Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-11 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: M ' UNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005 6:00 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 11th day of May, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 2. 3. 4. Call to Order Roll Call Public Comments - comments are limited to items on Agenda Closed Session o a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b), conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation: two potential cases b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 59457, public employee performance evaluation: City Attorney Adjournment Syl,~ia M. Payne, City OJi'erk AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005 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 LIMITED TO THREE (3) M1NUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. RAYMOND L. GREEN Chair JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Vice Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL Executive Director STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of April 27, 2005 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of May 11, 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS o Continuation of joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council meeting regarding proposed amendments to the redevelopment plans for the Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Areas to: fiscally merge the four project areas, add territory to the Downtown/Central Project Area; extend the time limit for the exercise of eminent domain within the Downtown/Central Project Area and the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area, and consideration of new implementation plans for all four redevelopment areas (approve resolutions) Item continued from April 27, 2005 (public hearing closed) ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MAY 11, 2005 AGENDA PAGE 2 Staff Report RD`4 .4 GEND.4 ITEM #3 DATE: May 11, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board Marty Van DUyn, Assistant City Manager CONTINUED JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ON FISCAL MERGER, PLAN AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSED FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency: 1) Adopt resOlUtions approving the .Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments for the Downtown/Central, El Camino Corridor, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Areas to: fiscally merge the four existing Project Areas, add territory to the Downtown/Central Project Area, and extend the time limit to exercise eminent domain for nonresidential property within the Downtown/Central Project Area and the original El Camino Corridor Project Area; and 2) Recommend adoption of the ordinances and the Implementation Plan for the four Project Areas; It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Consider and adopt findings in response to written objections to the proposed Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments; and ' 2) Waive reading, introduce the Ordinances and schedule a second reading for May 25, 2005. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On April 27, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency and City Council held a public hearing to hear testimony on the Fiscal Merger, Redevelopment Plan Amendments, and the Implementation Plan for the City's four Redevelopment Projects: Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway, and Shearwater. Attached as Exhibit A is the StaffReport dated April 27, 2005 that provides background information on the Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments. The April 27, 2005 Staff Report describes the purpose of the amendments and fiscal merger and the actions taken to date. It also includes the Supplement to the Report to Council and the Report to Council which contains the Implementation Plan, the Planning Commission's recommendation, a summary of the community meeting, public notices, a summary of meetings with taxing entities and other relevant background information. Staff Report Subject: Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments Page 2 At the April 27, 2005 public hearing, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency heard one comment fi.om a property owner on Mission Road requesting that the Redevelopment Agency include the undergrounding of utilities in the Implementation Plan. Redevelopment Agency staff has determined that the undergrounding of utilities along Mission Road would occur as part of other redevelopment activities in the area and therefore it is not necessary to include it as a separate activity in the Implementation Plan. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency also heard an objection to the Plan Amendments from the County of San Mateo (County), which submitted two letters in opposition on behalf of the County and the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District). The letters in opposition are attached as Exhibit B. In summary, the County objects to the fiscal impact the adoption of the Amendments will have on the County and District and argues State law mandates that redevelopment areas terminate when redevelopment work is completed. The County also challenges the findings that blighted conditions exist in the proposed added area and questions whether the Redevelopment Agency has met its affordable housing obligation. The City Attorney and Seifel Consulting are preparing proposed findings in response to these objections. These findings will be provided to the City Council, under separate cover, prior to the May 11 meeting. The Redevelopment Agency received one letter ofobj ection fi.om the San Mateo County Community College District (Exhibit C). The College District believes it is entitled to statutory payments pursuant to Section 33707.7 as a result of a previous Plan Amendment. The City Attorney has recommended that the Redevelopment Agency make pass through payments to the College District. The Redevelopment Agency also received a written objection fi.om a resident ora mobile home park. The letter and the Redevelopment Agency's response are included in the Supplemental Report to Council. CONCLUSION It is recommended the City Council consider and adopt findings in response to the written objections, the Redevelopment Agency adopt resolutions approving each of the four Plan Amendments and recommending adoption of the Ordinances, and the City Council waive reading, introduce the four Ordinances and schedule a second reading for May 25, 2005. At the May 25, 2005 Joint Meeting, it is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency and City Council adopt resolutions regarding the use of 20% funds outside the Project Areas, the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution approving the Implementation Plan, and the City Council waive second reading and adopt the four ordinances. Approval of the proposed Plan Amendments will add territory to the Downtown/Central Project Area, fiscally merge the four Redevelopment Project Areas and enable the Redevelopment Agency to efficiently pursue redevelopment activities in the Project Areas. StaffRoport Subject: Page 3 Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments Assistant City Manag~ BMN: MVD:AFS k--B/a~y l~i. Nage~ ~ City Manager ~ Attachments: · Resolution approving Five Year Implementation Plan FY 2004-05 through FY 2008-09 (pg. 1-4) Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, Resolution, Ordinance, Amendment, Map and Legal Description (pg. 5 - 28) E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, Resolution, Ordinance, Amendment (pg. 29 - 46) U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area, Resolution, Ordinance, Amendment (pg. 47 - 64) Gateway Redevelopment Project Area, Resolution, Ordinance, Amendment (,pg. 65 - 82) Exhibit A: StaffReport from April 27, 2005 Joint Meeting including the Supplement to the Report to Council (pg. 83 - 176) Exhibit B: Letters of objection from the County of San Mateo On behalf of the County and the San Mateo County Flood Control District (pg. 177 - 180) Exhibit C: Letter of objection from the Community College District, Response from the City and Redevelopment Agency, and subsequent reply from Community College District (pg. 181 - 186) · Report to Council with Appendix H, Implementation Plan Resolution For Five Year Implementation PI.an For FisCal Years 2004-05' through 2008-09 (Implementation Plan is attached as' Appendix H .to the Report To Council) P. 1 RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 'A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEW FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMF_2qTATION PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, THE El, CAMINO CORRIDOR ttEDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ARF_A, THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE U.S.' STEEMSHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FOR FISCAL YEARS g004/05 THROUGH g008/09 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law, each redevelopment agency administering a redevelopment plan must adopt a five-year implementation plan setting forth specific redevelopment agency goals and objectives, outlining specific projects and expenditures for the coming five years, and explaining how the stated goals, objectives, projects and expenditures will eliminate blight and meet the affordable housing needs of the commullity; and WHEREAS, the Report to Council ("RepOrt to Council") prepared in conneCtion with the proposed fiscal merger of the Downtown/Central Project Area, the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area and the U.S. Steel/ShearWater Redevelopment Project Area (collectively, the "Project Areas") and the proposed addition of territorY to the Downtown/Central Project Area includes a proposed Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Project Areas for fiscal years 2004/05 through 2008/09 (the "Implementation Plan"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with 'Health and Safety Code Section 33490, the adoption of an implementation plan does not constitUte a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act, and therefore, no environmental analysis was, required or prepared for the Implementation Plan; and WHEREAS, following publicatiOn of notice, as required by law, the Agency held a public hearing on April 27, 2005 to receive public comment on the proposed Implementation Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:by the Redevelopment 'Agency of the Ci~ of South 8an Francisco that the Implementation Plan included in the Report to Council as Appendix H, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, is hereby accepted and adopted as the h-nptementation Plan to be used by the Agency for fiscal years 2004/05 through 2008/09. : * * * * * P. 3' Down town/C en tral Redevelopment Project Area Resolution Ordinance a. Exhibit A: Amendment it Ex]fibk !: Map and Legal Description P. 5 RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA TO ADD NEW TERRITORY, EXTEND TIME LIMITS FOR EMINENT DO1VE~IN PROCEEDINGS, AND FISCAI J,Y MERGE THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA 'vVITH THE CAMINO COILRIDOR PROJECT AREA, THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER R F, DEVELOPMEN'-F PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan '("Redevelopment Plan") for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") by Ordinance No. 1056-89 adopted on July 12, 1989; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1152-94 to amend the Redevelopment Plan by amending certain time 1/mitations in accordance with AB 1290; and WHEREAS, in March 2004, the City Council adopted-Ordinance No. 1337-2004 extending certain time limitations in accordance with SB 1045; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco ("Agency") is vested with responsibil/ty to carry out the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Agency desires to again amend the Redevelopment Plan in order to (i) add territory to the Project Area, (ii) extend the time limits for the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire nonresidential property in the Project Area, and (iii) effectuate the fiscal merger of the Project Area with the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area, the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area and the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness 1/mit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes; and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment"), a copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendment is necessary to provide the Agency, the City and the South San Francisco community with additional financial and legal P. 7 resources to expand and complete the redevelopment program in the Project Area through activities such as development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and industrial areas, laud assembly and disposition for redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, and'the provision of assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, as set forth in City Council Resolution and Agency Resolution , each. adopted on March 9, 2005, the City Council and the Agency have each determined that establishment, of a Project Area Committee is not required became the Amendment does not authorize me of eminent domain for property on which persons reside and does' not provide for the development of public projects that will came displacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households; and wrmm?, as set,fo in city coun ResolUtion and Agenoy R sol tion , the City Council and the Agency have each determined that (i) the fiscal merger is exempt from. CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section .15061Co)(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the prior EIRs were certified, and there is no new information that was unavailable at the time the prior EIRs were certified; and' : ~ Wtt~REAS, the City Planning CommiSsion (the "Planning Commission") has 'reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption ofthe Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared and reviewed a Report to Council' in compliance with the requirements of Commlmity Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency secretary; and pursuant to notice duly given, a full and 'fair public hearing has been held on the Amendment, and the Agency has considered all written and all oral comments and testimony relating thereto and has been fully advised thereon; and · WHEREAS-, the Agency has taken all Other actions required bY law in connection with the preparation and consideration of the Amendment... · NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bY the Redevelopment Agency as follows: . '. - .. Section '1. The Amendment, the RePort to Council, the Supplement and all related documents, correspondence and transmittals, copies of which are on file in the office of the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk, are hereby approved. _Section 2. The Agency hereby recommends approval and adoption of the Amendment by the City Council. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of ,2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Clerk S :\cUrrent Reso,s\4_27_05downtown. central.Pro.area.res.DOC ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO ADD NEW TERRITORY, EXTEND TIME LIM1TS FOR EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS AND FISCALLY MERGE THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, THE EL C~O CORR1DOR REDEVEI.OPMENT PROJECT AREA, THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") by Ordinance No. 1056-89 adopted on July 12, 1989; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1152-94 to amend the Redevelopment Plan by amending certain time limitations in accordance with AB 1290; and WHEREAS, in March 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1337-2004 extending certain time limitations in accordance with SB 1045; and WH]EREAS, the City Council has received from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (the "Agency") a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment"), a copy of which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Amendment provides for (i) the addition of certain territory to the Project Area as deschbed in Exhibit 1 to the Amendment (the "Added Area"), (ii) the extension of time limits for the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire nonresidential property, (iii) the fiscal merger of the Project Area with the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area and the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendment is necessary to provide the Agency, the City and the South San Francisco community with additional financial and le~oal t '~ resources o expand and complete the redevelopment program in the Project Area through activities such as development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and industrial areas, land assembly and disposition' for redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, and the provision of assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing; and : WHEREAS,' as set forth in City Council Resolution and Agency Resolution ., each adopted on March 9, 2005, the City C0uncil and the Agency have each determined that establishment of a Project Area Committee is not required because the 'Amendment does not authorize use of eminent domain for property on which persons' reside and does not provide fOr the development of public projects that will cause displacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households; and WHEREAS, as set forth in City Council ResOlution ' and Agency'Resolution , the City Council and the Agency have each determined that (i) the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section' 15061(b)(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects, are proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which'the prior EIRs were certified, and there is no new infm~aation that was unavailable at the time the prior EIRs were certified; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") has reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment; and 'WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency conducted a joint public hearing on May 27, 2005, concerning adoption of the Amendment; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in San Mateo County once per week for four weeks prior to the date of the hearing, and a copy of such notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and Secretary of the Agency; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing together with a statement concerning acquisition of property by the Agency was sent by first class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the eXisting Project Area and the Added Area, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, notice'of the public hearing was sent by first class mail to all residents and businesses within the existing Project Area and the Added Area; WHEREAS, notice of the public heating was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency that receives taxes from property in the existing Project Area and the Added Area; and WI-IRREAS, the Agency has prepared a Report to Council in compliance with the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the P. 12 City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, and are hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated the Agency's Report to Council, the Supplement, and the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Amendment, and the City Council has, by Resolution No.__, adopted written findings ("Findings") in response to each written objection received from an affected property owner or taxing entity; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have c°mphed with all requirements of Community Redevelopment Law in connection with the consideration and adoption of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOIJ.OWS: .section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Amendment are: (i) to add the Added Area to the Project Area, (/i) to extend the time limitation for acquisition of non_residential property in the ex/sting Project Area and to establish such authority in the Added Area, (iii) to fiscally merge the City's four project areas in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes, and (iv) to accomplish to the greatest extent possible (a) the elimination of blight in the existing Project Area and the Added Area, and (b) the expansion and completion of the redevelopment program in the existing Project Area and the Added Area through the development of public improvements, the revitalization of commercial and industrial properties, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, the provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing, the expansion of employment opportunities, and the promotion of private sector investment in the ex/sting Project Area and the Added Area. .Section 2. Findings and Determinations. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 33354.6(a), 33367 and 33457.1, and based upon.the evidence contained in the Report to Council, the Findings and other documents prepared in connection with the Amendment adoption process, and the evidence presented at the pubhc hearing, the City Council hereby finds and determines that: 'The ex/sting Project Area c~,,,,h,,,~ to be ~'h .... ,~,4~,,.~ by ~.n.~.,;~ conditions as documented in Section II of the Report to Council prepared for the Amendment and in the Report to Council prepared in connection with the original adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. P. 13 bo The Added' Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes of the Community 'Redevelopment Law, and the inclusion of the Added Area is consistent with the goals and objectives of the existing redevelopment project. This finding is based on the following, which are detailed in Section 11 of the Report to Council: Significant earthquake, flooding, environmental and development hazards exist in the Added Area. The Added Area is characterized by a lack of adequate public improvements and utilities. The Added Area includes buildings in deteriorated condition which are potentially hazardous. · The Added Area is characterized by soil conditions and environmental hazards that may prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable reuse of land. The blighted conditions in the existing Project Area and the Added Area are so prevalent and so substantial that they cause a reduction of or lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that they constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community which Cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. This finding is based in part on the facts that governmental action available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient tO cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and cost of the improvements 'necessary to eradicate such blight are beyond the capacity of the City and private enterprise acting alone or in concert without redevelopment. The Amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of the Added .~rea and the existing Project Area in conformity 'with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is supported by the fact that redevelopment of the existing Project Area and the Added Area as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law by aiding in the elimination and correction of the conditions of blight in the existing Project Area and the Added Area; providing for planning, development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction or rehabilitation of properties which need improvement; providing affordable housing, including housing for low- and moderate-income persons; providing additional employment oppommities; facilitating private investment; and providing for more beneficial use of under-utilized land. P. 14 f. The adoption and carrying out of the Amendment is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based in part on the fact that under the Redevelopment Plan, as proposed to be amended, the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including tax increments and that no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity. The Report to Council further documents the economic feasibility of the Amendment and related undmtakings. The Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City including, without hmitation the Housing Element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based upon the report of the Planning Commission that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco. The carrying out of the Amendment will promote the pubhc peace, health, safety and welfare of the City and will effectuate the purposes and pohcies of the Community Redevelopmen.t Law. This finding is based on the fact that redevelopment as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Amendment, will benefit the existing Project Area and the Added Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development, contribute toward needed public improvements and improve the social, economic, and physical conditions of the existing Project Area and the Added Area. The condemnation of nonresidential real property as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based upon the need to ensure that the provisions of the Redevelopment plan as amended by the Amendment will be carried out and the need to prevent the recurrence of blight. The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the existing Project Area or the Added Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the City Council and the Agency recognize that the provisions of Government Code Section 7260 et seq. would apply in the event of relocation resulting from the Agency's implementation of the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment. The City Council finds and determines that the provision of relocation assistance according to the Agency's adopted Relocation Guidelines and applicable law constitutes a feasible relocation method. P. 15 jo There are, or will be provided within the Added Area, the existing Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the existing Project Area or the Added Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. This finding is based in part on the fact that no person or family will be required by the Agency to move from any dwelling unit in the Existing Project Area or the Added Area until suitable replacement housing is available according to law. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to adoption 'of a relocation plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33411 and 33411.1. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.5, 33413 and 33413.5. This finding is based in part on the fact that the Agency shall displace no families or persons nor remove or destroy dwelling units housing persons and families-of low or moderate incomes unless and until relocation assistance as required by law is provided. All noncontiguous areas of the Project Area, as amended to include the Added Area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment, and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of taxes from the area pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 without other substantial justification for theft inclusion.' This finding is based in part upon the fact that the boundaries of the Added Area were chosen to · be added to the existing Project Area as a unified and consistent whole to include lands that are underutilized because of blighting influences or that are affected by th~ existence of blighting influences and conditions that significantly contribute to blight conditions as reflected in the Report to Council, and whose inclusion is necessary to accomplish the objectives and benefits of the Amendment. InclUsion of any lands, buildings,- or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part, .and any'such areas included are necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such areas porsuant to Health and Safety Code. Section 33670 without other substantial justification for their inclusion. This finding is based in part upon the fact that the inclusion of lands, buildings or improvements within the Added Area is necessary in order to (i) eliminate underutilized, stagnant and unproductive conditions of land; (ii) eliminate deteriorated structures; (iii) eliminate inadequate or deteriorated .public improvements, facilities and utilities; (iv) provide affordable P. 16 - Oo po qo housing, including housing for low-and moderate-income persons; and (v) provide employment opportunities. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the existing Project Area and the Added Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements and facilities, structural deficiencies, dilapidation and deterioration, factors that hinder economically viable use, and the inability of individual developers to economically remove these blighting influences without public assistance to acquire and assemble sites for development as detailed in the record including the Report to Council. The lack of private investment incentive, and the cost of requiring individuals (through assessments or otherwise) to eradicate or significantly alley/ate such blighting conditions, and the inadequacy of other governmental programs and financing mechanisms to eradicate or significantly eliminate such blighting conditions, make elimination of blight in the existing Project Area and the Added Area infeasible without the aid and assistance of the Agency under the Amendment and the Community Redevelopment Act. The Added Area is predominantly urban/zed, as defined in Subdivision (b) of Section 33320.1 of the Health and Safety Code. This finding is based on the fact as set forth in the Report to Council that 97% of the Added Area has been developed for urban uses and is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses which is surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are developed for urban uses. The time limitations and the limitation on taxes that may be allocated to the Agency as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the existing Project Area and the Added Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the existing Project Area and the Added Area. This finding is supported by the fact that redevelopment depends in large part, upon private market forces beyond the control of the Agency, and shorter limitations would impair the Agency's ability to be flexible and respond to market conditions as and when appropriate and would impair the Agency's ability to maintain development standards and controls over a period of time sufficient to assure area stabihzation. In addition, shorter time hmitations would limit the revenue sources and financing capacity necessary to carry out proposed projects in the existing Project Area and the Added Area. The fiscal merger of the Project Area and the City's three other project areas for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue is authorized by, consistent with, and will serve the legislative pohcies of, Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., in that such fiscal merger will result in P. 17 substantial benefit to the Public and will contribute to the revitalization of blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of such areas and through increased and improved housing and economic opportunities in or near such areas. Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that if any occupants of the existing Project .Area or the Added Area are displaced, permanent housing facilities will be available within thre~ years from the time of such displacement, and th'at pending the development of such facilities, them will be available to any such displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the commullity at the time of their displacement. · Section 4. ' The City Council is satisfied that all written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing have been responded to in writing In addition, written findings have been adopted in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity which has been filed with the City Clerk either before or at the noticed public hearing. Following consideration by the City CounCil, all written and oral objections to the Amendment are hereby ovenuled. The reasons for overruling all written objections are more fully set forth in the Findings. Section 5. The Redevelopment Plan as. originally adopted and previously amended is hereby further amended as set forth in the proposed Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A and as so amended is hereby designated as the official redevelopment plan fo[ the existing Project Area and the Added Area. · Section 6. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Amendment hereby approved, it may be necessary for the City Council to take certain actions, and accordingly, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan as amended; Co) requests the various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area, including the Added Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the redevelopment of the existing Project Area and the Added Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan as amended; and (e) may elect to provide, but is not committed to provide, financial assistance in support of implementation of the Redevelopment Plan as amended. Section 7. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33372, the City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan as amended by th~ Amendment. Section 8. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33373, the City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the San Mateo County Recorder a description P. 18 of the land within the Added Area and a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Added Area have been instituted under the Community Redevelopment Law. The Agency is hereby directed to effectuate recordation in accordance with Government Code Section 27295, if applicable. Section 9. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33374, the Building Department of the City is hereby directed for a period of two years after adoption of this Ordinance to advise all applicants for building permits within the Added Area that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. Section 10. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 33457 and 33375, the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit within thirty days of adoption of this Ordinance, a copy of the description and statement recorded pursuant tO Section 8 of this Ordinance, a copy of this Ordinance, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Added Area to the auditor and tax assessor of San Mateo County, to the officer or officers performing the functions of auditor or assessor for any taxing agencies which in levying or collecting taxes do not use the County assessment roll or do not collect taxes through the County, to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Added Area, and to the State Board of Equalization. Section 11. If any part of this Ordinance or the Amendment is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remairfing parts of this Ordinance or of the Amendment, and the City Council hereby declares it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Amendment without such invalid part. Section 12. 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 (i) publish the Summary, and (ii) 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 (a) publish the summary, and Co) 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. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. P. 19 Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 27th day of April, 2005. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of May, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of ,2005. Mayor S :\Current Ord's\4-27-05downtown.centraLord. DOC P. 20 Exhibit A AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO ADD TERRITORY, EXTEND EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY AND FISCALLY MERGE PROJECT AREAS SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project, adopted by Ordinance 1056-89 on July 12, 1989 and subsequently amended (as so amended, the "Downtown Plan" or the "Plan") is hereby amended as set forth in this amendment (this "Amendment"), effective as of the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Amendment. SECTION 2. FISCAL MERGER Part V.F [Section 506] is hereby added to the Downtown Plan to read as follows: F. [SectiOn 506] Fiscal Merger 1. Findings. The fiscal merger of the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Downtown/Central Project Area") and the City's three other project areas for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue is authorized by, consistent with, and will serve the legislative policies of, Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., in that such fiscal merger will result in substantial benefit to the public and will contribute to the revitalization of blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of such areas and through increased and improved housing and economic opporturdties in or near such areas. 2. Fiscal Merger of Proiect Areas. Pursuant to, and for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue as described in Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., the Downtown/Central Project Area (as amended) is hereby fiscally merged with the following project areas: a. The project area (the "El Camino Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Area Project adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 1132-93 (as subsequently amended and restated by Ordinance No. 1270-2000, the "Et Camino Plan"). b. The project area (the "Shearwater Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. P. 21 Steel Plant Site, adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 996-86 (as subsequently amended, the "Shearwater Plan"). c. The project area (the "Gateway Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project, adopted by .the City Council by Ordinance No. 867-81 (as subsequently amended, the "Gateway Plan"). The E1 Camino Project Area, the Downtown/Central Project Area, the Shearwater Project Area and the Gateway Project Area are each referred to herein as a "constituent project area." Except as otherwise stated herein, each reference in this Amendment to a constituent project area shall mean such project area as originally established and as such project area may have been amended to add territory. This section authorizes the taxes attributable to each constituent project area which are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670C0) to be allocated for redevelopment in any of the constituent project areas for the purpose of paying the principal of, and interest on, indebtedness incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the redevelopment project in any of the constituent project areas; except that any such taxes attributable to a particular constituent project area shall first be Used to pay indebtedness in compliance with the terms of any bond resolution or othe~ agreement pledging such taxes from that particular constituent project area which resolution or other agreement was adopted or approved by the Agency prior to the fiscal merger of the constituent project areas. Except as otherwise noted in this SectiOn, tax increment revenue attributable to each constituent project area may be used for any lawful purpose in any of the constituent Project areas. .- 3. Bonded Indebtedness Limit. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 503 of the Plan, in accordance With Health and Safety Code Section 33334.1, 'the mount of bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole or in part from the dOmbinefl allocation of taXes to the Agency pursuant to Health and safety Code Section 33670 from all of the constituent project 'areas (with the exception of the Added Area defined in Section 200 below) which in the aggregate can be outstanding at any one time shall not exceed $232,650;000 in principal amount, except by amendment of this plan and the redevelopment plans for the other constituent project areas..With respect to the Added Area, the foregoing limitation on outstanding bonded indebtedness shall be $15,000,000. 4. Allocation of Tax Increment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 502 of the Plan, the taXes attributable to the P. 22 constituent project areas that may be and are so allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b) after the effective date of this Amendment shall not exceed a cumulative total equal to the sum of the individual limits on the allocation of taxes to the Agency as set forth in the redevelopment plans for each constituent project area, except by amendment of this Plan and the redevelopment plans for the other constituent project areas. The foregoing limitation on the allocation of taxes to the Agency shall not apply to the Added Area because the Added Area is not subject to a limitation on the allocation of taxes to the Agency. SECTION 3. ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY 3.1. The third paragraph of Part III. C [Section 308] of the Plan is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: The Agency must commence eminent domain proceedings with respect to any property which it intends to acquire by such means within twelve years of the effective date of this Amendment. This time hmit for commencement of eminent domain proceedings may be extended only by amendment of the Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 308, the Agency will not exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property on which persons reside. SECTION 4. ADDED AREA Part li [Section 200] is amended to add the following: The Project Area is amended to add the real property (the "Added Area") described on the map and legal description shown and described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. DURATION OF THIS PLAN PART VIII is amended to add the following: The following applies to the Added Area: from time to time be granted by statute (which authority shall be deemed to be incorporated into the provisions of the Plan by this reference and shall supersede the following limits): 1. The time limit with respect to the Added Area on the establishment of loans, advances, and indebtedness shall be the date which is 20 years from the P. 23 date of adoption of the ordinance amending the Plan to add the Added Area, unless the Plan is further amended as permitted by law. Loans, advances, or indebtedness may be repaid over a period of time beyond this time limit, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 below. This limit shall not prevent the Agency from incurring debt to be paid from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund or from establishing debt to fulfill the Agency' s housing obligations under Health and Safety Code Section 33413. This limit shall not prevent'the Agency from refinancing, refunding, or restructuring indebtedness after the time limit if the indebtedness is not increased'and the time during which the indebtedness is' to be'repaid is not extended beyond the time limit set forth in paragraph 3 below. 2. The effectiveness of the Plan with respect fo the Added Area (including, without limitation, the effectiveness of the Agency's land use controls for the Added Area) shall terminate on the date which is 30 years from the date of adoption of the ordinance amending the Plan to add the Added Area. After expiration of this time limit on the effectiveness of the Plan with respect to the Added Area, the Agency shall have no authority to act pursuant to the Plan with respect to the Added Area, except to pay previously incurred indebtedness, to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations, and to complete any unfulfilled obligations under Health and. Safety Code Section 33413. 3. The Agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 with respect to the Added Area after the date which is 45 years from the date of adoption of the ordinance amending the Plan to add the Added Area. SECTION 6. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT All provisions of the Plan not specifically amended or repealed in this Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 7. SEVERAB]~L1TY If any provision of this Amendment or the application thereof to any person or. circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Amendment, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Amendment are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any 'one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. P. 24 ~. P~UBLICA TION AND EFFECTIVE DATE The ordinance adopting this Amendment shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the S__an Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required b~ law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption._] P. 25 EXHIBIT 1 OYSTER POINT MARINA PROJECT AREA REAL PROPERTY IN THE CiTY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A PORTION OF THE LANDS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 55 OF PARCEL MAps AT PAGE 6.1 IN THE RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, . DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ' BEGINNING ON THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE.OF SAiD PARCEL MAP ON THE . .NORTHERLY' LINE OF LOT7 IN SECTION 23 IN TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN AT THE MONUMENT THE CENTER OF OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 52 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 58 IN THE RECORDS OF SAiD COUNTY AT ZONE I!i COORDINATES ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 OF NORTH 20C-..-..-..-..-~5.62, EAST 6016269.49; · 1) THENCE S 89" 28' 33" E ALONG ':FHE NORTHERLY LINES OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 7 FOR 2945.93 FEET; 2) THENCE S 0° 31' 27" WALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 FOR 1313.22 FEET; 3) THENCE N 89" 32' 13" W ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 7 FOR 3215.0~ FEET; 4) 'THENCE N 22° 42' 47" E FOR 52.49'FEET; 5) THENCE N 56° 42' 47" E FOR 13.78 FEET; 6) THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT AND CONCAVE TO' THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 610.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1 ° 24' 30" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.00 FEET, SAJD CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 4° 35' 35" E FOR 15.00 FEET; 7). THENCE RADIAL TO ~;AID'CURVE N 86° 6' 40" W FOR 55.00 FEET; · ' 8). THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE WEST AND RADIAL TO' · 'THE PREVIOUS CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 555.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 27' ,45" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 169.22 FEET, SAID CURVE' HAVING A CRORD BEARING OF N 4" 50' 32"W FOR 168.56 FEET; . 9) THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE 76° 25' 35" W FOR 25.00 FEET; 10) THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE WEST AND RADIAL TO THE PREVIOUS CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 530.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL 'ANGLE OF 41 ° 38' 32" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 385.36'FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 34" 23' 41" W FOR 376.93 FEET; ' 1 I)THENCE FROM A TANGENTBEARING N 49° 49'23" E ALONG A CUR~E TO THE RIGHT, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 195.18 FEET AND A CENTRAL.ANGLE OF 6° 11' 23" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF'21.09 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 52° 55' 5" E FOR 21.08 FEET; 12)THENCE N 56° 0' 46" E FoR 56.44 FEET; 13) THENCE N 0° 31' 27" E FOR 35.68 FEET; lzl.) THENCE N 88° 58' 41" E FOR 7.96 FEET; 15) THENCE N 56° 29' 53" E FOR t97.34 FEET; 16) THENCE N 4.1° 29' 57" E FOR 168.64 FEET; i7) THENCE N 35° 21' 27" E FOR 93.01 FEET; 1~ THENCE N 46° 35' 27" E FOR 208.33 FEET; 19) THENCE 'FROM A TANGENT BEARING S 75° 11'47" W ALONG A CUR'~E TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 204.99 FEET Al,ID A CENTRAL ANGLE OF .26° 38' 25" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 95.31 FEET, sAiD' CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF S 6.1 ~ 52' 34': W FOR 94.46 FEET; · . . 20) THENCE N 0°.31' 27" E FOR 277.31 FEET. TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 7; P. 27 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area 1. Resolution 2. Ordinance a. Exhibit A: Amendment P. 29 RES OLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, sTA ' OF C FOP, ^ PmSOLUT ON PROV G AN -m:Nr VmNT-TO CORRIDOR REDE EL CAMINO . VELOPMENT p EXTEND TIME LIMITS -"~-- ROJECT AREA TO PROCEEDINGS. tN ~-~J- ~- EMINENT DOMAIN COmP, DORPRO,= oreGON.aL EL cm'v No ~,=,-,, A/4EA AND TO FISCAI~y MERGE THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR PROJECT AREA WITH THE A O-WNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, THE TEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan (the "E'!~Camino Plan") for the E1 Cam/no Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area') by Ordinance NO. 1132-93 adopted on June 9, 1993; and WHEREAs, on' November 9, 1994, the City Comncil adopted Ordinance No. 1150-94 which amended the E1 Cam/no Plan by amending certain time limitations in accordance with AB 1290; and WHEREASi on June 28, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1270- 2000 which added territory to the Project Area and adopted the Amended and Restated Plan for the Project Area (hereafter the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan was further amended in March 2004 by adoption of Ordinance 133%2004 extending certain time limitations in accordance with SB 1045; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco ("Agency") is vested with responsibility to carry out the Redevelopment Plan; and ,~ wHEREAs, the Agency desires to again_ ~rn,~d m,~ ~ ~,~ .... , · . _. ....... '~ '~u=~opment I-'lan in order ~u (i) extend the time limits for the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire' nonresidential property in the original Project Area, and (ii) effectuate the fiscal merger of the Project Area with the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area, the Downtown/Central Redevelopment oP~O~oe;tt~e~raem~endt the U.S~. St_eel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area in order t t revenue n-om the four prOject areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes; and P. 3I ' Agency has prepared a pr?p°sed amendment to the WHEREAS, the ,,Amendment"), a copy of which is on file with the Agency Redevelopment Plan (the Secretary and the City Clerk; and. WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendment is necessm3~ to provide the Agency, the community with additional financial and legal City and the South San Francisco Area through · commercial and resources to expand and complete the redeveloPment program in the project activities such as development of public improvements, revit~at~on of industrial areas, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, provision of financial . and other assistance' to prOperty owners for redevelopment of their property, and.the development, Preservation' acquisition and rehabilitation of provision of assistance in the - ' :; '.. ~ . wHEREAS, as set forth 2005, the City Council and the Agency have each _--, each adopted on March 9, determined that establishment of a Project Area Committee is not required because the Amendment does not authorize use of eminent domain for property on which persons reside and does not provide for the development of public projects that will cause displacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households; and WHEREAS, as set forth, in City Council Resolution ~ and Agency Resolution o~,~ the AgencY have cae _ .. ~61~¢3), and (ii) the exempt ~om CEQA pursuant to t;~ potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impac~ Report% and no new. projects are proposed, no new substantial changes in the ckcumstances under impacts have been ~dentified, there are no which the priOr EIRs were certified, and there is no new informati°n~ that was unavailable at the time the prior E]P,s were cc~dfied; and ' WHEREAS, 'the City Planning Commission (the ,?l~uing Commission") has reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared and reviewed compliance with the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary; and WHEREAS, pursuant to.notice duly given, a full and fair public hearing has been held on the Amendment, and the Agency has considered all written and all oral comments and testimony relating thereto and has been fully advised thereon; . and WHEREAS, the Agency has taken all other actions required by law in connection with the preparation and consideration of the Amendment. P. 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency as follows: Section 1. The Amendment, the Report to Council, the Supplement and all related documents, correspondence and transmittals, copies of which are on file in the office of the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk, are hereby approved. Section 2. The Agency hereby recommends approval and adoption of the Amendment by the City Council. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Clerk S:\Current Reso's\4-27-05E1 Camino.corridor.pro.res.DOC ORDINANCE NO. 2005- CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO FISCALLY MERGE THE EL CAMINO CORRDOR PROJECT AREA WiTH THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan (the "El Camino Plan") for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") by Ordinance No. 1132-93 adopted on June 9, 1993; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1150-94 which amended the E1 Camino Plan by amending certain time limitations in accordance with AB 1290; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1270- 2000 wkich added territory to the Project Area and adopted the Amended and Restated Plan for the Project Area (hereafter the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan was further amended in March 2004 by adoption of Ordinance 1337-2004 extending certain time limitations in accordance with SB 1045; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (the "Agency") a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment"), a Copy of which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Amendment provides for (i) the extension of time limits for the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire nonresidential property in the original Project Area, and (ii) the fiscal merger of the Project Area with the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, the Gateway Project Area and the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a untied bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendment is necessary to provide the Agency, the City and the South San Francisco community with additional financial and legal resources to expand and complete the redevelopment program in the Project Area through activities such as development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and P. 35 industrial areas, land assembly and disPosition for' redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, and the provision of assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing; and WHE~AS, as set forth in City Council Resolution 23-2005 and Agency Resolution 04-2005,. each adopted on March 9, 2005, the City Council and the Agency have each determined that establishment of a Project Area Committee is not required because the Amendment does not authorize use of eminent domain for property on which persons reside and does not provide for the development of public projects that will cause displacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households; and WHEREAS, as set forth 'in ·City Council Resolution 23-2005 and Agency Resolution 04-2005, the City Council and the Agency have each determined that (i) the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061Co)(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the prior EIRs were certified, and there is no new information that was unavailable at the time the prior EIRs were certified; and WI-IEREAS, the City Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") has reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City C6uncil' and the Agency conducted a joint public hearing on May 27, 2005, concerning adoption of the Amendment; and ' WI~REAS, notice of .the public hearing was published in a neWspaper of general circulation in San Marco County once per week for four weeks prior to the date of the hearing, and a copy of such notice and affidavit of publication are on ftc with the City Clerk and Secretary of the Agency; and ' WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing together with a statement concerning acquisition of property by the Agency was sent by first class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was sent by first class mail to all residents and businesses within the Project Area; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was sent by certified mail, remm receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency that receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WI--IF.~AS, the Agency has prepared a Report to Council in compliance with the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et Seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the P. 36 City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, and are hereby incorporated herein by reference; and Wld~REAS, the City Council has evaluated the Agency's Report to Council, the Supplement, and the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, has provided an opportunity for al/persons to be heard, and has received and considered al/ evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Amendment, and the City Council has, by Resolution No. ., adopted written findings ("Findings") in response to each written objection received from an affected property owner or tax/rig entity; and WHEREAS, the. Agency and the City Council have complied with all requirements of Community Redevelopment Law in connection with the consideration and adoption of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Amendment are: (i) to fiscally merge the City's four project areas in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes, (ii) to extend the time hmitation for acquisition of nonresidential property in the original Project Area, and (iii) to accomplish to the greatest extent possible (a) the elimination of blight in the Project Area, and (b) the expansion and completion of the redevelopment program in the Project Area through the development of public improvements, the revitalization of commercial and industrial properties, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, the provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing, the expansion of employment opportunities, and the promotion of private sector investment in the Project Area. Section 2. Findings and Determinations. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 33354.6(a), 33367 and 33457.1, and based upon the evidence contained in the Report to Council, the Findings and other documents prepared in connection with the Amendment adoption process, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby finds and determines that: The Project An'ea continues to be characterized by blighting conditions as documented Section II of the Report to Council prepared for the Amendment and in the Reports to Council prepared in connection with the original adoption of the E1 Camino Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. The blighted conditions in the Project Area are so prevalent and so substantial that they cause a reduction of or lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that they constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be P. 37 reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. This finding is based' in part on the facts that governmental actiOn available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and cost of the improvements'necessary to eradicate such blight are beyond the capacity of the City and private · enterprise acting alone or in concert without redevelopment. The Amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of the PrOject Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and Welfare. This finding is supported by the fact that redevelopment of the Project Area as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment will implement the objectives of the. Community Redevelopment Law by aiding in the elimination and correction of the conditions of blight in the Project Area; providing for' planning, development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction or rehabilitation of properties which need improvement; providing affordable 'housing, including housing for low- and moderate-income persons; providing additional employment oppommities; facilitating private investment; and providing for more beneficial use of under-utilized land. The adoption and carrying out of the Amendment is economically sound and feasiblei This finding is based in part on the fact that under the Redevelopment Plan, as proposed to be amended, the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, .including tax increments and that no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity. The Report to Council further documents the economic feasibility of the Amendment and related undertakings. The Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City inclUding, without limitation the Housing Element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3. of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based upon the report of the Planning Commission that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco. The carrying out of the Amendment Will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the fact that redevelopment as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Amendment, will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and 'by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development, contribute toward needed public improvements P. 38 ho and improve the social, economic, and physical conditions of the Project Area. The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the City Council and the Agency recognize that the provisions of Government Code Section 7260 et seq. would apply in the event of relocation resulting from the Agency's implementation of the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment. The City Council finds and determines that the provision of relocation assistance according to the Agency's adopted Relocation Guidehnes and applicable law constitutes a feasible relocation method. There are, or will be provided within the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons 'who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced famihes and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. This finding is based in part on the fact that no person or family will be required by the Agency to move from any dwelling unit in the Project Area until suitable replacement housing is available according to law. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33411 and 33411.1. Dwelling un/ts housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.5, 33413 and 33413.5. This finding is based in part on the fact that the Agency shall displace no families or persons nor remove or destroy dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate incomes unless and until relocation assistance as required by law is provided. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements and facilities, structural deficiencies, dilapidation and deterioration, factors that hinder economically viable use, and the inability of individual developers to eeonomically remove these blighting influences without pubhc assistance to acquire and assemble 'sites for development as detailed in the record including the Report to Council. The lack of private investment incentive, and the cost of requiting individuals (through assessments or otherwise) to eradicate or significantly alleviate such blighting conditions, and the inadequacy of other P. 39 governmental program.q and financing mechanisms' to eradicate or significantly eliminate such blighting conditions, make elimination of blight in the Project Area infeasible without the aid and assistance of the Agency' under the Amendment and the Community Redevelopment Act. The time limitations and the limitation on taxes that may be allocated to the Agency as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate, blight within the Project Area. This finding is supported by the fact that redeVelopment depends in large part, upon private market forces beyond the control of the Agency, and shorter limitations would impair the Agency's ability to be flexible and respond to market conditions as and when appropriate and would impair the Agency's ability to maintain development standards and conu:ols over a period of time sufficient to assure area stabilization. In addition, shorter time limitations would limit the revenue sources and financing capacity necessary to carry out proposed projects in the Project Area .... The fiscal merger of the Project Area and the City's tl~ee other project areas for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue is authorized by, consistent with, and will serve the legislative policies of, Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., in that such fiscal merger will result in substantial benefit to the public and will contribute to the revitalization of blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of such areas and through increased and improved housing and economic opportunities in or near such areas. The condemnation of nonresidential real property as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan as mended by the .Amendment is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based upon the need to Redevelopment Plan, as am6nded by and the need to prevent the recurrence ensure that the provisions of the the Amendment will be carded out of blight. Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that ff any occupants of the Project Area are displaced, permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time of such displacement, and that pending the development of such facilities, there. will be available to any such displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement. P. 40 Section 4. The City Council is satisfied that all written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing have been responded to in writing In addition, written findings have been adopted in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity which has been filed with the City Clerk either before or at the noticed pubhc hearing. Following consideration by the City Council, all written and oral objections to the Amendment are hereby overruled. The reasons for overruling all written objections are more fully set forth in the Findings. .SSection 5. The Redevelopment Plan as originally adopted and previously amended is hereby further amended as set forth in the proposed Amendment attached hereto as _Exhibit A and as so amended is hereby designated as the official redevelopment plan for the Project Area. ..Section 6. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Amendment hereby approved, it may be necessary for the City Council to take certain actions, and accordingly, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City having administrative reSponsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan as amended; and (e) may elect to provide, but is not committed to provide, financial assistance in support of implementation of the Redevelopment Plan as amended. Section 7. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33372, the City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of th/s Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment. .Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Ordinance to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project Area. Section 9. If any part of this Ordinance or the Amendment is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance or of the Amendment, and the City Council hereby declares it would have passed the remainder of thi~ C~rrtln~n~-e or ~rm~'r,,,~rt .1, ..... ~"'q'~" of ,1. o ^.-~.~.~ without such invalid part.- ............. ~ ....................... ~"'~'"~"~ P. 41 Section 10. 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 (i) publish the Summary, and (ii) 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 sha~ll (a) publish the summary, and Co) 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. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adopti°n. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 27t~ day of April, 2005. Adopted as au Ordinance Of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of May, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of ,2005. S:\Current Ord'sk4-27-05Elc~mln o.conidor.projeet-area~c~DOC Mayor P. 42 E:4d-kibit A AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EL CAMINO CORRDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO' EXTEND EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY AND TO FISCALLY MERGE PROJECT AREAS SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF REDEVEJ,OPMENT PLAN. The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco E1 Camin° Corridor Area Project, originally adopted by Ordinance 1132-93 on June 9, 1993 and subsequently amended and restated by Ordinance 1270-2000 adopted on June 28, 2000 (as so amended, the "El camino Plan" or the "Plan") is hereby amended as set forth in tiffs amendment (this Amendment ), effective as of the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Amendment. SECTION 2. FISCAL MERGER Part V.H, [Section 508] is hereby added to the E1 Cam/no Plan to read as follows: H. [Section 508] Fiscal Merger 1. Findings. The fiscal merger of the E1 Camino Redevelopment Project Area ("El Camino Project Area") and the City's three other project areas foi: the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue is authorized by, consistent with, and will serve the legislative policies of, Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., in that such fiscal merger will result in substantial benefit to the public and will contribute to the revitalization of blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of such areas and through increased and improved housing and economic opportunities in or near such areas. 2. Fiscal Merger of Project Areas. Pursuant to, and for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue as described in Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., the E1 Camino Project Area is hereby fiscally merged with the following project areas: a. The project area '(the "Downtown/Central Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project, adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 1056-89 (as .subsequently amended, the "Downtown/Central Plan"). b. The project area (the "Shearwater Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. P. 43 Steel Plant Site, adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 996-86 (as subsequently amended, the "Shearwater Plan"). c. The project area (the "Gateway Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project, adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 867-81 (as subsequently amended, the "Gateway Plan"). The E1 Camino Project Area, the Downtown/Central Project Area, the Shearwater Project Area and the Gateway Project Area are each referred t° herein as a "constituent project area." Except as otherwise stated herein, each reference in this Amendment to a constituent project area shall mean such project area as originally established and as such project area may have been amended'to add territory. This section authorizes the taxes attributable t° .each constituent project area which are ailocaied to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b) to be allocated for redevelopment in any of the constituent project areas, for the purpose of paying the principal of, and interest on, indebtedness incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the redevelopment project in any of the constituent project areas; except that any such taxes attributable to a particular constituent project area shall f~t be 'used to pay indebtedness in compliance with the .terms of any bond resolution or other agreement pledging such taxes from that particular constituent project area which resolution or other agreement was adopted or approved by the Agency . prior to the fiscal merger of the constituent project areas. Except as otherwise noted in this Section, tax increment revenue attributable to each constituent project area may be used for any lawful purpose in any of the constituent project areas. - -. - . 3. BOnded Indebtedness Limit. 'Notwithstanding 'anything to the contrary set forth in Section 503 of the Plan, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33334.1, the amount of bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole or in 'part from the combined allocation of taxes to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 from ,all of the constituent project areas which in the aggregate can be outstanding at any one time shall not exceed $232,650,000 in principal amount, except by amendment of this Plan and the redevelopment plans .for the other Constituent project areas; provided however, the foregoing limitation on outstanding bonded indebtedness shall not apply to the territory added to the Downtown/Central Project Area by amendment to the Downtown/ Central Plan .adopted concurrently with this Amendment (the "Downtown/Central Added Area") because the Downtown/Central Added Area is subject to a separate limitation on bonded indebtedness. P. 44 4. Allocation of Tax Increment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 502 of the Plan, the taxes attributable to the constituent project areas that may be and are so allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b) after the effective date of this Amendinent shall not exceed a cumulative total equal to the sum of the individual limits on the allocation of taxes to the Agency as set forth in the redevelopment plans for each constituent project area, except by amendment of this Plan and the redevelopment plans for the other constituent project areas. The foregoing limitation on the allocation of taxes to the Agency shall not apply to the Downtown/Central Added Area because the Downtown/Central Added Area is not subject to a limitation on the allocation of taxes to the Agency. SECTION 3. ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY 3.1. The third paragraph of Part I~.C.1 [Section 308] of the Plan is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: The Agency must commence eminent domain proceedings with respect to any property which it intends to acquire by such means within twelve years of the effective date of this Amendment; provided however, this Amendment shall not operate to extend the time limit within which the Agency may commence eminent domain proceedings with respect to property that was added to the Project Area by the amendment to the Plan adopted June 28, 2000 by Ordinance No. 1270- 2000 ("Added Territory"). The foregoing time limits for commencement of eminent domain proceedings may be extended only by amendment of the Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 308, the Agency will not exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property on which persons reside except within the Added Territory as permitted pursuant to the Plan. SECTION 4. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT All provisions of the Plan not specifically amended or repealed in this Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 5. SEVERABIL1TY If any provision of this Amendment or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Amendment, including the apphcation of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Amendment are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or P. 45 phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION' 6. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Pursuant to the Provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of the ordinance adopting this Amendment shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which the Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (i) publish the Summary, and (ii) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the .adoption of ' the Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (a) publish the summary, and (b) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance along with the names of those City Council. members voting for and against the Ordinance. The Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. S:\Currmt Ord's~,-27-05'Elmi~n o.oonidor.lxojeot, a~a.ordJX)C P. 46 U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area 1. Resolution 2. Ordinance a. Exhibit A: Amendmem P. 47 RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARYVATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO FISCAI,I,Y MERGE THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WITH THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAs, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") by Ordinance No. 996- 86, adopted on January 8, 1986; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance. No. 1151-94 to amend the Redevelopment Plan by amending certain time limitations in accordance with AB 1290; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan was further amended in March 2004 by adoption of Ordinance -2004 eliminating the deadline for incurring debt incurrence in accordance with SB 211, and by adoption of Ordinance 1337-2004, extending certain time limitations in accordance with SB 1045; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco ("Agency") is vested with responsibility to carry out the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Agency desires to again amend the Redevelopment Plan in order to effectuate the fiscal merger of the Project Area with the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes; and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment"), a copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk; and P. 49 WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendment is necessary to provide the Agency, the City and the South San Francisco community with additional financial and legal resources to expand and complete the redevelopment program in the Project Area through activities such as development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and industrial areas, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, .and the provision of assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing; and - . WHEREAS', as set fOrth in City Council Resolution and Agency Resolution __~ each adopted on March. 9, 2005,'~the City Council and the Agency have each determined that establishment of a Project Area Committee is not required because the Amendment does not authorize use of eminent domain for property on which persons reside and does not provide for the development of public projects that will cause displacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households; and WHEREAs, as set forth in City Council Resolution and Agency ResOlution ', the City Council and the Agency have each determined that (i) the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pUrsuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the prior EIRs were certified, and there is no new information, that was unavailable at the time the prior EIRs were certified; and. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") has reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment COnforms to the City's .General Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment; and ' ' WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared and reviewed a Report to Council in compliance with the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the City Clerk and' the Agency Secretary; and WHEREAS, pUrsuant to notice duly given, a full and fair public hearing has been held on the Amendment, and the Agency has considered all written and all oral comments and testimony relating thereto and has been fully advised thereon; and . WHEREASii the. AgencY'has taken ali other actions required by law in connection with the preparation and consideratiOn of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency as follows: Section 1. The Amendment, the Report to Council, the Supplement and all related documents, correspondence and transmittals, copies of which are on file in the office of the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk, are hereby approved. .... P. 50 $.ection 2. the City Council. The Agency hereby recommends approval and adoption of the Amendment by I hereby certify that the adopted by the Redevelopment meeting held on the __ foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a . day of,2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\4-2705U.S. Steel.shearwater.redevlpment.pro.area.res.DOC P. 51 ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO FISCAIJ,Y MERGE THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. WITH THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROIECT AREA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the U.S. Steel~Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") by Ordinance No. 996- 86, adopted on January 8, 1986; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1151-94 to amend the Redevelopment Plan by amending certain time limitations in accordance with AB 1290; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan was further amended in March 2004 by adoption of Ordinance -2004 eliminating the deadline for incurring debt incurrence in accordance with SB 211, and by adoption of Ordinance 1337-2004, extending certain time limitations in accordance with SB 1045; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (the "Agency") a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment"), a copy of which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Amendment provides for the fiscal merger of the Project Area with the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendment is necessary to provide the Agency, the City and the South San Francisco community with additional financial and legal resources to expand and complete the redevelopment program in the Project Area through activities such as development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and industrial areas, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, and the provision of assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing; and P. 53 WHE~AS, as set forth in City Council Resolution __ and Agency Resolution , each adopted on March 9, 2005, the City Council and the Agency have each determined that establishment of a Project Area Committee is not required because the Amendment does not authorize use of eminent domain for property on which persons reside and does not provide for the development of public projects that will cause displacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households; and WI-IEREAS, as set forth in City Council Resolution and Agency Resolution , the City Council and the Agency have each determined that 0) the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061C0)(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed 'in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the prior EIRs were certified, and there is no new information that was unavailable at the time the prior EIRs Were certified; and WI~REAS~' the City Planning' Commission (the "Planning Commission") has reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency condUCted a joint public hearing on May 27, 2005, concerning adoption of the Amendment; and WI-IEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in San Mateo County once per week for four weeks-prior to the date of the hearing~ and a copy of such notice and affidavit of publication are on ftc with the City Clerk and Secretary of the Agency; and : . . .' ' WHEREAS, nOtice of the public hearing together with a statement concerning acquisition of property by the Agency was sent by first class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, notice of .the public hearing was sent by first class mail to all residents and businesses within the Project Area; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was sent by certified mail, remm receipt requested to the governing l~ody of each taxing agency that receives taXes from property in the Project Area; and ~ WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared a Report to Council in compliance with the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, .and are hereby incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated the Agency's Report to Council, the Supplement, and the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, has P. 54 provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Amendment, and the City Council has, by Resolution No.. , adopted written findings ("Findings") in response to each written objection received from an affected property owner or taxing entity; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have comphed with all requirements of Community Redevelopment Law in connection with the consideration and adoption of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH sAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Amendment are: (i) to fiscally merge the City's four project areas in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes, and (ii) to accomplish to the greatest extent possible (a) the elimination of blight in the Project Area, and Co) the expansion and completion of the redevelopment program in the Project Area through the development of public improvements, the revitalization of commercial and industrial properties, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, the provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing, the expansion of employment opportunities, and the promotion of private sector investment in the Project Area. Section 2. Findings and Determinations. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 33354.6(a), 33367 and 33457.1, and based upon the evidence contained in the Report to Council, the Findings and other documents prepared in connection with the Amendment adoption process, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby finds and determines that: ao The Project Area continues to be characterized by blighting conditions as documented Section 1I of the Report to Council prepared for the Amendment and in the Report to Council prepared in connection with the original adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The blighted conditions in the Project Area are so prevalent and so substantial that they cause a reduction of or lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that they constitute a serious physical and economic ~,~.~,~ on t~e commu~ty which camnot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental aCtion, or both, without redevelopment. Tiffs finding is based in part on the facts that governmental action available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and cost of the improvements necessary to P. 55 eradicate such blight are beyond the capacity of the City and private enterprise acting alone or in concert without redevelopment. The Amendment will facilitate the .redevelopment of the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, .safety and welfare. This finding is supported by the fact that redevelopment of the Project Area-as contemplated by the' Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law by aiding in the elimination and correction of the conditions of blight in the Project Area; providing for planning, development,: redesign, clearance, reconstruction or rehabilitation of properties which need improvement; providing affordable housing, including housing for low- and moderate-income persons; providing additional employment opportunities; facilitating private investment; and providing for more beneficial use of under-utilized land. The adoption and carrying out of the Amendment is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based in part on the fact .that under the Redevelopment' Plan, as proposed to be amended, the Agency will be . authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including' tax increments and that no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity. The Report to Council further documents the economic feasibility of the Amendment and related undertakings. The Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City-including, without limitation the HoUSing Element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Sedtion 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, This finding is based upon the report of the Planning Commission that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the City of SOuth San Francisco. The'carrying out of the' Amendment.Will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare' of the City and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the fact that~ redevelopment as contemplated~'bY the RedevelOpment Plan, as amended by the Amendment, will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight' and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development, contribute toward needed pUblic improvements and improve the social, economic} and physical conditions of the Project Area~ ' The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities, in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact P. 56 ho that the City Council and the Agency recognize that the provisions of Government Code Section 7260 et seq. would apply in the event of relocation resulting from the Agency's implementation of the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment. The City Council finds and determines that the provision of relocation assistance according to the Agency's adopted Relocation Guidelines and applicable law constitutes a feasible relocation method. There are, or will be provided within the Project Area or in other areas not generally 'less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. This finding is based in part on the fact that no person or family will be required by the Agency to move from any dwelling unit in the Project Area until suitable replacement housing is available according to law. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33411 and 33411.1. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.5, 33413 and 33413.5. This finding is based in part on the fact that the Agency shall displace no families or persons nor remove or destroy dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate incomes unless and until relocation assistance as required by law is provided. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements and facilities, structural deficiencies, dilapidation and deterioration, factors that hinder economically viable use, and the inability of individual developers to economically remove these blighting influences without public assistance to acquire and assemble sites for development as detailed in the record including the Report to Council. The lack of private investment incentive, and the cost of requiring individuals (through assessments or otherwise) to eradicate or significantly alleviate such blighting conditions, and the inadequacy of other governmental programs and financing mechanisms to eradicate or significantly eliminate such bhghting conditions', make elimination of blight in the Project Area infeasible without the aid and assistance of the Agency under the Amendment and the Community Redevelopment Act. P. 57 lc The time limitations and the limitation on taxes that may be allocated to the Agency as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. This finding is supported by the fact that redevelopment depends in large part, upon private market forces beyond the control of the Agency, and shorter limitations would impair the Agency's ability to be flexible and respond to market conditions as and when appropriate and would impair the Agency's ability to maintain. development standards, and controls over a period of time sufficient to assure area stabilization. In addition, shorter time limitations would limit the revenue sources and financing capacity necessary to carry, out proposed projects in the Project Area. · 1. ' The fiscal merger of the Project Area and the City's three other project areas for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue is authorized by,- consistent with, and will serve the legislative policies of, Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., in that such fiscal merger will result in substantial benefit to the public and will contribute to the revitalization of , blighted .areas through the' increased economic vitality of such areas and · through increased and improved housing and economic oppommities in or near such areas. · ~ .. Section 3;. The City Council is satisfied that ff any occupants of the Project Area are displaced, permanent housing facilities will be aVailable within'three years from the time of such displacement, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents· comparable to those in the community at the time of .their displacement. . Section 4.. The City Council is satisfied that all written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing have been responded to in writing In addition, written findings have been adopted in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity which has been fried with the City Clerk either before at the. noticed public hearing. Following consideration by the City Council, all written and oral objections to the Amendment are hereby overruled.. The reasons for ovenuling all written objections are more 'fully set forth in the Findings. Section 5. The Redevelopment Plan as originally adopted and previously amended is hereby further amended as set forth in the proposed Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A and as so amended is hereby designated as the.official redevelopment plan for the Project Area. Section6. In order to implement and facilitate the' effectuation of 'the- Amendment hereby approved, it may be necessary for the city 'council to take certain actions, and accordingly, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan as amended; Co) requests the various officials, 'departments, boards and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the P. 58 Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers 'in a manner consistent with the redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (d) declares /ts intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan as amended; and (e) may elect to provide, but is not committed to provide, financial assistance in support of implementation of the Redevelopment Plan as amended. Section 7. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33372, the City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Ordinance to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project Area. Section 9. If any part of this Ordinance or the Amendment is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts: of this Ordinance or of the Amendment, and the City Council hereby declares it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Amendment without such invalid part. Section 10. 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 (i) publish the Summary, and (ii) 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 (a) publish the summary, and (b) 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. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. P. 59 Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 27th day of April, 2005. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of May, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: As Mayor of the 'City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of ., 2005. S:(Current Ord's\4-27-05shearwater.ord. DOC Mayor P. 60 Exhibit A AMENDMENT TO TI~ REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO FISCALLY MERGE PROJECT AREAS SECTION 1. AME~ME~ OF REDEVF, I,OPMENT PLAN. The Redevelopment Plan for the SOuth San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site, adopted by Ordinance 996-86 on January 8, 1986 and subsequently amended (as so amended, the "U.S. Steel/Shearwater Plan" or the "Plan") is hereby amended as set forth in this amendment (this "Amendment"), effective as of the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Amendment. SECTION 2. FISCAL MERGER Part V.F, [§506] is hereby added to the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Plan to read as follows: F. [§506] Fiscal Merger 1. Findings. The fiscal merger of the U.S. Steel Plant Site/Shearwater Project Area ("Shearwater Project Area") and the City's three other project areas for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue is authorized by, consistent with, and w/Ii serve the legislative policies of, Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., in that such fiscal merger will result in substantial benefit to the public and will contribute to the revitalization of blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of such areas and through increased and improved housing and economic opportunities in or near such areas. 2. Fiscal Merger of Project Areas. Pursuant to, and for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue as described in Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., the Shearwater Project Area is hereby fiscally merged with the following project areas: a. 'T'he project area (the "Downtown/Central Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project, adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 1056-89 (as subsequently amended, the "Downtown/Central Plan"). P. 61 b. The project area (the "Gateway Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project, adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 867-81 (as subsequently amended, the "Gateway Plan"). c. The project area (the 'W__,l Camino Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the E1.Camino Corridor Project, adopted by the' City Council by Ordinance No. 1132-93 (as subsequently amended and restated by Ordinance No. 1270-2000, the "El Camino The Shearwater Project Area, the DoWntown/Central Project Area, the 'Gateway Project Area and the E1 Camino Project Area are each referred to herein as a "constituent project area." Except as otherwise stated herein, each reference in this Amendment to a cOnstituent project area shall mean such project area as originally established and as such project area may have been amended to add territory. This section authorizes the taxes attributable tO ~ach c°nstituent'lirojeCt area which are allocated to the Agency pursuant to.Health and Safety - Code Section 33670(b) to be allocated for redevelopment in any of the constituent project areas far the p .urpose of paying the principal of, and interest on, indebtedness incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the redevelopment project in any of the constituent project areas; except that any such taxes attributable to a particular constituent project area shall fn'st be used to pay indebtedness in compliance with the terms of any bond resolution or other agreement pledging, such taxes from that particular Constituent Project area which resolution or other agreement was adopted or approved by the Agency prior t0the fiscal merger of the constituent project areas. Except as otherwise noted in this Section, tax increment revenue attributable to each constituent project area may be used for any lawful purpose in any of the constituent project areas .... 3. Bonded Indebtedness Limit. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 503 of the Plan, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 33334.1, the amount of bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole or in part from the combined allocation of taxes to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 from all of the constituent project areas which in the aggregate can be outstanding at any one time shall not exceed $232,650,000 in principal amount, except by amendment of this Plan and the redevelopment plans for the other constituent project areas; provided however, the foregoing limitation on outstanding bonded indebtedness shall not apply to the territory added to the Downto,im/Central Project Area by amendment to the Downtown/Central Plan adopted concurrently with this Amendment (the .P. 62 "Downtown/Central Added Area") because the DoWntown/Central Added Area is subject to a separate limitation on bonded indebtedness. 4. Allocation of Tax Increment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 502 of the Plan, the taxes attributable to the constituent project areas that may be and are so allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b) afrer the effective date of this Amendment shall not exceed a cumulative total equal to the sum of the individual limits on the allocation of taxes to the Agency as set forth in the redevelopment plans for each constituent project area, except by amendment of this Plan and the redevelopment plans for the other constituent project areas. The foregoing limitation on the allocation of taxes to the Agency shall not apply to the · Downtown/Central Added Area because the Downtown/Central Added Area is not subject to a limitation on the allocation of taxes to the Agency. SECTION 3. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT All provisions of the Plan not specifically amended or repealed in this Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Amendment or the application, thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Amendment, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Amendment are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. [SECTION 5. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE The ordinance adopting this Amendment 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 f,'om and after its adoption.] P. 63 The Gateway Redevelopment Project Area 1. Resolution 2. Ordinance a. Exhibit A: Amendment P. 65 RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALI~FORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE GATEWAY REDEVF, LOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO FISCAI J,Y MERGE THE GATEWAY PROJECT AREA WITH THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, THE CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJEC-I' ARF~, AND THE U.S. STEEI_,/SHEARWATER REDEVEI,OPMENT PROJECT AREA WI-IEREAs, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area ('~Project Area") by Ordinance No. 867-81, adopted on June WHEREAS, on NOvember 9, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1149-94 to amend the Redevelopment Plan by amending certain time limitations in accordance with AB 1290; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan was further amended in March 2004 by adoption of Ordinance ~.