Jun-06 444,800 16-Sep-03 1,014,994 10-Apr-03 254,428 01-Mar-03 1,079,652 15-Feb-06 1,058,869 15-Jun-05 1,082,447 15-Aug-04 1,023,488 01-Jun-04 573,904 15-Sep-03 260,415 15-Jun-04 1,002,529 01-Feb-03 172,500 15-Aug-03 $ 11,186,059 Debt Ratings from Moody's Investor Services Aaa Bonds and preferred stock which are rated Aaa are judged to be of the best quality. They carry the smallest degree of investment risk and are generally referred to as "gilt edged." Interest payments are protected by a large or by an exceptionally stable margin and principal is secure. While the various protective elements are likely to change, such changes as can be visualized are most unlikely to impair the fundamentally strong position of such issues. Aa Bonds and preferred stock which are rated Aa are judged to be of high quality by all standards. Together with the Aaa group they comprise what are generally known as high-grade bonds. They are rated lower than the best bonds because margins of protection may not be as large as in Aaa securities or fluctuation of protective elements may be of greater amplitude or there may be other elements present which make the long-term risk appear somewhat larger than the Aaa securities. A Bonds and preferred stock which are rated A possess many favorable investment attributes and are to be considered as upper-medium-grade obligations. Factors giving security to principal and interest are considered adequate, but elements may be present which suggest a susceptibility to impairment some time in the future. Baa Bonds and preferred stock which are rated Baa are considered as medium-grade obligations (i.e., they are neither highly protected nor poorly secured). Interest payments and principal security appear adequate for the present but certain protective elements may be lacking or may be characteristically unreliable over any great length of time. Such bonds lack outstanding investment characteristics and in fact have speculative characteristics as well. Be Bonds and preferred stock which are rated Ba are judged to have speculative elements; their future cannot be considered as well-assured. Often the protection of interest and principal payments may be very moderate, and thereby not well safeguarded during both good and bad times over the future. Uncertainty of position characterizes bonds in this class. B Bonds and preferred stock which are rated B generally lack characteristics of the desirable investment. Assurance of interest and principal payments or of maintenance of other terms of the contract over any long period of time may be small. Caa Bonds and preferred stock which are rated Caa are of poor standing. Such issues may be in default or there may be present elements of danger with respect to principal or interest. Ca Bonds and preferred stock which are rated Ca represent obligations which are speculative in a high degree. Such issues are often in default or have other marked shortcomings. C Bonds and preferred stock which are rated C are the lowest rated class of bonds, and issues so rated can be regarded as having extremely poor prospects of ever attaining any real investment standing City of South San Francisco Proposal for Investment Oversight Services November 22, 2002 PFM Asset Management LLC 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415.982.5544 415.982.4513 fax __PFM --Asset-- _ Nian agernen t LLC Suite 2300 50 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415 982-5544 415 982-4513 fax November 22, 2002 Mr. Jh~ Steele Finance Director City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Jim: PFM Asset Management LLC ("PFM") appredates the opportunity to sub,Tilt this proposal to provide investment oversight services to the City of South San Francisco (City). PFM Asset Management LLC ("PFM") is a specialized component of the PFM Government Advisory Group ("the Group"), which is devoted exclusively to providing investment advice and portfolio management for the public sector. The Group, which includes Public Financial Management, Inc., was founded on the principle of providing sound independent financial advice to state and local governments free of conflicts of interest. Today, the Group is the leading independent municipal financial and investment advisory entity in the United States with 20 offices throughout the country. With over 20 years in the public finance business, PFM is nationally recognized as a leading investment advisory firm providing services exclusively to the public sector. We currently manage in excess of $11 billion in short- and intermediate-term assets for public sector clients. Additionally, we provide oversight for over $4.8 billion in assets. We believe this experience will enable us to provide the City with a thorough review of its corporate holdings and the overall portfolio from the perspective of a public funds investor. PFM is enthusiastic about this opportunity to serve the City as consultant for the review of the City's investment policy and portfolio. We appreciate your consideration of our proposal and hope to have the opportunity to discuss it with you and answer any questions you may have. Please feel free to contact Nancy Jones or me at (415) 982-5544 at your convenience. Sincerely, PFM Asset Management LLC Lauren L. Brant Senior Managing Consultant PFM -- Asset Management LLC Scope of Services PFM understands the City is seeking the services of a firm to perform a monthly review the City's corporate obligations and to provide recommendations as to how the City might mitigate its exposure to credit risk. Additionally, the City may request PFM to provide an assessment of the overall portfolio on a quarterly basis assessing additional risk factors, such as call risk and interest rate risk. As described briefly below, our review and recommendations for either or both services will be based on our extensive experience working with California public agencies. Review of Corporate Holdings PFM will review the corporate securities in the portfolio, and monthly provide a written report outlining current market conditions and specific recommendations involving the City's corporate holdings. PFM will also monitor the corporate securities. If there is a significant change in the credit worthiness of a security we have reviewed, we will notify the City. We, further, strongly recommend the City call us before purchasing a corporate security, as this will help mitigate the City's exposure to credit risk. Quarterly Review of Portfolio PFM will provide a more extensive, quarterly review of the City's entire investment portfolio if requested. To this extent, PFM would initially review the City's investment policy to ensure that it is in compliance with the California Government Code. We will review the City's investment policy at the beginning of each calendar year to be sure that all changes to the Code have been incorporated into the policy. We will notify the City if there are any further changes to the Code during the year that should be changed by the City. Then, on a quarterly basis we will review the City's investment portfolio to verify its compliance with the City's investment policy. PFM will also provide a review of the City's portfolio showing the City's invesn2ents by sector diversification, credit ratings, and maturity distribution. We will also provide an analysis of the portfolio's duration, perfmxnance, and relative liquidity. Our report will also provide the City a review of current market conditions and any implications this may have on the City's investment portfolio and investment policy. PFM closely monitors economic data to evaluate probable effects on the market and, more importandy, on our clients' portfolios. We look at such factors as employment (unemployment rate, monthly payroll gains), inflation (PPI, CPI, ECl, average hourly earnings), the consumer (retail sales, consumer spending, consumer confidence/sentiment), manufacturing ONAPM, durable goods orders) and housing/construction (new home sales, construction spending). We w/il use this economic information to assess the likely impact of current market trends on the City's portfolio and pohcy. City of South San Francisco - Proposal tor Investment Oversight Services I --PFM Asset_ Management LLC 1. PFM's Qualifications PFM is an independent investment adviser registered with the SEC. PFM's experience in reviewing portfolios is unparalleled. PFM has been directing the management of public sector investments si_nee 1980. Our role is strictly that of advisor and manager; we do not sell or trade securities for our own account nor do we underwrite securities. PFM is able to offer unbiased advice without the conflicts of interest that may arise when a firm's scope of operations extends beyond client service to the selling and/or underwriting of securities. Our qualifications are distinguished by a number of important factors: Focus - PFM has been providing investment advice exdusive[y to the public sector since 1980 and has built a strong reputation in this field. This is our specialty, and we have limited our clients to concentrate in this area. We know the markets, understand the special needs of public sector investors and have the technical resources to meet the investment needs of our public sector clients. Knowledge of Public Sector Investment Requirements - PFM manages separate accounts for over 300 public sector clients, and provides investment management services for over 2,000 additional clients through commingled statewide investment programs. We have also provided non- discretionary advice and investment reviews for numerous public sector clients. Our extensive work with public entities has given us unmatched opportunity to gain a thorough understanding of investment objectives and constraints for state and local governments, joint powers authorities, school districts and special districts, and to develop appropriate inves122ent policies and investment recommendations for our clients. California Experience - In California, we provide investment advice on $4.6 billion of public assets, managing $2.5 billion on a discretionary basis and providing invesunent oversight on additional $2.1 billion. The individuals that will work on this engagement have specialized in serving the investment needs of California public agencies for many years and have thorough knowledge of California law with regard to the investment of public funds. Resources - PFM has a large staff of dedicated, knowledgeable investment professionals devoted to serving our clients. Our professionals have access to the major on-line market trading and information systems, including: Bloomberg, TradeWeb, Telerate, Dow Jones, the Associated Press, Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's. In addition, PFM has developed proprietary investment models that are used to perform sophisticated portfolio analyses and optimize portfolio performance. 2a. Engagement Team This engagement will be primarily the responsibility of Nancy Jones, Managing Director, as Engagement Manager; Lauren Brant, Senior Managing Consultant, as Project Manager; Dave Baccile, Sr. Portfolio Manager, as Credit Specialist, and Gregg Manjerovic as Portfolio Manager. Resumes for each of these individuals can be found on the following pages. City of South San Francisco ~ Proposal for Investment Oversight Services PFM "-Asset--..-_ Management LLC As needed, the engagement team will be further supported by other individuals in PFM's investment advisory group staff, which consists of 59 people, including portfolio managers/traders, technical/research analysts, client service and accounting staff. Nancy Jones, Managing Director Nancy Jones joined PFM, Inc. in January 1989. A Managing Director in our San Francisco office, Nancy is responsible for managing PFM's investment advisory services in California. Ms. Jones is the client liaison for all municipal investment portfolios in California. She works with each client to develop a customized investment policy that meets the particular needs of that agency. She has conducted numerous workshops and seminars for clients' staff and board members on such subjects as investments permitted in California, developing investment policies and internal controls, and oversight to ensure safety of principal invested. She is invited frequently to make presentations to annual conferences for public agencies' financial officials. Nancy was asked to join the Technical Investment Advisory Committee of the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission in 2000, and is an active participant of the Committee. Nancy is a member of the California Municipal Treasurers Association, the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers, the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, and the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities. Ms. Jones has over 25 years experience working with pubhc agency clients in California and other western states. Before joining PFM, Ms. Jones worked as Vice-President in the Trading and Investment Group of Wells Fargo Bank selling fixed income securities to public agencies and other institutional customers in the western states. For 10 years before joining Wells Fargo, Ms. Jones worked for Crocker National Bank, most recently as Vice-President in the Capital Markets Division, responsible for business development and account relationship management in the California public sector. Before that she managed the commercial banking unit responsible for the development of new liability products and services for institutional customers. Ms. Jones is a Phi Beta ICappa graduate of the University of Cahfornia, Berkeley, and attended business school at San Francisco State University. NASD Exams: Series 7 Lauren Brant, Senior Managing Consultant Lauren Brant joined PFM as a Consultant in 1995. Her primary responsibilities include providing technical and analytical support to portfolio managers for the Western states. She analyzes the spreads between securities, prepares swap analyses, and writes quarterly investment performance reports for clients in the West Coast. In addition, she has obtained cash flow information from clients and developed cash flow models so we can better match clients' assets with their liabilities. In PFM's role as Investment Advisor to the California Asset Management Program (CAMP)--a JPA that assists California public entities with the investment and tracking of bond proceeds--Ms. Brant City of South San Francisco ~ Proposal for Investment Oversight Services PFM _Asset Management LLC is responsible for monitoring earnings and expenditures, prepa~ing annual arbitrage rebate Liability calculations, exception compLiance reports, and penalty-in-Lieu-of rebate calculations for participants. She is a member of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, the California Municipal Treasurers Association, the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers, and the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities. Ms. Brant is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the Pennsylvania State University, where she earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics. NASD Exams: Series 52, 6 and 63. Dave Baccile, Sr. Portfolio Manager, Credit Specialist David Baccile joined PFM in the spring of 1997 as a Portfolio Manager in the Investment Advisory Group. As a portfolio manager, Mr. Baccile analyzes economic data for the pm-pose of interest rate forecasting and the development of investment strategies. In addition to portfolio management of