-2004 eliminating the deadline for incurring debt incurrence in accordance with SB 211, and by adoption of Ordinance 1337-2004, extending certain time limitations in accordance'with SB !045; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco ("Agency") is vested with responsibility to carry out the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Agency desires to again amend the Redevelopment Plan in order to effectuate the fiscal merger of the Project Area with the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each Project area for other purposes; and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment"), a copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendment is necessary to 'provide the Agency, the City and the South San Francisco community with additional financial and legal resources to expand and complete the redevelopment program in the Project Area through P. 67 activities such as development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and industrial areas, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, and the provision of assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, as set forth in City Council Resolution and Agency Resolution , each adopted on March 9, 2005, the City Council and the Agency have each determined that establishment of a Project Area Committee is not required because the Amendment does not authorize use of eminent domain for property on which persons reside and does not provide for the development of public projects that will cause displacement of a substantial number of Iow- and moderate-income households; and WHEREAS, as set forth in City Council Resolution and Agency Resolution , the City Council and the Agency have each determined that (i)the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the prior EIRs were certified, and there'is no new information that was unavailable at the time the prior EIRs were certified; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission. (the "Planning Commission") has reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment conforms to the City's General. Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment; and WHEREAS, ~the Agency has prepared and reviewed a Report to Council in Compliance with the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law ('Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary; and WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given, a full and fair public hearing has been held on the Amendment, and the Agency has considered all written and all oral comments and testimony relating thereto and has been'fully advised.thereon; and WHEREAS, the Agency has taken all other actions required by law in connection with the preparation and consideration of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency aS follows: Section 1~ The Amendment, the Report to Council, the Supplement and all related documents, correspondence and transmittals, copies of which are on file in the office of the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk, are hereby approved. Section 2. The Agency hereby recommends apProval and adoption of the Amendment by the City Council. P. 68 activities such as development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and industrial areas, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, and the provision of assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing; and VVHEREAS, as set forth in City Council Resolution and Agency Resolution , each adopted on March 9, 2005, the City Council and the Agency have each determined that establishment of a Project Area Committee is not required because the Amendment does not authorize use of eminent domain for property on which persons reside and does not provide for the development of public projects that will cause clisplacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households; and WHEREAS, as set forth in City Council Resolution and Agency Resolution , the City Council and the Agency have each determined that (i)the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial changes in the ckcumstances under which the prior EIRs were certified, and there'is no new information that was unavailable at the time the pr/or EIRs were certified; and WI-IEREAS, the City Planning Commission. (the "Planning Commission") has reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment conforms to the City's General. Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared and reviewed a Report to Council in compliance with the requirements of Commurdty Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary; and WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given, a full and fair public heating has been held on the Amendment, and the Agency has considered all written and all oral comments and testimony relating thereto and has been'fully advised thereon; and 'WHEREAS, the Agency has taken all other actions required by law in connection with the preparation and consideration of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency as follows: Section 1. The Amendment, the Report to Council, the Supplement and all related documents, correspondence and transmittals, copies of which are on file in the office of the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk, are hereby approved. Section 2. The Agency hereby recommends approval and adoption of the Amendment by the City Council. P. 68 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the .__ day of ,2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: S :\Current Reso's\4-27-05 gateway.res.DOC Clerk P. 69 ORDENANCE NO. 2005- CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CAL/FORNIA AN ORDLNANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AM~NDMENWl' TO ~ REDEVELOPIV~NT PLAN FOR THE GATEWAY REDEVELOP1V[ENT PROJECT AREA TO FISCALLY MERGE THE GATEWAY PROJECT AREA WITH THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, TI-~ EL C~O CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND ~ U.S. STF~F.L/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of SOuth San Francisco ("City Council") approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") by Ordinance No. 867-81, adopted on June 17, 1981; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1149-94 to amend the Redevelopment Plan by amending certain time limitations in accordance with AB 1290; and. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan was further amended in March 2004 by adoption of Ordinance 1338-2004 eliminating the deadline for incurring debt incurrence in accordance with SB 211, and by adoption of Ordinance 1337-2004, extending certain time limitations in accordance with SB 1045; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (the ',Agency'') a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment"), a copy of which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Amendment provides for the fiscal merger of the ProjeCt Area with the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area and the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a untied bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes; and P. 71 WHEREAS, adoption of the Amendment is necessary to provide the Agency, the City and the South San Francisco community with additional financial and legal resources to expand and complete the redevelopment program in the Project Area through activities such as development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and industrial areas, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment,' provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, and the provision of assistance in the development, preservation, 'acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing; and WI4~.REAS, as set forth in' City Council. Resolution' 23-2005 and Agency Resolution 04-2005, each adoPted on March 9, 2005, the City Council and the 'Agency have each determined that establishment of a Project Area Committee is not required because the Amendment does not authorize use of eminent domain for property on which persons reside and does not provide for the development of public projects that will cause displacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households; and i~. WI-~REAs, as set forth in 'City Council ResolutiOn 23-2005 and Agency ResOlution 04-2005, the city Council ' and the Agency have each determined that (i) the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the Amendment have been analyzed in previoUslY certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are Proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial' Changes in the' circumstances under which the prior EIRs were 'certified, and there is no new information that was unavailable at the time the prior EIRs were certified; and WI-~REAS; the City planning 'c°mmission (th~ "Planning Commission") has - reviewed the Amendment, has found that the Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan and has recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment; and WI-tEREAS,'the City.C°uncil andthe Agency conduC~eda j°int public hearing on May 27, 2005, concerning adoption of the Amendment; and WI4~.REAS, notice of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in San Mateo County once per week for four weeks prior to' the date of the hearing, and a copy of sUch notice' and affidaVit of publication are on ftc with the City Clerk and Secretary of th~ Agency; and ' ~ WHEREAS, notice 'of the Public heating together with a statement concerning acquisitiOn of property bY the Agency Was sent by first Class mail to the 'last knOwn address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was sent by first class mail to all residents and businesses within the Project Area; and WHEREAS', notice of the public hearing was sent bY certified mail, remm receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency that receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and P. 72 WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared a Report to Council in c0mpl/ance with the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and a Supplement to such Report, which Report and Supplement are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, and are hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated the Agency's Report to Council, the Supplement, and the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Amendment, and the City Council has, by Resolution No. ., adopted written findings ("Findings") in response to each written objection received from an affected property owner or taxing entity; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have complied with all requirements of Community Redevelopment Law in connection with the consideration and adoption of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOL~I'H SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOIJ.OWS: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of .the City Council with respect to the Amendment: (i) to fiscally merge the City's four project areas in order to pool tax increment revenue from the four project areas and establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas while retaining the separate identity of each project area for other purposes, and (ii) to accomplish to the greatest extent possible (a) the elimination of blight in the Project Area, and (b) the expansion and completion of the redevelopment program in the Project Area through the development of public improvements, the revitalization of commercial and industrial properties, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, the provision of financial and other assistance to property owners for redevelopment of their property, the development, prese~wation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing, the expansion of employment opportunities, and the promotion of private sector investment in the Project Area. Section 2. Findings and Determinations. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 33354.6(a), 33367 and. 33457.1, and based upon the evidence contained in the Report to Council, the Findings and other documents prepared in connection with the Amendment adoption process, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The Project Area continues to be characterized b~ bli=.~ttnt, conditions as documented Section 17 of the Report to Council and in the Report to Council prepared in connection with the original adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The blighted cOnditions in the Project Area are so prevalent and so substantial that they cause a reduction of or lack of proper utilization of the P. 73 area to such an extent that they constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. Redevelopment of the Project Area is necessary to effectuate the public purpose of Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based in part on the facts that governmental action available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient tO cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and cost of the improvements necessary to eradicate such blight are beyond the Capacity of the City and private enterprise acting alone or in concert, without redevelopment... :. ' . The Amendment will facilitate the rede3,elopment of the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety .and. welfare. This finding is supported by the fact that redevelopment of the Project Area as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment' will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law .by aiding in the elimination and correction of the conditions Of blight in the Project Area; providing for planning, development, redesign, clearance, reconsmacfion or rehabilitation of properties'Which need improvement; providing affordable housing, including housing for low- and'moderate-income persons; providing additional employment opportunities; facilitating priVate investment; and prOviding for more beneficial use of under-utilized The adoption and carrying out 'of' the Amendment-is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based' 'in part on the fact that under the Redevelopment Plan, as prOposed' to be amended, the Agency will be authorized to'seek and utilize a variety of. Potential financing resources, including tax increments and that no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity. The Report to Council further documents the economic feasibility of the Amendment and related undertakings. The' Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the 'City inclUding, without, limitation the Housing Element. of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements' of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580)'of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based upon the report of the Planning C°mmission that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco. The carrying out of the Amendment wilI promote the public peace, health, safety and weffare of the City and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the fact 'that redevelopment as contemplated by the Redevel°pment Plan, as P. 74 ho jo amended by the Amendment, will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development, contribute toward needed Public improvements and improve the social, economic, and physical conditions of the Project Area. The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the existing Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the City Council and the Agency recognize that the provisions of Government Code Section 7260 et seq. would apply in the event of relocation resulting from the Agency's implementation of the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment. The City Council finds and determines that the provision of relocation assistance according to the Agency's adopted Relocation Guidelines and applicable law constitutes a feasible relocation method. There are, or will be provided within the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and 'at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the existing Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Th/s finding is based in part on the fact that no person or family will be required by the Agency to move from any dwelling unit in the Project Area until suitable replacement housing is available according to law. Famil/es and persons shall not be displaced prior to adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33411 and 33411.1. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections · 33334.5, 33413 and 33413.5. This finding is based in part on the fact that the Agency shall displace no families or persons nor remove or destroy dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate incomes unless and until relocation assistance as requ/red by law is provided. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and ass/stance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements and facilities, structural deficiencies, dilapidation and deterioration, factors that hinder economically viable use, and the inability of individual developers to economically remoYe these blighting influences without public assistance to acquire and assemble sites for development as detailed in the record including the Report to Council. P. 75 The lack of private investment incentive, and the cost of requiring individuals (through assessments or otherwise) to eradicate or significantly alleviate such blighting conditions, and the inadequacy of other governmental programs and financing mechanisms to eradicate or significantly eliminate such blighting conditions, make elimination of blight in the Project Area infeasible without the aid and assistance of the Agency under the Amendment and the Community Redevelopment Act. k. The time limitations and the limitation on taxes that may be allocated to the Agency as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the existing Project Area. and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. This finding is supported by the fact that redevelopment depends in large part, upon private market forces beyond the control of the Agency, and shorter limitations would impair the Agency's ability to be flexible and respond to market conditions as and when appropriate and would impair the Agency's ability to maintain development standards and controls over a period of time sufficient to assure area stabilization. In addition, shorter time limitations would limit the revenue sources 'and financing capacity necessary to carry out proposed projects in the existing Project Area: 1. The fiscal merger of the Project Area and the City's three other project areas for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue is authorized by, consistent with, and will serve the legislative policies of, Health and .... Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., in that such fiscal merger will result in substantial benefit to the.public and will contribute to the revitalization of blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of such areas and through increased and improved housing and economic opportunities in or near such. areas.' . . Section 3: The City Council is Satisfied that if any Occupants of the existing Project Area are disPlaCed, permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time-of ·such displacement, and that pending the development of such facilities, there' will be available to any such displaced occupants adequate temporary. housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement. "...:-. :~ .'. - .... - Section4.': The City Council isT'satisfied that all written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing have been responded to in writing In addition, written findings have been adopted in response to each written objection, of an affected property owner or taxing entity which has been fried with the City Clerk either before or at the noticed public hearing. Following consideration by the City Council, all written and oral objections to the Amendment· are hereby overruled. The reasons for overruling all written objections are more fully set forth in the Findings. .. Section 5. The Redevelopment Plan as originally adopted and previously amended is hereby further amended as set forth in the proposed Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A and as so amended is hereby designated as the official redevelopment plan for the Project Area. Section 6. In order to flnplement and facilitate the effectuation of the Amendment hereby approved, it may be necessary for the City Council to take certain actions, and accordingly, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the redevelopment of the existing Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan as amended; (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan as amended; and (e) may elect to provide, but is not committed to provide, financial assistance in support of implementation of the Redevelopment Plan as amended. .Section 7. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33372, the City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment. _S.ection 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Ordinance to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project At-ea. Section 9. If any part of this Ordinance or the Amendment is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance or of the Amendment, and the City Council hereby declares it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Amendment without such invalid part. Section 10. 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 (i) publish the Summary, and (ii) 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 (a) publish the summary, and (b) 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. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. P. 77 Introduced at a regular meeting of the City coUncil of the City of South San Francisco, held the 27t~ day of Apr/l, 2005.. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City CoUncil held the day of May,. 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approYe the foregoing Oral/nonce this day of ,2005. Mayor S:\Chm'ent Ord's~4-27 -05gatcw~y.ord. DOC P. 78 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO FISCALLY MERGE PROJECT AREAS .SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project, adopted by Ordinance 867-81 on June 17, 1981 and subsequently amended (as so amended, the "Gateway Plan" or the "Plan") is hereby amended as set forth in this amendment (this "Amendment"), effective as of the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Amendment. SECTION 2. FISCAL MERGER Part V.D [§504] is hereby added to the Gateway Plan to read as follows: D. [§504] Fiscal Mer.qer 1. Findinqs. The fiscal merger of the Gateway Redevelopment Project Area ("GatewaY Project Area") and the City's three other project areas for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue is authorized by, consistent with, and will serve the legislative policies of, Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., in that such fiscal merger will result in substantial benefit to the public and will contribute to the revitalization of blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of such areas and throUgh increased and improved housing and economic opportunities in or near such areas. 2. Fiscal Mer.qer of Proiect Areas. Pursuant to, and for the purpose Of pooling tax increment revenue as described in Health and Safety Code Section 33485 et seq., the Gateway Project Area is hereby fiscally merged with the following project areas: a. The project area (the "Downtown/Central Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project, adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 1056-89 (as subsequently amended, the "Downtown/Central Plan"). b. The project area (the "Shearwater Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site, adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 996-86 (as subsequently amended, the "Shearwater Plan"). c. The project area (the "El Camino Project Area") established and described in the Redevelopment Plan for the El Camino Corridor Project, P. 79 adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 1132-93 (as subsequently amended and restated by Ordinance No. 1270-2000, the "El Camino Plan'S. The Gateway Project Area, the Downtown/central Project Area, the Shearwater Project Area and the El Camino Project Area are each referred to herein as a "constituent project area." Except as otherwise stated herein, each reference in this Amendment to a constituent project area shall mean such project area as' originally established and as such project area may have been amended to add territory. This section authorizes the taxes attributable to each constituent project area Which'are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b) to be allocated for redevelopment in any of the constituent project areas for the purpose of paying the principal of, and interest on, indebtedness incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the redevelopment project in any of the constituent project areas; except that any such taxes attributable to a particular constituent project area shall first be used to pay indebtedness in compliance with the terms of any bond resolution or other agreement pledging such taxes from that particular constituent project area which resolution or other agreement was adopted or approved by the Agency pdor to the fiscal merger of the constituent project areas. Except as otherwise noted in this Section, tax increment revenue attributable to each constituent project area may be used for any lawful purpose in any of the constituent Project areas. . 3. Bonded Indebtedness Limit. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 503 of-the Plan, in aCCordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33334.1, the amount of bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole or in part from the combined allocation of taxes to the Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 from all of the constituen{ project areas which in the- aggregate can be outstanding at any one time shall not exceed .$232,650,000 in principal amount, except by amendment of this Plan'and the redevelopment plans for the other constituent project areas; provided however, the foregoing limitation on outstanding bonded indebtedness shall not apply to the territory added to the Downtown/Central Project Area by amendment to the Downtown/Central Plan adopted concurrently with this Amendment (the ,Downtown/Central Added Area") because the Downtown/central Added Area is subject to a separate limitation on bonded indebtedness: 4. Allocation of Tax Increment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 502 of the Plan, the taxes attributable to the constituent project areas that may be and are so allocated to the Agency pursuant to Health and 'Safety Code Section 33670(b) after the effective date of this Amendment shall not exceed a cumulative total eqUal to the sum of the individual limits on the allocation of taxes to the Agency as set forth in the redevelopment plans for each constituent project area, eXCept byamendment of this Plan and the redevelopment plans for the other constituent project areas: The foregoing. P. 80 limitation on the allocation of taxes to the Agency shall not apply to the Downtown/Central Added Area because the Downtown/Central Added Area is not subject to a limitation on the allocation of taxes to the Agency. SECTION 3. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT All provisions of the Plan not specifically amended or repealed in this Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Amendment or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Amendment, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and · effect. To this end, provisions of this Amendment are severable. 'l'he City Council .of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, s.ubdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitdtional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 5. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE The ordinance adopting this Amendment 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. P. 81 Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 27, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FISCAL MERGER, PLAN AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSED FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council: 1) Hold a joint public hearing on the (A) proposed Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments for the Downtown/Central, El Camino Corridor, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Areas to: fiscally merge the four existing Project Areas, add territory to the Downtown/Central Project Area, and extend the time limit to exercise eminent domain for nonresidential property within the Downtown/Central Project Area and the original El Camino Corridor Project Area and (B) the proposed Implementation Plan for the four Project Areas; 2) Close the Public Hearing, and continue the joint Agency/City Council meeting to May llth; 3) Direct staff to prepare written findings in response to written objections to the proposed Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments received from property owners and affected taxing entities at or prior to the hearing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City of South San Francisco (City) and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (Agency) are considering Redevelopment Plan Amendments for, and a Fiscal Merger of, the four existing Redevelopment Projects: Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway, and Shearwater. Following is a summary of the proposed benefits of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. The proposed Plan Amendments will: Fiscally merge the four South San Francisco Redevelopment Project Areas. - Combine current individual cumulative tax increment collection caps of the existing Project Areas. - Combine current individual outstanding bonded indebtedness caps of the existing Project Areas. P. 8 3 Exhibit A Staff Report Subject: Page 2 Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments These caps will be combined without increasing the total tax increment revenues allocated to the Agency or the total amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness the Agency can have at any given time. · Extend by twelve years the time limit within which the Agency may exercise eminent domain authority to acquire nonresidential property in the Downtown/Central Project Area and the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area. · Add Oyster Point Marina (Added Area) to the Downtown/Central Project Area. · No other fiscal or time limits will be amended. Each of the existing Project Areas will continue to be governed by its own Redevelopment Plan with its respective set of redevelopment goals, and time and other fiscal limits. The Redevelopment Program for each existing Project Area will not be modified. The Fiscal Merger will allow the Agency to: · Alleviate the physical and economic blight conditions present in the Added Area. · Combine financial resources and facilitate efforts to better implement the Agency's Redevelopment Program, which will accelerate the alleviation of adverse conditions in the four Project Areas. · Provide flexibility to combine and focus revenues from different Project Areas on the needs of a particular Project Area. · Over time, adjust focus on various Project Areas so that the community's overall redevelopment needs can be addressed in a more efficient and effective manner. The following summarizes the process that the Redevelopment Agency, City Council and Planning Commission have undertaken to date with regard to the proposed Plan Amendments: On March 10, 2004, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") adopted Resolution No.25-2004, which designated a Survey Area for the purpose of amending the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area to add territory. On April 15, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco ("Planning Commission") adopted the Preliminary Plan for the Added Area in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33324 by Resolution No. 2633, which established the boundaries of the proposed Added Area. By Resolution No. 06-2004, adopted on May i2, 2004, the Redevelopment Agency accepted the Preliminary Plan and directed staff to prepare amendments to add the Added Area to the Downtown/Central Project Area and to fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, Gateway, and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Project Areas. The Agency subsequently resolved that the Fiscal Merger should also include the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area in the summer of 2004. P. 85 Staff Report Subject: Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments Page 3 The Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No. 13-2004 on December 8, 2004, approving the Preliminary Report for the proposed Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendment to add territory to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, and authorizing transmittal of the Preliminary Report to affected taxing entities. On March 9, 2005, the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council adopted Resolutions (i) accepting the Report to Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Fiscal Merger Plm~ Amendments, (ii) adopting findings that (a) a Project Area Committee is not required because the proposed amendments do not authorize use of condemnation for residential properties auld do not provide for public projects that will cause substantial displacement, and (b) adequate Environmental Review has been previously completed, and (iii) consenting to a joint public hearing on the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, and (iv) transmitting the Report to Council to the Plarming Commission and City Council. Redevelopment Agency staff held several meetings to consult with representatives of the affected taxing entities. Agency staff held a meeting with Project Area residents, property owners, businesses and commtmity organizations on March 29, 2005 to continue with the consultation process. The meetings with taxing entities were informative and positively received. The taxing entity representatives in attendance asked specific questions regarding the nature of new statutory pass through payments that would be generated by the Plan Annendments and were generally supportive of the City's proposed Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Both the Unified School District and Community College District have asked for clarification regarding existing pass-through agreements and the County of San Mateo requested detailed information regarding the Agency's Housing Fund and affordable housing accomplishments. The staff response to the County is included in the Supplement to City Council transmitted with this Staff Report. Agency staff continue to discuss the College District's request. The community meeting was also well received with approximately 25 persons attending mostly expressing fears about the Agency taking their property through eminent domain and others regarding zoning issues. Staff assured attendees that the Agency currently has no plans requiring the use of its eminent domain authority. One objection letter was received from an owner/resident of the mobile home park, whose concerns are not related to the proposed Plan Amendments and staff responded in v,q'iting providing referrals to appropriate agencies that may be of assistance. Further information regarding the consultations with community members and taxing entities is included in the Report to Council previously provided to the City Council mad in the Supplement Report to Council transmitted with this staff report. On April 7, 2005, the City Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding that the proposed Plan Amendments are consistent with the City's General Plan. The Redevelopment Agency has prepared: (i) an amendment to the redevelopment plan for the Downtown/Central Project Area to add the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park to the Project Area, (ii) amendments to the redevelopment plans for the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area and the Downtown/Central Project Area to extend the time period within which the Agency will have authority to acquire nonresidential property by eminent domain within such Project Areas, and (iii) amendments to the redevelopment plans for the Downtown/Central Project Area, the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area, the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Project Area and the Gateway Project Area to effectuate a fiscal merger. The text of the proposP. 8 7,mendments is incorporated into Ordinances that are attached as exhibits to this staff report, organized by Project Area. Staff Report Subject: Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments Page 4 Report to the Council and Supplement The Report to the City Council ("REPORT") distributed at the March 9, 2005 City Council meeting, was prepared pursuant to the provisions of Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). Among other information, the Report includes: a proposed Five Year Agency Implementation Plan; summary of consultations with affected taxing entities; documentation of remaining blight; and a summary of the Controller's Report. A Supplement to the "REPORT" has been prepared which includes the Planning Commission's report and recommendations on the proposed amendments, a summary of the consultations with community organizations, residents and property owners, and further consultations with affected taxing entities. The "REPORT" was distributed to all taxing entities and has been available in the City Clerk's office for review by the community. The Agency has published a notice of this hearing and has sent all required notices to the affected taxing entities and to residents, property owners and businesses located in the four Project Areas. Copies of the notices are included in the Supplement. The Supplement contains the following information: · The Planning Commission Staff Report and recommendation in favor of adoption of the Plan Amendments, including a copy of the April 7, 2005 resolution of the Planning Commission. · A summary of the community meeting, copies of the community meeting and joint public hearing notices, a list of attendees, a written letter submitted to the Agency, and the Agency's response. · Summary of additional meetings with taxing entities that requested further discussion of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. · Copies of the City Council and Agency resolutions adopted on March 9, 2005, which include the findings described above. hnplementation Plan The proposed Implementation Plan transmitted with this Staff Report provides a plan for Agency activity in the four Project Areas for the five-year period from 2004/05 through 2008/09. The Implementation Plan sets forth: 1. Agency accomplislnnents during the previous five years in each of the Project Areas. 2. Specific goals and objectives for housing and norLhousing activities for the next five years. 3. Specific programs and expenditures for housing and nonhousing activities for the next five vears. 4. An explanation of how the goals, objectives, programs and expenditures wi!! assist in the elimination of blight and in meeting affordable housing obligations. 5. Additional information related to the provision of affordable housing. Staff recommends that the Agency and City Council receive comments on the proposed Implementation Plan during this evening's public hearing, and that the Agency consider adoption of a resolution approving the Implementation Plan on May 25th following the City Council adoption of the ordinances approving the Fiscal Merger Plan Amendments. P. 89 Subject: page 5 CONCLUSION Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendmems Approval of the proposed Plan Amendments will bring to close a one year process to add territory to the Downtown/Central Proj eot Area and to Fiscally Merge the four RedeveloPment Project Areas. If written objections to the proposed FisCal Merger and Plan Amendments are received from property owners or taxing entities, the City Council is required to adopt written findings in response to such objections no sooner than one Week following the commencement of the public hearing. Staff recommends that after all public testimony is taken, that the Agency and City Council close .the public hearing and continue the joint meeting to May 11, 2005 in order to consider findings in response to such objections. At the May 11, 2005 Joint Meeting, staff recommends the following actions: 1. City Council considers and adopts findings in response to obi ections. 2. Agency adopts resolutions approving each of the four Plan Amendments and recommending adoption of the Ordinances. 3. City Council waives reading, introduces the four Ordinances and schedules a second reading for May 25, 2005. At the May 25, 2005 Joint Meeting, staff recommends the following actions: 1. Agency adopts resolution regarding use of 20% funds outside Project Areas 2. Agency adopts resolution approving the Implementation Plan 3. City Council waives second reading and adopts the four ordinances 4. City Council adopts resolution regarding use of 20% funds outside Project Areas For this evening's meeting, it is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency and City Council open the public hearing, take testimony regarding the prOposed Fiscal Merger, Plan Amendments, and Implementation Plan, close the hearing, continue the joint meeting to May 11, 2005, and direct staff to prepare written findings in response to written objections to the proposed amendments received from property owners and affected taxing entities at or prior to the hearing. By: M~ty~ ' Assistant City Manager x"--B/~ M. Nage~?''~ ~ City Manager ~.~ P. 91 Staff Report Subject: Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments Page Attachments: Resolution approving Five Year Implementation Plan FY 2004-05 through FY 2008-09 (pg. 1 - 3) Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, Resolution, Ordinance, Amendment, Map and Legal Description (pg. 4 - 26) El Carnino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, Resolution, Ordinance, Amendment (pg. 27 - 42) U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area, Resolution, Ordinance, Amendment (pg. 43 - 57) Gateway Redevelopment Project Area, Resolution, Ordinance, Amendment (pg. 58-72) Supplement to the Report to Council (pg. 73 - 152) Report to Council with Appendix H, Implementation Plan P. 93 Supplement to the Report to Council South San Francisco ~Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger April 2005 Prepared by South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency · 400 Grand Avenue 2nd'Floor South San Francisco, CA 94080 Seifel COI~SULTII~G I~lC. 13B8 ~tter $1~e~ ~uite 520 San Francisco, CA 9¢109 Tel 415.931.96D0 P. 95 Table .of Contents Supplement to the Report to Council South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Section A. Introduction Section B.- ... i SUpplement to Chapter VHI~ Plinning Commission Report and ReCommendation Section C. .Section D. 'Section E. Supplement to Chapter IX, Summary of Public Review of the Plan Amendments ' Supplement to Ch~Pter XII, Summary of Consultations with Taxing Entities Related Documents P. 96 A. Introduction The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has prepared and submitted for City Council consideration proposed Plan Amendments to the Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway and Shearwater Redevelopment Projects. The Plan Amendments include fiscally merging the four Project Areas as well as the addition of the area known as the Oyster Point Marina to the Downtown/Central Plan. By Resolution No. 04-2005 adopted March 9, 2005, the Agency submitted to the City Council the Report .to Council for the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Since that time, additional information has been received that merits consideration by the City Council and Agency Board, and in some instances, inclusion in the Report to Council. The purpose of this Supplement to the Report to Council (Supplement) is to provide the City Council with such additional information in preparation for its consideration of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger at its joint public hearing with the Agency scheduled for April 27, 2005. Specifically, this Supplement contains the follOwing additional information: · The Planning Commission Staff Report and recommendation in favor of adoption of the Plan ' Amendments, as a supplement to Chapter VIII of the Report to .Council. The April 7, 2005 resolution of the Planning Commission is included. ~ · A supplement to Chapter IX of the Repor~ to Council that includes the summary of the commuaity meeting, the community meeting and joint public hearing notices, a list of attendees and a written letter submitted to the Agency as well as the Agency's response. ' · Summary of additional meetings with taxing entities requesting-further discussion of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger as well as the notification of the joint.public hearing are included as a supplement to Chapter XII and Appendix J of the Report to Council. · 'City Council and Agency resolutions adopted on March 9, 2005. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency A'I~. 9 7 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Supplement to the Report to Council Ap~ 2005 B. Supplement to 'Chapter VIH, Planning Commission Report and Recommendation " This section includes the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission adopted by resolution at the Planning Commission's April 7, 2005 meeting. 'The Planning Commission has recOmmended adoption of the Plan Amendments, based on the staff report provided after this section.. The Planning Commi.~sion has alsb determined that the Plan Amendments conform to th~ 1999 General Plan. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency B- ~ South San Francisco Plan Amendmeots and Fiscal Merger P. 9 8 · . Supplement to thc R~rt to Council : April 2005 Planning Commission staff Report DATE: April 7, 2005 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations Regarding Proposed Plan Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the DOwntown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway and She _a[water redevelopment project areas. BACKGROUND The City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") are considering amendments to the redevelopment plans for the four existing redevelopment project areas: Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway, and Sheaxwater. The proposed Amendments would (i) amend the redevelopment plan for the Downtown/Central project area to add the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park ("Added Area") to the project area, (ii) amend the redevelopment plans for the original El Camino Corridor project area and the Downtown/Central project area to extend the time period within which the Agency will have authority to acquire nonresidential property by eminent domain within such project areas, and (iii) amend the redevelopment plans for the Downtown/Central project area, the E1 Carnino Corridor project area, the U.S. 'Steel/Shearwater project area and the Gateway project area in order to effectuate a fiscal merger of such project areas. The Fiscal Merger will allow the Agency to: · Alleviate the physical and economic blighted conditions that arepresent in the Downtown/Central Added Area. · Combine financial resources and facilitate efforts to better implement its RedeVelopment Program, which will accelerate the alleviation of adverse conditionk in the four Project Areas. · Provide flexibility to combine and focus revenues from different Project Areas on the needs of a particular Project Area. · . Over time, adjust focus on various Project Areas so that the community's overall redevelopment needs can be addressed in a more efficient and effective manner. PRIOR ACTIONS On March 10, 2004, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") adopted Resolution No.25-2004, which designated a Survey Area for the purpose of amending the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") to add territory to the Project Area. P. 9 9 TO: Pl~,m{-~ Comm{~sion . : , . . . . .. SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations Regarding Proposed P!s.p. Amendments to thc RedeVelopment Pl..aris !"i : -i"" Page 2 of 4 ..... On .April 1 $~. 2004,. the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Rio..2633 establishing the boundaries 'of the area proposed to be added to the Project Area (the t'Added Area'') approving a Preliminary Plan for the Added Area in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33324 and recommending that the Agency accept the Preliminary Plan. "· - '. ' By Resolution No. 06-2004, adopted on May 12, 2004, the R~development AgenCy'approved the Preliminary Plan and directed staff to prepare amendments to add the Added Area. to the Downtown/Central Project Area .and to fiscally merge the .Do .wntown~Central, Gateway, and U.S. Steel/Shearwater project areas.' The Agency subsequently resolved that the.fiscal merger should also include the E1 Camino Corridor project area. ~ -' ';'~... On. I~l~ch ~*,~:the Redevelopment Agency approved the Report to Council f0k the prop°Sed' Amendments...and l~iscal .Merger, authorized transmittal of. the .Report and the.. proposed Amendments. tq the City Council,' Planning Commission, 'the ~taxing-entities, community. residents and property owners, and the City Council and the' Agency authorized the holding of a joint public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Amenrlments~. The text of the Proposed amendments is included with this slaft'report, Following reviewby the Planning Commission, the proposed amendments will be incorporated into' ordinances that Will be conSidered.for adoption at the joint Agency/City'Councfl public hearing, , REPORT TO COUNCIL · .... In conneCtion'with the propOsed Amendments, the Agency ~aused to be Prepared,' and pursuant to ReSolution No. 13;2004 adopted December 8, 2004., approved a Preliminary RePort pursuant to Health and Safety COde Section 33344.5 and authorized mmsmittal of the Preliminary Report to affected taxing entities, the Planning Commission and the community. The attached Rep°rt to the City Council ("Report")has been prepared in accordance with the provisions Of Section 33352. of the Community Redevelopment LaTM (CRL)..Much of the information in the .'Report to council was presented in the Preliminary Report previously transmitted to the Planning Commission. Several new Sections were added to the Report as. required by Community Redevelopment Law, including: a proposed Five-Year Agency Implementation Plan; Summary of consultations with affected taxing ~ntities; documentation of remaining blight; and a summary of the Controller's Report. In all other respects, the Preliminary Report has not been substantively changed, Prior to the joint Agency/City Council hearing, a supplement to the Report' will be prepared which will include the Planning Commission's report and recommendationS on the proposed amendments and a summary of the consultations with commUllity organizations, residents and property owners.' P. 100 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations Regarding Proposed Plan Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans Page 3of4 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission is being asked to adopt a Resolution (i) finding and determining that adequate environmental review has been completed for the proposed Amendments, that the proposed Amendments are consistent with the General Plan, and that the public activities which may be undertaken in the project areas and in the area proposed to be added to the Downtown/Central project area are consistent with the General Plan; (ii) recommending the approval and adoption of the Amendments; and (iii) authorizing transmittal of the Planning Commission's report and recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council. FINDINGS Environmental Review The Planning Commission is being asked to adopt a finding that adequate environmental review has been completed for the proposed amendments and fiscal merger. Staff has determined that the fiscal merger, as a financing mechanism for unspecified future projects, and Which itself will have no significant effect on the environment, is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The proposed Plan amendments do not alter the projects and activities proposed to be implemented in the project areas. The potential environmental effects of the activities proPOsed to be undertaken in the existing project areas and in the Added Area were analyzed in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR which was adopted and certified in 1994 and in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, a program level EIR that was adopted and certified in October, 1999. The Chief Planner has reviewed the propOsed amendments and has determined that in connection with the adoption of the Plan Amendments, the Agency may properly rely upon these 'prior EIR's because no new impacts are associated with the amendments, no projects have been specified that were not analyzed in the prior EIR's, there are no substantial .changes to the circumstances under which the previously analyzed project will be undertaken, and there is no new information that was unavailable at the time the prior EIR's were certified. General Plan Consistency The proposed Amendments do not alter the land use designations of properties within the existing project areas or the Added Area, and the land use designations contained in the Redevelopment Plans are the same as the land use designations contained in the adopted land use map of the City's General Planl The proposed Amendments do not propose changes to eXisting development standards for properties located in the existing project areas and the Added Area, and the development standards applicable to the existing project areas and the Added Area as enforced by the Redevelopment Plans are the same as the development standards contained in the City's General Plan. The land use ~ designations, circulation systems, public facilities, proposed projects and programs and development standards set forth in the Redevelopment Plans conform to the City's General Plan and are not ~p. 10 l:d by the proposed Amendments. STAFF REPORT - TO: . Planning Commission SUBJECT: Report and R~commendations Regarding Proposed Plan Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans Page 4 of 4 - -- " RECOMMENDATION It 'is' recommended that the .Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution: 1) adopting findings that adeqUate Environmental Review has b6en completed for .proposed Amendments, that the-proposed Amendments are consistent with the General Plan, and that the public activities which may be undertaken in the project .areas and in the area proposed to be added to the Downtown/Central project' area (the ."Added Area") are consistent with the General Plan; 2)., recommending the approval.and adoption of the Amendments; and 3) authorizing transmittal of the Planning Commission's report and,recommendations to th~ Redevelopment Agency and the City Council. .. Redevelopment Manager AttachmentS: Resolutibn Report to Council Proposed Plan Amendments P. 102 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION (~o) FAX {~0) ~-~ April 14, 200.5 Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco 400 Gzazid Ave. SoUth San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Agency Mmmbers: This lett~r.:transmits Plann~=g .Comm{~on Resolution No. 2642-2005 to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San FrancisCo for inclusion as par~ of the Agency's Report to the City Council pursuant to Section 33352 of the Commumity Redevelopment Law. Resolution No. 2642-2005 is deemed to be the r~po~t and zeoomm~adations of the Pla~Mug Commission concerning the proposed Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the Downtown/Central, E1 CnrMno Corridor, Gateway and U.S.Steel/Shem'water redevelopment project areas and contemplated public projects and activities thereunder, as required by ' applicable provisions of law. Sinc~wly, ~, .... ~.~ to the Pln~r.i~g Commission Enclosure: Resolution No. 2642-2005 Cc: City Manager · City Clerk' SM.fei Consultin~ P. 103 738601-1 o . eno .... 8OUTHS.42,I FI~CISCO PLUG COM1VIISSlON .~ ~ .~.. . . TO: ' South San Fzancisc~ P, edeveIopmmt Agency o~Awr~ o~ sco~0~c A~O. Oo~V =~aO~M~rr .AppLiCATiON:. P04-00~6- RDA Bouudarie~ & Fiscal Merg=- PLANNING DIVISION P~onrnrn~rlin% adoption of amemdm~tm to tho FAX {mm) .' redevelopm~rrt plans for th~ Downtown/C~ntral, El Camino Conidor, Gatt'way and Shearwater md~vslopmuut project ama~, (including the addition of tenitory to the Downtown/Cm~traI project area and the fiscal m~ ofth~ proj~t "areas), and adopting.6ndi~s that adequate ' environm~l r~iew has be~n 'completed. su oj t: ADDRESS: l~&velopmenI Project Amss The South San Francisco Ylauuing Corrrmi.~sion at a mueting held au April 7,11005 vOted (7-0-0) to take the following aution on the above applications: APPROVED D]gNran CONTIELTED FORWARDED .Resolutim No. 2642 BaSed on th~ Y+ndin~s of D~ial (spm:~ Da~ or Off Cal:ndaO Item Tmtatiwly sut~ttled for Aurl127. 2005 City Council Meeting I oexiify that the foregoing is an accUiate r~presuntation of the a~tion of the.Ylauning Comr~{~iou in oomid~diOn oftl~ ~plioatiam .- ' · ' · ' ' ChicfPiann~r ofth~ City of South San Francisco April 12, 2005 CC.'" City City Cl=k Si~fel P. lO4 RESOLUTION NO. 2642-2005 ~PLANNI~G COMMISSION, crrY 017 SOUT]3[ SAN FRAN~SCO STATE O1~ CALIFORNI~ A RESOLUTION O1' ~ PLANN~G COM1VIISSION OF TWig CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REPORTING ONAND RECOMMENDING ADOPTIONO~'A_M~NDMENTS TO TlrrE REDEVELOP!V!ENT PLANS FOR ~ DOWNTOWN/CENTRA~L, EL CAMINO CORRIDOR GATEWAY AND SlqF, ARWATER REDEVELOP/v]]gNT PROJECT AREAS, (INCLINING THE ADDITION OF TERRITORY TO ~ DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT AREA AND TIlE FISCAL MERGKR 0F TItE PROJECT AREAS), A_ND ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT ADEQUATE ENVIRO1YIVIE1YrAL REVIEW HAS BEEN COIVI~LE~D WI-~.REAS, the Red~elopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (the "Agency") has prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco :('~Planning Comm{~sion'') proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shcarwater project areas (collectively, the "Amendments'~ which Amendments would (i) fiscally merge the four project areas, (ii) add territory to the Downtown/Central project area; aud (ih') extend the time limk within which the Agency may use eminent domain to acquire non-residential property in the Downtown/Central and E1 Cam]no Corridor project areas; WI:t~REAS, the Planning Commission previously formulated and adopted Preliminary Pl~m for the each of the.project areas; ~ WI-~,KEA8, by Resolution 2633, adopted on April i5, 2004, the Planui~g Comm~.~sion approved a Pm'bm/nary ?lan for the area proposed to be added to the Downtown/Central project area (the "Added Area"); Wrq'RREAS,. in accordance with Section 33346 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code. Section 33000 et seq.) the ?lanu~ng Commission is requ./red to review the proposed Amendments and make its report and recommendations thereon to the Ag~cy and the City Council of the City of 8outh San Francisco ("City Council"), including a deterrn~ati0n as to whether the Amendments conform ~o the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco ("General Plan");. W-KEREAS, Section 65402 of the Government Code provides in part: "(a) If a general plan or part th. ereofh~.~ been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public.purposes, and no real propert-y shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no . public building or structure shall be constmctp. 10 5uthorized, if the adopted general plan 1 or Part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose'md extant of such acquisition haw been submitted to ahd repozted upon bythe p) ..azmiug agency as to ccmfonn/ty with said sdopted general plan or part thereof....' . . ..,. · (o) A local agency shall not acqume ~ propmty for any of the purposes ~c~i~ed in paragraph (a) nor dispose of any real propmty, nor constmet or authazize a public building Or s~ctum, in any county or city, if such co ..u~. of'city has adopted a general. plan' of p~ thereof md such general plum. orp~ thereof is sPP.licable thereto, until the locatiOm, purpose end ~xtent of such acqu/_~tion~ disposition, or such public building or · . structure have btam submitted to aud repori~ upon by'the planning a~ency, tmving jtmisdiction, ss to conform~tywith said adoptedg~m, eralp!au..or pa~t thm~f.. ~, the above requ/red rep°m and recor,~endations, inoluding'r,,ttem to in Sec~on 33346 of the Health and Safety Code snd .qection 65402 of the Govmmment Code,. ~re to be made. to:tim Ag~ncyand the City Council for th~ c0nsidersfion in acting:on the Cn,'~.~.on for t~ rspozt mxt re~°~mamtatioas, i~lthe Plma~g ¢cm~,~°= the proposed Amendments, tim Gemeral Plan, and other, p~tin.en, t r .~ozts'.m~i. documents; pr.., oper~es within the existing.project areas or the Added Area; - -" -' merger, as a financ~ mechsnism for mmpecified furore projects and'which Will,self have no ai_ov~t~can~ a~-~c~ on the enviromn enI, is exmnp~ fern CBQA puzsmm~ ~o C2QA C-%ddelines Section 1NO~! (b)(S); V~ql:~.BAS, the proposed Amandmenlm~ do no~ ~ 1he proj ecl~ and ac~vifies proposed ~o be hnplemm~l in the project areas, end do no~ ~x~end dm fin~.ncial amd time limitations set forth in the mds~g redevMopm~ .WTIRRBAS, the potential ~viron~ental effects of tim activities proposed to b= undermk~nin the ~dstfng project aress and in the proposed Added Area were mmlyzedin the least of 101 Ar~ P/an Bnv/ronm~ Impact P, ep~t which was ad°Pted.end certified in lf)94 and in the General Plan Bnvironmm~Ll Impact Report, a progrsm level EIR that was sdoptexl and certified in October, l~g9;.and ~, the City's ChiofPlenner h,~'reviewed the proposed Amendments and has deters;ned th~-t in connection with the ~rloption of the Amendments, the Agency m~d th~ City Council may. properly rely upon the prior EIRs becmme no n~w anviro~tsl finpacts are associated with the Amendmemts, no projects have btam specified tb~,t wemmot snalyzed in the prior EIRs, th=re are no ;ubstsntialchanges to the cimur~moes under which the previously · me prior ~J.~s were cert/fied. ..................................................... NOW TI~.REt~ORE, ~ PLANNING COM]VIISSION OF ~ CIT~ OF SOUTH SAN, FRA.NC~CO DOI~,S I:rI~.RE]B¥ RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Plan~ng Comm~.~.~ion hereby finds and detemes ~l~at adequate envn:omnental review has been completed for the proposed Amendments and fiscal merger because (i) the fiscal merger ~s exempt ~:om CEQA ~ursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and (fi) the potential environmental effects oft he proposed Amendments have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact P~eports, andno new projects am proposed, no new impacts have.been identified, there are no substantial c]~auges in the circumstances under which the prior EIP,.s were certified, and there is no new inforra~on that was unavailable at the time the prior SIRs were certified. S~cfion 2. The Planning ComrU~sion has re~/ewed the proposedAmendments and hereby finds and determines in accordance with Section 33346 o£the Communityl~edevelopment Law, that the.proposed Amendments are consistent with the G~neral Plan. Section 3. The Planu/ng Comr~ ssion hereby finds and determlq es that public activities and undcmkings that are described in Government Code Section 65402 and which maybe undertaken w~fh{~' the existing project areas and the Added Area pursuant to the redevelopment plans for such project areas as mended by the proposed Amendments are .consistent with the General Plan. Section 4. The Plauu~g Comm{ssionherebyreports to the Agency and the City Councilthe find/rigs refcn:ed to in Sections 1, 2 and 3 hereo~ and recommends the approval and adoption of the Amendments. In the event that prior to its adoption of the Amendments,'the City council desires make any ~or, technical, or ol~g changes to the Amendments, the Plmg Corarn]ssion hereby finds and determines that any such ~iuor, technical, or clarifying changes need not be refen:ed to it for furth~ report and recommendation, and hereby wa/yes its report and recommendation under Section 33347 of the CommunityP,.edevelopm~nt Law concerning any SUch change. Section 5. The Pla~u~u§ Commission hereby authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Planning Commission to transmit a copy of this Resolution to the AEency and the City Council for consideration as pm o£the AEency's Report to the City Council Pursuant to Section 33352 of the CommunitY P~edevelopment Law, and this P~esolution shall be deemed the' report and recommendations of the Plauning Commission concernil~g the proposed Amendments and contemplated public projects and activities thcretmder, as required by applicable provisions of law. 731~343-1 P. 107 * 3 NOES:" ABSTAIN: P. 108 4 Supplement to Chapter IX, Summary of Public Review of the Plan Amendment Based on the response of the community, it was decided to hold only one community meeting on March 29, 2005. Following is a summary of the March 29, 2005 Conununity Meeting on the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. This section includes the notice for the community meeting and the joint public hearing. It also contains a copy of the sign-in sheet for the attendees at the community meeting, a letter from an attendee as well as the Agency's response to the letter. On March 29, 2005, the Agency prepared a presentation on the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger for the business owners, property owners and tenants in all four Proiect Areas, who were notified of the community meeting and joint public hearing via letter. (A sampie notification letter and the joint public hearing notice are included at the end of this section.) Norma Fragoso, Redevelopment Manager, presented an introduction to redevelopment in South San Francisco and t~x increment financing,, and she demonstrated the benefits of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger for the community. Ms. Fragoso addressed questions from the attendees during and following the presentation. Armando Sanchez, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency staff, and Marie Munson, Managing Consultant from Seifel Consulting Inc., were also available to answer questions during and following the presentation. Approximately 25 members of the community were in attendance at the meeting. The attendees who signedthe attendance sheet are included following this section. The concerns of the community members centered on eminent domain. Norma Fragoso clarified that eminent domain was only being reinstated for the Agency in the Downtown/Central Original Project Area and E1 Camino Original Project Area~ It would also be established in the Downtown/Central Added Area; however, as this area is owned by the City, the Agency does not anticipate exercising eminent domain in this area. Ms. Fragoso stated that eminent domain would not be exercised to acquire property on which persons reside. Furthermore, at this time, the Agency has no plans to utilize eminent domain for any particular project. Some attendees inquired about potential change of land use designation. Ms. Fragoso explained.that the Redevelopment Plan Amendments for all of the Project Areas would not change the land uses in the Project Areas, and that the General Plan sets land use designations. Other attendees asked what is the Agency's vision for the Downtown area. Norma Fragoso provided a description of the primary activities to be undertaken by the Agency in the Downtown, explaining that the Agency provides funding for infrastructure work, toxic clean up and building improvements. She then described that the Agency created a prOPosed Implementation Plan in conjunction with the Plan Amendments, which summarizes the projects, activities, and estimated revenues and expenditures for the Agency for the next five Years.. She then provided a list of representative projects from the proposed Implementation Plan. One resident asked if a community center would be developed at Willow Gardens (within the E1 Camino Added Area), and Ms. Fragoso explained that it was included as a potential project within the proposed Implementation Plan. To conclude the meeting, Norma Fragoso explained the next steps in the process for 'adopting the Plan Amendments, specifically, the Planning CommisSion review on April 7, 2005 and the joint public hearing on April 27, 2005. She stated that community members could review a copy of the Report to Council on the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger at City Hall, or they could call her and request a compact disc including a copy of the report. She then invited the community members to attend the joint public hearing. She also stated that Armando Sanchez, Marie Munson and she were available for further South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency £F. 1 0 9'. South San Francisco Plan Amendments and ~Fiseal Merger Supplement to the Report to Council ^pri12005 questions a~er the meeting, and that the pubic could~ contact her .at her office as well. The meeting was then concluded. ....... . . ' -. ', ...... ' · The Agency received a letter from a cOmml.lnity member following the COmmlmlty meeting. The Agency responded on April 12, 2005 a~d'addressed the commllnity member's' concerns '-' South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency CZ. 1 1 0 South San Francisco Plan Amendments aad Fiscal Mergex . Supplement to the. Report to Conneil March 22, 2005 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (650) 829-6620 FAX (650) 829-6823 RE: Public Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the City of .South San Francisco Dear Property Owner/Business Owner/Resident: Over the years, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has funded economic development initiatives, public infrastructure and facilities improvements, parks, toxic remediafion assistance, and other revitalization initiatives within its four redevelopment project areas. In order to enhance the Agency's redevelopment efforts, the City of South San Francisco and its Redevelopment Agency are considering mending the Redevelopment Plans t° enhance the Agency's financial resources and provide more flexibility to fund future redevelopment 'activities. - -- ' The Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco is in the final stages of adopting amendments to the four existing redevelopment project areas identified above. The primary purposes of the amendments are to (i) add territory to the Downtown/Central project area; (ii) risc, ally merge the four redevelopment projects for the purpose of pooling tax increment revenue to increase funding flexibility for the redevelopment program; ('fii) establish a unified bonded indebtedness limit for the four project areas; and (iv) extend the time limits 'for the exercise of eminent domain (condemnation) authority to acquire non-residential property in the Downtown/Central project area and the original E1 Camino Corridor project area. The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendments do not raise taxes and do not change the zoning/land use designation of your property. The Amendments axe intended to provide the Redevelopment Agency, the City .of South San Francisco, and the community with additional financial and leg.al resources to complete the redevelopment programs in the DOwntown/Central, Gateway, El Camino Corridor and U.S. Steel/Shearwater project areas through'activities such as the development of public improvements, revitalization of commercial and industrial areas, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistance to existing property owners for the redevelopment of their property, and assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing. As they were originally adopted, the Redevelopment Plans for the four project areas authorize the Agency to purchase real property, and in limited circumstanceS, to acquire property by condemnation. The proposed plan Amendments would extend the time period within which the Agency may acquire non-residential property in the Downtown/Central and E1 Carnino Corridor 737802-3 !P. 1 1 1 proposed to be added to the Downtown/Ce.n.,t?l project ama ("Addod Area' Therefor.e ' ~a,,.',umc~ ~et ~ona m me Kcaevelopmont Plans, as mended.. It is important to note that the- Agency's use of its property acquisition authority is limited. At this time,.no properties have be~ id,nfified for acquisition..4~ r~lui~ by Hoaltti ~ad.S~¢ty Cod~ Section 33350, Notice i~ l~ing ~ to prOl~y owners, brained% residential t~ant~ and community .a~ d~eribod in the enclosed Notice of Public Hearing, the South San Francisco l~d, velopment AI~n¢¥ and City Council will hold a joint public he~.ng at 7:00 p.m..on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 in the citY CounCil Chambers in the Munidpal Services. Building at 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, to ¢omid~ adoption of tho PrOPOSed Plan · ...~...~ ~ March 9, 2005 at 7'00 m in CoPi~ of the propo~! Amendments, the Final R~port to City Council on the Pmpor~l Amondmont~ and Fi~,,al M~g~r (ino!uding the Implem~ttation Plan) am av~lable ~t the City Cl .~k,~ 0ffi~.at 400 Cmmd Av~n~ for your r~'~,i~. ' ' .' ,~,~[~ m~ng on Mm'~h 29 , ann the public h~qng on ~pril 27 qu~ffiom f~l fr~to contact Norms_ Frago~o, ~elopment Manager, at650-829-6620. ~utive Dn~tor. Enclosures 7~7802~ P. 112 2 INFORMATION AND PUBLIC I4'EARING NOTICE FOR THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (INCLUDING FISCAL MERGER) AND FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL, EL CAMINO CORRIDOR, GATEWAY AND U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS IN THE CITY OF SOU'I~ SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING 7:00 p.m2, Tuesday, March 29, 2005 City Council Chambers Municipal Services Building 33 Arroyo Drive SOuth San Francisco, California PLANNING COMMISSION FI'E~G 7:00 p.m., Thursday, April 7, 2005 City Council Chambers Municipal Services Building 33 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, California JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 27, 2005 City Council Chambers Municipal Services Building 33 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, California 734711-2 P. 113 1 "" ' '- i." .'-. NOTICE. OF. JOINT'PUBL!C HE~G Notice is hereby given .that the City 'Council' of the City of South San Francisco and the Redevelopment Agency of: th..e -City of South San Francisco will hold a joint public hearing on April 27, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. or as sOOn:as:PoSsible thereafter, 'in the City .Council Chambers located, in thc Municipal Services Building at 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California to ~nsid~r all eviCence and testlm, ony for or against the approval and adoption of (A)' proposed redevelopment: plan ame.~dments.(the "Amendments',), including (i) the fiscal' m~g~r of the existing redevelOpment plans'(the '!Exisfin.o Redevelopment Plans") for South San FranCisco's four existing redevelopment 'project areas (Downtown/Central~ GatewaY, E1 Camino Corridor and U.S. Steel/Shearwater), (ii) the additi°n of t~rritory to the DOwntown/Central project area, and ('iii) the extension of time limits for the exercise of ern{nent domain authority, in the Downtown/Central project'are~ 'and the original'El Camino Corridor project area; and (B) the proposed new live-year implementation plan for the four project aivas (the "Implementation Plan"). The joint public hearing is' being convened and conducted, and this notice is being provided'in compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 33350, 33355, 33356, 33361, 33451, 33452, and 33490. The scope, purposes, and objectives of the proposed Amendments include: (i) the addition of' territory to the Downtown/Central project ar~a; (ii) the fiscal merger'of the four redevelopment projects for thepurpose of pooling tax increment revenue.from the four project areas to inclv, ase funding flexibility for the redeVelopment program while retaining the separate identity of the four projects for other purposes; (iii) the establishmen~ of a unifed bond~ indebtedness llm|i for the four project areas; and (iv) the extension of time limits for the undertaking of eminent domain (condemnation) proceedings t° acquire nonresidential property in the Downtown/Ceniral proj~t area and the original E1 Carol'no Corridor project area. .. ' The Amendments are intended to Provide the Redevelopment Agency, the City of South San Francisco, and the community with additional fiBallcial and legal resources to complete the redevelopment programs in the Downtown/Central,'Gateway, [] Camino Corridor and U.S. Steel/Shearwaier projcct areas through activities such as the devclopment of public imProvements, revitalization of commel'cial and industrial areas, land assembly and disposition for redevelopment, provision of financial and other assistanccto existing property owners for the '~?~-2 P. 1 14 redevelopment of their property, and assistance in the development, preservation, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing. The ImPlememation Plan sets forth the Redevelopment Agency's proposed program of activities and expenditures for the four project areas for the upcoming five-year period (July 1, 2005 - June 30,'2010), including the manner in which such programs will achieve the purposes and requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law, assist .in the alleviation of blight in the four project areas, and increase, improve and preserve affordable housing opportunities in the community. The Implementation Plan is intended to replace the current implementation plan for the four project areas, and takes into account the additional f'mancial and legal resources that would become available to the Redevelopment Agency through the proposed Amendments. The purpose of the joint public heating is to consider: 1. The proposed Amendments; · 2. The Redevelopment Agency's Report to Council on the proposed Amendments and fiscal merger of the four project areas, which Report includes, among other documents, the Implementation Plan; and 3. All evidence and testimony for and against the approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments and the proposed Implementation Plan. At the public hearing described in this notice, all persons having objections to the proposed Amendments and/or the Implementation Plan may appear and Show cause why the proposed Amendments and/or the Implementation Plan should not be adopted. 'Persons raising any legal challenge to the proposed actions may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Agency Secretary, the City Clerk, or' to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Council at or prior to the public hearing. Any person who is opposed to the proposed Amendments and/or the Implementation Plan may give their objections in writing to the City Clerk at any time prior to or at the public hearing described in this notice. Written comments may be filed with the City Clerk at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080. The proposed Amendments, the Agency's Report to Council on the proposed Amendments and Fiscal Merger (including the Implementation Plan), and other related documents are on file and available for inspection Monday through Friday between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. at the following location: 73471 t-2 City Clerk's Office City of South San Francisco ~400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 ~P. 1 15 3 project areas. Exhibit B is a map showing the area proposed to be' add~ to the Downtown~Central Project Area Exhibit C is thc legal d~cription of the area proposed to tho added to the'-Downtown/C~tral ProjeCt area Legal descriptions of the land within thc existing .~t_ ~ ~ a_v~_*!a¢l~ from ? Cify Clerk fr~ of charge, and may be foimd in the: folio. Wing ummts tn me Official Records of San Mateo Cotmt7: Document No. 39091486 recorded zuuu m~ camm0 COrridor proje/ct are, a); Do0um.ent No2 9205 .recorded NOvember 19, 1981 (GateWay Project. area)i andDoc~mt N0~'Ss072170re¢ordedjuly 18,'1985'(u.s. ' For further information, please call Norms FragoSo at (650) 829-6620 between the hours'of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. ~ ........ ' sy ord~ of the City Co~.,a and the R~.~velo~m ,~g~noy of the City of So~ S~n sistant.CityMana~r/, I ' Assistant Executive Direr Dat~: Mamh 22~ 2005 ?~14711-2 P. 1 1 6 EXHIBIT A Rndevel~p~nt Pr~2ct.~rea Boundart~ D~en~l ProJeot ]~1 e~tn~ Cm'tS~r Ben l~mnc~seo Plsn s~eJA EXH~T B $ 4 EXHIBIT C OYSTER POINT MARINA PROJECT AREA -REAL PROPERTY IN THE CiTY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEo, STATE OF CALIFORNIA~ A PORTION OF THE LANDS SHOWN ONTHE MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 55 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 61 IN THE RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: _. BEGINNING ON THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL MAP ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 7 IN SECTION 23 IN TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN AT THE MONUMENT THE CENTER OF OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 52 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 58 IN THE RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AT ZONE ill COORDINATES ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 OF NORTH EAST 6016269.49; 1) THENCE S 89" 28' 33" E ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINES OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 7 FOR 2945.93 FEET; 2) THENCE S 0" 31' 27" WALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 FOR 1313.22 FEET; 3) THENCE N 89" 32' 13" W ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 7 FOR 3215.06 FEET; . 4)THENCE N 22' 42' 47" E FOR 52.49 FEET; 5) THENCE N 56° 42' 47" E FOR 13.78 FEET; 6) THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT AND CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A . RADIUS OF 610.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1° 24' 30" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.00 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEAPJNG OF N 4° 35' 35" E FOR 15.00 FEET; 7) THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE N 86° 6' 40"W FOR 55.00 FEET; 8) THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE WEST AND RADIAL TO THE PREVIOUS CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 555.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17' 27~ 45" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 169.22 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING- A CI:iORD BEARING OF N 4; 517 32" W FOR 168.56 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE 76'.25' 35" W FOR 25.00 FEET; 9)0) THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE WEST AND RADIAL TO THE PREVIOUS CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 530.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ' ANGLE OF 41 ° 38' ;~2" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 385.36'FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF N 34" 23' 41" W FOR 376.93 FEET; ' 11) THENCE FROM A'TANGENT BEARING N 49° 49'23' E ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS oF 195.18 FEET AND A CEN'II~ ANGLE OF B° 11' 23" FOR AN ARO LENGTH OF 2i.09 FEET, 8AID CURVE HAVING A CHOF~' BEARING OF N 52' 55' 5" E FOR 2t.08 FEET; 12) THENCE N 56° 0' 46" E FOR 56.44 FEET; 13) THENCE N 0° 31' 27" E FOR 35.68 FEET; 14) THENCE N 68° 56' 41'" E FOR 7.96 FEET; 15) THENCE N 56° 29, 53" E FOR 197.34 FEET; 16) THENCE N 41' 29' 57" E FOR 168.64 FEET; 17) THENCE N 35° 21' 27~'E FOR 93.01 FEET; 18) THENCE N 46' 35' 27"' E FOR 208.33'FEET; 19) THENCE FROM A TANGENT BEARING S 75° 11'47' W ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 204.99 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26D 38' 25" FOR/1~. 1 1 9C LENGTH OF 95.31 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF S 6-1' ax ~4~ W FOR 94.46 FEET; . 20) THENCE N 0' 31' 27" E FOR 277.31 FEET TO SAID NORTHER! Y J i~: r~m --P. 122 ' ~ '.. · SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES '~' "{.-800-595,9595 · · :' "' :' '" "":' -' ' '." ' "' ,.,";' ': ~ ' ". '.:: '"?.',"-'" . af $~n Morea will racmw ~ealed pmp~b I . · . I;J~IT$ ~OR EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY, AND THE ADDITION'OFTEB~ITORY'TO THE DOWNTOWNIC~NT~AL PROdECT., : .~AREA,'AND.(I~).A PROpo$~:D'NEW FIVE-YEAR'IMPLEMENTATION pLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT'PROJECT$ - . ,. , : . -:'. ;'s W~I' be' data. The ~'s. Th b PURCHASING AGENT*'***' CO ' .~ (~.USINESS & PROFESSIONS.',' [' ., '. ~;*.;' ~' .CODES 2171XI).',:-. ~JOTiCE IS HF.~' ned that a publl? Ilan ,'cdbad~ P e~son~.' prdpa,'~Y :wll~ be at ~r c~ 11:00 m~i ;~n ~h~ 13U1 ~d~ :)5, at'.8'/1 Willow '~T, of'sari Mate-, Gar~ ~.:~ Faro'au, 537370B65.'-.':. -' '* .. ,'* ~ . . . · ? :Un~s.co@~n.p~mona~hdus ehnld .l~'~a. a~xes,'.~nl~sS.oLhen~se ,ei:$~d. Star- U S/~ m.~'rv~.the ,'~rIca[ ~ur. Uon.-: .%.,.... : .'... ~..'....'.:. ~u~on Un~'.*. '~ ~ .~,~ .;:.' . . :'. * '~' ~':',*:AMY*** ~GI~.*;":.'~ SUNI~.: ~HYA~;~*.*'~0:. ~R~:*: '~W~S~R;.** I ~- ~:~ MICHAEL**~, BR~O N~: :*':'~47~". '.*%*; ': .7' '.~::*:.-:i .* '- : ;'.:~ g'.,,=.:.~ ..~ .~*¢' · .. - .~ ~:..~-,. ~.....: ,: .. .:. ~..~,.~.,::.%..~:,* /,...:::..- '~March30; :-.. .' ..' · .' ':.' '..' FIC~ous · *': :, :;:7,' R~ NO. 2OB4BO ~*:' *:'*"*:* .~* ~n W; Young, ~io,'CA 945B~ - · .;' '.., ,;.'.... ~.'"-: -. ,JN~.YDUNG'.t'..' '.' "~": ~-..' · ~R~. B~DUM;. A~OR~OU~ .~CH 29, ~.. : .':. :*. '..~ .... ~. n.d. lha prapa~*ed * ,' -....r,.:..., .:., ..., ." '.,....:~"' :"%:., ...... :..¢'.",~:,':". ,. '. *: ~ ~ .... '*'.".:.'i.'; ':'.:* ' - ., ~ ~ .~'maY.~el~ma~mmgonl~.~oaa~u~ed~thepu~cReoflngd~dbed[n.~l~n~r:Tn~.. ;: ..~}P&n bor~naen~ ~ed m'~&'Age~ 5~cmtaW; ~e El Cl~ or"lo Ihs Rad~o n ................... J. , · . hel~'¢'d~dp¢~n of the amapm~ m the add~m ~e'.'. ,' ~ ~LZ""~2~n~m~m~um~nt~7~a~m~m~Jun~2~E~m~n~rr~d~rpm]~ta~)~m~mNa~ ,:. I . · .... . ..... . ..', .. ... ...... ~:.. .- . ,.. · ......... ..,...... ., : ~ ~ .' ".. '**., ~ '.~:... '* . '.~.' .':, ." "' '' "; . r.:' -. ;"'¢:. ' " " '" '~ "* "": .... "' '":"" "~" ' 3/29/05 The City Council ' City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco~ CA 94080' .Sub'ect: -Iam OppOSED TO THE'PRoPOSED .AMENDMENTs and/or the IM?LE ' NTATION PLAN ,D~ Sir/Madam: - This Plan would displace mob, lie home owne.rs at the EL CAMINO CORRIDOR area. This Plan woUld g, Ve the mobile home owners..no recourse to obtain FULL, CURRENT VALUE OF THEIR MOBILE HOMES - qualified by the PROXIMATE EXISTING ~-OCATIO." of the MOBILE HOME. ' I attended the first Community Information Meeting last night (3/29/05) and need to make written comments about the plan which I am in opposition to. My Problem; I own a mobile home located on 636 i~I Camino Re~, next door to South "' City High School parking lot, on "B" Street. My landlord, (the park marager) has been trying to get rid of the park so he can sell the property. Since he p~ ,'viously, was not permitted to do so- his strategy was to NOT ALLOW ANY NEW mobile homes or trailers TO MOVE IN and to TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING MOBILE HOMES when people go fi.om them. fBut we are sure you are aware of these actions). When someone moves out or dies or he' evicts, hc th~ TEAR~ DOWN THE MOBILE HOME. Curr~y, we are down to 14 mobil~ homes. For over one year, 1 wanted to s~l mit mobile home, (soleIIt out of roar flue to ~e c~iminishing mobile P.]25 dO~ soon. THIS PREVENTS. AND PRECLUDL=S: THE EXI. ST~G..lllOB.;: HO[IF OWNER F,,ROM O~TAINING A FAIR, Apla~.old FAIR. PRICE BASED UPON.THE V .~ALUE. _. AND CONDITIoN. OF,THE- PEP, SON.HAVING TO leav~ THEIR MOB:ILE HOME st.~ mu~h 1~ss than i T-e :v = re°bile h°me' WASWORTH. ' . , 00,EASILY. MY PROBLEM IS thatwhea. IMOVL~.tNTO'~- P~.$. years ag~;. I paid ',fOr th=10Catie. It of where m-~ al~b!~..home · ~,.= w=il ~..for ~e so°d.~o~ him i~=lt: ...as th,y sas lo~oa, locatio~, locatio,_ this' m m~ promems and cm:t~tions) a~d I am only at'l= to work b~ a.small amount oi'lime amdI am fifty plus years old.,. I can' hot afro.rd to :pay rent'sa~here else.. M7 mobile h°me meaas ev~~ tome and'Ii HAVE NO FAMILY TO TURN .TO, IF I HAVe5 TO MOVE OUT- since they am all deceas~l. ' ' ~ . ' ... I CAN NOT AFFORD TO TAKE $6,000 REALLy NII[I) TO GET TJ!Eg FULL CURRIiNT VALUII pri~ OF .T~ ~[OS[i,g HOM~, GIV~ Tm~ LOCATION IT when I ha~ t~ move, ' . I can not rbk ~ to mov~ the mobil~ h°m~, s~nc~ ~ ~ n~ ~ m~. mob~, h~e.(~o Y~ ago ~= I P. 126 the small inherimuce ! received from my dyir~ uncle - who was.the last of my fam/]y~ WHO CAN I TURN TO 70 DISCUSS MY DILEMA WITH? Can you please help me..! feel it is not hir for me to be dispheed and offered a piflsnce for my borne becsuse no one would buy it, because the park is being tor~ down., Where can I ~..~'~d o~ w~ oP.t/ons !h~ave~ cnn yo~ l~lease, ~)ieas,e help .me? Vanessa Clark ~35 E1Camino Real, #19 South San Francisco, CA 940~0 ?.127 DEPARTMENT OF · ECONOMIC AND COMMUNI.TY' DEVELOPMENT', (8so) FAX pso~ Van~ssa Clark 636 E1 C.m~no Real Space 19 South $~nFrancisco CA 94080 Dear Ms. Clark, The City of SOuth'San Francisco Red~Velopmeat'Agency received your letter of lvIarch 29, 2005 opp0sing.the. Kedev.elopment Plan Amendments and the Five-Year Implementation Plan. We w°uid like to clarify that 'although the mobile home park is vatl~i, the redeVelopment area, the proposed Plan. Amendment and the Five-Year hnp. lementation Plan have no relation to your current housing Situation. We.are sorry to hear about the d~culties you face but it is a private matter between you and your landlord. The City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is' not a party to what is happe-l-g at the mobile home park, nor does th~ Agency have any plans, to undertake a project at that location. As we informed you earlier, the proposed Plan Amendments are intended ~o enhance the Agency's ability .to.undertake redevelopment projects in.the ProjectAreas. The Agency's proposed projects am identifi~ in the Five-Yqar Implementation Plan. These projects will not involve the displacement of any residents, whether in mobile homes or in fixed homes. Thus you are not am not at risk of displfmenmnt due to ' Agency activities, the proposed amendments or the.adoption of the Implemenlation Plan.. Having clBxified this, we suggest you contact La Ram Centre Legs.] (415-575-3500) to discuss your'legal options with your landlord, we are.also including a list of affordable'housing i~ San Matzo County. Although tlms~ homes have long waiting lists, we suggest you contact them and get on waiting lists now. The vmts they charge are affordable because they are based on tenant's income and their abilityto pay. Also, .you may have notio~d the newhousing development being built near the South San Francisco BART station. This project will have several affordable, one-bedroom units and you may want to contact the dewloper.to inquir~ about r~nting when the ..its become available. You can reach the project develol~r at 858-626-8337. ' .... Norma Fragoso Redevelopment Manager ' P. 128 D. Supplement to Chapter Xll, Summary of Consultations with Taxing Entities At the request of two affected taxing entities, the Agency held separate follow up meetings with the two taxing entities. On March 23, 2005, Agency staffand Seifel Consulting representatives met With the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) officials Superintendent of:Schools Barbara Olds and Ronald McEntire, Assistant Superintendent Business Services.'The school district staffrequested a meeting to review the SSFUSD's contractual pass through.payments and statutory pass through payments under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. On April 7, 2005, City and Agency staff as well as Seifel Consulting staffmet with San Mateo County officials Assistant County Manager Paul T. Scannelt, Deputy County Manager Mary McMillan and Deputy County Council Lee A. Thompson. County staff requested the meeting and asked the Agency to clarify specific provisions of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. 'The County had questions On redevelopment projects, pass through payments, the proposed ferry terminal and redevelopment plan limitations. . Barbara Christensen, Director of Community/Government for San Mateo County 'Community College District (SMCCCD), sent a letter to Norma Fragoso requesting clarification of statutory pass through payments from the Shearwater Project pursuant to the April 2004 removal of the debt incurrent deadline. The Agency has provided clarification to the SMCCCD. In addition, all of the affected taxing entities were notified of the joint public hearing and transmittal of the Report to Council on March 24, 2005. A sample notification letter is provided following this section. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency D-1 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal MergerP- 1 2 9 Supplement to the Report to Council April 2005 ECONOMIC A!~ID. COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT . ..: -: FAX ((~0} 82~682~ ' M~. warren s~o'~,~; ~as~t~°r- San Mateo :County $55 County C~t~r, Third Floor Redwood City~.CA 94053-1 :. ....... '.' . ;. .. Marca~, 2005 'D~ar Mr. Slo~um: "I~: Nofic~ of J°intpublic Heating and Tmnsmitta!..ofR~ortto Cotmcil for. South - .- ' San I~randsc'° RCd~telopm~t Project Ama Fiscal Mergc~ and Ammdmmt to ": .... i ':.Add Territory to tho..Do., wntown/Cen~hal R~m?lopmmt ih~jeot ~ "'~':.--::' ' '. "' :~ '-.-'-":-. i-.'.:"'.' ':.':'~"~'~ '""":":.'." :':":"~' ,.'i.':'.':"' "7': :"::':'::"'-" :.:"i.: ~.""'-i". ~.:' ! .- ~ to Community Re&,velopmmt Law (California Healthand Safety Code S~tion 33000 ~ ~.) ("CRL'~,.the P,~l~v~lopmmt Agency of th= City of SoUth'San Francisco ("Agency") is preparing redevdopmeaxt plan nmelldmellts (thc "Proposed Plan ~t, mesdments") wliich, if adopted, would (i). ~kl tmitory to the Downtown/Central Project Area4 (ii) fiscally merge the D°wntown~Cenlml.Project Ama,.the. El Camino.Con'idor Project Area, the Gateway. .... Project Area and the Shearwater Project Area (colleclively, the "Project Areas"), and ('ii.) ' oxtmd the -time limits within which tho Agmcy may exerois~ th~ power of ~minmt domain over nonresidential propmty in the Downtown/Central and the original B1 Camino Corridor project · We have previously transmitted a $tatcmmt of PreParation together with a legal descriPtion ancl a map of the boundaries of the proposed added tern'tory and a Prdbnina~ Report prepared in accordan~ with CRL Sections 33344.5 and.33354.6, which includes among other information: (a) a description of conditions in the existing Project Areas and the proposed added tc-rritory, Co) a summary of redevelopment'activities undertaken to date, (c) a description of ~ blisht~ ~nditions in the Projmt Ar~as, (d) a description of the redcvel0pmmt activities proposed to be tmdcrtakcn in the Project Are, as, and (e) an analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed redevelopment activities. On Maroh 9, 2005, the Agency and the South San Francisco City Council (~,Ci~ Council~) adopted resolutions oonsmting to the holding of a joint public he/ring on the Proposed Allle~ldme~lts alld' Fiscal Merger alld atlthorl~ng trallsmi~ of the Final Report to Counoil to the Planning Commission and affected taxing entities.'- As more particularly described in the cnoloscd Notice, the ~lo. 'mt Public Hearing is scheduled for:. · P. 130 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 27, 2005 City Council Chambers, MuniciPal Serv'/ces Build/rig .33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco. Also enclosed with this letter in CD format is a copy of the Final Report to Council on 'the Proposed Amendments mad Fiscal Merger ("Report to Council"), prepared/n accordance with Section 33352 of the CRL. Much of the information in the Report to Council was presented in the previously transmitted Preliminary Report. Several new sections were added to the Report as required by Community Redevelopment Law, including: a proposed Five-Year Agency'Implementation Plan; sununary of conmlcations whh affected taxing entities; docUmentation of remaini~ blight; and a summary of the Controller's Report. In all other respects, the Preliminary Repor~ ~has not been substantively changed. Prior to the joint Agency/City Council hearing, a supplement to the R~ort will be prepped which will include the Planning Commission's ~port and recommendations on the Proposed Amendments and a summary of additioml conmltations with'taxing entities, eommtu'fity organizations, residents and property owners. The Proposed plan Amendments will not alter the activities proposed to be undertaken in the Project Areas, r~or will they extend the finaueial and time limitations set forth in the existing redevelopment plans. Under the proposed fiscal merger, each Project Area will continue to be governed by its own redevelopment plan with its assoehted goals and time limits; however, the four Project-Areas will have a combined dollar limit for eolleefion of tax increment revenue and a combined limit o.n the maximum amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness. The potential environmental effects of the activities proposed to be undertaken in the existing Project Areas have been analyzed in Program Environmental Impact RePorts which were prepared and certified in connection with the adoption oft. be redevelopment plans for each P, roject Area..The potentiaIenvironmental effects of the activities.proposed to be.undertaken in ....... the added territory have been analyzed in Program Environmental Impact Reports prev/ously prepared and certified for the Downtown/Central Project Area redevelopment plma and for the City's General Plan. In accordance with CRL Sections 33328, 33344.5, and 33352, in connection with the proposed plan amendments, the Agency is required to provide each affected taxing entity with a copy of the Preliminary R~ort, to consult w~.th each affected taxing entity, and to prepare a response to any written concerns expressed by the affected taxing entities. Plmise eoutact Norma Fragoso at (650) 829-6620 if you have questions or comments or if you would like to obtain a pHmted copy of the Final Report to Comae[1, aly..yours, Executive Dire:t~._ Bnctosure~ P. 131 ~ COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ' Cat, ada College, Redwood City College of San Mateo, San Mateo Skyline College, San Bruno Office of the Chancellor RE_ CEIVED April 12, 2005 Ms. Norma Fragosa City of South San Francisco 400 Grand AVenue South San Francisco CA 94080 APR 1 4 2005 E & CD D EPT Dear Norma, We have received and reviewed various information provided by Seifel Consulting on the planned amendments and merger of various redevelopment project areas by the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (Agency)'. We have one area of concern in regards to the Shearwater Project Area (Project Area), which we raised at the consultation meeting in February. We had not heard back from you on this issue, so we are placing this concern in writing. In March 2004, the Agency amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area to delete the last date to incur debt. Pursuant to the information provided by Seifel Consulting,' this will trigger statutory payments beginning in 2006-07. However, the San Mateo Community College District is listed as not receiving such payments because we have an agreement already in place. Section 33607.7 (b) of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) governs who receives statutory payments and in pm~ states: "Ifa redevelopment agency adopts an amendment that is governed by the provisions of this section, it shall pay to each affected taxing entity either of the following: (I) If an agreement requires payments to the taxing entity, the amount to paid by an agreement between the agency and an affected taxing entity entered into prior to January l, ]994. (2) If an agreement does not exist, the amounts required by subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 33607.5..." While the District did enter into an agreement with the Agency when the Redevelopment Plan was approved for the Project Area, that agreement does not require that payments be P. 133 made, and none have been made since the .adoption of the Plan. In fact, the agreement states that "the Agency and the District agree that so long as the present California school finance system remains in effect, the Agency shall have no obligation to consider any payments to the District under this Agreement". Pursuant to the agreement, the District has also never requested'any payments be made. The District therefore believes tlmt it is entitled to statutory payments pursuant to Section 33707.7 of the CRL as long as no payments are being mad~ under the agreement. We would appreciate it if you would provide us with a response to this letter prior to the joint public hearing on the amendments to the Redevelopment Plan. If we don't hear-from you prior to the hearing, then'this letter shall serve as an objection to the adoption of the amendments, since we believe that the financial Projections included in the Preliminary Report as they deal with pass through payments are in error. Please let'me know if you have any questions, or when we can discuss this issue further. Sincerely,' Barbara Christensen . Director of Community/Government Relations C: EliZabeth Seifel, Seifel Consulting Donald J. Fraser, Fraser & Associates Ron Galatolo, Chancellor P. 134 DEPARTMENT OF · ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (650) 829-6620 FAX (650) 829-6623 Paul T. 