PFM client accounts, Mr. Baccile provides investment oversight for non-discretionary cLient assets. He is also responsible for corporate bond, mortgage and taxable municipal research. Prior to joining PFM, Mr. Baccile was Portfolio Manager and Director for Key Asset Management. In this capacity he was directly responsible for managing $3 billion of intermediate-term investments including the Victory Intermediate Income Fund. In addition, Mr. Baccile was responsible for managing various institutional fixed income accounts such as endowments, charitable foundations, and pensions. Before becoming a Portfolio Manager, Mr. Baccile was responsible for credit research on commercial paper and corporate bonds as well as fixed income trading. Mr. Baccile received his MBA in Finance from the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University, OH and a B.B.A. in Accounting from Siena College, NY. Mr. Baccile is a member of the Association of Investment Management and Research (AIMR) and holds the Chartered Financial Analyst designation. Gregg Manjerovic, Portfolio Manager Gregg Manjerovic joined PFM in the summer of 2001 as a Portfolio Manager in the Investment Advisory Group. Mr. Manjerovic is responsible for portfolio management of PFM client accounts and bond proceeds accounts of participants in two of PFM's statewide pooled investment programs. Mr. Manjerovic is also responsible for all aspects of tax-exempt account management, and performs extensive credit analyses to determine the most appropriate investment for PFM's public sector clients. Prior to joining PFM, Mr. Manjerovic was Portfolio Manager and Trader for Northern Trust Global Investments. In this capacity he was directly responsible for managing $500 Million of intmxnediate and long-term investments. Mr. Manjerovic was further responsible for corporate trading for Mutual Funds, Pensions, Foundations, and Endowments. In addition, Mr. Manjerovic was responsible for fixed income portfolio strategy and trading for Northern Trust Wealth Management Investment portfolios. Before becoming a PortfoLio Manager, Mr. Manjerovic was a portfoho accountant responsible for valuation of Northern Trust's Mutual Funds. City of South San Francisco ~ Proposal for Investment Oversight Services PFM ~Asset Management LLC Mr. Manjerovic received his MS in Financial Markets and Trading from the Smart School of Business at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, Illinois and a B.S. in Finance from University of Illinois at Chicago. 2.b. References PFM provides non-discretionary services for several public agencies across Califorma. These engagements range from a daily review of the entity's portfoho to a less frequent quarterly evaluation. We have listed two references. These are pubhc sector entities for whom we provide non-discretionary services. City of Santa Barbara Contact: Cindy Odell, Treasu~7 Manager Phone Number: (805) 564-5337 San Bernard&no County Contact: Richard Larsen, Treasurer-Tax Collector Phone Number: (909) 387-6382 3. State whether the firm has purchased a security that has been downgraded below the legal limit for public agencies in California. PFM is proud that we have not purchased a single corporate security that has been downgraded below the legal limit for purchase in California. This record is not the result of luck it is a testament to our unwavering commitment to safety and liquidity above all other objectives. PFM has very stringent standards when purchasing corporate securities for our public sector clients. These same standards will be applied to the analysis and review of the City's corporate holdings. PFM employs a rigorous review process before the purchase of any non-governmental security to ensure its credit quality is consistent with our standards of safety. Portfolio management staff will regularly monitor the credit quality of holdings in each portfolio so that with emerging credit conditions, we can identify, evaluate, and take appropriate action as necessary. The typical PFM portfolio emphasizes "AAA" rated U.S. Treasury and Federal Agency securities for public agencies where we provide discretionary management of the funds. For those agencies that allow non-governmental securities, we focus on the credit quality of securities and trends in the various industries. We typically limit purchases to "AA" or "AAA" rated corporates, even though "A" rated corporates are allowed by Code and many investment policies. This has been especially vital during the past twelve to eighteen months, as the corporate sector has been severely impacted by accounting scandals and other corporate malfeasance. During this time period PFM has avoided the purchase of any corporate securities other than very select, high-grade corporate notes. We have City of South San Francisco ~ Proposal for Investment Oversight Services PFM Management LLC not been comfortable with purchasing or holding "A" rated investments, as these notes do not provide sufficient cushion in the event of a negative credit action taken by one of the national credit rating agencies. Fundamental to our approach is the in-depth analysis we conduct on both the industry and company before making any corporate investment. PFM avoids investing in industries and companies that do not meet our strict high credit standards. For example, when the California utility industry was deregulated in the early 1990's, PFM made a conscious decision to avoid the entire industry because of the uncertainty created by deregulation. As a result of this assessment, and despite the favorable investment grade ratings of most utility issuers, we removed all utilities from the PFM Approved List. This decision proved quite astute when the California power crisis precipitated the rapid credit deterioration of public power companies in 2000 and the bankruptcy of PG&E. Many California pubhc agencies, including some with other investment advisors, were not so fortunate. It is our understanding that the City is currendy invested in very low-grade corporate securities. We also understand that of the 14 corporate holdings three are rated "BBB." Unless another nationally recognized rating agency has a rating higher than "BBB," these securities are not allowable for purchase by California public agencies. Additionally, ten of the 14 holdings are rated "A" or "A-." Should PFM be selected to perform the oversight function of the City's corporate credits, we will provide an extensive review of all these securities to determine whether or not they should remain in the portfolio. These are risky credits to have in the portfolio, especially in the wake of the accounting scandals that have plagued the corporate sector over the past 18 months. Additionally, history has proven that although "A" rated securities may initially offer a higher yield, they do not hold their value as compared to "AA" or "AAA" corporate notes over the long run. Over the past five years ended March 31, 2002, 1-5 year "AA" rated corporate securities earned an average annual return of 7.53%, versus 7.17% for the same maturity "A" rated corporate securities. Additionally, during the last 18 months, a period when a number of corporations have encountered problems, "A_AA" and "AA" rated corporations have proven to be the best perfmTning from a credit risk standpoint. Using the total par amount of issues in each rating category, since December 2000: · Over one-third of "A2" rated corporate debt was downgraded to "Baa" or worse by Moody's; · More than half of all corporate notes rated "A3" were downgraded, and 16% of those are now considered "junk" stares. If selected, PFM would recommend the City contact us prior to each corporate purchase so that we may perform an extensive review of the credit before it is placed in the portfolio. Research Capabilities Because PFM specializes in managing short and intermediate-term fixed-income assets of public agencies, we have tailored our research capabilities and resources to meet needs in this area. Although much research may be collected from the Internet, PFM makes use of nationally recognized timesharing networks and database management systems including those off Bloomberg, Securities Data Corporation, Delphis Hanover Corporation, Thomson Financial, Muni-Iris, CDA City of South San Francisco - Proposal for Investment Oversight Services -PFM '-'Asset---..-_ Management LLC Spectrum and Dow Jones. PFM uses these timesharing networks and information systems for research and bond market analyses. 4. Annual Cost 1. Upon completion of a monthly review and analysis of the City's corporate holdings, PFM will provide the City with a written report covering our findings and recommendations, if any. For the services described under la. and lb. of the RFP's scope of services, PFM proposes a fee of $1,000 per month or $12,000 annually. PFM will cover all of its out-of-pocket expenses related to this engagement. 2. Should the City request a quarterly review of the portfoho, complete with a report providing a thorough assessment of the City's overall portfolio holdings, PFM proposes a fee of $4,000 per quarterly report. Again, PFM expects to cover all of its out-of-pocket expenses related to this engagement. Because of our close proximity to the City, Nancy Jones and/or Lauren Brant will be readily available to meet with City staff or City Council as needed. City of South San Francisco - Proposal for Investment Oversight Services Staff eport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Police Department PENALTY INCREASE FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution authorizing an increase in the penalty for parking violations as defined by the California Vehicle Code and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In March of 1996, City Council approved a fee increase of $1.00 on each parking violation fee to offset an increase in the processing of each citation. Since that time, the manner in which citations are processed has become more labor intensive for the City; 'however, the fee schedule has remained the same. (The last increase prior to 1996 was in 1988). Parking violation fees are considered a "civil penalty" and may be set by the local jurisdiction. New fees, however, must be uniform with fees set throughout the County for the same violations. An increase is recommended to help offset: · The cost to contract with Turbo Data Systems, Inc. to process parking citations. · The increased cost for both the Finance and Police Departments. · Rising cost of equipment, supplies and compensation. In order to establish new fees, a comparison has been made with several of the surrounding cities. The Comparison Chart (Exhibit A) shows our current fee schedule in relationship to other cities, and the proposed increase of the most common violations. The proposed fines for all violations are listed on the Current and Proposed Fines for All Violations Chart (Exhibit B). The revenue the city receives is not the total amount of the fine. Exhibit C illustrates the revenue break down including the processing fees. Staff Report Subject: PENALTY 1NCREASE FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS Page 2 The proposed increase has been discussed with the Parking Place Commission and with the Chamber of Commerce and both were in favor of the increases. tvtark Raffae~'f/r Chief of Police Approved: Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments: Resolution Comparison Chart (Exhibit A) Current and Proposed Fines for All Violations (Exhibit B) Parking Fee Assessments (Exhibit C) RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE PENALTY FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS AS DEFINED BY THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE AND THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, staff recommends an increase in the penalty for parking violations to offset an increase in the processing of each citation; and WHEREAS, the proposed increase has been discussed with the Parking Commission and with the Chamber of Commerce and both were in favor of the increase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes an increase in the penalty for parking violations as defined by the California Vehicle Code and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 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 F:\file cabinet\Current Reso's\parking.violations.res.doc CURRENT AND PROPOSED FINES FOR ALL VIOLATIONS Code Section 8.44.050 (B) MC 8.48.160 (A) MC 11.12.050 MC 11.28.010 MC 11.40.020 (E) MC 11.40.040 (A) MC 11.40.040 (B) MC 11.40.040 (C) MC 11.40.040 (D) MC 11.40.050 (B) MC 11.40.050(C) MC 11.40.060 (B) MC 11.40.070 MC 11.40.080 (A) MC 11.40.080 (B) MC 11.40.090 (A) MC 11.40.090 (B) MC 11.40.110 (A) MC 11.40.110 (B) MC 11.40.120 (A) MC 11.40.120 (C) MC 11.40.120 (E) MC 11.40.130 (C) MC 11.40.140 (C) MC 11.40.150 MC 11.40.160 (A) MC 11.40.170 MC 11.40.180 MC 11.40.190 (A) MC 11.40.200 MC 11.40.210 MC 11.40.220 (A) MC 11.40.220 (B) MC 11.40.220 (C) MC 11.40.220 (E) MC 11.40.220 (F) MC 11.40.220 (G) MC 11.40.225 MC 11.40.230 MC 11.40.240 MC 11.40.250 MC 11.40.260 MC 11.40.270 MC 11.40.280 MC 11.40.290 (B) MC 11.40.290 (C) MC 11.56.030 (B) MC 11.56.040 MC Description Current RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE 16.00 VEH ABATEMENT ON PRIVATE PROP 26.00 ERASING CHALK MARKS 31.00 DISABLED PARKING (PRIV PROP) 56.00 NO PKG/STOP - SIGN POSTED 16.00 RED CURB: PARKED AT ANYTIME 16.00 YLW CRB: NO PK MON-SAT 8:AM-6PM 16.00 WHITE CRB: LOAD/UNLOAD ONLY 16.00 GRN CRB: 24 MIN MON-SAT 7AM-6PM 16.00 PKD IN OTHER THAN MARKED SPACE 16.00 PARALLEL PKG: MUST PKG SNGL SPC 16.00 FAIL TO OBEY EMERG NO PKG SIGN 16.00 VIOL PKG HOURS (SIGN/MTR/CRB) 16.00 ONE-WAY ST 18" FROM LEFT CURB 16.00 DIVIDED ST - NO PKG ON LEFT SIDE 16.00 DIAGONAL PKG PK W/IN MKD SPACE 16.00 DIAG PKG: FRNT WHLS W/IN 6"CRB 16.00 LOADING IN EXCESS 20 MINUTES 16.00 LOADING EXCESS 5 MINUTE ZONE 16.00 LOADING PROHIBITIONS YELLOW 16.00 UNLOAD/LOAD 20 MINUTES LIMIT 16.00 UNLOAD/LOAD IN PUBLIC LOT 16.00 NO PARKING IN BUS ZONE 26.00 NO PARKING IN TAXICAB STAND 26.00 NO PARKING BICYCLE ZONE 16.00 NO PKG EXCESS 72 HOURS 16.00 CURB TIRES ON GRADES 16.00 NO PKG BUSS DIST 03:00-05:00 16.00 TRESSPASS WITH VEHICLE 26.00 COMM DISABLED/WARNING DEVI 16.00 COMM TRK OVR 10K GVWR/3HRS 31.00 NO PARKING ON ISLANDS 16.00 NO PKG ON PUBLIC WALKS, STEPS 16.00 NO PKG TRAFFIC HAZARD 26.00 NO PKG RR TRACKS 26.00 NO PKG HAZARD ZONE 26.00 NO PKG STREET REPAIR POSTED 16.00 SPECIFIC COMPLAINT STREET (1ST) 200.00 SPECIFIC STREET (2ND) 300.00 COMPLAINT SPECIFIC COMPLAINT STREET (3RD) 400.00 NO PARKING IN PARKVVAYS 26.00 NO PARKING VEHICLES FOR SALE 16.00 REPAIR/GREASE VEH IN CITY STRT 16.00 1 HR LIMIT DISMANTEL ON LOT/ST 16.00 ABANDONED VEH EXCESS 72 HRS 16.00 NO CARWASH / FOR CHARGE 16.00 OBSTRUCT TRAFF VENDOR VEHICLE 26.00 VENDING VEH NO-DESIGNATED AREA 26.00 OUTSIDE PKG SPACE AT A METER 16.00 EXPIRED METER 11.00 Fine Proposed Fine 25.00 30.00 35.00 60.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 20.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 35.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 15.00 EXHIBIT B Page ! of 2 CURRENT AND PROPOSED FINES FOR ALL VIOLATIONS 11.56.060 MC 11.56.070 MC 11.56.090 (C) MC 11.56.090 (D) MC 11.56.100 (B) MC PKD AT HOODED (BROKEN) METER 16.00 IMPROPER USE OF METER 16.00 PK IN OTHER THAN MARKED SPACE 16.00 PK W/O PERMIT IN PERMIT LOT 16.00 NO PKG ON CITY PROPERTY 26.