'Scan_nell, Assistant Comity Manager Comity of San Mateo 400 County Center, First Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 April 15, 2005 Dear Mr. Scannell, Thank you for inqui?ing about the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's use of' Low-Mod Hous.ing fund with respect to the Agency's Redevelopment Plan Amendment. The City of South San Francisco is deeply committed to the provision of affordable housing and we welcome the opportunity to share our efforts with the Board of Supervisors. Enclosed. you find several documents that detail our efforts: · ' The Agency's most recent Redevelopment Housing Activities Report submitted to HCD in Decembor 2004. This report provides the Agency's accounting of its 20% RDA Housing Set-Aside. · An internal document outlining Funds Available as of 6/30/2004 and the intended use of those funds. We would appreciate if you would keep this document confidential as it involves several projects that are still being negotiated. An internal' cmmt of affordable housing activity Over the Past decade (1994-2004). This report reflects affordable housing projects funded with RDA Low-Mod Housing funds and as well as units dev~loped by the private sector. The affordable units provide by the private sector are the result of the City's 20% inclusionary housing requirement. I would also like to call to your attention the City's Five Year Implementation Plan for FY 2004- 05 to FY 2008-09. This Plan is included as Appendix H in the Rep6rt to Council (which you previously received) for the proposed Fiscal Merger and Plan Amenchments adding territory to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area. The following tables and section will be of particular interest to the Board of Supervisors: · * Table 18, pg. 38, Affordable Housing · Sec. 6 Housing Program, pg. 33-35 · Table 15, pg. 30, Housing Production Upon reviewing these documents, we are certain you will agree that the City of South San Francisco is very aggressive in developing affordable housing. In fact, the Bay Area Council recently awarded the City of'South San Francisco an "A" grade for its affordable housing efforts. P. 135 Letter to Paul Scann~l - , · Page2of2 . : .-. :- .Regarding your request for an analysis of the fiscal impact to the County of the proposed merger, Seifel Associates informed me the analysis you would like requires several.months of work. This includes reconstructing the tax increment and assessed value projections at an estimated cost of '$10,000 to $20,000,'which is not feasible at this time. Nevertheless, staff is working with Seifel ' -' Associates to provide you with a response consisting of a very simple analysis of the impact to the County, based on gross assessed value projections and the County share of property taxes with the Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments. I hope to have this analysis for you early next week, in time for you to brief the Board of Supervisors prior to the joint public on April 27~. -.- Finally, you requested'information about the Marina and requirements for mitigation and .abatement'of toxics..The Oyster Point Landfill is a closed, unlined Class Ill landfall..The City of South San Francisco owns the Oyster Point Marina in its entirety. The majority of the landfill is open space, but a portion of the landfill has been developed and includes a public marina, boat launch, a small yacht club, a boat sales b~ilding~ and a small office and hotel complex. The San Marco HarborDistrict (Harbor District) operates the public marina on the landfill and is responsible for ongoing landfill maintenance. Commercial development is planned 'for the western portion of the site. The development guidelines are summarized in the East of 101 MaSter Plan (July !994) and. in the' Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan (September 1983), both Prepared'by the City. .: . . In anticipation of future development, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued order No. 00.-046 on June 21, '2000 (order), The Order imposes new closure and post- closure requirements on -the City as part of future development. The following information is provided to supplement the email sent by Mar~. Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager, on 4/15/05 to ~ McMillan. (This email.is also attached for your review). · .. -, ·: '· :. -"' .Oyster Point Marina Regulatory AUthority Regional Water Quality Control Board >Waste Discharge Requirements- Order 00-046 >IndUtdal Storm Water Permit, Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) No. 241SO16184 ' Integrated Waste Management Board >Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) No. 41-AA-0065 San Marco County Health Services Agency- Local Enforcement Agency ('LEA) Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding the enclosed materials at (650) 829-6620. Noma Fragoso Redevelopment Manager cc: Mary McMillan, Deputy ,County Manager Attachments P. 136 ~ct Area California Redevelopment AgencieS-Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Project Area Contributions to Low and Moderate Income HoUsing Funds Sch A Project Area Summary Report SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA TaX InCr. 100% of Tax 20% Set Aside Tax Increment AmoUnt Deferral Deposited to Increment Requirement Allocated Exempted Repayment Hsng FUi~d Percent of Tax Incr Dep Repayment' Deferrals Other Income 3 oral Depc sited to Ho'using ~TOWNICENTRAL ECT ~MINO CORRIDOR WAY PROJECT RWATER PROJECT =y Totals: $~005,812 $1,401,162 $1,401,162 $0 $0 $1,401,162 $1,733,971 $346,794 $346,794 $0 $0 $346,794 $6,301,558 $1,260,312 $i,260,312 $0 '$0 $1,260,312 $2,263,446 $452,689 $452,689 $0' $0 $452,689 $17,304,787 $3,460,957 $3,460,957 $0 $0 $3,460,957 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% $0 $o $0 $o $o $0 $o $o $o $3~6,794 $1,76o,312 $4~2,689 $o $3i46o,957 :: Print this report in Landscape Orientation (use the Print Icon jtist above, then Properties theri Landscape) Page I of i 12/28/04 ' .California Redevelopment Agencies- Flecal Year.2003/2004 . · . Project.Area Contributions to Low.end Moderate Income Housing Fund . - .... ; .... . ...- .'... i - c '...; '-.'... ~...".._. /Sch.A P.roJect Area Financial Information -..: .~. · . -. ' ." :. '-' :" ..'-i:' :':. · :".:' '~ :.::"i: ... "':." ":?.' ':: .:' .'' :-: ' .'.:' ':"'~'.?' *'....' :,-'..::;i~:-~.;'* ~:':.. 7 '..: ?/..-:.....,..: ,~.: .. ,.'.... ::i,~ . . . - ' ~,: ' '- .". '..:., ,...' .. :' i.":.: :';..:"".." :."~'.' i'.' .';' '. "'~"-' ~.:'= '..'.".. :'..:.'::; ":!.'.. '" i~/.::~..=.: ".'.?:'. Agency Address. South.. San Fran01sco. .... .; ,~ . .'.CA~ . 94083 .';'i . :"i ! ~ ' ..: .: .... ~ :" ~"; i...:' 3roject'Area .DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL'PROJECT " .... :'"' '"': -"' .'::-~': ....... ""'" ..... Gross Tax Calculated 'Amount' :.'Amount Amount 'Total % . · ':.:.:Cumulative .Increment .peposlt Allocated Exempted Deferred .De'posited . .. '~'".~!:-~ ~.'i.":~'. '.Def. ' '$7;005,812 :$1,401,162 $1,401,162 :'$0 $0 .' .. :. ;$1,401,!62 '. 20.00% ' ':$0 ' ·.." ',- '. · '. ! ,... '. :/.~.. i. ".' : ' ' ": '" " '" :; ':...". i':'.'.' ':-',.'.': ':-" - ' '.' ":":." ":"':' ::':.."' ':' ".':'!:":".;;': :': ': ~.'" '!'" ';'"':-:'?."; '".::~ ' .':' :'RepaYment.'!: :':i,:.." .'i .$0. ". ': 'i" "."':.. "' '.'!' ' "' ~ ': ::,:..i.: .!i;:.' :':. .:..'.. ,,,.'./ :.!:... .,.'.. ":':'i! :" .""::-:".'L '::i:.i:, i ' :' .": "':.':' :.":: .':.. :'i,' ':". ::.. ~." :: ".:" :-.. ::.: '. :"":.':':::Total Additional Revanu~ :': '~:.:!. :.': !'~;:.'..:$0:::: :.. f.?i.'?': :.!~?~' :.:i?:.~:-: ..... '"' ' ' '"'-':-' i'i:": '::T°tal'H°uslng Fund Dep°'slta for. Project Area .~1,401,162'-'" ':/'' '"'~?". '" Project Area EL CAMINO CORRIDOR Type: .inside Project Area Plan. Adoption: 1993 :;~. :* .. . :Status: Active " ::Plan Expiration Year: 2033 Gross Tax Calculated Increment Deposit $1,733,971 $348,794 .Amount. Amount' ,Amount Allocated Exempted ,Deferred $346,794 Total Housing Fund Deposits for Project Area $0 :'$0 ' ' .RepaYment . $0 :'" ' ' " Catm;I..ory '"' :' '": ':" '''~'' ;-': '"':' :: ~':'' "":" " Total Additional Revenue.-- ."::'...i .;":-!$0' ..':" .' "::": .'~ ?.'.' ~i::' · $346,794 Total .'% Cumulatlve 'Deposited '.." . .'Def. $340,794 .20.00% . $0 P. 138 Page I of 2 12/28/04 California Rede~velopment Agenc es- Fiscal Year2003/2004 Project Area Contributlo ns to,Lowand Moderate Income Housing Fund Sch A Project Area Financial Information Project Ares GATEWAY PROJECT Type: Inside Project Area .Plan Adoption: .1981 Status: Active Plan ExplmtlonYear: 2021 Gross Tax Calculated Amount Amount Amount Increment Deposit .Allocated ;..Exempted iDeferred_ $6,301,558 $1,260,312 $1,260,312 $0 .S0 Repayment _Category Total Additional Revenue Total Housing Fund Deposits for Project Area Total Deposi{ed Sl,260,312 $0 $0 $1,260,312 20.00% 'Cumulative Def. $0 Project Area SHEARWATER PROJECT Type: Inside Project Area ' Status: Active Plan Adoption: 1985 Plan Explratlon.Year: 2026 Gross Tax .Calculated .Amount Amount Amount .Deposit Allocated .Exempted Increment .Deferred S2,263,446 S452,689 . $452,689 '$0 $0 Repayment Cate.qory Total Additional Revenue Total Housing Fund Deposits for Project Area Total ..De'posited $452,689 $0 'S0 $452,689 20.00% Cumulative Def. S0 Agency Totals For All Project Areas: Gross Tax .Calculated Amount Amount Amount Increment .Deposit .Allocated ,Exempted Deferred $17,304,787 $3,460,957.4 $3,460,957 $0 $0 Total Deposl{ed $3,460,957 % 20% Cumulative Def. So Total Additional Revenue from Project Areas: Total Deferral Repayments: Total Deposit to Housing Fund from Project Areas: $0 $3,460,957 P. 139 . . .. - . .California Redevelopment Agencies.Fiscal Year, 2003/2004 ...... .: .... ~,: .'.~..S. oh.A/B Project :Area'Program Information ? ;':!~'.:':!~'.~.:~ '?.. ·" .i. '" ".. - ':. :.?:: ~.,~:..:'...'~ii: .:;:SOUTH SAN .FRANCISCO :RDA"?::~:.:'?'.? :'!i,' ::"; '?: :?.' ;".... '.:.. --.. roje'ct'Am-a:-EL-C:AMINO-C'O-R~IIDOR FUTURE UNIT CONSTRUCTION · "':'~sfl:--te-:'~= rna a .... :-:': '? "'~-: "- ' ' ' ' -: * .. . -. ... . · ... -. . ' '" '.." '.E~eeutinn_____.._.. ':Comeletlorl ';;: ~"~' ::' '"' : Contmof Name ..... -'.:,,' ' -.Date -...~. -,"......,,.Da~e -..?,~-...., ;¥erv Low '~l.ow '. onue. ou ng-Coun e. ':':: :" :'!': :01/28/04 di/27/08'..".": ;:"i:'.' ".'! '-'.' .... ', '::..':'"':0 "'.':: ':'.'. ' · ' ' ."." '.' ' -' ' ' : .... ' '~. ~ :' ~. '".:i' ' ' '.:" . :' ~' ~':' '~";.',.-' ' ,' ',.' ,-..'~ ,.:-- "' '. ' ;<" ::'.:': ?~ .... .. - ': .', ~,,~ ', '~' ': ' ' ':'. ,-'. ;" '~-. :" :'. Page I of I P. 140' California Redevelopment Agencies - Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Status of Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds Sch C Agency Financial Summary SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA usted Project Agency Net Other Total inning Area .Other Total Resources Housing Housing Encum- iance Receipts ' Revenue Expenses Available Fund Assets Fund Assets brances * Unen- · 'Unen-.. Urlen- cumbered ; Cumbered e',umbered Balance '"Designated N~3t Dsgntd a70,842 $3,460,957 $144,900 $2,075,951 $13,500,748 $8,818,565 $22,319,313 $427,896 $13,072,852"$i'~,000,000 $21072,852 nses Debt Service Housing Other Plannin~l and Property ' s~b'sidJeS' . Total Rehabilitation Administration Acquisition ' -. · Costs 2004 $300,575 $9S,204 $451,835 $399,370' $7i7,183 $108,784 $2,075,~i5~ Unencumbered Balance is equal to Net ReS )UrCes Available minus Encumbrances · - re: Print this report in Landscape Orientation (Use the Print Icon just above, then PrOpertieS the~l Landscape) Page I of i 12/28/04 " · California Redevelopment Agencies- Flscel Year 2003/2004 · " "" ' . ' ' ;- ',Status of Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds .... .. .. : :. Sch C. Agenoy'Financlal and Program Detail... " . - . · .' .' '. -.:: ..' .: ':SOUTH SAN FRANCISCORDA ' . .... ": ' "'" ...."' .~.'"' !l~eglnnlng.Balan.ce ;$11,97,0,8e,2 ' --. :-- - ' ' ~ .. : ': L . . " ':Adlus~ment toBea[nnlna:Balancn ' ' ':" ..' : . '-:i ... ".. Adjusted ~leglnning Balance . -$1!,970,842 -.- ..- . : '" ".'." ':'..~ ." :. :i 'L: .:" :: '-'.:.'- "?..:.:'::".'." '~:"::". '~ '"' :'"':::,:.. '.-:.. .... Y....:'. ..... ':[ J :!.' ..' ':..~?.'.~ '~. ",.:' · ;.' .':.;...." .'. ' ' ' : .!Sum of'Beginning Balancean~l Revenues 7 .":'.:;~i5~576~99' . . Expenditure tam : Debt Service Debt Pdnclpal Payments Interest Expense : ' :~' ~ubtotal of Debt service Housing:Rehabilitation ~io Information Provided Other ..Tax Allocation, Bonds & Notes -.. · : - "' "" """' i" . :$ ..55,575 % '..." ': :..,; .??.'~ .' ~::,:::~:. ~1 '? ' "' '. ..... '". "."' · :'~i ~ubtotal of HouSing Rehabilitation ::: ?i -- .'' :.". "' ~1o Information Provided - :.Subtotal of Other . . ..; .: '.:.. ·. .. Planning and Adminl~cratlon Costs ~,dmlnistratJon Costs Other $451..,835 Loan., & other · :!.;. '. :. .. .expenditures ':..? '".. - City Admin Cost Allocation Planning, Survey/Design L Subtotal of Planning and Administration Costs Property Acquisition Page I of 3 P. 142 12/28/04 California RedeveloPment AgenCies. 'FlscaJ year 200312004 , Status of Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds ~Sch C, Agency. Financial 'and Program-Detail ;..SOUTH .SAN-FRANCISCO RDA ,Item Property Acqulsltlon .and 'Purchases' : :*..~Subltem · . . .".'-" '.'.: . ..- -. ' $717,183 Subtotal of.Property Acquisition ' ' '" .$717,183 · Amount .Remark Subsidies from the LMIHF st Time HomebuYer.Down Payment ~,sslstance -- :)ther . $50,000~- - . ' ' · .~: . ; .... . ........ $58,784 Shelter Netw. ork and '* "' ' ' :HIP Housing :Subtotal of Subsidies from the LIVIIHF . - - 5!08,784 ..... " .... ' - .'~.-. :',:.. i~;! :- '-*..,::.:, -'Total Expenditures -z .-:.:..' $2~075,951 Ne[ Resources Available Indebtedness For Setasldes Deferred $13,500,748 ~ ' : $0 Other Housing Fund Assets Cate.clorv Loan Rec6Twable for Housing Activities ·Amount $8,818,565 Total Other Housing Fund Assets $8,818,565 Remark Total Fund Equity $22,319,313 1999/2.000 2000/2D01 200112002 2002/2003 $1222562 $1391983 $'3374612 $32'/742 sum of 4 Previous Years' Tax Increment for 2003/2004 $9266582 Prior Year Ending. Unencumbered Balance $7,677,471 -'Excess Surpluslfor 2003/2004 Page 2 of 3 Sum of Current.and 3 Previous Years' Tax'Increments Adjusted Balance Excess Surplus for next year Net Resources Available Unencumbered Designated 12/28/O4 $11,504,97, $9,206,451 .$0 $13,500,748 .$11,000,000 .... =~Cailfomla .Redevelopment Agencies ~.,Eiscel Year 2003/2004 ' .:" :-'.." ".: .:.'. '-'i,i~..Sta.~tus, ofLoWandModerate lnoome Housing Funds . -' .... :" .-.. ~ ' .' '-' '"' '?--..~.~h C .Agenoy~ ~a~,~ ~ ~,~,~ ,Rnanolel and Progmm'De~il ' ~ . : .. .. ".-::.~.:~T~i~.~RD~ ..... ~.. : '....- ....:~. .... ..:.....';. . .- - . .... ...:. ?. '.:: .:.: ., :'. ~'.. . : .. : . ..: .., -. . ... . .. '.~$2,072;852 ......... :':, $427 896 ~'" ' · ' ' ':' ' ' ' :'Excess Surplus Plan Adoption Date t Slta Improvement Activities Bene;;[;ng Households . . .. .... income Level -' "" ' ~ :" :~-?'"" Low' Very Low, - ' '.Moderate ..... 'Total .Unencumbered Balance . ' 'i~13,072,852 · . . '' - , .. :.'.!~.:..'.,!:-.:,.2~:.£... . Site .Name Land Held for Future Development '. '.' ': ' ' ".. :...'.:i:Num Of Zonln~ .:-PurchaSe Estimated .._-.: .. · - . .... .... ' .:A~res "~ Start Date .... ' ' ~Remark Use of~3e Hous. lng Fund to Assist Mortgagors - InoomeAdJustment F. aotor -I ~..i.L~ . :Home $ Non Housing Redevelopment [ Funds.Usage -: :: .' ' · ' Resource Needs LMIHF Depos~s/Withdmwls : Dooument Name Date Agency general ledger 30-JUN-04 IAchievements . Deecrlptlon ' ' 'Requirements Completed .'Hope Document ' . . ~OUstodlan Phone Custodian Name 'David Woo _ 't$ ,Source 't Page 3 of i P. 144 12/28/04 ..... Californla Redevelopment Agencies - ~lsc~l Year 2003/2004 ~' :" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA Project Area Name: EL CAMINO CORRIDOR Project Name: Oak Farms BMRs Address:. VarlousSouth San Owner Name:. VarlousFranclsco JNIT INVENTORY Other Provided without L~/IIHF ,Unit New Construction qon-Agency Owner Non-Elderly Unit Total .',Very Low.. Low 0 :0' 0 '0 Moderate Above'Mod .B, ecame_ Ineligible 28. 28 Tota! P. 145 Page I of 1P_J28/04 . -.' . . -. :.: .. ~: .:.,d. ::-' ' .. ':c,.a!!f, omla Redevelopment Agenoles...:Fl$Cal Year 2003/2004 . '- ". '= .:- '.-'.".. '"?, ':'~:. i.:::i:'.:. !~:': ~S~,h O'General Project Information · '. .'~ . '.'.' ..... ' "~::.-.~'::~ ?'??:::..i .d.:S',0u:m sAN ~R~msco RDA . '." ' P. _ro_]ec. LA..re_a. N..a_ .m__e:__ .O UIStDE .P_R O JEC.T.AR EA. Project Name: 312 :Miller Avenue .. .' ' Address: 312 Miller AvenueSouth san ' 94080 ""'.'".: ............ : ............. .., ;~ . .'.:' OwnerName: .. City of SSF Rededalel~Agency '." '. ' :'. : ·..:'~...-::-i:-'!:. -,.'..:&.: .~. '..'.;,;'..:.. ...... .~:'. JNIT-INVENTORY - . ................ . .......... i:.. ~.. :'.¥:.'..::.'." '".-~?~.-'.' ... !., ..... -:.: · · :..-.. . -: : '""' '""' ":"" '"':: '?' ': :' ':: !'..' '..':'.. Very Low ,Low Moderate AboVe !~'~ Non;Substantial Rehabilitation ' · · ~gency . .RentaJ .Non-Elderly 4 0 ....... ' .: Ineligible. :'. ' · OtherPmvldedwlthLMIHF . '.i. " ~.:' :'"'" ' "" ' ' .... .. "'- Unit 'Total. ~4 0 0 ' '" ........ Amount $715,000 :)ROJECT FUNDING SOURCE ='.Fundlnl; Source 'Redevelopment Funds 0 O .4 0 0 4 Page 2 of I P. 146 1 ~d~8/04 SCHEDULE HCD E"' ~'':' CALCULATION OF INCREASE IN AGENCY'S tNCLUSIONARY oBLIG/~TION FOR A'~iviTIES (Thls 'Form Is !nformatlon Only: Actual'Obligation is based 'on [mp'iementatlon Plan) .Re_p_O__d;.~e_ar: .' 20.03/200~.~ Agency: SOUTH SAN FRANCISC° RDA' NOTE: This form Is a summary of .the totals of all new construction or substantial ~t~-on u'r~lt; ,from forms HCD-D7 which are developed In a:project ama'by any.entity (agency or non-agen. Cy). :.. ............ 0 2. Substantially Rehabilitated Units .... . : ..... , 3. Subtotal - Baseline of Units (add fine 1 & 2) ~ . '4, Subtotal of Inc!usionary Obligation Accrued'this Year for Units {line 3 x 30%) ;,.". 'L"..i i"? .:~'.'.. :'.; ;-., .?~:.'~i': ~,;'-..i~'i?....'. -~. '~ .,.:.:.ii.0- · NON-AGENCY DEVELOPED UNITS ' "i' :.". ' ~i. ' - 6. New Units · '. ,-.: .. ~.....~, 7. Substantially Rehabilitated Units · . .. 33 8. Subtotal -.Baseline of Units (add lines 6 & 7) ". ...... 9. Subtotal of.;Inclusionary Obligation Accrued this year for Units (line. 8 x 15%) . .. '.' .. ... - .... ".. :. i:....; -'i" i;."~ ';' ;-":'" ":'.'"" ":'. i" '.':' .','. :'...'".'.,'.;:.'"..:'..'..':. :.' 'i" 10. Subtotal of inclus~onary Obligation. Accrued this year for Very..Low Income Units (line 9 x 40%) . . . .: , 5 · ' ' .. .. ·: PARTIII . · · . . .... · ' " " ' ' ' TOTALS . "-:"~:'". '" · .. ' ' 11. Total Increase in Inclusionary Obligations Dudng This Fiscal Year (add line 4 & 9) , -~ - ,' · 5 12. Total Increase in Very Low Income Units Inclusionary Obligations .During This Fiscal Year (add line 5,& 1 O) ' 2 OaJlfoml~ Radevaloprnant Agencies - FtscaJ Yaar 20133/2004 Sch~ule E (11/01) 'Totals may be Impacted I~ roun,-~ng Page 1 of 1 :- U, i; ,:. P. 147 12/28/2004 ., SCHEDULE HCD.E1 -.~,d*: ......... ' .* · ~;CALCULATION OF INCREASE IN AGENCY'S INCLUSIONARy OBLIGATION~F. OR ACTIVITIES' , ~ :' ' (Thle Form la Inform~t!on Only: Actual.Obligation is based on Implementation Plan) ?':~-:: - 'i' ,' ~ :~" -- ,Repo. tt ~ep£:~003/2004 · ' - ' '*"-:" '" '":'?": .... "::" - "'"'":"*i .' i. '.. ~'. '..'~. 'i :.': *i.'... i. '- . :-: '" 'Project Area: EL OAMINO CORRIDOR. .~ ' . ...: ....... ' " ' * :" ' "'': -'" "." ' "'*,. · .*.' .- · · '. ''~'" '. :i .': . · 'Project: ,339!341 COMMERCIAL AVENUE .... ?- ;i''.''):. ":i=:' ~ ::'" :' '.: .~":'i '.~:: : :" i';:. ';': ':'"':':: ::; ';.i'~"~;:':~ .*,::-'""i:': '.!" ":.~ i' ' . :'-~ !* · : '" :*:::~"i*;-"'*'~*:~-:~" :':* !.?'..*. i:.~ "-':'-*'~..'r:..'~ '~ .,.~:.-'.~'~',~'C;~'2.?:.'F'.i:.'?:.'*:;:~.,':-"~:-~"2 ~,' :'...~' ,".,~-~ '.: ::; :."f'" "': ~.' ~.:~.';c..:.- ~*:~ :*-;.~:;.':'*.., ,:.:.' '.. '. :.* -'; '.," , ' · , -- · · "~,'"~?d.'~' '~ ~.t~,:.,.~f::.:.;:). ~.'-";".~,~¥:':~.:.T..:,:t'.~'.'~.'~t,:.~'.~;-.\L~:~?...'~.~. '.':"~d~L':-'." ?".?'."~?'L'.~ r.:... :'. "' .:'::.'.'C ':.. V'. : ***:- * ~...' .*~ .~ ':-'.. :~')-';':'."~ 'i- -.:L ' ;'-,. ~,'.~ :.-,:' : [ -NOTE: This ~o~m 'Is asUmmary O'f ;the't0ta!s'bf;~! new ?Onstruc;d0n or.substantlal rehab'illtatlon units ' · 'from forms flCD;D7 Whlch'.aie develoPed in .a~proje~t ~e~'.by any entity (agency or non,agency). ' , :..',:...-. . '.. .... = .... - ..... '..?:. .... ,:' ?'..: ..:. '":...: -'.' :'i~'"*'[H &Sc s~i'~i3¢;)i'~)j' - *.' '''~'' '.'":': '":'"'.:~ "*'iii.""'.:'."'."". :'::.~: .' .::' ../i'.;~i,'i~,..'?- ..... ".: :, - -':~AGENCYDEVELOPED. :.,. · ' ' "".-::-~''-;.:-. ..... . . . .. -. ......... .:.-.-.:~....; :*,* ; 1. New.Unite. - ...... --. '. :. *.... ..... ' ................... '"' ' """ :'" ,'~':': .~':':.':!.~-.i"::;" ':';..--':.~'.:~,./: .: ..-: 2. Substantially Rehabll tared Units , ' .... '-:'"" :'." ::: ·"' - "~-':;.: ';::':?.~,-'.i:.-~:~:;-' :: ':i-~:...~.?..~:,:i ~""~::,-:~"':-?..O '..: 3.Subt0tal - Baseline of.Unite (add'line 1 &2) ': :' .'::..':.'-'"-T..:L......,-.t...., :,.-......:.,.- . .. - .:. '. ............ :': ':-'"' ~"-.':':::'~:::'...:' '...'"~' · 4; Subtotal :of. Incluslonary Obligation AccrUed this' year for:-Units ~line 3 x 30%) - ' 0 ,5,'Subtotal.of.lnclusiona~y Obligation Accrued this year.for Very-Low lncomeUnits (line .4 x50%) ..:. ~:-":, -.-?'...,?.- "' :" ' : .'-.,.".'~i?. i':~P.,ART:~i '.'~': ' ,."?'." ..... .. ..... , ...... ;'.':'.~.~!~ ':,~.*'~?.;,':, :?.% · . - .. . . : .... .. . . .... . . · ' '.[H & SC S~on &34~ S(b)(~)] .... , 6. New units ....... '" ..... : .................... ' ':-'""- ...... :" :'""' ":" -"::? ..' ' :...".0: . . 7, Substantial~ Rehabilitated Units ..... : .... '" - · .. :':-.." .'::.. -..'-'" : :-: 't; :-O. ' 8.,Subtotal -Baseline of Units (add lines 6 & 7) :' ' ' ' ...... :'"' ~: ~ '" ':':' ":':" ": ............ ' ........ ' ~" " 0 g, S~ibto~ of~ln¢lus chary Obl[ga. fi0.n Accrued. Units. '-?e 8x 15%) ..... :,...-...: .... : -. : -',' ....... ": "' :' '* .'. :';".:~: '"-' :.--7':'-*~::';. '.'17. :;? *,.".:'.:~ ;.'~..'~ ':'::i~:,..'" '..i"~ -:( i"~.~ ~;:,:.::' ~'-;: "~" '*'"" '~'~ "-:'"'"" '-" .... '-" f':':' ' ". "'..'..' '" 10..Subto'-.~. of lnclusionary Obligation Accrued this y .e.~.!~[ ~: ,L~w..!n.c,0.me Units (line 9.x 40%) ...... -, ,- ..... --o · :' '' ' :": :" "" '" ' *' " ........ '*" ' ' ~L..'.~:?._.'?.:' ." * ' ' ' ' ' ' 'PARTili .. . . . . .. ... j · ' : ........ ' ' ""- ; TOTALS -': .'" .'.'".- '."..:i".' ':'.'.':i.:'~::'...' ,i:' .:'-.":. i'.i' '.':; ~ .'.,'. :.':..'"....... / , 11'. Total'Increase in inclusionary Obligations During This Fiscal Year (add'line 4-& 9) ". ' ....... ' '" '1'" i ' 'QI '12. Total Increase in'Very Low'Income Units lnclusionar~ Obligations DUring-This Fiscal Year (add line .5 & 10) I 01 ~ E (1 mi) Page I of 12 ;12/28/2004 P. 148 CALCULATION OF,INCREASE IN AGENCY!S INCLUSIONARY OBLIGATION,.FOR ACTIViTIEs' (Thls Form Is Information On!y: ·Actual· Obligation is ,based on Implementation Plan) Agency: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA Project Area: EL CAMINO CORRIDOR Project= CHESTNUT CREEK .NOTE:.'This form Is a summaW,of the totals of:ali new.c'onstruction ;r:sU-'-~'stanii;il ~ fromforms HCD,DTwhiCh are"aeveiOped!n a projeCtarea:by.any.entity (agenCy.or nor~;a'gency).' ':-.. ....... PART ! -~ iH & SC Section 33413("o)(1)] 2. Substantially Rehabilitated Units ~ 3. Subtotal- Baseline of Units (add line t & 2) - '- :'""~' ~bligation Accrued this,Year for Uni o '~ubtotal of lnclusiona Obli ' . , ' ' ' ~ ". : ....... .:" :-'. '::~':i: '~,;,:,.: :,.:.':. ,.: ........ ry ga~ion Accrued th~s year fo[ Very~Low Income ,Units (line 4 x 50%) iH & SC Se~on 33413(b)(2)] : . NON-AGENCY DEVELOPED UNITS 7. SubstanfJally~Rehabilitated Units - ' ~ 8. Subtotal - Baseline of Ur 6 & 7) Subtotal · of,.lnclusionary Obligation~ Accrued this.year for.Units (line 8 x 15%) , -- 1 O. of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued this year for Ve~ Low Income Units (line .0 '0 0 PART,ill TOTALS 11. Total Increase 'in Inclusionary Obligations ~Dudng This FisCal Year (add line 4 & 9) 12. Total Increase in Very LoTM Income Units Inclusionary Obligations During This.Fiscal Year(add line.5 & 10 California Redevelopment Aganctes.~=a~ Year 2003~2004 Schedute E (11/01) "Totals rn~y ba Impo, ted by roun~ng Page 2 of 12 12/28/2004 P. 149 CALCULATION..OF INCREASE IN AGENCY!S INCLUSIONARY-OBL1GATION!FOR ACTIVITIES '(This Form ts :informaU0n On!y: ActUal Obligation'is ba~d .on Implementation Plan) .... ' Rep_°rt. Year: ~-2003/2004 :?~ ~i~.?.''':?' "~- ·" ' ''. ' -" i'; ' . . . ' -. ~ .: ; ... J · : ' - ~ . . . ':": .: '. Agency,' SOUTH'SAN FRANCISCO RDA . ~ .'~.'=.~:'::': ':'-' ": '"~ ~': <'~' ~ ''~' ;'"' '~' Project Area: EL CAMINO CORRIDOR - '.' "" 'PtoJect:'GREENRIDGE .- .... .. .... '" .-' .... :?::?.'i:i':i!"~..??:i: 'NOTE: ~ This form :is',a.summa~:-of,~l~e totals :of.ali new ConstrUi*~tlon :or sUb~tantla!,.~ehabliitatl°n ' ~ ":': ''?. ~-'":".' .; .:" ·. '.':'.-:.'- · · .'- · , ..' · ..-.:.:.. :. .... - .... .......· ..... -~. g ._ '~from ¥~r~ns:HoD~DT.~hic'h ~e..~eVeioPed ~tn aproject meaby any &nfity'(agencyor non:,~" 'an ".'.::";-", ...... :: "" ,". '.' :.-' "-'~: : ..'.."-.'.: .... PARTi..-' ~ .'~.....'....:..,' '. .. ...... -. ... ' = .... ' - ' . ..: . ' '..[H&Scsec~0~ 334'~3~b)(¥)] '...' '.'.' .'; :'. :: : '- '2. 'Substantially Rehabilitated Units' ' " " ' '; .........'::"~"' :'" :'::~'~.'~'~:':i':':":;'~'~¥:::';':::'~k':""" :'¥':'¥~"~::::'0: 3.'Subtotal -~Baseline of Unlts (add.line t &2) "' " ' ".:.~",-"' ~' '" ~' ~--"."', '"'--::~.~::':'~"~:~'~":':'~' '"-'"':: i:..:...':: ':''-"~0' 4. Subtotal of lnclusionar7 Obligation AccrUed this .Ye~ for Un!ts:(lin~'3 x.30%) .:,'...~::;::':¥..:'~,':~ ~:~ :~:'.:?i.¥~:~: :;.........:?.?,:~!..::?.: .~:::...:,..:...~.;.:.'~0 5.:Subtotal of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued this year;for Veh/~..bw Income Ud~ ( ina:4 x 50%) ,'-', - "- .'.0 , - . ~ ... ~':':': .:" "':: :" ": '" ~ . "..' " NON.AGENCY:DE~ELOPED .UNiTs: 6.'New Units "" 7. Substantially~Rehabllltated Units . :' "' ' " ' ' ' ~ .... "" ' :': :' ':';" ""t '": '"'"'": ' .0 ..... : ~ ~:':'".'": ;:" '-;'" ~' .?'." .".:.'!~:.'i' :';':'~:.'-: ;~. O 8. Sub~u[~l - B~seline of-Units (add lines 6& 7) " " .... '. .: ',' '.:".:: -",.. :. ' .,'":,"~....':.:.. ~!..:-:.'?:.:.: '.',~..;'. :,. :..:..:~ ::..'i' :;0' 9. Sub~o~ o~.l~..e.!usionary Obligation'Accrued this. year.for Units (line.8 x 15%) .......i" ' 'i "::. '"' ':. "'!.': "" ~ : ..0' 10. Subtotal .of'lnclusionary Obligation Accrued this year for Very..Low Income Units (line 9 x 40%) · - PART Iil ...... TOTALS. · .11. Total increase in 'lncluslonary Obligations During This Fi~ Year (add line'4 & 9) . ' ":" "'" -' ' .' :' 12, Total Increase .in Very Low Income Uni~ Incluslonary; Obligations 'During 'This Fiscal Year (add tine 5 & .10) 0 Cal~ RadevMc~3mant A<]en~. I~ year 8~hadule E (11/01) Page 3 of 12 12/28/2004 P. 150 · 'CALCULATION OF INCREASE IN AGENCY'S INOLUSIONARY OBLiGATioN FE~R'A(~TiviTiES .(This Form is :!rfformaUon On!y: Actual Obl!gation Is based on implementation Plan) Agency: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA Project AreA: 'EL CAM1NO CORRIDOR 'Project: OAK FARMS BURS . .. .... ..i°n veloped/n.a project.area by'any entitY (agenCy Or non:agencY). PART I [H & SO Section.33413(b)(!)] ' ' 2. Substantia:lly Rehabilitated Units ~ 0. -3, Subtotal -:Baseline of Units (add line 1 & 2) --'- 6. New Units .... · 7. Substa~nfially~Rehabilitated 'units · PART tl ~ & sO Se~on 33413(b)(2)] NON-AGENCY :DEVELOPED UNITS 8.-Subtotal- ,Bale, aline of Units 6 & 7) ~of laclusionary Obligation Accrued th-'--'-"~s year :for U[~its (line 8 x 15%) 10. Subtotal of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued this year for Very Low Income Units [ PART ill CaJlfomla Redevelopmar~t Agencies · Ft~aJ ¥~r 2003/2004 Schedule E (11/01) 'TotaJs may be impamted by mun~ng Page 4 of 12 12/28/2004 P. 151 ..2. Substantlally Rehabilitated units .~ '. ............ ' .. -'.' · · .... , ...... .' ' 'NON-AGENCY:DEVELOPED UNITS ~..-."" ': .' 6.New. Units ......... · .. .......... · ' 9.~,,S. ~.bk~;~ cf.-inclusion Obligation Accrued this year,for Units iioe 8 x ~$%) .. ,- . '0 · .... ,.. ~. g .... th~s year. for Very Low Income Units (line 9 x 40% ' ' ' ".'"-- ' ~ 11. TotaJ Increase in Inclusi0nary Obligations'DUring This Fiscal Year'(add line 4.& 9)- '" '..'~ .... . -: . ..:.-'* "' ' ' 12.'Total Increase in Very Low Income Units 'lnclusiOnarY ObligafJons Dudng'This.'Fiscal Year (add line 5 & 10) 0 SCHEDULE HCD.E1 ' CALCULATION OF.INCR ,EASE;iN AGENCY S INCLUSIONARY-;OBLIGATION FOR ACTIVITIES "''''~ (This 'Fora1 i~ii:if0rmatlon Only: A~Ual Obligation :is based on Implementation Pian)' '.. ~.' .'..:i' ~!~.:--;?~ ",,"~.;,'.:~::-*-'~ ~.; '.:~ '.' ~ ? .., .'!~'~.. ,... . . ..... . .... . . 'Repprt Ye_a_r: *'~0Da/2.O04 :;'-.:',~... :' ':'.:'~.:v:'~ ' ' ' Agency: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA ' .,-'..; "':-i.:! :~.:'., - .... Project Area: EL CAMINO CORRIDOR. : .... ' ...... ' . : . ' ': ~ ":'"; .-~.~ , . ...-.: .'.; ':**.' ..- , ,. '*'i:' *'~,-"; Project: WILLOW GARDENS -976 SANDRA CT "' i'....' -.~. - .";. '....!. '.-~ .;,., ::. ':..~.. '" . ?... ! · ..:. * -.-;...." : ' · ~., ". .... . ..... .....:'.. :, ..,... ,...,.. :,....,: :....:.. i.!..... :. I ,NOTE: ~ . ;~, his, form ls.a's,p...mma~ ~f.~he.t,ot~!s 0f:.al!neW. ConstmCtlon',0rt. SUbStantlaIreh. ab!litatl~n u~its [. tfmm'f°rms'"HCD;D7 WhlCh' ai;~:.:de,.".Veiqped-:in ;a.pr°Je .ct'area'bY:'any;entity ,(ag~ Calilom~ Pamv~opment Agemles. Ra~a] year 2003,2004 Schedule E (11/01) Page 5 of 12 12/28/2OO4 P. 152 SCHEDULE HCD CALCULATION OF.INCREASE.IN AGENCY:S INCLUSIONARY OBLIGATION FOR Ai~TiviT[ES' (This Form is Information .Only: Actual Obligation Is!based on Impie~ntatlon· Pl~) Rep__o. rt Yea~.:~O. O3/2OO4. Agency: sOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA Project Area: EL CAMINO CORRIDOR Project: WILLOW GARDENS ~ 982.B RUSCO WAY .~....! ..~: .... ..... a s.ummary.oLthe totals ofall'new construction~or'sub~tantlai .rehabilitation units' ."' from forms HCD~D7 Which are developed in a project ama by any entity'(~JgencY'O~,'non~agency) '.: ~ · PART I IH & SO.Section 33413(b)(1)] AGENCY D.EVELOPED ' - ', .. 1, 'New[Units'-~ ' 2. Substantially Rehabilitated Units .~ "· ~ ' : ~~".'. I' 3. Subto~l -,{B~s (add line 1 & 2)' ' ' ..... : . - . ".' ..'~0 5. Subtotal.of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued.this year for.Very-Low Income Units (line 4.x'50 -- ;,~'. ..... ;':'; "- ...:'. :'¥U.'." "'.'..:'.: .. ~ ' ': ~ . ' .',i ~ ..... ¥ '-'" ' ' ' PART !1 IH'& SC Section &34:la(b)(2)] 17~' ' NON-AGENCY DEVELOPED UNITS 6..New Units 7:Substantially Rehabilitated Units 8,;Subtotal--Baseline of Units (add lines 6 '& 7) ' . ' "~' "':'.'"" '"" ' ..... :~'~ · .. Subtotal of. lnclusionary Obligation Accrued this·year, for Units (line 8 x 15%)- : :-----"--~ : . - 10. Subtotal of Inclusionary ObligatiOn Accrued this year fo~ Very Low IncOme Units (line .9 x 40%) ; · . PART III TOTALS 121 'Total Increase in CaJllomla Rad~velopment ~. Fi,..cal Year' 20Da/2~34 8~dule E (11/01) 'TotaJs ma~ ba Impa~tacl by mun~ng Page 6 of 12 P. 153 12/28/2004 CALCULATIONOF.INCREASE IN AGENCYS""" INCLUSIONARYOBLIGATiON FOR:ACTiViTIES ~,~" :4 '.. rhi, 0"iv "- .... "" .': .~ :i~' '. :Aotual..0bligation .la. based on .impiemi~niatl · ~... Rep_0rt YearL:2003/2004 '"":~ :: · -':"~ .: ":. :. . ' : · ' . : ' '. Agency: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA ' ' . .... : .. ' ' ' ' ' ' . , · · '. '.." · ...... ,. .',. ~ -..x '. - ..,..".....'. -... :; , 'Project Area: EL CAMINO ooR~IDOFI. '..:~ .".-: :' . : . ..' ' :-/. '.-'i.i.'.'..i..:i:.;.ii.. ': 'Project: WILLOW.GARDENS; 986 BRUSCO WAY .'. --: ..: L":..:i~:~!."::.(~.!?:,~::::.~:~!?:::i';/::.': i:~.~:i":::?':::!'!.¢ i!?.;:!'i:I ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.'{.~.=':' "..'..'... '..'.,::':'..... · ":,'"": ' :.' ' ':'" ..... -' ' .... :. ..NOTE: ::This :form ]s':~s~m~ Df:.~he..total~ .of.ali.n~w ~nStmotl mi: -':.from'foms,:H~D7 i~'~i.~h:.!a~::~ieveloP, edjn a~:proJect area:by-anY ~htity"(~gei~i~ ~ .... - ...... ....,__ ...... :,.~ .] :..:=!/ :" :i ..... F:.:.:~?.:?::::,:....~..:..:?.,,:.:..:v:...~.:.:?:.....? :., :: v.,.. '"., :. 'PART.:.I"~:. "....'' : ' · '~..: :v..':' ' ":. :': . ','"" .' -[' '... · ' ' :: {I-I &.SC:Beclion.3~13Co)(l)] '. "' ?:. : :': .. ;.. '. ' ' ' '. ' ' ' :".' :' ': '-" ." AGENCy,,.DEVELORED ' ' 2.-Substantially Rehabilitated Units · -.: ':' '. .... ....... -.. ' '.: ~:~ :i'i~:::~. :"~-.,.::, :: :'.::., :'.., :~ 3: 'Sub~ -.' Baserne of Units (add line I & 2) ' - ' - -. :.:..:. '?.. :.: :-.- ~'~,.:::-:' :.~'.:..;: .~.~: .: .-...:. ,~ - 4..Subtotal Accrued this .Year forUnlts .::.'v.' !?.: ..':~:./i;!::~:'~,,.::'.:..,,:'i..,:. --~..~:: ...... .....:: 'Subtotal of .Inclusionary Obliga~on ~ccrued.this"year for~Very,L~w 'Income Un~ (line 4 x 50%) '-: =',--. '.. ... · . .. .- ' : IH &SCSe~ona341a03)(e)] .... 'NON-AGENCY ~DEVELOPED UNITS.· -.-': · 6..New Units' : ....... ". ' ............ - ..-.- ...:... :.:.- .... :....: ~: :,.~-"~ .,:;. '. 7. Sub~fantially!~Rehabiiitated..Uni~ ' ' ' ' ...... :":":.,':. ::';':~, .... :: ":' :'-:":::'i-';~ .... '.,.., '" ~0 ~,;:'! 8. Subtotal - Baseline of. Units (add.lines.6 & 7) "~".- ': : ""'" . --": . .-::.0, .. 9. Subbi~l of. It~oluslonary.. . . Obligation Accrued this year for Units (line 8 x 15%) "~',.'".~.-: ;. : :'~': ': .. 5 10. Subtotal.of incluaionary Obligati0n.A~rued this year for ve~ Low Income' units (line 9 x 40%) ' ""' ' 0 ' ~:-..", ..... ' """ ~"':.. '" ": ' ' ":";'" "'" ........ PART:iff -"- .... - "· .... · . ' " " ' 'TOTALS .'- ' ' ' ":' ' :' t ...... 11..Total Increase in Inclusionezy Obligations Dudng This Fiscal Year (add line 4 & 9) ;~i:':.. ::. "' ". '..::: 'f :' ':' :'.:-/,:.,.,:.:.... ':1' ':: '" 12. Total Increase in Very Low Income Units lnclusi°nary Obligations During This FiSCal Year-(add line5 & 1.0) ' 'J":- Ca,~omJal~ ~. ~ y~ ED0&2004 Page 7.of'12 '12/28/2004 P. 154 Report Year: -2Q0.3/2Q04 CALCULATION OF INCREASE IN AGENCY,S iNCLUSiONARY OBLiGATioN 'FOR ACTiVITIE (This Form is Information Only. Actual ObligatiOn is based o~ im ..... · . p n Plan) Agency= SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA Project Area: EL CAMINO CORRIDOR Project= WILLOW. GARDENS -'.990 BRUSCO way , OT.Ej Th!s, form Isa,summary of_the totals.of all~ii:ii.i'newconstruction OrSub§t~ntiai rejiab]litation units - Trom to'rms HCD-D7.,whlch are,developed, tn aproject-area by anyenti~' (agency ~or,.r~0n~ enc ...... ." "~- ' "' '~--'"~~ 'PARTIt · . . :-- - ~ -- IH & SC seclJon 33413(5}(1)] AGENCY DEVELOPED'" . ' ; .... :,.'. ':i ;.: .- 1. New Units '. .......... ~" :" :"" .... ,' . . 2. Subs. .tantlallyRehabfl~tated Un~ts . .,', . .. -- ----, . .-- · · ; '," · 0. 3, Subtotal -.Baseline 'of ~ ,., ' - '_ ~tal of'lnclusionary-Ob Pat[on ~-' ,,'. ,~, 'i~..:; ~~-:'. '. -:: .'-~._0 ~. ~uu~u~u~ 'or-Inc~us~onary UDligation Accrued this yasr for Very-Low Income Units (line 4 X 50%) PART'Il:: - ~ [ii & $C SecUon33413(b)(2)] NON'AGENCY DEVELOPED UNITS 6. New Units " ' ..... -- 7.:Substanfially~eh'-'---'-~abilitated Units ' ...... ;~ . : ~ 8. Subtotal - BaSeline of'Units (add lines 6 & 7) ~ ~" 9.. Subtotal .of !aClusionary Obligation Accrued .this yesrrio~e § ~".~,~.~) .....".... ' ','.i' : '.':' :" '";'" ;':." ." .;.. "~ 12. 'Total Increase CaJiloml~RedevalopmentAgan~es. FiacaJ Yaar 2003/2004 Schectul,~ E (11/01) 'TotaJ~ may be lmpau"t~d by Ioundlng Page 8 of 12 12/28/2004 :. P. 155 SCHEDULE ,HCD E1 ". CAL~Ch~sLA_.T~.. ~N. O~F: !.,NCR,~E,.. IN .AG ~ENC¥~SINC!~US!ONA:R~ :OBLiGATiON " . U ~orm-m Int~rmaflon:Only: Act,ual Ob[!gatlon iS.based on lmpi PJan) ementation ..... ...,,:..: . -. Report Yem;: ,~12003/2004 Agency: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 'RDA · :Project ~'ea:..EL CAMINO CORRIDOR '.':' '.' "-'-'. '?: :::.' ": ''?' ''':. ":,: :~': -"':' .... ' ": .:....i.: !..'i~.:::?'..'~ ,~.. :.~ .'-: !.: ,~.'. :.: c.... ,: .-:. '!Project= WILLOW GARDENS PROJECT .... .." .:..... :: '..:?::....:"': i.-.: '. ":i: '.',:?.. :-:'-:' .' "": ': ':.:.'. "~':l :NOTE:-.',This ,orm.lsa:summar:yof.the._tOtalsOf alI'new:construction.or Substin{ia:, ]:efi~ii:ij';;~i;5~"~ :.".': '::." ::'"i."" :::fr°m"f°rms:'::~c:i'~h!~'h:!.r.'~:::~:e...'~.e..'i,.oped.ln a:pr..'0.je~t.~a:By .any e~tity ;(agency..0riSbn.igen~y).:-.:,:... :?: :,', ..'..'::!] .:.. - " " ' · . ...... . . . . .~ · .,..:' .~....,..:..~ :~:~ .%.:.:..-?: ... 1; New·Units... :.:.. 2. 'Substantiall~ Rehabilitated Units '.' ~ .............. · ......... ............. .. -. "' ". ........ '"",' "."'0 ' *' ' '. 8. Subtotal -.~Baseline of. Units (add line 1 '& 2) ...... '. ': ....... -v : . ,.~.~..:..:.:,..:.~ :..:,'~:': :i' ..... · ..... 4. SUb~o~ of in~uslonary Obligation Accrued this'¥e~ fo~i. UnitS-(line'3 x.~0%} '::. ~: :::-,.' .~.....: ' '.',=i :. !";? :': .'::.;: ::!:'.'!:':: ~::; :::.'::;'~ I'' :':~ ":". ~.'i.-0 I5,'Spbtotal 0f JnciL~Sjon .a~j Oblir3~h_'on..ACq, .m_. ~d...this ye~r fOr. VerY,Low ·Income.Units (line 4x 50%) :!'..:..,:"~"?'-.? "' ?".:" "0 · .: . ....... ...~:........:. , · ~.~.~,d.~. · . '~ . . .... :, ... ;:;......... ,.....-.. -.'.~.::..,'~..~,~..:.-:....~..:...~ ~.-:-'.':..,:~..~...:.-:v~.-:.::,-'~:-.;~:...: ..... .:::":'~'"'~ ':'"": .... '"'"' .ARTi!Ii .~:~:~'- , ' . .:.... - .' ... ' .. "'..'..: .-'-'..". '.'~..'...'.: '.:.' .... .. ' .:.....'i .. ' .[~ &.sc se~o~ 33~S(b)(~)] i:",," ' '." · · "' ' '" ' ' ' '" "" ":'~' · "NON'AGENCY*DEVELOPED;UN)TS "".:..i' "" ." '-."' " ' 6, New Units ' .'.: · ".'..'.-':.' .:, ..-.-'..: · 7. Substantially ~ehabili~_~_~d Units ..... ~' .... .......... :' :... ,,..~ ...~:..~.... ,........~.. _~,ali . · ..-.. ..... ..... ,' ' o 8' Subtotal t,-R ne of Units ~edd lines 6 &7) · :: ......... ........ -:...~ i:-:: .~..~: ...-~ . ... ::... .... ... 9, Subtotal of lri~lusionary Obligation Accrued this year.for Units (line 8.x 15%) ~ ': ...' · '0 10.'Sub~ of il3clusionar7 Obligation Accrued ~is year'for Very Low.income .Units (line 9 ~< 40%) '. "'"' ~'.' '" ' 0 '.' ".-" -:": · "/ :~"""~'"':.!: · · " TOTALS.. ".':"':: .""' - ' ' .' ..".'.' '' ' : 11. Total Increase in lnclusionary Obligations During This 'FiScal Year (add line 4 & 9): .... .' 12. Total Increase .in Very Low Income.Units inClusionary Obligations' During This Fiscal Year (add line 5 & 10) . *.0 · ' ' .'...':':. · ~.. :. '.i.;. '" .. ;.'....:.~:' .'.~ :...'-...'~ ..~ .... ~' ~' ...... - .. .. .~ . ... .' ....:. &~edut. E (11/01 ) Page 9 of 12 2/28/2004. P. 156 CALCULATION OF INCREASE IN AGENCY'S iNCLUsiONARy'O. BLiGATiON,~=ORACT.iViTiES (This Form is Informatlon .Onl~;~ AC{Uai'Obiigafl0~ IS ba%d °n'l~le~e~tatron Plan) RePo~ Year: ~?-2~'004 ......... '~his :form :isa sum mary of the'totals of,all :new 'COnsttuctionL0'r:sUbS~antial ~re ' - .2, Substantially Rehabilitated Units .... _ .-. ...... ."~ .., 3.'Subtotal - Baseline of O~its i~da line .1 ~"2) ..... : .'.......:,. :' ..!, :: ....... x:30%);' ,.......--'.., 5.4 ~ Subtotal of of tnclusionarYlnclusionary ~bligatien Oblig~,tion. Accrued,th'is .Year Accrue~ for'Units .(line 3 :'-~. :.: ?,,- :,.::,.:.:, :':,::'~".: :': :.' this year for Very, Lbw Income Units (line 4 x 50 · :PART II-.. -- IH & SC S~on 3S4~ ~(b)(2)] · NON-AGENCY DEVELOPED UNITS 6. 'New Units 7. Substantially Rehabilitated Units .... ' 8.'Subtotal-Baseline of Units (add lines 6 & 7) . ,' :..... !...;' i..i'~ ....... '.' .i.. ".i ~ Inclusion/try Obligation Accrued this year for:Units (line 8 x 15%). . . _ ............ , .... · ; ~ ;-~, .- . .. . :...~:: 10. Subtotal of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued thls yea. r for Very Low Income Units i[ine 9 x 40'% ' 'TOTALs" ' '" 12. Total Increase in Very ' Ca~fornla R~3~velopm~nt Agan~a~. FIscaJ Yaar 2~004 Schedule E (11/{31) 'TotaJs may be impacted by rounc~ng Page 10 of 12 2/28/2004 P. 157 , 'CALCULAT!.ON OF INCR~S.E..!.N.:.AG,.~ENC~..S...INC.LUSIONAR¥.OBLIGATION ~ORACTIViTiES. '.~::...~. i-.- '~ . : :'.::' .' Agency: .SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA I 2; :Substantially Rehabilitated Units 4, Subtotal.of lnclusionary.Obli~ation Accrued this :Year-for Llnits ( ' ' .t ...... · .... ~ ...... ....~--" .-'. : 5,. Subtotal of Jnclusionary Obi!gation Accrued . this year . for .Very , Low ~ Income U.~its ,(line .4 X. 50%) .;: ::.i' · .'.:'¥ :'.:.... :~.'.~'.:~.i:: ": ~i. ~ . f:..?.,: O.0 ;'. :'.f' ':,"::' i{ ,: 0 :' · [H & SC Section 33413(b)(2)] " .- NON-AGENCY DEVELOPEd.UNITS 9. Subtotal of Ir~clusionary Obligation.Accrued this year for Un ts (line 8 x 15%) . ':. '::.i:v :F :.. ':-'~: .." 10. Subtotal of lnclusionary Obligation Accrued this year fO;:~efy-LoW .lnc,~'eUnits(line ....... 9 x40%)~'-~- ....: ' ........ ·.0 TOTALS,'::.:'-' 11. Total Increase in Inclusionary Obligations During .This.Fiscal Year,(add line 4 & 9) '..' ".-..- -.. .... ;'"' '" "~ "1 "" 12,' To~ Increase in verY Low,Income Units Inclusionary Obligal~ons 'DU. ring 'This. Fiscal Year (add tine 5 & 10) "t" a~edul. E (11/01 ) 'Page 11 of 12 12/28/2004 P. 158 SCHEDULE HCD .El CALCULATION OF INCREASE IN AGENCY'S INCLUSIONARY OBLIGATION-FOR ACTIVITIES (This Form Is Information Only: Actual Obligation Is based on lmplementatibn Plan) Report Year: 2003/2004 Agency: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RDA Project Area: DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL PROJECT Project: VILLA HILLSPRUCE · NOTE: This form isa summary of the totals of :al! new construction .or substanUal rehabilitation units· . from forms.HCD~D7 which are developed in 'a project area by any entity (agency Or no.n,agency), AGENCY DEVELOPED · ': · 1, New Units 2. Substantially Rehabilitated Units .. 0 3. Subtotal - Baseline of Units (add line 1 & 2) 0 4. Subtotal of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued this Year for Units (line 3 x 30%) · ' 0 5. Subtotal of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued this year for Very-Low Income Units (line 4 x 50%) , . ". ,i .: ~:. ' '0 NON-AGENCY 'DEVELOPED UNITS 6, New Units 0 7. Substantially Rehabilitated Units 0 8,. Subtotal.- Baseline of Units (add lines 6 & 7) 0 9, Subtota! of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued this year for Units(line 8 x 15%) . .. 0 0, Subtotal of Inclusionary Obligation Accrued this year for Very Low Income Units (line 9 x 40%) ' "I ' 0 I PART [!! · TOTALS 11. Total Increase in Inclusionary Obligations During This Fiscal Year (add line 4 & 9) I 0 12. Total Increase in Very Low Income 'Units Inclusionary Obligations During This Fiscal Year (add line 5 & 10) I 0 CaJllomla Redev~opmant Aga'~es - Ftsca~ Year 2003/2004 Schedule E (11/01) 'TotaJs may bm Impacted by munc~ng Page 12 of 12 12228/2004 P. 159 [7 of South San Francisco Affordable Housing Inventory 94-2004 '- City/RDA ~bstantiat Rehabilitation Funding? Completion 30% onstein's Y 94-95 :hreir .:'' Y 94-95 'and Hotel-:, Y *98-99 24 ,~tropolitan'Hotel Y 98-99 65 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% Total units 6 6 3 3 24 65 89 0 0 9 0' 98 ;quisition & Rehab Completion 30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% Total units 4 9-341 Commercial Avenue Y 8/1/2001 ngford Avenue Y 9/1/2002 _~ - 395 Susie & 986 Nora Y 3/16/1999 3 - 344 Susie Y 1/11/2001 ;- 976 Sandra & 982-986-990 Brusco Y 11/27/02 9 C Street Y 02-03 3 Miller Ave Y 10/15/2004 2 Miller Ave Y 5/24/2004 I Chestnut (3 offSite units proposed) Y TBA nse~ .~, offsite units proposed) · . N TBA 1 2 3 2 6 10 1 2 1 3 14 21 5 0 0 4 wConstruction Completion 30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% Total units 9enridge. Y 99-00 16 16 1 33 estnut Creek Y 03-04 37 3 40 Hillside (BMR) N 1/24/03 I 1 Farms (BMR/ N 9/16/03 5 5 Al 53 19 1 0 6 79 titled Completion 30% 31-50% 51-60% 61-80% 81-120% 'Total units.--- : .. - ..... Commercial - H4H rbella (BMR) rfield (BMR) al Y TBA 3 1 N TBA 28 42 N TBA 29 43 3 1 70 ' " 72 57 0 85 146 -.planned Completion 30% 31-50% 51.60% 61-80% 81-120% Totalunits Oak Grand Avenue (County site) Y TBA '90 Oak Avenue (BMR) N TBA Urban Housing (BMR) N TBA 15 28 · 43 1 2 3 15 :28 9 0 13 65 Total Affordable Units 30% 30-50% 50~80% 80-120% Total units ......... Total Completed Units 156 40 6 ~. 9 .6 -~ 217. '.'-' -.. i ' Total Entitled and planned units 18 29 66 0- 98 2i 1 -.-' - TOtal Units 174 69 72 9 104 428 Does not include First Time Homebuyer Loans ;Do~s not include 125 units developed by BRIDGE Housing at Magnolia Senior Center, of WhiCh. 75 unit~ are affordable to 10W/rfiOdemts ~Side~t~." Redevelopment Funds Available as of 6/20/04 Low Moderate Housing Funds (56) 20% Money Collected since projects' inception through June.30. Downtown 8,233,000 El Camino .1,350,000 Gateway '-9,078,000 Shearwater 1,680,000 Total Funds Available, 6/30/04: BOnd Proceeds on hand, uncommitted: 20,341,000 . 3,866,000 Undesignated Reserves, and Reserves comitted to Capital Projects not- yet spent as of S/30/04: Funds Available, 6/30/04: 8,180,000 12;046,000 Committed to: San Mateo County Housing Project: Alta Vista Purchase/Rehb Miller Ave. Purchase/Rehab Linden Ave. Site Acquisition El Camino/PUC Site Acquisition Less I-'roJect Commitments: =Funds Not Yet Committed: 4,000,000 1,200,000 800,000 1,000,000 5,000.,000 (12,000,000) 46,000 P. 163 Pa~e 1 of 1 Fragoso, Norma From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Oyster Pt. Landfill VanDuyn, Marry. Friday, April 15, 2005 8:35 AM 'MMcmillan@co.sanmateo.ca.us' Steele, Jim; Fragoso, Norma Mary: In response to your request for follow-up information regarding our clean-up of this property and the ' agencies we are dealing-with, you may contact the following individuals for information: Mr. Greg Schide ' ' ' San Mateo County Health Services.Agency Public Health and Environmental Division 455 County Center Redwood City, CA And 'Ms. Julie Menack California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region 1515 Clay St. Ste.1400 Oakland, CA (510) 622-2300 Our consultant (performing site testing and filing annual reports) Eileen Fanelli · Gabewell Inc 51 Idora avenue San Francisco, CA (415) 566-7026 If I can provide you with any additional information please !et me know. Thank you for your assistance, Marty Van Duyn City of South San Francisco P. 165 E. Related Documents This section includes the Agency and City Council resolutions adopted March 9, 2005 consenting to the joint public hearing. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency E- 1 South San Francisco Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger .....P 167 Supplement to the Report to Council April 2005 - RESOLUTION NO. 04-2005. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLI~ION APPROVING THE REPORT TO coUNCIL ON PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FISCAL MERGER, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT A PROJECT AREA COMMrTTEE IS NOT .REQUIRED AND THAT 'ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETED, · TRANSMITTING THE REPORT TO THE cITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, AND REQUESTING AJO1NT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FISCAL MERGER ~ WHEREAS, on March 10, 2004, the City Council of the CitY of South San Frandsco ("City Council") adopted. Resolution No. 25-2004'.which designated a survey Area for the purpose of amending the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Pmjoct Area") to add territory to the Project Area; and ..... WHEREAS, on April 15, 2004, the Planning Commission of'the city of South San Francisco ("Planning Commission") adopted Resolution No. 2633 establishing the boundaries of the area proposed to be added to the.Project Area (the "Added Area"), approving a Preliminary Plan for the Added Area in accordance with Health and Safety Code'Section 33324, and recommending that thc Agency accept, the Preliminary Plan; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 06-2004, adopted On May 12, 2004, the Agency approved the Preliminary Plan and directed staff to prepare amendments to add the Added Area to the Downtown/Central Project Area and to fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, Gateway, and U.S. Steel/Shearwater project areas; and WHEREAS, the Agency subsequently resolved that the fiscal merger should also inclUde the El Camino Corridor project area; and WHEREAS, the Agency is in the process of preparing: (i) an amendment to the redevelopment plan for the Downtown/Central project area to add the Added Area to the Project Area, (ii) amendments to the redevelopment plans for the El Camino Corridor project area and the Downtown/Central project area to extend the time period within which the Agency will have authority to acquire nonresidential property by eminent domain within such project ay. ,% and (iii) amendments to the redevelopment plan.~ for the Downtown/Central project, area, the ?El Camino Corridor projeet area, the U.S. Ste,I/Sheanvater project area and the Gateway projeet area in order to effectuate a fiscal merger of such project areas; and P. 169 WHEREAS, in connection with tho forego~_g amendments, the AgenCY has oa~ed to be prepared, and pursuant to Resolution. No..13-2004, adopted .December 8, 2004, has approved a Preliminary. Report .pm'suant to Health and Safety Code SeCtion 33.344.5 and' has authorized community; and ' ' 'i .. . ~ .... . .. wita project area reside~...ts, pro~. o~,'..b~eSseS and:~unity'0~S,l,ati°ns, .and the prepared a Rq~on to CoUncil p~ant ~ Health & Safe~ Code Section 33352; and domain to acquire property' o~ which persons resid~ and do not provide for public proj~ that will displace a substantial number of'low- and moderate-inc0m~ persons; and .-. WI-IEKEAS,.the proP°Sed amendments do not alter the projects and aotivities propos~l to 'be implemented in the project areas, and.do not extend .the financial and timellmitagonsset forth . WHEREAS, the P°t~tial envirorrm_ental etT-e~ Ofthe activities'Pmp0~:~'~ · undertaken in the existin8 project areas and in the proposed Added Area were analyzed in the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental hnpa~t RcponwMch was adopted and .cerQfied.in and in the General'Plan Environmental Impact Repor~ a.P~gram level EIR that was adopted and certified in OCtober, ! 999; and determined that in connection with the'adoption of the plan amendments, .the Agency and the City Council may properly rely upon the prior EI~ be~a---ase no new impacts are associated with the amendments, no projects have been specified that were not analyzed in the prior ElRs, there are no substantial changes to the cirtmms~ces under which the previously analyzed project will be undertaken, and there is no'new information that was unavailable at the time thc prior EIRs ere oertified; d ' ' W an. . .. WHEREAS, Sections 33348 and 33349 of the H~alth and Safety Code require both the City Council and thc AgenCY to conduct public hearings on .the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, Section 33355 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes the Agency and the City Council to hold a joint public h~tring upon tile consent of both. P. 170 I 'NOW, THEREFOR.E, BE IT RESOLVED by thc Redeve!opment Agency of the City of South 'San Francisco that the Agency hereby: .Section 1, Approves the Relaort to Council on the propOsed plan amen/iments and fiscal merger, directs the Executive Director to transmit the Reponto the City Council, and requests that the City Council hold a joint 'public hearing with the Agency to consider the proposed plan amendments and fiscal meager on April 27,2005, at 7:00 p.m. at400 South. Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. -_ ..... Section 2. Directs the Executive Director to transmit the Report to council to affected taxing entities, the Plannihg Commission, commtlllity organizations, property owners, business owners, and residents of the project areas, and directs the Executive Director and Agency staff to continue consultation with such p.arties, to hold at least one community meeting prior t° 'the joint' public hearing on the proposed amendments, and to make the proposed ordinances adopting the amendments available for public inspection prior to submitting them to the City'CoUncil. · Section 3. Directs the Executive Director. of.the Agency to comply with all noticing requirements, for the join{'publiC heating set forth in-the Community RedevelOpment Law. Section 4. Finds that the formation ora Project Area Committee is not required because the proposed amendments do not authorize the use of eminent domain for property on which perseus reside'and do not propose public projects that will cause displacement,ora substantial number of low- and moderate-income households. " ' Section 5. Finds that adequate environmental review has been completed-for the proposed amendments and fiscal merger because (i) the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Ouidelines Section 1.5061 (b)(3), and (ii) the potential en¥ironmerital effects of the proposed amendments have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are proposed, no new impacts have been identified, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the prior EIRs were ccrtiffed, and there is no new information that Was .unavailable at the time the prior EIRs were c. artified. I hereby certify that'.the. foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced andadopted by . the Redevelopment Age~oy of thc City of South San FranciSco at a regular meeting held on tho 9" day of Mar~h.2005 by the following vote: -. ' ~ ' '.. ' . .". ", . "- ' '. AYES: ......... ' B'oardm~eirS Ri~' A..Gm'ba~°'' p~ Go~e~ and KarYl Mats~m°t°i ' , Vie~ Ch~ Jo 'NOE8:'~'~.i}. ' · None."'"' '.. AI:tI/TAIN'--'~: Non ' ' '~' ' '"' ' ' ' ' ': '~;'' "" ' '" ABSENT: ; None P. 172 RESOLUTI°N NO. 23-2005 CITy. COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA . ~ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT TO COUNCIL ON PROPOSED REDEVELOPM~ p~ AMEND~ AND FISCAL MERGER, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT A PROJECT. AREA COMMITrEE IS NOT.- REQUIRED :AND THAT ADEQUATE ' ' ENVIRONMENTAL 'REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AND" CONSENTING TO A JOINT-PUBLIC-HEARING ON THE pLAN .... AMENDMENTS AND FISCAL MERGER WHEREAS, on March 10, 2004, the City CoUncil adopted ResOlutiOn. NO. 25-2004 which designated a Survey Area for the purpose of amending the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") to add territory to the Project Area; and · :i '.-~ ' ~" :" ~.-" .,.:' .' :i...:::-.-.. )~ .- .. · WHEREAS, on April 15, 2004, the Planning CommissiOn 0fthe'City of S0uthSa~ Fmc-ism ("Planning Commission") adopted Resolution No. 2633 establishing the bounces Of the area proposed to be added to the Project Area (the "Added Area,), approving a Preliminary. Plan for the Added Area in accordan~ with Health and Safety Code S .~tion 33324, and remmmea!.ding that the Agency accept the Preliminary plan; and ' ' ' ' ' ..... WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 06-2004, adopted on May 12, 2004; the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Fmc'ism ("Agency") approved the Pr¢liminm-y Plan and directed staff to lXOpare amendments to add the Added Area to the Downtown/Central Project Area and to fiscally merge the Downtown/Central, GateWay, and U.S. Steol/Shearwater project areas; El Camino Corridor project area; and WHEREAS, the Agency is in' the process of preparing: (i) an amendment to'the redevelopment plan for the Downtown/Central project area to add the Added Area to the Project Area, (ii) amendments to the reclevelopment plans for the El Camino Corridor project area and the Downtown/Central project area to extend tho time period within which the Agency will have authority to acquire nonresidential property by eminent domain within such project areas, and (iii) amendments to the redevelopment plans for the Downtown/Central project area, the E1 Camino Corridor project area, the U.S. St~l/Shearwater project area and the GateWay project area in order to effectuate a fiscal merger of such project areas; and WHEREAS, in connection wiih the foregoing amendments, the Agency has caused to bo prepared, and by adoption of Resolution No. 13-2004, adopted December 8, 2004, has approved a Preliminary R~on pursuant to Health and Safety Code S~tion 33344.5 and has authorized transmittal of the Preliminary Report to affected taxing entities, the Pl~nlng Commissi°n and the community; and ' P. 173 WHEREAS, the Agency has congulted with representatiVes Oft.he affected taxing entities and with.project.,area residents, ~ .owne~ businesaea and community organizatiohs, and the Agency has Scheduled a series..of conin!tm~ty meetings to continue such consultation; and :~WHEREAS, in connection wi~ the fo.~. oing amendments, tho Agency hm caused to be prepared a Re~rt.toCouncil pursuant to Health & ~S~ety Code..Section33352; ~ to a~uire prop~ on which pcrsonSrcmd~ anddo not pro~ofor public Pm~,~ J~ that will displa~ ' as a finan&-~g mechanism for unspecified future projects, and'which will itself have no significant effect on. ~¢ .~vim~ment, is ,exompt from CEQA pursuant toCEQA Guidelines .Section 15061 wh~_~s, ~he proposed ~m~ do not al~ ~he proj em and ~-~ivi~i~ ~ to ~ imp.! .~m.~in ~e project, ~ ar~% ~d do'not e, xte~l.~ financial.and time limitati°ns ~t forth ~n the the..~g prbj~zt ~ and in. the'propgs~l Add~l Area W ...~. amlyzed in' the East of 101 Area. Plan ~l~v~"onm~tal I~p~ R~"~o~ whi~h w~ 8do, ted and ~i~i~ in 1994 and in the ~ Plan '~S, .the City, s. ~C~aief Planuer has reviewed the lXoposed amendments and has determined that in connection with the adoption~Ofthe plan amendments, the Agency and the City Council may properly rely upon thc prior. EIRS because no .new impacts are associated with the am~~ no'p~0jects have been specified that were not iu'the analyzed ~or BilLs, there are no substantial Changes to the circumstances under which the 'previously analyzed project will be undertaken, and there is no new information that was unavailable at.the time the. prior EIRs were wH~-~s, s~io~ ~4S ~,t ~49 of~¢ ~ ~d Saf~ Cod~ ~ bOth the City Council and th0~ Ag~-t° condu~ publi~ hearer.on the pro.po .~1~ am~Immt~; aud. ~, Section 3~Ss' of the Health'and safety Code authorizes the Ag=cY and the. 'City Council to hold a joint public hearir~'~n the'consent of both. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the City Council.of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council: ' Section'il Rece/ve~ the ReP°r~ to Council on the proposed.phm amendments and fiscal mer~er and conseuts to a joint public hear/nE with the A~mcy to consider the proposed plan ~nendm~ts ami fiscal meq~er on April 2?, 2005, at 7:00 p~n. at 400 South C-rind Avenue, South ~an Francisco, California. P. 174 Section 2. Authorizes the Agency to comply with all noticing requirements for the joint public hearing set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law on behalf of the City Council, and directs the Agency to continue consultation with community organizations, bUSinesses, property owners and residents of the project areas, to hold at least one community meeting prior to the joint public hearing on the proposed amendments, and to make the proposed ordinances adopting the amendments available for public inspection prior to submitting them to the City Council. Section 3. Finds that the formation of a Project Area Committee is not required because the proposed amendments do not authorize the use of' eminent domain for property on which persons reside and do not p.ropose public projects that will cause displacement of a substantial number of low- and moderate-income households. Section 4. Finds that ~lequate en';'ironmental review has been completed for the proposed amendments and fiscal merger because (i) the fiscal merger is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sect/on 150610))(3), and (ii) the potential environmental effects of the proposed amendments have been analyzed in previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, and no new projects are proposaxi, no new impacts have been identified, there arc no substantial changes in the circumstances und~ which the prior EIRs were'certified, and there is no new information that was unavailable at the time the.prior EIRs were certified. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the Gity of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 9a' day of March 2005 by the following yore: Councilmembers Richard A. Garbarino. Pedro Gonmlez, and Karyl M~tsumoto, Mayor Pro Tern loseph A. Femekes and Mayor Raymond L. Green NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. S:gDummt Reso'~3-9-05 f~ml.m~get, comcil.r~.DOC ' / -City Cl~rk ' P. 175 County Manager's 0 ffice' COUNTY OF SAN COUNTY GOVERNMENTCENTER · REDWOOD CITY · CALIFORNIA 94063-1662 WEB PAGE ADDRESS:http~/www, co,sanrnateo.ca,us FAX: ~ARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH JERRY HILL RICHARD S. GORDON ROSE JACOBS GIBSON ADRIENNE TISSIER JOHN L. MALTBIE COUNTY MANAGER CLERK OF THE BOARD (650) 363-4123 (650) 363-1916 April 27, 2005 Ms. Norma Fragoso Director, City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Proposed Fiscal Merger and Expa~on of South San Francisco Red~,elopment Agency Project Areas Dear Ms. Fragoso: On behalf of the County Of San Mateo, I write to oppose the .South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency proposal to expand and fiscally merge the Shearwater, E1 Camino Corridor, Downtown/Central and GatewaY Project areas. The proposed fiscal merger would among other things, extend the terms of the Gateway and Downtown/Central Project areas as well as add neW territory to Downtown/Central, which taken together will result in an estimated loss of $45 million from the County General Fund over the term of the proposal. As you know, the California Legislature approved legislation to reform redevelopment agency practices, enacting Health and Safety Code § 33485 to require project areas terminate when the redevelopment of such areas has been completed to the benefit of affected taxing jurisdictionS. BaSed on your Agency documents, all work has been completed in the Gateway Project area and consistent with stge law, should terminate in FY 2009 when it reaches its $80,000,000 cap, likewise'DOwntown/Central in 2021 when it reaches its cap of $248,000,000. We challenge the findings, conclusions and implications that with regard to the proposed addition to the Downtown/Central project area, that the economically viable use or capacity'of the property is being hindered by factors or conditions that reflect or support the establishment of a Redevelopment Area. We do not believe, and challenge the Agency to provide, that the Added Area needs redevelopment to reach its full potential. Finally, we are not convinced that the affordable housing requirements that the Agency is required to meet have been met in the past or are adequately addresses in this current proposed amendments and merger. P. 1 7 7 Exhibit B The above concerns and considerations lead us to believe that the proposed amendments and fiscal merger may be financially and legally defieiem. In lieu of litigation, the County of San Marco is willing to discuss an agreemem prepared by Agency CoUnSel that would address the County's concerns and mitigate the unanticipated revenue loss resulting from the Agency proposal. Sincerely, County Manager C: Honorable Board. of Supervisors Tom Casey, Sma Mateo County Counsel Paul Scannelh Assistant County Manager Lee Thompson, Deputy County Counsel Mary Me~llan, Deputy County Manager · · P. 178 County Manager's Office APR 2 ?.2005 & CD DEPT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER · REDWOOD CITY · CALIFORNIA 94063-1662 WEB PAGE ADDRESS:http://www. co.sanmateo.ca, us FAX: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH JERRY HILL RICHARD S. GORDON ROSE JACOBS GIBSON ADRIENNE TISSIER JOHN L. MALTBIE COUNTY MANAGER CLERK OF THE BOARD (650) 363-4123 (650) 363-1916 April 27, 2O05 Ms. Norma Fragoso Director, City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency' 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Proposed Fiscal Merger and Expansion of the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Dear Ms. Fragoso: On behalf of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District), I write to oppose the proposal to merge and expand the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (Agency) project. areas as the diminution in anticipated revenues will harm the maintenance and improvements planned for the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone) of the District. As a result of the existing Agency terms, the District estimates that the Zone is experiencing an 18 percent loss in revenue. If the Agency proceeds as currently proposed, it is estimated by the District that the Zone will experience additional revenue loss. Such a loss unfakly burdens the Property owners in the other cities in the Zone who disproportionately pay for maintenance and improvements, which al~o accrue to the benefit of South San Francisco residents. Additionally, the District recently issued Ceffificates of Participation (COP) obligating current and future property.taxes of the Zone to finance improvements. It is counterproductive to deprive the Zone of revenue growth when your Agency's documents from 1989. and today, indicate that the Colma Creek flood control improvements are among the projects to be completed with redevelopment funds. In lieu of litigation, the District again' requests that Agency Counsel prepare an agreement to exempt the Zone from any loss resulting from redevelopment as fair and equitable to all residents of the Zone. Manage P. 179 Honorable Board of Supervisors Tom Casey, San Mateo County Counsel Paul Scannell, Assistant County Manager Lee Thompson, Deputy County Counsel Neff Cullen, Director, San Mateo County Public Works .Ann StilllIl8II, Ssll 1Vl~t¢o Collllty Public Works Donna Vaillancourt, San Mateo. County Public Works John Mmi~ Daly City Manager Diane McGrath, Colma City Manager Mary Mc~Fdlan, Deputy County Manager P. 180 SAN MATEO COUNTY. COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Cat, ada College, Redwood City College of San Mateo, San Matec Skyline College, San Bruno Of'rice of the Chancellor RECEIVED APR 1 4 2005 Apfil12,2005 Ms. Norma Fragosa City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco CA 94080 E & CD DEPT Dear Norma, We have received and reviewed various information provided by Seifel Consulting on the planned amendments and merger of various redevelopment project areas by the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (Agency). We have one area of concern in regards to the Shearwater Project Area (Project Area), which we raised at the consultation meeting in February. We had not heard back from you on this issue, so we are placing this concern in writing. In March 2004, the Agency amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area to. delete the last date to incur debt. Pursuant to the information provided by Seifel Consulting, this will trigger statutory payments beginning in 2006-07. However, the San Mateo Community College District is listed as not receiving such payments because we have an agreement already in place. Section 33607.7 (b) of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) governs who receives statutory payments and in part states: "Ifa redevelopment agency adopts an amendment that is governed by the provisions of this section, it shall pay to each affected taxing entity either of the following: (1) If an agreement requires payments to the taxing entity, the amount to paid by an agreement between the agency and an affected taxing entity entered into prior to January 1, 1994. (2) If an agreement does not exist, the amounts required by subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 33607.5..." While the District did enter into an agreement with the Agency when the Redevelopment Plan was approved for the Project Area, that agreement does not require that payments be Exhibit C P. 181-- 3401 GM DRIVE, SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402-3699 · V:(650) 574-6550 1=:(650) 574-6566 made, and none have been made since the.adoption of the Plan. In fact, the agreement states that "the Agency and the District agree that 'so long as the present California school finance system remains in effect, the Agency shall have no obligation to consider any payments to the District under this Agreement". Pursuant to the agreement, the District has also never requested any payments be made. The DistriCt therefore believes that it is entitled to statutory payments Pursuant to Section 33707.7 of the CRL as long as no payments are being made under the agreement. We would appreciate it if you would provide us with a response to this letter prior to the joint public hearing on the amendments to the Redevelopment Plan. If we don't hear. from you prior to the hearing, then this letter shall serve as an objection to the adoption of the amendments, since we believe that the financial projections included in the 15reliminary Report as they deal with pass through payments are in error. Please Iet. me know if you have any questions, or when we can discuss this issue further. Sincerely,' Barbara Christensen Director of Community/Government Relations C: Elizabeth Seifel, Seifel Consulting Donald J. Fraser, Fraser & Associates Ron Galatolo, Chancellor P. 182 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY (650) 877-8515 FAX (650) 829-6642 April 22, 2005 Barbara Christensen, Director of Community/Government Relations San Mateo County Community College District 1700 West I-Iillsdale Blvd. San Mateo, CA 94402 Re: Amendment of the Redevelopment Plan for the Shearwater Project Area Dear'Ms. Christensen: I am in receipt of your letter to Ms. Norma FragOso, dated April 12, 2005, in which you state a concern, on behalf of the San Mateo County Community College District (the "District"), in connection with the-2004 adoption by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (the "Agency") of an amendment (the "2004 Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan for the Shearwater Project Area (the "Plan"). Specifically, the District is concerned that the 2004 Amendment, which removed the date for debt incurrence for the Plan, will not "trigger" the payment provisions of Section 33607.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. In order to resolve the District's concern with respect to the SB 211 Amendment in 2004 and its objections to the 2005 Amendments (discussed below), the Agency Executive Director and I will recommend to the Agency Board that the Agency pay to the District an amount equal to the amount the District would receive from the Plan ff the payment provisions of Section 33607.5 were applicable as a result of the 2004 Amendment. The District has also formally objected to new amendments to the Plan proposed by the Agency (the "2005 Amendments"). The 2005 Amendments, however, do not trigger the payment provisions of Section 33607.5. P. 183 Sincerely, Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Cc: Barry M. Nagel, City Manager Many Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Norma Fragoso, Manager Housing & Redevelopment Sue Bloch, Esq. P. 184 SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Office ct the Chancellor F, APR 2 7 2005 & CD DEPT 6:r¢tSad;J (blto.oe, Redwood City Sk'yline College, San Bruno April 27, 2005 Steven T. Mattes, City Attorney City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco. CA 94083 Re: Amendment of Redevelopment Plan tbr the Shearwater Project Area Dear Mr. Mattes, I received your response to my letter and appreciate your commitment to recommend to the Agency Board that that the Agency pay the College District an mount equal to the' amount the District would receive from the Plan if the payment provisions of Section 3.3607,5 were applicable as a result of the 2004 Amendment. However, we do not believe that the payments to the District are discretionary; we believe that the Agency is required to make payments to the College District under Sections 33607.5, 33607.7 and 33676 of the Health and Safety Code. We would request that this letter and my letter of April 12, 29005 to Norma Fragosa be entered into the record of the consultation process on these Amendments. Sincerely, Barbara Christensen Director of Community and Government Relations c: ]~o~ma ~z'agosa " ..- · .P. 185 SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005 7:01 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 11th day of May, 2005, at 7:01 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Agenda Continuation of joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting regarding proposed mnendments to tim redevelopment plans tbr the Downtown/Central, E1 Cmnino Corridor, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Areas to: fiscally merge the tbur project areas, add territory to file Downtown/Central Project Area; extend file fi~ne limit tbr file exercise of eminent dom~n wifllin the Downtown/Central Project Area m~d fl~e original El Camino Corridor Project Area (approve resolutions, and waive reading and introduce ordinances) Item co~o'~ued /]"om Ap~127, 2) ' ' 00~ (pubhc hean~g' closed) o Adjournment · Syls/ia M. Payne, City C,[erk ~ SP. ,4 GEND,4 ITEM #4 Continuation of joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting regarding proposed amendments to the redevelopment plans for the Downtown/Central, E1 Camino Corridor, Gateway and U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Project Areas to: fiscally merge the four project areas, add territory to the Downtown/Central Project Area; extend the time limit for the exercise of eminent domain within the Downtown/Central Project Area and the original E1 Camino Corridor Project Area (approve resolutions, and waive reading and introduce ordinances) WRITTEN FINDINGS WILL BE FAXED TO COUNCILMEMBERS ON MONDAY, MAY 9, 2005 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Mayor Pro Tem PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager RAYMOND L. GREEN Mayor RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Councilman KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Report on Sustainable San Mateo County - Shelley Killday AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of April 27, 2005 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of May 11,2005 3. Motion to adopt an ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 3.12, adding the classification public works inspector 4. Resolution authorizing the adoption of the Vantagecare Retirement Health Savings (RHS) program for use by employees after retirement to pay healthcare expenses 5. Resolution accepting funds from multiple sources to support Project Read Services in the amount of $38,500 6. Resolution authorizing a lease agreement to obtain EMS laptop computers and equipment for the Fire Department in an amount not to exceed $136,000 7. Resolution authorizing a one-year extension of contract agreement with Turbo Data Systems Inc. for parking citation processing and administrative adjudication of appeals 8. Resolution rescinding the award of construction contract to CommAir Mechanical Services of Menlo Park for the General Building Air Conditioning Retrofit Project and awarding construction contract for same to O'Keefe Mechanical Co., Inc. in the amount of $64,790 9. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of funds from the State under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) program in the amount of $100,000 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2005 AGENDA PAGE 2 10. Resolution adopting the mitigated negative declaration for the Lindenville Storm Drainage Pump Station and Storm Drainage Pipe Upgrade for the Wet Weather Program, Phase V 11. Acknowledgement of proclamations issued: Police Service Volunteers and Police Reserve Officer Appreciation, April 29, 2005; National Public Works Week, May 15- 21, 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Resolution accepting an increase in refuse collection rates effective July 1, 2005 as submitted by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 13. Receive Traffic Engineering Survey to justify use of radar for traffic enforcement, and introduce and waive reading of an ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 11.68, Prima Facie Speed Limits on City Streets 14. Waive reading and adopt an emergency ordinance imposing a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensing centers COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2005 AGENDA PAGE 3 Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 11, 2005 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney An ordinance amending Section 3.12.010 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to add the designated position title of "Public Works Inspector." RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance amending Section 3.12.010 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to add designated position title of "Public Works Inspector." BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is now ready for adoption. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.12.010 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE (Introduced 4-27-04 - Vote 5-0) By: ~,~~ Steven ~ttas, Cit~omey BarrfM, Nagel, C~y Manager Enclosure: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.12.010 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. 1. SECTION 3.12.010 IS HEREBY AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SUBDIVISION (a)(4) 1. Delete the position title "Construction Manager." 2. Add the position title of "Public Works Inspector." 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 ., 2005. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of ,2005 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 ,2005. S :\Current Ord's\4-13-05positon.doc Mayor City of South San Francisco Exhibit A Below is the salary range for the classifications listed in the staff report to which this is attached. AFSCME Salary Schedule Title Public Works Inspector ......................................................... Monthly 'Salary Range $5,238 to $6,368 SP-03/29/05 S:kI-IR StaffiElainekStaffReportskPublic Works Inspeetor~xh/bit A-PW Insp.doc Exhibit B Attachment Class Description for: 1. Public Works Inspector CB-03/29/05 9:36 AM S:kI-IR StaflkElaine\Staff ReportsXPublic Works Inspector~ExTm'bit B-PW Imp.doc City of South San Francisco Human Resources Department Public Works Inspector Class Description Def'mition Under general supervision, inspects and participates in all phases of construction projects to insure conformance with approved plans, specifications and departmental regulations; maintain records and prepare reports pertaining to projects inspected; and performs other related duties as assigned. Distinguishing Characteristics This single-position class performs full range of duties assigned including the performance of the entire range of field inspection work requiring knowledge of construction inspection principles and practices. Typical and Important Duties 1. Reviews and interprets plans and specifications of assigned project; attends bid openings and preconstruction conferences. 2. Inspects various public works constructions such as utilities, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, streets, sidewalks, gutters and other off-site construction; check line, grade, size, elevation and location of structures for conformance with specifications and regulations. 3. Observes work in all stages of progress to assure conformance with standards; ensures that safety procedures are followed; consults with contractor's supervisory personnel as to methods of construction to determine their adequacy in relation to standards. 4. As appropriate, approves contract change orders and ensures completion of changes. 5. Inspects and tests, or coordinates and reviews the tests of construction materials such as concrete, aggregates, soils, pipe and building materials, reviews workmanship and sequence of operations. Prepares and reviews inspection reports; prepares progress payments and responds to and/or processes claims. Performs basic survey functions to confn-m alignments and grades. Indicates location of various appurtenances on plans. Inspects adjacent properties for damage from construction activity. !0. Prepares periodic reports regarding the status of all projects. 11. Responds to complaints, problems and questions from concerned parties and, as necessary, takes action to remedy them. 12. Maintains effective communications with other departments and City staff, contractors, other agencies and the community. 13. Perform related duties as assigned. 7. 8. 9. City of South San Francisco Public Works Inspector Class Description Page regulations. · Applicable federal and state laws, codes, and regulations. · Applicable mathematics including algebra, geometry and construction inspection work. · Basic computer systems and applications related to the work. Ability to: Job-related Qualifications Knowledge of: · Principles and practices of construction management and public works inspection. · Materials, methods, and practices used in public works construction, including streets, gutters, sidewalks, drainage systems, underground lines, streetlights, and related facilities. · Principles and practices of engineering as applied to construction inspection. · Safety principles, practices, regulations, and procedures related to the work, including OSHA trigonometry as applied to · Inspect construction projects to ensure compliance with plans and specifications. · Reviews public works construction plans and specifications. · Accurately interpret, apply and explain applicable laws, codes, regulations, and ordinances. · Detect and locate faulty materials and workmanship and determine the state of construction during which defects are most easily found and remedied. · Understand and interpret engineering plans and specifications and prepare accurate engineering records · Prepare designs, specifications and cost estimates in specified areas. · Make engineering calculations of quantities and grades; operate survey instruments. · Prepare concise and accurate reports, correspondence, change orders, specifications, and other written materials. · Communicate effectively in writing, orally, and with others to assimilate, understand, and convey information, in a manner consistent with job functions. · Establish and maintain effective relationships with those contacted in the course of work. · Develop good public relations. · Represent the City, the department, or the organizational unit effectively in meetings and in contacts with representatives of other agencies, City departments, private organizations, individuals, and the public. · Take a proactive approach to customer service issues. · Make process improvement changes to streamline procedures. · Acquire a thorough knowledge of applicable department policies and procedures and a working knowledge of related City policies, regulations, and procedures. · Work in a safe manner, following City safety practices and procedures and modeling correct safety- practices; enforce adherence to safety policies and procedures; identify, correct, and report safety hazards. · Maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information. Skill in · Using a personal computer and related software. City of South San Francisco Public Works Inspector Class Description Page 3 Experience and Training Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be: Experience: Three years of public works construction experience with one year as a construction foreman or public works inspecting and surveying experience. College-level coursework in an engineering or construction technology may also be substituted for the initial two years of experience on a year-for-year basis to a maximum of two years. Training: Equivalent to graduation from high school supplemented by applicable technical engineering and inspection coursework. Registration as a California construction inspector is highly desirable. Licenses and Certificates All licenses and certificates must be maintained as a condition of employment. · Possession of, or ability to obtain, an appropriate valid California driver's license, and a satisfactory driving record. Special Requirements Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment: Physical Sla'lls: Able to use standard office equipment, including a computer; sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, stoop, squat, crawl, twist; climb ladders, stairs, and scaffolding; walk on rooftops; lift and carry 35 pounds; use standard office equipment, including a computer; vision to read a computer screen and printed materials, including maps and plans and to discern different colored materials; hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone. Work Environment: Mobility to work in standard office environment or field setting; exposure to cold, heat, noise, outdoors, vibration, confined workspace, chemicals, explosive materials, vibration, mechanical hazards, electrical hazards, traffic, and work in attics and crawlspaces; walk on pitched and flat roofs. Ability to: Travel to different sites and locations; locations; drive safely to different sites and locations; maintain a safe driving record; maintain a neat and clean appearance; work extended hours or off-shift work for meeting attendance or participation in specific projects or programs, and take call during non-business hours. Approved: January 1970 Revised Date: April 2005 Former Titles: Abolished: Bargaining Unit: AFSCME ADA Review: 3/2005 DOT: No Physical: Class 2 Status: Classified/Non-Exempt EEOC Category: EF9~EJ3 Job Code: City of South San Francisco Public Works Inspector Class Description Pa~e 4 ADA Documentation of Essential Duties I. SDE 2. SDE 3, SDE 4, ,SMA 5. SDE 6. SDE 7. OAE 8. SDE 9. SDE 10. SDE 11. SMA 12. SDE { Staff Re ort J[ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 11, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council Elaine Yamani, Director of Human Resources RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF ICMA-RC'S VANTAGECARE RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS PROGRAM FOR USE BY EMPLOYEES AFTER RETIREMENT TO PAY HEALTHCARE EXPENSES RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to approve an agreement with ICMA-Retirement Corporation to provide the City's employees with a retirement health savings (RHS) plan and discontinue the City's California Government Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) plan. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Saving for retiree healthcare expenses is a growing concern and some, although limited, developments have occurred in the benefits industry to address this need. In 2003, the City began offering a post-retirement health savings plan, currently the California Government Voluntary Employee Benefit Savings Plan (VEBA). Since the City strives to continually improve its programs and offerings, it intends to replace the existing VEBA plan with the VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan (RHS), an ICMA-RC product. The City was interested in the RHS plan when it first implemented the current VEBA but it was unavailable since it was offered only to existing ICMA-RC clients. The program has become more flexible and is now open to non ICMA-RC clients. As a result, RHS has become increasingly popular and has more than 100 plans in California and 350 plans nationwide. This is in comparison to the two plans that comprise our California Government VEBA. While the RHS offers many new features, the basic plan remains the same. The RHS plan allows employees to accumulate earnings on a pre-tax basis during their working years to pay for post-retirement benefits (e.g., medical, dental and vision care). Health care payments made from the Trust are tax-exempt to the retiree. Staff Report Subject: Resolution to Convert from VEBA to RHS Plan Page 2 The RHS plan offers certain important advantages over the current VEBA. The monies contributed to the VEBA plan are deposited into investment contracts that are very conservative and designed to preserve principal. The plan is not designed for longer term investing. The new RHS plan offers an investment fund selection similar to a 457 deferred compensation plan and the participant has the choice to opt out of the default Money Market Fund. The investment mix is the same for all participating agencies and is reviewed quarterly by ICMA-RC's investment division. Investment training will be offered to those who wish to self-direct their funds. The proposed changes were discussed with representatives and business agents from each of the City's bargaining units. Representatives unanimously approved adding new features to the plan such as the ability to self-direct investments, separately elect various leave payouts, enroll in the plan closer to retirement, and allow employees to make a one-time irrevocable election of the amount of their compensation to be contributed on an going basis to the RHS plan as an employer contribution. The participants, both active employees and retirees, in the VEBA plan will be moved to the RHS plan as soon as administratively feasible. Amendments to the current plan document such as converting the current VEBA plan from a dual employer plan to a single employer plan may be needed to allow the transition. FUNDING Participation in the plan is voluntary and consists of employee contributions. There is no fiscal impact. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary agreements and documents with California Government Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Plan and ICMA Retirement Corporation to establish a Retirement Health Savings (RHS) Plan. By: Director of Human Resources Attachment: Resolution Approved'~~~. ~'~ City ManagerN,,,.,..~. 4/29/2005 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE VANTAGECARE RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS (RHS) PROGRAM FOR USE BY EMPLOYEES AFTER RETIREMENT TO PAY HEALTHCAI~ EXPENSES WHEREAS, the City has employees rendering valuable services; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a retiree health savings plan for such employees serves the interests of the City by enabling it to provide reasonable security regarding such employees' health needs during retirement, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the establishment of the retiree health savings plan (the "Plan") serves the above objectives; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City hereby adopts the Plan in the form of the ICMA Retirement Corporation's VantageCare Retirement Health Savings program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assets of the Plan shall be held in trust, with the City serving as trustee, for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and their beneficiaries, and the assets of the Plan shall not be diverted to any other purpose prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities of the Plan. The City hereby establishes the Declaration of Trust of the City of South San Francisco Integral Part Trust in the form of the model trust made available by the ICMA Retirement Corporation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Human Resources shall be the coordinator and contact for the Plan and shall receive necessary reports, notices, etc. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements with the ICMA Retirement Corporation incidental to the administration of the Plan. The City also hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements with the California Government Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) in relation to the transfer of participants from the VEBA plan into the RHS Plan and in relation to the termination of the VEBA plan. I, Sylvia M. Payne, Clerk of the City of South San Francisco, do 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 May, 2005 by the following vote: AYES' NOES: ABTAIN: ABSENT: &\Current Reso'sXRHS.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #5 DATE: May 11, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Valerie Sommer, Library Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,500 TO SUPPORT PROJECT READ SERVICES AND AMEND THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2004-2005 OPERATING BUDGET RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,000 from the California State Library to support statewide literacy training, $5,500 from the Town of Colma to provide literacy programming for Colma residents, and $25,000 from donation funds to support Learning Wheels literacy van activities and amending the Library Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2004-2005. BACKGROUND Project Read has been awarded $8,000 from the California State Library to support a statewide initiative to provide online staff development opportunities for literacy tutors. Staff will research and identify appropriate training materials to be posted on the California Library and Literacy Services website. Project Read will receive an additional $5,500 from the Town of Colma to support ongoing services to Colma residents, provided free of cost, including: ESL classes, story times, Science Clubs and one-on- one tutoring services. The exact amount of grant funding, up to and including the $5,500 cap, is contingent on service delivery and public participation in the programs. Project Read will designate $25,000 of donation funds from recent fundraising drives to support Learning Wheels literacy van services. Learning Wheels has offered mobile Families for Literacy services to residents of North San Mateo County for the last five years. Learning Wheels provides interactive, educational games, free story times, free books, and a state of the art computer station to children as well as information and referrals for parents needing social service assistance. FUNDING The funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. Funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2004-2005 will be carried over into fiscal year 2005-2006. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycles. By:, Valerie Sommer Library Director Approved.-~.,~. ~ (.~~'- City Managet'....~ Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,500 TO SUPPORT PROJECT READ SERVICES AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2004- 2005 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of $8,000 from the California State Library to support statewide literacy training, $5,500 from the Town of Colma to provide literacy programming for Colma residents, and $25,000 from donation funds to support Learning Wheels literacy van activities; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $8,000 from the California State Library to support statewide literacy training, $5,500 from the Town of Colma to provide literacy programming for Colma residents, and $25,000 from donation funds to support Learning Wheels literacy van activities and amends the 2004-2005 Operating Budget by adding $38,500 to the Library Department's budget. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\4-27-05 libray.res.doc Staff Report ,4 GEND,4 ITEM #6 DATE: May 11, 2005 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Philip D. White, Fire Chief SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE A LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR EMS LAPTOP COMPUTERS, PERIPHERAL DEVICES AND MOUNTING EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution approving the attached budget amendment resolution that: 1) Appropriates an amount not to exceed $136,000 to the Equipment Replacement Fund, to be offset by lease revenue which will be realized through a lease agreement. 2) Authorize lease purchase payments not to exceed $2,600 per month from the Equipment Replacement Fund for up to 5 years. 3) Approve fund transfers from the City Special Revenue Funds to the Equipment Replacement Fund to cover lease payments funded by ambulance transport equipment set aside funds. 4) Authorizes the City Manager to execute a lease agreement for EMS laptop computers, peripheral devices, and mounting equipment. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This is necessary so that the Fire Department can obtain the necessary EMS laptop computers, computer peripheral devices and mounting hardware for it to perform electronic patient care reporting. The lease agreement will be for a five year period. At the end of that period, the Department will own the equipment. This lease purchase agreement is the final step of a plan that was formulated to help automate as much as possible the collection and dissemination of patient billing and treatment information using an electronic records management system that has already been purchased. The Fire Department' s patient billing and care reports are now created using pen and paper that makes them prone to error, cumbersome to manage or difficult to perform any type of data analysis in a timely manner. Staff Report Subject: Lease Agreement for EMS Laptop Computers, Peripheral Devices and Mounting Equipment Page: 2 The EMS laptop computers and supporting equipment will allow Fire Department personnel to focus more of their efforts on caring for the patient versus information collection. This is accomplished by the use of a hardened laptop specifically designed for the rigors of the field environment that offers the benefits of both handwriting recognition or the use of a full sized ergonomically keyboard with backlit keys for use in low light conditions. Use of this type of data entry equipment has been shown to reduce the amount of time necessary that the Paramedic/Firefighter or EMT must take to complete all the required patient care and billing forms from 30 to 15 minutes. Use of these computers and equipment are expected to significantly reduce transcription errors and the time it takes to complete required patient care and billing reports. Since all of this information will be stored in a searchable data base, it can also be used to improve our ability to perform mandated quality assurance activities or the monitoring of key performance indicators that assist the Fire Department in the evaluation of its delivery of EMS to the community. Use of these computers and equipment will also help the Fire Department to comply with the requirements to electronically submit fire suppression and EMS information to State and Federal agencies. Furthermore, it will allow the electronic submission of ambulance transport bills to Medicare, Medi-Cal, and other insurance carders while being comphant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, commonly known as HIPAA. FUNDING Funding for this lease agreement over its five year term will not exceed $136,000.00 and is offset by revenue from ambulance transport revenue. Our current agreement with our paramedic bill collection agency stipulates that 2% of paramedic revenues collected will be refunded to the City for deposit into an equipment fund to be used for paramedic equipment. The current balance in that fund is $17,000, and staff expects to earn about $30,000 per year in ongoing deposits by our collection agency, which will support the five year lease payments. By: Philip D. White Fire Chief Approved Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR EMS LAPTOP COMPUTERS, PERIPHERAL DEVICES AND MOUNTING EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $136,000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the following: 1) Appropriates an amount not to exceed $136,000 to the Equipment Replacement Fund, to be offset by lease revenue which will be realized through a lease agreement. 2) Approve fund transfers fi.om the City Special Revenue Funds in an amount not to exceed $156,000 to the Equipment Replacement Fund to cover lease payments funded by ambulance transport equipment set aside funds. 3) Authorize lease purchase payments to Saulsbury Hill Financial, Inc in an amount not to exceed $2,600 per month fi.om the Equipment Replacement Fund for up to 5 years. 4) Authorizes the City Manager to execute a lease agreement with DS Freeman Company, LLC for EMS laptop computers, peripheral devices, and mounting equipment. * * * * * * 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 ,2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\Current Reso's\5-11-05EMS.lease.agr.res.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 11, 2005 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Jim Steele, Finance Director ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. FOR PARKING CITATION PROCESSING RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to extend the contract agreement for one year with Turbo Data Systems Inc. for parking citation processing and administrative adjudication of appeals. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City of Daly City administers a parking citation processing service with Turbo Data System Inc. Each participating city in San Mateo enters into a contract for their portion of these services. The original contract agreement with Turbo Data Systems was entered into on June 30, 1999 for a three- year term. This agreement was amended on June 30, 2002 for an additional three-year extension which expires on June 30, 2005. The proposed amendment will extend the agreement for an additional year to expire on June 30, 2006 with all terms and conditions to remain the same. Both the Finance Director and Police Chief are satisfied with the parking citation processing and administrative adjudication of appeals that Turbo Data Systems has provided for the city. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed amendment to the agreement for an additional year of service. Funds exist in the budget for this service. By:j~ Finance Director Approved: ga~y ''''~'M. i~agel '~ ~' City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Second Amendment to the Agreement JSfBN/ed SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - PARKING CITATION PROCESSING AND ADJUDICATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF AND TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into this day of ., 2005 by and between the CITY OF , a municipal corporation ("CITY") and TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation ("CONTRACTOR"). RECITALS WHEREAS, on June 30, 1999, CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into an agreement entitled "Agreement. for Professional Services - Parking Citation Processing and Adjudication" ("AGREEMENT"); and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2002, CITY and CONTRACTOR agreed to extend the AGREEMENT term for an additional three (3) years; and WHEREAS, the CITY and CONTRACTOR desire to: 1) extend the AGREEMENT term for an additional one (1) year period, and 2) add the optional ICS collection agency component to the service. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2 of the AGREEMENT, entitled "TERM" shall be amended to read as follows: 2. Term. This AGREEMENT shall be extended from June 30, 2005 to June 30, 2006. SECTION 2. Attachment A: Cost Proposal Sheet, defines the existing fee schedule being used for all of the San Mateo County Cities, with the addition of the optional ICS collection agency component, which will provide up to 2 collection letters from ICS and then place outstanding amounts on Trans Union. SECTION 3. All of the terms and conditions of the original AGREEMENT and the FIRST AMENDMENT, except those specifically modified and amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect. WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF the day and year first hereinabove written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: "City" CITY OF a municipal corporation ATTY NAME HERE Deputy City Attorney By CLERK NAME HERE City Clerk "Contractor" Turbo Data Systems, Inc., a California corporation By Name: Roberta J. Rosen Title: President Attachment A: Cost Proposal Sheet With Performance Bond Without Performance Bond Office in Office San Mateo County within 9 Bay area counties 1. Per Citation Monthly Volume: Monthly Volume: No Bid (Option Included in Processing Fee- 00000-00999 $1.60 00000-00999 $1.60 costly versus use of pricing Handwritten 01000-05999 $1.56 01000-05999 $1.56 TDS existing office 06000-14999 $1.53 06000-14999 $1.53 in San Jose with no 15000-29999 $1.50 15000-29999 $1.50 additional charge) 30000 - $1.45 30000 - $1.45 Optional Deposits in City's bank- per citation processing fee for banks other than +$0.35 + $0.35 Bank of America, Union Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, First National Bank and Comerica Bank 2. Per Citation Discounted Fee per elec. cite: Discounted Fee per elec. cite: Processing Fee- 90-100% Elec. -$0.08 90-100% Elco. -$0.08 Electronic (within 48 60-89% Elec. -$0.06 60-89% Elec. -$0.06 hours) 30-59% Elec.