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 20.00 25.00 21113 (A) CVC 21210 CVC 21211 (B) CVC NO PARKING ON PUBLIC GROUNDS 36.00 BICYCLE PARKING ON SIDEWALK 26.00 IMPEDING BICYCLE PATH/TRAIL 35.00 35.00 * 25.00 * 35.00 * 22500 (A) CVC 22500 (B) CVC 22500 (C) CVC 22500 (D) CVC 22500 (E) CVC 22500 (F) CVC 22500 (G) CVC 22500 (H) CVC 22500 (I) CVC 22500 (J) CVC 22500 (K) CVC 22500 (L) CVC 22500.1 CVC 22502 (A) CVC 22502 (E) CVC 22504 crc 22505 CVC 22507.8 (A) CVC 22507.8 (B) CVC 22507.8 (C) CVC 22514 crc 22515 (A) CVC 22520.5 CVC 22521 crc 22522 crc 22523 (A) CVC 22523 (B) CVC 22526 (A) CVC PARKED WITHIN AN INTERSECTION 26.00 PARKED IN OR ON A CROSSWALK 26.00 PARKING IN SAFETY ZONE 26.00 PARKED NEAR FIRE HOUSE (15FT) 26.00 PARKED BLOCKING A DRIVEWAY 26.00 PARKED ON A SIDEWALK 26.00 PARKED NEAR EXCAVATION 26.00 DOUBLE PARKED ON STREET 26.00 PARKED IN A BUS LOADING ZONE 251.00 PARKED IN TUNNEL 26.00 PARKED ON A BRIDGE 26.00 PK BLK PSTD/RED CRB~WHLCHR RMP 301.00 PARKED IN DESIGNATED FIRE LANE 26.00 CURB PARKING / RT TIRE W/IN 18" 26.00 PK LFT SIDE & W/IN 18" OF CURB 26.00 PARKED IN AN UNINCORP. AREA 26.00 POSTED NO PARKING ON HIGHWAY 26.00 PK IN HANDICAPP SPC/NO PLACARD 326.00 PARK BLOCKING A HANDICAP SPACE 326.00 PARK BLOCKING CROSSHATCH LINES 326.00 FIRE HYDRANT-PARK W/IN 15 FEET 26.00 UNATTEND VEH - ENG ON / NO BRAKE 26.00 VENDING ON FREEWAY 26.00 PARK W/IN 7.5 FEET OF RR TRACKS 26.00 PARK W/IN 3FT OF SIDEWALK RAMP 326.00 ABANDONDED VEHICLE ON STREET 271.00 ABANDONDED PUB/PRIVATE PROP 100.00 ANTI-GRIDLOCK 26.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 250.00 30.00 30.00 300.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 * 30.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 325.00 100.00 * 100.00 * 50.00 * 27156 CVC 27600 CVC SMOG DEVICE REQUIRED MUDGUARD REQUIRED 136.00 26.00 100.00 * 25.00 * 4000 (A) CVC 4152.5 CVC 4458 CVC 4462 (B) CVC 4464 CVC 5200 CVC 5201 CVC 5204 (A) CVC * - Fine set by the EXPIRED REGISTRATION FOREIGN REGISTRATION STOLEN PLATE DISPLAY OF FALSE TAB/PLATE ALTERED LICENSE PLATES LICENSE PLATES REQUIRED POSISTION OF PLATES REGISTRATION TABS 50.00 26.00 26.00 25.O0 50.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule (California 50.00 * 25.00 * 25.00 * 25.00 * 25.00 * 25.00 * 25.00 * 25.00 * Rules of Court / 4.102) EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 2 Parkin~ Fee Assessments: Turbo Data Fee ($1.50 base fee plus increases) $2.60 average per citation Parking Assessment (Government Code Section 76000) $2.00 per citation * Courthouse Construction Fund (Government Code Section 76100) $1.50 per citation Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund (Government Code Section 76101) $1.50 per citation Additional fees for specific violations: Linkages Assessment (Elder Care Fund) (Penal Code Section 1465.5) $2.00 for every $10.00 collected. ($65.20 per citation) Equipment and Registration Violations (Vehicle Code Section 40225) 50% of fees collected Amount may vary * May increase to $2.50 per citation Fee breakdown examoles: Violation: Meter No Parking Double Parking Penalty fee (fine) +$11.00 Turbo Data fee (average) 2.60 Parking Assessment 2.00 Courthouse Construction fee 1.50 Criminal Justice Facility fee 1.50 Total collected per citation +$ 3.40 +$16.00 +$26.00 - 2.60 - 2.60 - 2.00 - 2.00 - 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 +$ 8.40 +$18.40 Revenue examoles: In 2001, we issued the following citations: 4,899 Meter violations After fee and assessments Proposed $4.00 increase $11.00 each. ($53,889.00) $ 3.40 each ($16,656.60) $ 7.40 each ($36,252.60) +$19,596.00 2,651 No Parking violations After fee and assessments Proposed $9.00 increase $16.00 each $ 8.40 each $17.40 each ($42,416.00) ($22,268.40) ($46,127.40) +$23,859.00 167 Double Parking Viol. After fee and assessments Proposed $4.00 increase $26.00 each ($4,342.00) $18.40 each ($3,072.80) $22.40 each ($3,740.80) +$668.00 EXHIBIT C DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Staff Xeport December 11, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works TERRABAY WOODS EAST AND WOODS STREET NAME CHANGES WEST SUBDIVISIONS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution changing the names of the private streets shown on the Terrabay Woods East and Woods West Subdivisions (Vol. 130 of maps, Pages 28 through 39), from Bay Street to Bayview Drive and from Woods Street to Woods Circle. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Terrabay Woods East and Woods West Subdivisions final map was approved by the City Council at their meeting of March 22, 2000. At that time, a street on the final map was approved as Bay Street. After the map was recorded, it was noticed that this name was very similar to Bay Court that had recently been constructed as part of a new subdivision adjacent to North Canal Street. The project developer, with the approval of the Police Department, would like to correct this conflict by changing the street name from Bay Street to Bayview Drive. In addition, they are requesting that the City change the name of Woods Street to Woods Circle near South San Francisco Drive. This will correct a typographical mistake on the final map. The Woods East and West Subdivisions are currently under construction and approximately 114 homes have been occupied at this time; however, them are currently no occupants on Bay Street who will be impacted by this change. There is no cost associated with this request. John }ibbs Director of Public Works ATTACHMENT: Resolution Michael A. Wilson City Manager RH/JG/ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE NAMES OF THE PRIVATE STREETS SHOWN ON THE TERRABAY WOODS EAST AND WOODS WEST SUBDIVISION MAPS FROM BAY STREET TO BAYVIEW DRIVE AND FROM WOODS STREET TO WOODS CIRCLE WHEREAS, staff recommends changing the names of the private streets shown on the Terrabay Woods East and Woods West Subdivision Maps from Bay Street to Bayview Drive and from Woods Street to Woods Circle to distinguish the new streets from existing street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes changing the names of the private streets shown on the Terrabay Woods East and Woods West Subdivision Vol. 130 of maps, Pages 28 through 39), from Bay Street to Bayview Drive and from Woods Street to Woods Circle. 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 F:~fle cabinet\Current Reso's\l 1-13street.name.change.res.doc StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources Resolution Approving Personnel Changes, including Classification Descriptions, Salary Ranges, and Unit Designations. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the unit designations, job specifications, and salary levels for the revised positions of: · Fire Marshal (revised from Chief Building Official/Fire Marshal). · City Building Official (revised from Chief Building Official/Fire Marshal). BACKGROUND In July 2001, the City separated the Building/Fire Prevention Division into two work units. The building inspectors including the Chief Building Official and all the associated work was placed in the Department of Economic and Community Development, where the planning responsibilities and building inspection responsibilities would be managed within one department. The Fire Prevention work, that is code enforcement, fire inspection, and fire investigation remained with the Fire Department. In order to make this movement effective, the management jobs needed to reflect this exchange. In addition, the City wanted to create a stronger career ladder for code enforcement and fire prevention because of changes in the job market. This staff report does not address these changes to fire prevention or code enforcement, which will be brought to the Council at a later date. There is no immediate direct increase in costs, as the management changes are actually at a lower or at the same level as before the division/department reorganization. Revised Classifications: Chief Building Official/Fire Marshal. Fire Marshal ................. Title change resulting from organizational change and in the Public Safety Managers unit as an unclassified exempt position JAB- 12/04/02 F:'tFile Cabinet\City CouncirtFire\02 Changes'tPersonnel Changes 02.doc Staff Report Subject: Personnel Changes Page 2 Revised Classifications (Continued): Chief Building Official/Fire Marshal. City Building Official .. Title change resulting from organizational change and placed in the Mid-management unit as an exempt unclassified position. DJ~urces Approved By: Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachments Proposed Class Description (Exhibits A) Proposed Salary Schedules (Exhibit B) RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS TO SALARY SCHEDULES AND/OR UNIT DESIGNATIONS NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: The classification descriptions, salary schedules, and/or unit designations of the following positions, as set forth in Exhibits A and B attached hereto, are hereby approved: (1) "Fire Marsh al." (2) "City Building Official." 