-$0.03 30-59% Elec.-$0.03 less than 30% -$0.00 less than 30% -$0.00 3. Out-of-State Processing and 33% 33% Collections 4. Administration of $3.57 per citation entering the $3.57 per citation entering Adjudication Process Admin. Adj. Process the Admin. Adj. Process 5. Independent $20 per hearing scheduled $20 per hearing scheduled Administrative Hearings 6. Implementation Costs Not Applicable Not Applicable 7. Any Other Fees or Charges a. Delinquent Notices b. Credit Card a. $0.60 a. $0.60 Payments-- b. Merchant fee (now 2.81 b. Merchant fee ( now 2.81 c. Final Notices %) +3 % service fee %) +3% service fee d. DMV Hold Letters c. $0.60 c. $0.60 e. Dial-in Access d. $0.60 d. $0.60 f. Performance Bond e. $40 per month each* e. $40 per month each* f. See annual cost below 8. ICS Collection Service 33% 33% (optional) Note: Performance bond pricing is as follows for each City desiring a performance bond: $21.45 per 1,000 of coverage for the 1st $100,000 $16.50 per 1,000 of coverage for the next $900,000 For example, if City A wanted a $200,000 performance bond, the cost would be $2,145 for the first $100,000 of coverage plus $1,650 for the 2nd $100,000 of coverage, totaling $3,795.00 for the $200,000 performance bond. Each City's contract must be submitted to the bonding company during the bonding process and each City would pay for its own bond. *Terminal emulation software included. City to provide PC with Windows 95 or 98 or NT. Updated March 2005 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE - INNOVATIVE COLLECTION SERVICE This service includes mailing up to two (2)'demand letters fi.om Innovative Collection Services (ICS) requesting payment of mounts owed to the Client and interfacing with Trans Union (optional) to place unpaid amounts on debtor's credit reports. Detail and summary reporting will also be provided. The criteria used to move citations/accounts to the ICS system include: · citations that are released by the DMV as uncollectible due to either transfer of ownership or delinquency exceeding the 2 year DMV limit · accounts that fail to hold at the DMV · non-Califomia vehicles one month after a final notice All citation information (which includes, but is not limited to, the required fields of license plate, citation number, mailing address, original fine amount, delinquent amount and violation number) will be transferred fi.om the primary citation database (PCCS) to the ICS database on a weekly basis for unpaid citations over one year old (or other criteria). Collection letters fi:om ICS will be generated weekly. All postage and ma/ling materials will be provided. The first and second letters will be generated two weeks apart if no payment has been received. The first collection letter will inform the debtor that their account has been turned over to a collection agency and that payment should be made immediately through the usual payment channels (P. O. Box or credit card on a toll-fi.ee 800 number or the Intemet). Courier service will be provided to pick up all mail fi.om the ICS provided post office and deliver all bank deposits. Customer Service Representatives are available via a toll-fi:ee 800 line between the hours of 9:00 am - 4:00 pm PST, Monday- Friday (excluding legal holidays) to provide information regarding each account. Our interactive voice response system (IVRS) is available 24 hours a day,. 7 days a week and will provide real- time citation information (issue date, delinquent date, amount owed and all open citations by license plate). ICS trained staff will process all payments in-house. Payment and stop information will be updated to the ICS database as well as the Client's primary parking citation database online in real-time. This guarantees that the Client will get control of their funds in the most expedient manner. Payments will reflect when and where the payment was received. ICS will accept payments made by check through the mail or by MasterCard and Visa over the telephone and via the Intemet in a secured environment (if Client is utilizing these services). Any accounts receiving a partial payment will be updated to the system with a partial payment notification being mailed to the person named on the account. These notices will indicate the total amount paid on the account and the amount now due. All payments will be posted to the ICS/Client databases online in real-time. The second letter, sent if no payment has been received from the first demand, will inform the debtor that Trans Union will be informed of the unpaid status of their debt if payment is not received immediately. Debtors will have the opportunity to dispute the validity of the debt within thirty (30) days of receiving their letters. They must do this in writing. In the event of a dispute, ICS will obtain the necessary information and mail a copy of the verification of the debt to the debtor and continue the collection process. Accounts remaining unpaid after the second demand letter fi'om ICS will be reported to Trans Union on a monthly basis online. Those accounts actually placed with Trans Union will be managed for up to seven (7) years. During this time any updates (payments, stops, dismissals, etc.) to the ICS database will be reported to Trans Union. We have been advised by Experian (TRW) and Equifax that their policy does not allow for the placing of parking citations on credit reports. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires us to maintain the information placed with the credit agencies for a period of seven (7 years). Reporting will be provided to the Client on a monthly basis. Repons detailing the number of accounts turned over to ICS will show the citation (account) number and the dollar amount owing. Payment repons will include the payment amount received for each account that has been turned over to ICS. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Staff Re op__ t AGENDA ITEM #8 May 11, 2005 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager GENERAL BUILDING AIR-CONDITIONING RETROFIT PROJECT AT THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 71-13235-0251, PROJECT NO. SS-04-2, BID NO. 2347 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to: 1) Rescind the award by the City on the above subject project to CommAir Mechanical Services of Menlo Park in the amount of $47,605.00, and 2) Award the construction contract for the General Co-Generator Building Air-Conditioning Retrofit Project, located at the General Co-Generator Building at the Water Quality Control Plant; Engineering File No. 71-13235-0251; Project No. SS-04-2; Bid No. 2347 to O'Keefe Mechanical Co., Inc. of San Francisco, CA in the amount of $64,790.00. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The project is located at the Water Quality Control Plant General Blower Building 1, and will replace the existing air-conditioning system with an efficient new air-conditioning system including all new ducts, roof platforms and supports, programmable monitoring thermostats, and all necessary upgrades to conform to the current uniform building code requirements. On November 15th, 2004, staff advertised the notice to invite bids for the above subject. On December 1st, 2004, bids were due and only CommAir Mechanical Services submitted a bid in the amount of $47,605.00. City Council awarded the contract to CommAir Mechanical Services at their regular meeting on January 12th, 2005. Staff forwarded the contract to the contractor and was given 20 days to complete the contract document requirements. Contractor was unresponsive in submitting the contract documents and was notified by staff that the contract would be rescinded by the City. On March 16th, 2005, staffre-advertised the notice inviting bids for the project and forwarded the notice to the following Trade Journals for publication to conform to the requirements of the public contracts code for abbreviated contract bidding for public projects costing between $25,001 - $100,000. All bids were due to the City of South San Francisco by April 13th, 2005: Staff Report Subject: GENERAL BUILDING AIR-CONDITIONING RETROFIT PROJECT PROJECT NO. 22-04-2, BID NO. 2347 Page: 2 of 3 Reed Construction Data, 80 Swan Way, Suite 130, Oakland CA 94621, Tel. 510.636-2480, Fax 510.636-2492 San Francisco Builders Exchange, 850 South Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94110, Tel. 415.282.9630, Fax 415.821.0363 Peninsula Builders Exchange, 735 Industrial Road San Carlos, CA 94070, Tel. 650.591-4486, Fax 650.591-8108 Builders Exchange of Santa Clara County, 400 Reed Street Santa Clara, CA 95050, Tel 408.727-4000, Fax 408.727-2779 Contra Costa Builders Exchange, 1900 Bates Ave., Concord, CA 94520, Tel. 925.685.8630, Fax 925.685.3424 On April 13t~, 2005, staff received 3 bids for the project. Below is the summary of the bids: Bidder Bid Amount O'Keefe Mechanical Co., Inc. Brady Air-conditioning Inc. American Air Systems $64,790.00 $75,960.00 SubmittedBidbut~dnotincludethebidamountpage. Bidder was notifiedby Citystaffafterthe bidopening. O'Keefe Mechanical Co., Inc. has worked previously with the City and their work was satisfactory. The time allotted for this construction project is 60 working days. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to O'Keefe Mechanical Co., Inc in the amount of $64,790.00. The following is a cost breakdown for the project budget: Construction Construction Contingency (20%) Administration/Inspection (10%) Total $64,790.00 $12,900.00 $ 6,500.00 $84,190.00 This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2004 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program. Sewer Funds in the amount of $100,000.00 was budgeted for this project. RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE GENERAL CO- GENERATOR BUILDING AIR-CONDITIONING RETROFIT PROJECT TO COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,605 AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO O'KEEFE MECHANICAL COMPANY INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,790 WHEREAS, staff desires to rescind the award of a construction contract for the General Co-Generator Building Air-Conditioning Retrofit Project to CommAir Mechanical Services in the amount of $47,605 and to award the construction contract to O'Keefe Mechanical Co., Inc. in the amount of $64,790; and WHEREAS, this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program budget; and WHEREAS, Sewer Funds in the amount of $100,000 are budgeted for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby rescinds the award of a construction contract for the General Co-Generator Building Air-Conditioning Retrofit Project to CommAir Mechanical Services in the amount of $47,605 and awards the construction contract to O'Keefe Mechanical Company, Inc. in the amount of $64,790. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2005 by the following vote: AYES' NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's~5-11-05commair. mech.res.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 11, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark Raffaelli Chief of Police BUDGET AMENDMENT - SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting $100,000.00 from the State under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) Program and amending the Department's budget accordingly. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION During 1996, Assembly Bill No. 3229 passed, which required that $100 million of the State's 1996-97 Budget be appropriated to create a new subvention to augment local law enforcement efforts. As a result, the City initially received $132,438.20. Although it was reported to be one-time supplemental funding for front line police activities, we have continued to receive the funding yearly. Once more, the Department has been made aware the State will continue the SLESF program for the 2004-2005 fiscal year and our allotment is $100,000.00. These funds will be used to supplement our current personnel costs. To trac~exl: Fund./! Zher/!?~n~ obligations. Marl: R~ffif~li Chief of Police )enditures, Fund 39 has been established for the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services The entire amount is provided by the State. '~ 1~. Nag~f''''---~ City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALI~'ORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $100,000 FROM THE STATE UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND (SLESF) PROGRAM AND AMENDING THE 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff desires acceptance of $100,000 from the State under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the acceptance of $100,000 from the State under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) Program and amends the 2004-05 Operating Budget to add $100,000 to the Police Department's budget. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2005 by the following vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\5-11-051aw.enforcement.ser.program.res.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Staff R ep__qr_t AGENDA ITEM #10 May 11, 2005 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Marry Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) FOR LINDENVII J.E STORM DRAIN PUMP STATION AND STORM DRAIN PIPELINE: WET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE 5, ENGINEERING FILE NO 71-13235-0455, PROJECT NO. SS-05-2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by resolution, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Lindenville Storm Drain Pump Station and Storm Drain Pipeline. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On September 24, 2003, the City Council approved the Wet Weather Program Phases 1 through 5 as required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for approval of a $45 million State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan. The Wet Weather Program consists of improvements to the wastewater and storm drain collection system and pump stations. These improvements are required for the City to comply with the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The compliance deadline is November 1, 2007. The City is currently using the revolving fund loan to finance the project. The wet weather project consists of five phases: Phase 1 - Pump Station Improvements, Parallel Force Mains and Effluent Storage Pond Phase 2 - Sewer Rehabilitation & Relief Upgrade Phase 3 - Colma Creek Bank Protection at the WQCP Phase 4 - East of 101 Sewer System Improvements & Pump Stations Phase 5 - Lindenville Storm Drain Pump Station & Strom Drain Pipelines Staff Report Subject: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LINDENVII J.F~ STORM DRAIN PUMP STATION AND STORM DRAINAGE PIPELINES: WET WEATHER PHASE 5 Page: 2 of 2 The construction of the Lindenville pump station and storm drainage piping upgrade project (Wet Weather Phase V) is needed to address the flooding within the Lindenville area, and to minimize and/or eliminate the infiltration and inflow (I&I) of excess storm water entering the City's sanitary sewer system. In October 2004, Staff hired the services of Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, to prepare the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Phase V of the Wet Weather Program. The environmental document identified potential impacts including storm water mn-off, potentially hazardous materials, excavation, trenching and grading procedures, traffic & circulation during construction, water quality and water supply and construction activities. Mitigation measures were proposed to reduce the identified impacts to less than a significant level. In March 2005, staff approved and circulated for public comment a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a period of thirty (30) days from March 26 to April 25, 2005, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. No substantive comments were received during this public comments period. City staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Lindenville pump station and storm drainage piping upgrade projects. This project is included in the City of South San Francisco 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program. Marty Van Duyn Assistant City Manager Approved ]~m-r~ M. Nagel City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Location Map RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LINDENVILLE STORM DRAIN PUMP STATION AND STORM DRAIN PIPELINE WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Lindenville pump station and storm drainage piping upgrade projects; and WHEREAS, the construction of the Lindenville pump station and storm drainage piping upgrade project (Wet Weather Phase V) is needed to address the flooding within the Lindenville area, and to minimize and/or eliminate the infiltration and inflow (I&I) of excess storm water entering the City's sanitary sewer system; and WHEREAS, this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2004 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lindenville Storm Drain Pump Station and Storm Drain Pipeline. PROJECT DETAIL (at 250"/. basemap scale) CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY NOT TO SCALE Exhibit 2 PROJECT LOCATION Storm Drain Pump Station 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 I mile Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner March 2005 Negative Declaration To: San Mateo County Clerk 555 County Center Drive Redwood City CA 94060 From: City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco CA 94083 Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento CA 95812 In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, an Initial Study was conducted to determine whether the following project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the Initial Study it has been determined that: Although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the project. An Environmental Impact Report is not required. Project Description: TITLE: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: CONTACT PERSON and TITLE: Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project The project will include the followinq streets in the central portion of South San Francisco, San Mateo County: Linden Avenue, Victory Avenue, Maple Avenue and North Canal Street. The area iust east of the intersection of North Canal Street and Linden Avenue, north of Colma Creek, is also included in the project area. Installation of new and/or replacement underqround storm drain lines, catch basins, manholes and a new storm drain pump station. City of South San Francisco Engineering Division Ray Razavi, City Engineer, City of South San Francisco NOTICE: This document and all support material are available for review in the office listed above. This Negative Declaration may become final unless written comments are received at the above office not later than April 25, 2005. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, address your written comments to the City of South San Francisco, as referenced above, and state one or all of the following: 1) Identify the potential environmental effect(s), why they would occur and why they would be significant. Please explain the basis for your comments and submit supporting documentation; and 2) Suggest any mitigation measure which you believe would reduce or eliminate the environmental effect to an acceptable level. Title: Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Project Sponsor and Contact Person ................................................................................ 2 Project Location and Context ........................................................................................... 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 18 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 19 Earlier Analyses ............................................................................................................... 30 Discussion of Checklist .................................................................................................... 31 1. Aesthetics ................................................................................................. 31 2. Agricultural Resources ............................................................................. 32 3. Air Quality ............................................................................................... 32 4. Biological Resources ................................................................................ 37 5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 43 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................... 52 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................ 53 8. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 56 9. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................ 57 10. Mineral Resources .................................................................................... 58 11. Noise ........................................................................................................ 59 12. Population and Housing ........................................................................... 60 13. Public Services ......................................................................................... 61 14. Recreation ................................................................................................ 62 15. Transportation/Traffic .............................................................................. 62 16. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................... 63 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................... 66 Initial Study Preparers ...................................................................................................... 67 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ........................................................................... 67 References ........................................................................................................................ 67 Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 68 South San Francisco Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2005 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Mitigation Measure 1. The following Project Contractor South San During project measures should be included in construction Francisco Public construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions: Works Division a) Use water as needed to control dust and eliminate visible dust plumes. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. e) Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 2. As part of the South San South San Prior to permitting process for the project, the Francisco Public Francisco Public construction California Department of Fish and Game and Works Division Works Division adjacent to Colma National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Creek should be informally consulted to confia'm the absence of special-status fish in Colma Creek. This should be completed prior to construction activities. NMFS has previously determined that special-status fish are not present in Colma Creek. Mitigation Measure 3. Construction activities Project Contractor South San During Project and staging areas shall be located at least 200 Francisco Public Construction feet from these habitat areas during the Works Division nesting season (February I through July 31). If construction activities occur in close proximity to these habitats during the nesting season, then a preconstruction survey shall be conducted to ensure that there are no active nests within the construction area. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of activities and be repeated at 30-day intervals if the project did not commence within the previous 30 days. If an active nest is found during the preconstruction survey, then the following protective measures should be Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 2 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification implemented: 1) establish a clearly-delineated (i.e., orange construction fencing) exclusion zone around each nest site with a minimum radius of 200 feet from the nest or dripline of the nest tree for raptors or a radius of 100 feet for passerines; 2) monitor the nest within the exclusion zones on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify any signs of disturbance (monitoring to be conducted by a qualified biologist); and 3) if the qualified biologist identifies signs of disturbance, relocation of construction activities pursuant to the biologist's recommendation until signs of disturbance are eliminated. Protection measures should remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. Mitigation Measure 4. To the extent South San South San Prior to necessary, all required permits shah be Francisco Public Francisco Public commencement of obtained fi'om California Department of Fish Works Division Works Division construction and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other appropriate agencies. Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 3 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 5. Additional testing shall be performed within the project area as recommended in the cultural resources report, including along South Canal Street, Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Victory Avenue and at the pump station site. Testing shah be performed by a qualified archeologist using the GeoProbe technology at intervals recommended in the report. If the GeoProbe analysis identifies potentially significant resources, work shall be stopped near this area and a remediation plan prepared, approved by the City of South San Francisco Community Development Director and implemented consistent with Section CEQA Section 15064.5. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. Project Contxactor South San Francisco Public Works Division Prior to commencement of grading Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 4 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 6. Contract specification(s) for construction shall require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for all portions of the project that would involve trenching, excavation or stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and be consistent with City o£ South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines and standards. Project Contractor South San Francisco Public Works Division Prior to commencement of construction Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 5 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 7. a) Prior to the commencement of construction, two site-specific health and safety plans (HSPs)shall be prepared a Certified Industrial Hygienist. One HSP shall apply to the former BASAPCO site and storm drain excavation along Victory Avenue; the second for storm drain replacement work on South Linden Avenue and South Canal Street. Both plans shall include, at minimum, specific methods for personal protective gear by contractor staff, soil handing and disposal procedures, dust control, field monitoring and stormwater runoff handing. b) Prior to project const-ruction, the contractor shall contact the City's Environmental Coordinator to determine the acceptability of disposing of water encountered during the project in the City's Water Quality Control Plant and ff additional testing may be necessary. A batch discharge permit shall be obtained from the City, if required. South San Francisco Public Works Division South San Francisco Public Works Division Prior to commencement of construction on BAPSCO site Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 6 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification c) During project consb'uction, soil excavated from the Victory Avenue site shall be stockpiled separately from other soils. Soils from this site should undergo additional testing to ensure they are non- hazardous wastes for disposal in non- hazardous landfill sites. d) A Removal Action Work Plan shall be prepared and implemented for the former BASAPCO site in accord with Calif. Health and Safety Code Secs 25323.1 and 25356.1. Approvals from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and other applicable regulatory agencies shall be obtained prior to implementation of this Plan. If staining, chemical odors or contaminated materials are encountered during construction, the contractor shah notify the City and design engineer immediately. If necessary, other appropriate regulatory agencies shall be notified and a characterization and remediation plan prepared by a qualified consultant. Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 7 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 8. Contract plans and Project Contractor South San Prior to specifications shall include erosion control Francisco Public commencement of measures to ensure that water borne erosion Works Division construction of stored or stockpiled material is minimized. Specific methods to achieve this include but are not limited to use of silt fences, hay bales and similar items. Mitigation Measure 9. The City shall undertake Project Contractor South San Prior to an advance notification program to property Francisco Public commencement of owners and residents that could be affected by Works Division construction the proposed construction program indicating, at minimum, a description of proposed work, hours of operation, construction phasing and an individual to be notified in the event of emergencies. Mitigation Measure 10. A Traffic Project Contractor South San Prior to Construction Management Plan shall be Francisco Public commencement of prepared prior to commencement of Works Division, construction construction, identifying specific methods to Police be undertaken to ensure that peak hour traffic Department and can flow freely and that access to abutting Fire Department properties is maintained for emergency vehicles. This shall include vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. The Management Plan shah be reviewed and approved by the South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 8 City of South San Francisco Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Project Sponsor and Contact Person City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco CA 94083 Attn: Ray Razavi, City Engineer (650) 829 6652 Project Location and Context The project site is located within the central portion of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, west of the US 101 Freeway. Streets that would be involved with the project include Linden Avenue, Victory Avenue, Maple Avenue and North Canal Street. The area just east of the intersection of North Canal Street and Linden Avenue, north of Colma Creek, is also included in the project area. The project area is located within the "Lindenville planning area," which is identified in the General Plan as an industrial area located south of downtown South San Francisco. The Lindenville area is mainly occupied by smaller warehouses and light industrial uses, which were developed in the 1950's. Surrounding uses also include light industrial, warehousing, auto repair and similar land uses. No significant stands of vegetation or rock outcrops are found within the project area. The one existing natural feature is Colma Creek, a concrete-lined channel which runs in an east-west direction though South San Francisco to San Francisco Bay. Exhibit 1 shows the regional context of South San Francisco. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the project area within the community. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 2 March 2005 Project Description Background The project area is subject to significant flooding during major rainstorm events. Historically, during the early 19th century, the area was Iow-lying wetlands. Gradually, properties were filled to accommodate development as South San Francisco grew. Subsequently, the area subsided, which along with overtopping of Colma Creek, lead to flooding. Area-wide flooding has also been documented in a recent Stormwater Master Plan prepared for the City of South San Francisco. The San Mateo County Flood Control District is in the process of making improvements to Colma Creek, which will include construction of levee walls that will increase the water surface elevation within Colma Creek and will increase the capacity of the local storm drain system. Proposed project improvements The proposed project involves placement of approximately 3,700 linear feet of new 28- to 48- inch diameter underground storm drain pipes within existing street rights-of-way and a new stormwater pump station within the project area. Exhibit 3 is a key map showing the approximate location and extent of proposed facilities. Exhibits 4 though 9 are detailed drawings of various project elements. High capacity catch basins would also be installed within Victory Avenue, South Linden Avenue, South Maple Avenue, and South Canal Street that would tie into the existing underground storm system pipes. Stormwater piping would be constructed of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic material. Manholes would be constructed of pre-cast concrete. The pump station would be located on the northeast of the South Linden Avenue creek crossing. A circular wet well would be constructed to house submersible pumps with a concrete top with access hatches. The station would consist of an above-ground facility with a capacity of 37,350 gallons per minute with four constant speed submersible pumps (one 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) and three 11,700 gpm pumps). Each pump would have a dedicated pipe that discharges into Colma Creek. The pump station would have a diameter of approximately 30 feet and a depth of approximately 22 feet. An emergency generator will be installed as part of the pump station facility. The pump station would be located on property owned by the City of South San Francisco. Funding The improvements described above are proposed to be funded with a combination of City and SRF (State Revolving Loan) funds. Time frame The proposed Lindenville Storm Drainage project is anticipated to be constructed in 2005. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 3 March 2005 San SAN P~O ! Richmond .._./ San Francisco $out~ Francisco Berkeley FRANCIgCO San Mateo Redwood Half ~ Moon Bay Palo ~'~ Alto Martinez Concord Walnut Creek Hayward Fremont Sunnyvale Santa Clara Livermore Pleasanton San Jose CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY N Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION 0 2 4 6 8 10 miles PROJECT DETAIL (at 250% basemap scale) CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 2 PROJECT LOCATION Storm Drain Pump Station NOT 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 mile 7'0 I I I I I SCALE ~. - 1 -, Exh. 8 & 9 ~ PUMP STATION COL.MA CREEK COI. UA CREEK ~-. ........ -~ [ .... ~ , ~l ' -- ! II I I :1 Jl I ', ' --¥---~1,, I ' I' tl I l I__ I I I-- __J I I I I II ''-' " II "" --!i I i I I I I I I SOURCE: Carollo Engineers, Sept. 2004. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 3 KEY MAP (referencing Exhibits 4 - 9) PLAN SCALE: .'s,:i o+00 KEYNOTES: CHANNEL WALL CURRENTLY UNOER CONSTRUCTION. CONTOURS SHOWN IN CHANNEL ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FTrFINGS REQUIRE]) TO CONNECT TO EXISTING PROVIDE SD. USE RUBBER BANDED COUPUNG, FERNO0 1006 SE~IES OR EOUAL PROVIDE 11.25' BENOS REOUIRED TO DROP NEW 18' SD BELOW EXISTING; 18' SS. EXIS'rING lB' SD FROM NEW CONNECTION TO CANAL TO BE REMOVEDAS REQUIRED AND ABANOONED BE-MONO NEW MANHOLEMH-S2, CONNECTSO FROM CATCH BASINS TO 28' DR26 USING A FACTORYMANUFACTURED FITi'ING. SADDLES OR cLrrRNG INTO THE MAIN ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. FIELD LOCATE EX[STING SS AND WATER LINE. SAN MATEO COUNTf COLMA CREEK PROJECT STATION~NG, PRESUMED TO BE THE CENTERUNE OF SOUTH CANAL STREET, CORRESPONOS TO STORMDRAIN INTERCEPTOR STATIONING IN SOUTH CANAL STREET. PiPE IS OFFSET 10' NORTHWEST OF CENTERUNE EXCAVATION SUPPORT AND PROTEC~ON ISREQUIRED. SEE SPECIFICATION SEC~ON 02260. INCATCHBASINOFSIMILAR MATERIAL TO PROVIDE STUB EX~STING STORM DRAIN, PROVIDE ADAPTER COUPLING AS REQUIRED TO MAKE CONNECTION. 2O 15 lO ,.,-' 0 -5 "S"6+00 CIE 4.4 ~-IE 5.60 2.6.3 "S'7+00 28"¢ HDPE DR26 SLOPE = 0.0045 PROFILE HORIZ SCALE: 1'=20'--0' VERT SCALE: "S'8+00 ~l~-- IE 2.26 -- IE 2.29 "S'9+00 'S"10+00 20 15 10 -5 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 4a. SOUTH CANAL STREET INTERCEPTOR Stations "S"6+00 to "S"10+00 ,~_.SOURCE: Carollo Engineers, 9-1-2004. ~, ~[~,.. ~. ~hc'-~-~ ~.,, ~ "~ ~' " ~ ~ ~5) C~NEL W~ CURRE~LY UNDER CON~C~ON. ~ ;,:~ ~ ~.: ~ ' ~ ~ ~0 COU~ COLMA CREEK PR~E~ ~~ ~~ ~ v ~A~ONING' PRE'MED TO BE ~E CE~RLINE OF : '..'~,~S':;~- ~.~~ -- I -- ~";:' ~:'~*~x~:~J~'~'"' ~:;;:::~.,'~'T~-~' -. '~ ....... '~: ' ~'~: ~'~ ...... ~ ~ '~ -- -- -- . ~ ......... ~ ...... .... ~ ~ SO~H CANAL S~E~, CORRESPONDS TO STORMDRAIN INTERCEPTOR STATIONING IN SOUTH CAN~ ~.~' ~ ' ' .~ 72~ .~ ~ -'~"'.~ , ~ .' .;~,~. .~ ~'~*~-~ ~:~2~: ~-~" .,~;'~ ~ *"-%~t'',~.. ~z~-; ~.;;~:~/~L~...'~;?;;; ~ J PIPE IS 0~ 10' NOR~WEST OF CE~ERLINE. ~ t~ f~ ~ EXCAVATION SUPPORT ~0 PROTEC~ON IS REQUIRED. ~' ~ ~: ~~' ~~,.~ ~ '~-~- ~ ~ ~:~ ~ -~ ~- , ~ ~: ~ m ~~,~ . ~'~ ,~ v SEE SPECI~TION SEC~ON 02260. " "" '' ~ . ~" ~F~ ~ tF .~'"~ ..-'.~':~?;~:~ .:; ~ . :~,~: · . ~ ~ CONNECT SD ~OM ~TCH B~INS TO 56' HDPE DR26 I P~N S~: 1"=20'-0" 0 I ~ ~ ~ ~ 20 15 ~ : ~ 15 5 ' ~ n~ 5 I ,D~ ~ ~0~ = 0.~0~ _ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~6"~ HDP~ DR~ ~ SLOP~ = 0.00~0 0 ' ,~ o., ,o ~ ~'' ' "S"10+00 "S"I 1 +00 "S"12+00 "S"13+00 "S"14+00 "S"15+00 PROF LE HORIZ S~ 1"=20'-0" ~ S~: 1'=5'-0' ~ ~ Exhibit 4b '~ ~ ~ '~ ~ SOUTH CANAL STREET INTERCEPTOR CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ~ ~ LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT o ~~- Stations "S"10+00 to "S"15+00 INITIAL STUDY sc~ ~~"s S~-T. ~us~ ..__SOURCE: Carollo Engineers. 9-1-2004. KEYNOTES: <~ CURRENTLY UNDER CONSI~UCTION. CHANNEL WALL CONTOURS SHOWN IN CHANNEL ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SAN MATEO COUNTY COl_MA CREEK PROJECT STATIONING. PRESUMED TO BE THE CENTERUNE OF SOUTH C.~ STREET, CORRESPONDS TO STORMORNN INTERCEPTOR STA'RONINO IN SOUTH CANAL STREET. PIPE IS OFFSET 10' NORTHWEST OF CENTERUNE. EXCAVATION SUPPORT AND PROTECTION IS REQUIRED. SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION 02260. 56"e STUB WITH FLANGED CONNECTION AND BLIND FLANGE. CONNECT SD FROM CATCH BASINS TO 56'~ HDPE 0R26 USING A FACTORY MANUFACTURED FTrRNG. SADDLES OR CUTTING INTO THE MA~N ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'-0' "S"15+00 "S"16+00 "S"17+00 "S"18+00 PROFILE HORIZ SC, ALE: 1"=20'--0" VI[ET SCALE: 1 '=5'--0' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY s Exhibit 4c SOUTH CANAL STREET INTERCEPTOR Stations "S"15+00 to "S"18+00 OURCE: Carollo Engineers, 9-1-2004. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONS OF BURIED U~UTIES NOT NOTED ARE UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UTILITY LOCATOR FOR HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF A[.L UTILmES Ii,THIN EMITS OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SP~ALL TIHEN POTHOLE ~ LmLITY CROSSINGS SHOWN iN PLANS AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO FULL SCALE EXCAVATION AND SHALL SUBMIT UTILITY LOCATIONS TO ENGINEER WITHIN 24 HOURS OF POTHOUNG, 2, EXCAVATION SUPPORT AND PROTECTION IS REQUIRED. SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION 02260. KEY NOTES: CHANNEL WALL CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS. STATIONING IS AT CENTERMNE OF STREET. PRO~*qDE STUB IN CATCH 13ASIN OF SIMILAR MATERIAL TO EXISTING STORM DRNN. PROV1DE ADAPTER COUPUNG AS REQUIRED TO MAJ(E CONNECTIONS, 1 +00 "M"2+O0 PROFILE "M"3+O0 'M'4+OO "M"5+O0 HORIZ SC~: 1 '=20'-0' VERT SCALE: 1"=5'-O" CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 5 MAPLE AVENUE INTERCEPTOR ,..__SOURCE: Carolfo Engineers, 9-1-2004. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONS OF BURIED UTILrfiES NOT NOTED · ~E UNKNOWN.CONT~OR SHALL CALL UTILP~f IOCATOR FOR HORIZONTAL LOCATIO~ OF ALL UTIUTIES WII~IIN UMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.CONTP,~TOR SH~-L F~2TIflOLE AJ-L UTIUTY CRO~I~ SHOWN IN PLANS AT !.F-AS1' 7 DA~ PRIOR TO FULL SCALEEXCAVATION AND SHALL SUBMIT UTIUT~ LOCATIONS TO ENGINEER WITHIN 24~ HOURSOF POTHOUNG, 2. EXCAVATION SUPPORT AND PROTECTION IS REQUIRED. SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION 02260. KEY NOTES: CHN~NEL WALL CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS. STATIONING IS AT CENTERUNE OF STREET. )PROV~DE STUB IN CATCH BASIN OF SIMILAR MATERIAL TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN. PROVIDE ADAPTER COUPUNC AS REQUIRED TO MAKE CONNECTIONS. PLAN SCALE: 1'=20'--0" 20 t ~ : SLOPE 0.0'25 ~ SLOPE= 0.0030 : I: -~'~ I , I 1 I - 10 'L'I +00 'L~2+O0 ~ ~L'~+O0 'L'~+O0 'L~5+O0 ~ -~-~ PROFILE HORIZ S~: 1'=20'-0' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 6a LINDEN AVENUE INTERCEPTOR ..._SOURCE.- Carollo Engineers 9-1-2004. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONS OF BURIED UTILITIES NOT NOTED ARE UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UTIUTY LOCATOR FOR HORIZONTAL LOCATIOn' OF ALL UTILITIES WITHIN UMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.CONTRACTOR SHALL THEN PO'iTIOLE ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS SHOWN IN PLANS AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO FULL SCALEEXCAVATION AND SHALL SUBMIT LITILITY LOCATIONS TO ENGINEER WITHIN 24 HOURSOF POTHOUNG. £XCAVATION SUPPORT AND PROTECTION IS REQUIRED.SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION 02260. KEY NOTES: , STATIONING IS AT CENTERLINE OF STREET. PROVIDE STUB IN CATCH ~,SIN OF SIMILAR MATERIAL TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN. PRO. DE ADAPTER COUPUNG AS REQUIRED TO MAKE CONNECTIONS. 20 20 "L"7+O0 "L"8+O0 "L"9 +00 "L"I 0+00 "L"I 1 +00 "L~'I 2- PROFILE HORIZ SCALE: 1'=20"-0" VERT SCALE: I'=5'-0" CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 6b LINDEN AVENUE INTERCEPTOR ~._SOURCE: Carollo Engineers, 9-1-2004. E 8' OUT tE PLAN - - SCALE: 1 '=20'-0' 20 15 0 36"¢ HDFE DR26 SLOPE = 3.0030 -5 "L"I 2+00 l 3+00 IE -1.19 PROFILE HORIZ SCALE: 1'=20'-0" VERT SCALE: 1'=5'-0' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY EL 8.06 OUT IE -1.19 IN IE 2,15 -UNDEN AVE STA 13+57.9 =VICTORY AVE STA 1+00 ~-28'¢ HDPE DR26 SEE C-9 'L"I 4+O0 / [~-28'~ HOPE DR26 SEE C-g 20 15 10 5 0 -5 GENERAL NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONSIOF BURIED LmUTIES NOT NOTED A~E UNKNOWN. CONTR~OR SHALL CALL UTILITY LOCAl'OR FOR HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES WITHIN EMITS OF' CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALl. THEN POTHOLE ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS SHOWN IN pLANS AT I-~ 7 DAYS PRIOR TO FULL SCALE EXCAVATION AND SHALL SUBMIT UTIU'I~ LOCATIONS TO ENGINEER WITHIN 24- HOURS OF POTHOMN¢. 2. EXCAVATION SUPPORT AND PROTECTION IS REQUIRED. SEE SPECIFIGATION SECTION 02260. KEY NOTES: <~> STATIONING AT CENTERUNE OF' STREET. IS (~ PROVIOE STUB 1NCATCH BASIN OF SIMILAR MATERIAL TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN. PROVIDE ADAPTER COUPUNG AS REQUIRED TO M.~E CONNECTIONS, Exhibit 6c LINDEN AVENUE INTERCEPTOR SOURCE.- Carollo Engineers, 9-1-2004. GENERAL NOTES: t. ELEVATIONS OF BURIED UT1LI~I£S NOT NOTED ARE UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UTIUTY LOCATOR FOF HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES WITHIN UMITS OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL THEN POTHOLE ALL UTIUTY CROSSINGS SHOWN IN pLANS AT LEAST 7 DAY'S PRIOR TO FULL SCALE EXCAVATION AND SHALL SUBMIT UTILn'Y LOCATIONS TO ENGINEER WITHIN 24- HOURS OF POTHOUNG. 2. EXCAVATION SUPPORT AND PROTECTION IS REQUIRED. SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION 02260. KEY NOTES: STATIONING IS AT CENTERUNE OF STREET. PROVIDE STUB IN CATCH BAS1N OF SIMILAR MATERIAL TO EXISTING STORM DRNN. PROVIDE A~)APTI~R COUPUNG AS REQUIRED TO MAKE CONNECTIONS. "V"I +00 "V'2+O0 "V"3--00 "V"4+O0 PROFILE HORIZ SCALE: 1'=20'-0' VER~ SCAU~: 1"=5"-0' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LIN DEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY IF NOT Oil: INCH ON SCALES Exhibit 7 VICTORY AVENUE INTERCEPTOR SOURCE: CaroIIo Engineers, 9-1-2004, GENERAL NOTES: ~, ELEVATIONS OF BURIED LI~UTIES POT NOTED ARE UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UTILITY LOCATOR FOR HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF' ALL I~LITIES W~I~IIN UMITS OF CONSTRUCTION. CONIRACTORSHALL THEN PO]]'IOLE AU- UTILITY CROSSINGS SHOWN IN PLANS AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO IqJLL SC.N~ EXCAVATION AND SHALL SUBMIT UTILITY LOCATIONS TO ENGINEER WITHIN 24 HOURS OF POTHOUNG. 2. EXCAVATION SUPPORT ANO PROTECTION IS REQUIRED. SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION 02260. ~DPE DR26 ~ /t KEY NOTES: <~ CHANNEL & SLAB CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. WALLS ~--APPROX LOCATION OF ACCESS ROAD OTHERS) 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 PLAN SCALE: 1'=20'-0' "C"1+00 "C"2+00 PROFILE "c"3+oo "c"4+oo HORIZ SCALE: 1'=20'-0' VERT SCALE: 1"=5'-0" CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY B~R IS OelE INCH ON ORK;~N. DRAW~G 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 Exhibit 8 NORTH CANAL STREET INTERCEPTOR AND PUMP STATION SOURCE: Carollo En'gineer~,, 9-1-2004. GENERAL NOTES: KEY NOTES: (~ PLAN SCALE: 1' = 8'-0" FILE: X-OOGIO0 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY VERIFY ~C, ALE$ B~R IS ONE INC~ ON ORIGINAL ORAW~NG Exhibit 9 PUMP STATION SITE PAVING AND GRADING PLAN SOURCE: Carollo Engineers, 9-1-2004. 1. Project description: Construction of approximately 3,700 linear feet of storm drain underground piping with diameters ranging from 28 to 48 inches, associated storm drain inlets, manholes and a 30-foot wide and 22-foot deep (approximately) storm drain pump station with a new storm drain outlet into Colma Creek 2. Lead agency: City of South San Francisco 3. Contact persons: Ray Razavi, City Engineer 4. Project location: Central portion of South San Francisco, generally involving the following streets: South Linden Avenue, Victory Avenue, South Maple Avenue, and South Canal Street 5. Project sponsor: City of South San Francisco 6. General Plan designation: Mixed Industrial 7. Zoning: M- 1, Light Industrial 8. Other public agency required approvals: -Approvals from State Water Resources Control Board (SRF funding) -Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Department of Fish and Game) (probable) -Notice of Intent (filed with State Water Resources Control Board) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 17 March 2005 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Agricultural Resources X Air Quality - Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geolo§¥~Soils X Hazards and Hazardous X Hydrology/Water Land Use~ Planning Materials Quality Mineral Resources X Noise Populationgrlousing Public Services Recreation X . Transportation/ i Circulation Utilities/Service Mandatory Findings of Systems $i~ificance Determination (to be completed by 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. X 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 or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. __ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report is required. __ I find that although 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 earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. __ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and b), have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that ar~ imposed on the pro_Eg~d pro~ct, not~g furth.~r is required. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 18 March 2005 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than- significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than- significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 19 March 2005 7) 8) 9) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited for discussion. This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 20 March 2005 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 7) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 7) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 7) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 7) 2. Agricultural Resources WouM the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 2, 7) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2, 7) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 2,7) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 3) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 3) PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X .X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 21 March 2005 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source:3) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source:3) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source:3) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 4) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 4) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 4) 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? (Source: 4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a preservation policy or tree protection ordinance? (Source: 4) PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 22 March 2005 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 4) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or a unique geologic feature? (Source: 5) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 5) 6. Geology and Soils. WouM 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 Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source:2, 7) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking(Source:2,7) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source:2, 7) iv) Landslides? (Source:2, 7) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2, 7) 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- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (Source: 2, 7) 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? (Source: 2, 7) Potentially Less Than Less than N° Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 23 March 2005 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source:2) 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 6) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source:6) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, acutely hazardous substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 8) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 6, 8) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted within 2 miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source:2) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 7) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 24 March 2005 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2, 7) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 2, 7) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 2, 7) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 7) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 3, 4) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source:8) PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitisation X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 25 March 2005 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 8) 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? (Source: 8) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?(7) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 7) 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 plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (1,2,7) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 8) 10. 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? (Source: 2) 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? (Source: 2) 11. Noise. WouM the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2, 7) b) Exposure of persons to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2, 7) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2, 7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 26 March 2005 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project.'? (Source: 7) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) 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? (Source: 2) 12. Population and Housing. WouM the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1, 2) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 1,2) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (2) Fire protection? Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 27 March 2005 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2, 7) 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? (Source: 2, 7) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 2, 7) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 1, 2) 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? (Source:2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Source: 7) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (7) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source:2) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 28 March 2005 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 2) 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? (6) 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? (Source: 2) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 2) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's existing commitments? (Source: 2) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (2) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitisation X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 29 March 2005 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1) City of South San Francisco General Plan & Background Report 2) City of South San Francisco General Plan EIR 3) Project air quality analysis (Ballanti) 4) Project biological assessment (LSA Associates) 5) Project cultural resource assessment (Holman Associates) 6) Project Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment (Fugro West, Inc.) 7) Site Visit 8) Other Source Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. None have been used in this Initial Study. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 30 March 2005 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project area is located within an industrial portion of South San Francisco which has been developed for light industrial, warehouse, auto repair and similar uses since the 1950's. The project area has been completely developed with minimal landscaping along project roadways or on private lots that comprise the area. The site contains no public parks, playgrounds or other places of public gathering. A portion of Colma Creek exists along the north side of the project area. Adjacent to the project area, Colma Creek is a concrete-lined channel. The General Plan identifies the project area as lying in the Lindenville area of South San Francisco. Guiding policies for the Lindenville area include maintenance of the industrial character of the area, construct new streets to provide for improved access, especially truck access, enhancement of the area through streetscape upgrades and other improvements and improvements to buffers between industrial and surrounding residential areas. None of the streets within the project area are identified as state or local scenic highways. A significant amount of nighttime lighting sources exist within the project area, primarily security lights and street lights. Standards of significance The following standards of significance are used to assess potential environmental impacts related to view obstruction, aesthetics and light and glare. · Be incompatible with the scale or visual character of the surrounding area; · Eliminate or substantially alter significant visual features, view corridors or public vista points; · Result in substantial alteration of natural landforms; · Create significant new sources light and glare in the project vicinity. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The proposed project would include primarily underground utility improvements and would not block scenic vistas. The one component of the project partially extending above ground would be the proposed City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 31 March 2005 b) c) d) pump station which would have a limited visibility profile. No impacts would therefore result with regard to scenic vistas. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? NI. The project area is largely developed with structures, parking areas and similar man-made facilities. The proposed pump station site is vacant. No significant scenic resources have been observed within the project area and no impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to scenic resources. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? NI. The proposed project would include constructing new underground storm drain facilities and a partially aboveground pump station which would not degrade the visual character of the project site and no impacts would occur. Create light or glare? LS. A number of existing lighting sources in the site and implementation of the proposed project would not add new sources of lighting. The proposed pump station could have a limited amount of additional lighting, but this anticipated increase would be less-than-significant within the overall area since no sensitive receptors, such as residential uses, exist in or adjacent to the project area. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting The project site is located within an urbanized portion of South San Francisco and it is not used for crop production or other forms of agriculture. No Williamson Act contracts encumber the property. Project Impacts a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? NI. The proposed project would be located within an existing industrial area. Therefore no impacts would result in terms of loss of agricultural lands or agricultural operations. 3. Air Quality This section of the Initial Study has been prepared by Donald Ballanti, Certified Meteorologist. Environmental Setting Air pollution climatology The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the average in fall and winter. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 32 March 2005 The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. Ambient a& quality standards Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 1 for important poll utant s. T he federal and state ambient standards we re developed i ndepende ntly with differing purposes and methods, although both federal and state standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM~0. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at numerous sites within the nine-county District, although not within South San Francisco. The closest air monitoring stations are in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. In general, the federal ambient air quality standards are met at these sites, but the more stringent state standards are exceeded for two pollutants: ozone and particulate matter. Attainment status and regional air quality plans The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "nonattainment areas." Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The Bay is currently a nonattainment for 1-hour ozone standard. However, in April 2004, U.S. EPA made a final finding that the Bay Area has attained the national 1-hour ozone standard. The finding of attainment does not mean the Bay Area has been reclassified as an attainment area for the 1-hour standard. The region must submit a re-designation request to EPA in order to be reclassified as an attainment area. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as a nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PM2.5 standards. Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is a nonattainment area for ozone and particulate matter (PM~0 and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. The California Clean Air Act requires local air pollution control districts to prepare air quality attainment plans. These plans must provide for district-wide emission reductions of five percent per year averaged over consecutive three-year periods or if not, provide for adoption of "all feasible measures on an expeditious schedule." City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 33 March 2005 Table 1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal State Time Primary Standard Standard Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm 8-Hour 0.08 ppm -- Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm -- 1-Hour -- 0.25 ppm Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm -- 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm 1-Hour -- 0.5 ppm PM~0 Annual 50 ug/m~ 20 ug/m~ 24-Hour 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 PM~ 5 Annual 15 ug/m~ 12 ug/m~ -' 24_Hour 65 ug/m3 -- Lead 30-Day Avg. -- 1.5 ug/m3 3-Month Avg. 1.5 ug/m3 -- ppm = parts per million ug/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (7/9/03) http://www.arb.ca.gov.aqs/aaqs2.pdf Standards of significance BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide the following definitions of a significant air quality impact: · A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 pans per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. · A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PM~0. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. · Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. · Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PM2.5 (paniculate matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for this pollutant. For this analysis, PM2.5 impacts would be considered significant if project emissions of PM~0 exceed 80 pounds per day. The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~0. If the appropriate construction controls are to be City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 34 March 2005 implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less- than-significant. Project a) Impacts and Mitigation Measures WouM the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and PM~o (state ambient standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PM~0. The Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard (published by the BAAQMD on October 24, 2001) is the current ozone air quality plan required under the federal Clean Air. The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (published by the BAAQMD on December 20, 2000). These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. The project would not conflict with any of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans nor obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans. The project would not conflict with the growth assumptions made in the preparation of the regional air quality plans nor would obstruct implementation of control measures contained in the regional air quality plans. Project funding sources may include the State Revolving Loan Fund. Since this program is partially funded by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the project would be subject to the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments. The conformity provisions of the Act are designed to ensure that federal agencies contribute to, instead of jeopardizing, efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The General Conformity rules require conformity determinations for projects if they generate more emissions than minimum thresholds and are not specifically exempted by the regulation. The Bay Area is currently a federal nonattainment area for ozone, and the General Conformity rules establish the following "de minimis" thresholds: 100 tons per year for VOCs 100 tons per year for NOx The operation of the project would not increase emissions. However, during the approximate 8-month construction of the project additional emissions would be generated by construction equipment and vehicles. These emissions have been estimated for the entire construction period based on the types and numbers of equipment/vehicles and the number of days they would be needed during construction. The emission factors utilized were taken from the construction module of the URBEMIS-2002 emissions program, as prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Software Users Guide, Version 7.4 in May 2003. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 35 March 2005 Construction emissions shown in Table 2 are substantially below the "de minimis" thresholds for ozone precursors established for the region by the Federal Clean Air Act conformity rules. The proposed project would not interfere with attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and would not require a conformity determination. Table 2. Construction Emissions in Tons Per Year ROG NOx Project Construction 0.337 2.388 De Minimis Threshold 100 100 Source: Donald Ballanti b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS/M. Uncontrolled construction dust has the potential to locally cause exceedances of the state/federal standards and/or contribute significantly to an existing violation. The dust generating potential of the storm drain improvements is very limited. The project would not involve grading, earthmoving, clearing or burning, which are the construction activities with the highest potential for generating dust. Dust-generating activities would be limited to pavement removal, loading of materials into trucks and deposition of dirt on paved surfaces where it could be pulverized and entrained by passing vehicles. The potential for emission of fugitive dust is anticipated to be potentially significant. The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~0. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. The following measure is recommended to reduce construction air quality emissions to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 1. The following measures should be included in construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions: a) Use water as needed to control dust and eliminate visible dust plumes. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. e) Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. The above measures include all feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. According the District threshold of significance for construction impacts, implementation of the measures would reduce construction impacts of the project to a less than significant level. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 36 March 2005 c) d,e) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. The project would not result in any long-term, operational air quality impacts. See item (a) above regarding construction emissions. A less-than-significant impact is anticipated. Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? LS. During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use would create odors. These odors would be temporary and localized, and would not affect neighboring properties for any extended time. The potential for diesel odors impacts would therefore be less-than-significant. Since land use in the project area is industrial in nature, no sensitive receptors exist near the site and there would therefore be no impact with regard to air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. 4. Biological Resources (Note: this section of the Initial Study is based on a biological reconnaissance of the project area performed by the firm of LSA Associates in early 2005. The full text of the LSA report is attached to this document.) Environmental Setting General area characteristics The project area is located west of Highway 101 in the central portion of the City of South San Francisco, California. The area is located approximately 1.1 miles west of the San Francisco Bay in the San Francisco South 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle. Colma Creek flows between North Canal Street and South Canal Street. Several small sections within the reach of the creek from Starlite Street east to South Linden Avenue would potentially be impacted by the proposed project. The reconnaissance survey of the creek included a longer reach of the creek in the vicinity of the project area from South Spruce Street east to the Caltrain tracks near South Linden Avenue. Access to the creek was restricted by locked gates, fencing and walls so observations were made from the South Linden Avenue Bridge and streets adjacent to the creek. Land use in the project area and in the vicinity is industrial and related uses. Most of the project area consists of paved roads where the new storm drain pipes and catch basins would be installed. The location of the proposed pump station at the northeast corner of Linden Avenue and North Canal Street is a paved vacant lot. The project area is mostly unvegetated except for landscaped areas with lawns and ornamental plants along the streets. A small section along the northern bank of Colma Creek near the proposed pump station where four ouffalls will discharge water over the northern wall and into the creek consists of an upland area located above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) that is dominated by young grasses and Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae). The OHWM was visible as a scour mark on the bank and below the OHWM was sparsely vegetated. Portions of Colma Creek in the project area and in the vicinity are highly disturbed and lack developed riparian or wetland habitats. The creek bed is deeply incised and consists mostly of fine sediment and lacks gravel or cobbles and pools and ripples. During the site visit, water was flowing in the creek and the OHWM was visible as a scour mark on both banks west of the South Linden Avenue bridge and as a water stain on the concrete wall of the creek on the banks City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 37 March 2005 east of South Linden Avenue. The banks of the creek from South Linden Avenue west to South Spruce Street consist of large concrete walls and the banks and channel are completely unvegetated. The banks of the creek from Linden Avenue west to the Caltrain tracks are vegetated in most areas except immediately adjacent to the South Linden Avenue Bridge where sand bags, black plastic and riprap line the banks. The banks above the OHWM are dominated by young grasses, wild fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and Bermuda buttercup. Below the OHWM the bank was sparsely vegetated with patches of a tall grass that could be creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides), a native hydrophyte (restricted access prevented closer examination of these plants for positive identification). The only shrubs or trees observed along the creek were a patch of what appeared to be willows (Salix sp.) outside the project area on the southern bank, west of the Linden Avenue Bridge. There were very few large trees in the vicinity of the creek with the exception of a row of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) trees that run perpendicular to the creek just past the willow trees outside the project area. Wetlands Regulatory_ Background. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of fill to waters of the United States including wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Corps regulates the activities of dredging and filling in waters of the U.S. using a permitting system which is implemented by the Corps' District offices. Waters of the U.S. fall into two general categories: wetlands and non-wetland waters of the U.S. Non-wetland waters of the U.S. include unvegetated waterbodies and watercourses such as rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries. Wetlands include tidal marshes, freshwater marshes, floodplains, seeps, and seasonal wetlands. In some cases, seasonal wetlands that are isolated from other jurisdictional wetlands or non-wetland waters of the U.S. are not regulated by the Corps. Wetlands that are jurisdictional should, under normal circumstances, meet the Corp's criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil. This jurisdictional determination is made by conducting a standard Corp wetland delineation. The lateral limits of waters of the United States are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(a). The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) or the limit of adjacent wetlands. The OHWM is "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." (33 CFR Part 328.3 [e]). Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the United States, whether natural or man-made, results in a similar extension of Corps jurisdiction. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) also regulates the discharge of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The RWQCB reviews projects to determine whether they require a Water Quality Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements. The CDFG has jurisdiction over the bed and banks of watercourses and waterbodies according to provisions of Sections 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the modifications to the bed or bank of a watercourse or waterbody. CDFG jurisdiction typically extends to the top of the bank and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 38 March 2005 Potential on-site wetlands. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters of the United States are located in and adjacent to the project area. Colma Creek flows east from the site and into the San Francisco Bay approximately 1.1 miles east of the site. The creek channel is a jurisdictional non-wetland water of the United States because it is directly connected to the Bay, which is a jurisdictional water of the United States. Jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the United States in the project area include unvegetated areas along the banks and in the creek bed that are below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The banks of the creek appeared sparsely vegetated during the site visit and potentially jurisdictional wetlands could be present if these areas meet the Corps criteria for wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. Special-status species Regulatory_ Background. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed species from harm or "take" which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to a listed species. An activity can be defined as "take" even if it is unintentional or accidental. Incidental take of listed species may be authorized through the Section 7 or Section 10 process of the FESA. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under FESA if they occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a Section 404 fill permit. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, CDFG has jurisdiction over state-listed species (California Fish and Game Code 2070). Additionally, the CDFG maintains lists of "species of special concern" that are defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. Section 15380(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG. For this report, the term special-status species is defined as follows: · Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA; · Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under CESA; · Plant species listed in the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) database as List lA, lB, and 2, 3, and 4 (CNPS 2004); · Wildlife species listed by CDFG as species of special concern, or as protected or fully protected species; · Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA; City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 39 March 2005 · Species designated as species of special concern. Special-Status Species that Potentially Occur in the Project Area. Based on the experience of LSA biologists in the South San Francisco area and a review of various databases (CNPS 2004; CNDDB 2004), there are no special-status species that are highly likely to occur on the site. The site is in an industrial area and is highly disturbed. The site lacks suitable habitat for special- status plant species and for most special-status animals. Special-status animal species with potential to occur onsite are discussed below. The site provides foraging and potentially roosting habitat for several bat species, including Pacific western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) a species of special concern. Bats could potentially roost under the bridge and forage along the creek. Special-status salmonids are believed to absent from Colma Creek based on several sources of information, including the CNDDB (2004). According to a fish distribution study in 1981, two sites at Colma Creek were sampled and Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were not found. In 2002, suitable habitat for steelhead and steelhead were not found during surveys located between the mouth of the creek and the headwaters. The Public Notice for a Corps permit for installing a concrete flood control lining in Colma Creek between Spruce Street and San Mateo Avenue in South San Francisco, which includes the Lindenville project area, stated that their project would not impact any endangered species, including Central Coast steelhead and their critical habitat in the project area because the project area does not provide spawning habitat, riparian habitat, or high water quality (Corps 2001). The Corps' assessment was confirmed through preliminary consultation with the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS). California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), is a federally threatened species and a California species of concern that is known to occur in streams in the San Francisco Bay Area, but it is unlikely to occur in Colma Creek. LSA has found red-legged frogs approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the site at the West of Bayshore site, which is on the other side (southern side) of Highway 380, but there are no known CDNDDB records of California red-legged frog in Colma Creek (CNDDB 20004). The Public Notice for a Corps permit for installing a concrete flood control lining in Colma Creek between Spruce Street and San Mateo Avenue in South San Francisco, which includes the Lindenville project area, stated that their project would not impact any endangered species, including California red-legged frog because the channel was not likely to support this species. Nesting birds. Although the site lacks habitat for nesting special-status birds, impacts to nursery sites such as nesting areas would be considered significant under CEQA. Tl~e project area lacks large trees except for medium-sized ornamental trees in landscaped areas adjacent to streets and a patch of shrubby willows and a row of tall eucalyptus trees along the creek. Another potential nesting area is the Linden Avenue Bridge. This bridge may provide nesting site for cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) or barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). City_ tree ordinance. The City of South San Francisco has a Tree Preservation Ordinance that requires a permit for removing or pruning protected trees (City of South San Francisco 2003). Protected trees are: 1) trees that have a circumference of 48" or more when measured 54" above natural grade, 2) A tree or stand of trees that are unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, or historical significance, or 3) a stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 40 March 2005 Standards of significance Project effects on biological resources would be considered significant if it results in any of the following: · A substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. · A substantial effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. · A substantial effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. · Substantially interfere with movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor, or impeded use of native wildlife nursery sites. · Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. · Conflicts with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Project a) Impacts and Mitigation Measures Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS/M. Based on the biological analysis of the project area, there is a low possibility of encountering special-sensitive species during implementation of the project. However, there is a potential of encountering special-status fish within Colma Creek. This would be a potentially significant impact. The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 2. As part of the permitting process for the project, the California Department of Fish and Game and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should be informally consulted to confirm the absence of special-status fish in Colma Creek. This should be completed prior to construction activities. NMFS has previously determined that special-status fish are not present in Colma Creek. Project construction activities or staging in close proximity to trees or shrubs could result in disruption of nesting activities or nest abandonment if the habitat is occupied during the construction season. This would be a potentially significant impact. The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 3. Construction activities and staging areas shall be located at least 200 feet from these habitat areas during the nesting season (February 1 through July 31). If construction activities occur in close proximity to these habitats during the nesting season, then a preconstruction survey shall be conducted to ensure that there are no active nests within the construction area. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of activities and be repeated at 30-day intervals if the project did not City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 41 March 2005 b, c) d) e) commence within the previous 30 days. If an active nest is found during the preconstruction survey, then the following protective measures should be implemented: 1) establish a clearly-delineated (i.e., orange construction fencing) exclusion zone around each nest site with a minimum radius of 200 feet from the nest or dripline of the nest tree for raptors or a radius of 100 feet for passerines; 2) monitor the nest within the exclusion zones on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify any signs of disturbance (monitoring to be conducted by a qualified biologist); and 3) if the qualified biologist identifies signs of disturbance, relocation of construction activities pursuant to the biologist's recommendation until signs of disturbance are eliminated. Protection measures should remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? LS/M. Several activities associated with the Linden Avenue Storm Drain Improvement Project could impact potentially jurisdictional areas at Colma Creek and thus could require permits from the Corps, CDFG and RWQCB. The installation of four ouffalls on the northern bank of Colma Creek near the proposed pump station could require a permit from all three agencies for fill and/or dredging in jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters of the United States. Even if the outfall structures are located above the OHWM, associated structures for erosion control are likely to be installed below the OHWM and thus require permits. Installation of a storm drain pipe that connect the pump station to the storm drain system along South Canal Street would also require a permit from all three agencies if the pipe is installed in the channel (waters of the United States). Permits from all three agencies could also be required if removing the existing flapgates at the creek wall at the northern bank involves dredging or filling below the OHWM or the operation of equipment in the channel. Depending on the total acreage of impacts to jurisdictional areas, these activities could be permitted under the Corps' Nationwide Permit system. For example, Nationwide Permit 43 for Stormwater Management Facilities permits the installation and maintenance of outfall structures and water control structures if the impacts to a streambed are less than 300 linear feet and the loss of non- tidal waters of the United States is less than 0.5 acre. Some Nationwide Permits, such as 43, require that a formal Corps' wetland delineation be conducted at the site. A compensatory mitigation plan is also likely to be required for any impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States. This would be a potentially significant impact and the following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 4. To the extent necessary, all required permits shall be obtained from California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other appropriate agencies. Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS/M. The potential of the project to interfere with native fish species will be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measure 4. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances or policies? NI. No such impacts would result since no significant City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 42 March 2005 stands of trees exist in the project area. No such trees would be affected by the project. No impacts would result. Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. No impacts would therefore result. 5. Cultural Resources (Note: this section of the Initial Study is based on a cultural resources reconnaissance of the project area performed by the firm of Holman & Associates in early 2005. The full text of this report is attached to this document.) Environmental Setting Background The South San Francisco Wet Weather Program project (SSFWWP), including the Linden Avenue storm drain project, comes under the National Historic Preservation Act's Section 106, designed to identify, evaluate, and assess potential effects on "historic properties." Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants (H&A) Section 106 work, begun in 2002, has specifically focused on archaeological resources as pertains to Section 106. Section 106 compliance work for the Project commenced with review of existing archaeological data, field assessment of surface conditions and a surface survey of the Project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), review of the history and historic maps and plans of the Project APEs, and detailed study of the various Project elements at the 2002 design level. That background data, archaeological background and ethnographic setting, historic setting, general archaeological principles, and the nature of Project impacts were presented and assessed in the first 106 compliance report by H&A: Initial Archaeological Resources Procedures for National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance for the City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Sewer and Water Treatment Project. The information and conclusions offered in that "Initial 106 Report" are assumed here and will not be reiterated except as necessary or if changed. Under the terms of the governing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State Water Resources Control Board (the MOA specifies "The City shall promptly notify the SWRCB if it becomes necessary to revise the established APE"), Cultural Resources Officer Cookie Hirn of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was notified by H&A when Phase 5 was proposed as an addition to the SSFWWP, though the APE had not yet been defined and in fact the project description has changed somewhat from that reported to the SWRCB in November 2004. This report (attached as an Appendix to the Initial Study) commences Section 106 procedures for the Phase 5 project, beginning development of proposed field efforts to identify historic properties as warranted. Since the Phase 5 portion was added to the SSFWWP after 2002, the preliminary and background work reported in the Initial 106 Report did not cover the Phase 5 project specifically, although all the prehistoric, historic, and archaeological research is applicable to the Linden Storm Drain Improvements. The initial archaeological records search did cover the Linden Avenue area, as did general historic work on the development of the City of City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 43 March 2005 South San Francisco. The predicted sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological deposits for the overall project also pertains to the Linden Avenue portion of the project, as this project work is also along the former edge of the San Francisco Bay and marshlands, and in the immediate vicinity of the outlet of Colma Creek. Sensitivity for historic archaeological materials is one of the subjects of the research described here. Area of Potential Effect (APE) The project APE, as previously for the SSFWWP project, included only those spaces designated as subject to excavations that may penetrate native ground and/or historic fill potentially containing archaeological resources, in addition to staging areas at the pump station/generator location. Current plan drawings show these zones quite specifically, and form the basis for the APE diagrams for the Linden Avenue portion of the project (APE-l, Exhibit 10, and APE-2, Exhibit 10). The APE is construed as reaching approximately 30 cm/12" below the proposed excavation zones. The APE for archaeological impacts along the storm drain lines encompasses the entire roadways, from curb to curb, because the exact locations of the new lines cannot be predicted with exact specificity, though the locations shown on the APE sheets are proposed. Soil conditions, other below ground facilities, locations of connectors, and the inevitable below surface surprises may cause the line locations to be moved from those proposed (and are also why the exact length is not specified). The pump station APE (APE-2, Exhibit 10) includes everything inside the proposed new fences plus the trenches for the outflow lines below the surface, and the staging area on the surface. Only those zones where excavations would go would be considered for subsurface testing. Consultation As per the strictures of the Section 106 regulations, potential interested parties were contacted in 2002 regarding the overall SSFWWP, including Native American Indian representatives and local/county historical associations. While none replied to written inquiries, several Native Americans requested when reached by telephone that they be notified if the project results in the discovery of prehistoric cultural resources. Under the terms of the MOA (Section VII (A)), additional consultation with possibly interested Native Americans, who would be representatives of the various Ohlone groups, is not needed for this addition to the project, nor are additional notifications of parties potentially interested in historic resources needed. If, however, this project results in the discovery of prehistoric archaeological deposits, either during resource inventory or during construction, the requesting Ohlones will be contacted for input. Areas of archeological sensitivity A complete archaeological records search was conducted in 2002 for the entire SSFWWP project vicinity, including this project area. Site records and locations, as well as previous surface and subsurface reconnaissance were examined, and studies bearing on prehistoric archaeological potential were reviewed. In addition, extensive historical research was undertaken and studies beating on historic archaeological potential examined. Geological reports on the size, shape, and nature of the Bay margins at various times were also consulted. This background research and initial assessment of archaeological potential and impact evaluation for the overall SSFWWP Project were presented in the Initial 106 Report. Final construction drawings, progress prints, and final plans, with both facilities and profiles portrayed, were furnished by Carollo Engineers, design engineers for the Phase 5 project, and City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 44 March 2005 were utilized for the APE diagrams included here. In addition, a geotechnical study was conducted in 2004 specifically for Phase 5, with five new borings along the storm drain routes as well as data from 10 earlier reference borings, and one new and two reference borings at the pump station location; the logs of these borings were examined. Other geological, stratigraphic, and geotechnical data was also re-examined. Prehistoric archaeological potential As detailed in the Initial 106 Report, the SSFWWP elements west of State Highway 101 and south of Colma Creek are located in potentially archaeologically sensitive zones for both prehistoric Native American resources and historic resources over 50 years old. Phase 5 is located on the former margins of San Francisco Bay, where hundreds of large prehistoric shell mound sites were recorded in 1909, many now destroyed or covered by development. Nelson's 1909 map of shell mounds around the Bay shows numerous sites at the transition from dry to marsh land, as well as mounds completely surrounded by marshland that had expanded as water level rose. Phase 5 would be constructed in an area formerly containing, over the past several thousand years, extensive salt marshes but also dry land and islands, including some with enough elevation to have remained dry until the recent prehistoric past, as well as sources of fresh water (Maps 2 and 3 contained in the complete report). This zone was ideal for prehistoric human use and settlement, a fact reflected in the large number of prehistoric archaeological sites ringing the Bay. Map 3 (contained in the report) also shows that as early as 1854 the project Vicinity was being used by Americans, as Bache's map spots several structures. Nelson's hand-inked 1909 map of Bay Area shell mounds indicates such a mound on the south side of Point San Bruno (Map 2; the site is probably #377, though Nelson's renumbering makes the numbers difficult to discern) and it is likely other prehistoric site(s) were once found on Belie Air Island to the south. Though it is unlikely that Nelson missed a major shell mound that would have been a landmark in the Phase 5 vicinity, it is now known that he missed recording many smaller sites around the Bay. Perhaps the most likely spot for a prehistoric site would have been the same one utilized early in the American period, where dry land met Colma Creek inland as the creek curved north (see Map 3: the westerly "Structures"); this spot was also the location of D.O. Mills' "Landing" (shown on Maps 4 and 5). Other likely spots would be high ground along the edge of marsh and Colma Creek, which includes the project APE areas. Contours carefully mapped in 1914 and shown on several subsequent plans and maps show high spots in the vicinity of Linden, Victory, and Maple Avenues (though mapped as marshland, elevations are show up to +12 feet on the undulating surface and these surely would have been above the tidal zone), and current South Canal Street rises from +8' to +13' on what would originally have been very near the south bank of Colma Creek. The zone through which the Phase 5 trenches will pass must be considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits. The archaeological records search for the SSFWWP showed that the banks of channelized Colma Creek in the vicinity of the proposed Linden Avenue storm drain work were surface surveyed by Rice in 1995 for the recent San Mateo County Flood Control District enlargement and reconstruction of the channel. The survey did not record any archaeological resources, noted the heavy historic disturbance to the area, and concluded that the area was of low archaeological sensitivity, discounting even the possibility of prehistoric cultural materials buried under the historic fill, and so did not conduct nor recommend any subsurface reconnaissance: "Historic and contemporary ground modifications-such as the dredging of the Colma Creek channel-indicate a low archaeological sensitivity .... Due to the complete disturbance of the channel from previous excavation and landfill, urbanization, and asphalting, no subsurface archaeological deposits are City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 45 March 2005 believed to exist in the project boundaries .... contains no known archaeological sites, and due to flooding and previous disturbances, it has a low potential for containing such sites. Further ground disturbances associated with the drainage improvements should not disturb previously unexcavated resources, if any exist." [sic]. Rice did not recommend any additional cultural resources work for the Flood Control District's enlargement of the Colma Creek channel, so the recent work (10 years after her report) went forward without any provision for monitoring or notification should potential archaeological materials be discovered. This assumption of low archaeological potential along the creek corridor was proven erroneous in recent years, when a large buried prehistoric site was discovered under deep fill on a channelized section of Colma Creek surveyed by Rice. Upstream from the proposed project's APEs where Chestnut Avenue crosses the concreted creek channel, CA-SMA-355 was found on the north creek bank under 1.5 to more than 6 meters of recent and historic natural and artificial fill. Believed to be a Late Period site (based on a single radiocarbon date), SMA-355 is situated in a location similar to the project's APEs, at the edge of the former Bayside marshes (which used to extend up to Orange Park and nearly Chestnut Avenue) and near Colma Creek, rising from the former creek banks to a high spot just upland from the marshlands. Historical archeological potential The history of South San Francisco is a microcosm of the history of industrial development in the Bay Area, California, the West, and the entire nation (see the Initial 106 Report). "South San Francisco The Industrial City," as proclaimed in huge white letters on the south slope of Sign Hill (an historic landmark and National Register property created in 1923 to celebrate the City's most famous attribute), says all that need be said about the importance of the industrial history of the city. Most of this industrial development and redevelopment took place by design on graded and filled lands east of Highway 101, while residential and commercial development was designed for west of the highway and north of Colma Creek in what is still the City's downtown. The numerous maps included here illustrate the sweeping changes to the area beginning in the third quarter of the nineteenth century, as well as more minor changes beginning with the earliest maps. Remnants of the historic development of the City, if present as archaeological deposits in the Project APEs, would likely qualify for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. However, the proposed project's APE was both less developed early, and the location of proposed facilities makes the proposed project somewhat less sensitive for historic resources than elsewhere in the City. As noted, American use of the project area vicinity was mapped as early as 1854 (Map 3, contained in the cultural resource report), but there is no evidence that the specific APEs were used so early. However, by 1868, "San Bruno Road" (now San Mateo Avenue) passed the APEs on or very near the current alignment, the Southern Pacific Railroad ran through South San Francisco, and the area, though still marshland, had been parceled out and slated for filling (Map 4 contained in the cultural resource report). In 1873 D.O. Mills' Landing and Wharf were still in use just south of the project area and San Bruno Road shows (Map 5 contained in the cultural resource report), but by 1877 the Landing is gone and the Project vicinity has been platted into regular rectangles rather than the larger parcels shown later. By 1894 the city of South San Francisco has been established with the still current street pattern, more SPRR spurs have been added, and the meat packing plants have appeared on the south side of Point San Bruno, but the LSDI vicinity is still just potential parcels (Maps 6 and 7 contained in the cultural resource report). The circa 1895 USGS map depiction is probably nearer reality at the time (Map 7 contained in the cultural resource report), showing fewer developed streets in the downtown area and the project area clearly as still marshland. By 1895 Linden Avenue has been extended City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 46 March 2005 southward from the downtown street grid, and Colma Creek has been channelized near the current channel (what looks like a road crossing under the railroad at a spur junction is actually that channel, seen on Map 7). By 1915 (Map 8), Linden Avenue extends farther south on its current alignment, but the rail spurs have been relocated and the project vicinity appears as unfilled marsh with the channelized creek. Plans dated 1922, 1928, and 1937 by the City Engineer (and County Surveyor), show a period of 15 years or more when the project area was planned for filling and construction or extension of streets, and some changes are evident, but not much was actually done until the late 1930s. The 1928 City Map (Map 10) shows Linden Avenue on its current alignment and crossing the Colma Creek "Drainage Canal Right of Way" as it does today, with a rail spur paralleling Linden to the west, and a proposed system of streets through the marsh land, some of which were eventually built in the proposed alignments (e.g., Spruce Avenue). The 1922 plan shows the project vicinity, with the exception of Linden Avenue (then labeled "County Highway), as filled but unimproved land eight to 14 feet above MSL, so the area had been filled between 1915 and 1922. The 1922 plan includes a proposed drainage canal straight across the area, actually a new channelization of Colma Creek. The 1928 plan shows a much more elaborate canal meandering through the area, traversing a series of "U" tums, but this may be a later edition, as the plan also shows features labeled "as of 1942," while the 1937 plan shows an existing drainage canal like that planned in 1922, with the proposed addition of a secondary canal angled to the south and then east (approximately on the current alignment of Victory Avenue). In 1937 the SPRR line still parallels Linden Avenue, no roads parallel the canal, and the entire area is unimproved. Also by 1937, the first sanitary sewer lines were in place south of Colma Creek, and more were planned to run eastward under Linden Avenue. The 1939 topographic map (Map 12) shows a very different but still unimproved Project area, with twin parallel drainage canals for the creek and a radical southward/northward "U" turn west of Linden and several temporary or unpaved roads. Interestingly, the 1940 map (Map 13) shows the same drainage channels and roads, but the area is labeled "Baden Kennel Club," possibly indicating the presence of enough waterfowl to attract hunters equipped with dogs. Apparently the drainage system shown in 1939 and 1941 did not sufficiently alleviate flood potential, because in 1942 another plan for an even more elaborate system of multiple parallel meandering channels was proposed. This plan makes it clear the railroad spur west of Linden Avenue is either already gone or will be removed. This drainage system was apparently built, because it is apparent in an aerial photo of October 1943. which shows the area was otherwise still unimproved, with no structures visible. This drainage scheme also seems not to have been satisfactory, because by 1947, the meandering channels are gone, replaced by a single Colma Creek channel on the current alignment (Map 14). At this time the first buildings also appear west of Linden Avenue and south of the channel, the APE south of the creek is a smoothly filled field, and a small building appears approximately at the location of the proposed new pump station on the north of the channel. By 50 years ago (1955; Map 14), all the APE streets south of the channel were in place, and numerous still-extant buildings were up; the small structure at the proposed pump station location is gone. As shown on Map 11, contained in the cultural resource report, the entire project area was filled prior to 1958 but after 1920, confirming the story told by historic maps. By 1968, most of the buildings adjoining the APEs were in place and the area has physically changed little since. Examining historic maps, other sources, and available plans for the area south of the Colma Creek channel and west of Linden Avenue, some assessment of the APE on specific streets can City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 47 March 2005 be made. The general area of the project work south of the creek channel was first filled between 1915 and 1922, but was still a flood plain and overflow area until the 1940s. The Linden Avenue portion of the APE was in place on the current alignment by 1915, placed on fill for that purpose, and there is little evidence of significant development along it until the 1940s. Since the road fill was the first across the area, it is unlikely historic resources exist underneath the street; this portion of the APE therefore is not sensitive for historic archaeological resources. South Canal Street was probably used informally earlier, but does not appear on maps until at least 1941 (Map 13) as a dirt road, but then disappears from the 1947 map (Map 14), reappearing as a paved street on the 1955 map (Map 15). Given all the changes to the area from the first filling 1915- 1922 through the various permutations of flood control/drainage channels and then the added fill after World War II, during which no buildings appear along the street, South Canal Street may be considered primarily a "levee road" through most of its history. The other two streets within the APE, the short stretches of Maple and Victory Avenues, have basically the same history, with Victory Avenue first appearing on the 1947 map (Map 14) and Maple not extending south of the creek channel until 1955. Although it is possible historic deposits associated with flood control work, other construction, or informal fill that might include historic materials exists under the late 1940s fill, these streets also cannot be considered sensitive for historic archaeological deposits. North of the creek, the property at 27 South Linden Avenue is closer to historic downtown South San Francisco, and this area was also filled between 1915 and 1922. The maps and plans provide evidence of many changes to the flood plain west of Linden Avenue, but east of Linden the creek was allowed to spread out until Highway 101 was moved to the current location in the mid- 1950s, when the pump station location was also built up to levee-in the creek. Again, informal fill, construction debris, isolated artifacts and historic materials, and layers of fill probably occur at this location, but there is very scant indication this area might contain significant historic deposits. Standards of significance The project, or follow-on construction based on the approved project, would have a significant impact if one or more of the following were to occur: Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory; Disrupt, alter, or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archeological site or a property Result in an adverse physical or aesthetic change to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object; Potentially cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values; or Have the potential to cause damage to an important archeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, as follows: * Is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American history, or recognized scientific importance in prehistory; * Can provide useful information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing consequential and reasonable or archeological research questions; * Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest or last surviving example of its kind; * Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; and City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 48 March 2005 Project a) b, c) d) * Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archeological methods. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The proposed project appears to have low to very low potential for significant historic archaeological deposits or to historic structures. Trenching would be on existing roads, those roads being built on layers of fill dating to several different decades. No significant former historic features likely to leave remnants detectable by archaeological methods were found in the APEs, so there would be no impact or change to historic resources. Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? LS/M. Based on the cultural resources report prepared for the proposed project by Holman & Associates, there is a moderate to high potential for construction activities to impact prehistoric archaeological resources, including a large prehistoric shell midden site. This would be a potentially significant impact and can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to the following measure: Mitigation Measure 5. Additional testing shall be performed within the project area as recommended in the cultural resources report, including along South Canal Street, Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Victory Avenue and at the pump station site. Testing shall be performed by a qualified archeologist using the GeoProbe technology at intervals recommended in the report. If the GeoProbe analysis identifies potentially significant resources, work shall be stopped near this area and a remediation plan prepared, approved by the City of South San Francisco Community Development Director and implemented consistent with Section CEQA Section 15064.5. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ora formal cemetery? LS/M. Based on the Holman & Associates cultural resources report, there is low potential of encountering human remains as part of project construction. However, if such resources are encountered during project construction, this would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 6 will reduce potential impacts related to human remain to a less-than-significant level. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 49 March 2005 I // I I IiL~/' I CANAL STRE ~1116 LF I 1 I / CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY RY AVE ~285 LF IF NOT ONE ItCH ON '1~11~ StreET. AD4UST ~ ACCOC~¢NGCY NOTES: 1. APE AREA FROM CURB TO CURB ON ROADWAYS. ~UMP STATION LEGEND APE AREA STORM DRNN SUB-BASIN BOUNDARIES Exhibit 10 APE (Area of Potential Effect) MAP: STORM DRAINS SOURCE: Ho/man & Assoc. and Carollo Engineers, 11-8-2004. I'l~00~8-I l 's~aau/~uH OtlO~0 pus 'aossv ~ usculoH .'HO~tI~OS 1 NOI~V~S d~nd :d~ (~3~3 le~ua3od jo ea~) 3d~ L L l!q!qx~ Aan~s 3~I/INI l~]rOHd/N]~]AOMd~I NI~HQ ~MO/S ]RN]A~ N]QNI3 OOSION~Md N~S H/nos ~O AII3 V3~V ONIOVIS ~ aO/OV~LNOO V3~V 3clV ~ 0N3039 ONIOV/S V-3~V NOI_LVIS d~nd V3WV 3dY 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Soil type Based on information contained in the General Plan Background Report (Figure 10-4), soil underlying the project area is characterized as "Bay mud," which is associated with high shrink- swell potential, differential settlement of soils, corrosivity to metals and susceptibility to seismic hazards, such as liquefaction. Seismic hazards No fault traces have been identified in the project area, although several major fault zones lie in close proximity, including but not limited to the San Andreas Fault, the San Gregorio Fault the San Bruno Fault (inactive) and the Hillside Fault (inactive). Based on the close proximity of these and other faults in the Bay Area and Northern California, it is likely that the City of South will be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking in the future based on nearby fault activity. Figure 10-2 contained in the General Plan Background Report identifies the project area as subject to moderate risk of liquefaction during a seismic event. Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose and fine-grained sediment into a fluid-like state due to groundshaking. Liquefaction can result in substantial loss of life, injury and property damage due to collapse of buildings, foundations, bridges and similar structures. Standards of significance The following standards of significance are used to assess potential environmental impacts related to geological, landform and topographic issues of the proposed project: · Exposure of people and property to the risk of harm from geological hazards and/or soil or seismic conditions; · Presence of an Earthquake Safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Seismic Study Zone), an active fault or an area characterized by surface rupture that could be related to fault activity; · Increases over present levels of soil erosion. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? LS. Proposed improvements on the site would be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking during seismic events on nearby fault zones. In the absence of an Earthquake Safety Zone on the site, the risk of ground rupture is considered Iow. There is a potential that underground storm drain pipes could be dislocated or broken during a seismic event, especially due to the presence of Bay mud. However, since the pipes would be storm drain pipes and would not transport hazardous materials, this is anticipated to be a less-than- significant impact. Since the project area is essentially flat, no impacts are anticipated related to landslides. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 52 March 2005 b) c-d) e) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS/M. If the project is approved by the City of South San Francisco, implementing actions would include trenching and excavation for placement of storm drain pipes and excavation for the pump station. Although limited, a possibility exists that stockpiling of trench spoils could erode into nearby streets, into Colma Creek and ultimately into San Francisco Bay. This would be a significant impact. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce erosion impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 6. Contract specification(s) for construction shall require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for all portions of the project that would involve trenching, excavation or stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and be consistent with City of South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines and standards. Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Underlying Bay mud soils within the project area could result in liquefaction and/or differential settlement of soils, which could damage underground pipes and perhaps the pump station. The staff of the City of South San Francisco Community and Economic Development Department indicates that local soil type has been accounted for in the design of project improvements to ensure that any soil risk will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. The project involves installation of new and replacement storm drain facilities. There would therefore be no impact with regard to septic tanks. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Note: a portion of this section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project area performed by the firm of Fugro West, Inc., in May 2004. The full text of this report is attached to this document.) Environmental Setting Hazardous materials The project area has been used for a variety of light industrial, storage and similar purposes for over 50 years. The hazardous materials report identify the potential of soil and groundwater contamination from existing and previous industrial uses in the area, including use and storage of petroleum products at Olympian Oil Company (located at 34 South Linden Avenue), several auto and truck repair facilities and a dry cleaning facility located at 101 South Maple Avenue. A site reconnaissance performed by Fugro West staff did not observe obvious signs of the handling, use or disposal of hazardous materials within the project area. No properties within the project area were included on the State of California's Department of Toxic Substances Control's list of contaminated sites (the Cortese List) as of January 28, 2005. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 53 March 2005 The ESA did identify one property within the project area where hazardous materials have either been permitted for the use, generation and/or disposal. This is the BASAPCO, Inc. site at 27 Linden Avenue. Thirty-three (33) other properties adjacent to the project area tat have been permitted for the use, generation and/or disposal of hazardous materials. These are listed on page 10, Section 7.2 of the ESA. Soil and groundwater contamination The chemical analysis performed by Fugro West indicate that hazardous concentrations of lead exist in project area soil above applicable standards for construction workers. Low-level concentration of Volatile Organic Compounds. PCE and similar materials were found along South Canal Street; however, levels of VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons may be encountered during project construction. Groundwater testing by Fugro West indicated that groundwater under the project site are relatively free of contaminants; however, groundwater contamination from adjacent sites may have migrated under the project area. Airports San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) is located approximately two miles southeast of the project area. Standards of significance The proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would directly or indirectly contribute to a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the project area. Also, the project would be deemed significant if it blocked or hampered an emergency evacuation route or conflicted with any airport safety zones as defined by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. The proposed project would include installation of upgraded storm drain facilities in a portion of South San Francisco and would not include transport, use, handling or disposal of hazardous materials. No impact would therefore result. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? LS/M. The ESA notes a potentially significant impact to project construction workers through contact of personnel with identified hazardous material within underlying soils and/or groundwater. This would include lead, VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons. The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level: Mitigation Measure 7. a) Prior to the commencement of construction, two site-specific health and safety plans (HSPs)shall be prepared a Certified Industrial Hygienist. One HSP shall apply to the former BASAPCO site and storm drain excavation along Victory Avenue; the second for storm drain replacement work on City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 54 March 2005 c) d) g) South Linden Avenue and South Canal Street. Both plans shall include, at minimum, specific methods for personal protective gear by contractor staff, soil handing and disposal procedures, dust control, field monitoring and stormwater runoff handing. b) Prior to project construction, the contractor shall contact the City's Environmental Coordinator to determine the acceptability of disposing of water encountered during the project in the City's Water Quality Control Plant and if additional testing may be necessary. A batch discharge permit shall be obtained from the City, if required. c) During project construction, soil excavated from the Victory Avenue site shall be stockpiled separately from other soils. Soils from this site should undergo additional testing to ensure they are non-hazardous wastes for disposal in non-hazardous landfill sites. d) A Removal Action Work Plan shall be prepared and implemented for the former BASAPCO site in accord with Calif. Health and Safety Code Secs 25323.1 and 25356.1. Approvals from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and other applicable regulatory agencies shall be obtained prior to implementation of this Plan. e) If staining, chemical odors or contaminated materials are encountered during construction, the contractor shall notify the City and design engineer immediately. If necessary, other appropriate regulatory agencies shall be notified and a characterization and remediation plan prepared by a qualified consultant. Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, waste within one-quarter mile of a school? NI. The project site is not located within one- quarter mile of any public school so there would be no impact. Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? LS. The project site is not listed on the State of California Department of Toxics Substances Control list (the Cortese List) as of January 28, 2005. The ESA identified one sites within the project area and several adjacent sites where hazardous materials have been permitted for the use, generation and/or disposal of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure 8 above, would ensure that impacts to construction works due to release of hazardous materials would be less-than-significant. Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? NI. The project area is not within an airport land use plan area of SFIA, so there would be no conflict with airport land use plans or airport activities. Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? LS. The proposed project would include partial blockage of local streets within South San Francisco for the purpose of installing upgraded sewer lines, catch basins and similar drainage improvements. Mitigation Measure 11, contained in the Traffic and Circulation section, would require the City to prepare and implement a circulation plan to ensure continuous accessibility of streets and properties during properties so that this potential impact would be less-than-significant. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 55 March 2005 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Surface Water The primary freshwater feature nearest the project site is Colma Creek, which is a perennial stream with a watershed of approximately 16.3 square miles through the center of South San Francisco. Two smaller creeks are tributaries to Colma Creek: Twelve Mile Creek and Spruce Creek. Colma Creek is almost entirely channelized west of the Bayshore (US 101) freeway. San Mateo County Flood Control District recently completed improvements within the Colma Creek channel. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered under the project site at approximately 13 to 19 feet below ground surface, based on the Environmental Site Assessment completed for the project by Fugro West, Inc. Groundwater under the project area is not used as a source of potable water. Surface water quality standards The City of South San Francisco participates with all other cities in San Mateo County that are co-permittees of a county-wide NPDES permit. Under the terms of the Clean Water Program, individual development projects must adhere to construction and post construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts to surface bodies of water. All development projects that disturb more than 1 acre of ground are required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that water quality standards are in place. Standards of significance The following standards of significance are used to assess potential environmental impacts related to drainage and water quality issues of the proposed project: · Exposure of people and structures to new or increased flooding hazards; · Loss of flood carrying capacities within downstream storm drain facilities and receiving waters; · Decline in local surface or groundwater quality as a result of project development, including impacts from future occupants of the project as well as construction-related impacts; · Decline in the quantity of available groundwater; Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. The proposed project would not increase the amount of wastewater to be treated by the City's Water Quality Control Plant nor add to the amount of stormwater runoff, so that a less-than- significant impact will result. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The proposed project includes construction storm drainage improvements to alleviate existing City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 56 March 2005 c) d) e) g-i) J) flooding conditions. There would therefore be no use of and no impacts to groundwater resources. Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS/M. The project would change an existing drainage pattern in order to alleviate existing flood conditions within the project area. This would be a beneficial impact. However, short-term construction of project improvements, including stockpiling of excavated material could lead to erosion of material off of the site and into adjacent bodies of water. This would be a significant impact and the following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 8. Contract plans and specifications shall include erosion control measures to ensure that water borne erosion of stored or stockpiled material is minimized. Specific methods to achieve this include but are not limited to use of silt fences, hay bales and similar items. Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. Drainage patterns would not be significantly changed as part of the project, however, the objective of the project is to improve area drainage so that impacts would be less-than- significant. Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts ofpolluted runoff?. NI. The project includes construction of upgraded storm drain facilities. No new impervious surfaces would be created so no impact to increasing stormwater runoff would result. Substantially degrade water quality? LS/M. Trenching and excavation portions of the project could degrade surface water quality by erosion of material off of the project area and into nearby bodies of water. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 9 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? NI. Although the proposed project is located within a 100-year flood hazard area, no dwellings or other habitable structures would be constructed so no impact would result. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. There are expected to be no impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, since the project site is located west of San Francisco Bay. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Existing land uses The project area has been developed with a mix of light industrial buildings, warehouse and similar uses. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 57 March 2005 Regulatory framework Land uses within South San Francisco are regulated by the South San Francisco General Plan, which was recently updated in 1999. The General Plan includes the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, Economic Development Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, Health and Safety Element and Noise Element. One Guiding Policy has been included in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan Element. This is Policy 8.2-G-1, which states: "minimize the risk to life and property in South San Francisco." The General Plan land use designation in the project area is "Mixed Industrial," which allows a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution uses. The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance regulates land uses on private property in the community. Zoning within the project area is M-1. Light Industrial. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Physically divide an established community? LS/M. Approval and construction of the proposed project would involve work within public rights-of-way or on properties currently owned by the City of South San Francisco. Short-term construction could result in a hardship for local businesses by restricting access during business hours. This could be a potentially significant impact and the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 9. The City shall undertake an advance notification program to property owners and residents that could be affected by the proposed construction program indicating, at minimum, a description of proposed work, hours of operation, construction phasing and an individual to be notified in the event of emergencies. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The proposed drainage improvement programs would be consistent with the Guiding Policies of the Health and Safety Element of the South San Francisco General Plan as identified in the Environmental Setting section. No impacts would therefore result. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the City of South San Francisco. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the proposed project. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project area contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Existing Conditions Report prepared as part of the 1999 General Plan Update process. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 58 March 2005 Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no impacts would occur. 11. Noise Environmental Setting The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concerns with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. The Noise Element of the General Plan EIR identifies the following primary sources on noise in South San Francisco: aircraft noise from San Francisco Intemational Airport, traffic noise from freeways and arterial roadways in the community, railroad noise and industrial noise. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 3. City of South San Francisco Noise Exposure Levels Land Use Residential Commercial Industrial Open Noise Exposure Level Less than 65: Satisfactory 66 to 70: Conditionally Acceptable 70+: Unacceptable Less than 70:Satisfactory 70 to 80: Conditionally Acceptable 80+Airport-related development only Up to 75: Satisfactory 75 to 85: Conditionally Acceptable 85+ Airport related development only Up to 75: Satisfactory 75+ Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals Source: South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, 1999 Noise level references reflect Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) decibels Based on discussions with City of South San Francisco staff, there have been no complaints recorded by the City for current operations of pump stations. Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: NI. The majority of project components are proposed to be located underground so there would be no permanent noise generation. One portion of the project would include construction of a new pump station on City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 59 March 2005 g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the proposed reorganization be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 65 March 2005 17. 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 wiMlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources with adherence to mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, no impacts are anticipated to the environment should the project be approved, since the project involves the construction of new and upgraded storm drain facilities within an urbanized area. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 66 March 2005 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Miley Holman, Holman Associates, archeology Matthew Clark, Holman Associates, archeology Donald Ballanti, air quality Tim Lacy, LSA Associates, biology Michele Lee, LSA Associates, biology Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of South San Francisco Ray Razavi, City Engineer Dennis Chuck, Project Manager Raul Dacanay, Project Engineer Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Carollo Engineer (design engineer) Kent yon Aspern, P.E., Project Manager References City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program. Initial Historic Properties research for Section 106 Compliance, Phase 5: Linden Avenue Storm Drain Improvements, Holman & Associates, January 2005 Department of Toxic Substances Control, State of California, Cortese List website, January 28, 2005 Draft Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, South Canal Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, May 2004 South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, Dyett & Bhatia, 1997 South San Francisco General Plan, Dyett & Bhatia, 1999 South San Francisco General Plan EIR, Dyett & Bhatia and EIP Associates, 1999 South San Francisco Linden Avenue Storm Drain Improvement Project Biological Site Assessment, LSA Associates, January 2005 City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 67 March 2005 Appendices -Biological Reconnaissance -Cultural Resources Report -Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Linden Avenue Storm Drain Project Page 68 March 2005 LSA LSA ASSOCIATES, INC 157 PARK PLACE PT RICi-IMOND, CALIFORNIA 9480! 5xo.236.68Io TEL 510.236.3480 FAX BERKELEY FT. COLLINS IRVINE RIVERSIDE ROCKLIN SAN LUIS OBISPO January 24, 2005 Jerry Haag Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 Subject: South San Francisco Linden Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project Biological Site Assessment Dear Mr. Haag: This report presents the findings of a biological site assessment conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) biologist Michele Lee on January 19, 2005, at the Linden Avenue Storm Drain Improvement project site (the site) in South San Francisco, California. This report describes the environmental setting and biological resources in the project area and discusses the potential for the site to support special-status species and the presence of potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Recommendations are made for implementing additional surveys to avoid potential impacts to biological resources and conducting a formal jurisdictional wetland delineation for the permitting process. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Linden Avenue site is located west of Highway 101 in the central portion of the City of South San Francisco, California (Figure G-l). The site is located approximately 1.1 m/les west of the San Francisco Bay in the San Francisco South 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle. The project area includes Victory Avenue, Linden Avenue, South Canal Street, North Canal Street, Maple Avenue, Starlite Street, paved lots at the northeast comer of Linden Avenue and North Canal Street, and portions of Colma Creek (Figure G-I). Colma Creek flows between North Canal Street and South Canal Street. Several small sections within the reach of the creek from Starlite Street east to Linden Avenue would potentially be impacted by the proposed project. The reconnaissance survey of the creek included a longer reach of the creek in the vicinity of the project area from South Spruce Street east to the Caltrain tracks near Linden Avenue. Access to the creek was restricted by locked gates, fencing and walls so observations were made from the Linden Avenue Bridge and streets adjacent to the creek. Land use in the project area and in the vicinity is primarily industrial. Most of the project area consists of paved roads where the new storm drain pipes and catch basins will be installed. The location of the proposed pump station at the northeast comer of Linden Avenue and North Canal Street consists of paved lots that are vacant or currently used as storage for heavy equipment, containers, and wood (Figures G-1 and C-10). The project area is mostly unvegetated except for landscaped areas with lawns and ornamental plants along the streets. A small section along the northern bank of Colma P :UHU 530kBiological_Assessment_Report_Final.doc (1/24/2005) PLANNING [ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Creek near the proposed pump station where four outfalls will discharge water over the northern wall and into the creek (Figure C-10) consists of an upland area located above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) that is dominated by young grasses and Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae). The OHWM was visible as a scour mark on the bank and below the OHWM was sparsely vegetated. Portions of Colma Creek in the project area and in the vicinity are highly disturbed and lack developed riparian or wetland habitats. The creek bed is deeply incised and consists mostly of fine sediment and lacks gravel or cobbles and pools and ripples. During the site visit, water was flowing in the creek and the OHWM was visible as a scour mark on both banks west of the Linden Avenue bridge and as a water stain on the concrete wall of the creek on the banks east of Linden Avenue. The banks of the creek from Linden Avenue west to South Spruce Street consist of large concrete walls and the banks and channel are completely unvegetated. The banks of the creek from Linden Avenue west to the Caltrain tracks are vegetated in most areas except immediately adjacent to the Linden Avenue Bridge where sand bags, black plastic and riprap line the banks. The banks above the OHWM are dominated by young grasses, wild fennel (Foeniculurn vulgare), and Bermuda buttercup. Below the OHWM the bank was sparsely vegetated with patches of a tall grass that could be creeping wild rye (Leyrnus triticoides), a native hydrophyte (restricted access prevented closer examination of these plants for positive identification). The only shrubs or trees observed along the creek were a patch of what appeared to be willows (Salix sp.) outside the project area on the southern bank, west of the Linden Avenue Bridge. There were very few large trees in the vicinity of the creek with the exception of a row of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) trees that run perpendicular to the creek just past the willow trees outside the project area. POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND NON-WETLAND WATERS OF TFIE U.S. Regulatory Background The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of fill to waters of the United States including wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Corps regulates the activities of dredging and filling in waters of the U.S. using a permitting system which is implemented by the Corps' District offices. Waters of the U.S. fall into two general categories: wetlands and non-wetland waters of the U.S. Non-wetland waters of the U.S. include unvegetated waterbodies and watercourses such as rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries. Wetlands include tidal marshes, freshwater marshes, floodplains, seeps, and seasonal wetlands. In some cases, seasonal wetlands that are isolated from other jurisdictional wetlands or non-wetland waters of the U.S. are not regulated by the Corps. Wetlands that are jurisdictional should, under normal circumstances, meet the Corp's criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil. This jurisdictional determination is made by conducting a standard Corp wetland delineation (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The lateral limits of waters of the United States are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(a). The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) or the limit of adjacent wetlands. The OHWM is "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." P:~JHU530XBiological_Assessment_Report_Final.doc (1/24/2005) 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. (33 CFR Part 328.3[e]). Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the United States, whether natural or man-made, results in a similar extension of Corps jurisdiction. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) also regulates the discharge of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The RWQCB reviews projects to determine whether they require a Water Quality Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements. The CDFG has jurisdiction over the bed and banks of watercourses and waterbodies according to provisions of Sections 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the modifications to the bed or bank of a watercourse or waterbody. CDFG jurisdiction typically extends to the top of the bank and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover. Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States in the Project Area Potentially jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters of the United States are located in the project area. Colma Creek flows east from the site and into the San Francisco Bay approximately 1.1 miles east of the site. The creek channel is a jurisdictional non-wetland water of the United States because it is directly connected to the Bay, which is a jurisdictional water of the United States. Jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the United States in the project area include unvegetated areas along the banks and in the creek bed that are below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The banks of the creek appeared sparsely vegetated during the site visit and potentially jurisdictional wetlands could be present if these areas meet the Corps criteria for wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Several activities associated with the Linden Avenue Storm Drain Improvement Project could impact potentially jurisdictional areas at Colma Creek and thus could require permits from the Corps, CDFG and RWQCB. The installation of four outfalls on the northern bank of Colma Creek near the proposed pump station could require a permit from all three agencies for fill and/or dredging in jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters of the United States (Figure C-10). Even if the outfall structures are located above the OHWM, associated structures for erosion control are likely to be installed below the OHW2M and thus require permits. Installation of a storm drain pipe that connect the pump station to the storm drain system along South Canal Street would also require a permit from all three agencies if the pipe is installed in the channel (waters of the United States) (Figure C-10). Permits from all three agencies could also be required if removing the existing flapgates at the creek wall at the northern bank involves dredg/ng or filling below the OHWM or the operation of equipment in the channel. Depending on the total acreage of impacts to jurisdictional areas, these activities could be permitted under the Corps' Nationwide Permit system. For example, Nationwide Permit 43 for Stormwater Management Facilities permits the installation and maintenance of out£all structures and water control structures if the impacts to a stream-bed are less than 300 linear feet and the loss of non- tidal waters of the United States is less than 0.5 acre. Some Nationwide Permits, such as 43, require that a formal Corps' wetland delineation be conducted at the site. A compensatory mitigation plan is also likely to be required for any impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States. PSJHU530~Biological_Assessment_Report_Final.doc (1/24/2005) 3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES This section describes the regulatory context for addressing special-status species and evaluates potential impacts to biological resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are also recommended to avoid and minimize potential impacts. Regulatory Background The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed species from harm or "take" which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to a listed species. An activity can be defined as "take" even if it is umntentional or accidental. Incidental take of listed species may be authorized through the Section 7 or Section 10 process of the FESA. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under FESA if they occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a Section 404 fill permit The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, CDFG has jurisdiction over state-listed species (California Fish and Game Code 2070). Additionally, the CDFG maintains lists of "species of special concern" that are defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and~or continuing threats. Section 15380Co) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG. For this report, the term special-status species is defined as follows: Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA; · Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under CESA; · Plant species listed in the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) database as List lA, lB, and 2, 3, and 4 (CNPS 2004); · Wildlife species listed by CDFG as species of special concern, or as protected or fully protected species; · Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA; · Species designated as species of special concern. P :k[ HU530kBiological_Assessment_Report_Final.doc (1/24/2005) 4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Special-Status Species that Potentially Occur in the Project Area Based on thc experience of LSA biologists in the South San Francisco area and a review of various databases (CNPS 2004; CNDDB 2004), there arc no special-status species that are highly likely to occur on the site. The site is in an industrial area and is highly disturbed. Thc site lacks suitable habitat for special-status plant species and for most special-status animals. Special-status animal species with potential to occur onsite arc discussed below. The site provides foraging and potentially roosting habitat for several bat species, including Pacific western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) a species of special concern. Bats could potentially roost under the bridge and forage along the creek. If the project will impact the bridge, a detailed survey of the bridge should be conducted to look for signs of bat usage and for crevices that could provide suitable day or night roosting habitat. Impacts to bats would be considered significant if construction activities removed a roost site, particularly if the roost was used as a maternity roost. Special-status salmonids are believed to absent from Colma Creek based on several sources of information, including the CNDDB (2004). According to a fish distribution study in 1981, two sites at Colma Creek were sampled and Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were not found (Leidy 1984 as referenced in Leidy et al. 2003). In 2002, suitable habitat for steelhead and steelhead were not found during surveys located between the mouth of the creek and the headwaters (Leidy 2002 as referenced in Leidy et al. 2003). The Public Notice for a Corps permit for installing a concrete flood control lining in Colma Creek between Spruce Street and San Mateo Avenue in South San Francisco, which includes the Linden Avenue project area, stated that their project would not impact any endangered species, including Central Coast steelhead and their critical habitat in the project area because the project area does not provide spawning habitat, riparian habitat, or high water quality (Corps 2001). The Corps' assessment was confirmed through preliminary consultation with the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS). As part of the permitting process for the project, CDFG and NMFS should be informally consulted to confirm the absence of special-status fish in Colma Creek. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii ), is a federally threatened species and a California species of concern that is known to occur in streams in the San Francisco Bay Area, but it is unlikely to occur in Colma Creek. LSA has found red-legged frogs approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the site at the West of Bayshore site, which is on the other side (southern side) of Highway 380, but there are no known CDNDDB records of California red-legged frog in Colma Creek (CNDDB 20004). The Public Notice for a Corps permit for installing a concrete flood control lining in Cotma Creek between Spruce Street and San Mateo Avenue in South San Francisco, which includes the Linden Avenue project area, stated that their project would not impact any endangered species, including California red-legged frog because the channel was not likely to support this species (Corps 2001). NESTING BIRDS Although the site lacks habitat for nesting special-status birds, impacts to nursery sites such as nesting areas would be considered significant under CEQA. The project area lacks large trees except for medium-sized ornamental trees in landscaped areas adjacent to streets and a patch of shrubby willows and a row of tall eucalyptus trees along the creek. Another potential nesting area is the Linden Avenue Bridge. This bridge may provide nesting site for cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) or barn P :LIHU 530~Biological_Assessment_Report_Final.doc (1/24/2005) 5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. swallows (Hirundo rustica). Construction activities or staging in close proximity to trees or shrubs could result in disruption of nesting activities or nest abandonment if the habitat is occupied during the construction season. In order to avoid such potential impacts, construction activities and staging areas should be located at least 200 feet from these habitat areas during the nesting season (February 1 through July 31). If construction activities would occur in close proximity to these habitats during the nesting season, then a preconstruction survey should be conducted to ensure that there are no active nests within the construction area. The preconstmction survey should be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of activities and be repeated at 30-day intervals if the project did not commence within the previous 30 days. If an active nest is found during the preconstruction survey, then the following protective measures should be implemented: 1) establish a clearly-delineated (i.e., orange construction fencing) exclusion zone around each nest site with a minimum radius of 200 feet from the nest or dripline of the nest tree for raptors or a radius of 100 feet for passerines; 2) monitor the nest within the exclusion zones on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify any signs of disturbance (monitoring to be conducted by a qualified biologist); and 3) if the qualified ' biologist identifies signs of disturbance, relocation of construction activities pursuant to the biologist's recommendation until signs of disturbance are eliminated. Protection measures should remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. TREE ORDINANCE The City of South San Francisco has a Tree Preservation Ordinance that requires a permit for removing or pruning protected trees (City of South San Francisco 2003). Protected trees are: 1) trees that have a circumference of 48" or more when measured 54" above natural grade, 2) A tree or stand of trees that are unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, or historical significance, or 3) a stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. If any trees need to be pruned or removed during construction of the proposed project, an arborist should conduct a survey for protected trees prior to implementation of the project. CONCLUSIONS In compliance with the Clean Water Act, a formal jurisdictional delineation should be conducted in conjunction with the wetland permitting process prior to any construction activities that will impact jurisdictional waters of the United States in the project area. It is likely that jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the United States are present at the site, but more information is needed to determine if jurisdictional wetlands exist of the site. The project is unlikely to impact special-status plants or wildlife because of the project area lacks suitable habitat for most special-status species, but to avoid any potential impacts background research, focused surveys, and pre-construction surveys should be conducted prior to construction of the project. If the Linden Bridge is impacted, focused surveys should be conducted for bat roosts and swallow nests. Additional information is also needed from CDFG and NMFS to confirm the absence of special-status salmonids in Colma Creek. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, pre-construction surveys should be conducted for swallows using the bridge and other bird species nesting in trees or shrubs in the project area. In addition, if any trees P:XJHU530XBiological_Assessment_Report_Final.doc (1/24/2005) 6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC REFERENCES California Native Plant Society. (CNPS). 2004. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Onqine version 6-05a, January 9, 2005. http://www.cal.net/-levinel/cgi-bin/cnps/sensinv.cgi California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2004. Rarefind. Version 3.0.5, November 3, 2003. Updated November 2, 2004. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, California. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Leidy, R. A. 1984. Distribution and Ecology of Stream Fishes in the San Francisco Bay Drainage (and associated unpublished data, 1981-1984.) Hilgardia 52(8). Leidy, R. A. USEPA. 2002. Unpublished stream survey data 1992-2002. Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B. N. Harvey. 2003. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), and Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, California and Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, California. October 2003. City of South San Francisco. 2003. Tree removal/Pruning permits website. http://www.ssf, net/news/displavnews.asp?NewslD= 1121. Accessed on January 20, 2005. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2001. Public Notice for Individual Permit. Number 25865S, September 24, 2001. Construction of "U" shaped concrete flood control lining, raising a bridge, and channel reconfiguration at Colma Creek. P 5JHU530~Biological_Assessment_Report_Final.doc (1/24/2005) 8 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. need to be pruned or removed, surveys for protected trees need to be conducted and a tree permit obtained from the City of South San Francisco prior to construction. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or Tim Lacy at 510-236-6810. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Michele Lee Senior Biologist Attachments: Figures G-1 and C-10 P:XJHU530XBiological_Assessment_Report_Final.doc 1/24/2005) 7 N.T.S, S/IH PROdEOT 0 C e a'n, VICINITY MAP SOUTH CITY SAN OF FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT LOCATION MAP CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LINDEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO BID NO AUGUST 2OO4 engineers JOE) NO. 672&A10 DRAWING NO. G-1 SHE~'T NO. I OF' X G AB ~VO xxx ~o ~~ BOId3OB31NI ~3BIS ]VNV9 HIBON ~n~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 'ON ONIM~O ~ ~ SIN3~3AOHd~I NI~O ~MOIS ~N3AV N3ONI9 ~ ~ ~ ~]s/o~r B o NM~a o~zz~ ~~ OOSION~3 NVS HI'OS ~ ~ 'ON Bor , .O-,g=. J :~S ~ .O-,Og=.J :~S ZIMOH oo+~.o, oo+~.o. 39 IHOMd ~+z.o. oo+ 1 o, ~ m ~ ~ · 0 J ~ [ ~ I ~ ~ J . .. , , OL / ~ · · - ~ ~ ~ ~ OL gL . ; ~ ' r 'gL O~ .o-.o~.J ~s N~d :S31ON qV~3N30 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WET WEATHER PROGRAM INITIAL HISTORIC PROPERTIES RESEARCH FOR SECTION 106 COMPLIANCE, PHASE 5: LINDEN STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS Matthew R. Clark Registered Professional Archaeologist January 2004 Report Prepared For Jerry Haag, Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 HOLMAN & ASSOCIATES ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS 3615 FOLSOM STREET SAN FRANCrSCO, CA 94110 CO~E~S Management Summary ................................................. 1 Previous Section 106 Historic Properties Research ........................... 3 Project Location, Description, and APE .................................... 4 Location ....................................................... 4 Project Description ............................................... 4 The Area of Potential Effects (APE) .................................. 5 Consultation ........................................................ 5 Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity ....................................... 6 Prehistoric Archaeological Potential .................................. 6 Historic Archaeological Potential ..................................... 8 Summary ...................................................... 10 Recommendations for Field Research .................................... 11 Determining Where to Look ....................................... 11 Subsurface Testing Methods ....................................... 12 Proposed GeoProbing for Phase 5/Linden Storm Drain Improvements ........ 13 References .......................................................... 14 Maps: 1. South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Phase5/Linden Storm Drain Project Location ......................................................... 2 2. 1854 U.S. Coast Survey Map of the Point San Bmno/Colma Creek Vicinity ..... 19 3. A Portion of Nelson's 1909 Map of Bay Region Shell Mounds ................ 20 4. Portion of the 1868 Official Map of San Mateo County ..................... 21 5. 1873 State Geological Survey Map of Point San Bruno/Colma Creek Vicinity .... 22 6. Portion of 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County ........................ 23 7. Portion of circa 1895 USGS Topographic Map Published in 1908 ............. 24 8. Portion of 1915 USGS San Mateo 15' Quadrangle ......................... 25 9. Portion of 1927 Official Map of San Mateo County ........................ 26 10. A Portion of the 1928 Map of the City of South San Francisco .............. 27 11. Historical Shorelines and Known Fill Areas (from the Mark Group 1988) ...... 28 12. Portion of 1939 San Mateo 15' Quadrangle ............................. 29 13. Portion of 1941 USGS San Mateo 15' Quadrangle ........................ 30 14. Portion of USGS 1947 7.5' San Francisco South Quadrangle ................ 31 15. Portion of 1955 USGS 7.5' San Francisco South Quadrangle ................ 32 APE Maps ............................................. appended at back Figure: 1. Aerial Photo of Project Vicinity Taken 11 October 1943 .................... 33 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The South San Francisco Wet Weather Program is a sanitary sewer, wastewater treatment, and storm drain system rehabilitation and expansion project by the City's Department of Public Works. This large project is divided into five phases, which are proceeding at differing rates. The SSFWWP comes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Initial Section 106 work was undertaken and the project addressed as a whole beginning in 2002 (Clark 2002b), though few design specifics were available at that time, and additional 106 work has been designed and completed as project phases have been designed and construction begun. SSFWWP Section 106 compliance procedures are governed by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the City, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Office of Historic Preservation in 2003; the work described here is being conducted under the terms of that MOA_ "Phase 5" of the SSFWWP, also known as the "Linden Storm Drain Improvement Project" (LSDI), is the newest phase of the project and differs from other phases in being an upgrade to a storm drain system area rather than for wastewater going to the Water Quality Control Plant. Excavations of trenches will take place in city streets south of channelized Colma Creek and new construction will take place at the proposed storm water pump station north of the creek. The connector pipe between the new storm drains and the new pump station in already in place under the creek The APEs for the storm drains and pump station are not considered archaeologically sensitive for historic resources; no additional research or Section 106 work for historic period properties is recommended. The Pump Station location and majority of the approximately 3113 foot long storm drain routes are considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources and subsurface reconnaissance is recommended. Subsurface reconnaissance via the GeoProbe device is recommended on most of the storm drain routes south of Colma Creek and at the proposed storm water pump station location. This field testing would extend horizontally and vertically as far as the potential for impacts, and should be accomplished in a few field days. A report of results with recommendations for additional Section 106 compliance work as warranted will be based on the subsurface reconnaissance. -1- -2- PREVIOUS SECTION 106 HISTORIC PROPERTIES RESEARCH The South San Francisco Wet Weather Program project (SSFWWP) comes under the National Historic Preservation Act's Section 106, designed to identify, evaluate, and assess potential effects on "historic properties." Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants (H&A) Section 106 work, begun in 2002, has specifically focused on archaeological resources as pertains to Section 106. Section 106 compliance work for the Project commenced with review of existing archaeological data, field assessment of surface conditions and a surface survey of the Project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), review of the history and historic maps and plans of the Project APEs, and detailed study of the various Project elements at the 2002 design level. That background data, archaeological background and ethnographic setting, historic setting, general archaeological principles, and the nature of Project impacts were presented and assessed in the first 106 compliance report by H&A: Initial Archaeological Resources Procedures for National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance for the City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Sewer and Water Treatment Project (Clark, May 2002b). The information and conclusions offered in that "Initial 106 Reporf' are assumed here and will not be reiterated except as necessary or if changed, added to, contradicted, or negated. As currently described, the SSFWWP will proceed in five phases: Phase 1 includes five elements, two Pump Station upgrades (San Mateo and Shaw Road Pump Stations), two force main replacements (Lowrie Avenue and Shaw Road FMs), and a new effluent pond at the Water Quality Control Plant. A Research Design (Clark 2002c) and addendum (Clark 2002d) and a subsurface reconnaissance report (Clark 2002e) were completed for Phase 1. Phase 1 is currently under construction, with archaeological monitoring of portions as recommended in Clark 2002e. · Phase 2 consists of sewer lines, force mains, and other facilities at various locations west of Highway 101; this phase has not been designed nor has additional Section 106 work been done since the 2002 Initial 106 Report. · Phase 3 was the Colma Creek Bank Protection project, for which a surface reconnaissance and assessment of archaeological sensitivity was completed (Clark 20020. As subsurface reconnaissance was impractical, archaeological monitoring was conducted during construction and a report completed (Clark and Entriken 2003), detailing that no significance archaeological resources were found. · Phase 4, the "East of 101" and largest portion of the S SFWWP, has been broken into four tasks or "bid packages," for the first of which Section 106 research is currently ongoing. Phase 5, the "Linden Storm Drain Improvement" project, was added to the SSFWWP as a separate phase last year; it was not addressed in the 2002 Initial 106Report. Initial 106 work on this phase is being conducted concurrently with the first of the Phase 4 work. As per the terms of the governing MOA (the MOA specifies "The City shall promptly notify the SWRCB if it becomes necessary to revise the established APE"), Cultural Resources Officer Cookie Him of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was notified by H&A when Phase 5 was -3- proposed as an addition to the S SFWWP (Clark 2004), though the APE had not yet been defined and in fact the project description has changed from that reported to the SWRCB in November 2004. This report starts Section 106 procedures for Phase 5, beginning development of proposed field efforts to identify historic properties as warranted. Since the LSDI/Phase 5 was added to the SSFWWP after 2002, the preliminary and background work reported in the Initial 106 Report did not cover the Phase 5 project specifically, although all the prehistoric, historic, and archaeological research is certainly applicable to the Linden Storm Drain Improvements. The initial archaeological records search did cover the LSDI area, as did general historic work on the development of the City of South San Francisco. The predicted sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological deposits for the overall project also pertains to the LSDI, as this project work is also along the former edge of the San Francisco Bay and marshlands, and in the immediate vicinity of the outlet of Colma Creek. Sensitivity for historic archaeological materials is one of the subjects of the research described here. PROJECT LOCATION, DESCRIPTION, AND APE Location Phase 5 of the SSFWWP, the "Linden Storm Drain Improvements" project (LSDI) work will take place just south of the oldest portion of downtown South San Francisco, adjacent to and crossing under (now channelized) Colma Creek quite near the original channel of the creek (see Map 1 and APE sheets). A total of-3113 lineal feet (948.8 meters) of new storm drain will be built, with -1116'/340.2 m on South Canal Street, -1190/362.7 m on South Linden Avenue, -524'/159.7m on Maple Avenue, and -283'/86.3 m on Victory Avenue. The new storm drains will be installed in an area chronically plagued by flooding and will include connecting to a new pump station on the north side of Colma Creek. The pump station will occupy an area approximately 24' by 50' (7.3x15.24 m or about 111.25 m2). The connection pipeline under the creek is already in place, installed during the San Mateo County Flood Control District' s recent lower Colma Creek Channel Improvement Project, and is not included in the Phase 5 APE (see APE sheets). Project Description Generally, the LSDI project will involve new installation and some replacement of existing storm drain facilities, with pipelines ranging from 28" to 36" (71.1-91.4 em) in diameter in new trenches down paved urbanized/industrial area streets (APE-l). Construction will include a new storm water pump station and emergency generator adjacent to the historic creek channel, and outlets into the stream channel (APE-2). All storm drain work will be below ground surface and will mn in existing streets and/or rights-of-way; trenches will be slightly larger than the pipe to be installed (e.g., 48-54" for the 36" pipe, 36-48" for the 28" pipe). Existing catch basins and smaller connections to the main line will be replaced at numerous locations. Excavations for the storm drains will range from about 8'/245 cm deep below current surface (BCS), or 2.63780.2 cm above mean sea level (MSL, or elevation zero) at the west end of the South Canal Street line to about 22'/670.6 em BCS or about -9'/-274.3 cm MSL at the junction where the new lines will connect to the pipe under the creek near the east end of South Canal. Excavations for connections to existing catch basins and laterals will be smaller and shallower. Work for the pump station will also be primarily below ground level, but will include installation of three above ground equipment pads (APE-2). The floor of the wet well at the pump station will be installed at -13.65'/-4.16 m, requiring excavations more than 28'/8.53 m deep. Three 24" and one 8" line will mn from the pump station through the newly installed concrete creek channel wall to dump the storm water. Proximity of the creek and shore of San Francisco Bay make the LSDI project location sensitive for prehistoric cultural remains, and the history of the City make it evident that historic resources could occur in the APE as well. The Area of Potential Effects APE The Phase 5/LSDI APE, as previously for the S SFWWP project, will include only those spaces designated as subject to excavations that may penetrate native ground and/or historic fill potentially containing archaeological resources, in addition to staging areas at the pump station/generator location. Current plan drawings show these zones quite specifically, and form the basis for the APE diagrams (APE-1 and APE-2). The APE will be construed as reaching approximately 30 cra/12" below the proposed excavation zones. The APE for archaeological impacts along the storm drain lines will encompass the entire roadways, from curb to curb, because the exact locations of the new lines cannot be predicted with exact specificity, though the locations shown on the APE sheets are proposed. Soil conditions, other below ground facilities, locations of connectors, and the inevitable below surfa . · the line locations to be moved from those proposed (and e ....ce surprises may cause specified). The pump station APE (APE~2) _ are also why the exact length is not includes everything inside the proposed new fences plus the trenches for the outflow lines below the surface, and the staging area on the surface. Only those zones where excavations will go would be considered for subsurface testing. ~CoNSULTATiON As per the strictures of the Section 106 regulations, potential interested parties were contacted in 2002 regarding the overall SSFWWP, including Native American Indian representatives and s~_c~t,~_o__n,s. ~Wh~l.~ e none r.ephed to written inquiries, several Native Americans oy telephone that they I>e notified if the project results in the discovery of prehistoric cultural resources. Under the terms of the MOA (Section VII (A)), additional consultation with possibly interested Native Americans, who would be representatives of the various Ohlone groups, is not needed for this addition to the project, nor are additional notifications of parties potentially interested in historic resources needed. If,, however, Phase 5 results in the discovery of prehistoric archaeological deposits, either during resource inventory or during construction, the requesting Ohlones will be contacted for input. -5- AI~AS OF Ai~CI-IA~OLOGICAL SENSITIVITY A complete archaeological records search was conducted in 2002 for the entire ssFWWP project vicinity, including the LSDI area. Site records and locations, as well as previous surface and subsurface reconnaissances were examined, and studies bearing on prehistoric archaeological potential were reviewed (e.g., Nelson 1909; Bickel, Jackson, and King 1973; Brown 1973-1974; Bickel 1978, 1978a; Clark 2000, 2000a, 2002; Rice 1994, 1994a, 1994b, 1995). In addition, · beating on historic archaeological potential examined (e.g., ~mey ~oo~, ..... J Geological reports onthe size, shape, Company various dates; numerous historic maps, cited below). and nature of the Bay margins at various times were also consulted (State Lands Commission 1871; Helly et al. 1979; Knott 1969; Knudsen et al. 2000; Mark Group 1988, 1989; McDonald et al. 1978; Nichols and Wright 1971). This background research and initial assessment of archaeological potential and impact evaluation for the overall sSFWWP Project were presented in the Initial 106 Report. Final construction drawings, progress prints, and final plans, with both facilities and profiles portrayed, were furnished by Carollo Engineers, design engineers for Phase 5 (Carollo 2004), and were utilized for the APE diagrams included here. In addition, a geotechnical study was conducted in 2004 speedicallY for Phase 5, with five new borings along the storm drain routes as well as data reference borings, and one new and two reference borings at the pump station of these borings were examined (DCMBoyal Engin~ring 2004). Other geological, from 10 earlier 1971; TetraTech location; the logs stratigraphic, and geotechnical data was also re-examined (e.g., Nichols and Wright 1994; Knudsen et al. 2000; Bonilla 1998). ~c Archaeolo 'cai Potential As detailed in the Initial 106 Report, the ssFWWP elements west of State Highway 101 and Phase 5 is located on the former south of Colma Creek are located in potentially archaeologically sensitive zones for both prehistoric · . es and historic resources over 50 ye.ars old. shell mound sites were recorded Nm~tive Amencanresourc _ _ .~.o ~,, reds of large prehistoric destroyed or covered by development. Nelson' s 1909 map of shell argins of San Franctsco t~ay, wtL~ bund well as in 1909 (Nelson 1909), many now mounds around the Bay shows numerous sites at the transition from dry to marsh land, as mounds completely surrounded by marshland that had expanded as water level rose. Phase 5 will be constructed in an area formerly containing~ over the past several thousand years, extensive salt marshes but also dry land and islands, including some with enough elevation to have remained dry until the recent prehistoric past, as well as sources of fresh water (Maps 2 and 3). This zone was ideal for prehistoric human use and settlement, a fact reflected in the large number of prehistoric archaeological sites tinging the Bay. Map 3 also shows that as early as 1854 the project vicinity was being used by Americans, as Bache's map spots several structures. Nelson's hand-inked 1909 map of Bay Area shell mounds indicates such a mound on the south side of Point San Bruno (Map 2; the site is probably #377, though Nelson' s renumbering makes the numbers difficult to discern) and it is likely other prehistoric site(s) were once found on Belle Aire Island to the south. Though it is unlikely that Nelson missed a major shell mound that would have been a landmark in the Phase 5 vicinity, it is now known that he missed recording many smaller sites around the Bay. Perhaps the most likely spot for a prehistoric site would have been the same one utilized early in the American period, where dry land met Colma Creek inland as the creek curved north (see Map 3: the westerly "Structures"); this spot was also the location of D.O. Mills' "Landing" (shown on Maps 4 and 5). Other likely spots would be high ground along the edge of marsh and Colma Creek, which includes the LSDI APE areas. Contours carefully mapped in 1914 and shown on several subsequent plans and maps (Kneese 1922, 1928, 1937; Klassen 1942) show high spots in the vicinity of Linden, Victory, and Maple Avenues (though mapped as marshland, elevations are show up to + 12 feet on the undulating surface and these surely would have been above the tidal zone), and current South Canal Street rises from +8' to +13' on what would originally have been very near the south bank of Colma Creek. The zone through which the Phase 5 trenches will pass must be considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits. The archaeological records search for the SSFWWP showed that the banks of channelized Colma Creek in the vicinity of the LSDI work were surface surveyed by Rice in 1995 for the recent San Mateo County Flood Control District enlargement and reconstruction of the channel. Her survey did not record any archaeological resources, noted the heavy historic disturbance to the area, and concluded that the area was of low archaeological sensitivity, discounting even the possibility of prehistoric cultural materials buried under the historic fill, and so did not conduct nor recommend any subsurface reconnaissance: "Historic and contemporary ground modifications-such as the dredging of the Colma Creek channel-indicate a low archaeological sensitivity .... Due to the complete disturbance of the channel from previous excavation and landfill, urbanization, and asphalting, no subsurface archaeological deposits are believed to exist in the project boundaries .... contains no known archaeological sites, and due to flooding and previous disturbances, it has a low potential for containing such sites. Further ground disturbances associated with the drainage improvements should not disturb previously unexcavated resources, if any exist." [sic] (Rice 1995:8, 10). Rice did not recommend any additional cultural resources work for the Flood Control District's enlargement of the Colma Creek channel, so the recent work (10 years after her report) went forward without any provision for monitoring or notification should potential archaeological materials be discovered. This assumption of low archaeological potential along the creek corridor was proven erroneous in recent years, when a large buried prehistoric site was discovered under deep fill on a channelized section of Colma Creek surveyed by Rice. Upstream from the Phase 5 APEs where Chestnut Avenue crosses the concreted creek channel, CA-SMA-355 was found on the north creek bank under 1.5 to more than 6 meters of recent and historic natural and artificial fill (Clark 2000, 2000a, 2004; Witter 2001). Believed to be a Late Period site (based on a single radiocarbon date), SMA-355 is situated in a location similar to the Phase 5 APEs, at the edge of the former Bayside marshes (which used to extend up to Orange Park and nearly Chestnut Avenue) and near Coima Creek, rising from the former creek banks to a high spot just upland from the marshlands. -7- Historic Archaeological Potential The history of South San Francisco is a microcosm of the history of industrial development in the Bay Area, California, the West, and the entire nation (see the Initial 106 Report). "South San Francisco The Industrial City," as proclaimed in huge white letters on the south slope of Sign Hill (an historic landmark and National Register property created in 1923 to celebrate the City' s most famous attribute), says all that need be said about the importance of the industrial history of the city. Most of this industrial development and redevelopment took place by design on graded and filled lands east of Highway 101, while residential and commercial development was designed for west of the highway and north of Colma Creek in what is still the City's downtown. The numerous maps included here illustrate the sweeping changes to the area beginning in the third quarter of the nineteenth century, as well as more minor changes beginning with the earliest maps. Renmants of the historic development of the City, if present as archaeological deposits in the Project APEs, would likely qualify for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. However, the LSDI APE was both less developed early, and the location of proposed facilities makes Phase 5 somewhat less sensitive for historic resources than elsewhere in the City. As noted, American use of the LSDI vicinity was mapped as early as 1854 (Map 3), but there : ..... _.a ..... u~..u ..... :,:,, AOC ......... ~o,t o,, ~o~1,, 14m~vor hv 1 g6g "gan Bruno Road" through most of its history. The other two streets within the APE, the short stretches of Maple and Victory Avenues, have basically the same history, with Victory Avenue first appearing on the 1947 map (Map 14) and Maple not extending south of the creek channel until 1955. Although it is possible historic deposits associated with flood control work, other construction, or informal fill that might include historic materials exists under the late 1940s fill, these streets also cannot be considered sensitive for historic archaeological deposits. North of the creek, the small parcel where the pump station will be placed is closer to historic downtown South San Francisco, and this area was also filled between 1915 and 1922, but no structures appear at or near the location until the 1947 topographic map, and that one disappears on the 1955 map. The maps and plans provide evidence of many changes to the flood plain west of Linden Avenue, but east of Linden the creek was allowed to spread out until Highway 101 was moved to the current location in the mid-1950s, when the pump station location was also built up to levee-in the creek. Again, informal fill, construction debris, isolated artifacts and historic materials, and layers of fill probably occur at this location, but there is very scant indication this area might contain significant historic deposits. Summary The Phase 5/LSDI APEs appear to have low to very low potential for significant historic archaeological deposits. The trenching will be on existing roads, those roads being built on layers of fill dating to several different decades. No significant former historic features likely to leave remnants detectable by archaeological methods were found in the APEs. The Phase 5 APEs do have potential to contain prehistoric archaeological resources. Although the area has been significantly disturbed numerous times by flood control and other construction efforts, these have taken place on top of fill placed after 1914, while earlier maps show high spots of I~resumablv dry land adiacent to the former Bavside marshes and near Colma Creek and its tributaries. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FIELD RESEARCH Determining Where to Look The Phase 5/Linden Storm Drain Improvements APEs are sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources under historic fill, the depth of which is difficult to determine at any given location. However, the geotech report for Phase 5 does give some useful data on fill depths in the five new ("B" numbers) and 10 reference ("RB numbers) boring locations along the storm drain line routes and one new and two reference borings at the pump station; for archaeological research purposes, the resulting measurements of strata are considered accurate to within about 1 foot/30 cm due to the boring technique used (DCM/Joyal Engineering 2004). From east to west, reference borings RB-1, RB-2, RB-3, RB-4, RB-5, and RB-6, and new borings B-1 and B-1 were placed along South Canal Street. At the east end, RB-1 defined fill to 12.5'/3.8 m BCS, on top of Bay Mud high in organics, and detected sand lenses and shell fragments at 25'/7.62 m. Next west, and very near the spot where the new storm drains will connect to the existing line under the creek channel, some 22-~ feet/6.7 m deep, RB-2 defined fill to 9/'2.7 m and B-1 "possible fill to about 10 feet"/3 m. At the west end of the proposed South Canal storm drain, RB-5 detected fill to just 2'/61 cm BCS, and B-2 had fill to 7'/2.1 m. At the proposed junction of the Maple Avenue Interceptor with the South Canal storm drain, RB-4 found fill to 8.5'/2.6 m. Farther south, at about the middle of the Maple line, RB-7 found fill to 4'/1.2 m, and two-thirds south, B-3 found fill to 6'/1.8 m. In the central portion of the Linden Avenue route, RB-8 had fill to 5'/1.5 m, B-4 had fill to 7'/2.1 m, and RB-9 had fill to 3'/91 cm. On the short Victory Avenue line, RB-10 showed fill to 4'/1.2 m and B-5 to 7'/2.1 m. At the proposed pump station location, B-6 showed fill to 6.5'/2 m and RB-11 had fill to 4'/1.2 m. So, within this relatively small area, historic fill was identified from 2'/61 cm to as deep as 12.5'/3.8 m, showing the variation due to undulations of the original land surface. Reviewing the geotech boring logs, only B-1 (the newest borings were recorded in much more detail) recorded shell fragments within the impacts zone for the storm drain project, but all borings also had indications of former surfaces below the fill, indicated by "interlayered sand and silt lenses," "silty sand" layers, "trace marsh grass," peat layers, "organics (rootlets)," "thin clay lenses" in sand, etc. A map of the "1880s shoreline and stream channels" (DCM/Joyal Engineering 2004: Plate 1-3) shows a convergence of tributaries to Colma Creek at the intersection of the Maple Avenue and South Canal Street storm drain lines, and aerial photos from 1937 and 1938 show the area as filled but still as "marshland draining to Colma Creek;" a 1946 aerial shows the meandering flood control channels shown here in Figure 1 (DCM/Joyal Engineering 2004" Plate 1-5). While the geotech logs do not provide evidence of archaeological deposits, that is not their purpose or goal and generally only gross characteristics are recorded. These logs do, however, provide indications of where fill is and how deep, information that can be used to determine whether the proposed storm drain excavations will penetrate into lower probably native strata. Thus it can be seen that at the west end of the South Canal Street drain, excavations will go about 8'/2.45 m deep -11- at a location where fill was found between 2761 cm and 7'/2.1 m deep BCS, so the storm drain digging will penetrate through the historic fill. At the junction of the new lines and connection to the under-creek pipe, fill was found 9-10'/2.7-3 m thick while excavations will go to at least 22'/6.76 m BCS, so the entire South Canal line should be tested. Excavations along Victory Avenue will start about 7'/2.1 m deep where B-5 detected fill to about the same depth, while at the junction with the Linden line, excavations will go about 10'/3m where RB-10 found fill only 4'/1.2 m deep; all of Victory should therefore also be tested. Farther north along Linden, the larger new storm drain pipe will require excavations more than 10'/3 m deep where RB-9 found fill just 3/'91 crn deep and excavations near RB-8, where fill was 5'/1.5 m deep, will go more than 15'/4.6 m deep BCS; so again, the entire Linden line should be tested. Finally, on Maple Avenue, where B-3 and RB-7 detected fill 6'/1.8 m and 4'/1.2m thick respectively, excavations will be shallow at the south end but get deeper moving north, testing for archaeological resources will not be needed until near RB-7, where the storm drain trench will be over 6'/1.8 m deep. At the pump station location, excavations will be quite deep, down to about 2878.53 m BCS, while fdl was found to extend to just 4 to 6.5'/1.2-2 m; the pump station location should also be tested for archaeological indicators. Subsurface Testing Methods The GeoProbe technique used previously to search for archaeological deposits for the SSFWWP is recommended for use again for Phase 5. Although with the exception of the pump station the APE extends over the entire existing street, testing would be done as closely as possible to the proposed trench routes portrayed in the plans. GeoProbing would go as deep as proposed impacts, but as before, the GeoProbe is assumed to be available in four foot lengths, and the probes will only be made as deeply as potential impacts within that margin. It is acknowledged that historic maps and the geotech borings show an originally undulating surface and therefore very uneven depths of fill, but that factor cannot be figured closely enough to specifically target test locations. So, the proposed procedure is to test at regular intervals of approximately 100'/30 m along the lineal trench routes and put two G-eoProbes down at the pump station location. The South Canal Street trenches are-11167340 m long, so about 10 GeoProbes would be used. Linden Avenue will be about 1190'/363 m long, so 11 or 12 GeoProbes would be used for that trench. The -283'/86.2 m Victory Avenue trench would require three test locations, and about half the -524'/160 m Maple Avenue line will need to be tested with another three GeoProbes. A total of about 30 GeoProbes would be used, again, each punched to a depth commensurate with proposed project impacts. All GeoProbe holes would be grouted upon completion. As previously, the dear GeoProbe tubes would be examined in the field for evidence of archaeological deposits, with any displaying such evidence transported back to the lab for closer inspection. A report based on those results will be submitted soon after the fieldwork, depending on results. Recommendations for additional research, if warranted, will be offered in that report. Possible outcomes include a recommendation for additional subsurface research (if clear signs of archaeological deposits are found), a recommendation for monitoring (if equivocal or difficult to -12- imerpret signs are found), or a recommendation for no additional research (with the standard language providing for notice to the City and construction personnel to watch for and notify an archaeologist should potential archaeological materials be found during construction). Proposed GeoProbing for Phase 5/Linden Storm Drain Improvements Site/Line Length to Test Number of GeoProbes South Canal Street -1116'/340 m 10 or 11 Linden Avenue -1190'/363 m 11 or 12 Maple Avenue -300'/91 m 3 Victory Avenue -283'/86 m 3 Pump Station n/a 2 Total 29 to 31 Based on previous experience, eight to 10 GeoProbes to typical depths needed can be completed per day, so testing would take approximately four field days and a report could be produced within approximately one week after the field work. -13- REFERENCES Alley, B.F. (Publisher) 1883 History of San Mateo County, California, including its Geography, Topography, Climatography, and Description, Together with .... B.F. Alley, Publisher, San Francisco. Geology, Anonymous 1968 The Bay Shore: Otter, Oysters, Cl~ina Camps, Salt,. and Land. La Peninsula XIV:5. San Mateo County Historical Society. San Mateo, CA. Bache, A.D. 1854 U.S. Coast Survey Map of San Francisco Bay Region. Ms. map in the Maps Room,. University of Califorma, Berkeley. Bickel, Polly. McW. 1978 Changing Sea Levels Along the California Coast: Anthropological Implications. The Journal of California Anthropology 5:1:6-20. 1978a Corrections to Sm-Level Article. The Journal of California Anthropology 5:2:296-297. Bickel, P. MEW., Thomas .L. Jackson, and Thomas .F. King 1973 Rising Sea Levels along the California Coast: A preliminary consideration of some possible archaeological consequences. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,. San Francisco. Bonilla, Mark.G. 1998 Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7. 5' Quadrangle andPart of the Hunter's Point 7. 5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98- 354. Bromfield, D. 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California. In the Archives of the San Mateo County Historical Association. Brown, Alan K. 1973-74 Indians of San Mateo County. Mateo, CA. La Peninsula:XVII: 4. San Mateo County Historical Society. San California State Lands Commi~ion/Board of Tide Lands Commission 1871 Map No. 1 Salt Marsh and Tide Lands, San Mateo County. Ms. map in the Maps Room,. University of California, Berkeley. Clark, Matthew 1Z 2000 Initial Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on ChestnutAvenue in the Oty of South San Francisco, California with Preliminary Resource Evaluation and Management Recommendations. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. 2000a An Addendum To: Initial Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, California with Preliminary Resource Evaluation and Management Recommendations. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. 2002 Final Report of Archaeological Investigations at CA-SMA-355 for the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project, South San Francisco, California [working rifle; in preparation]. -14- Clark Matthew R. 2002a Colma Creek Flood Control Project Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Report prepared for San Mateo County Flood Control District, Departmeat of Public Works, San Mateo County. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. 2002b [DraflJ Initial Archaeological Resources Procedures for National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance for the City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Sewer and Water Treatment Project. Report completed for Jerry Haag, Urban Plarmer, Berkeley, and submitted to City of South San Francisco and State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento. 2002c City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project: Research Design for Historic Properties Identification for National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance for Phase 1 Project Elements. Report on file at the Department of Public Works, City of South San Francisco, and on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. 2002d [Letter to Cookie Him, State Water Resources Control Board Archaeologist, Sacramento] re: South San Francisco Wet Weather Program: Addendum to Phase 1 Research Design, dated 23 July 2002; on file at the Department of Public Works, City of South San Francisco. 2002e City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project: Section 106 Compliance for Phase 1: Archival Research and Subsurface FieM Survey for Historic Properties. Report on file at the Department of Public Works, City of South San Francisco, and on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. 2002f City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project: Section 106 Compliance for Phase 3: The Colma Creek Bank Protection Project. Report on file at the Department of Public Works, City of South San Francisco, and on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. 2004 [Letter to Cookie Him, Cultural Resources Officer, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento] re: South San Francisco Wet Weather Program: Phase 5 Addendum. Dated 20 October 2004. Clark, Matthew R., and Kathryn Entriken 2003 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project: Section 106 Compliance for Phase 3: The Colma Creek Bank Protection Project Archaeological Monitoring Report. Report on file at the Depa~mient of Public Works, City of South San Francisco, and on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Cloud, J.C. 1877 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California. In the Archives of the San Mateo County Historical Association. DCM/Joyal Engineering 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, City of South San Francisco, Linden Storm Drain Improvements Project, South San Francisco, California. Report prepared for Carollo Engineering; on file at the City Engineers Office, City of South San Francisco. Easton, A.S. 1868 Official Map of the County ofSan Mateo, California: Including the City and County of San Francisco. In the Archives of the San Mateo County Historical Association. Grant, M.A. 1950 OfficiaI Map of San Mateo County, California. In the Archives of the San Mateo County Historical Association. Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region, California-their geology and engineering properties, and their importance to comprehensive planning. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. -15- Hoffman, C.F. 1873 Map of the Region Adjacent to the Bay of San Francisco. State Geological Survey of California. Ms. map in the Maps Room, University of California, Berkeley. Hynding, Allen 1982 From Peninsula to Suburb: The Story of the San Mateo Peninsula. Belmont, CA. Star Publishing Company, Kanffman. Linda 1976 South San Francisco: A History by Linda Kauffman. Privately published as a project o£the South San Francisco Bicentennial Committee. South San Francisco, CA. Kneese, Geo. A. 1922 Plan Showing ProposedMethod of Reclaiming 250A cres between Baden Branch and Valencia Branch and West of County Highway South San Francisco California July 1922. Archives of the Depamnent of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D11-1072. 1927 Official Map of San Mateo County, California. In the Archives of the San Mateo County Historical Association. 1928 Plan for Grading Property of South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, South San Francisco, California, April 1928. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Docmnent D7-66. 1937 Map Showing Proposed Maintenance Channels in the Lower Colma Creek South San Francisco California. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D 11- 1070. 1937a Plan and Profile for the Construction of Storm Sewer, South San Francisco, California. Archives of the Department of Engineering, City of South San Francisco, Document D9-871. Knott, J.M. 1969 Interim Report on Streamflow and Sediment Discharge in the Colma Creek Basin, California. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Open-File Report [unnumbered] Prepared in Cooperation with San Mateo County. Menlo Park, California. Knudsen, Keith L., J.M. Sowers, ~ C. Witter, C.M. Wentworth, and E.J. Helley 2000 PreliminaryMaps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine County San Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00444. (available as a digital database on the USGS website). Mark Group Engineers and Geologists, Inc. 1988 Addendum to the Hydrogeological Assessment Report, The O'Brien Corporation, South San Francisco, California: Drawing No. 4-1: Historical Shorelines and Known Fill Areas. Archives of the South San Francisco Historical Society. 1989 San Bruno Channel Fill Investigation, South San Francisco, California. Archives of the South San Francisco Historical Society. McDonald, S.D., D.R. Nichols, N.A. Wright, and B. Atwater 1978 Map Showing Thickness of Young Bay Mud. Southern San Francisco Bay, California. Geological Survey Map MF-976. Menlo Park, CA. U. S. National Archives 1943 AerialPhotograph: CAN 10356, DDB-2B-135, dated 10-11-43. National Archives, Washington, D.C. Nelson, Nels C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. Universiry of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7:309-356. Berkeley. -16- Neuman, J.V. 1909 1909 OfficialMap of SanMateo County, California. Redwood City, CA. In the Archives of the San Mateo County Historical Association. Nichols, D., and N. Wright 1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshlands, San Francisco Bay, Califorma. United States Geological Survey Open File Map. Map on file at USGS Western Map Center, Menlo Park, CA. Rice, Carolyn 1994 1994a 1994b 1995 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Archaeological Survey Report. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University; File No. 16687. BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Archaeological Resources Technical Report. [Revised December 1994] Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University; File No. 16688. Supplemental Site Record for CA-SMA-299. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Colma Creek Zone Drainage Improvements Project, Cultural Resources Technical Report. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University; File No. 17730. Salisbury, Roland D., and Wallace W. Atwood 1908 The Interpretation of Topographic Maps. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper No. 60. Washington, D.C. Sanborn Map Company 1910 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal.. Edition of November 1910. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of Calfforma, Berkeley. 1925 Insanance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of April 1925. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of Califorma, Berkeley. 1925a Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of April 1925, September 1925 revision. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkeley. 1925/1940 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of April 1925, 1940 revision. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkeley. 1925/1942 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of April 1925, April 1942 revision. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Libraxy, University of California, Berkeley. 1925/1953 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of April 1925, August 1953 revision. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkeley. 1925/1957 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, SanMateo Co. Cal. Edition of April 1925, July 1957 revision. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkeley. 1950 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of September 1950. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of Califorma, Berkeley. 1955 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of August 1955. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkeley. 1955/1956 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of August 1955, July 1956 revision. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkeley. 1955/1962 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of August 1955, 3/62 revision. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkel~'. -17- Sanborn Map Company 1955/1969 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of August 1955, 2/69 revision. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkeley. 1956 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of July 1956. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Library, University of California, Berkeley. 1969 Insurance Map of South San Francisco, San Mateo Co. Cal. Edition of 1969. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Ms. map in the Map Libraxy, University of California, Berkeley. Tetra Tech, Inc. 1994 Remedial Investigation Report, Oyster Point, South San Francisco, California. Report prepared for CalTrans District 04: 4.10-4.28. U.S. Coast Survey 1853 Map of Part of the Coast of California from Point San Pedro Northward. 1867 Map showing the Approaches to San Francisco for Use of Engineer Department, U.S. Army U.S. Coast and 1895 1899 Geodetic Survey Pacific Coast Re-survey of San Francisco Bay from Hunters Point - Southward, California 1895. (W.W. Duffield Superintendent; Register No. 2206). In the Maps Room, University of California Berkeley. Ingleside to Calera Valley California U.S. Geological Survey ca. 1895 Shore Lines: Parts of San Francisco and San Mateo (Cal.) Sheets. Map from USGS Professional Paper 1897 1899 1915 1939 1947 1968 1980 1993 No. 60: Plate CXLV, Salisbury and Atwood 1908. San Mateo, California 15 minute topographic quadrangle. San Mateo, Calfforma 15 minute topographic quadrangle. San Mateo, California 15 minute topographic quadrangle. San Mateo, California 15 minute topographic quadrangle. San Francisco South, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. San Francisco South, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. San Francisco South, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. San Francisco South, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. Witter, Robert C. 2001 Geological and Geomorphic Analyses, Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project, South San Francisco, California. Report prepared for Depamnent of Housing and Community Services, City of South San Francisco, by William Lettis & Associates, Earth Science Consultants, Walnut Creek, California. -18- Structures ' Structure ' is~C~ MAP 2:1854 U.S. Coast Survey Map of the Point San Bruno/Colma Creek Vicinity. (Source: Bache 1854; annotations added) II MAP 3: A Portion of Nelson's 1909 Map of Bay Region Shell Mounds. (Source: Nelson 1909: "Map of San Francisco Bay Region Showing Distribution of Shell Heaps") -20- ~ v~rrR¢le~ ~t,~o 15 16 7,3. 17 7 .5 MAP 5:1873 State Geological Survey MaID of Point San Bruno/Cohna Creek Vicinity. (Source: l~lol'finan t 873: annotalions added) .MAP 6: Portion of 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County. (Source: Bromfield t894) -23- MAP 7: Portion of circa 1895 USGS Topographic Map Published in 1908. (Source: SalisbuO' and Atwood 1908) MA!D 8: Portion ot! 1 915 ~ ,-,,J:~ San Marco 15' Quadrangle. (Source: IJSGS 19t5) MAP 9: Portion o'f 1927 Official Map of San Mater> County. (Source: Kneese 1927) /? :reek // Railroad line Linden Avenue MAP 10: A Portion of the 1928 Map of the Ci~- of South San Francisco. (Source: Anonymous 1928; annotations added) -27- ¢ EXPLANATION Fill Over Bay Muds (Pre~la58) Fill 1900-1920 1958 Fill Post 1958 Fill ~_~ Historic Shoreline (circa 1871) Extent of Historic MudflatslFill ............. 1958 Shoreline ..... Present Shoreline Sou(cai; Oep1. of Public Wo~l (Jan 1a$61 NiChOlS & W~ioht Preliminary Ma~ of Stn Franc'Jtco B~y, Cllllorhll 0 1400 2800 Scale In Feet Historical Shorelines and Known Fill Areas IIIR f~RK GROUP ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS, (NC Addendum Io the Hyamgeologica] Assessmem Relx~l Tho O'Bden Coq)oration South San Fra~ _-[~,~. ~ MAI) 11: ltistorical Shorelines and Known Fill Areas (adapted ti'om The Mark Group 1988). (Source: "Remedial Investigation Report, Oyster Point, South San Francisco, California" Tetra Tech 1994: 4.10-4.28) SIERRA PT Oyster Pt San Bruno MAP 12: Portion of 1939 San Mateo 15' Quadrangle. (Source: IJSGS 1939) RRA m' MAP 13: Portion of 1941 USGS San Mateo 15' Quadrangle. (Source: USGS 1941) MAP 14: Portion of USGS 1947 7.5' San Francisco South Quadrangle. (Source: USGS 1947) -3t- MAP 15: Portion of 1955 USGS 7.5' San Francisco South Quadrangle. (Source: USGS 1955) -32- FIGURE 1: Aerial Photo of Project Vicinitv Taken 11 October 19'4.~. (Source: National Archives 1943) FUGRO WEST, INC. DRAFT PHASE lAND PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SOUTH CANAL STREET STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT VICINITY OF SOUTH CANAL STREET AND LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: CAROLLO ENGINEERS May 2004 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 16 11.1 Phase I ESA Results ............................................................................................ 16 11.2 Results of Chemical Analyses .............................................................................. 16 11.2.1 Metals Analyses on Soil Samples ............................................................. 16 11.2.2 VOCS and TPH on Soil Samples .............................................................. 17 11.2.3 Groundwater Concentrations .................................................................... 17 11.3 Preparation of Site-Specific HSP and Construction Considerations ...................... 18 11.4 Disposal of Excavated Materials ........................................................................... 18 11.5 Handling of Groundwater ...................................................................................... 19 12.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 19 13.0 REFERENCES ................................................................ ~;;,,,:~ ..................................... 20 ., / \,, ' ',,, ',~ ~,, ',,., ,.., Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Plate 1 Plate 2 Summary of Previous Analvtiical"R,esults~,, ,BASAPC© Inc. P~bp, e~-~j - Bechtel Environmental, Inc. (March 1994) '--,, ~, ',, Summary of Current A~alytical~ReSolt,s - So, il ~ Summary of Cu~re~nt Ar~alyt;b-,al R~,su'its/~ Gral~"~bt~nf dwater .~- .... ~ ~ ~--... ",.,, ,,, xX ~'"-"',,, '"', ",,, x-,x 'PLATES '.. .~ \ , ',,, Site Vicir~'i~, Map,",, ',,.~' Site Plan ', ' May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H RESULTS OF CHEMICAL TESTS AND BORING LOCATIONS FROM MWH REPORTS DATED APRIL 28, 1998 AND JANUARY 8, 2002 SCA ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORTS DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2003 AND DECEMBER 5, 2003 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SANBORN MAPS EDR REPORT BECHTEL ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. S'iTE INSPECTION RIORITIZATION FOR BASAPC~ INC~..~P~.ROPER,TY (MARCH 1994) BORING LOGS O~TORY DATA AND,.~HAIN-OF-CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION 'x,..,. iii May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assess- ment (ESA) conducted by Fugro West, Inc. (Fugro) for the Storm Drain Replacement Project. The replacement project is located in the vicinity of South Canal Street and Linden Avenue in South San Francisco, California (see the Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1). Carollo Engineers (Carollo) is under contract to the City of South San Francisco to design a storm drain upgrade along portions of the following streets in South San Francisco: South Canal St., South Linden Avenue, Victory Avenue, and Maple Avenue. The storm drain line will also extend across the former BASAPCO Inc. property northeast of the intersection of North Canal and South Linden and will terminate with a manhole and pump station on this property. This property is now owned by the City of South San Francisco. The storm drain li/nes will be between 30 and 36 inches in diameter and will be placed between 6 and 18 feet b~tow the existing grade. The ,/ approximate locations of these structures and the former BASAPCO Inc. property are shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. ,,/, ~,, ~.~ The purpose of the proposed enwronment'al seduces an(~q.,nvest~igabon activities was to investigate the shallow soil and groundwater'Cqndit~,n~-.th~t will ~e~ encountered dudng the construction of the replacement project?T~his re'P~rt mclud/es an eva. lua?Jon of the chemical concentrations that are present in the~hallOw...soil 'and g~0undwater a~n'd the precautions the Contractor should take in working with'~t.hes~.,.~rn'ateda~s~ Fugro's services were performed in accordance with our proposal datedJyl, ar(~h,22~.0041"an. ~hare '~qbject to the limitations included · . · ..//" '~.. ~ '..~ ~ ~'.....,', ..// ~n Secbon 12.0 of th~s repo,~ ,.--2-,0..~.BA~CKGROUND~N,D PROJECT DESCRIPTION Fugro re~viewed--l~.~evidu,s'"ES/~s,~t"~ha~w, ere performed on porbons of the project s~te. These assessme~rtts ir~'clud&'.the f~,ll~ving'~inve§tigations: · Montgome~ W'at~/00"_n Harza (MWH), Colrna Greek Mainline Channel Project, South San Franc~sce, Califom~.a, dated Apnl 28, 1998 ",\ ,// · MWH, Prelimina'ty..~SCte Assessment and Limited Soil and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis, Colrna Creek Improvements, South San Francisco, California, dated January 8, 2002 · Treadwell & Rollo, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, South San Francisco Sewer Upgrade Project, South San Francisco, California dated April 26, 2002 · SCA Environmental Inc. (SCA), Dredged Sampling for Stockpile #2, Colma Creek at South Linden, dated November 24, 2003 · SCA, Resampling of the First Stockpile of Dredged Material, Colma Creek at South Linden, dated December 5, 2003. · DCM & Joyal Engineering, Technical Memorandum dated March 15, 2004 addressing geotechnical conditions for the Storm Drain Project. May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 The following is a brief evaluation of these assessments. Colma Creek Mainline Channel Project, South San Francisco, California (April 28, 1998) - This 1@88 investigation by MWH provided subsurface information on the BASAPCO Inc. property at 27 South Linden Ave. This investigation included soil sampling and chemical testing of surface soil samples for lead at 11 locations. The results indicated that the soils in the upper foot exceed the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) and the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC), two criteria used by the State of California to classify a waste as hazardous. The TTLC for lead is 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and the STLC is 5 milligrams per liter (mg/I). Tables of the data and a figure illustrating the sampling locations are provided in Appendix A. Preliminary Site Assessment and Limited Soil an~'~Groundwater Sampling and Analysis, Colma Creek Improvements, South San ~a~ncis~o, California (January 8, 2002)- The MWH investigation of 2002 provided chemical testing of soil and groundwater samples collected from nine borings along North Cacr~l,, Str~ee, t ahd South Canal Street· The .... .,' ,,~ ,.,, :. ,, ~,, . chemical analyses ~ncluded o~1 and grease, total:p'etrole, um hydrocarb, ons as gasoline (TPHg), methyl tertial butyl ether (MTBE), benzene, toluene, e:th'ylbeDzene,'and Xy. lenes (BTEX), and the 17 CAM metals. Low levels of oil and gre..a~,se (b~lo~w l~l.0"r~l~g) we~e..de~ec, ted in five samples. Two samples had groundwater concentra'bons,?f acet~one ~ndmethyl e~hyk~etone (MEK) at less than 44 micrograms per liter (IJg/I). No ~olati]e ~ganic,~ppunds (VOCs) were detected in the nine soil samples. The CAM 17 ,m__e, tal co~'cen~ra~tion"'S--i.n t~ s6il,are all relatively Iow and ground- water concentrations ~n two,of the 'samples\,~h'owed'-elevate.~! concentratons of chromium · A . \ .: ~,, . .~.~/ . . These data and a s~te plan-showme~the bonng location,s are~presented m Appendix A. ~ < ~ ~ ',~ / -.,../ Phase I En/vir_onm~e~tal ~ite ~$ses~mefit, South San Francisco Sewer Upgrade Project, South S~n Franc,sco~Cahf. oc~ia (Apr, l.~,6, 2002) - Treadwel & Ro Io Inc. conducted (; /.-, ',. \ ~. ~., ,:' . a Phase I ESA for the Sou.th S'a~n F',ranc~sci:~Sewer Upgrade Project that evaluated 27 different locations ~n Soutl-i'.~San,Franc.~sco;. 2,~of th,e 27 areas are immediately west of the project site. Th~s report presented San.born Maps f~om 1910, 1925, 1950, and 1956 from the surrounding '-,, \ : ~ . area. The Sanborn Map,s were created for fire insurance purposes and illustrate the prior site uses· The maps in the report sho.w'that the project site was located within an industrial area that included a metal recovery a'n,d...~elding plant, a paint manufacturer, and a manufacturer of steel products. A residential development was located to the north of the industrial facilities. In a 1977 aerial photograph, the site vicinity consisted of a small pump station surrounded by vacant land, roadways, and Colma Creek. The report provided data that indicated chemical spills occurred at or near the site. In 1975, a 100-gallon acetone spill and a 340-gallon spill of n-butyl alcohol occurred, as well as 16,500 gallons of unused thinner solution was released in May 1977. Groundwater monitoring indicated that natural attenuation of the contaminants was occurring at one site; at a second location, gasoline contamination in the groundwater ranged from 620 to 31,000 I~g/l in 2001· In addition, Iow concentrations of oil and grease (i.e., less than 110 mg/kg)in the soil are present in soil adjacent to Colma Creek. Hazardous concentrations of lead exceeding 1,000 mg/kg are present to the east of the site. At the corner of South Canal Street and Linden Avenue, a groundwater sample had 44 pg/I of acetone and 7.2 pg/I of MEK. G:~JOBDOC$~O45~,3045.029~WORK tN PROGRESS~DRAFT PHASE I & It ESA REPORT .DOC 2 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 Address Company Name Listed Database 50 South Linden St. Maximum Biotech BI; CORTESE 51 South Linden St. Lees Tire BI 52 South Linden St. Nakura, Inc. BI; CHMIRS 55 South Linden St. · Auto Plus BI · UST Site 57 South Linden St. · Roger's Truck and Equipment BI; RCRIS-SQG · Calistoga Mountain Spdng Water HIST UST; RCRIS-SQG; CORTESE; 62 South Linden St. Hertz Penske Truck Leasing LUST; CAL FID · South City Scavengers BI; HIST UST; CORTESE; LUST; 69 South Linden St. · Budget Car & Truck Rental CAI_ FAD ~ CHMIRS 78 South Linden St. · Ken Manufacturing Company /BI~"~EF~/ERNS; · Brixton Auto Body & Paint 88 South Linden St. · Pinnicle Productions · Lathe Tool Works //~,,k, · 99 South Linden Ave. Carrera Auto Body ~/ ? BIRCRI.S-SQ, G 325 Victory Ave. Royal Auto Service · Giannini Garden Omamehts 344 Victory Ave. · Taylormade //'~.~ ~ / ~.~./ 8.0 PHASE II HAZARDOU~S~MATEE~AL~S~EVALUATION ~_'~ ~ '., ~ .... Fugro conducted a~has~l ~azardous.. Mat~'Evaluabon to ~nvesbgate the ~mpact on site ~nditions of t~en[ia~on{~mina~[~o~es'}~entified in the Phase I ESA investigation. 8 1 SOIL ~.D GRo~W~E~ ~P~OLLECTION Field operators %em~fiduc~0n April 8, 2004. Fugm supe~ised the borehole clearance, drilling, sa~plin~,~d g~outing of five bo~ngs at the project site. Fugro ~ntra~ed with Fugm Geosciences~,~nc. to~e~orm drilling and sampling acti~ties. The direct-push dg used a 2-inch ~sing to a~v~ the probes and collect ~ntinuous samples. Bodng logs are presented in Appendix G. Boring locations are shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. Fugro's field geologist screened all of the soil samples with an organic vapor meter (OVM), examined samples for signs of contami- nation (including odor or discoloration), collected grab groundwater samples from three borings, and sealed and preserved all samples for chemical testing. One sample collected from Boring B-5 had an OVM reading of approximately 2.4 parts per million (ppm) and was retained for analysis. No other OVM readings were detected during the collection of the soil and groundwater samples at the site. G:~JOBDOCS~3045'~3045.029~WORK IN pROGRESS~DRAFT PHA~E I & II ESA REI:~ORT .DOC 11 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 The soil and groundwater samples for chemical testing were kept in a cooled state pending delivery to North State Labs, a state-certified chemical laboratory in South San Francisco. All of the samples were labeled and logged on a chain-of-custody form, which accompanied the soil and groundwater samples at all times. A copy of the chain-of-custody documentation for all samples is included in Appendix H. At the completion of drilling and sampling, Fugro sealed each of the borings with a neat cement grout. 8.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The ground surface along South Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Victory Avenue, and South Canal Street is covered with asphalt concrete pavement. The ground surface at the former BASAPCO Inc. property is covered with soil and is vacant, with the exception of soil stockpiles containing hazardous concentrations of lead and/trucks used by a contractor. Observations from our ddlling and sampling activities indicate/that~the near-surface soils in the upper 3 to 6 feet consist of fill materials comprising .mi~ures of/sand, gravel, silt, and clay. At Boring B-5, Fugro encountered an approximate 2;fo'o~t~ic~,gra~el!y sand layer that overlaid a concrete slab. We attempted to penetrate the×si'ab ~t~"ive "ie, cat~0ns and encountered the concrete slab. It was estimated that the concre~e slabd~ at. least ~)0, fe~'t,.~wide and 10 feet long. Once the slab was finally penetrated, it was dete~minebt..to be"approximately, 0.5 feet thick. //".... ~ / '~.,,/' Bay mud underhes the fill matepals; the bay.,.mud,js a sdty clay and ~s soft to firm Groundwater was encountered fn~Bonngs~B-$~B~-2 a~d 1~5 at'a, pproximately 13 to 19 feet below ground surface (bgs) dudng/dr~lling~.~Fug~o in~lled~'a..t'e~p0~mry PVC well in each of three bonngs. Groundwater in Borings B~ and B-2 recovered quickly enough to enable the collection ~. ./ . .\ '\ . . / . . of groundwater samples on.~pnk~8, 2004>. Gre,undwate-~ir '¢r'Bonng B-5, however, d~d not recover rapidly; therefore, ,a~Fugr,.o re, pre~'~'ntabve-.r..etu[ned, to the s~te on Apn 9, 2004 to collect a groundwater sample. Fugro~ya~ unabte~to colle:..c.~t~groundwater samples from Borings B-3 and \, '~.. ",,\ ,~ .... No free-phase hydrocarbons W~ere observed. No permanent mon~tonng wells were constructed at the site~ therefore;. , the equilibrium groundwater conditions have not been established· Slight organic odors were observed in Boring B-3 at approximately 16 feet bgs. Field screening of soil samples with a GEM 50 detected no carbon dioxide (C02) or methane (CH,0 in any of the samples screened. Field screening of soil samples detected an OVM reading of 2.4 ppm for the soil sample obtained from Boring B-5 at 17.5 bgs. G:~JOBDOC$~3045~,3G45.029~WORK IN PROGRE$S~DRAFT PHASE I & II ESA REPORT .DOC 12 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 9.0 CHEMICAL ANALYSES Fugro designated the following chemical testing program for the soil and groundwater samples to identify soil and groundwater conditions at the site: Soil Samples.. · TPHg, TPHd, and TPHmo by EPA Test Methods 8015 (modified) · TPHd and TPHmo by EPA Test Methods 8015M and silica gel cleanup · CAM 17 Metals by EPA Test Methods 6010/7000 series. · VOCs by EPA Test Method 8260 Grab Groundwater Samples TPH , TPHd, and TPHmo by EPA Test Methods 81~5~ ' (n~od~fied) · TPHd and TPHmo by EPA Test Methods 8015~nd s<dlca gel cleanup · VOCs by EPA Test Method 8260 /~,,, ./.~ '"~,. · Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVq.-~s) b~'j'EFA Te~st Me~hod 8270 · Total lead by EPA Test Method 7010~ · Flash Points by EPA Test Method 10;r0,. ~'-.,.. '"'~.~ /./'/ Due to the high concentrations of to,t,~al bl~',om~.u,m, le~ad, and mckel ,n the fill materials, Fugro requested that the che?3ica. I lab~)rat~'.ry..~c~nd~c~.~ VVa, ste Extraction Test (WET) on -,~-,'*'-~ soil samnles in accordance~with E~PA'~Vie'thod 1-3~1., ~he laboratory then analyzed the concentrations of the extract fopch?rnium, '.~.,ead, an~ic?l. One of the samples w,!h a. h,gh soluble lead concentration was {hen/extr~cted"usin~the EP toxicity method and the extrac~ was analyzed for lead. ~'Flie l~bo~tory reports at'e.p~m,,wded Appendix H. ,~, ~ 10 ~0..,'i:U~ S 0LTS,Q.r-/c H E MI CAL TESTING The followin~"pre~e, nts\a di~u~i, eh of the chemical testing results. 10,1 RESULTS FOR TITLE 22 METALS ANALYSES ON SOIL SAMPLES Fugro analyzed sev~eeh~ s/so~'l samples from five different borings for the CAM 17 metals. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 1. Table 1 provides a comparison of the 17 metals with the Direct Exposure Screening Levels (DESLs) established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for direct exposure to contaminants. Concentrations below the DESL are not considered by the RWQCB to represent a significant dsk to human health for the specific exposure scenario. A comparison of the TTLC and STLC are also provided in Table 1. Table 1 presents the chemical results of the soil samples collected from Bodngs B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5. The arsenic concentration from Boring B-3 exceeds the DESL. The other metals do not exceed their respective concentrations in any of the seven samples· G:~JOBDOCS~O45~3045.029~WORK IN PROGRESS~DRAFT pHASE I & II ESA REPORT .DOC 13 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 The concentrations of lead are elevated in Boring 2 with respect to the DESL for construction workers and the TTLC (262 mg/kg in comparison with 750 and 1,000 mg/kg, respectively). Soil concentrations of arsenic exceed the DESL for construction workers in Boring B-3 (34.7 mg/kg in comparison to 16 mg/kg). These results indicate that construction workers should be protected when working with the fill materials that will be encountered during the storm drain replacement project. Fugro also analyzed select samples for the soluble concentrations of chromium, lead, and nickel. The WET was the leaching procedure used for the samples. Laboratory detections included the following: · Chromium concentration of 0.79 mg/I in the extract from Boring B4 at 5 to 5.5 feet · Nickel concentration of 3 mg/I from Boring B4 at 5 ,tp~'.5.,feet · Lead concentration of 20.5 mg/I in the extract fror~ BoringS] B2 at 3.5 to 4 feet The concentrations of chromium and nickel/det~¢ted/ir~ th~VVET extract are lower than their respective STLCs, indicating that soil is ndt cor~'s'i~:lere~\,haz'ardous based on soluble chromium or nickel concentrations. The cO,~centr~io~ of I~a,d ~si~ng the WET extract (20.5 mg/I)exceeds the STLC of 5 mg/I. !~t was'th~en~'e,wa~u~'ted to ~et,errCiine if the soil sump e as a RCRA waste requ~nng treatmen~t.~pnor~.to d~sposal a..t/a hazardous~vaste landfill. Fugro extracted the sample from Bonng B2 at 3.5 to ~'feet u's[ng the EP toxicity method and analyzed the extract for lead. The extract bad a cc~ce~..t~ti~rr.,of [e~ss ~han the detection limit of 0.5 mg/I, and therefore the waste was~ a i~C,RA ~vas~.~On t'~he..§a~si~s.~of these data, Fugro concludes that the soil at Boring B-2 o~ Victe~ Street ~ay'b~e classifl'"'~d"~s a non-RCRA hazardous waste; that is, the waste would be h~zar, dous by~Califor~nia~st'andards but not bv federal RCRA standards. ,~-"-'-'.-.,,..,~, '~'/ ~"-,. "~,,, '\ ' ' The remaining;'~J~'ta on"tb~x17 C/~M"meta~s indicates that the soil is non-hazardous and can therefore be disposed at...a noo-hazaddous landfill in Northern Cal~forma. However, the soils in the upper 1-foot a,t thi~,,for ~mer '~ASAPCO Inc. property are I~kely to require d~sposal at a Class I Hazardous Wbste 't'.ahdfill ion the basis of the results presented in the 1988.MWH ~nvestigation. In addition, past~perations at the BASAPCO Inc. facility indicate that waste materials (including lead)'~wese/~lischarged to the surface soils and onto the bank of Colma Creek. Fugro is therefore concerned that other wastes may be encountered below the 1-foot level. Fugro recommends that the Contractor provide special handling of the soils from Victory Street and the former BASAPCO Inc. property, as described in Section 11.4 of this report. 10.2 RESULTS FOR VOCs AND TPH ON SOIL SAMPLES Fugro analyzed seven soil samples for VOCs and TPH during this investigation. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 1. TPHg was detected in only one of the five borings at a concentration of 0.537 mg/kg. TPHmo was detected in five of the seven borings at concentrations ranging from 23 to 383 mg/kg. The detected concentrations are far below the DESLs for the direct exposure of construction workers to these petroleum hydrocarbons. In the analyses for other VOCs and fuel oxygenates in the five borings, Fugro detected only one compound, tetrachlorethene (PCE), in one of the borings (i.e., Boring B-3 at a concentration of G:~JOBDOC$~,~O45~O45.029~WORK IN PROGRESS\DRAFT PHASE I & II ESA REPORT .DOC 1 4 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 0.018 mg/kg). This concentration is also far below the DESL for PCE. These results indicate that health concerns from exposure of construction workers to VOCs and TPH in the soil at the five sampling locations are unlikely. However, the construction project will likely encounter a wide range of soil and contaminant conditions during the sewer replacement project. The results also indicate that detected concentrations of VOCs and TPH are generally acceptable to the Northern California non-hazardous landfills for the disposal of soils. Fugro detected no methane vapors or significant VOC vapors at our drilling locations 10.3 GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIONS OF LEAD At the request of Fugro, the laboratory conducted total lead analyses on groundwater samples. No lead was detected in the groundwater sample~Ge~..ected from Borings B-l, B-2, and B-5. These results are presented in Table 2. /~' .:~.. 10.4 VOCs, SVOCs, AND TPH IN GROUNDWAT~R~i~,,,' ,/..,~. '~.,, Table 2 presents the anal~i~l result~V~s,;~ncl~i~h~ five fuel o~genates, SVOCs, and TPH in three samples from Bofing~-I ,~-2~a'~ B-5. ~nly,f, our compounds were detected in all of these analyses: ~ · Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) ~nt~ti~hs. of~ ~n~ 1.4 ,g/I in Borings B-1 and B-2, res ecbvely, ~~ ~ ~ ~.. · Acetone at a ~cen[rat~n ot12 pg/I in Bg~qg ~: 3; '.~ ~, / ~ ~. ~ , . . . bis-(2-Etb~h'e~l)p~talate ~n~tra~n o~ 6.0 pg/I ,n Bonng B-l, and . ,enZ~a;py.~'~n~ra~~n Boring ,-1. -he meas~ted'~c~tr;~io~'.a;~much lower ~an the DESLs of bis-(2-Ethylhe~l)- phtalat~('~30 ,g/I) a~d~Be~)py~ene (~30 ,g/I). DESL for DIPE and Acetone ha~e not been established. These re~ui~s indi~e that the groundwater at three boring Io~tions ~o not hav~ signifi~nt concentrations~qf ~Cs, SVOCs and/or TPH, despite the potential sources ot contamination that are presehfwithin the immediate area of the site. 10.5 PRESENCE OF SUBSURFACE UTILITIES AND OBSTACLES In preparation for the subsurface investigation, Fugro identified the presence of many underground utilities, especially in the area of South Linden Avenue. The utility lines range from sewer to high voltage to fiber optic lines. The Contractor will need to exercise care in working around the existing utilities. At Boring B-5 on the BASAPCO Inc. property, Fugro encountered a concrete slab several inches below the ground surface. The results of Fugro's investigation indicated the slab has dimensions of at least 200 feet square and is about 0.5 feet thick. Construction of the sewer line and the manhole may encounter the concrete slab. G:,,.IOBDOCS~3045~3045.02~WORK IN pROGRES$~:)RAFT PHASE I & II ESA REPORT .DOC 15 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 PHASE I ESA RESULTS Fugro has performed this ESA in general conformance with the scope and limitations of our proposal dated March 22, 2004. This assessment has identified that potential sources of contamination are present in the immediate vicinity of the site, including: · The battery company and lead reclaiming facility at the former BASAPCO Inc. property · The use and storage of petroleum products by the Olympic Gas Company at 34 South Linden Avenue · The automotive repair and spray-painting shop Io~cate/d'~34 South Linden Avenue · The foundry located at 311 South Linden Ave, n'~ · The French Cleaners located at 101 South Mapl.e-A~e,.nue'.,.~. · The multiple metal fabricating facilities~loc~ted~a~ng ~u,th~@ple Avenue · The chemical company at 63 Seuth Li~'den~e/nU~ · The machine and welding sh'o~p located at 7~4 Sdu, th Linden Avenue · The tank and welding.~fac, i. lity a~',..1,~S~o~h,Ma~ple A~venu, · The multiple carand truck repair'l~aci~i'tibs Ioca~'ed".on/South Linden Avenue The mulbple acetone spill~ ~n ~1975.~\ // · The chemical ~bmpanies formerl~,"toCated~alona South Linden Avenue W~th th~s l,arge~.number o~f fac~ ties that processed hazardous materials within the site v~c~n~ty, Fugro concludeS~hat,.\contaminants may have migrated to th____~e soil and groundwater at the site. ~.~ '~/) ~ .... 11,2 RESULTS OF CHEMICAL/ANALYSES 11.2.1 Metals Analyses on Soil Samples The results of studies by other consultants indicate that hazardous concentrations of lead are present in the surface soils and in the stockpiles at the BASAPCO Inc. property. These concentrations also exceed the DESL for construction workers. Fugro's test results do not indicate the same conditions at our boring location. However, because the alignment of the storm drain and the location of the manhole are not yet finalized, Fugro concludes that all soil on 27 South Linden Avenue should initially be considered hazardous and that construction workers should be protected in their contact with on-site soils· Fugro also concludes that all of the soil excavated from Victory Avenue should also be initially considered hazardous and stockpiled separately. The chemical results on samples collected from South Linden Avenue, Victory Avenue, South Maple Avenue, and South Canal Street do not indicate that lead concentrations exceed the DESLs. G:~JOBDOCS~3045~3045,029~WORK IN PROGRESS~RAFT PHASE 1 & ti E~A REPORT .DOC 16 May 2004 Project No. 3045,029 Fugro concludes that the Contractor should prepare two site-specific health and safety plans (HSP) (as described in Section 11.3): one HSP would apply to the work that wi'Il be performed on the former BASAPCO Inc. property and the storm drain excavation on Victory Avenue; the second HSP would apply to the storm drain replacement work on South Linden Avenue, South Maple Avenue, and South Canal Street. The Contractor should handle and diSpOse of soils excavated from 27 South Linden Avenue and Victory Avenue separately from other soils at the project site (as discussed in Section 11.4) as they appear to contain hazardous concentratiOns of lead and may require disposal at a Class I hazardous waste landfill. Soils encountered in the five Fugro bodngs do not exceed the TTLCs or DESL. Therefore, Fugro concludes that the soils encountered on South Linden Avenue, South Maple Avenue, and South Canal Street are non-hazardous and may be disposed at a non-hazardous landfill in Northern California (as described in Section 1~1.4). iG~ u, ndwater should be disposed as described in Section 11.5. 11.2.2 VOCS and TPH on Soil Samples ~' m 6~to 20 fe~tb s ~t Bofin- B 5, no organic Except for the OVM reading of 0.2 to 2.4'~fl o ~1, ~, ~ , ~ - vapors were detected in the soil samples,..,.and no, methane~as de~te,cte~l.,~n our mvest~gat~o . A Iow concentration of PCE was detec~te'6 m, Bod~g,B;3 at.,,5~.5 to 4 f~et..,,,~nd the MWH report dated January 8, 2002 indicated that 10w con'~r~trat~'ons (~'[,,acetone, MEK, and oil and grease are present in the soils along South (~an~,-..S.t~e~. '~..he "d..,etected concentrations of these chemicals are small and no~t/~'-s-i'~'ni~cah~ c'o.~rn 't'o~.~,o.0,st,~ction workers on this project. However, higher concentr~at~ons _/~vO,Cs a~nd ~petr.oi/~e..um'~/'yarocarbons may be encountered dudng construction. Ther~ef, ore,~,,Fu~ro bonci.u,,des ~t~at'~workers should be protected against otential impacts toMOCs. ~'nd P~oleU~ttr-hydrocai'bons by adhering to the recommendations P .~,., .... ,,. · \. presented in SectiOn 11.3. ',.. ',, ~'----. ~'%/' If stainin~;',,,cl~e'mi~'l',,od~s.~,'''''°r~c~'nt'am''~inated materials are encountered during con-' struction activities,~'tbe~ -- ~ ~ -- "~'"C;ontractor ShourCI notify Carollo of the conditions and appropriate precaution, invest~gat~oq, a~d.~r mi6gation should be implemented. 11.2.3 Groundwater ConCentrations The groundwater samples from Borings B-l, B-2 and B-5 did not contain petroleum hydrocarbons or lead, and the flash point was less than 200°F. The three samples contained very small concentrations of DIPE in two borings and acetone in one bodng. Two SVOCs were detected in Boring B-l: bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)-phtalate (5 IJg/I) and benzo(a)pyrene (5 pg/I). These chemical test results indicate that the groundwater to be encountered by the Contractor will be relatively free of contaminants, and that the water treatment plant in South San Francisco will most likely accept discharges by the Contractor to the storm drain for this construction project. 17 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 The Contractor should contact Mr. Ray Honen, the Environmental Coordinator for the City of South San Francisco (650-829-3855) to determine: (1) if the water encountered during construction can be discharged; (2) if additional sampling is required; (3) if groundwater needs to be stored in a tank to remove sediment; and (4) if a payment is required by the City of South San Francisco for this work. If impacted groundwater is observed during construction in the form of staining or chemical odors, the Contractor should notify Carollo and Mr. Honen, who will then determine if additional chemical testing is needed. 11.3 PREPARATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC HSP AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS The ESA investigation has identified that lead and arsenic concentrations exceed the DESL for construction/trench workers at the site· Fugro recorfi'mer~ds that the Contractor review this report and its appendices. Using the information .pr/oovided~in/this report, the Contractor should prepare a site-specific HSP to p otect worke~rs'..from cb, eml~ s n the subsurface. The site~PeCific HSP should be prepared by a Certified IndoStriat~,.Myg'e.,nist and include require- ments for personnel protective equipment (PPE)"~or a[l,,Workers. 'Fhe HSP should also describe the proposed soil handling procedures for their"w~ork,~ipcl'~ling apl~rOpri~te PPE, dust control, field monitoring, and storm water runoff.mi'~ig.ation measures.,.''> If staining, chemical odors, or c0nta~at~d...m~e~riaiS, are encountered dur ng excava- t on actlvlbes, the Contractor/should'-r~obfy,,,Ca~.,o]l~ of"thffse,,con~dlt~ons and appropriate precau- tions, investigation, and/or,~m/tiga~o,n should'~e [m~plemen~bd.'?/ 11.4 DISPOSAL O,F_EXCAVA'i'ED ' ~ MAT-ERIALS / ",,,.. "~. '"...,. \~ · '/ ~'.. \. 'L~'-.. "'"..\ ./ With the/,exce, ptio~.~ of',the~soils_fro~ th~'~C'ormer BASAPCO Inc. property and Victory .. ,~, .. . '.. ..., / Avenue, Fugro co0cludes that the so Is a'r,e ndn-hazardous and that a non-hazardous landfill will accept these soils~"..for '' " ~ .... ' d~sposal. '\,The C~ntractor should use the analyses in Table 2 and chemical results provided in,~ppend~ix H to prepare a profile of the soils for disposal· Soils from the former BASAPCO in.c,, pi:~pe.,~ and Victory Avenue will also be excavated as part of the storm drain replacement ~)roject:' The Contractor should stockpile these soils separately for further sampling and analys~'i The Contractor should collect composite samples and analyze these samples as required by the non-hazardous landfills in Northern California to gain acceptance of the soil as a non-hazardous waste. If the results of the soil chemical analyses from the former BASAPCO Inc. property and/or the Victory Avenue excavation indicate that soils are not acceptable for non-hazardous disposal, these soils will need to be hauled and disposed at a Class I hazardous waste landfill (i.e., Kettlemen Hills Landfill in Kettlemen Hill, California). The results of Fugro's chemical testing indicates that the soils from the for BASAPCO Inc. property and Victory Avenue would be suitable for disposal at a hazardous waste landfill without additional stabilization. The Contractor must confirm this finding prior to off-site disposal. G:~JOBDOCS~3045~3045.029~WORK IN PROGRESS'DRAFT PHASE l & II ESA REPORT DOC 18 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 11.5 HANDLING OF GROUNDWATER A batch discharge permit should be procured from the City of South San Francisco for groundwater that will be encountered during construction. The Contractor should use the results from Table 3 and the data in Appendix H to prepare a profile of chemical concentrations in the groundwater. Based on the findings presented herein, Fugro believes that the groundwater will be acceptable for discharge to the City's sanitary sewer. However, the Contractor should confirm acceptance by the City will for groundwater discharge. 12.0 LIMITATIONS Fugro has prepared this report in a professional manner, using that degree of skill and care exercised for similar projects under similar condition,?'b,y reputable and competent environmental consultants. Fugro shall not be responsib~ie'for 'conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts that were concealed, w~thhel?, or not~uily d~sclosed at the bme the report was prepared. Fugro also notes that the fa~ts'..,a,n~/condit?? referenced in this report may change over time and the conclusions and re'Cbmm~n~dations set forth herein are applicable only to the facts and conditions as described at th~,tim~'..,of this report. Fugro ~. ,~ ~../',.. ",~ . ~ · . believes that conclusions stated herein to be factual, I~ut~o guarantee, ~s made or ~mphed. '/' ~'" ~" ? ~"' ' th This report has been prepared for the b~nefit 0[ Caro. llo Engineers, the C~ty of Sou San · "~ "~-,~ ',\ ~, - . Francisco, and the Contractors who w~ll p[ep~ar~e b~ls. to r~plac~ the storm drams for th~s project. The information contained in t~his~r-e~o~, in~!u~i~gyall ~xhi...b.~ a~d attachments, may not be u.sed by any party other than Ca, jell'o E~gi~ne~r,s, the Ci~/of South,San Francisco, and the Contractors without the express written~c~onse, nt @f Fu~gro..~ // '~ ~,,,.,~ --'"' G:~.iOSOOCS~3045~3045.02g~.WORK IN PROGRESS~DRAFT PHASE I & II ESA REPORT .DOC 19 May 2004 Project No. 3045.029 13.0 REFERENCES California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982, State of California Special Studies Zones, San Francisco South Quadrangle, Official Map, Effective: January 1, 1982. DCM/Joyal Engineering, Technical Memorandum, City of South San Francisco Storm Drain Project, dated March 2004. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), The EDR - Radius Map with Geo Check, Report Inquiry Number 1158861.2s, dated March 26, 2004. EDR, The EDR - Sanborn Map Report, Report Inquiry Number 1158861.3s, dated March 26, 2004. EDR, The EDR - Historic Topographic Map Report, Rep. ort Inquiry~ Number 1158861.4s, dated March 30, 2004. EDR, The EDR - Aerial Photographs 1946,1956~6~ 1~/~'~..~ ~c~'~1· a~3 Federal Emergency Management Agen~l~l, FrOnd Insum'~ce Rate"~.p~, Map Number 065062 0008 B, Panel 8 of 12, 1'~.~2,000-s~1~;'.,,, Montgome~ Watson Ha~a (~)~Col~ ~ Mbi~.!~h~ Ch'apnel Project, South San Francisco, Californ~April 28, ~998.~ ....... ........ ~vv m,~Hre//m/na~, ~ /:o-~e ...... Asse~sm'ept~and~ -. _L/~ed... ~ So/"l~ anE Groundwater Sam~lin.g and Analys/s' ~o/ma ureeK/mprovemet 's, January8 2002 SCA Enwronmen~¢l, I~. (S~A),'.~ ~dg~ S~mpl~ng for Stockpile ~3, Colma Crrek at South Linden, No~em~ 24:,20( f -',., SCA, Resampling of th~ Fir~tock, Dile of Dredged Material, Colma Creek at South Linden, December 5, 2003~ Se,sm~c Hazard Zones Off c al Map, Janua~ 1, 1982. Treadwell & Rollo, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, South San Francisco Sewer Upgrade Project, South San Francisco, California, April 26, 2002. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS), Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle, California, 1965, scale 1:20,000. USGS, Topographic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle, California, 1956 (photo- revised 1968), scale 1:24,000 ~ Har'za Engineering Company 2 Harza Energy & Infrastructure, Inc. G:~JOBDOC:~3045~-3045,029\WORK IN PROGRESSO, DRAFT PHASE I & II ESA REPORT .DOC 2O StaffReport AGENDAITEM #12 DATE: May 11, 2005 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Steele, Director of Finance SUBJECT: SCAVENGER COMPANY RATE INCREASE FOR 2005-06 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting a 1.49% increase in refuse collection rates effective July 1, 2005 as submitted by the Scavenger Company of South San Francisco. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Rates The City Council approved a new franchise agreement with the Scavenger Company of South San Francisco on July 9, 1997. The new agreement provided for no increase in rates in 1997 with the first increase to be calculated for implementation per Section 6.2 on July 1, 1998. Per the agreement, the Scavenger Company uses the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earner and Clerical Workers as the standard for calculations. The maximum rates specified under this agreement shall be increased July 1st each year (beginning in year 1998, but excluding year 2000 and every third year thereafter, the agreement calls for a rate survey). The Scavenger Company and City mutually agreed to no increase last year, as the CPI figure was miniscule. The comparison for the calculation was for the two years covering the period of February 2003 to February 2005. Per the attached calculations, the increase over the 2003-2005 time period is 1.86%. Using an 80% factor as stipulated in the franchise agreement, the percent of increase for July 1, 2005 is 1.49%. The Second Amendment to the Scavenger Agreement also stipulated that the rate increase calculated above would apply to the transport of sludge from the City's Treatment Plant. The Scavenger Company has notified the City in a timely fashion and included a copy of the anticipated rates for your information. Staff Report roi Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Scavenger Company Rate Increase for 2005-06 May 11, 2005 Page: 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Costs at the Water Quality Control Plant will increase approximately $2,300 annually due to the rate increase. By: Ji~ Director of Finance ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Letter from Scavenger Company to City Manager dated March 31, 2005 Rate Computation Consumer Price Index Scavenger Company Proposed Fees JS/BN:ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CAL~ORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN REFUSE COLLECTION RATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1,200.5 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City approves an increase in refuse collection rates effective July 1, 2005 as submitted by the Scavenger Company of South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, attached as Exhibit A is the South San Francisco Scavenger Company rate Computation. 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 refuse collection rates effective July 1, 2005 as shown in Exhibit B. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\Current Reso's~5 - 11-05scavenger. doc SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO --COMPANY, INC. March 31, 2005 Mr. Barry Nagel, City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Nagel, In accordance with the terms of Section 6.2 of the Franchise Agreement, please accept this letter as our Notice of Intent to adjust the current rates in South San Francisco. We are applying for a rate adjustment equal to 80% of the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, as described in section 6.2, with one exception. As you may recall, last year the annual calculation yielded a change of only 0.17%. Both the City and the Company agreed that it was not necessary or appropriate to implement a rate adjustment of such a small amount at that time. The plan was to add it to this year's calculation instead. A copy ora memo from the finance Director, Jim Steele, to the City Council is attached as documentation of this concept. The calculation for this year yields an increase of 1.32%, and if last years calculation is added, the total increase would be 1.49%. I have attached a copy of the two year calculation, a copy of the relevant CPI data, and a proposed rate schedule, for your consideration. The new rates would take effect July 1, 2005, if approved. Also, the Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement, regarding the transport of sewage sludge, Section 5.9, states that the Tonnage Rate is also subject to the same percentage increase as the service rates referred to in Section 6.2. Therefore, the current rate of $39.04 per ton would increase to $39.62. I am not sure if we are supposed to report this to Mr. Terry White directly, or if it should go through your office. It has been two years since we had a change in this rate, and in the past it was reported to Mr. Gibbs, but since he is no longer with the City, we thought we should report it to you instead. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. If you have any questions, please contact me at (650) 589-4020 at your earliest convenience. We are, of course, available to meet wi~'~u to f,j~uss these issues if you wish. / / PauLF'O~mosa~CFO South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. PO Box 348 · 500 East Jamie Court · South San Francisco, CA 94083-0348 (650) 589-4020 · i:: (650) 589-7385 · e: info@ssfscavenger, com· ~n~eb: www. ssfscavenger, com South San Francisco Scavenger Co. City of South San Francisco Rate Computation March 31, 2005 CPI Index February 2003 CPI Index February 2005 Numerical change Percentage change 180% of change 193.7 197.3 3.6 1.86% 1.49%I Index Used - Consumer Price Index Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA All Items 1982-84 = 100 Public Data Query Page 1 of 1 U.S.Department ~!~!:~ ...... ~-'3! · ."~! :-:.' .... :::" Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics Data www. bls. gov Search I A-Z Index BLS Home I Programs & Surveys I Get Detailed Statistics I Glossary I What's New I Find It! l'n DOE Change Output From:i~'i-~ Options: [] include graphs N£W.~ Data extracted on: March 31, 2005 (11:12:34 AM) Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers I Series Id: CWURA422 SA0 Not Seasonally Adjusted Area: San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA i Item: All items Base Period: 1982-84=100 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HI 11995 148.2 148.3 148.9 149.4 149.0 149.6 149.3 149.3 150.0 150.2 149.9 149.6 149.3 14 11996!150.5 150.5 150.7 151.9 153.0 152.9 153.4 153.0 153.8 154.3 154.2 153.1 152.6 15 1997 154.1 155.0 156.2 156.7 156.8 157.0 157.5 158.1 158.6 159.5 159.5 159.4 157.4 115 1998 159.6 160.8 161.7 162.7 163.4 163.7 161.8 16 1999 165.7 168.8 168.3 170.0 171.2 170.9 168.8 116 2000 172.6 174.9 175.2 177.8 179.3 180.2 176.3 17 2001 183.5 184.9 186.9 186.7 187.5 186.5 185.7 118 2002 1~8 188.8 189.1 189.3 190.0 189.6 188.8 18 2003 ~193.% 193.6 192.2 192.3 191.9 191.1 192.4 19 2004~ 194.7 195.4 195.0 196.4 195.9 195.0 19 2005 ~197 .~ Frequently Asked Questions I Freedom of Information Act I Customer Survey Privacy & Security Statement ~ Linking to Our Site ~ Accessibility u.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics Phone: (202) 691-5200 Postal Square Building Fax-on-demand: (202) 691-6325 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE Data questions: blsdata staff@bls.~ov Washington, DC 20212-0001 Technical (web) questions: webmaster@bls.~ov Other comments: feedback~bls.gov http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost 3/31/2005 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVENGER CO., INC. City of South San Francisco Proposed Fees for Refuse Service, Effective July 1,2005 Residential Can Service: (per Month) A. Service Current Rates Level By Container Volume 20 Gallons $ 13.67 30 Gallons 17.99 32 Gallons 19.18 64 Gallons 42.21 96 Gallons 66.18 128 Gallons or more 92.06 Proposed change 1.49% 1.49% Proposed Maximum Rates 13.87 18.26 19.47 42.84 67.17 93.43 Commercial Can Service 30 Gallons 17.52 32 Gallons 18.69 40 Gallons 23.36 45 Gallons 26.28 55 Gallons 32.12 1.49% 17.78 18.97 23.71 26.67 32.60 Commercial Compactor Service Per Cubic Yard Debris Box Service, Residential and Commercial 34.04 Temporary / One Time Use 5 Yard Mini-box 160.69 7 Yard 351.08 14 Yard 351.08 20 Yard 478.02 30 Yard 689.60 Regular / Permanent Service 7 Yard 296.20 1.49% 1.49% 34.55 163.08 356.31 356.31 485.14 699.88 300.61 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVENGER CO., INC. City of South San Francisco Proposed Fees for Refuse Service, Effective July 1,2005 Current Rates Proposed Maximum Rates 14 Yard 296.20 300.61 20 Yard 423.14 429.44 30 Yard 634.71 644.17 Rental Charge (per day, over 7 days) 13.23 13.43 Overweight Charge Content weight in excess of 3 tons, per' 82.72 83.95 Commercial Bin Service A. Regular Pick-up 1 - yard Container 2 - yard (Front End 3 - yard (Front End 4- yard (Front End 5 - yard (Front End 6 - yard (Front End Loader Bin) Loader Bin) Loader Bin) Loader Bin) Loader Bin) 116.95 175.37 263.07 350.75 438.47 526.12 1.49% 118.69 177.98 266.99 355.98 445.00 533.96 B. On Call Pick-up, Per Yard 20.27 20.57 Per Pick-up, Per Yard Plus Container Rental Per Month Rental Charges 1 - yard Container 2 - yard Container 3 - yard Container 4 - yard Container 5 - yard Container 6 - yard Container 30.64 33.24 35.69 38.29 43.39 46.02 31.10 33.74 36.22 38.86 44.04 46.71 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVENGER CO., INC. City of South San Francisco Proposed Fees for Refuse Service, Effective July 1,2005 City of South San Francisco Sewage Sludge Per Ton Current Rates 39.04 Proposed Maximum Rates 39.62 StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #13 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 11, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager ENGINERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY TO JUSTIFY USE OF SPEED RADAR FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance deleting Chapter 11.68 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREETS", and replacing it with a new chapter 11.68, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREETS" which allows the Police Department to utilize radar enforcement of speeding violations, and waive further reading beyond the title. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On July 12, 1995, the City Council introduced an ordinance adding Chapter 11.68 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, which allows the Police Department to utilize radar to enforce speeding violations and allows radar survey information to be transmitted into court records for traffic heatings. The Sate of California Vehicle Code indicates that the prima facie speed limit on local streets is 25 MPH in residential and business districts and 65 MPH on all other locations. The Vehicle Code also provides for intermediate speed limits if an engineering and traffic survey shows that such speeds would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe. The Vehicle Code further states that radar can be used to enforce these speed limits when they are justified by such a survey conducted within the last five years and when the survey results have been adopted by ordinance. The City's last survey was conducted in July 2000. To comply with the guidelines of the Vehicle Code, it is necessary for Staff to update and conduct radar surveys and a traffic engineering study at the locations mentioned in the report so that radar enforcement can continue to be utilized. Staff Report Subject: ENGINERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY TO JUSTIFY USE OF SPEED RADAR FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT Page 2 of 3 Attached is a copy of the 2005 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report prepared by the Engineering Division and the Police Department to support the speed limits mentioned in the revised Chapter 11.68 of the City's municipal Code. It was determined that several locations required revisions of their speed limits based on the results of the traffic survey. The following street segments required speed limit adjustments: Street Existing Revised Speed Speed Reason for Change (Segment) Limit Limit East Grand Avenue Current speed limit signage is confusing to (Airport Blvd to Forbes Blvd) motorist. 30 MPH conforms to the 25/30/35 30 prevailing speeds, but is lower than the 85t~ Percentile Speed due to severe horizontal/vertical curvature, high truck ratio, and high pedestrian traffic. Gull Road 30 MPH conforms to the (Oyster Point Blvd to Forbes Blvd) prevailing speeds, but is lower than the 85t~ Percentile Speed 25 30 due to severe horizontal/vertical curvature, high truck ratio, narrow road width, and high pedestrian/bicyclist traffic. Harbor Way 30 MPH conforms to the (E. Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave) prevailing speeds, but is lower than the 85th Percentile Speed due to high truck ratio, commercial area with many 25 30 driveways, high volume of mid- block left turns, slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic, poorly visible fire station on segment, and high pedestrian traffic. Junipero Serra Boulevard 50 MPH conforms to the (Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd) 45 50 prevailing speeds and the 85th Percentile Speed. In addition to the above speed limit changes, several street segments were added, deleted or revised in order to better meet the needs of the Police Department. Due to the number of modifications, Staff recommends replacing in its entirety Chapter 11.68 of the City's Municipal Code. Staff Report Subject: ENGINERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY TO JUSTIFY USE OF SPEED RADAR FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT Page 3 of 3 Furthermore, the following street segments are currently under construction and staff recommends conducting an engineering and traffic survey after construction is completed in order to accurately determine the speed limits. At this time, the construction posted speed limit will remain. 1. Bayshore Boulevard (City Limits to Sister Cities Boulevard) 2. North Canal Street (South Linden Avenue to South Spruce Avenue) 3. South Canal Street (South Linden Avenue to South Spruce Avenue) FUNDING No additional funding will be needed for this report. By:~'L~ Marty Van Duyn ! / Assistant City Maka~er Approve~~,. City Manager Attachments: Ordinance Radar Survey Report ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE DELETING CHAPTER 11.68 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREETS," AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 11.68, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREETS" TO ALLOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO UTILIZE RADAR ENFORCEMENT FOR SPEEDING VIOLATIONS The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: DELETION OF CURRENT CHAPTER 11.68, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED I.IMIT ON CITY STREETS" Chapter 11.68 of Title 11 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, "Prima Facie Speed Limit on City Streets," is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 2: NEW CHAPTER 11.68, "PRIMA FACILE SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREETS" A new chapter 11.68 of Title 11, "Prima Facie Speed Limit on City Streets," is hereby added to Title 11 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to read as follows: Chapter 11.68 PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREETS 11.68.005 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits. The City Council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic survey dated May 25, 2005, prepared by the Police Department and City Engineer, for the streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the City Clerk and City Engineer. The City Council finds and determines that the survey was conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation and that the survey justifies the speed limits set forth in this chapter. The City Council further finds and determines upon the basis of the survey that a speed greater than twenty- five miles per hour will facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and will be reasonable and safe upon the streets or portions of streets designated in Sections 11.68.015 through 11.68.035 and declares that the prima facie speed limit of each street or portion thereof is the most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The City Council declares these speed limits as prima facie speed limits for the streets or portions thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the streets or portions thereof. 11.68.010 Prima facie speed limit declared twenty-five miles per hour. The twenty-five mile per hour prima facie speed limit shall apply to the following streets: Alida Way - from Northwood Drive to Ponderosa Road Alta Loma Drive - from Arroyo Drive to San Felipe Avenue Alta Vista Drive - from Conmur Street to Valverde Drive Arroyo Drive - from E1 Camino Real to Junipero Serra Boulevard Avalon Drive - from City Limits to Dorado Way Baden Avenue - from Airport Boulevard to Chestnut Avenue Callan Boulevard - from King Drive to Westborough Boulevard S. Canal Street - from South Linden Avenue to South Spruce Avenue Commercial Avenue - from Chestnut Avenue to Linden Avenue Del Monte Avenue - from Alta Loma Drive to Arroyo Drive Evergreen Drive - from Hillside Boulevard to Mission Road Grand Avenue - from Airport Boulevard to Mission Road Hillside Boulevard - Linden Avenue to Sister Cities Boulevard Linden Avenue - from Airport Boulevard to Railroad Avenue S. Linden Avenue - from Railroad Avenue to San Mateo Avenue Littlefield Avenue - from Harbor Way to Utah Avenue S. Maple Avenue - from South Canal Street to Tanforan Avenue McLellan Drive - from E1 Camino Real to Hibiscus Miller Avenue - from Airport Boulevard to Chestnut Avenue W. Orange Avenue - from E1 Camino Real to Railroad Avenue Olympic Drive - from Shannon Drive to Westborough Boulevard Ponderosa Road - from E1 Camino Real to Valencia Drive Railroad Avenue - from Orange Avenue to Spruce Avenue S. San Francisco Drive - from Greenpark Terrace to Hillside Boulevard Extension Spruce Avenue - from Maple Avenue to Railroad Avenue Valverde Drive - from Alta Vista Drive to Avalon Drive Victory Avenue - from South Linden Avenue to South Spruce Avenue All other local streets in residential and business districts in the City not included in this chapter. 11.68.015 Prima facie speed limit declared thirty miles per hour. The thirty mile per hour prima facie speed limit shall apply to the following streets: S. Airport Boulevard - from Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue to Utah Avenue Allerton Avenue - from East Grand Avenue to Forbes Boulevard N. Canal Street - from South Linden Avenue to West Orange Avenue Chestnut Avenue - from Grand Avenue to Hillside Boulevard and from Commercial Avenue to E1 Camino real DNA Way - from Forbes Boulevard to Point San Bruno Boulevard Dubuque Avenue - from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard Eccles Avenue - from Forbes Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard Gellert Boulevard - from Shannon Drive to Westborough Boulevard E. Grand Avenue - from Airport Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way Grandview Drive - from East Grand Avenue to Point San Bruno Boulevard Gull Road - from Forbes Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard Harbor Way - from East Grand Avenue to Littlefield Avenue Littlefield Avenue - from East Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue 2 Mission Road - from Chestnut Avenue to City Limits Mitchell Avenue - from Harbor Way to South Airport Boulevard Noor Avenue - from E1 Camino Real to Huntington Avenue Oyster Point Boulevard - from Eccles Avenue to east end Railroad Avenue - from Linden Avenue to Spruce Avenue San Mateo Avenue - from Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue to South Linden Avenue/Tanforan Avenue Shaw Road - from City Limits to San Mateo Avenue S. Spruce Avenue - from E1 Camino Real to Railroad Avenue Westborough Boulevard - from Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue to E1 Camino Real 11.68.020 Prima facie speed limit declared thirty-five miles per hour. The thirty-five mile per hour prima facie speed limit shall apply to the following streets: Airport Boulevard-- from San Mateo Avenue to Sister Cities Boulevard S. Airport Boulevard - from City Limits to Utah Avenue Bayshore Boulevard - from City Limits to Sister Cities Boulevard Forbes Boulevard - from East Grand Avenue to DNA Way Gateway Boulevard - from Oyster Point Boulevard to South Airport Boulevard Gellert Boulevard - from King Drive to Westborough Boulevard E. Grand Avenue - from Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard to east end Oyster Point Boulevard - from Eccles Avenue to Gateway Boulevard Produce Avenue - from San Mateo Avenue to Terminal Court Utah Avenue - from South Airport Boulevard to Littlefield Avenue (east end) Westborough Boulevard - from City Limits to Junipero Serra Boulevard 11.68.025 Prima facie speed limit declared forty miles per hour. The forty mile per hour prima facie speed limit shall apply to the following streets: Hickey Boulevard - from City Limits to E1 Camino Real Hillside Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard Extension - Chestnut Avenue to Sister Cities Boulevard Huntington Avenue - from Noor Avenue to South Spruce Avenue Sister Cities Boulevard - from Airport Boulevard to Hillside Boulevard S. San Francisco Drive - Greenpark Terrace to Sister Cities Boulevard 11.68.030 Prima facie speed limit declared forty-five miles per hour. The forty-five mile per hour prima facie speed limit shall apply to the following streets: Westborough Boulevard - from West Orange Avenue/Camaritas Avenue to Junipero Serra Boulevard 11.68.035 Prima facie speed limit declared fifty miles per hour. The fifty mile per hour prima facie speed limit shall apply to the following streets: Junipero Serra Boulevard - from Avalon Drive to Hickey Boulevard The re-zone of the property is internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan and reflects the designation of the site by the General Plan, as adopted in 1999, as High Density Residential. SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4: PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the ~ day of ,2005. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of ., 2005, 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 ,2005. 4 Ray Green, Mayor CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Engineering Division and Police Department Present ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT FOR SPEED LIMITS May 25, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose of Survey and Background Information Accident History 2003 California State Roadway Accident Rates (Table 1) Accident History for Each Segment (Table 2) Summary of Results (Table 3) Recommended Speed Limits (Figure 1) Detailed Discussion of Results Appendix Individual Street Speed Surveys 3 4 9 13 14 85 PURPOSE OF SURVEY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION This report represents and Engineering and Traffic Survey as defined in Section 627 of the Ca/iforn/a Vehic/e Code (CVC) and follows the requirements of the Department of Transportation's 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The Survey considers the following in determining appropriate speed limits: 1. Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements. 2. Accident records. 3. Highway, traffic and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. This Survey is enforceable for a period of up to 5 years, subject to the provisions of CVC Section 40802a. Analysis of each street segment included a current speed survey, review of accident records for the last 2 years, and a review of roadside conditions. The study procedures were as follows: Speed surveys were conducted by the Police Department using a calibrated hand-held radar gun, following the guidance of the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement. Using the data collected, the 85th Percentile Speed (or Critical Speed), 50th Percentile Speed (or Median Speed), 15 th Percentile Speed and 10 MPH Pace speed was calculated. The accepted practice is to set the speed limit at or within 5 MPH below the 85th Percentile Speed, unless other factors require a lower limit. In addition, speed limits are typically set to fall within the 10 MPH pace speed. Again, factors not readily apparent to drivers may require speed limits below this range. The 15th Percentile Speed is used to determine the minimum allowable speed limit. Accident records were collected from the Police Department and reviewed in order to compare to accident rates of Statewide averages for similar roadways. The Statewide average accident rates were obtained from the 2003 Accident Data on California State Highways (Road Miles, Travel, Accidents, Accident Rates). If a roadway segment had more than one lane configuration, the lower accident rate was used in order to compare. High accident rates can indicate the need to reduce the current speed limit. The Engineering Division conducted field investigations of all roadway segments, making note of the following: a. Adjacent land use and proximity of schools. b. Segment length, width, and roadway geometrics. c. Condition of roadway. d. Visibility for drivers and pedestrians. e. Number of lanes, striping, medians. f. Pedestrian traffic. g. Characteristics of traffic flow. h. Frequency of intersections and driveways along segment. i. Location of traffic control devices (stop signs, traffic signals, etc.). j. Adjacent jurisdictions' speed limits. k. Other factors not readily apparent to motorists. ACCIDENT DATA AND HISTORY Table I - 2003 California State Roadway Accident Rates < 45 MPH, Urban) Conventional 3 Lanes (Urban) Undivided 4 Lanes (Design Speed <.45 MPH, Urban) Undivided 4 Lanes (Design Speed >- 45 MPH, Urban) Divided 4 Lanes (Design Speed < 45 MPH, Urban) Divided 4 Lanes (Design Speed >- 45 MPH, Urban) Divided 5 Lanes Or More (Design Speed < 45 MPH, Urban) 3.05 2.05 4.95 3.35 3.35 2.10 2.40 Table 2 - Accident History (2-Year Period - 2003 thru 2004I ,~',~:L~:~i: : :~; :,.'~c~[d~'rit : : Airport Boulevard - Linden Ave 11 3.21 3.35 to Sister Cities Blvd Airport Boulevard - Linden Ave 9 3.70 3.35 to Miller Ave Airport Boulevard - Miller Ave 17 9.72 3.35 to Baden Ave Airport Boulevard - Baden Ave 15 3.39 2.40 to San Mateo Ave 4 Table 2 - Accident History (2-Year Period - 2003 thru 2004) A¢~id6ht S(etewide primary street and segment Ra[e ~e~ Average Alida Way - Northwood Dr to 5 6.39 3.05 Ponderosa Rd Ailerton - E. Grand Ave to 4 0.88 3.05 Forbes Bird Alta Loma Drive - Arroyo Dr to 1 3.02 3.05 San Felipe Ave Alta Vista Drive - Conmur St to 2 4.61 3.O5 Valverde Dr Arroyo Drive - El Camino Real 17 7.35 3.05 to Junipero Serra Bird Avalon Drive -Junipero Serra 9 6.33 3.05 Boulevard to Dorado Way Avalon Drive - Junipero Serra 7 6.15 3.05 Bird to City Limits Baden Avenue - Airport Blvd 36 12.05 3.05 to Magnolia Ave Baden Avenue - Magnolia Ave 11 10.82 3.05 to Chestnut Ave Bayshore Boulevard - City Not Not _ Limits to Sister Cities Blvd Studied Studied Callan Boulevard - 12 3.69 3.05 Westborough, Blvd to King Dr Chestnut Avenue - El Camino 11 3.21 4.95 Real to Commercial Ave Chestnut Avenue - Grand Ave 4 1.18 3.05 to Hillside BIvd Commercial Avenue - Linden 14 21.02 3.05 Ave to Spruce Ave Commercial Avenue- Spruce 12 13.59 3.05 Ave to Orange Ave Commercial Avenue -Orange 7 4.62 3.05 Ave to Chestnut Ave Del Monte Drive - Arroyo Dr to 10 6.91 3.05 Alta Loma Dr DNA Way- Point San Bruno I 1.08 3.05 to Forbes Blvd Dubuque Avenue - E. Grand 10 6.72 3.05 Ave to Oyster Point BIvd East Grand Avenue - Airport Blvd to Forbes Blvd/Harbor 25 3.41 2.40 Way East Grand Avenue - Forbes Blvd/Harbor Way to Littlefield 8 1.92 3.35 Ave East Grand Avenue - Littlefield 5 1.47 4.95 Ave to East End Eccles Avenue - Forbes BIvd 4 2.38 3.05 to Oyster Point Blvd Table 2 - Accident History (2-Year Period - 2003 thru 2004) ' ; : Accident Ststewide Primary street and segment : Total# of Rate Per Average Accidents MVM Evergreen Drive - Mission Rd 9 13.03 3.05 to Hillside Bird Forbes Boulevard - E. Grand 11 1.19 3.35 Ave to DNA Way Gateway Boulevard - E. Grand 3 0.89 3.35 Ave to South Airport Blvd Gateway Boulevard - E. Grand 11 2.16 3.35 to Oyster Point Blvd Gellert Boulevard- 11 2.27 3.35 Westborough BIvd to King Dr Gellert Boulevard - Shannon 3 2.85 3.35 Drive to Westborough Bird Grand Avenue - Airport Blvd to 58 11.20 3.05 Spruce Ave Grand Avenue - Spruce Ave to 37 6.27 3.05 Chestnut Ave Grand Avenue - Mission Rd to 8 5.77 3.05 Chestn ut Ave Grandview Drive - E. Grand 3 1.00 3.05 Ave to Point San Bruno Blvd Gull Road - Oyster Point Blvd 5 3.05 3.05 to Forbes Blvd Harbor Way - Littlefield Ave to 4 3.75 3.05 Mitchell Ave Harbor Way - E. Grand Ave to 0 0 3.05 Mitchell Ave Hickey Boulevard - El Camino 38 3.78 4.95 Real to City Limits Hillside Boulevard Extension - Chestnut Ave to Sister Cities 12 1.20 3.35 Blvd Hillside Boulevard - Linden 3 1.53 3.05 Ave to Sister Cities BIvd Huntington Avenue - Noor Ave 6 3.40 4.95 to So. Spruce Ave Junipero Serra Boulevard - Avalon Drive to Westborough 18 1.92 2.10 Bird Junipero Serra Boulevard - 9 1.43 2.10 King Dr to Westborough Bird Junipem Serra Boulevard - 12 1.47 2.10 King Dr to Hickey Bird Linden Avenue - Airport BIvd 60 11.84 3.05 to Railroad Ave Littlefield Avenue - E. Grand 4 2.29 3.05 Ave to Utah Ave Littlefield Avenue - Utah Ave 0 0 3.05 to Harbor Way Table 2 - Accident History (2-Year Period - 2003 thru 2004) ~- . ' Primary Street and segment ATcO~dl ~ ~f S.ta~ew!de p, o hiS. Average McLellan Drive- El Camino 0 0 3.05 Real to Hibiscus Miller Avenue - Airport Blvd to 35 5.32 3.05 Chestnut Ave Mission Road - Chestnut Ave 3 1.15 4.95 to Grand Ave Mission Road - Grand Ave to City Limits 10 2.37 2.05 Mitchell Avenue - Harbor Way 0 0 3.05 to So. Airport Blvd Noor Avenue - El Camino 0 0 3.05 Real to Huntington Ave North Canal Street - So. 1 2.22 3.05 Linden Ave to So. Spruce Ave North Canal Street - So. 1 1.75 3.05 Spruce Ave to W. Orange Ave Olympic Drive - Shannon Dr to 1 1.34 3.05 Westborough Blvd Oyster Point Boulevard - 3 0.50 3.35 Gateway Blvd to Eccles Ave Oyster Point Blvd - Eccles Ave 2 0.96 2.05 to East End Ponderosa Road - El Camino 2 2.09 3.05 Real to Valencia Dr Produce Avenue - San Mateo 20 4.54 2.05 Ave to Terminal Ct Railroad Avenue - Linden Ave 8 4.97 3.05 to Spruce Ave Railroad Avenue - Spruce Ave 12 9.12 3.05 to Orange Ave San Mateo Avenue - Airport 19 3.46 3.05 Blvd to So. Linden Ave Shaw Road - San Mateo Ave 5 2.96 3.05 to City Limits Sister Cities Boulevard - 11 1.15 3.35 Hillside BIvd to Airport Blvd South Airport Boulevard - Utah 10 0.98 3.35 Ave to City Limits South Airport Boulevard - Utah Ave to Airport Blvd/Produce 11 1.60 3.35 Ave South Canal Street - So, 2 6.74 3.05 Linden Ave to So. Spruce Ave South Linden Avenue - San 18 5.92 3.05 Mateo Ave to Victory Ave South Linden Avenue - Victory 10 3.14 3.05 Ave to Railroad Ave South Maple Avenue - So. 5 1.63 3.05 Canal St to Tanforan Ave 7 Table 2 - Accident History (2-Year Period - 2003 thru 2004) i ACCident Total#of iRate per Statewide primary street and segment Accidents MVM Average South San Francisco Drive- Hillside Bird to Sister Cities 1 1.20 3.05 Bird South Spruce Avenue - El 11 1.26 4.95 Camino Real to Victory Ave South Spruce Avenue - 22 5.16 4.95 Victory Ave to Railroad Ave Spruce Avenue - Park Way to 6 8.78 3.05 Maple Ave Spruce Avenue - Park Way to 9 2.78 3.05 Railroad Ave Utah Avenue - Harbor Way to 4 1.57 4.95 So. Airport Blvd Utah Avenue - Harbor Way to 5 2.75 4.95 Littlefield Ave (East End) Valverde Drive - Alta Vista Dr 1 2.37 3.05 to Avalon Dr Victory Avenue - So. Spruce 13 6.72 3.05 Ave to So. Linden Ave Westborough Boulevard - El 13 4.75 3.35 Camino Real to Camaritas Ave Westborough Boulevard- Camaritas Ave to Junipero 19 1.08 2.10 Serra Bird Westborough Boulevard- Junipero Serra Blvd to Gellert 38 4.02 2.40 Blvd Westborough Boulevard- 29 1.78 3.35 Gellert Blvd to City Limits West Orange Avenue - Railroad Ave to El Camino 22 5.95 3.05 Real SUMMARY OF RESULTS Table 3 - Summary of Results E~i~i~g: Re~~ ?, I~MPHP~Ce Primary street and:Segment speed ~ t 85 '/°speed 15 '/, Speed : R~e ~imi~ ~ ~,!, : ,,u Airport Boulevard - Linden Ave 35 35 39.5 29.0 30-39 to Sister Cities BIvd Airport Boulevard - Linden Ave 35 35 41.2 30.2 30-39 to Miller Ave Airport Boulevard - Miller Ave 35 35 27.0 18.0 19-28 to Baden Ave Airport Boulevard - Baden Ave 35 35 39.9 29.8 32-41 to San Mateo Ave Alida Way - Northwood Dr to 25 25 27.4 20.2 20-29 Ponderosa Rd Allerton - E. Grand Ave to 30 30 32.0 20.3 23-32 Forbes Bird Alta Loma Drive - Arroyo Dr to 25 25 28.2 19.6 20-29 San Felipe Ave Alta Vista Drive - Contour St to 25 25 29.8 22.5 22-31 Valverde Dr Arroyo Drive - El Camino Real 25 25 34.5 24.9 24-33 to Junipero Serra Bird Avalon Drive -Junipero Serra 25 25 38.0 27.5 28-37 Blvd to Dorado Way Avalon Drive- Junipero Serra 25 25 28.8 20.5 20-29 Bird to City Limits Baden Avenue - Airport BIvd 25 25 32.9 22.9 24-33 to Magnolia Ave Baden Avenue - Magnolia Ave 25 25 35.3 26.0 24-33 to Chestnut Ave Bayshore Boulevard - City 25 Not Not Not Not Limits to Sister Cities Bird Studied Studied Studied Studied Callan Boulevard- 25 25 35.2 27.5 26-35 Westborough Blvd to King Dr Chestnut Avenue - El Camino 30 30 34.3 27.0 26-35 Real to Commercial Ave Chestnut Avenue - Grand Ave 30 30 38.8 30.6 30-39 to Hillside Bird Commercial Avenue - Linden 25 25 34.6 22.2 23-32 Ave to Spruce Ave Commercial Avenue - Spruce 25 25 32.8 23.9 24-33 Ave to Orange Ave Commercial Avenue -Orange 25 25 34.6 25.3 26-35 Ave to Chestnut Ave Del Monte Drive- Arroyo Dr to 25 25 31.9 22.6 22-31 Alta Loma Dr DNA Way- Point San Bruno 30 30 33.2 24.2 25-34 to Forbes Bird Dubuque Avenue - E. Grand Not 30 39.3 27.2 28-37 Ave to Oyster Point BIvd Posted Table 3 - Summary of Results ' : : Existing ' s~eed Hecom , 10 MPH Pace Primary St~eet and segment P~;,.: SP~Limit' 85%Speed 15%Speed Rangb : East Grand Avenue - Airport Blvd to Forbes Blvd/Harbor 25/30/35 30 35.4 24.9 27-36 Way East Grand Avenue - Forbes Blvd/Harbor Way to Littlefield 35 35 36.5 27.5 28-37 Ave East Grand Avenue - Littlefield 35 35 38.0 28.7 29-38 Ave to East End Eccles Avenue - Forbes Blvd 30 30 34.3 24.1 25-34 to Oyster Point Blvd Evergreen Drive - Mission Rd 25 25 34.0 24.9 26-35 to Hillside Blvd Forbes Boulevard - E. Grand 35 35 44.4 30.1 31-40 Ave to DNA Way Gateway Boulevard - E. Grand 35 35 36.3 23.9 25-34 Ave to South Airport Blvd Gateway Boulevard - E. Grand 35 35 38.5 27.9 28-37 to Oyster Point Blvd Gellert Boulevard- 35 35 41.6 31.2 35-44 Westborough Blvd to King Dr Gellert Boulevard - Shannon 30 30 39.7 28.1 28-37 Dr to Westborough Blvd Grand Avenue - Airport Blvd to 25 25 24.5 17.5 17-26 Spruce Ave Grand Avenue - Spruce Ave to 25 25 32.9 25.0 25-34 Chestnut Ave Grand Avenue - Mission Rd to 25 25 33.6 25.8 25-34 Chestnut Ave Grandview Drive - E. Grand 30 30 34.3 27.3 28-37 Ave to Point San Bruno Blvd Gull Road - Oyster Point Blvd 25 30 39.2 29.6 29-38 to Forbes Blvd Harbor Way - Littlefield Ave to 30 30 36.3 27.1 27-36 Mitchell Ave Harbor Way - E. Grand Ave to 25 30 35.8 25.9 28-37 Mitchell Ave Hickey Boulevard - El Camino 40 40 45.3 32.3 33-42 Real to City Limits Hillside Boulevard Extension - Chestnut Ave to Sister Cities 40 40 40.9 33.8 34-43 Blvd Hillside Boulevard - Linden 25 25 31.8 23.5 24-33 Ave to Sister Cities Blvd Huntington Avenue - Noor Ave 40 40 41.4 29.9 31-40 to So. Spruce Ave Junipero Serra Boulevard - Avalon Drive to Westborough 45 50 50.6 40.5 42-51 Blvd Junipero Serra Boulevard - 50 50 51.9 39.3 40-49 Kin~ Dr to Westborou~lh Blvd l0 Table 3 - Summary of Results ~ EX ~ting ; Hecom H ~'ace Primary Street and Segment Speed S~d Li~ t 85 Yo Speed 15 Yo Speed ~i~it Junipero Serra Boulevard - 50 50 55.3 43.4 47-56 King Dr to Hickey Blvd Linden Avenue - Airport Blvd 25 25 26.1 18.9 18-27 to Railroad Ave Littlefield Avenue - E. Grand 30 30 34.1 21.1 22-31 Ave to Utah Ave Littlefield Avenue - Utah Ave 25 25 26.2 16.9 17-26 to Harbor Way McLellan Drive - El Camino 25 25 32.3 22.4 21-30 Real to Hibiscus Miller Avenue - Airport Bird to 25 25 29.9 23.7 23-32 Chestnut Ave Mission Road - Chestnut Ave 30 30 36.9 29.3 28-37 to Grand Ave Mission Road - Grand Ave to 30 30 34.9 27.0 25-34 City Limits Mitchell Avenue - Harbor Way 30 30 36.4 24.1 27-36 to So. Airport Blvd Noor Avenue - El Camino 30 30 37.0 26.2 27-36 Real to Huntington Ave North Canal Street - So. 30 30 29.6 20.9 21-30 Linden Ave to So. Spruce Ave North Canal Street - So. 30 30 38.3 27.3 27-36 Spruce Ave to W. Orange Ave Olympic Drive - Shannon Dr to 25 25 35.3 26.6 27-36 Westborough BIvd Oyster Point Boulevard- 35 35 43.5 31.9 33-42 Gateway Bird to Eccles Ave Oyster Point Bird - Eccles Ave 30 30 34.5 26.8 26-35 to East End Ponderosa Road - El Camino 25 25 36.5 28.5 27-26 Real to Valencia Dr Produce Avenue - San Mateo 35 35 43.7 30.5 33-42 Ave to Terminal Ct Railroad Avenue - Linden Ave 30 30 38.5 28.0 27-36 to Spruce Ave Railroad Avenue - Spruce Ave 25 25 35.3 27.3 27-36 to Orange Ave San Mateo Avenue - Airport 30 30 35.2 26.4 27-36 Blvd to So. Linden Ave Sister Cities Boulevard - 40 40 45.8 34.1 33-42 Hillside Blvd to Airport Blvd Shaw Road - San Mateo Ave 30 30 35.4 21.6 27-36 to City Limits South Airport Boulevard - Utah 35 35 41.9 34.2 34-43 Ave to City Limits South Airport Boulevard - Utah Ave to Airport Blvd/Produce 30 30 39.7 29.7 31-40 Ave ]! Table 3 - Summary of Results EXiSting Recom ~ : primary street and segment Speed :..:.~ Li~ 85% Speed 15% Speed 10 MPH pace ~: : Limit S.~-~ Range South Canal Street - So. 25 25 34.3 24.0 25-34 Linden Ave to So. Spruce Ave South Linden Avenue - San 25 25 34.1 24.3 24-33 Mateo Ave to Victory Ave South Linden Avenue - Victory 25 25 32.6 23.9 24-33 Ave to Railroad Ave South Maple Avenue - So. 25 25 32.6 19.8 24-33 Canal St to Tanforan Ave South San Francisco Drive- Not Hillside BIvd to Sister Cities 25/40 54.6 36.8 41-50 Posted BIvd South Spruce Avenue - El 30 30 37.1 29.5 29-38 Camino Real to Victory Ave South Spruce Avenue - 30 30 37.6 27.3 27-36 Victory Ave to Railroad Ave Spruce Avenue - Park Way to 25 25 26.7 19.8 19-28 Maple Ave Spruce Avenue - Park Way to 25 25 29.9 21.6 21-30 Railroad Ave Utah Avenue - Harbor Way to 35 35 38.3 26.1 27-36 So. Airport Blvd Utah Avenue - Harbor Way to 35 35 38.6 28.6 29-38 Littlefield Ave (East End) Valverde Drive - Alta Vista Dr 25 25 36.8 28.3 28-37 to Avalon Dr Victory Avenue - So. Spruce 25 25 31.1 22.4 24-33 Ave to So. Linden Ave Westborough Boulevard - El 30 30 37.1 25.1 29-38 Camino Real to Camaritas Ave Westborough Boulevard- Camaritas Ave to Junipero 45 45 55.4 46.7 47-56 Serra Blvd Westborough Boulevard- Junipero Serra Blvd to Gellert 35 35 39.0 27.3 28-37 BIvd Westborough Boulevard- 35 35 46.4 36.2 38-47 Gellert Blvd to City Limits West Orange Avenue - Railroad Ave to El Camino 25 25 33.1 25.4 25-34 Real - - 40/40 ~. ? ......... ~ . .,,. \ ~x'~ . ~'.~,, / · ~..,?,, ,\ J ~\ \ .~~~./~ ~ X ~" '. ~ ~:' ~. ~ .... ~,:::~ .... ~ .............' .... sNP,/25q0~ ..7 ~, .- " ~?~ -- .. ' .... .. '~:".'~ ~,'" '"'", 25~- ~.8. -.." . ...... .:-: ,::7,¥. ...... . ~.~ . . . -. . ,.~ ~> : x -~ , .: '/ · .~ ~ ' ": ' ~ o~- / ' ' "/ 'x/ , ,W~ .* ~ .'"~.t'~ '"; . -' ~ - -- . ~ : / X ;".'- -. .' /'' ..~" 25125 ..... . / , ~. , ' -: - ' ,, ~ m- ':-.' ~ ~' % .... / ~ ' " ' ;x ~ " ' ' ¢ ' ': :x F&k .... / ' ' ' ' %' : " :" ' ' ' : , : .,:.~ , , . .. ....... : . . .. . ~ ............. ....... ~30/300 - ~<. ~ · ¥: ~ a; -. / ~ ~ . . . ,. . ..... ~/--}, '. ! -35/35 ' '~' 35135 -,~ / , : .- ~ .......... .~ ~-. - : ,. . . .~...... ...... ~;~. ~ . · ..- .. . - 25125 . ...... ~ ~.,.~ · ..... , , x ~-~" - x ..... ' /?~/. . , , ...... ',.,,<.; , , . , , .:. ....... .- 25~30 ' - ~ :~'. ' - -~.~ ....... ~ '~.z '~ · ' ........ ~ .... ~ ....... x ....... , ......... ' ........ ,.. ' -~ ..-, ~ N ~,, -. 30130 ....... ~x ..~x,,, '"'~ ;2 ~ ~ , ' · ' '". ' 7' ~ ~.~.. ~ ......... ""-,.L ...... ~. ~-, ;'. '~'-... ~:;~: ............ ? ........ 2~125~:: / . '" '/'25~25'~.... "-:/., 35135 . . . ,,~ ~.... ~ x. ~.-P.-_ ~i 'v "~,~~.~.-m "~-b'-..~?~%~ ~. '-~.~%' ....... ~?Jv' ._.'" ./?J - "~'"S~s'~'~' ........ '""'..<(.~.,/,.. '''~'-~-~.~-~. '"/" ..... ·/;'~ 'e ' .... "'" _.;-~' x ;:" '-'.~/"'~'.5.:?.x "'~/,e ........... ...... '"'"'e ~- . .......... . ~ ~;'"~"'e' .' ~.,..x? .... . ....... ......... ~. ~x/~g ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~' . x~~ ...... ~ 30/30 e '- . ' w'" x;~' ~ j ' ~¥... ~ ,> ..... . '. ? .... .>.~) ...... - .......... / ~,-. -. · ~..~ -..x ,~_:.. ,' ~--~-"O~-- ' ......... '> .... ' ..... ' ........ ~ .......... ' '~ .' . .-~, ' .~.. ~. ' ..... ~ ~' - ' ~ ~ ~ "'"30/30- - . " ~ 35/35, ~25/30~. 35135 ~ ........ ~ ...... ~.~ . A~-- . ..~.. -~-. ... . ..-,,.~.x~.9.x~, ,~ : ~ '~'~ ' ~35135~ X ~'."~ '~' ~ ~" ........~.. cx'~x,'"'xv'~::. ~: . ., . . .... 25/25~~'' / ~ .... ~ ........ ~' .. " R~ ~N~ ' .s~' / ~ -" '- ~ - ' 5' . · 30~30 ~. - v.' , ., '. : - 25/250 .,t. az' . ~.~--' 35135 ' /,...'~X '(x ' 25125 ' - J. ', "/ '/Od ....... ~ .... ,~'~ - ..-'~25/25 -/~' ...~s./ .- :~. ~ . " ~ .' ~.. '... ,,~.,. :- , - , ~. -.,~ ~.'. .. .. 30/30· 30/30 35/35~.~ ,.5. 25/25 35/35 LEGEND: · - MIDPOINT ON SEGMENT XXIYY - EXISTING/RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT NP - NOT POSTED - NOT STUDIED XX/YY - SPEED LIMIT CHANGED 30~30 · f.'jT'r AN~ ~:J~UN'i'~ l.]~ SAN i~ RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMITS NO. DATE REVISION BY APP, SCALE NTS i APPROVED: DRAWN: KCM CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO I DATE: APRIL 2005 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS I SHEET I DRAWING NO. DETAILED DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Airport Boulevard - Linden Avenue to Sister Cities Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 39.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of Airport Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. There is a striped bike lane on the west side of the segment. There is a sidewalk on the west side for the length of the segment. The sidewalk on the east side is partially blocked by trees and shrubbery, making it difficult for pedestrians to pass without entering the street. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial with Highway 101 running parallel. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway has many driveways. The gas station located at Linden Avenue generates a high volume of traffic entering and exiting the driveway. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Sister Cities Boulevard, Butler Avenue, and Linden Avenue. Parking is allowed on the west side only with both diagonal and parallel spaces. Parking is very dense. Airport Boulevard carries roughly 12,941 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.21 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 39.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit 'remain at 35 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that pedestrians be prohibited from utilizing the east side of the segment by posting barricades at the intersections. Airport Boulevard - Linden Avenue to Miller Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 41.2 MPH 14 Conditions: This segment of Airport Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. There is a striped bike lane on the west side of the segment. There are sidewalks on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial with Highway 101 running parallel. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway has many driveways. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Linden Avenue and Miller Avenue. Parking is allowed on the west side only and is very dense. Airport Boulevard carries roughly 7,769 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were nine (9) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.70 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 41.2 MPH in both directions, yielding a 40 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 35 MPH due to the following conditions: · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Commercial area with many driveways. · High bicyclist traffic due to bike lane. · High truck ratio. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 35 MPH. Airport Boulevard - Miller Avenue to Baden Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 27.0 MPH Conditions: This segment of Airport Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction with separate left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There is a striped bike lane on the west side of the segment. There are sidewalks on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. A gas station is located on the segment that generates stopping, slowing, entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the proximity to the downtown area. The roadway has many driveways. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Miller Avenue, Grand Avenue and Baden Avenue. Traffic weaves greatly between Miller Avenue and Grand Avenue due to the fairly short distance. Parking is allowed on the west side only and is very dense. Airport Boulevard carries roughly 16,625 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were seventeen (17) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 9.72 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 27.0 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be increased by 10 MPH to 35 MPH due to the following conditions: · Consistent with the adjoining segments along Airport Boulevard and allows for a better flow of traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 35 MPH. Airport Boulevard - Baden Avenue and San Mateo Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 39.9 MPH Conditions: This segment of Airport Boulevard is striped for three lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. The segment contains a railroad overpass and a vertical curve that reduces sight distance. There are sidewalks on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. The La Quinta, Lyon's, Taco Bell and KFC generate a high volume of entering/exiting traffic into their driveways. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Baden Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway except for a small portion near Baden (in front of KFC). Airport Boulevard carries roughly 20,919 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were seven (15) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.39 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.40 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 39.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 35 MPH. Alida Way- Northwood Drive to Ponderosa Road Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 27.4 MPH Conditions: This segment of Alida Way is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. St. Veronica's School/Church and Rotary Plaza (senior housing) are located on the segment. Ponderosa School is located nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high. There are stop signs located at Ponderosa Road, Country Club Drive, Alta Vista Drive and Northwood Drive. Parking is allowed on both sides and is very dense. There are horizontal and vertical curves along the segment that limit sight distance. Alida Way carries roughly 2,346 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were five (5) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 6.39 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Pementile Speed was 27.4 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. Allerton Avenue - East Grand Avenue to Forbes Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 32.0 MPH Conditions: This segment of Allerton Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the west side only. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There are stop signs located at the intersections of East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side. There is a vertical curve that limits sight distance. This segment has a high truck ratio. There are many driveways that generate slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting traffic. There is a high volume of mid-block left turns. The roadway condition is poor. Allerton Avenue carries roughly 14,902 vehicles per day along this segment. ]7 Comments: There were four (4) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0.88 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 32.0 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 30 MPH. Alta Loma Drive - Arroyo Drive to San Felipe Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 28.2 MPH Conditions: This segment of Alta Loma Drive is striped for one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is mainly residential. There is a small portion with commercial use near Arroyo Drive containing KFC, Brother's Furniture, and small businesses. There is a stairway to El Camino Real located at San Felipe Avenue. Pedestrian traffic is high due to nearby schools and the stairway. The roadway has many driveways. There are stop signs located at Arroyo Drive, Del Paso Drive, and El Campo Drive. Parking is allowed on both sides. There are horizontal and vertical curves along the segment that limit sight distance. There is a drainage dip located near El Campo Drive that slows traffic. Alta Loma Drive carries roughly 1,140 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There was one (1) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.02 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 28.2 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. In addition, It is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed for northbound traffic just north of Del Paso Drive. Alta Vista Drive - Conmur Street to Valverde Drive Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 29.8 MPH Conditions: This segment of Alta Vista Drive is striped for one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway has many driveways. Parking is allowed on both sides. There is a sharp horizontal curve at Valverde Drive that limits sight distance. Also, horizontal and vertical curvature near Mira Vista Way limit sight distance.Alta Vista Drive carries roughly 2,850 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were two (2) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 4.61 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 29.8 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. Arroyo Drive - El Camino Real to Junipero Serra Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of Arroyo Drive is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Burl Burl Park and the Municipal Services Building (MSB) are located on the segment. Burl Burl school is located nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the MSB, school and park. The roadway has many driveways. Parking is allowed on both sides and is very dense. The portion in front of the MSB (El Camino Real to Camaritas Avenue) has diagonal parking. There is a mid-block crosswalk located at the entrance to Burl Burl Park. There is a traffic signal located at El Camino Real. There are stop signs located at Camaritas Avenue, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Del Monte Avenue (westbound direction only), Escanyo Drive (eastbound direction only), Capay Circle (eastbound direction only), and Indio Drive (eastbound direction only). There are several horizontal and vertical curves along the segment that limit sight distance. The steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. Arroyo Drive carries roughly 3,238 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were seventeen (17) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 7.35 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Avalon Drive - Junipero Serra Boulevard to Dorado Way Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 38.0 MPH Conditions: This segment of Avalon Drive is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. The 280 northbound off ramp is located at Junipero Serra Boulevard. Pedestrian traffic is high due to nearby Ponderosa School and Avalon Park. The roadway has many driveways. There is a signalized intersection located at Junipero Serra Boulevard. There are stop signs located at Alhambra Road and Dorado Way. Parking is allowed on both sides and is very dense. There are horizontal and vertical curves along the segment that limit sight distance, as well as a steep eastbound grade that lengthens stopping distance. Avalon Drive carries roughly 4,280 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were nine (9) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 6.33 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 38.0 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. 20 Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · High pedestrian traffic. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Avalon Drive - Junipero Serra Boulevard to City Limits Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 28.8 MPH Conditions: This segment of Avalon Drive is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. The 280 southbound on ramp is located west of Junipero Serra Boulevard and produces frequent left turns from Avalon Drive. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway has many driveways. There is a signalized intersection located at Junipero Serra Boulevard. There is a stop sign located at Seville Way. Parking is allowed on both sides. There are horizontal and vertical curves along the segment that limit sight distance, as well as a steep eastbound grade that lengthens stopping distance. Avalon Drive carries roughly 5,482 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were seven (7) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 6.15 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 28.8 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. 2! Baden Avenue - Airport Boulevard to Maqnolia Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 32.9 MPH Conditions: This segment of Baden Avenue is primarily striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. The portion between Airport Boulevard and Linden Avenue is striped for two lanes in each direction and is also undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is a mix of commercial and residential. Fire Station #1 is located near Airport Boulevard with a large furniture store located at Linden Avenue. The Magnolia Senior Center is located at Magnolia Avenue. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the proximity to the downtown area, nearby restaurants and the senior center. The roadway has many driveways, especially in the residential area. The gas station located at Linden Avenue and the fire station generate a high volume of traffic entering and exiting their driveways, as well as mid-block left turns. The section between Airport Boulevard and Linden Avenue has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Airport Boulevard, Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Spruce Avenue. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides from Linden Avenue to Spruce Avenue and is very dense in the residential area. The pavement condition is poor. Baden Avenue carries roughly 6,165 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were thirty-six (36) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 12.05 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 32.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · High truck ratio. · Poor pavement condition. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Baden Avenue - Maqnolia Avenue to Chestnut Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 35.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Baden Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. The Magnolia Senior Center is located at Magnolia Avenue. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the senior center and some commercial use at Magnolia Avenue. The roadway segment has many driveways and several intersecting streets. There are stop signs at the intersections of Magnolia Avenue, Orange Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. A vertical curve between Orange Avenue and Acacia Avenue limits sight distance. Baden Avenue carries roughly 2,369 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 10.82 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 35.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · Dense on-street parking and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Bayshore Boulevard - City Limits to Sister Cities Boulevard 25 MPH Posted Speed Limit: (Under Construction) . Recommended Speed:' 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: Not Conducted Conditions: This segment of Bayshore Boulevard is currently under heavy construction. A portion of the segment is one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. The 23 portion approaching Sister Cities Bouelvard is two lanes southbound and one lane northbound with centerline striping. Upon completion of the improvements, the roadway will be two lanes in each direction divided by a raised median island. The posted speed limit is currently 25 MPH due to the construction activities. The speed limit in the adjacent jurisdiction of Brisbane is 45 MPH. Surrounding land use is open space. Highway 101 runs parallel to the roadway segment. Pedestrian traffic is Iow. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of Sister Cities Boulevard. As part of the improvements, new signalized intersections will be located at the Highway 101 southbound off ramp and the entrance to a new development property (between the 101 on/off ramp and Sister Cities Boulevard). Parking is not allowed on either side. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. A volume count was not conducted on this segment due to the heavy construction. Therefore, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was not calculated. Comments: A speed survey was not conducted on this segment due to the heavy construction. Therefore, the 85th Percentile Speed was not calculated. Recommendations: It is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed survey be conducted after construction is completed in order to evaluate the traffic speeds accurately. Callan Boulevard - Westborouqh Boulevard to Kinq Drive Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 35.2 MPH Conditions: This segment of Callan Boulevard is striped for one lane in each direction with bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. The roadway is separated by a raised median island with left turn pockets near the businesses only. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is a mix of commercial and residential. Them are 7-11 convenience stores on either end of the segment. A local shopping center and St. Augustine Church/School are also located on the segment. Westborough Middle School is nearby. Part of the year, this area is typically covered in dense fog, limiting sight distance. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the shopping center and convenience stores. Bicyclist traffic is high due to the striped bike lanes in both directions. The roadway has many driveways, especially in the high-density residential area. The convenience store driveways are very busy, with vehicles continuously entering and exiting. The single signalized intersection is located at Westborough Boulevard. Stops signs are located at the intersection of King Drive and Greendale Drives. Parking is allowed on both sides from Greendale Drive to King 24 Boulevard and on the east side only from Greendale Drive to Westborough Boulevard. Parking is dense due to the limited space between driveways. Callan Boulevard carries roughly 6,720 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twelve (12) reported segment cOllisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.69 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 35.2 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Commercial use causes slow moving traffic entering/exiting driveways. · High-density residential neighborhood with many driveways. · High accident rate. · Dense fog limits sight distance. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Chestnut Avenue - El Camino Real to Commercial Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Chestnut Avenue is primarily striped for two lanes in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. There are raised median islands with left turn pockets between El Camino Real and Mission Road. This section is striped for 2-3 lanes westbound and 2 lanes eastbound. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and residential. There is a local shopping center (Safeway, Wells Fargo, Post Office) and car wash near El Camino Real, which generate high vehicular volume entering and exiting the driveways. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the shopping center and senior housing development at Mission Road. There are signalized intersections located at El Camino Real, Antoinette Lane, and Mission ROad. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Commercial Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway for most of the segment except a small section between Antoinette Lane and El Camino Real. The future linear park crosses Chestnut Avenue between El Camino Real and Antoinette Lane. In addition, the section between El Camino Real and Antoinette is a 25 short distance, causing traffic to block each intersection during peak hours. Chestnut Avenue carries roughly 17,662 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.21 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 30 MPH. Chestnut Avenue - Grand Avenue to Hillside Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 38.8 MPH Conditions: This segment of Chestnut Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction with left turn pockets and is undivided with centerline striping. There is no sidewalk on the eastside of the segment between Nursery Way/Sunset Avenue to Hillside Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Parkway Heights Middle School is located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the school. There are signalized intersections located at Grand Avenue and Hillside Boulevard. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Nursery Way/Sunset Avenue. Parking is not allowed on the entire east side of the roadway. Parking is allowed on portions of the west side. Chestnut Avenue carries roughly 8,420 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were four (4) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.18 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 38.8 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic with sidewalks only on one side of roadway for the entire segment. · Residential neighborhood with nearby school. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Commercial Avenue - Linden Avenue to Spruce Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of Commercial Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is mainly residential with small local businesses at the intersections of Maple and Linden. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway segment has many driveways. There are stop signs at the intersections of Spruce Avenue, Maple Avenue and Linden Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. A vertical curve near Maple Avenue limits sight distance. Commercial Avenue carries roughly 2,673 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were fourteen (14) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 21.02 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Dense on-street parking and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Commercial Avenue - Spruce Avenue to Orange Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 32.8 MPH Conditions: This segment of Commercial Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway segment has many driveways. There are stop signs at the intersections of Spruce Avenue, Magnolia Avenue and Orange 2'7 Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. Vertical curves limit sight distance. Commercial Avenue carries roughly 3,008 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twelve (12) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 13.59 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 32.8 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Dense on-street parking and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Commercial Avenue - Oranqe Avenue to Chestnut Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of Commercial Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway segment has many driveways. There are stop signs at the intersections of Orange Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. Vertical curves limit sight distance. Commercial Avenue carries roughly 5,092 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were seven (7) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 4.62 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. 28 Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Dense on-street parking and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Del Monte Drive - Arroyo Drive to Alta Loma Drive Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 31.9 MPH Conditions: This segment of Del Monte Drive is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided. A section between Alta Loma Drive and El Campo Drive is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Alta Loma Middle School and Burl Bud School are both located on the segment. There are several playgrounds located nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the schools and playgrounds. The roadway segment has many driveways. There are stop signs at the intersections of Arroyo Drive, Del Paso Drive, El Campo Drive, Romney Avenue, and Alta Loma Drive. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. Vertical curves limit sight distance. The roadway narrows to less than 30 feet just south of El Campo Drive. The roadway condition is poor especially between Arroyo Drive and El Campo Drive. Del Monte Drive carries roughly 2,067 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were ten (10) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 6.91 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 31.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Dense on-street parking and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · School zone located on segment. · High pedestrian traffic. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. 29 · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed for northbound traffic near Arroyo Drive. DNA Way - Point San Bruno Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 33.2 MPH Conditions: This segment of DNA Way is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The Genentech campus is located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high. The roadway segment has many driveways and shuttle bus stops with traffic slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting. Them is a traffic signal at the intersection of Point San Bruno Boulevard. Parking is allowed on the west side. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. The steep northbound grade approaching Forbes Boulevard lengthens stopping distance. There is a mid-block crosswalk on the segment. DNA Way carries roughly 5,130 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There was one (1) reported segment collision on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.08 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 33.2 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 30 MPH. Dubuque Avenue - East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: Not Posted Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 39.