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 F:\file cabinet\old. Resol2_00\position0110.res.doc Exhibit A Attachments Proposed Class Descriptions for: 1. Fire Marshal 2. City Building Official JAB-11/22/02 10:12 AM FAFile Cabinet\City CouncilXFire\02 ChangesXExl:fibit A 02.doc City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department Fire Marshal Class Description Definition Under general direction, designs, administers, implements, and coordinates a comprehensive fire prevention and fire inspection program; reviews and checks building plans and specifications; enforces the fire code and related state and local codes and ordinances; conducts field inspections for compliance with the fire code, related state and local codes and ordinances; investigates incidents for cause and origin of fire; performs highly complex fire building inspections; supervises, evaluates, and trains staff: and does related work as assigned. Distinguishing Characteristics This single-position safety classification generally is responsible for fire safety. Duties include directing the day-to-day supervision of fire education, code enforcement, or fire inspection staff, providing technical expertise related to fire code, engineering, plan check, and fire inspection and investigation techniques and procedures; supervising the plan checking of industrial, commercial, and multi-family residential structures, including Title 24 Regulations; performing the more difficult and complex fire-related inspections. Important and Essential Duties 1. Develops, coordinates, maintains, and supervises all fire prevention and code enforcement programs by establishing procedures, assigning work, conducting training, and evaluating staff; interprets, applies, and ensures compliance with all applicable fire-related codes, ordinances, and regulations. 2. Provides information to the public, contractors, and architects; interprets fire code requirements for builders, subcontractors, designers, owners, and members of the general public. 3. Checks, reviews for understanding, and ensures compliance with procedures and guidelines established. 4. Meets with engineers, architects, contractors, business community, property owners, and the public to discuss and interpret codes, ordinances, and division policies, and resolves disputes and problems. 5. Investigates fire and code enforcement complaints and violations received from others, including City departments and divisions, contractors, business and property owners, and the public; investigates violations of fire-related codes and ordinances. 6. Conducts field inspections to ensure compliance with state and local fire and code enforcement laws and ordinances; coordinates field and site investigations and inspections for compliance with conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 7. Conducts fire-related plan review functions with plan review consultants and other City of South San Francisco Fire Marshal Class Description Page 2 departments/di vi sion s. 8. Reviews plan check for industrial, commercial, public, and residential structures and buildings for compliance with fire-related codes and ordinances in residential, business, or public buildings to ensure compliance with applicable tire-related building, electric, mechanical, fire, and safety codes, safety orders, ordinances, and regulations. 9. Interprets code requirements for builders, subcontractors, designers, owners, and the public; resolves disagreements and problems concerning inspections and code compliance. 10. Issues violation notices and/or citation notices in the enforcement of fire-related ordinances and codes; exercises powers of arrest in accordance with the Municipal Code and Penal Code Section 836.5. 11. Reviews new construction projects for compliance with applicable codes and ordinances. 12. Writes a variety of reports and conducts a range of simple to complex analyses. 13. Attends Planning Commission, City Council meetings, or other meetings as necessary. 14. Provides technical assistances in the investigation of complaints related to tire and code enforcement matters. 15. Coordinates and supervises the investigation of emergency incidents to determine causes and origins; may serve as a member of the County Fire Investigation Unit. 16. Reviews fire incident report review to ensure compliance with State guidelines and procedures. 17. Represents the City at professional and technical meetings; providing comments and analysis concerning new and revised codes and standards. 18. Resolves highly sensitive and politically sensitive disagreements and problems concerning fire inspections and compliance. 19. Reviews and assesses codes and ordinances, and makes recommendations for change. 20. Manages the department's engine company fire inspection program. 21. Coordinates the preparation, training, and implementation of the adoption of new and/or revised codes, standards, ordinances, or other regulations application to fire prevention and code enforcement. 22. Coordinates and supervises hazardous material activities, including data collection. 23. Operates a variety of machines and equipment, such as automobile, camera, measuring tape and wheel, calculator, investigative and drafting equipment, and computers and related applications. 24. Provides tire inspection and tire investigation training. 25. Establishes divisional goals and priorities. 26. Performs all other duties, as assigned. Job Related and Essential Qualifications Knowledge of' · Federal, state, and local codes, ordinances, and regulations relation to fire prevention and code enforcement. · Fire prevention and code enforcement methods, practices, programs, equipment, and 11/22/2002 S 5Admin\Class DescriptionsXFire\Fire Marshal.doc City of South San Francisco Fire Marshal Class Description Page 3 techniques. · Principles, practices, and techniques of fire investigation, prevention, and protection. · State and municipal codes, ordinances, and regulations relating to construction, electrical, mechanical, fire, heating, and gas installations. · Principles, practices, and techniques of training, including adult learning concepts. · Principles and techniques of effective customer service. · Principles, practices, and techniques of modem management and supervision. · Principles and practices of project management, administrative analysis, and report preparation. · Investigation methods, procedures, and equipment. · Inspection and plan check methods and procedures. · Internal functioning of City government and community needs. · Fire-related building construction materials and accepted safety standards. · Standard office practices and