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Dubuque Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the east side only. There is no 30 posted speed limit on the segment in either direction. Surrounding land use is commercial with Highway 101 running parallel. Levitz and the SSF CalTrain Station are located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway segment has many driveways with traffic slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting. There are traffic signals at the intersections of East Grand Avenue, 101 South on-ramp, and Oyster Point Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. Dubuque Avenue carries roughly 2,686 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were ten (10) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 6.72 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ^CC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 39.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Commercial area with many driveways. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will be 30 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that speed limit signs be installed at the beginning of the segment in both directions. East Grand Avenue - Airport Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way Posted Speed Limit:25/30/35 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 35.4 MPH Conditions: This segment of East Grand Avenue is striped for three lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. There are sidewalks on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limits are 30 MPH heading eastbound at Airport Boulevard, 25 MPH heading westbound at Gateway Boulevard, and 35 MPH heading eastbound at Gateway Boulevard. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial with Highway 101 passing over the segment. The SSF CalTrain Station is located at Dubuque Avenue. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the nearby CaITrain Station. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Airport Boulevard, Dubuque Avenue, East Grand Avenue (100 Block), Gateway Boulevard, and Harbor Way. Parking is not allowed on either side. There are severe horizontal and 3] vertical curves on the overpass portion of this segment at Dubuque Avenue that significantly reduce sight distance. East Grand Avenue carries roughly 26,195 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twenty-five (25) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.41 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.40 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 35.4 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · Severe horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. · High truck ratio. · High pedestrian traffic. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will be 30 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that the existing speed limit signs be removed and replaced with the correct posted speed limit per this report. East Grand Avenue - Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way to Littlefield Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 36.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of East Grand Avenue is striped for two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. There are sidewalks on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. There is a railroad crossing without safety gates just west of Littlefield Avenue. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Harbor Way, the Britannia driveway, and Littlefield Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side. There is a horizontal curve that limits sight distance. There are many driveways on this segment with a high volume of traffic entering/exiting. The roadway condition is poor. East Grand Avenue carries roughly 15,063 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eight (8) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.92 32 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 36.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 35 MPH. East Grand Avenue - Littlefield Avenue to East End Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 38.0 MPH Conditions: This segment of East Grand Avenue is striped for two lanes in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. A section is undivided with shared left turn lanes. There are sidewalks on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There is a signalized intersection at Littlefield Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side until just east of Kimball Way. After Kimball Way, parking is allowed on the south side only and is very dense. There is a horizontal curve that limits sight distance. There are many driveways on this segment with a high volume of traffic entering/exiting. The roadway condition is poor. East Grand Avenue carries roughly 11,708 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were five (5) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.47 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 38.0 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 35 MPH. Eccles Avenue - Forbes Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Eccles Avenue is one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the west side only. The posted speed limit is 30 33 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. The roadway segment has many driveways. There are traffic signals at the intersections of Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. The type of development generates a high volume of traffic slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveways. Eccles Avenue carries roughly 3,787 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were four (4) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.38 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 30 MPH. Evergreen Drive - Mission Road to Hillside Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.0 MPH Conditions: This segment of Evergreen Drive is one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. El Camino High School is located on the segment at Mission Road and BART is located nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the school and BART. The roadway segment has many driveways. There are stop signs at the intersections of Mission Road, Miller Avenue, Crestwood Drive and Hillside Boulevard. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. Several vertical curves limit sight distance. Evergreen Drive carries roughly 1,494 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were nine (9) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 13.03 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.0 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: 34 · Dense on-street parking and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · High pedestrian traffic. · School zone located on segment. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Forbes Boulevard - East Grand Avenue to DNA Way Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 44.4 MPH Conditions: This segment of Forbes Boulevard is two lanes in each direction and is divided by raised median islands. Some of the median islands are well above the roadway and limit sight distance. Sidewalks are on the north side only. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The Genentech campus is located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high near the Genentech campus. The roadway segment has many driveways. There are traffic signals at the intersection of East Grand Avenue, Eccles Avenue, and Gull Road. There is a stop sign at the intersection of DNA Way. Parking is not allowed on either side. Several horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. There are mid-block crosswalks on the segment near the Genentech campus. This segment generates a high volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. There is a railroad crossing at Eccles without safety gates. Forbes Boulevard carries roughly 9,128 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.19 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 44.4 MPH in both directions, yielding a 40 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 35 MPH due to the following conditions: · Horizontal-and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · High median islands limit sight distance. · Commercial/industrial areawith many driveways. · High pedestrian traffic with mid-block crosswalks. · High volume of mid-block left turns, stopping, slowing, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. 35 Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 35 MPH. Gateway Boulevard - East Grand Avenue to South Airport Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 36.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Gateway Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There are bike lanes on both sides. Sidewalks are on the west side for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. There is a gas station, hotels, and a railroad crossing with safety gates located on the segment. The type of development along the segment generates a high volume of slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is high. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of South Airport Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side. There is a high ratio of trucks. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. An abrupt grade change over the railroad crossing reduces vehicle speeds and could cause loss of vehicle control at high speeds. Gateway Boulevard carries roughly 11,385 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were three (3) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0.89 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 36.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 35 MPH. Gateway Boulevard - East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 38.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of Gateway Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There are bike lanes on both sides. Sidewalks are on the east side for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. There are hotels, a childcare center and several office buildings located on the segment. The type of development 36 along the segment generates a high volume of slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is high. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of East Grand Avenue, Corporate Drive, the 601 Gateway Boulevard driveway, the 651 Gateway Boulevard driveway, the 701/801/901 Gateway Boulevard driveway, and Oyster Point Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side. There is a high ratio of trucks. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. Gateway Boulevard carries roughly 10,122 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.16 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ^CC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 38.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 35 MPH. Gellert Boulevard - Westborouqh Boulevard to Kinq Drive Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 41.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of Gellert Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction separated by a raised median island with left turn pockets. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. The roadway segment curves, hindering sight distance. Surrounding land use is highly developed commercial use on the east side and primarily open space on the west side with some residential near King Drive. There is an Orchard Supply Hardware, Pac N' Save and a shopping center at Westborough Boulevard, which generates high vehicular volume. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the shopping center, McDonalds and senior housing located near Westborough Boulevard. The roadway has several busy driveways with vehicles continuously entering and exiting. There are signalized intersections located at the McDonalds entrance and the main Orchard Supply Hardware entrance. There is a stop sign located at the intersection of King Drive. No parking is allowed on either side of the roadway from Westborough Boulevard to Rowntree Way. Parking is allowed on both sides in the residential area from Rowntree Way to King Drive. Gellert Boulevard carries roughly 12,476 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.27 37 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 41.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 40 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 35 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Busy shopping center and commercial use causes slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 35 MPH. Gellert Boulevard - Shannon Drive to Westborouqh Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 39.7 MPH Conditions: This segment of Gellert Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction separated by a raised median island. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. The roadway contains several horizontal and vertical curves, hindering sight distance. The roadway has a steep northbound grade, which lengthens stopping distance. Surrounding land use is high-density residential. Pedestrian traffic is high. There is a signalized intersection located at Westborough Boulevard. There is a stop sign located at the intersection of Shannon Drive for through traffic only. There are many intersecting streets with crosswalks at the intersections. No parking is allowed on either side of the roadway. The roadway condition is poor. Gelled Boulevard carries roughly 2,666 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were three (3) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.85 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 39.7 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered bY 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Steep northbound grade lengthens stopping distance. · Poor roadway condition. 38 · High pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Grand Avenue - Airport Boulevard to Spruce Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 24.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of Grand Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. Grand Avenue Library and City Hall are located on the segment. All Souls School is located nearby. This segment is the main downtown area for South San Francisco. Pedestrian traffic is high. The gas station located at Airport Boulevard generates a high volume of traffic entering and exiting its driveway. The segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Airport Boulevard, Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Spruce Avenue. Diagonal parking is allowed on both sides and is very dense. There are several mid-block crosswalks on the segment. Vertical curvature limits sight distance. Grand Avenue carries roughly 15,268 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were fifty-eight (58) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 11.20 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 24.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 20 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be increased by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Consistent with the adjoining segments along Grand Avenue and allows for a better flow of traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Grand Avenue - Chestnut Avenue to Spruce Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 32.9 MPH 39 Conditions: This segment of Grand Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is mainly residential with some commercial near Spruce Avenue. The Roger Williams Center/Preschool and Magnolia Senior Center are located on the segment. The Siebecker Center, Parkway Heights Middle School and Spruce School are located nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high. There are signalized intersections located at Spruce Avenue, Orange Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides and is very dense. Vertical curvature limits sight distance. There are many driveways on the segment. Grand Avenue carries roughly 10,025 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were thirty-seven (37) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 6.27 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 32.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic due to schools and senior center on segment and nearby area. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · Vertical curvature limits sight distance. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Grand Avenue - Chestnut Avenue to Mission Road Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 33.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of Grand Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. An advisory speed limit of 25 MPH is posted in the westbound direction prior to a horizontal curve just west of Forest View Drive. Surrounding land use is mainly residential with some commercial use near Mission Road. The San Mateo County Court and Offices are located on the segment, as well as a gas station, which generate a high volume of vehicles entering/exiting their 40 driveways. Pedestrian traffic is high. There is a signalized intersection located at Chestnut Avenue. There are stop signs located at the intersections of Willow and Mission Road. Parking is allowed on both sides for most of the segment and is very dense. Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. There are many driveways on the segment. Grand Avenue carries roughly 4,768 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eight (8) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 5.77 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average 0f 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 33.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed in the westbound direction just west of Chestnut Avenue. Also, it is recommended that the posted advisory speed be evaluated. Grandview Drive - F:~st Grand Avenue to Point San Bruno Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Grandview Drive is striped for one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on the west side for the entire length of the segment. There are no sidewalks for portions of the east side. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Genentech is located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high due to Genentech. The type of development on the segment generates a high volume of slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. There are signalized intersections located at Point San Bruno Boulevard and the 1500 Grandview Drive driveway. There is a stop sign at the intersection of East Grand Avenue. Parking is allowed on the east side between Point San Bruno Boulevard and just north of Cabot 4] Road. Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. There is a high truck ratio on the segment. There are many driveways on the segment. Grandview Drive carries roughly 5,907 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were three (3) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.00 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 30 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed in the southbound direction just south of Point San Bruno Boulevard. Gull Road - Oyster Point Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 39.2 MPH Conditions: This segment of Gull Road is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Bike lanes are on both sides of the roadway. Sidewalks are on the east side only. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. The roadway contains several horizontal and vertical curves, which limit sight distance. Surrounding land use is commercial, industrial and open space. Pedestrian traffic is moderate, but bicyclist traffic is high due to the bike lanes. There are signalized intersections located at Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. No parking is allowed on either side of the roadway. There is a high truck ratio on this segment. The roadway is narrow. Gull Road carries roughly 9,105 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were five (5) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.05 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 39.2 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. 42 · High bicyclist traffic. · High truck ratio. · Narrow road width. Therefore, the posted speed limit will be increased to 30 MPH. Harbor Way - Littlefield Avenue to Mitchell Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 36.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Harbor Way is striped for one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on the east side only. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH'. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial with Fire Station #2 located at Mitchell Avenue. The type of development along the segment generates a high volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There are stop signs at the intersections of Utah Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway and is dense. There is a high truck ratio on this segment. There are many driveways on the segment. The roadway condition is poor. Harbor Way carries roughly 4,126 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were four (4) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.75 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 36.3 PH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial area with many driveways. · High volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · Poor roadway condition. · Poorly visible Fire Station located at Mitchell Avenue. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed for northbound traffic just north of Littlefield Avenue. 43 Harbor Way - East Grand Avenue to Mitchell Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 35.8 MPH Conditions: This segment of Harbor Way is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. A portion of the segment has a shared left turn lane. Sidewalks are on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial with Fire Station #2 located on the segment. There is a railroad crossing with safety gates on the segment. The type of development along the segment generates a high volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is high. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of East Grand Avenue. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Mitchell Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway for a portion of the segment near Mitchell Avenue. There is a high truck ratio on this segment. There are many driveways on the segment. Harbor Way carries roughly 5,360 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were no reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 35.8 PH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial area with many driveways. · High volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High pedestrian traffic. · Poorly visible Fire Station located on the segment. Therefore, the posted speed limit will increase to 30 MPH. Hickey Boulevard - El Camino Real to City Limits Posted Speed Limit: 40 MPH Recommended Speed: 40 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 45.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Hickey Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction and is mostly undivided with centerline striping. There are raised median islands with left turn pockets near the intersections of El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH on the section between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard. The section between the City Limits and Junipero Serra Boulevard is not posted in either direction. The adjacent jurisdiction of Daly City is posted at 35 MPH. The roadway segment has a fairly steep descending eastbound grade. Surrounding land use is commercial and residential. There is a local shopping center and gas station near El Camino Real, which generate high vehicular volume entering and exiting the driveways. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the shopping center and pathway located near Camaritas Avenue. There are signalized intersections located at Longford Drive (eastbound direction only), Junipero Serra Boulevard, Hilton Avenue, Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real. No parking is allowed on either side of the roadway for most of the segment except a small section adjacent to the gas station near El Camino Real. Hickey Boulevard carries roughly 25,060 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were thirty-eight (38) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.78 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 45.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 45 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 40 MPH due to the following conditions: · Descending eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. · Shopping center and gas station causes slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 40 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed in the eastbound direction at the City's limit. Hillside Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard Extension - Chestnut Avenue to Sister Cities Boulevard Posted Speed Limit:40 MPH Recommended Speed: 40 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 40.9 MPH 45 Conditions: This segment of Hillside Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction and is mostly undivided with centerline striping. The segment is divided by a raised median island between Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street. There is a parallel frontage road between Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street that is separated by another raised median. There are no sidewalks on either side between Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. The roadway segment has horizontal and vertical curves that hinder sight distance. Surrounding land use is residential. Hillside Elementary School is located on the segment which causes traffic to slow, stop and frequently enter/exit its driveway. Pedestrian traffic is high due to school and daycare center. There are signalized intersections located at Chestnut Avenue, Stonegate Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard. There is a stop sign located at the intersection of Lincoln Street. Parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway for the entire length of the segment. Hillside Boulevard carries roughly 18,004 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twelve (12) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.20 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 40.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 40 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 40 MPH. Hillside Boulevard - Linden Avenue to Sister Cities Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 31.8 MPH Conditions: This segment of Hillside Boulevard is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. The roadway segment has horizontal and vertical curves that hinder sight distance. Surrounding land use is residential with some commercial near Linden Avenue. Martin School, the Boys and Girls Club, and Hillside Park are located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high due to school and park. There are signalized intersections located at Linden Avenue and Sister Cities Boulevard. There are stop signs located at the intersections of School Street/North Spruce Avenue and Franklin Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway for the entire length of the segment. There are many driveways on the segment. Hillside Boulevard carries roughly 4,478 vehicles per day along this segment. 46 Comments: There were three (3) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.53 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 31.8 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Residential areawith many driveways. · High pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Huntington Avenue - Noor Avenue to South Spruce Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 40 MPH Recommended Speed: 40 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 41.4 MPH Conditions: This segment of Huntington Avenue is striped for two lanes in each direction with a shared left turn lane. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. Huntington Avenue beyond the City's limits (in San Bruno) is posted at 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. A movie theatre and large business park are located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the movie theatre and nearby BART station. There are signalized intersections located at South Spruce Avenue and Noor Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway for the entire length of the segment. Huntington Avenue carries roughly 8,632 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were six (6) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.40 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 41.4 MPH in both directions, yielding a 40 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 40 MPH. 47 Junipero Serra Boulevard - Avalon Drive to Westborouqh Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 45 MPH Recommended Speed: 50 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 50.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of Junipero Serra Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. There are bike lanes on both sides. There are no sidewalks on either side for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential with Highway 280 running parallel to the segment. The northbound 280 off-ramp is located just south of Avalon Drive. Pedestrian traffic is light since there are no sidewalks, but bicyclist traffic is high due to the bike lanes. There are signalized intersections located at Avalon Drive and Westborough Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway for the entire length of the segment. There are horizontal and vertical curves that limit sight distance. Junipero Serra Boulevard carries roughly 22,115 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eighteen (18) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.92 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.10 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 50.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 50 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit increase to 50 MPH. Junipero Serra Boulevard - Kinq Drive to Westborouqh Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 50 MPH Recommended Speed: 50 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 51.9 MPH Conditions: This segment of Junipero Serra Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. Them are bike lanes on both sides. There are no sidewalks on either side for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 50 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Pedestrian traffic is light since there are no sidewalks, but bicyclist traffic is high due to the bike lanes. There are signalized intersections located at Westborough Boulevard and King Drive. Parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway for the entire length of the segment. There are horizontal and vertical curves and large trees that limit sight distance on this segment. Traffic entering/exiting Arroyo Drive causes slowing, stopping, and merging traffic. Junipero Serra Boulevard carries roughly 13,585 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were nine (9) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.43 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.10 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 51.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 50 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 50 MPH. Junipero Serra Boulevard - King Drive to Hicke¥ Boulevard Posted Speed Limit:50 MPH Recommended Speed: 50 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 55.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Junipero Serra Boulevard is for two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. There are striped bike lanes on both sides. There are no sidewalks on either side for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 50 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Pedestrian traffic is light since there are no sidewalks, but bicyclist traffic is high due to the bike lanes. There are signalized intersections located at Hickey Boulevard and King Drive. Parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway for the entire length of the segment. Traffic entering/exiting Clay Avenue causes slowing, stopping, and merging traffic. Junipero Serra Boulevard carries roughly 13,686 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twelve (12) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.47 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.10 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 55.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 55 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 50 MPH due to the following conditions: · Slowing, stopping, and merging traffic at Clay Avenue. · High bicyclist traffic. · No sidewalks on either side of roadway. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 50 MPH. 49 Linden Avenue - Airport Boulevard and Railroad Avenue, Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 26.1 MPH Conditions: This segment of Linden Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. Martin School is located nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the nearby school and close proximity to the downtown area. There are traffic signals at the intersections of Airport Boulevard, Miller Avenue, Hillside Boulevard, Railroad Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Baden Avenue. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Pine Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for most of the segment and is very dense. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, double parking, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. There are many driveways along the segment. There is a horizontal curve near Hillside Boulevard that limits sight distance. The roadway condition is poor. Linden Avenue carries roughly 7,688 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were sixty (60) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 11.84 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 26.1 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. Littlefield Avenue - East Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.1 MPH Conditions: This segment of Littlefield Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the east side only. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The type of development along the segment generates a high volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of East Grand Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway and is dense. There is a high truck ratio on this segment. 5O There are many driveways. The roadway condition is poor. A horizontal curve south of East Grand Avenue limits sight distance. Littlefield Avenue carries roughly 6,214 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were four (4) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.29ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.1 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 30 MPH. Littlefield Avenue - Utah Avenue to Harbor Way Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 26.2 MPH Conditions: This segment of Littlefield Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on the north side only for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The type of development along the segment generates a high volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Utah Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway and is dense. There is a high truck ratio on this segment. There are many driveways. The roadway condition is poor. Horizontal curvature limits sight distance. Littlefield Avenue carries roughly 2,275 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were no reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 26.2 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. 5] McLellan Drive - El Camino Real to Hibiscus Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 32.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of McLellan Drive is striped for one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the. segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH with signage only in the westbound direction near El Camino Real. Surrounding land use is residential. The South San Francisco BART station and Alta Loma Park are located nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high due to BART, the park and close proximity to the new commercial area across El Camino Real. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real. Parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway for the entire length of the segment. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. Steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. McLellan Drive carries roughly 1,601 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were no reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 32.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. · High pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed in the eastbound direction just east of Hibiscus. Miller Avenue - Airport Boulevard to Chestnut Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 29.9 MPH $2 Conditions: This segment of Miller Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential and commercial. All Souls School/Church, City Hall, and Grand Avenue Library are located along the segment between Spruce Avenue and Maple Avenue. Spruce School is nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high due to nearby schools, City Hall, library and proximity to the downtown area. There are traffic signals at the intersections of Spruce Avenue, Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard. There are stop signs at the intersections of Maple Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, Orange Avenue, Acacia Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. This segment has a high volume of slowing and stopping traffic during school drop-off/pick-up times, as well as mid-block left turns into the municipal parking lots. A vertical curve near Walnut Avenue significantly hinders sight distance. Vertical curvature between Spruce Avenue and Chestnut Avenue also limits sight distance. Miller Avenue carries roughly 7,197 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were thirty-five (35) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 5.32 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 29.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. Mission Road - Chestnut Avenue to Grand Avenue Posted Speed Limit:30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 36.9 MPH Conditions: This segment of Mission Road is striped for two lanes in each direction and is mostly undivided with centerline striping. There is a raised median island with left turn pockets near the intersection of Chestnut Avenue. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is a mixture of high-density residential and commercial use. The San Mateo County Court and Offices are located on this segment, which generate a high vehicular volume entering/exiting the driveways. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the residential areas and the senior housing located near Chestnut Avenue. There is a signalized intersection located at Chestnut Avenue and a stop sign located at the intersection of Grand Avenue. No parking is allowed on either side of the roadway for the entire length of the 53 segment. Horizontal curvature at the court house driveway limits sight distance. Mission Road carries roughly 9,448 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were three (3) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.15 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 36.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · San Mateo County Court and Offices cause slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High pedestrian traffic. · Horizontal curvature at court house driveway limits sight distance. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Mission Road - Grand Avenue to City Limits Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.9 MPH Conditions: This segment of Mission Road contains various striping patterns. A portion is striped for one lane in each direction with left turn pockets and is undivided with centerline striping. From the BART exit driveway, it is striped for two lanes southbound and one lane northbound with left turn pockets and centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Mission Road beyond the City's limits (in the Town of Colma) is also posted at 30 MPH. Surrounding land use consists of BART, El Camino High School, some commercial use and residential from Evergreen Drive to Grand Avenue. BART and El Camino High School generate a high vehicular volume entering and exiting the driveways and produce high pedestrian traffic. There is a signalized intersection located at Lawndale/McLellan Drive. Stop signs are located at the intersections of Evergreen Drive, BART exit driveway, Holly Avenue, and Grand Avenue. No parking is allowed on the west side of the roadway for the entire length of the segment. Parking is allowed on the east side from Holly Avenue to Evergreen Drive. Mission Road carries roughly 8,970 vehicles per day along this segment. 54 Comments: There were ten (10) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.37 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 30 MPH. Mitchell Avenue - Harbor Way to South Airport Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 36.4 MPH Conditions: This segment of Mitchell Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. There are no sidewalks on either side for a portion of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The type of development along the segment generates a high volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of South Airport Boulevard. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Harbor Way. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway and is dense. There is a high truck ratio on this segment. Mitchell Avenue carries roughly 7,320 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were no reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 36.4 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Pedestrian traffic is forced into roadway due to a portion with no sidewalks on either side. · High volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. 55 Noor Avenue - El Camino Real to Huntinqton Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 37.0 MPH Conditions: This segment of Noor Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction with a shared left turn lane. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. The loading docks for both Lowe's and Albertsons are located on the segment. The commercial driveways and loading docks generate mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the movie theatre. There is a traffic signal at the intersection Huntington Avenue. There is a stop sign at the intersection of El Camino Real. Parking is not allowed on either side for the entire length of the segment. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. The road condition is poor. Noor Avenue carries roughly 4,686 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were no reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 37.0 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · Poor roadway condition. · High activity driveways and loading docks. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. North Canal Street- South Linden Avenue to South Spruce Avenue 30 MPH Posted Speed Limit: (Under Construction) Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 29.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of North Canal Street is currently under construction. The roadway is temporarily one-way, permitting westbound traffic only. Upon completion of the improvements, striping will return to one lane in each direction and will be undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the north side only. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. A new South San Francisco Fire Station will be constructed at South Spruce Avenue within the next one to two years. Colma Creek runs parallel to the roadway segment. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of South Spruce Avenue. As part of the improvements, a new signalized intersec'don will be located at South Linden Avenue. Parking is currently not allowed on either side. Parking may be allowed on one side of the roadway after construction is completed and typically is very dense. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, double parking, and entering/exiting driveways. There are many driveways along the segment. North Canal Street carries roughly 1,863 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There was one (1) reported segment collision on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.22 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 29.6 MPH in the one direction, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be increased by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: Construction traffic and narrow roadway during construction likely reduced the 85th Percentile Speed. In the past three radar speed studies (Years: 1990, 1995, 2000), the 85th Percentile Speed was 37 MPH, 34 MPH, 34 MPH, respectively. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a new speed survey be conducted after construction is completed in order to evaluate a more accurate representation of the traffic speeds. If past studies are any indication of the likely 85th Percentile Speeds, the posted speed limit will remain 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial areawith many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. 5? North Canal Street - South Spruce Avenue to West Orange Avenue. Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 38.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of North Canal Street is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the north side only. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and residential. Colma Creek runs parallel to the segment. The City Corporation Yard and Maintenance Building is located on the segment and generates mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is high due to nearby Orange Memorial Park and the linear park that runs parallel to Colma Creek. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of South Spruce Avenue. There is a stop sign at the intersection of West Orange Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side for the entire length of the segment. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are three T intersections near West Orange Avenue. North Canal Street carries roughly 1,735 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There was one (1) reported segment collision on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.75 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 38.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · High pedestrian traffic. · Slowing and stopping traffic entering/exiting driveways at City Corporation Yard. · Three T intersections. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Olympic Drive - Shannon Drive to Westborough Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 35.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Olympic Drive is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. There is a school nearby in the jurisdiction of San Bruno. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the school. There are stop signs located at the intersections of Westborough Boulevard and Shannon Drive. Parking is allowed on both sides for the length of the segment and is dense. There are many driveways on the segment. Olympic Drive carries roughly 3,707 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There was one (1) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.34 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85t' Percentile Speed was 35.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Dense on-street parking limit sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · Nearby school. · High pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Oyster Point Boulevard - Gateway Boulevard to Eccles Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 43.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of Oyster Point Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There are bike lanes on both sides. Sidewalks are on the north side for the length of the segment. Portions of the south side do not have sidewalks. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The type of development along the segment generates a high volume of slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is high. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of Gateway Boulevard, Veterans Boulevard, and Eccles Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side. There is a high ratio of trucks. Vertical curves limit sight distance. Oyster Point Boulevard carries roughly 20,560 vehicles per day along this segment. $9 Comments: There were three (3) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0.50 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 43.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 40 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 35 MPH due to the following conditions: · Vertical curvature limits sight distance. · High truck ratio. · High pedestrian traffic. · No sidewalks on either side of roadway for a portion of the segment. · High volume of slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 35 MPH. Oyster Point Boulevard - Eccles Avenue to East End Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of Oyster Point Boulevard varies in striping patterns. The portion between Eccles Avenue and Gull Road is striped for two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There are bike lanes on both sides. The portion between Gull Road and Marina Boulevard is striped for two lanes westbound, one lane eastbound and is undivided by centerline striping. The portion between Marina Boulevard and the east end is one lane in each direction and is undivided by centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the south side for the length of the segment. Portions of the north side do not have sidewalks. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The type of development along the segment generates a high volume of mid-block left turns, slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. Pedestrian traffic is high. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of Eccles Avenue, Gull Road, and Marina Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side. There is a high ratio of trucks. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. There are many driveways on the segment. There is a mid-block crosswalk on the segment. The roadway condition is poor. Oyster Point Boulevard carries roughly 5,943 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were two (2) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0.96 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 30 MPH. Ponderosa Road - El Camino Real to Valencia Drive Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 36.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of Ponderosa Road is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the south side only for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Ponderosa School and St. Veronica's School/Church are located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the schools and church. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real. There are stop signs located at the intersections of Valencia Drive, Alhambra Road, Lassen, and Fairway Drive/Alida Way. Parking is allowed on the south side only for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. Vertical and horizontal curves significantly hinder sight distance. Ponderosa Road carries roughly 2,297 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were two (2) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.09 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 36.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Vertical and horizontal curvature limit sight distance. · Dense on-street parking limit sight distance. · Residential neighborhood with two schools. · High pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. 6! Produce Avenue - San Mateo Avenue to Terminal Court Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 43.7 MPH Conditions: This segment of Produce Avenue is striped for one lane in the northbound direction, two lanes in the southbound direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the west side only for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. A gas station and long term airport parking are located on the segment, which generate a high volume of entering/exiting traffic at their driveways. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/South Airport Boulevard. Parking not allowed on either side. Thero is a high ratio of trucks. An abrupt grade change over Colma Creek reduces vehicle speeds and could cause loss of vehicle control at high speeds. The vertical curve approaching the bridge limits sight distance. Traffic entering/exiting Terminal Court causes slowing, stopping, and merging traffic. The roadway condition is poor. Produce Avenue carries roughly 23,548 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twenty (20) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 4.54 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 43.7 MPH in both directions, yielding a 40 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 35 MPH due to the following conditions: · Vertical curvature limits sight distance. · Abrupt grade change over Colma Creek. · Poor roadway condition. · Slowing, stopping, and merging traffic entering/exiting driveways and Terminal Court. · High truck ratio. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 35 MPH. Railroad Avenue - Linden Avenue to Spruce Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 38.5 MPH Conditions: This segment of Railroad Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the north side only for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is primarily residential with some commercial at the intersections of Spruce Avenue and Linden Avenue. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There are traffic signals at the intersections of Linden Avenue and Spruce Avenue. Parking is allowed on the north side only for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are many driveways along the north side. The south side of the segment has a steep drop-off with guardrail on a portion. Vertical curvature significantly hinders sight distance. The steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. Railroad Avenue carries roughly 6,463 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eight (8) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 4.97 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 38.5 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Descending eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. · Vertical curvature and dense on-street parking limit sight distance. · High accident rate. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Railroad Avenue - Spruce Avenue to Oranqe Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 35.3 MPH 63 Conditions: This segment of Railroad Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides of the roadway for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. This speed limit was reduced from 30 MPH in 2001 due to a new housing development. Surrounding land use is primarily residential with some commercial at the intersection of Spruce Avenue. The Basque Cultural Center is located at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and produces a high volume of vehicles entering/exiting its driveway during events, lunch and dinner. Pedestrian traffic is high due to nearby Orange Memorial Park and schools. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of Spruce Avenue and a stop sign at the intersection of Orange Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. There are many driveways along the segment. There is a high ratio of trucks. Railroad Avenue carries roughly 4,482 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twelve (12) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 9.12 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 35.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · High pedestrian traffic. · Basque Cultural Center causes slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. San Mateo Avenue - Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard to South Linden Avenuefranforan Avenue Posted Speed Limit:30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 35.2 MPH Conditions: This segment of San Mateo Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides of the roadway for the 64 length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The type of development generates a high volume of vehicles entering/exiting driveways, mid-block left turns, slowing, and stopping. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There are traffic signals at the intersections of South Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. There are many driveways along the segment. There is a high ratio of trucks. There is a horizontal curve on the segment that limits sight distance. An abrupt grade change over Colma Creek reduces vehicle speeds and could cause loss of vehicle control at high speeds. The roadway condition is poor especially near Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard. San Mateo Avenue carries roughly 12,227 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were nineteen (19) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.46 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 35.2 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial area with many driveways. · Dense on-street parking and horizontal curve limit sight distance. · Abrupt grade change over Colma Creek. · High volume of vehicles entering/exiting driveways, mid-block left turns, slowing, and stopping. · Poor roadway condition. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Shaw Road - San Mateo Avenue to City Limits Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 35.4 MPH Conditions: This segment of Shaw Road is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides of the roadway for the length of the segment. However, vehicles park partially on the sidewalk forcing pedestrians into the roadway. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. The type of development generates a high volume of vehicles entering/exiting driveways, mid-block left turns, slowing, and stopping. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a stop sign at the intersection of San Mateo Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. There are many driveways along the segment. There is a high ratio of trucks. Horizontal curvature limits sight distance. The roadway condition is poor. Shaw Road carries roughly 3,538 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were five (5) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.96 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 35.4 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial area with many driveways. · Dense on-street parking and horizontal curve limit sight distance. · High volume of vehicles entering/exiting driveways, mid-block left turns, slowing, and stopping. · Pedestrian traffic is in roadway. · Poor roadway condition. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Sister Cities Boulevard - Hillside Boulevard to Airport Boulevar~ Posted Speed Limit: 40 MPH Recommended Speed: 40 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 45.8 MPH Conditions: This segment of Sister Cities Boulevard is two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raised median island. There are bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. There is sidewalk on the south side only for the entire length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential, Pedestrian traffic is Iow, but there are a high number of bicyclists due to the bike lanes. There are traffic signals at the intersections of Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco Drive and Airport Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side for the entire length of the segment. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. A vertical curve near South San Francisco Drive hinders sight distance. A steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. There is a vertical drop off on the south side with no guardrail from Hillside Boulevard to South San 66 Francisco Drive. Sister Cities Boulevard carries roughly 14,105 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.15 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 45.8 MPH in both directions, yielding a 45 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 40 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · High bicyclist traffic. · Vertical curvature limits sight distance. · Steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. · Vertical drop off with no guardrail. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 40 MPH. South Airport Boulevard - Utah Avenue to City Limits Posted Speed Limit:35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 41.9 MPH Conditions: This segment of South Airport Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction with share left turn lanes. A portion of the segment is divided by raised median islands. There are sidewalks on both sides for most of the segment. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. Several hotels and Costco are located on the segment, as well as McDonald's and a gas station, which generate slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting traffic at their driveways. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the hotels and fast food restaurant. The roadway has many driveways. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Utah Avenue, Bell Air Road, North Access Road, Highway 380 on/off ramp, and the United Airlines parking garage. Parking is not allowed on either side. South Airport Boulevard carries roughly 18,945 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were ten (10) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 0.98 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 41.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 40 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 35 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · High truck ratio. · Commercial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 35 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed at the City Limits in the northbound direction adjacent to United Airlines.. South Airport Boulevard - Utah Avenue to Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 39.7 MPH Conditions: This segment of South Airport Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There are sidewalks on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. The South San Francisco Conference Center and several hotels are located on the segment, as well as a gas station and numerous restaurants, which generate slowing, stopping, and entering/exiting traffic at their driveways. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the hotels and restaurants. The roadway has many driveways. This segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue, Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue, and Wondercolor Lane/Highway 101 on/off ramp, Utah Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side. The distance between Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue and Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue is relatively short with traffic merging/weaving. The intersection of Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue is complicated, causing vehicles to make abrupt lane changes. South Airport Boulevard carries roughly 21,374 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.60 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 39.7 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · High truck ratio. · Commercial area with many driveways.. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of merging/weaving between Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue and Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue. · Complicated intersection at Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. South Canal Street - South Linden Avenue to South Spruce Avenue 25 MPH Posted Speed Limit: (Under Construction Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of South Canal Street is currently under construction. The roadway is temporarily one-way, permitting eastbound traffic only. Upon completion of the improvements, striping will return to one lane in each direction and will be undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the south side only. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Colma Creek runs parallel to the roadway segment. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of South Spruce Avenue. As part of the improvements, a new signalized intersection will be located at South Linden Avenue. Parking is currently not allowed on either side. Parking will be allowed on one side of the roadway after construction is completed and typically is very dense. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, double parking, and entering/exiting driveways. There are many driveways along the segment. South Canal Street carries roughly 1,205 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were two (2) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 6.74 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial and industrial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a new speed survey be conducted after construction is completed in order to evaluate a more accurate representation of the traffic speeds. Although construction was taking place during the original speed survey, due to the above conditions, it is still recommended that the 25 MPH remain. South Linden Avenue - San Mateo Avenue to Victory Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 34.1 MPH Conditions: This segment of South Linden Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment, but sections are not concrete and quite muddy during the rainy season. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. There is a railroad crossing with safety gates on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of San Mateo Avenue/Shaw Road/Tanforan Avenue. This intersection has multiple legs and is somewhat confusing to drivers. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Victory Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, double parking, and entering/exiting driveways. There are many driveways along the segment. A sharp horizontal curve north of Dollar Avenue significantly hinders sight distance. In addition, the railroad crossing just south of Dollar Avenue often causes back-up traffic. The roadway condition is poor, especially between San Mateo Avenue and Dollar Avenue. Vertical curvature over the railroad crossing limits sight distance. South Linden Avenue carries roughly 9,267 vehicles per day along this segment. 70 Comments: There were eighteen (18) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 5.92 ACC/MVrvl as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 34.1 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial and industrial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. · Vertical curvature and dense on-street parking limit sight distance. · Sharp horizontal curvature north of Dollar Avenue limits sight distance. · Railroad crossing south of Dollar Avenue causes traffic to back up, occasionally to the horizontal curve section. · Poor roadway condition. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. South Linden Avenue - Victory Avenue to Railroad Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 32.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of South Linden Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment, but sections are not concrete and quite muddy during the rainy season. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Pedestrian traffic is high. There is a traffic signal at Railroad Avenue and a stop sign at the intersection of Victory Avenue. New traffic signals at South and North Canal Streets are currently under construction. Parking is allowed on the west side only and is very dense. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, double parking, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. There are many driveways along the segment. An abrupt grade change between North and South Canal Streets (over Colma Creek) reduces vehicle speeds and could cause loss of vehicle control at high speeds. South Linden Avenue carries roughly 10,812 vehicles per day along this segment. 7] Comments: There were ten (10) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 3.14 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 32.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial and industrial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Abrupt grade change between North and South Canal Streets (over Colma Creek). · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. South Maple Avenue - South Canal Street to Tanforan Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 32.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of South Maple Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on both sides for most of the segment except for a section near Tanforan Avenue with sidewalks on one side only. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There are stop signs at the intersections of South Canal Street and Victory Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for most of the segment and is very dense. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, double parking, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. There are many driveways along the segment. There is a horizontal curve north of Tanforan Avenue that limits sight distance. The roadway condition is poor. South Maple Avenue carries roughly 5,106 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were five (5) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.63 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 32.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial and industrial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Horizontal curve limits sight distance. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed for southbound traffic just south of South Canal Street. South San Francisco Drive - Hillside Boulevard Extension to Sister Cities Boulevard Posted Speed Limit:Not Posted Recommended Speed: 25/40 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 54.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of South San Francisco Drive is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. There are bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. Sidewalks are on the north side only. The speed limit is not posted in either direction, however, there is a 20 MPH speed limit sign in the eastbound direction located adjacent to the fire station. Surrounding land use is residential and open space. Fire Station #5 and the Terrabay Recreation Center are located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high near the recreation center. There are traffic signals at the intersections of Sister Cities Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard Extension. There are stop signs at the intersections of the condominium (Mandalay Place) entrance and Northcrest Drive. Parking is not allowed on either side. The segment contains horizontal and vertical curves that limit sight distance. South San Francisco Drive carries roughly 1,336 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There was one (1) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.20 73 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 54.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 50 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: On the portion between Greenpark Terrace and Sister Cities Boulevard, it is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 40 MPH due to the following conditions: · Residential neighborhood with T intersections. · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · High pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will be 40 MPH. On the portion between Greenpark Terrace and Hillside Boulevard Extension, it is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 25 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Fire Station and Terrabay Recreation center are located on the segment. · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · High pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will be 25 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that speed limit signs be installed on the segment in both directions on each section. The 20 MPH sign adjacent to the fire station should be removed. South Spruce Avenue - El Camino Real to Victory Avenue Posted Speed Limit:30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 37.1 MPH Conditions: This segment of South Spruce Avenue is striped for two lanes in each direction with shared left turn lanes. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. A local shopping center with Long's and Safeway, as well as See's are located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of Victory Avenue, Huntington Avenue and El Camino Real. Parking is not allowed on either side. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, and entering/exiting driveways. There are many driveways along the segment. South Spruce Avenue carries roughly 22,935 vehicles per day along this segment. 74 Comments: There were eleven (11) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.26 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 37.1 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · High truck ratio. · Commercial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. S,outh Spruce Avenue - Victory Avenue to Railroad Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 37.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of South Spruce Avenue is striped for two lanes in each direction with shared left turn lanes on a portion. Most of the segment is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of Victory Avenue, Railroad Avenue, North Canal Street, and South Canal Street. Parking is not allowed on either side. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. There are many driveways along the segment. An abrupt grade change between North and South Canal Streets (over Colma Creek) reduces vehicle speeds and could cause loss of vehicle control at high speeds. There is a high frequency of lane changes due to the northbound right turn only lane at Railroad Avenue. South Spruce Avenue carries roughly 14,664 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twenty-two (22) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 5.16 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 37.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. ?5 Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · Therefore, the · High truck ratio. · Commercial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. · Abrupt grade change between North and South Canal Streets (over Colma Creek). High accident rate. posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Spruce Avenue - Park Way to Maple Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 26.7 MPH Conditions: This segment of Spruce Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is mostly undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Spruce School is located near Park Way and Martin School is nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the schools. Them are stop signs at the intersections of Park Way and Hemlock Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. The roadway is very narrow, causing vehicles to park partially on the sidewalk. In addition, the segment contains horizontal and vertical curves that dramatically impair sight distance. There are many driveways along the segment. A portion of the segment is divided by a steep elevation change. It is marked with an advisory speed of 15 MPH. Spruce Avenue carries roughly 2,667 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were six (6) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 8.78 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 26.7 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. 7(; Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. Spruce Avenue - Park Way to Railroad Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 29.9 MPH Conditions: This segment of Spruce Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential and commercial. Spruce School is located on the segment near Park Way. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the school and close proximity to the downtown area. There are stop signs at the intersections of Park Way and Lux Avenue. There are traffic signals at the intersections of Railroad Avenue, Baden Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Miller Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. The segment contains horizontal and vertical curves that limit distance. There are many driveways along the segment. Spruce Avenue carries roughly 10,301 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were nine (9) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.78 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 29.9 MPH in both directions, yielding a 25 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 25 MPH. Utah Avenue - Harbor Way to South Airport Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 38.3 MPH Conditions: This segment of Utah Avenue is striped for two lanes in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the south side only. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a traffic signal at South Airport Boulevard and a stop sign at the ?? intersection of Harbor Way. Parking is allowed on both sides. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, double parking, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. There are many driveways along the segment. An abrupt grade change over the canal reduces vehicle speeds and could cause loss of vehicle control at high speeds. Utah Avenue carries roughly 11,583 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were four (4) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.57 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 38.3 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 35 MPH. Utah Avenue - Harbor Way to Littlefield Avenue (East End) Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 38.6 MPH Conditions: This segment of Utah Avenue is striped for two lanes in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on the south side only. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial. Pedestrian traffic is moderate. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Harbor Way. Parking is allowed on both sides. This segment has a high ratio of trucks, as well as a high volume of mid- block left turns, slow moving trucks, stopping, double parking, and entering/exiting driveway traffic. There are many driveways along the segment. The roadway condition is poor. Horizontal curvature limits sight distance. Utah Avenue carries roughly 8,154 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were five (5) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two- year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.75 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 4.95 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 38.6 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 35 MPH. 78 Valverde Drive - Alta Vista Drive to Avalon Drive Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 36.8 MPH Conditions: This segment of Valverde Drive is striped for one lane in each direction. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The speed limit is not posted on the segment in either direction. An advisory speed approaching the horizontal curve at Alta Vista Drive is posted at 15 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Avalon Playground and Ponderosa School are located nearby. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the playground and school. There is a stop sign at the intersection of Avalon Drive. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. The segment contains a severe horizontal curve at Alta Vista Drive that dramatically impairs sight distance. The southbound grade is steep, which lengthens stopping distance. There are many driveways along the segment. Valverde Drive carries roughly 2,905 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There was one (1) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 2.37 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 36.8 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · Horizontal curvature and dense on-street parking limit sight distance. · Steep southbound grade lengthens stopping distance. · High pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. In addition, it is recommended that speed limit signs be installed on the segment in both directions. Victory Avenue - South Spruce Avenue to South Linden Avenue Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 31.1 MPH 79 Conditions: This segment of Victory Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial with many driveways. This type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic, as well as a high volume of mid-block left turns. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of South Spruce Avenue and stop signs at the intersections of South Linden Avenue and South Maple Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense. The roadway has a high truck ratio and is in poor condition. Victory Avenue carries roughly 7,763 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were thirteen (13) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 6.72 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85t' Percentile Speed was 31.1 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · High truck ratio. · Commercial and industrial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High volume of mid-block left turns. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Poor roadway condition. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. Westborou.qh Boulevard - El Camino Real to Camaritas Avenue/West OranQe Avenue Posted Speed Limit:30 MPH Recommended Speed: 30 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 37.1 MPH Conditions: This segment of Westborough Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. Senior housing is located on the segment, as well as a gas station and a 80 large empty commercial space (previously Bell), which generate a high volume of entering/exiting traffic into their driveways. Pedestrian traffic is high. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of El Camino Real and Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue. Parking is not allowed on either side. Westborough Boulevard carries roughly 28,236 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were thirteen (13) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 4.75 ^CC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 37.1 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 30 MPH due to the following conditions: · Commercial area with many driveways. · Type of development generates slowing, stopping and entering/exiting driveway traffic. · High pedestrian traffic. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 30 MPH. Westborouqh Boulevard - Camaritas Avenue/West Oranqe Avenue to Junipero Serra Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 45 MPH Recommended Speed: 45 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 55.4 MPH Conditions: This segment of Westborough Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There are bike lanes on both sides for the length of the segment. There are no sidewalks on either side. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Surrounding land use is open space and residential. Pedestrian traffic is light since there are no sidewalks, but bicyclist traffic is high due to the bike lanes. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. A steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. Westborough Boulevard carries roughly 26,268 vehicles per day along this segment. 8! Comments: There were nineteen (19) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.08 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.10 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 55.4 MPH in both directions, yielding a 55 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 45 MPH due to the following conditions: · High bicyclist traffic. · No sidewalks on either side of roadway for the length of the segment. · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 45 MPH. Westborouqh Boulevard -Junipero Serra Boulevard to Gellert Boulevard Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 39.0 MPH Conditions: This segment of Westborough Boulevard between Highway 280 and Gellert Boulevard is striped for three lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. Between Highway 280 and Junipero Serra Boulevard, the segment is striped for two lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There are sidewalks on both sides for most of the segment except for a portion on the south side. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial with high-density residential. There is a local shopping center (Walgreens, Pet Smart, gas station) and senior housing located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the shopping center and senior housing. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of Gellert Boulevard, Highway 280 southbound off ramp, and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side. A steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. Traffic slows west of the Highway 280 southbound off ramp due to merging vehicles. The shopping center and gas station generate a high volume of traffic entering/exiting their driveways. Westborough Boulevard carries roughly 41,873 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were thirty-eight (38) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 4.02 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 2.40 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 39.0 MPH in both directions, yielding a 35 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: Based on the 85th Percentile Speed, it is recommended that the posted speed limit remain at 35 MPH. Westborouqh Boulevard - Gellert Boulevard to City Limits Posted Speed Limit: 35 MPH Recommended Speed: 35 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 46.4 MPH Conditions: This segment of Westborough Boulevard is mostly striped for three lanes in each direction with left turn pockets and is divided by a raised median island. There are striped bike lanes on both sides for the length of the segment. There are sidewalks on both sides for most of the segment except for a portion on the south side between Callan Boulevard and Galway Place. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. The posted speed limit in the adjacent jurisdiction of Pacifica is 40 MPH. Surrounding land use is commercial. Westborough Middle School, Westborough Park and Recreation Center are located on the segment. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the school, park and recreation center. There are traffic signals located at the intersections of Gellert Boulevard, Galway Place, Callan Boulevard, and Skyline Boulevard. Parking is not allowed on either side. Horizontal and vertical curves limit sight distance. A steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. There is an abrupt dip in the roadway just west of Callan Boulevard that causes vehicles to slow. Traffic slows west of Olympic Drive due to merging vehicles turning right from Olympic and limited sight distance from the horizontal curve. In addition, sight distance is limited for vehicles turning left from westbound Westborough Boulevard to Olympic Drive due to the horizontal curvature of the roadway. Westborough Boulevard carries roughly 25,332 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twenty-nine (29) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 1.78 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.35 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 46.4 MPH in both directions, yielding a 45 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 10 MPH to 35 MPH due to the following conditions: · High pedestrian traffic. · Horizontal and vertical curvature limit sight distance. · Steep eastbound grade lengthens stopping distance. · Abrupt dip in roadway west of Callan Boulevard. · Merging traffic at Olympic Drive. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 35 MPH. West Oranqe Avenue - Railroad Avenue to El Camino Real Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH Recommended Speed: 25 MPH 85th Percentile Speed: 33.1 MPH Conditions: This segment of West Orange Avenue is striped for one lane in each direction and is undivided with centerline striping. Sidewalks are on both sides for the length of the segment. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Surrounding land use is residential. Los Cerritos School and the Boys and Girls Club are located on the segment with South San Francisco High School nearby. The segment also contains Orange Memorial Park and the future linear park. Pedestrian traffic is high due to the schools and parks. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real and a stop sign at the intersection of Myrtle Avenue. The sidewalk bulbs out where the linear park crosses West Orange Avenue in order to draw drivers attention to a mid-block crosswalk. There are several marked crosswalks along this segment at uncontrolled intersections. Parking is allowed on both sides for the entire length of the segment and is very dense between C Street and El Camino Real. A vertical curve near B Street limits sight distance. West Orange Avenue carries roughly 9,924 vehicles per day along this segment. Comments: There were twenty-two (22) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period beginning 2003 through 2004. This equated to an accident rate of 5.95 ACC/MVM as compared to a statewide average of 3.05 ACC/MVM. The 85t~ Percentile Speed was 33.1 MPH in both directions, yielding a 30 MPH speed limit. Recommendations: It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 25 MPH due to the following conditions: · Residential neighborhood with many driveways. · Dense on-street parking limits sight distance. · Vertical curvature limits sight distance. · Los Cerritos School and South San Francisco High School generate high pedestrian traffic. · High accident rate. Therefore, the posted speed limit will remain at 25 MPH. 84 APPENDIX Individual Street Speed Surveys Street: Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD LINDEN AVENUE SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: North/South Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By.- TAS Date: 2/22/2005 A. Prevailin.q Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 39.5 30 - 39 68.3% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 3.214 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 12941 1910 2 Lane Each Direction with Raised Median Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Striped bike lane on west side. High truck ratio. Dense parking. Many driveways. RECOMMEND THAT PEDESTRIANS BE PROHIBITED FROM UTILIZING THE EAST SIDE OF SEGMENT DUE TO NARROW SIDEWALK. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date LOC. Street: Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD LINDEN AVENUE MILLER AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/22/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 41.2 30 - 39 67.0% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/1VIVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 9 3.702 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 7769 2260 2 Lane Each Direction with Raised Median Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Bike lanes on west side of roadway. Heavy truck traffic. High bicyclist traffic. Many driveways. Dense parking. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: AIRPORT BOULEVARD Limits: LINDEN AVENUE to SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 5O  I 1.0% 100% 1 1.0%~ 99.0% 45  1 1.0% 98.0% 1 1.0% 97.0% X ~ X X × 5 5.0% 9~.0%  X )~X 4 4.0% 91.1% 40 )< XX 4 4.0% 87.1% XX )~XX~ 6 5.9% 83.2% XX 3 3.0% 77.2% X)~XX~ 6 5.9% 74.3% XXXXXX 7 6.9% 68.3% 35 X XXXXXX e 7.9% 61.4% XXX 5 5.0% ~.5% X~XXX~XXXX 11 10.9% ~.5% XX~XX 5 5.0%: 37.6% XXX~XX~ 7 s.9% 32.~ 30 XXX ~XXX XXXX ~ ~0.9~25.~ XXX~ ~ ..o% ~.9% XX 2 2.0% ~o.~ XXXX ~ ~.o% XX 2 2.0% 25X ~ ~.0% 3.0% XX 2 2.o% 2.o% 20 15 10 5 Total 8emples 101 Date of Su~ey: ~005 Sta~ Time: 13:47 85th Percentile Speed: 39.5 50th Percentile Speed: ~.3 Weather: clear End Time: 14:47 15th Percentile Speed: 29.0 Road Condition: ~ood Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 3~ 39 ~reet Class.: Ma~or ~erial Obse~er: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 69 -- Conditions not Percent in Pace: 68.3% Apparent: Street: Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD MILLER AVENUE BADEN AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/16/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailin,q Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 27.0 19 - 28 74.7% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 17 9.718 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 16625 76O 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Islands Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Dense parking on west side between Miller and Grand. High truck ratio. High pedestrian traffic. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: AIRPORT BOULEVARD Limits: LINDEN AVENUE to MILLER AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %oea cum.% 55 X 1 1.o% lOO% 50 X 1 1.0% 99.0% X I 1.0% 98.0% XXX 3 3.0% 97.0% 45 X I 1.0% 94.0% ×XX 3 3.0% 93.0% XXXX~X 6 6.0% 90.0% XXX~X 4 4.0% 84.0% )~ 2 2'0% 80'0% 40' XXXXX 7 7.0% 78.0% XXXXXXXXXXX)CXX 14 14.0~'71.0% XXX~(XX 6 6.0% 57.0% XX XX X 5 6.0% 5-~.0% 35 XXXXXXXX 8 8.0% 46.0% XXXX 4 4.0% 38.0% XXXXX 5 5.0% ! 34.0% ×XXXXXXXX 9 9.0% 29.0% XXXXX × 6 8.0% 20.0% 30 XXX 3 3.0% 14.0% XX 2 2.0% 11.0=/o XXX 3 3.0% 9.0% X X' 2 2.0% 6,0% X~( 2 2.0% 4.0% 25×)< 2 2.0% 2.0% 20 15 10 Total S{lmDles 1 O0 Date of Survey: 2/22/2005 Start Time: 14:53 85th Percentile Speed: 41.2 Weather: clear End Time: 15:53 50th Percentile Speed: 35.8 15th Percentile Speed: 30.2 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 3_~5 10 MPH Pace: 30- 39 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 6'/ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 67.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD BADEN AVENUE SAN MATEO AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 3/3/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 39.9 32 - 41 71.6% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 15 3.385 2.4 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 20919 1530 3 Lanes Each Direction Divided by Raised Median Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments High truck ratio. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: AIRPORT BOULEVARD Limits: MILLER AVENUE to BADEN AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.%o 45 4O 35 X X 2 2.5% 100% 30 × ××× 4 5.1% 97.5% X X 2 2.5% 92.4% X )~× 4 5.1% 89.9°/O X XX 3 3.8% X XXXXX 6 7.8% 81.0% 25 X ×XXXX XX 8 10.1% 73.4% X XXX 4 5.1% 63.3% XXXXXXXX 8 10.1% 58.2% X ×:x'x×× 8 7.6% 4e. 1% X X× XX× )~X 8 10.1%, 40.5% 20IX ~)< XX× 8 7.8% 30.4% X~×XXX 6 7.6%'22.8% X~x(× 3 3.8% 15,2% X~ 2 2.5% 11.4% X)~× 3 3.8% 8.9% 15iX;X× 3 3.8% 5.1% X 1 1.3% 1.3% 10 5 0 Total Samoles 79 Date of Survey: 3/16/2005 Start Time: 14:00 85th Percentile Speed: 27.0 Weather: clear End Time: 15:00 50th Percentile Speed: 22.2 15th Percentile Speed: 18.0 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 3_~5 10 MPH Pace: 19- 28 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 59 M Conditions not Percent in Pace: 74.7% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: AIRPORT BOULEVARD Limits: BADEN AVENUE to SAN MATEO AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.°/° 50 X 1 0.9% 10o% 45 X× 2 1.7% 99.1% XXX~(4 3.4% 97.4% XX 2 1.7% 94.0% X ~XX 6.0% 91.4% 2.6% 85.3% 40 ~XXX~XXXX X~X 12 10.3% 82.8% ~ ~XXX~XXX~ ~ m~l~ 8.6%72.4% XXXXX~XXX~X 12 10.3% 63.8% ~XXXX~XX 6.9% 53.4% 35 ~XXX~XX 6.9% 46.6% XXXX~X 6.0% 39.7% ~XXXXX 5.2% ~.6% ~XXX~XXX~ ~/1~ 8.6% 28.4% ~XXXX 4.3% 19.8% 30 ~XX 2.6% 15.5% ~X~XX 4.3% 12.9% XX X 4 3.4% ~.6% XXX~ 2.6% 5.2% ~ 0.9% 2.6% 25 X 0.9% 1.7% ~ 0.9% 0.9% 20 15 10 5 Total Samples ' ~11~ Date of Su~ey: 3~005 Stad Time: 10:45 85th Percentile Speed: 39,9 Weather: clear End Time: 11:45 50th Percentile Speed: 35.5 15th Percentile Speed: 29.8 Road Condition: ~ood Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 32- 41 Street Class.: Major A~erial Obse~er: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 8~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 71.6% Apparent: Street: Limits: ALIDA WAY NORTHWOOD DRIVE PONDEROSA ROAD Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: North/South Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 27.4 20 - 29 87.4% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 5 6.388 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 2346 2410 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments St. Veronica's SchooL/Church and Rotary Plaza (senior housing) are located on the segment. Dense on-street parking. Many pedestrians. E. Adjacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No _, ~. Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: ALIDAWAY Limits: NORTHWOOD DRIVE to PONDEROSA ROAD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.°/° 35× J I I I I I I I I I 1 x~XX)<X I llllltll 10 9.7% 82.5% xX××)~×~ I I I I I I I 12 11.7% 64.1% 25 X XX )~× ×XIX] I I I I I I I I I I I 8 7.8% 52.4% ~XXXXX 12 11.7~ 34.0% 20 X× IIIII J lllll 2 1.9% 5.8% Total Samples 03 Date of Survey:. 3/9/2005 Start Time: 14:31 85th Percentile Speed: 27.4 50th Percentile Speed: 23.7 Weather: clear End Time: 15:31 15th Percentile Speed: 20.2 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 20- 29 Street Class.: Collector Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 9._~0 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 87.4% Apparent: Street: Limits: ALLERTON AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE FORBES BOULEVARD Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/8/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 32.0 23 - 32 62.8% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 4 0.881 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 14902 2200 Singie Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments High truck ratio. Sidewalk on one side only. Many driveways. Poor roadway condition. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: ALLERTON AVENUE Limits: EAST GRAND AVENUE to FORBES BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.°/° 40 ×I II I 1 0.9% lOOO/0 X I I 1 0.9% 99.1% X)41XX 4 3.5% 96.5% 35 X)< ×X 4 3.5% 92.9% ×× ×X× I I I 5 4.4% 89.4°/,=, XXX× XXX XX 10 8.8"/0 77.9"/0 XXXX.XXX 7 6.2% 55.8"/0 xxxxxx J I 6 6.3%, )('XXXXX 6 5.3°/,, 44.2% × X X'xx IIII IIIIIIII 5 4.4%,31.9% XXX ×XxX I II Ill Ill Ill 7 6.2% 19.5% 20 XXX ×X'XX II II I II I I I I I I I 7 6.2% 13.3% X XXX II IIIIIIIIIII 4 3.5°/0 6.2% X ~II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / 2 1.8%' 2.7% Total Sample~I113 Date of Survey: 2/8/2005 Start Time: 9:50 85th Percentile Speed: 32.0 50th Percentile Speed: 27.1 Weather: clear End Time: 10:50 15th Percentile Speed: 20.3 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3_.~0 10 MPH Pace: 23- 32 Street Class.: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 7__[1 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 62.6% Apparent: Street: Limits: ALTA LOMA DRIVE ARROYO DRIVE SAN FELIPE AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: North/South Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/10/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 28.2 20 - 29 79.3% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 1 3.017 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 1140 2100 single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments Stairway to El Camino Real located at end of segment at San Felipe. High pedestrian traffic. Drainage dip near El Campo slows traffic. RECOMMEND INSTALLING SPEED LIMIT SIGN FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC JUST NORTH OF DEL PASO DRIVE. E. Adjacent Land Use Residential/Some Commercial near Arroyo Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: ALTA LOMA DRIVE Limits: ARROYO DRIVE to SAN FELIPE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea curn.%o 35  1 0.9% 100% X 2 1.7% 99.1% X' ~ 1 0.9%197.4% X )~XI 3 2.6% 96.6% 30 )<X X X × 5 4.3% 94.0% ~( )~XXXX~ 7 6.0% 89.7% ~XXXXXXXXXXX 11 9.5% 83.6% XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 14 12.1% 69.0% 25 × X)< ×XXX× ×X× XX× ×X 16 13.8% 56.9% XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 11.2% 43.1% XXXXXX 6 5.2% 31.9% X XX XXXX 7 6.0% 26.7% XXX 3 2.6% 20.7% 20 X >(X,,~X XXXX 9 7.8% 18.1% XXXX)< X 6 5.2% 9.5% X 1 0.9% 4.3% 15 XX II [ I 2 1.7% 1.7% I 0 Total Samoles 116 Date of Survey:. 3/10/2005 Start Time: 15:01 85th Percentile Speed: 28.2 50th Percentile Speed: 24.5 Weather: clear End Time: 16:01 15th Percentile Speed: 19.6 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 20- 29 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 9...~2 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 79.3% Apparent: Street: Limits: ALTA VISTA DRIVE CONMUR STREET VALVERDE DRIVE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: East/West Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 29.8 22 - 31 83.8% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 2 4.608 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 285O 1100 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date LOC. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: ALTA VISTA DRIVE Limits: CONMUR STREET to VALVERDE DRIVE Radar Survey Sheet X=EastJWest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/oea cum.