procedures, including automated records management. · Computer applications related to program areas, including word processing, spreadsheet, presentations, and database applications. · Techniques for dealing with City staff, representatives of other agencies, organizations, and the public, and resolving problems tactfully and effectively. Ability to: · Analyze, interpret, and accurately check building plans and specifications for compliance with fire codes, ordinances, and regulations. · Understand and comply with federal, state, local, City, and departmental rules and regulations. · Perform complex fire-related inspections. · Acquire a thorough knowledge of applicable City policies and department procedures and apply that knowledge. · Analyze, interpret, apply, and explain fire prevention, code enforcement, and laws, codes, and regulations. · Review plan check drawings and specifications, recognizing fire and safety standards. · Investigate fire scenes and determine causes and origins of fire; investigate other incident scenes to determine cause of incident. · Understand and comply with federal, state, local, City, departmental, and divisional rules and regulations. · Effectively supervise, direct, assign, and evaluate 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; prepare clear, concise, and comprehensive oral and written reports. · 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. 11/22/2002 S :XAdmin\Class Descripfions~ire~Fire Marshal.doc City of South San Francisco Fire Marshal Class Description Page 4 · 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; promote and demonstrate a high level of customer service. · Make process improvement changes to streamline procedures. · Work in a safe manner, modeling correct City safety practices and procedures; coach others, and enforce adherence to safety policies and procedures. · Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. Skill in: · Using a standard computer with speed and accuracy sufficient to perform assigned work. · Taking own notes and accurately transcribing them. · Resolving problems related to technical issues. 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: Five years of increasingly responsible professional experience in fire protection, design review, or code enforcement with at least two of those years in a supervisory capacity. Training: Equivalent to a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in civil or structural engineering, fire science, fire prevention or protection, or a closely related field, and satisfactory completion of any three of the following State of California Board of Fire Services courses or equivalent fire prevention-related courses. Fire Prevention lA Fire Prevention lB Fire Prevention 2A Fire Prevention 2B Fire Investigation lA Fire Investigation lB Fire Investigation 2A Fire Investigation 2B Management 2E Licenses and Certificates The following must be maintained as a condition of employment. · Possession of, or the ability to obtain within the probationary period, an appropriate California Driver's license and maintenance of a satisfactory driving record. · Possession of Section 832 Penal Code, State of California - non-firearm Certification must 11/22~2002 S:XAdmin\Class Descriptions~Fire~Fire Marshal.doc City of South San Francisco Fire Marshal Class Description Page 5 be obtained within one year from date of appointment. Possession of a Fire Prevention Officer II certificate, State Fire Marshal. Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment: Physical Skills: Ability to sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, stoop, squat, crawl, twist, climb, and lift 35 pounds; maintain sustained posture in a seated position for prolonged periods of time. Work Environment: Work in a standard office environment or in field settings; exposure to cold, heat, noise, outdoors, vibration, confined spaces, chemicals, explosive materials, mechanical hazards, and electrical hazards; ability to work protracted and irregular hours, and available for evening meetings. 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: October 1995 December 2002, July 1997, October 1995 Chief Building Official, Chief Building Official/Fire Marshal Public Safety Managers 2000 Yes Class 2 Classified/exempt EF5/EJ2 M410 ADA Documentation of Essential Duties 1. SDE 2. SDE 3. SDE 4. SDE 5. SDE 6. SDE 7. SDE 8. SDE 9. SDE 10. SDE 11. SDE 12. MAE 13. MAE 14. SAE 11/22/2002 SSAdrr~\Class Descriptions\FkeXFke Marshal.doc City of South San Francisco Fire Marshal Class Description Page 6 15. SAE 16. SAE 17. SAE 18. SDE 19. SAE 20. SDE 21. SDE 22. SAE 23. SAE 24. SDE 25. SAE 11/22/02 11:01 AM sSadmin~class descriptionsXfh-e~ire marshal.doc I 1/22/2002 S:XAdmin\Class Descript/ons~FireXFire Marshal.doc City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department City Building Official Class Description Definition Under administrative direction, interprets codes, manages and coordinates division activities; provides highly responsible and technical staff assistance, direction, and training for all division programs, including but not limited to: building construction and inspections, public education, and plan review; participates or assists in the mitigation of emergency incidents as directed; and performs related work as required. Distinguishing Characteristics The management classification manages, supervises, develops, maintains, directs, and coordinates the activities of the division. This class is distinguished from the next lower-level classification in that it has primary responsibility for managing the division. Important and Essential Duties 1. Develops, coordinates, and maintains the overall building inspection program for the City ensuring compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. 2. Supervises and directs employees involved in the operation of the division; selects, trains, and evaluates subordinate employees. 3. Provides technical training and direction to program managers and other employees involved in the operation of the division; prepares and implements efficient counter procedures in plan check and inspection activities. 4. Interprets building, housing, state-mandated, and other applicable codes adopted or enforced by the city related to the construction and life safety of buildings and its occupants. 5. Ensures buildings are constructed in accordance with approved plans and in accordance applicable codes, regulations, and ordinances. 6. Prepares the budget and budget augmentations for the division; monitors expenditures and makes adjustments accordingly; develops and maintains established service levels and objectives. 7. Meets with engineers, architects, contractors, business community, property owners, and the public to discuss and interpret codes, ordinances, and division policies, and resolve disputes and problems that cannot be resolved at other levels. 8. Performs plan checking, site inspections, and issues Certificate of Occupancy, as necessary. 9. Prepares a variety of reports to the City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager, and others, including staff reports, monthly and periodic reports, data compilation, and responses to inquiries. Attends various meetings of the City Council, Planning Commission, and other City boards and commissions on a variety of issues. Serves as secretary to the City's Building and Housing Appeals Board; prepares agendas, 10. 11. City of South San Francisco City Building Official Class Description Page 2 minutes, and reports; follows-up on action items. 12. Develops, implements, and conducts plan checking and building inspection training programs for department staff. 13. Provides technical assistance in the investigation of complaints related to building and other related matters. 14. Develops goals, objectives, and program plans as directed. 15. Coordinates and supervises damage assessment teams and operations; inspects and collects field data; reports findings in time of disaster. 16. Represents the City at professional and technical meetings; provides comments and analysis concerning new and revised codes and standards. 17. Coordinates the preparation, training, and implementation of the adoption of new and/or revised codes, standards, ordinances, or other regulations applicable to the building, fire prevention, and code enforcement activities of the division. 18. Operates a variety of machines and equipment, such as automobile, camera, measuring tape wheel, calculator, investigative 'and drafting equipment, and computers and related applications. 19. Coordinates the maintenance of applicable addresses, classifications, filing of records, plans and maps pertaining to inspections, plan checking, code enforcement, and other division activities. 20. Performs other related work as required. Job Related and Essential Qualifications Knowledge of'. · Federal, state, and local codes, ordinances, and regulations relating to building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and gas. · Principles, practices, and techniques of construction, inspection, design, and safety standards. · Principles and techniques of effective customer service. · Principles, practices, and techniques of modem management. · Principles, practices, and techniques of training, including adult learning concepts. · Internal functioning of City government and community needs. · Principles and practices of project management, administrative analysis, and report preparation. · Computer applications related to areas of assignment, including word-processing, spreadsheet, presentations, and database applications. · Standard office practices and procedures, including automated records management. · Techniques for dealing with the City staff, representatives of other agencies, organizations, and the public, and resolving problems tactfully and effectively. Ability to: · Analyze, interpret, and accurately check building plans and specifications for compliance with intended codes, ordinances, and regulations. · Plan, organize, supervise, direct, and evaluate division work and staff. · Understand and comply with federal, state, local, City, and departmental rules and City of South San Francisco City Building Official Class Description Page 3 regulations. Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing; prepare clear, concise, and comprehensive oral and written reports. · Develop and implement improvements to systems and operations. · Selection, train, and evaluate staff. · Acquire a thorough knowledge of department policies and a working knowledge of applicable City policies; formulate and administer sound operational policy. · 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 such as employees, officials, other public agencies, and the public. · Organize own work, set priorities; meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assignments with a minimum of direction. · Apply computer programs related to the work. · Take a proactive approach to customer service issues; promote and demonstrate a high level of customer service. · Work in a safe manner, modeling correct city safety practices and procedures; coach others and enforce adherence to safety police and procedures. · Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. Skill in: · Resolving problems related to technical issues. · 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: Five years of increasingly responsible experience in building inspection, building design, plan checking, or similar fields in a comparable municipality with at least two years in a supervisory capacity. Training: Equivalent to an Associate of Arts degree from an accredited college with major coursework in building construction and/or design, civil engineering, architecture, or a related field. Licenses and Certificates The following must be maintained as a condition of employment: · Possession of an appropriate valid California driver's license. · Possession of an International Conference of Building Official's Certification as Combination Inspector and Plans Examiner. · Possession of California Building Official Association Certification as a Building Official. a City of South San Francisco City Building Official Class Description Page 4 Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment: Physical Skills: Ability to sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, stoop, squat, crawl, twist, climb, and lift 35 pounds; maintain sustained posture in a seated position for prolonged periods of time. Work Environment: Work in a standard office environment or in field settings; exposure to cold, heat, noise, outdoors, vibration, confined spaces, chemicals, explosive materials, mechanical hazards, and electrical hazards; ability to work protracted and irregular hours, and available for evening meetings. 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: October 1995 November 2002, September 2001, and March 1998 Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official Mid-management 1994/95; September 2001, April 2002 Yes/No Class 3 Unclassified/exempt EF5~EJ4 M210 ADA Documentation of Essential Duties 1. SDE 2. SDE 3. SDE 4. SDE 5. SDE 6. MAE 7. OAE 8. OAE 9. MAE 10. OAE 11. MME 12. SDE 13. OAE 14. MAE 15. MAE 16. OAE 17. MAE 18. SDE 19. SDE 11/22/02 11:03 AM s:~admin~class de scrip tion sh~a-eXfmcbo, doc City of South San Francisco Exhibit B Below are the proposed salary range top step for each of the classifications listed in the staff report to which this is attached. Please note that any new range may have some minor fine- tuning when entered into the payroll system. Mid-Management Salary Schedule City Building Official ............................................................ No change ($7,769-$9,441) Fire Marshal .......................................................................... $9,630 ($7,921-$9,630) JAB-11/26/02 F:',File Cabinet\City CounciBFire\02 ChangesXExlfibit B 02.doc StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 11, 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 RECOMMENDATION Waive reading and introduce the ordinance, which amends Chapter 3.12 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to implement Council-approved position title additions. BACKGROUND The Municipal Code, Chapter 3.12 is updated periodically as positions are renamed, reclassified, created, and/or deleted from the competitive and non-competitive service. The following changes to the Municipal Code are recommended. Delete from the Municipal Code: Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official ............. Title change as a result of an organizational change. Add to the Municipal Code: City Building Official (exemptposition in the Title change as a result of an non-safety series) .............................................. change. Fire Marshal (exempt position in the safety Title change as a result of an series) ............................................................... change. organizational organizational Dire~es Approved By: Michael ~~ City Manager- JAB- 12/04/02 F:Wile Cabinet\City CounciBFire\02 ChangeshMtmi Code 02.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.2.010 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. 1. SECTION 3.12.010 is hereby amended as follows: A. SUBDIVISION (b) (1) Delete the positions of "Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official" (2) Add the position of "Fire Marshal." (3) Add the position of "City Building Official." 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. 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