% 40)< Ill ×× I IIIIII 2.0%, 94.9% X XX× Il I Ill Ill Ill 4.0% 90.9% 30 X~"XX× ×X I I I I I I I I Il 8.1% 86.9'/0 ×× ×),"xX× x~x] III IIIIIIIIII l I Ill Ill Ill 9.1% 45.5% 20 ~××× '"" ,,,,'""111, '"'""'"" IIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllll//a 1.0% 1.0% ,,,,,, I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, j i / i/ Total Samples 9 Date of Survey:. 3/9/2005 Start Time: 15:31. 85th Percentile Speed: 29.8 50th Percentile Speed: 26.5 Weather: clear End Time: 16:31 16th Percentile Speed: 22.5 Road Condition: flood Posted Speed: 2._~5 10 MPH Pace: 22- 31 Street Class.: Collector Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 8;3 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 83.8% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary ARROYO DRIVE EL CAMINO REAL JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/10/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.5 24 - 33 75.5% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 17 7.349 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 3238 5160 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve/Steep Eastbound Grade Comments Mid-block crosswalk located by Buri Burl Park. High pedestrian traffic. Bus route. Diagonal parking in front of MSB. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: ARROYO DRIVE Limits: EL CAMINO REAL to JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.°/0 × X ×,x:X]X]XI I I I 7 6.4% 94.5°/'0 ~X× IIIIitl 3 2.7°/0 88.2°/° X× ×XXiX]X]~ IIII IIIII IIII 4 3.6°/o' 84.5% ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '" 'Ill ' 30 ×X.XX'X])qX~ IIII l ir 128 10'9%7.3o/o 48.2%59'1% XXX× XiX]X] IIIII I tllllllllll7 6.4-/0 21.8% ×XXXX:]XIX] I I I I I I I I I I ? 6.4% 16.5% ~x×xx~ i i i I I I I×XXX IIII 4 3.6%, 9.~% '"'""'"""'"'"" '"' Ill/i;;i';'"'"' ,I,,,,11 ,, Illllll ,,,,,,, Total Samoles 110 Date of Survey: 3/10/2005 Start Time: 13:20 85th Percentile Speed: 34.5 50th Percentile Speed: 29.2 Weather: clear End Time: 14:20 15th Percentile Speed: 24.9 Road Condition: good Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 8..~3 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 75.5% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary AVALON DRIVE JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DORADO WAY Factors Direction: East/West Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TA$ Date: 3/3/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 38.0 28 - 37 68.0% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 9 6.329 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifacfion 428O 2400 Single Lane Each Direction Local D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Steep Eastbound Grade Comments Dense parking. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? · No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: AVALON DRIVE Limits: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD to DORADO WAY Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% × IIIIIII 1 1.0% 98.0% × IIIIIII 1 1.0% 97.0% 4O tll 5 5.Oo/o 9o.Oo/o ××~X~ I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 6.0% 78.0% ×~×X~,xJX~,~;x~ I I I I I I I I i = ! 10 10.0~72.0% xXXX]X] I I I I I IIIIIIitll 5 5.0% 62.0% 35 X XXX]X] I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I 5 5.0%: 57.0% x XXX1X] III I II I I I I I I I I 6 5.0%52.0% X YX~,~~I [11111111 I 6 6.0%47.0% x)< X IIIIIIIII II 7 7.0%41.0% 30×)<×~ IIIIlllll I I 10 10.0% 34.0% ×)<KX]IIII I I I I I I I t I I 4 4.0%24.0% XXK IIIII 1010.0% 20.0% XXK I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 33.0%10.0% 1 1.0% 7.0% 25X IIIIIIIII I 1 1.o% 1.0O/° 15: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Total Sample~ 100 Date of Survey: 3/3/2005 Start Time: 15:25 85th Percentile Speed: 38.0 50th Percentile Speed: 32.6 Weather: clear End Time: 16:25 15th Percentile Speed: 27.5 Road Condition: ~ood Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 28- 37 Street Class.: Local Observer: LEDESMA. Number in Pace: 68 -- Conditions not Percent in Pace: 68.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary AVALON DRIVE JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD CITY LIMITS Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 28.8 20 - 29 80.0% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 7 6.149 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifacfion 5482 1500 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve/Steep Eastbound Grade Comments Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: AVALON DRIVE Limits: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD to CITY LIMITS Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% x t I I I I I I a 1.OO/o ~oo% Illll X~'X I J I 3 3.0% 97.0% ××××XXXXXX I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I ~o lo.o% 00.0% 3 3.0% 70.0% la 13.0% 25 XXXX XXX ~<×XX× I I I 12 1~.0% s,,.0% X×X× XXX)< x' I I I 0 ,.0% ,,2.0% XXXX×~'XXX I I I I I 9 9.0% 33.0% Il '"'"""iillll; )<×XX× IIIIIIIIIIIII111 5 5.0°/'0 11.0% 2 2.0% ~.0% ''''''''''''l'llllll' 1.0% 1.0% IIII,,I ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lotal Sam~lo$ 1 O0 Date of Survey: 3/9/2005 Start Time: 14:00 85th Percentile Speed: 28.8 50th Percentile Speed: 24.7 Weather: clear End Time: 15:00 15th Percentile Speed: 20.5 Road Condition: good Posted Speed: 2.~5 10 MPH Pace: 20- 29 Street Class.: Collector Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 80 . Conditions not Percent in Pace: 80.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: BADEN AVENUE AIRPORT BOULEVARD MAGNOLIA AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: East/West Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/22/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 32.9 24 - 33 70.0% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 36 12.051 3.05 To 12/31/2004 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 6165 3500 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Many driveways. High pedestrian traffic. Dense parking. Poor pavement condition. High truck ratio. E. Adiacent Land Use Mix commercial and residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: BADEN AVENUE Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD to MAGNOLIA AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 35 XX× XXXXX I I I I II 8 7.3% 95.5% ×X× IIII I 3 2.7% 88.2% ×XXXX× I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 5.5% 85.5% XXX ×XX XXX I I II I II I I I I II I I t I 9 8.2% 80.0% 30X)<xXXxX I I I I I X× XX× XX~X II I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 7.3%, 41.8% XX ×X× xX× I IIII I I I I I I I III II II I 8 7.3% 34.5% XX ×X××X× ×X Ill I lllllllllllllllll lO 9.1% 27.3% 25XX.X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 2.7% 18.2% XXNXX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $ 4.8% 15.8% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.9% 6.4% ×x '"'"' Total Samples 10 Date of Survey: 2/22/2005 Start Time: 9:20 85th Percentile Speed: 32.9 50th Percentile Speed: 28.1 Weather: clear End Time: 10:20 15th Percentile Speed: 22.9 Road Condition: Poor Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 77 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 70.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: BADEN AVENUE MAGNOLIA AVENUE CHESTNUT AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: East/West Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/17/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit Mid-point on segment 35.3 24 - 33 77.6% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 10.819 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Years ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 2369 3100 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High pedestrian traffic. Dense parking. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: BADEN AVENUE Limits: MAGNOLIA AVENUE to CHESTNUT AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %oea cum.% 40 XXX I 0 2.5% 99.1%o X X III 2 1.9°/,, 96.3% XXXX×XXX II III 8 7.5% 94.4% 35 ~X'x Illllllllllllll 3 2.8%: 86.9% X Illl ,iii I I I I 2 1.9% 84.1% X×XXXXX I Ill 7 6.5% 62.6% X××XXXXXXX'XXXXX I I I t I 15 14.0%56.1% 30 X× ×)<'xxx.xX× xX I I I I I I I 12 11.2%42.1% XXX×XXXX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 7.5% 22.4% :>5XXX× ×X ~ 5.5°/0 lO.a°/0 )('X I 2 1.9% 4.7°/,, × ×X I I I I III 32.8% 2.8%:, '"'"'" Il 'Ill Total Sam~)les 107 Date of Survey:. 2/17/2005 Start Time: 9:15 85th Percentile Speed: 35.3 50th Percentile Speed: 29.6 Weather: Clear End Time: 10:15 15th Percentile Speed: 26.0 Road Condition: Good Posted Speed: 2..~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Collector Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 8;3 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 77.6% Apparent: Street: Limits: BAYSHORE BOULEVARD CITY LIMITS SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer Checked By: .TAS Date: 4/1/2005 Direction: A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit Survey not conducted. 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate To ( ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction Single Lane Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments This roadway is under heavy construction. Therefore, a volume count and a speed survey were not conducted. The roadway is currently posted 25 MPH. Prior to construction, this roadway segment was posted 35 MPH. It is reccommended that a speed survey and evaluation be performed after construction is complete. E. Adiacent Land Use Open Space Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Street Name: Limits: City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department BAYSHORE BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet 85th Percentile Speed: 50th Percentile Speed: 15th Percentile Speed: 10 MPH Pace: Number in Pace: Percent in Pace: Date of Survey:. 4/1/2005 Start Time: Weather: clear End Time: Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: Street Class.: Malor Arterial Observer: Conditions not Apparent: 2S Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary CALLAN BOULEVARD WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD KING DRIVE Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/8/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 35.2 26 - 35 82.4% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 12 3.685 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifacfion 6720 3500 Single Lane Each Direction With Raised Median Minor Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Bike lanes on both side of roadway. High pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. Dense parking. Many driveways. Dense fog typical in this area. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: CALLAN BOULEVARD Limits: WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD to KING DRIVE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% X× I I I I I I I I I 2 1.9o/. 100% ×× III 2 1.9% 94.4% XXXXX' I llllJl lit 5 4.6./0 92.6°/0 X~XX I llllll II11 4 3.7% 88.0% XX XXX X ~X 8 7.4% 75.9% XXX~XX~<XXXXXX [ I I f I I I I I 13 12.0, 68.5% X XXX~)(X X X'X 10 9.3% 56.5%  X X~'~XX× X)< XXX XXX 15 13.9%' 37.00/o ,.30×XX x IIIIIit111 5 4.6% 23.1%, XX×× XX× IIIIIIIIII I 7 6.5% 18.5% XXX× XX 6 5.6°/0 7.4% 25X I II Il I I I I I 1 o.9% 1.9% ,,,,,,,,,;j IIJJI '""JII Total Samnles 1 08 Date of Survey: 2/8/2005 Start Time: 85th Percentile Speed: 35.2 50th Percentile Speed: 31.3 Weather: clear End Time: 15th Percentile Speed: 27.5 Road Condition: Good Posted Speed: 2._~5 10 MPH Pace: 26- 35 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 8__.~9 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 82.4% Apparent: Street: Limits: CHESTNUT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL COMMERCIAL AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: North/South Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/16/2005. A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.3 26 - 35 84.0% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 3.213 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 17662 1400 2 Lanes Each Direction/3-2 Lanes In Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High pedestrian volume due to local shopping center. Many senior pedestrians due to senior housing at Mission. Future linear park crosses near El Camino Real. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Residential Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: CHESTNUT AVENUE Limits: EL CAMINO REAL to COMMERCIAL AVENUE I Radar Survey Sheet ! X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # `/oea cum.% X i 1.o% lOO% 40 ~ 1 1.0% 99.0% 1 1.0% 98.0% ~ X X 3 3.0°/° 97.0% ~X~X 4 4.0% 94.00/o 35 X X X × × X X 7 7.0% 90.0% XXXXXXXX 8 8.0% 83.0% /~ X X 6 6.0`/o 75.0% X~(XXXXXX 10 10.0% 69.0% XxXXxX)(XX >4' 11 11.0% 59.0°/o 30XX~X~XXX~(X~(XXX 14 14.0% 48.0% XX]XXXXX)<X 9 9.0°,o 34.0% XX ~XX)< XX I 10 10.0% 25.0% X~XX)< XX×I 8 8.0% 15.o% X 1 1.0% 7.0% 25 X × x × 4 4.0,/° 6.0°/° 1 1.0% 2.0% X IIII,,.°% ,.°% lotal Sa~ple~ 100 Date of Survey: 2/16/2005 Start Time: 14:10 85th Percentile Speed: 34.3 50th Percentile Speed: 30.2 Weather: clear End Time: 15:10 15th Percentile Speed: 27.0 Road Condition: flood Posted Speed: 3_~0 10 MPH Pace: 26- 35 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 8_~4 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 84.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: CHESTNUT AVENUE GRAND AVENUE HILLSIDE BOULEVARD Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/9/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 38.8 30 - 39 79.3% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 4 1.183 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 8420 2900 .Single Lane Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics No Sidewalk on East Side Comments High volume of pedestrians due to nearby Parkway Heights Middle School. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South- San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: CHESTNUT AVENUE Limits: GRAND AVENUE to HILLSIDE BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # 0/oea cum.% 45 XX[X 4 3.6% 100% 1 0,9% 96,4% ~ X X 3 2.7% 95.50/° ~XX~x~Xx 6 5.4°/<, 92.8% 40 X ~ 0.9% 87.4% XXX~(XXX 7 6.3% 86.5% XXX~(XXXXXX XX 12 10.8°/. 80.20/<, XXX~(XX 6 5.4°/,, 69.4% XX× >(XXXXX× XX× xXXX~ 17 15.3%64.0% 35 X X × >(X X X 7 6.3% 48.6% X×X)~'XXXXXXX×X 14 12.6% 42.3% ~XX/'~X xX 7 6.3<,/<, 29.70/0 ×XXX)< XX 7 6.30/° 23.4% XX×X)< X 6 5.4°/. 17.~0/o 30 XXXX)< 5 4.5°/<, 11.7% ~XX 3 2.7% 7.2% XX 2 1.6<,/0 4.5% XX 2 1.8o/<, 2.70/<, ~ 1 0.9% 0.9% 25 2O 15 10 5 0 Total Samoles 111 Date of Survey:. 2/9/2005 Start Time: 9:40 85th Percentile Speed: 38.8 Weather: clear End Time: 10:40 50th Percentile Speed: 35.1 15th Percentile Speed: 30.6 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 3...~0 10 MPH Pace: 30- 39 Street Class.: Malor Arterial Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 88 -- Conditions not Percent in Pace: 79.3% Apparent: Street: Limits: COMMERCIAL AVENUE LINDEN AVENUE SPRUCE AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: East~Nest Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/24/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.6 23 - 32 61.2% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 14 21.017 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 2673 1800 Single Lane Each Direction collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments Many driveways. Dense on street parking. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential with Commercial at intersections Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: COMMERCIAL AVENUE Limits: LINDEN AVENUE to SPRUCE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 45 40~ X X 2 1.9% 100% X XX 3 2.9% 98.1% × XXX:X 5 4.9% 95.1O/o XXX 3 2.9% 90.3% 35 × XX~ XX $ 5'8% 87-4% )<XX 3 2.9%; 81.6% XXXX 4 3.9% 78.6% XXXXXX 6 5.8'/0 74.8% XXXX 4 3.9% 68.90/° 30 X X~X )~XXXX~x~ 10 9.7% 65.0% XX~ 3 2.9% 55.3% )< XXX XXXX 8 7.8% 52.4°/'0 × X×× X× 6 5.8% 44.7% XXXXXX 6 5.8% 38.8% 25 ><,XX~X XX;XX 8 7.8% 33.0% X'X~(~(X 5 4.9% 25.2% XX~(X 7 6.8% 20.4% ~/X 2 1.9% 13.6% X I 1.0% 11.7% 20 )< XX)< X 5 4.9%i 10.7% ~ 1 1.0%1 5.8% )<1X X 3 2.9% 4.9% X I 1.0% 1.9% 15 × 1 1.0% 1.0% 10 5 0 Total Samoles 103 Date of Survey:. 2/24/2005 Start Time: 9:15 85th Percentile Speed: 34.6 Weather: clear End Time: 10:15 50th Percentile Speed: 27.7 15th Percentile Speed: 22.2 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 23- 32 Street Class.: collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 6~3 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 61.2% Apparent: Street: Limits: COMMERCIAL AVENUE SPRUCE AVENUE ORANGE AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/22/2005 Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 32.8 24 - 33 77.7% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 12 13.592 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 3O08 2120 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments Many driveways. Dense parking. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: COMMERCIAL AVENUE Limits: SPRUCE AVENUE to ORANGE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/oea cum.% 45 40 X I 1.O%o 100% 1 1.0% 99.0%  1 1.0% 98.1% 1 1.0% 97.1% XX 3 2.9% 96.1% XXX 4 3.9% 93.2% 35 ×× 3 2.9% 89.3% XXXX XXX X 8 7.8%o 86.4%, XXX~(xx~ x 8 7.8% ! 78.6% XXXXXXXX 8 7.8% 70.9% 30 XXX~ XX)~ xX 9 8.7% 63.1% XXXXXXX 87.8% 54.4% XX~( XXX X 8 7.8% 46.6% XXXXXX 7 6.8% 38.8% XX~(XX 6 5.8% 32.0% 25 X×X~ XX~ XX× × 11 10.7%; 26.2% X×XXXXX 7 6.8%0 15.5%  ×~ 3 2.9% 8.7% × 2 1.9% 5.8% XX 2 1.9% 3.9% 20 X 1 1.0% 1.9% X 1 1.0% 1.0% 15 10 5 ' 0 Total Samples 1031 Date of Survey. 2/22/2005 Start Time: 10:55 85th Percentile Speed: 32.8 Weather: clear End Time: 11:55 50th Percentile Speed: 28.4 15th Percentile Speed: 23.9 Road Condition: ,qood Posted Speed: 2.~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 80 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 77.7% Apparent: Street: Limits: COMMERCIAL AVENUE CHESTNUT AVENUE ORANGE AVENUE City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 4/12~2005 Factors Direction: EastJWest A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.6 26 - 35 74.8% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 7 4.618 3.05 To 12/31/2004 2-Years ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 5092 2150 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments Many driveways. Dense parking. High pedestrian traffic. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco:. Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: COMMERCIAL AVENUE Limits: CHESTNUT AVENUE to ORANGE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 2 1.9% 97.2°/, XXX I I I 3 2.8% 95.3% x xx I llll 3 2.8% 92.6% 5 4.7% 66.9% XXXX)<~ J I J J I 6 5.6% 73.8% XXXX 8 7.5% 68.2% XX )~X 11 10.3%60.7% 30 X X X × x[X[X]X~ 9 8.4% 50.5% xxxxxix~ I t I I ~ 6.5% ,,,2.1%, X'XXX~X] I I I I 6 5.6% 27.1% ×x:XXX]X]XIX]X~ I I I II I I I I I I 10 9.3% 21.5% × >( IIIIIII II I 2 1.9% 4.7% ,i,,,,,,,I '"'"llllrl "'"~ I lllt/ , Illll ,,,,il,, '"'1'l ,o ,,,,,,,,i,,,,!l,' 'Ill'Il ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I,,,, ,,,,,,, IIII/ Total Samples I107~ Date of Survey: 4/12/2005 Start Time: 14:39 85th Percentile Speed: 34.6 50th Percentile Speed: 29.9 Weather: clear End Time: 15:39 15th Percentile Speed: 25.3 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 2--5 10 MPH Pace: 26- 35 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 8._.~0 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 74.8% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: DEL MONTE DRIVE ARROYO DRIVE ALTA LOMA DRIVE Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3110/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 31.9 22 - 31 77.7% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 10 6.906 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 2O67 5060 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments High pedestrian traffic. Schools located on segment. Many driveways. RECOMMEND THAT A SPEED LIMIT SIGN BE INSTALLED FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC NEAR ARROYO DRIVE. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: DEL MONTE DRIVE Limits: ARROYO DRIVE to ALTA LOMA DRIVE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %oea cum.°/° 40 × ii I I I I I 1 1.0%99.0%o IIIIit111 X Illll ,,,ltllllllll 21.9%97.1% 35X t lllllllllllJ 3 1 1.0%: 91.3% IIIIIIIIIIII X:×XX x' I I Iii iii itl 5 4.g%90.3% ,x, IrIlllllllll 3 2.9% 85.4% XX)<X×X)<XX I Ill Ill Ill Ill 9 8.7% 82.5% 30 tl IIIIIIIIIII t 12 1.7% 73.a% 10 9.7°/0 62.1% II 6 5.8% 52.4°/0 x >(× >(XX II I IIIlll IIIJlllJJ 7 6.8% 46.0% XXXXXXX IIIIIIIIII 7 6.8% 24.3% × I Il II Ill Ill Ill 1 1.0% 4.9% It111111111 3 2.9% 3.9% Total Sample~ 102 Date of Survey: 3/10/2005 Start Time: 14:14 85th Percentile Speed: 31.9 50th Percentile Speed: 27.6 Weather: clear End Time: 15:14 15th Percentile Speed: 22.6 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 2_.~5 10 MPH Pace: 22- 31 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 8...~0 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 77.7% Apparent: i Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary DNA WAY POINT SAN BRUNO BOULEVARD FORBES BOULEVARD Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/23/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 33.2 25 - 34 75.4% 3O B. Collision HistorY Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 1 1 .O75 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 5130 1310 Single Lane Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve/Steep Northbound Grade Comments High pedestrian traffic. Mid-block crosswalks. E. Adiacent Land Use commercial and industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: DNA WAY Limits: POINT SAN BRUNO BOULEVARD to FORBES BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% ××× I III 3 2.5°/°: 100% 30 ×X×X××XIX]XIX]X]X I I I I I I I J I I I I 12 lO.2% 59.3% Y×Y×X×X]X]X] I I I II Ill Ill l il 9 7.6% 49.2% ~ ×~ IIIII I IIIIlll 3 2.5% 41.5% X XX X~xx]xIxIxix~X I I I I I I I I I I I I 13 11.0%,39.0% 25 × ×X ×~< XX]X1XIX] I ×~×~× II IJllllJJlJJI1'''''''' 108'5%22'0% '"'"'"" I '""' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, j i i i i i i i i t I 5 IIIII IIIIII Ill '"" '"" '"'"'""'"'"'"Ill Total Saml~le~ 11 ~ Date of Su~ey: ~005 Sta~ Time: 10:20 85th Percentile Speed: 33.2 50th Percentile Speed: 29.1 Weather: clear End Time: 11:20 15th Percentile Speed: 24.2 Road Condition: good Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 25- ~ Street Class.: Ma~or ~erial Obse~er: BOWER Number in Pace: 8~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 75.4% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary DUBUQUE AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/16/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 39.3 28 - 37 66.4% B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 10 6.723 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 2686 4000 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments Sidewalk on east side only. Many driveways. SPEED LIMIT NOT POSTED. RECOMMEND POSTING SPEED LIMIT SIGNS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit Speed Limit Change? NOT POSTE Revised Speed Limit 30 Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: DUBUQUE AVENUE Limits: EAST GRAND AVENUE to OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% X)< IIIIII 2 1.8°/o 95.6% X X II I IIIII 2 1.8°/o 82.3% XXXXXXXX I Il I I , I I II I 8 7.1% ~0.5% XXXXX×× Illllll,l II I II 76.2°/073.50/0 8 7.1% 46.0% X X× t111 3 2.7% 33.6% 30ix>(xx)<XXX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 7.1% 31.0% xxx:x×× Illllllrllll IIIII IJlJ 6 5.3%1 23.9% X XX IIIIIIII IIIII I32.70/0 14.2% '""Jill;ii,,,, '"" '"'" X IIIII II I'1111 IIIIII 10.9°/0 2.7% 2oX)< IIII IIIII IIIIII 21.8%1.8% IIIIIII I IIIIIIJ Date of Survey:. 2/16/2005 Start Time: 9:05 85th Percentile Speed: 39.3 50th Percentile Speed: 33.5 Weather: clear End Time: 10:05 15th Percentile Speed: 27.2 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 10 MPH Pace: 28- 37. Street Class.: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 7._~5 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 66.4% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Factors EAST GRAND AVENUE AIRPORT BOULEVARD HARBOR WAY/FORBES BOULEVARD Direction: East/West Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 2/23/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 35.4 27 - 36 68.2% B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 25 3.413 2.4 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 26195 2020 3 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Islands Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments Posted speed limit signs are varied along the segment (25, 30, 35 MPH). E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit Speed Limit Change? Yes Revised Speed Limit 30 Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: EAST GRAND AVENUE Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD to HARBOR WAY/FORBES BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% × IIIIIIIIIIII I IIllllll 1 0.8%100% 4O ××××X] I Iit11,1111111111111 5 3.9%97.7% X~<×X I IIIIIIIIIIIll 4 3.1%91.5% X~<XXX]XIX1 I I I Itll l Ill 7 5.4%88.4% X× ×~,~ I I I I I I I I I I 1814.0% 78.3% 35 X× X I I I I II I II I 6 4.7°/'0 82.9% X× ~4)< Illllllllllll ! 9 7.0°/o 64.3% X×X)~ ~ IIIII I Iit111111 II 12 9.3°/0 57.4% X××× X:] IIIIIit111111 IIIIIIIIIII 5 3.9%48.1°/0 X X×× x~ IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIit111 6 4.7%44.2% X:XXXX]X]XIXiX]X] I I 10 7.8%27.9% ~ X X X)'(]X] I 6 4.7% 20.2% 251XXX'X)<:] I IIIIIllllllllllllllllllllll 5 3.9°/0 15.5o/0 x Illllllllllllllllllllllllllll I 0.8%11.6% x ×× ×II IJllll I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 3.1%10.9% X XX I 3 2.3%4.7% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 1.6%2.3% Total Samples 129 Date of Survey: 2/23/2005 Start Time: 15:30 85th Percentile Speed: 35.4 50th Percentile Speed: 31.2 Weather: clear End Time: 16:30 15th Percentile Speed: 24.9 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Malor Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 8--8 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 68.2% Apparent: Street: Limits: EAST GRAND'AVENUE HARBOR WAY LITTLEFIELD AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: East/West Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/16/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 36.5 28 - 37 75.0% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 8 1.91 8 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 15063 2000 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Medianlslands Major A~erial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Railroad crossing located at Littlefield. Poor roadway condition. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: EAST GRAND AVENUE Limits: HARBOR WAY to LITTLEFIELD AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea curn.% I I I I I I I 0.8% lOO%o 10.8%99.2% 1 0.8% 98.4% X ' I I I ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 0.8%° 97.6% 40'XX× IIIII 3 2.4% 96.8% XXXXXXXXX I I I 9 7.3% 88.7% XXXXXXX× I I I 8 6.5% 81.5% XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Itl 14 11.3%65.3%o ×XXXX~X IIII 7 5.6% 54.0% ×~X~X~/×~( XXX 9 7.3% 39.5% 30X)<X)<××X×X×X I J 11 8.9°/'0 32.3% X××)<××XXx I I I I 9 7.3% 23.4% X×× I I I I Ii 3 2.4,,/0 16.1o/, X× ×× ××:x: I I I 7 5.6% 13.7% XX>(×>(X I I I I 8 4.8% 8.1% X× IIII 2 1.6% 3.2% 25XIllllllllllI 10.8% '~.6% 20X II 10.8% 0.8% ,,,,, '° ,,,,,,,,,'" ,,,,, ,,,,,,;lllll '"" 0 I I Total Samples 124 Date of Survey: 2/16/2005 Start Time: 10:30 85th Percentile Speed: 36.5 50th Percentile Speed: 32.3 Weather: clear End Time: 11:30 15th Percentile Speed: 27.5 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3_~5 10 MPH Pace: 28- 37 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 9~3 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 75.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: EAST GRAND AVENUE LITTLEFIELD AVENUE EAST END Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/10/2005 Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 38.0 29 - 38 75.5% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 5 1.469 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 11708 2100 2 Lanes Each Direction With Shared Left Turn Lanes Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Poor roadway condition. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: .i ~'~,~r d.~ - ' Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: EAST GRAND AVENUE Limits: LITTLEFIELD AVENUE to EAST END Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/oea cum.% 45 × II I Jlllllll 1 0.9% 99.1% I IIIltliJllll 1 0.9%°98.1% ~× llilll IIIIl,lllllll 21.9%,97.2% ×× IIIll[lllllllllliillJ I 21.9%95.3% IIIIIIIII 4 3.8% 93.4% xXX II X××X'×XX]XIX] I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 8.5% 76.4% 35 ×X ×)< XXX~ I I I I I I l I Ill 16 15.1%,67.9% XXXX ~<× x:]X] IllIJj I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII 8 7.5%37.7% × ,,,,,ill,, 1 0.9%9.4% Y I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I81 0.9%5'7% 2.8%8'5% "'"'"'"" Total Samples 06 Date of Survey: 2/10/2005 Start Time: 14:00 85th Percentile Speed: 38.0 50th Percentile Speed: 33.5 Weather: clear End Time: 15:00 15th Percentile Speed: 28.7 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3...~5 10 MPH Pace: 29- 38 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 813 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 75.5% Apparent: Street: Limits: ECCLES AVENUE FORBES BOULEVARD OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: North/South Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/10/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.3 25 - 34 68.5% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 4 2.384 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 3787 3200 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Sidewalk on one side only. E. Adjacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: . ~~ (-,~,,/ Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: ECCLES AVENUE Limits: FORBES BOULEVARD to OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %oea cum.% 40× I I I I t I I I I a 0.0%90.4% ×× I t I I I I II 13 2.4%96.0% X XXXX 1111111115 4.0"/o 93.5'/0 xXX~XXXX× I I I I I I I I I a 8.5%s9.5%o 35 XXXXXX×XXX 11111111111 8.9%: 83.1% XX'XXX 1111111118 4.8°/o 74.2% X)<XXXXXXX I I t I I I I I I10 8.1%69.4% ~×)<×:x; 1111111115 4.0%61.3% 30~X X)<XX]XXXXX XXXX;XXX I I I I I I I I 117 13.7%!57.3% ××X 1111111113 2.4o/o ~.5% X×)<×)<X~"XX×X I I I I I t I I Ill 8.9%4~.~%, X××××X~ I I I I I I I I I 7 5.6o/o 32.3%, X>(×.X× 1111111115 4.0'/0 26.6% 25X~<XX×××XXX 11111111110 6.1%22.6% XX I I I I I 11112 ~.6O/o 14.5% XXXX×××X I I I I I I II I 8 6.5°/° 12.9% X XX 1111111113 2.4°/° 6.5% X X 1111111112 1.6O/o 4.0% 20x I I II I III I1 0.8o/o 2.4% IIIIIIIII X X I I I Itl II 12 1.6%o IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 15 I I I II I III IIIIIIIit IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 10 I I I I I I I I I Total Sam~)les 1124 Date of Survey: 2/10/2005 Start Time: 9:15 85th Percentile Speed: 34.3 Weather: clear End Time: 10:15 50th Percentile Speed: 29.5 15th Percentile Speed: 24.1 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 30 10 MPH Pace: 25- 34 Street Class.: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 85 -- Conditions not Percent in Pace: 68.5% Apparent: Street: Limits: EVERGREEN DRIVE MISSION ROAD HILLSIDE BOULEVARD Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: North/South Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/8/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.0 26 - 35 81.6% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 9 13.028 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 1494 3340 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments El Camino Real High School located at Mission Road. BART is nearby. High pedestrian traffic. Dense parking on both sides. Many driveways. E. Adjacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: EVERGREEN DRIVE Limits: MISSION ROAD to HILLSIDE BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% I lllllllllllllllll 11.0% 100'/,, 40~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11.0'/o 99.0%° '"Ji;i ;jiil;jiill X ×X ×X×XX ×X× ~1 lO.7%o~.s%, X XXX XXXX)4' 13 12.6% 73.8% x ~ ~xxx×xxx~, ,3 ~2.~O,o x,X×× I I I I I IIIIII 111115 4.9% 48.5% 30 xX×× I I Ifil 4 3.9% 43.7% XXXXXX:~ t 7 6.8% 27.2% 25XXXXX~× I I I I I 8 7.8%15.5% ,mil,,,,,,,,,,,,,,., Total Samoles 11031 Date of Survey:. 3/8/2005 Start Time: 10:25 85th Percentile Speed: 34,0 Weather: clear End Time: 11:25 50th Percentile Speed: 31.1 15th Percentile Speed: 24.9 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 2--5 10 MPH Pace: .26- 35 Street Class,: Collector Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 8--4 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 81.6% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: FORBES BOULEVARD EAST GRAND AVENUE DNA WAY Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 2/23/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 44.4 31 - 40 51.6% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 1.186 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 9128 7340 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Islands Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments Railroad crossing at Eccles. Many driveways. High truck ratio. Mid-block crosswalk at Genentech. Sidewalk on one side only for most of segment. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: FORBES BOULEVARD Limits: EAST GRAND AVENUE to DNA WAY Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 6O X 1 0.8% 10o% 55 X 1 0.8% 99.2% XX 2 1.6%~ 98.4% 50 XX 2 1.6% 96.8% ~X 3 2.4% 95.2% XX 2 1.6% 92.7% 4 3.2% 91.1% 45 X X ~x~ x 6 4.8% 87.9% 6 4.8% 83.1% XXXX 6 4.8% 78.2% XXX 3 2.4% 73.4%° XXXXX 6 4.8% 71.0%o 40 XX'XX 5 4.0% 66.1%i '×XXXXX[XX 8 6.5% 62.1% ; ×XX XXX 6 4.8% 55.6%' XXXXXX~X 8 6.5% 50.8% X~x~XXXX 6 4.8% 44.4% X~XXX 5 4.0% 39.5% 35 X.~X ×X)< XXXX 10 8.1% 35.5% XXX XXX 6 4.8% 27.4% 4 3.2% 22.6% XXX X 6 4.8% 19.4% XXXXXX 4 3.2% 14.5% ~( 3 2.4% 11.3% XX)~XX 5 4.0% 8.9% X~ 2 1.6% 4.8% X )~ 2 1.6% 3.2% 25X i 0.8% 1.6%o 20 X 1 0.8% 0.8% 15 Total Samples 124 Date of Survey: 2/23/2005 Start Time: 14:41 85th Percentile Speed: 44.4 Weather: clear End Time: 15:41 50th Percentile Speed: 36.9 15th Percentile Speed: 30.1 Road Condition: ,qood Posted Speed: 35 10 MPH Pace: 31- 40 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 6_~4 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 51.6% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary GATEWAY BOULEVARD EAST GRAND AVENUE SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 A. Prevailin,q Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 36.3 25 - 34 61.8% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 3 0~889 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 11385 2140 2 Lanes Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments Bike lanes on both sides. High truck ratio. Railroad crossing with gate on segment. Abrupt grade change over railroad crossing. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and lndustrial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc.# City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: GATEWAY BOULEVARD Limits: EAST GRAND AVENUE to SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/0ea cum.% 451 XX 2 1.8% 100°/0 X I 0.9% 98.2% )<X 2 1.8% 97.3% 40 X ×)4 3 2.7% 95.5% X.X 2 1.8% 92.7%, X~XXX~ 5 4.5% 90.9%1 X~X 2 1.8% 86.4%: X~XX 3 2.7% 84.5% 35 X XX X)< 5 4.5% 81.8% XXXX~< X~x~ 7 6.4% 77.3% )~XXXXXXXXXXX~( 13 11.8% 70.9% XXXXXXX~X 8 7.3% 59.1%  X X X)< X 6 5.5% 51.6% 30 XXX~( 5 4.5% 46.4% XX~X~( X~(~X 8 7.3% 41.8% xXXXX)< 5 4.5% 34.5% XXX~<~XX 7 6.4% 30.0% XXXX 4 3.6% 23.6% 25 X X ~(XX] 5 4.5% 20.0% XX XXX s 4.5% 15.5% X 2 1.8% 10.9% X x~X~x~X 6 5.5%1 9.1% 20XX 2 1.8% 3.6% X I 0.9% 1.8% X 1 0.9% 0.9% 15 10 5 0 Total Samoles 110 Date of Survey: 3/9/2005 Start Time: 9:05 85th Percentile Speed: 36.3 Weather: clear End Time: 10:05 50th Percentile Speed: 30.7 15th Percentile Speed: 23.9 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 3.~5 10 MPH Pace: 25- 34 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 6._.~8 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 61.8% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Factors GATEWAY BOULEVARD EAST GRAND AVENUE OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Direction: North/South Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/29/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 38.5 28 - 37 68.0% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 2.164 3.35 To 12/31/2004 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 10122 3628 2 Lanes Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High pedestrian traffic. Childcare center and hotels on segment. High bicyclist traffic due to bike lanes. E. AdiacentLand Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: GATEWAY BOULEVARD Limits: EAST GRAND AVENUE to OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 45)<× I I I I I I I I I I 2 1.9%! 99.0% x~X~/xX 5 4.9% 95.1% 1 1.0% 90.3% 40×X IIIII 2 1.9% 89.3% X.XXX ×X 8 7.8% 73.8% XX× XX×XX× XX 10 9.7% 49.5%0 XXX~ 5 4.9% 39.8% XX XX~( X× 7 6.8% 35.0% × ×k× XXX 8 7.8%,28.2% 30 ××X× 5 4.9% 20.4% XXX.X × $ 4.9% ~5.5% X 2 1.9% lO.7% X x× I I I I I I I I I a 2.9% 8.7% 25 X II III IIIIIIII1-1 ~ ~.0% 5.8°/0 X:X I I I I I I III II II I I 2 1.~ 4.9% Date of Survey: 3/29/2005 Start Time: 14:29 85th Percentile Speed: 38.5 50th Percentile Speed: 33.1 Weather: clear End Time: 15:29 15th Percentile Speed: 27.9 Road Condition: _qood Posted Speed: 3~5 10 MPH Pace: 28- 37 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 7~0 Conditions not Percent in Pace: ,68.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summarg GELLERT BOULEVARD WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD KING DRIVE Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/8/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 41.6 35 - 44 70.9% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 2.274 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 12476 2800 2 Lanes Each Direction with Raised Median Islands and Left Turn Pocket major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High pedestrian traffic. Busy driveways on segment. E. Adiacent Land Use commercial and open space Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No - ' Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: GELLERT BOULEVARD Limits: WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD to KING DRIVE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% X I 1 1.0% 100% x IIII 1 1.0% 99.0% 45 X IIIII I IIIII 1 1.0°/. 98.1% XXX 5 4.9%'92.2% xXXXXX l Ill i 6 5.8% 87.4% xXXXXX I I I I 8 5.8% el.e% XX×XX I I I 9 8.7%: 69.~/, X~X%XXX~X x IIIII I 10 9.7% 61.2% 35 X> X~ XXXXX X I I 10 9.7% ~.9% X~ X~ I llll I 4 3.9% 26.2% x~ X~ X I I I s 4.9% ~.3% X~ X I I 3 2.9%:14.6% 30 X~ X~ I I I 4 3.9% 11.7% X~ III 2 1.9% 7.8% ~ X IIIII IIIIIII 3 2.~ 5.8% IIIII IIIIIII IIIII IIIIIII IIIII IIII 1 1.0% 2.9% 25~ I I I I I I I I I Illll Illllll 11.0% 1.9% II 1 1.0% 1.0% Totol Sampl,~ 103 Date of Su~e~ ~8~005 Sta~ Time: 14:00 85th Percentile Speed: 41.6 Weather: clear End Time: 15:00 50th Percentile Speed: 36.7 15th Percentile Speed: 31.2 Road Condition: ~ood Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 3~ ~ Street Class.: maior ~erial Obse~er: BOWER Number in Pace: 7~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 70.9% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary GULL ROAD OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD FORBES BOULEVARD Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/10/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 39.2 29 - 38 73.8% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 5 3.051 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifacfion 9105 1300 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments Striped bike lane on segment both sides. High truck ratio. Narrow road width. High bicyclist traffic. Sidewalk on one side only. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Open Space Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? Yes Revised Speed Limit 30 Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: GULL ROAD Limits: OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD to FORBES BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/oea cum.% 45 × l I I I Ill 3 2.8°/, 99.1% ×× IIIII II 4 3.7% 96.3% ~ IlillllI 10.9%92.5% × IIIIIII 3 2.8% 91.6% ××× I lllllJ 5 4.7% 88.8% 40×× × II III 3 2.8% 84.1% ×× ~X:X I IIIIIIllll 6 5.6% 72.0% ×,x:× I IIIIIlllllll 4 3.7% 66.4% XEX× XX)< X~'XX 11111111111111111 10.3%62.6% 35 XX×XX××)<XXX II III I I I I III II 1~2 11.2%52.3% XX×~< xX× ×)<X II II I I I I III III I~0 9.3°/,, 41.1% XXX× XX× ×~<× I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I109.3°/0 31.8°/0 X XXX x II II I I I I II II II 15 4.7% 22.4.% XX× IIIIIIIIIIII 4 3.7% 11.2% ~ Illllllllllll 1 0.9% 7.5% X IIIIIIIIIII 2 1.9% 6.5% X X 1111111111111112 1.9% 4.7% II II I I I I i i i il// 1 0.9% 2.8% 25X 1111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII 20X I I I Ill l ilI I I I 1 0.9%0.9% IIIIIIII I IIIIIIII IIIIIII IIl""'lllll,, ,, Total Samoles 1107 Date of Survey: 2/10/2005 Start Time: 10:15 85th Percentile Speed: 39,2 Weather: clear End Time: 11:15 50th Percentile Speed: 33,8 15th Percentile Speed: 29,6 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 2._~5 10 MPH Pace: 29- 38 Street Class.: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 7..~9 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 73.8% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: HARBOR WAY LITTLEFIELD AVENUE MITCHELL AVENUE Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/15/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on survey 36.3 27 - 36 73.5% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 4 3.745 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic ~ Length of Segment 'Lane Configuration :.Street Classifaction 4126 1870 Single Lane Each Direction Collector/Minor Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Speed limit not posted in northbound direction at Littlefield. Poor roadway condition. Fire Station located on the segment. RECOMMEND INSTALLING SPEED LIMIT SIGN FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC JUST NORTH OF LITTLEFIELD. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: HARBOR WAY Limits: LITTLEFIELD AVENUE to MITCHELL AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/oea cum.% 40 x XXXXXX)< IIIII I IIIIIIIIII 8 7.1%100% x XX IIIII 3 2.7% 92.9% xXXX IIIII II 7 0.2% 84.1% 35 XXXXXXX × x' IIIII I I 12 10.6%1 77.9% ~<XXXX I I II I I II 7 6.2%67.3% *X:XX IIIII II 4 3.5%61.1o/,, XX )< ×)<×X IIIII II 7 6.2%157.5% X ×X >()< X)< xXXXXXXXXX]X] III I I I I I I 2017.7% 42.5% XXX ×× ×× ×)< IIIII II 9 0.0%22.1o/0 ~X×>( ,1111 I I 4 3.5% 14.2% XX IIIII 3 2.7% 10.6% 25XXXXXX I llll I I J 6 5.3% 8.0%  IIIit 1 0.9% 2.7% X I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 1.8% 1.8% '"" '"Ill ,o ,,,,, Itlll Illll IIIII Total Samples 113 Date of Survey: 3/15/2005 Start Time: 11:00 85th Percentile Speed: 36,3 Weather: clear End Time: 12:00 50th Percentile Speed: 30,9 15th Percentile Speed: 27,1 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3_.~0 10 M PH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Collector/Minor Art Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 8~3 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 73,5% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: HARBOR WAY EAST GRAND AVENUE MITCHELLAVENUE Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/19/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 35.8 28 - 37 72.1% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 0 0 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment 'Eane Configuration Street Classifaction 536O 1960 Single Lane Each Direction With Shared Left Turn Lanes on Portion Minor Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Railroad crossing with gates on segment. Fire Station on segment. High pedestrian traffic. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? Yes Revised Speed Limit 30 Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: HARBOR WAY Limits: EAST GRAND AVENUE to MITCHELL AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet ×=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% II I IIIlllll 1 0.9% 100% × II ××IX IIIIIIIII 3 2.7% 97.3% × Illlltllr, i i 54.5%94.6% ×~×X I I I I I I I 5 4.$% 90.~% XXXX I I I I 4 3.6% XXXXX~XXX III o 7.2% ~0.~% XXXXX)<XXX[XX IIIII ~ 9.9% 53.2% xXXXXX× ×XXX IIIitll 10 9.0%:43.2% 30 XXXX× ×XXXXX IIIIIIIII ~2 10.8~34.2% xXXXXX× I lllllll 6 5.4% 23.4% XXXX I I I I 4 3.6% a5.3% 25 XX~XXX Illlll Illlllllll 6 5.4% 11.7%' × I I I I I I I I a 0.9% 4.5% 20 × X I I I II Ill 2 1.8,.4, 3.6% IIIIII 15× I I I I I a 0.9% 0.9% IIIIII "'"'"Il '"'llll Total Samples 1111 Date of Survey:. 3/19/2005 Start Time: 13:40 85th Percentile Speed: 35.8 Weather: clear End Time: 14:40. 50th Percentile Speed: 30.7 15th Percentile Speed: 25.9 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 2..~5 10 MPH Pace: 28- 37 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 8.__.~0 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 72.1% Apparent: Street: Limits: HICKEY BOULEVARD EL CAMINO REAL CITY LIMITS Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: East/West Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/9/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 45.3 33 - 42 63.8% 4O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 38 3.777 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street'Classifaction 25060 2900 2 Lanes wEh Left Turn Channelization Minor A~erial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Steep Grade Comments High pedestrian volume near El Camino Real and at pathway at Camaritas Avenue. Gas station at El Camino Real has high volume of vehicles exiting and entering. E. Adjacent Land Use Residential and Commercial Posted Speed Limit 40 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: HICKEY BOULEVARD Limits: EL CAMINO REAL to CITY LIMITS Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 50 XEX~XXX[ I I [/ 5 4.8% 99.00/o / XkXX 4 3.8% 94.3% X~× lllll3 2.9% 90.5% X[XXX I I I 4 3.8% 87.6% 451XX×X >4 5 4.8% 83.8% 1 1.0% 79.0% XX×XX××××)< I t I I I10 9.5% 77.1% 40 I xXXX XXIIIII 6 5.7% 62.9% x~XXXIIIII 5 4.8% 51.4% x:x:×xX×X I I II I 7 6.7% 4~.7%i x:x:×xzx KX 111118 7.6°/0 40.0°/, 35IX~X×XX×KXXX 1111110 9.5% 32.4% X)"()< XXXIIIII 6 5.7% 19.0% XX× XX 111115 4.8% 13.3% X rX× 111113 2.9% 8.8% 30XX I I I I 12 1.9% 5.7% xX II 1112 1.9% 3.8% I IIII X I I II I 1 1.0% 1.0% 25 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII 10 lotal Samoles Date of Surve~ ~J~/~00$ Star~ Time: 11:30 85th Percentile Speed: 45.3 Weather: clear End Time: 12:30 $0th Percentile Speed: 3'I.7 15th Percentile Speed: 32.3 Road Condition: ,qood Posted Speed: 40 10 MPH Pace: 33- 42 Street Class.: Mlnor A~erlal Obse~er: BOWER Number in Pace: 6._Z Conditions not Percent in Pace: 63.8% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary HILLSIDE BOULEVARD/HILLSIDE BOULEVARD EXTENSION CHESTNUT AVENUE SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/24/2005 Factors Direction: East,qNest A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 40.9 34 - 43 86.8% 4O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 12 1.198 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 18004 4020 2Lanes Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments High pedestrian traffic. High truck ratio. A school and daycare center are located on segment. No sidewalks on either side for a portion of the segment. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 40 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: CA. . Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: HILLSIDE BOULEVARD/HILLSIDE BOULEVARD EXTENSION Limits: CHESTNUT AVENUE to SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea curn.% 50 X ~ 0.9%~7oo% X 1 0.9% 199.1% 45 XX X~( X 5 4.7% 98.1% XX,XX X~( XX 8 7.5% 93.4% XX~x~X X~( X 7 6.6% 85.8% 40 X×X× ×× ~(× ×X 70 9.4% 79.20/° X ×~( XX,,'~( ×X 10 9.4% 69.8% XXXX)~XXXXxz 10 9.4% 60.4% XXXXXXXX >()< XX× XX 15 14.2%$0.9% XXXXXXXXX~< XX× × 14 13.2%,38.8% 35 XXXXXXXX 8 7.5%' 23.8% XXX×X 6 4.7'/076.0% X×X× 4 3.6% 9.4% Xx 2 7.9% s.7% 30 X× 2 7.9% 3.8% X I 10.9% 1.9% X 1 0.9% 0.9% 25 20 15 10 5 Total Saraoles 106 Date of Survey:. 2/24/2005 Start Time: 13::27 85th Percentile Speed: 40.9 Weather: clear End Time: 14:27 50th Percentile Speed: 36.9 15th Percentile Speed: 33.8 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 40 10 M PH Pace: 34- 43 Street Class.: Malor Arterial Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 9.._~2 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 86.8% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary HILLSIDE BOULEVARD LINDEN AVENUE SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/24/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 31.8 24 - 33 84.0% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 3 1.526 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street,'Classifaction 4478 3170 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments High level of pedestrians due to Martin School and Hillside Park. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential and Commercial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: HILLSIDE BOULEVARD Limits: LINDEN AVENUE to SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 45 X 1 1.0% 100% 40 X I 1.0% 99.0% )~ I 1.0% ' 98.0% 35 X 1 1.0% 97.0% X~( 2 2.0% 96.0% X~ XXXXXX 8 8.0% 94.0%° X)<XX X 5 5.0% 86.0°/, XXXXX 5 5.0%, 81.0% 30 X~()~XXXX 7 7.0% 76.0% x~iXXXXXXXXX 11 11.o% 69.0% )~(XXXXXXXXX 11 11.0% 58.0% )~<XXXXXXXXX 11 11.0% 47.0% ×~<XXXX 6 6.0% 36.0% 25 ×~< XXXXXXX 9 9.0°,'0 30.0% X~<XXXXXXXXX 11 11.0% 21.0% X)< XX 4 4.0%,lO.O% X~( 2 2.0% 6.0% )~ I 1.o% 4.0% 20 I X~< 2 2.0% 3.0°1o X 1 1.0% 1.0% 15 10 5 0 Total Samoles 100 Date of Survey:. 2/24/2005 Start Time: 13:53 85th Percentile Speed: 31.8 Weather: clear End Time: 14:53 50th Percentile Speed: 27.3 15th Percentile Speed: 23.5 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 2._~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Collector Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 8._~4 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 84.0% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: HUNTINGTON AVENUE NOOR AVENUE SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/16/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 41.4 31 - 40 66.7% 4O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 6 3.404 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street.Classifaction 8632 1475 2Lanes Each Direction WEh Shared Left Turn Lanes Minor A~erial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High pedestrian traffic due to BART and movie theatre. San Bruno City Limits are posted at 35 MPH. E. Adjacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 40 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: zO. ' CA .. Date L°c. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: HUNTINGTON AVENUE Limits: NOOR AVENUE to SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% SOX× ''''''''' I,,lJ2 2.1%i ~06% IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII  IIIIIIIIII 1.0%: 97.9% I I I IIII III 4 4.2%96.9% 45X× I I I IIIIIII 2 2.1%92.7% XXX I IIIIIIIII 3 3.1%90.6Olo ××XX I I I IIII III 4 4.2%. 87.5% × I I I IIII III i 1.0%83.3% 40×)<XXXXXXXXXXX× I I I IIIIIII 1414.8% 62.3% ×)<×X××X It11111111 7 7.3%67.7% ×)<×)<'×x'X:×:x I I I t111 I II 9 9.4%60.4% ××× IIIIIIIIII 3 3.1%51.0% 35×××X ×× ×× ×X;x I I I I I I I I I I 1~11.5~ 41.7% ×××× × I I IIIII III 5 5.2%30.2% X× ×× I I I IIII I I I 4 4.2%'25.0% X× X X I I IIII1 III 4 4.2%20.8% 30 ×iX× XXXXX)< I 10 10.4% 15.6% X×X II,llll,l, Il ; 3.1%5.2% × IIIIIIIIII 1.0% 2.1% IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII 25X I I I II III I I I/ 1.o% 1.o% '- 5 Total Samoles Date of Survey: 3/16/2005 Start Time: 9:00 85th Percentile Speed: 41.4 50th Percentile Speed: 36.7 Weather: clear End Time: 10:00 15th Percentile Speed: 29.9 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 4._~0 10 MPH Pace: 31- 40 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 6~4 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 66.7% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD AVALON DRIVE WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/1/2005 A. Prevailin.q Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 50.6 42 - 51 69.9% 45 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 18 1.915 2.1 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street ~Classifaction 22115 3070 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median lsland Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments Striped bike lanes on each side of segment. No sidewalks on either side of roadway. High bicyclist traffic. E. Adiacent Land Use Highway 280/Residential Posted Speed Limit 45 Speed Limit Change? Yes Revised Speed Limit 50 Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD Limits: AVALON DRIVE to WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% III 4 3.5% 100%' 55×~ ×)< I I J 4 3.5% 96.5=/0 X J I 1 0.9°/0 92.9% X×~× I II I l il i 4 3.5% 92.0% 50XXXXX I I I I 5 4.4% 80.5=/0 XXXXXXXXx IIII 9 8.0% 76.1% xXXXXX× X× ×XX×X I I I I I I 13 11.5% 68.1% 45XXXXXXX IIIIII 7 6.2% 40.7% ×X× IIIIII 3 2.7% 34.5=/0 ~ ~XX'XXX IIIIIII 8 7.1% 31.9% xX ×)<×X IIIIIIII 7 6.2% 24.8% 40× × IIIIII I I I Ill l ii 3 2.7%: 7.1% × IIIIII I I I II Ill I I 0.9% 4.4% ×× I Il Illj,,,,,r,,,, I,Illllll 2 3.5% II 35X IllllllllllJlllllllI 30!X iiiiiiiiiiiil[llllj ,0.9%, 0.9%, /// 2o IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Total Samples 1:~ Date of Survey:. 3/1/2005 Start Time: 14:23 85th Percentile Speed: 50.6 50th Percentile Speed: 46.0 Weather: clear End Time: 15:23 15th Percentile Speed: 40.5 Road Condition: Rood Posted Speed: 4._.~5 10 MPH Pace: 42- 51 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 7._~9 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 69.9% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD KING DRIVE Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/1/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed,Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 51.9 40 - 49 57.1% 50 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 9 1.428 2.1 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 13585 3350 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments Trees limit sight distance and block merging traffic at Arroyo. Striped bike lanes on both sides of segment. No sidewalks on either side. High bicyclist traffic. E. AdiacentLand Use Residential (Back Yards) Posted Speed Limit 50 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD Limits: WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD to KING DRIVE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 60 XX:x~X]XXX~x~ 8 7.6% 100% 55 vX 2 1.9% 92.4% XX 2 1.9% 90.5% X~X 3 2.9% 88.6% X~x~( XXX 7 6.7°/. 85.7% X X X 3 2.9°/° 79.0% 50 X X)~ ~( X X 6 5.7°/0 76.2% X XXXXXXXXX 10 9.5% 70.5% XX 2 1.9% 61.0% XX~(~X XX~XXX XXX 12 11.4o,4 59.0% XXXXXXXX 8 7.6% 47.6% 45 XX× 3 2.9% 40.0% XXXX X~x~ 6 5.7% 37.1% XXX 3 2.9% 31.4% X X X X ,X 5 4.8% i 28.6% ~ X X ~XiX 5 4.8% 23.8% 40 XXXX:X)< 6 5.7% 19.0% XXXX 4 3.8% 13.3% XXXX 111114 3.8% 9.5% X X I I I I 12 1.9% 5.7% X XX 11Ill3 2.9% 3.8% X IIIII1 1.0% 1.0% IIIII Illlr Total $amoles l105 Date of Survey:. 3/1/2005 Start Time: 14:55 85th Percentile Speed: 51.9 Weather: clear End Time: 15:55 50th Percentile Speed: 46.2 15th Percentile Speed: 39.3 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 5._~0 10 MPH Pace: .40- 49 Street Class.: Major Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 6._~0 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 57.1% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD KING DRIVE HICKEY BOULEVARD Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer .SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/1/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 55.3 47 - 56 74.5% 5O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 12 1.469 2.1 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 13686 4310 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Slow merging traffic at Clay in both directions. No sidewalks on either side. High bicyclist traffic. Bike lanes on both sides. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 50 Speed Limit Change? ' No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD Limits: KING DRIVE to HICKEY BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 6O XXXXXX XX XXXXX]X~X~XX)~XX XXX 23 20.9% 100% 551XXXXX 5 4.5% 79.1% xXXXXX XX XX 10 9.1o/,, 74.5% XXXXX)< 6 5.5% 65.5% X'~XX 4 3.6% 60.0% X X~xXx ~ 6 5.5% 56.4% 50iXXXXX~(X~(XX 10 9.1% 50.9% X X X ~X~ 4 , 3.6% 41.8% X X)< ~:~ X ~( 6 5.5% 38.2% X XXXX~< )~( 8 7.3% 32.7% X XX~X~( 6 5.5% 25.5% 45 × × 2 1.8% 20.0% × ××XX)< 6 5.5% 18,.2% X X~()~X~X 6 5.5% 12.7% XXX 3 2.7% 7.3% XX)< 3 2.7% 4.5% 40 )< i o.9%, ~.8% )< 1 0.9% 0.9% 35 30 25 2O 15 Totol Samples 1 10 Date of Survey:. 3/1/2005 Start Time: 15:27 85th Percentile Speed: 55.3 Weather: clear End Time: .16:27 50th Percentile Speed: 49.9 15th Percentile Speed: 43.4 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 5_.~0 10 MPH Pace: 47- 56 Street Class.: Malor Arterial Observer: .SHAM Number in Pace: 8._~2 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 74.5%. Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: LINDEN AVENUE AIRPORT BOULEVARD RAILROAD AVENUE Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/8/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 26.1 18 - 27 87.6% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 60 11.843 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic 'Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 7688 4760 Single Lane Each Direction Minor Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Dense parking. High pedestrian traffic. E. Adiacent Land Use commercial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed LimitChange? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: LINDEN AVENUE Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD to RAILROAD AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% XX×X IIII 4 3.8% 97.1% X XXX× I I I I III 5 4.a% 89.5% XX~X× ×)<X I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 7'~0~~'8% I 25 XX)< ×× ×× XXX x I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 10.5%77.1% XX)<××× I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 5.7"/,,:57.1% X×× ××X× ×X'X ×X× x× III I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 14.3%51.4% XX× >(XXX,x:)< x,,'<X I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 11.4%37.1% ×>(XXXX× I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 8.e'/~ 16.2% ~x;xXXX IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 6 5.7% 7.6% × IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I 1.0% 1.9% × IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 1.0% 1.0% Total Samoles 1105 Date of Survey:. 3/8/2005 Start Time: 15:41 86th Percentile Speed: 26.1 Weather: clear End Time: 15:41 50th Percentile Speed: 21.9 15th Percentile Speed: 18.9 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 18- 27 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 9._.~2 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 87.6% Apparent: Street: Limits: LITTLEFIELD AVENUE EAST GRAND AVENUE UTAH AVENUE City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 3/1/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.1 22 - 31 61.0% 3O B. Collision Histo~ Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 4 2.29 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 6214 2030 Single Lane Each Direction Collector 'D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Dense parking. Poor roadway condition. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: LITi'LEFIELD AVENUE Limits: EAST GRAND AVENUE to UTAH AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet ×=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% I I I I I ' I I I I ' I I I I 1 0.8% 100%  I I Ill It il 1 0.8o/*!91.9o/*  I I I I I I I I 1 0.8% 86.6%o × X X I II IIIII II/ 4 3.3'/. 87.8% ×× IIIIIII 3 2.4%,82.1% XX:X:)~X IIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 4.1'/. 79.7°/, 30 XXXXXXX;XXXX II I III 11 8.9°/. 62.6% XXXX×Xx×XxX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 8.9% 53.7% XX×X×XX I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 7 5.7% 44.7% XXXX>( IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 4.1% 39.o%, 25XXXX.X)<XX I I I I I I I I I I I I I II . 8 6.5% 35.0% XXXX×)< x I I I I I I II I I I I I I I 7 5.7%28.5% X XX IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 2.4%22.8% XXXXX IIIIII 6 4.9%14.6% IIIIIIIIIII 20XX:,¢ I I I I II I I I I I I I I I 3 2.4% 8.'~% × X X I I I I IIII I II IIII III I I I I 3 2.4% 5.7% X × IIIIIII 2 1.6% 3.3% 15XX I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 1.6%,1.6% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 IllllllllllllllI '"'"'"111111 Ill'"'" Total Samples 123 Date of Survey:. 3/1/2005 Start Time: 10:30 85th Percentile Speed: 34.1 Weather: clear End Time: 11:30 50th Percentile Speed: 27.6 15th Percentile Speed: 21.1 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3_~0 10 MPH Pace: 22- 31 Street Class.: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 7..~5 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 61.0% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: LITTLEFIELD AVENUE UTAH AVENUE HARBOR WAY Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 26,2 17 - 26 74.2% 25 B, Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (AccJMVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 0 0 3.05 To 12J31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length .of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 2275 1690 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Poor roadway condition. Dense parking. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: LITTLEFIELD AVENUE Limits: UTAH AVENUE to HARBOR WAY Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/oea cum.% II 35 III Illlllllll II ,,,,,,,,,, 30×X IIII IIIII IIII I l il12 2.1%100% ××××X× I II I I IIII I I I I I I I I I 8 8.2% II ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,111 IIIIII ×× ×X× IIII II s 5.2%, 84.5% 25××X× I II I I I I I I I I I t I I III I I~ 4.~% 79.4% ××IX× ×XXX Il II II I I I I II I I I IIII I 8 8.2% 75.3% ,,,, I,,,,,,,,, ,,,l I,, ~XXXX~xx~ IIII II I III IIII I IIIII ~ ~.3%5~.s~ XXXX~XX I lll I IIll lll 111111'12 12.4%7'2%'~'5% 20XXXXXXXXXxXX I I I I I I I XXXXXX X I II I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I 7 7.2%~.9% XXXXXX XX I III II I II IIII I I III II 8 8.2%23.7% 15XXXXXX I I I I I I I I o s.2% I III III III III ~ ~.0%2.~% X I III II I IIIIII ~ ~.0%~.~ I III III IIt III I I IIIII '"' I I I I I I I I I I I Ill '"' '"'11 Total Samples 197 Date of Su~ey: 3~005 Sta~ Tim,: 10:30 85th Percentile Speed: 26.2 50th Percentile Speed: 20.9 Weather: clear End Time 11:30 15th Percentile Speed: 16.9 Road Condition: poor Posted SI eed: 2~ 10 MPH Pace: 17- 26 Street Class.: Collator Obse~er: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 7~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 74.2% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: MCLELLAN DRIVE EL CAMINO REAL HIBISCUS Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/15/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 32.3 21 - 30 75.2% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 0 0 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Eane Configuration Street Classifaction 1601 1210 Single Lane Each Direction Local D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve/Steep Eastbound Grade Comments High pedestrian traffic. Alta Loma Park is located nearby. RECOMMEND THAT A SPEED LIMIT SIGN BE INSTALLED IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION JUST NORTH OF HIBISCUS. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: MCLELLAN DRIVE Limits: EL CAMINO REAL to HIBISCUS Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.°/° × IIIII 1 0.8% 100% X XX X~' 5 4.1% 90.9% × ×× IIIII 3 2.5%' 86.8% X X I 2 1.7% 01.0% 30 X X× XX XXXXX XXXX× X x'X 3 2.5% 61.2% X >(X XX XXXXX × X ×× ~× ×Xx I I I I I I I I I I 8 6.6% 49.6% 25 × X× ~× ×XXX×)<X ×XXX)< X)4 I I I I I I I I I I 19 15.7%43.0% x ~×X× ×X x× I I I I I I I I I I 9 7.4% 27.3% xXXX× ×× XX× I I I I I I I I I I 10 8.3% 19.8%o XN×X×~(× IIIIIIIIII 7 5.8% 11.6% ×X IIIIII1111 2 1.7% 5.8% 20,X:XXXX IIIIIIIIII 5 4.1% 4.1% IIIIIIIIII 10 0 Total Sam~)les '1211 Date of Survey: 3/15/2005 Start Time: 14:40 85th Percentile Speed: 32.3 Weather: clear End Time: 15:40 50th Percentile Speed: 26.0 15th Percentile Speed: 22.4 Road Condition: ,qood Posted Speed: 2._~5 10 MPH Pace: 21- 30 Street Class.: Local Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 9~1 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 75.2% Apparent: Street: MILLER AVENUE Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD CHESTNUT AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: EastJWest Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/24/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 29.9 23 - 32 88.4% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (AccIMVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 35 5.322 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length 'of Segment Lane Configuration Street ~Classifaction 7197 6600 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. ConditiOns Not Readily Apparent Conditions Safe Stopping Sight Distance Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments High volume of pedestrians due to All Souls School and church, proximity to downtown area, Orange Library, and City Hall. Dense parking. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential and Commercial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: MILLER AVENUE Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD to CHESTNUT AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=EastJWest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% X 1 1.1% 100% X t 1.1% 97.9% ×X 2 2.1% 96.8% ×× IIII 2 2.1% 94.7% 30 XXXXX ×× ×X XIIII 10 10.5% 86.3% XXX[X× X× X)< I t I I 9 9.5% 75.8% XXX~(XXXXXXX 11 11.6~ 56.8% XXXXXXXXXX~x~XX 13 13.7°& 45.3% XXX XX XX X s 8.4% 17.9% x:Xx IIII 3 3.2% 9.5% XXX[ I [ ] 3 3.2% 5.3% 20 X[X 2 2.1% 2.1% Date of Survey: 2/24/2005 Start Time: 14:30 85th Percentile Speed: 29.9 50th Percentile Speed: 26.4 Weather: clear End Time: 14:30 15th Percentile Speed: 23.7 Road Condition: flood Posted Speed: 2~5 10 MPH Pace: 23- 32 Street Class.: Collector Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 8_~4 Conditions not Safe Stopping Sight Distance Percent in Pace: 88.4% Apparent: Street: Limits: MISSION ROAD CHESTNUT AVENUE GRAND AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/16/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 36.9 28 - 37 80.4% 30 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (AccJMVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 3 1.147 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 9448 2000 2 Lanes Each Direction minor arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High pedestrian volume due to San Mateo County Court and offices. Also, many senior pedestrians due to senior housing at Chestnut. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential and Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: MISSION ROAD Limits: CHESTNUT AVENUE to GRAND AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 if %ea cum.% XXX~ III 4 3.9% 93.1%, X×X I I 3 2.9% 89.2% XXX× XXXXX XXX I I I I 12 11.8%86.3% 35~ ~ X XXX 7 ~ XXXXXXX I ~o 9.8% ~.4% X×X I lllllll 43.9% 9.8% ,,,,,,,,,/[[111t IIIIIIIII ~1.0% 3.9% 25~X I I I I I I I I 2 2.0% 2.9% I~11111 20~ IIIIIIIitl 1.0% 1.0% IIIIIIII 0 Total Samples 1 ~ Date of Su~e~ ~16~005 Sta~ Time: 13:21 85th Percentile Speed: 36.9 W~ther: clear End Time: 14:21 50th Percentile Speed: 32.7 15th Percentile Speed: 29.3 Road Condition: Rood Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 28- 37 Street Class.: minor a~erlal Obse~er: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 8~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 80.4% Apparent: Street: Limits: MISSION ROAD GRAND AVENUE CITY LIMITS City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/9/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.9 25 - 34 79.3% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 10 2.368 2.O5 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Av,~'rage Daily Traffic Len.'igth of Segment Earie Configuration Street Classifaction 897O 3400 Single Lane Each DirectionJ2-1Lanesin Each Direction MinorArterial D. COnditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments BART and El Camino High School are located between Evergreen Avenue and Lawndale. High pedestrian volume due to BART and the high school. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential and Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: MISSION ROAD Limits: GRAND AVENUE to CITY LIMITS Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% x I I Il IIIIII I~ I 0.9% lOO% / ""'"'" II )<: × II IIIIIIII 2 1.7% 99.1% IIIIIIIIII ~;X I IIIIIIIII 2 1.7% 95.7% 7XXX IIIIIIIIII II 5 4.3% 89.7% 35XXXX I I I I I I I I I I 4 3.4% 85.3%, ××xxxxx~×~ ""'"'"l lllllilllll~° ~..% )<×X'XXXX I I I I I I I I I I 7 6.0%73.3% ××~×x××××~× ,,,,,,,,,, ,,IJllll ×x~×~xx×~ ,,,,,,,,,, ,,. IIII 11 9.5% 67.2% 97.8% 57.8% ×× ×)<×××X II III IIIII III 9 7.8%33.6% ×XX XX XXXXXX× X I I I I I I I I I I III 13 :11.2%25.9% X×X I lllllllll III 3 2.6% 14.7%' )<XX)<××:x: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 76.0% 12.1% ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, ×XX I I I I I I I I I I I I III 32.6% 2.6% IIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIII ,,,,,,,,,, IIIIIIIIII IIIII "'"'"" Total Sampl,~ Il 1~ Date of Survey: 2/9/2005 Start Time: 10:30 85th Percentile Speed: 34.9 Weather: clear End Time: 11:30 50th Percentile Speed: 30.0 15th Percentile Speed: 27.0 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 30 10 MPH Pace: 25- 34 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 9~2 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 79.3% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary MITCHELL AVENUE HARBOR WAY SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on survey 36.4 27 - 36 63.5% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 0 0 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Avei;age Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 7320 1560 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. No sidewalk for a portion of the segment. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed LimitChange? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: MITCHELL AVENUE Limits: HARBOR WAY to SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum,%o IIIII X X 4 3.5% 98.3% 4O II 0.9% 92.2% ,X X~ X X I 4 3.5% 91.3%o ×X'x,x:~< IIIII 5 4.3% 87.8% 35 X× XX)< XXX X 9 7.8% 78.3% X× xX)< XXXX)< 10 8.7% 70.4%° XX XXX XX I 7 6.1% 61.7o/, ×× × IIII 3 2.6% 51,3% X.xxxxx xXXXX IIIII 12 10.4~30.4% 25 XXXX IIII 4 3.5% 18.3% 20X IIIII i 0.9% 0.9% "'" ""11111 IIIII Total Samples I115 Date of Survey:, 3/9/2005 Start Time: 9:50 85th Percentile Speed: 36,4 Weather: clear End Time: 10:50 50th Percentile Speed: 30.5 15th Percentile Speed: 24.1 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 30 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class,: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 7:3 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 63.5% Apparent: Street: Limits: NOOR AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL HUNTINGTON AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/2/2005 Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 37.0 27 - 36 67.O% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 0 0 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 4686 1120 Single Lane Each Direction with Shared Left Turn Lane Local 'D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High pedestrian traffic. Poor roadway condition. High activity driveways and loading docks. E. Adjacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: NOOR AVENUE Limits: EL CAMiNO REAL to HUNTINGTON AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% ~( X 2 1.8% 100% 40 ~(XXX)~x~X 7 6.3% 98.2% XXXi 3 2.7% 92.0% ~(XXX~x~ I 5 4.5% 89.3% ~(XXXI 4 3.6% 84.8% XXXX~X~( 6 5.4% 81.3% 35 × X××)K)< XX ×)<XXX×)< ×X×X 19 17.0% 75.9% X ×X×XX XX XX XX 12 !m.7o/~ 62.7%o X ×XXX s 4.6% 42.0%: 30 × ××X××××X×~)~ ×X 14 12.5%37.5% × × I I I II 2 1.8% 25.0% × ×XXX $ 4.6% 14.3% 25 ××XXX× 6 s.4% 9.8% × II 1 0.9°/0 4.5% 1 0.9% 3.6% 0 Total Samnles 1 12 Date of Survey:. 3/2/2005 Start Time: 9:15 85th Percentile Speed: 37.0 50th Percentile Speed: 32.5 Weather: clear End Time: 10:15 15th Percentile Speed: 26.2 Road Condition: Poor Posted Speed: 3...~0 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Local Observer: BOWER. Number in Pace: 7.._~5 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 67.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: NORTH CANAL STREET SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/7/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 29.6 21 - 30 77.1% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 1 2.215 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment. Lane Configuration 'Street Classifaction 1863 1750 Single Lane-ONEWAY Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Roadway is currently under construction and temporarily one way. Future site of new Fire Dept will be located on segment at South Spruce. EVALUATE SEGMENT UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. USE CURRENT POSTIiNG UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: NORTH CANAL STREET Limits: SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE to SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=EastJWest 5 10 15. 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% × IIII 1 1.4% x J I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I II 1'4%98'6°/° 35XX× IIIII I 3 4.3% 97.1% x IIII 1 1.4% 92.9% I I I 1.4% 91.4% X× I 2 2.9% 90.0% 301X~x× III 5.7% × 4 81.4% ×~XXX I I I I 5 7.~% 75.7% ×)<××XXX x~ IIIII o 11.4% 57.1% 25 ×)<× IIII 3 4.3% 45.7% ×)<×)< ×××)< I I I ' e 11.4% 41.4% ×)<>4 IIII 3 4.3% 30.0% 2oX× I II 11111111 2 2.9% 10.0% X× IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2 2.9% 7.1% × ,,,,,,,,,,,,,llllllll, '"'"" 15X II IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Total Samples 170 Date of Sunte¥: 3/'//2005 Start lime: 13:$3 85th Percentile Speed: 20.$ 50th Percentile Speed: 25.4 Weather: clear End Time: 14:53 15th Percentile Speed: 20.9 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 30 10 MPH Pace: 21- 30 Street Class.: Collector Obsenter: SH~ ~umber in ~aee: 5~ ~ondition, not ~r~nt in ~a~: ~.~ % ~ppamnt: Street: Limits: NORTH CANAL STREET SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE WEST ORANGE AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer SHAM Checked By: .'FAS Date: 3/7/2005 Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 38.3 27 - 36 68.0% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 1 1.749 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Ave'.rag~ Daily Traffic Eengtli of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 1735 2380 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Roadway has many dips. Comments SSF Corp Yard is located on the segment. High pedestrian traffic due to nearby Orange Memorial Park. High truck ratio. High volume of slow, stopping, entering/exiting driveway traffic. Many t- intersections. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Residential Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: NORTH CANAL STREET Limits: SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE to WEST ORANGE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% XX IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 112 2.7°/° 100% 1111111111111 IIII// IIII I I IIIII IIIIIIIII//1/// 50 IIII I IIIII IIII11111111/1// IIIIIIII IIIIIIII × IIIIIII 1 1.3o/0:93.3% 40XX 2.7% 90.7% XXX 4.0% 88.0% ~, 1.3% 80.0% X X X 5.3% 78.7% 35××X' IIII I I I I I I I I I II / //////t 3 4.0% 73.3% X×)<XXXX II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / ///////7 9.3°/.69.3% X~(XX II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / / 11111114 5.3% 60.0% x~(XXXXXX II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / 11111118 lO.7%54.7% x~(x×x'x l Ill I I II III t II I I I I //l/////8 8.0% ,~.O%o 30 XX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / ///////2~ 2.7% 36.0%o X×X×× X)< XXX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ////////~0 13.3% 33.3% X×X×× IIII IIIIIIIIII ////////$ 8.7%20.0% Xx~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1//2 2.7°/0 13.3% ×)~x 11111111111111111111111113 4.0%'10.7% X 111111111111111111111111111 1.3% 6.7% 25~: IIIII IIIIIIIIII II /11/I 111 1.3°/0 5.3% × IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111 1.3%4.0% X 111111111111111111111111111 1.3% 2.7% 20X 111111111111111111111111111 ~.3% 1.3% IIIIIIII IIIIIIII /////// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII //// III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1|/// IIIIII11111111111111 //// 15 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII//// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII / IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I II / IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/ 1111111111111111111 10 ' 111111111111175 Total Samples Date of Survey:. 3/7/2005 Start Time: 14:40 85th Percentile Speed: 38.3 50th Percentile Speed: 31.6 Weather: clear End Time: 15:40 15th Percentile Speed: 27.3 Road Condition: Rood Posted Speed: 31) 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 5._~1 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 68.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summar~ OLYMPIC DRIVE WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD SHANNON DRIVE Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/1/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 35.3 27 - 36 76.2% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 1 1.344 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors :Average Daily Traffic ;;l:ength of Segment ~Eane Configuration "i .Street Classifaction 3707 1450 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D.'Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments High pedestrian traffic. Dense parking. Many driveways. E. Adjacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: OLYMPIC DRIVE Limits: WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD to SHANNON DRIVE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% XX X 4.8% 92.4% XX X 3.8% 87.6% X XX II I I I I I I I I I II I I I I ! / ! !/3 2.90/° 68.6°/, X'XX I I I I I IIII l/Il/lo 9.5% ~.7% XxX II I I I I I I I I I ///9 8.6% 56.2% 3O I I I I IIIIII I I ///12 11.4%47.6% ××XX~ I I I I I I I I I I I I IllJlJlJll I ///12 11.4%~.2% I lllll 8 5.7% 17.1% 25 X >(× × I llll 3.8% 8.60/,, X X IIIIIIIIIIII I I I Ill Ill 2 1.9% 4.8% X IIII11111111 IIIIIIIIII 11.0%2.9% × IIIIIIIIIII ' IIIIIIIIIIIII I I I Ill Ill I 1.0% 1.9% 20 X I I I I I II I II 1 1.0% 1.9% '"'""'"'""'"' IIIIllllllll IIIIIIIllllll /l/l/Ill IIIIIIIIIIII I 0 IIIIIIIII III I II I IIIIIIIlll///////| Total Samples 1105 Date of Survey:. 3/1/2005 Start Time: 13:40, 85th Percentile Speed: 35.3 50th Percentile Speed: 30.3 Weather: clear End Time: 14:40 15th Percentile Speed: 26.6 Road Condition: good Posted Speed: 2..~5 10 M PH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 80 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 76.2% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD GATEWAY BOULEVARD ECCLES AVENUE Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/10/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 43.5 33 - 42 64.4% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (AccJMVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 3 0.499 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length~of Segment Lane Configuration Street; ~lassifaction 20560 2110 2 Lanes Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments Bike lanes on both sides. High pedestrian traffic. High truck ratio. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted 'Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Limits: GATEWAY BOULEVARD to ECCLES AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=EastJWest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %oea cum.% 55 )~ 1 1.0% 100% XX 2 1.9%o 99.0% 50iXX 2 1.9O/o 97.1% X 1 1,0% 95.2% ×X)<~ 3 2.9% 94.2% X~ 2 1.9%:91.3% 45 X~X 3 2.9% 89.4% X X X 3 2.9%° 86.5'/0 XX)<X 4 3.8% 83.7%, XX)< XXX 6 5.8% 79.8% XXXXX 5 4.8% 74.0% ~X~)<XXXX 7 8.7%:69.2% 40AAX XXXX)< X 9 8.7% 62.5% XXX, XXXXX 8 7.7% 53.8% XXXXXXXXX 9 8.7% 46.2% XXX]XXXX 7 6.7% 37.5% 35 XX X XX 5 4.8% 30.8% xr'~xxxxx 7 6.7% 26.0% X XXX 4 3.8% 19.2% × ×XXX 5 4.8%° 15.4% X XX 3 2.9% 10.6% 30 X )~ 2 1.9% 7.7% X )~ 2 1.9% 5.8% )< 1 1.0% 3.8% X 1 1.0% 2.9% 25 )< 1 1.0% 1.9% )< 1 1.0% 1.0% 20 15 10 Total Samples 1 04 Date of Survey: 2/10/2005 Start Time: 14:53 85th Percentile Speed: 43.5 Weather: clear End Time: 15:53 50th Percentile Speed: 37.5 15th Percentile Speed: 31.9 Road Condition: ,qood Posted Speed: 3..~5 10 MPH Pace: 33- 42 Street Class,: Maior Arterial Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 6_.Z Conditions not Percent in Pace: 64.4% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD ECCLES AVENUE EAST END Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 2/23/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.5 26 - 35 81.8% 30 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 2 0.955 2.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment · Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 5943 2546 2/2-1/Single Lanes Each Direction Major A~erial/Minor A~erial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments Bike lanes on both sides. Mid-block crosswalks. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit App.roved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Limits: ECCLES AVENUE to EAST END Radar Survey Sheet ,X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.°/° 40 × . I i 0.9% 98.2% ×× I I II Ill / 2 1.8% 96.4% )~X)~( X x/X 7 6.4% 88.2% 35 ~× ~)< ×)< ××××X 11 ,10.0% 81.8% X /~ X )~X × 7 6.4% 71.80/o  XX× ×× ×× X)<'XX× ×X× I I I I I 16 14.5% 65.5% 30 ×XX×X× ×)<×)<XX× 13 11.8°/. 38.2% XXX×X× [ J 6 5.5% 26.4% Xxxxx III 5 4.5% 10.9% 25 X X I I I I I I I I t.8% 0.4% Total Sample~ 11 ¢ Date of Survey:. 2/23/2005 Start Time: 14:05 85th Percentile Speed: 34.5 Weather: clear End Time: 15:05 50th Percentile Speed: 30.9 15th Percentile Speed: 26.8 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3_.~0 10 MPH Pace: 26- 35 Street Class.: Ma~or Arterial/MIno Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 9__~0 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 81.8% Apparent: Street: Limits: PONDEROSA ROAD EL CAMINO REAL VALENCIA DRIVE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 Direction: EastJWest A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 36.5 27 - 36 81.6% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 2 2.092 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment 'Eane Configuration Street Classifacfion 2297 3006 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments St. Veronica's School/Church located on segment. No sidewalk and parking between Fairway and Alhambra. High pedestrian traffic. Dense parking. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: PONDEROSA ROAD Limits: EL CAMINO REAL to VALENCIA DRIVE Radar Survey Sheet X=EasthVest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.%o × IIIIIIIIII 1 1.0% 90.1% × t111111111 1 1.0% 97.1% 40××X× I IllillllJ 4 3.9% 96.1% X×x I IIIJlllII 3 2.9% 92.2% ×x'x IIIIIit111 3 2.9%89.3% X Xx IIIIIIIIII 3 2.9% 86.4% X)~XXXXXXX I lllllllll g 8.7% 83.5% 35 X)<XXXXXXtl II I I I I I I 8 7.8%74.8% X)<X×XXXXXXX I I I I I I I I I I1110.7o~ 67.0% X)< XXXXXXXXX XXX x I I I I I I I I I I 1514.6%156.3% X×X IIIIIIIIII 5 4.9%41.7% X)<XX]XXX)<X I I I I I I I I I I 9 8.7%36.9% 30 X)<X~X;X;]X)< XX I I I I I I I I I I 10 9.7%28.2% X)<x)<XX~X I I I I I I I I I I7 6.8%18.4% x)<×)<×)< × I I I I I I I I I I 7 6.8%11.7% x)<x IIIIII 3 4.9% 25X I IIIIIIlll I 1.0%1.9% X IIIIIIIIII 1 1.0%1.0% IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII Tot{~l Samples 103 Date of Survey:. 3/9/2005 Start Time: 14:57 85th Percentile Speed: 36.5 Weather: clear End Time: 15:57 50th Percentile Speed: 32.6 15th Percentile Speed: 28.5 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 2..~5 10 MPH Pace: _27- 36 Street Class.: Collector Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 8~4 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 81.6% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: PRODUCE AVENUE SAN MATEO AVENUE TERMINAL COURT Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: ,TAS Date: 3/3/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 43.7 33 - 42 59.7% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 20 4.544 2.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic .. 'Length of Segment ":Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 23548 1350 2-1 Lane Each Direction Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Abrupt grade change. Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments High truck ratio. Slow speed traffic entering/exiting driveways and Terminal Court. Poor roadway condition. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: PRODUCE AVENUE Limits: SAN MATEO AVENUE to TERMINAL COURT Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% × I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I 1 0.8% 98.4% IIIIIIIIIIII 4 3. a% 96.1% IIII 45XXXX××>(× I I I I I I I I 40XX~XXXXX~ I I I II Ill I l llllllll o 4.~o ~.3% XXXXXX~XXX III I IIIllllllllllllll 10 7.8% ~.5% X ~X ~X XX ~XZ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 7.8% ~.7% XXXXXNX I llllllllll 7 5.4% 31.8% ,XXX~X~X~X IIIIIIIIIII ~ 7.0% 2s.4% xXX IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 3.1% 19.4% xXx I I I I I I I I II I I I I I II II I I I I I I 3 2.3~ ~6.3% 301x~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I II I I II 2 ~.s~ ~4.0%  2 1.6% 12.4% '"'"""'"' Ilillllll I 25X II X I I I I I I I I I I I ~ o.~% ~.4% 1 0.8% 4.7% X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 0.8% 1.6% Total Sample~ 12~ Date of Su~e~ 3~005 StaATime: 10:10 85th Percentile Speed: 43.7 50th Percentile Speed: 36.6 Weather: clear End Time: 11:10 15th Percentile Speed: 30.5 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 33- 4~ Street Class.: Malor ~erlal Obse~er: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: ~ Conditions not Abrupt grade change. Percent in Pace: 59.7% Apparent: Street: Limits: RAILROAD AVENUE LINDEN AVENUE SPRUCE AVENUE City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer ,S. HAW Checked By: TAS Date: 2/9/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 38.5 27 - 36 70.4% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 8 4.967 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration ~Street Classifaction 6463 1800 Single Lane Each Direction Local D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve/Steep Eastbound Grade Comments High truck ratio. No shoulder or sidewalk on the south side. Many driveways. Dense parking on the north side. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential and Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: RAILROAD AVENUE Limits: LINDEN AVENUE to SPRUCE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/oea cum.°/0 X 1 0.9% 99.1°/,, ×× I till Iltll 2 1.9% 98.1% ×~× IIIII I I Ill 3 2.8% 96.30/0 ××× X×N× IIIII IllII 7 6.5% 93.5% 40 XX× X IIIII 4 3.7% 87.0% ××× III11 II 3 2.8%83.3% X××× IIIII III 4 3.7%80.6% ,x, xxxx 35XXXXXXX 9 8.3%63.9% XXXXXXX),"xx IIIII 10 9.3%55.6% XXXXXX×)< XX× x IIII 12 11.1%46.3% XXXXXx' I I I I I I I I I I 6 5.6% 35.2%, 30 XXXXX)<X I I Ill I I III 7 6.5% 29.6% XXXXX)<XXX J J J 9 8.3% 23.1% ~<~XX IIIII I IIIllll 4 3.7% 14.8% 25 X X III 2 1.9% 2.8% X IIIII 1 0.9% IIIII IIIll Total Samples 108 Date of Survey:. 2/9/2005 Start Time: 15:27 85th Percentile Speed: 38.5 Weather: clear End Time: 16:27 50th Percentile Speed: 32.4 15th Percentile Speed: 28.0 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 3...~0 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Local Observer: SHAW Number in Pace: 7._~6 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 70.4% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: RAILROAD AVENUE SPRUCE AVENUE ORANGE AVENUE Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/22/2005 Factors Direction: East/~Vest A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 35.3 27 - 36 80.2% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (AccJMVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 12 9.122 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. TrafficFactors Avbrage Daily Traffic Length'~:°f Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 4482 2120 Single Lane Each Direction Local D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High number of mid-block left turns at Basque Cultural Center. Posted speed limit recently reduced from 30 MPH to 25 MPH due to new single family houses. Nearby Orange Memorial Park generates high pedestrian volume. High truck ratio. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential and Light Industrial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: RAILROAD AVENUE Limits: SPRUCE AVENUE to ORANGE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=EastJWest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.°/° 451 X 1 0.9% lOO% 40 × ~ 2 1.9% 99.1% × )~ 2 1.9% 97.2% ~)~ 3 2.8'/0 95.3% ~( X 2 1.9% 92.5% ~XXXXXXX 8 7.5%!90.6%o 35 X~× X X X 5 4.7% 83.0% XXXXX 6 5.7% 78.3% XXXXXXXX×)~X 12 11,3% 72.6% ×~XXX 6 5.7% 61.3% XXXXXXXXX 9 8.5% 55.7% 30 XXXXXXXX~× ××X ×X 15 14.2% 47.2% XXX'~XXX~x~X XX× X 14 13.2% 33.0% ×"~× XXX 7 6.6% 19.8%o × )~ 3 2.8% 13.2% ~× ×× 4 ~3.8% 10.4% 25 ~;x X× 4 3.8% 6.6% )~( 2 1.9% 2.8% )~ I 0.9% 0,9% 2O 15 10 5 Total Samoles 10~ 0 Date of Survey 2/22/2005 Start Time: 10:00 85th Percentile Speed: 35.3 Weather: clear End Time: 11:00 50th Percentile Speed: 30.3 15th Percentile Speed: 27.3, Road Condition: flood Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Local Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 8._~5 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 80.2% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: SAN MATEO AVENUE AIRPORT BOULEVARD SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/17/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 35.2 27 - 36 77.7% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 19 3.464 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration · Street Classifaction 12227 3240 Single Lane Each Direction Minor Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Abrupt grade change Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Poor roadway condition. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SAN MATEO AVENUE Limits: AIRPORT BOULEVARD to SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 45 40X×XXX 5 4.9% 100% XXXX 4 3.9% 95.1%  X[XXXXXX 8 7.8% 91.3% 35 X[X L 3 2.9% 83.5% Xr,,XXXXXXXXXX 14 13.6%80.6% X ~XXXXXXX~(XX~x[XX.XXX 19 18.4%67.0% )~X )~X 4 3.90/0' 48.5% )~Xx~XXXXX 8 7.8% 44.7% 30 ~XXXXXXXXX~X~X~(~'~ 15 14.6% 36.9% XXXXX 5 4.9% 22.3% ~× ~X 4 3.9% 17.5% ~)<× 3 2.9% 13.8% 25 X~<~XX s 4.~o 10.7% ~(~( 2 1,9% 5.8% ~ 3 2.9% 3.9% ~ I 1.0% 1.0% 20 15~ 10, 5 0 Totel Samoles 103 Date of Su~e~ ~17~005 Sta~Time: 10:30 85th Percentile Speed: 35.2 Weather: clear End Time: 11:30 50th Percentile Speed: 32.1 15th Percentile Speed: 26.4 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Minor ~erial Obse~er: BOWER Number in Pace: 8~ Conditions not Abrupt grade change Percent in Pace: ~.7% Apparent: Street: Limits: SHAW ROAD SAN MATEO AVENUE CITY LIMIT Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Direction: North/South Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 3/3/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 35.4 27 - 36 55.5% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 5 2.959 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 3538 3450 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Dense parking both sides. Cars park up on sidewalks, causing pedestrians to enter roadway. Poor roadway condition. E. Adjacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change?. No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for releas~ by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SHAW ROAD Limits: SAN MATEO AVENUE to CITY LIMIT Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% IIIIIIIIII '"""111 40XXX IIII 3 2.'7%97.3% XX~ 3 2.7% 94.5%, X XX)<X~ IIIIIIIIII 6 5.5% 88.2% 35 X XX× ×)< x I I I I I I I I I I 7 6.4%82.7% X XX× X)< x I I I I I I I I I I 7 6.4%76.4% XXXX ×)< 6 5.5%70.0% Xxx× x)< Xxxx I I I II II Itl 4 3.6%59.~,,/,, 30XXXX X)<XXXXXX)< I I I I I I I I I I 1311.8% 55.5°/,, XXXX,X I I I I I I I I I I 5 4.5% 43.8% XXX IIIIIIIIII 3 2.7% 39.1% Xxxx 4 3.6% 36.4% XXXXX 25XXXXXXX IIIIIIIIII 7 6.4% 28.2°/. )"'XX IIIIIIIIII 3 2.7% 21.8% )<XX IIIIIIIIII 3 2.7% 19.1% )< ×Xx IIIIIII111 4 3.6%16.4o/o )<× IIIIIIIIII 2 1.8%12.7% 20)<×)<XXXX I I I I I t I I II 7 6.4%10.9% )<× I lllllllll 2 1.8%4.5% )< IIIIIIIIII I 0.9%2.7% 15)< IIIIIIIIII 1 0.9°4, 0.9% IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIII Total Samoles 110 Date of Survey:. 3/3/2005 Start Time: 9:10 85th Percentile Speed: 35.4 Weather: clear End Time: 10:10 50th Percentile Speed: 29.5 15th Percentile Speed: 21.6 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 30 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 6~1 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 55.5% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Limits: HILLSIDE BOULEVARD AIRPORT BOULEVARD Factors Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 3/3/2005 Direction: Easb~/est A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 45.8 33.- 42 60.3% 40 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 1.147 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length'~'of Segment Lane Configuration Street:,Classifaction 14105 4910 2 Lane with Raised Median Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments Striped bike lanes on both sides of segment. High truck ratio. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 40 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Limits: HILLSIDE BOULEVARD to AIRPORT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=EastJWest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum. To 55 ~( 1 0.9% 100% ")~XX)x~ 4 3.4% 99.1% 50 XX 2 1.7% 95.7% XX 2 1.7% 94.0% X~X~X~ 4 3.4% 92.2% X~X'X 3 2.6% 88.8% X)'(XXX~( 8 6.9% 86.2% 451xXX),<:X 5 4.3% 79.3% XXX)(XX 6 5.2% 75.0% XXX)<:~XX 6 5.2% 69.8% X),(X~x;:X 5 4.3% 64.7% X~XX[X 4 3.4% 60.3% 40 X%Xb(×X×X~ 9 7.8%' 56.9% X XX XXX:X~X[X 9 7.8% 49.1% XXXXXX)x~ 7 6.0% 41.4% X XX XXXX)< 8 6.9% 35.3% X X~X XXXXX X 9 7.8% 28.4% 35,X >(X ×XXX 7 6.0% 20.7% X X 2 1.7% 14.7% X XX x:XXXX/N~X 10 8.6% 12.9%' X 1 0.9% 4.3% XXX 3 2.6% 3.4% 30 X 1 0.9% 0.9% 25 2O 15 10 Total Samoles 116 Date of Survey: 3/3/2005 Start Time: 10:10 85th Percentile Speed: 45.8 Weather: clea[ End Time: 11:10 50th Percentile Speed: 39,1 15th Percentile Speed: 34.1 Road Condition: qood Posted Speed: 40 10 MPH Pace: 33- 42 Street Class,: Malor Arterial Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 70 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 60.3% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD UTAH AVENUE CITY LIMITS Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 2/23/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 41.9 34 - 43 85.0% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 10 0.978 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Eength of Segment Lane COnfiguration Street Classifaction 18945 3900 2 Lanes Each Direction With Shared Left Turn Lanes/Raised Medians Major A~erial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High truck ratio. High pedestrian traffic. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Limits: UTAH AVENUE to CITY LIMITS Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum. XXXXXX IIIII IIIIIIIIII 7 6.2%,97.3% X XX x'x I IIIIIIIIIIIlllll 6 5.3% 91.2% XX'X)< IIIIII i 5 4.4% 78.8% )<X;xX)<Xx' IIIIIIIIIIIIit1111 7 6.2% 74.3% X X× ××X:X XXX X)<×× x×X~ I I I I ~6 ~s.9%o 6'L'~% X XX.x:xX× ×XX X××x X×X] I I I I I I I I I I I 17 15.0°/~ 40.7%, 35XKXXXX× ××X×XX]X~ I I Ill J JillII I I I Ill 15 13.3°~ 25.7%' X×XXXXX IIIII IIIIIIIIIIII 7 6.2% IIIIIIIII X I II III I II 1 0.9% 3.5% 30IX)< I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I 2 ~.8% 2.7% × Il I I II Ill t 0.9=/0 0.9% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '"" 111111111} t Total Samples 113 Date of Survey: 2/23/2005 Start Time: 9:10 85th Percentile Speed: 41.9 50th Percentile Speed: 37.3 Weather: clear End Time: 10:10 15th Percentile Speed: 34.2 Road Condition: ,qood Posted Speed: 3...~5 10 MPH Pace: 34- 43 Street Class.: Maior Arterial Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 9._~6 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 85.0% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Factors Direction: North/South UTAH AVENUE AIRPORT BOULEVARD Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/17/2005 A. Prevailin.q Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 39.7 31 - 40 72.7% 30 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 1.595 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic. Factors Average Daily Traffic L~.ngth~0f Segment La'ne C~nfiguration Street Classifaction 21374 2330 2 Lanes Each Direction With Median Islands Major Arterial D. COnditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High truck ratio. High pedestrian traffic. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Limits: UTAH AVENUE to AIRPORT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% × IIIIII 1 0.90/° 99.1% IIIIII × I I I II Ill I 0.9% 93.6°/, IIIIIIII 1 0.9% 92.7% ×[XXXX ××XX×X×X I 13 '11.8%76.4% X×XXXXXXXXXXXX I I I I I I I I I I 14 12.7% 64.5% X×X Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill 3 2.7% 51.8% xXX×X×× IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 7 6.4% 49."1% xXX~xX× X I I I II I I I IIII' 6 7.3% 33.6% xXx)< xX× X I II I I I I I I I I 8 7.3% 26.4% xXX)< I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. 3.5% 19.1% X IIIIII 3 2.7% 5.5% IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII11111 25 X)<× IIIIIIIIIIII III 3 2.7% 2.7% IIit111t1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Total Samoles 1 10 Date of Survey: 3/17/2005 Start Time: .14:45 85th Percentile Speed: 39,7 Weather: clear End Time: 15:45 50th Percentile Speed: 36.3 15th Percentile Speed: 29.9 Road Condition: good Posted Speed: 30 10 MPH Pace: 31- 40 Street Class,: Maior Arterial Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 80 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 72.7% Apparent: 'I Street: Limits: Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary SOUTH CANALSTREET SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SPRUCEAVENUE Direction: East/West Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 2/17/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.3 25 - 34 67.1% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 2 6.735 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street .Classifacfion 1205 1780 Single Lane - ONE WAY Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Roadway is currently under construction and temporarily one way only. High truck ratio. EVALUATE AFTER CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE. KEEP CURRENT POSTING UNTIL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE. E. Adjacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH CANAL STREET Limits: SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE to SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet. X=EastJWest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 40 II111 11111111 ××~ IIIII II I II I I I 134.1%98.6% ××~< IIIII 1111111113 4.1%94.5% 35××××~× IIIII II II I I I I I 6 6.2% ××× X)<× l I Ill II I I I I II 18 8.2% 82.2% × 1 1.4% 74.0% ××× ×)< × Il Ill I I I I I I I I 16 8.2%, 69.9% 30 ×X)<×)< X× IIIII I I I I I I I I I 7 9.6°/0' 61.8% XX× IIIII II I I1 I I I I 3 4.1%52.1% ×××××~× Illll Illllllll7 9.60/047.90/° ×X××× II II I $ 6.6%31.6% 25 XX× ××]X× I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 9.6%24.7% ×X× IIIII I lllll II 13 4.1%15.1% ×>( IIIII 1111111112 2.7%11.0% X>( III II 1111111112 2.7%8.2% × IIIII III II I I I I1 1.4% x I'1111 IIIIIII111 1.4%1.4% IIIII IIIIIIIII 15 11111 111111111 IIIII IIIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIII II111 IIIII II ,,,,, 0 11111 111111111 Total Samples 173 Date of Survey: 2/17/2005 Start Time: 14:55 85th Percentile Speed: 34.3 Weather: clear End Time: 15:55 50th Percentile Speed: 28.5 15th Percentile Speed: 24.0. Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 2.~5 10 MPH Pace: _25- 34 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 4_..~9 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 67.1% Apparent: Street: Limits: SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE SAN MATEO AVENUE VICTORY AVENUE City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 2/9/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 34.1 24 - 33 75.0% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (AccJMVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 18 5.92 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 9267 2370 Single Lane Each Direction Minor A~erial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments Railroad crossing near Dollar Avenue causes vehicles to back up along severe horizontal curve. High truck ratio. High volume of mid-block left turns. Dense on-street parking hinders sight distance. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE Limits: SAN MATEO AVENUE to VICTORY AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet, X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% × I I I il 1 1.o% JJlll X×X 3 3.1%98.~% 35×XXXXXXXX 111111111119 9.4%93.8% × II I IIIIIII1~ 1.0%84.4% ××XXX×X II 1111111117 7-3%83-3% ~XX x~ I II I I I I I I I I 4 4.2%76.0% ~X~× 111111111115 5.2%64.8% 30,,,,, ×~ ×X~XXX I I I I I I I I I I I 9 9.4%59.4% ~X~×)<×X~×XXXXX)<× I I I I III I I I 114 14.8~o~0.0%' X~ X~ ×X×X 111111111118 8.3%!35.4% X~ ×~× I I I I I I I t I I I $ 5.2%27.1% 25)<~X)<×××x'×)< I I I I I I I I I I I10 10.4~21.~ ~X~× 111111111113 3.1% 11.5% X)<X 111111111113 3.1% 8.3% X~ I I I I I I I II I 12 2.~% X~ × 111111111113 3.1% 3.1% IIIIIII Total Samples 196 Date of Survey:. 2/9/2005 Start Time: 14:01 85th Percentile Speed: 34.1 Weather: clear End Time: 14:33 50th Percentile Speed: 28.0 15th Percentile Speed: 24.3 Road Condition: Poor Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 7~2 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 75.0% Apparent: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Street: Limits: SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE VICTORY AVENUE RAILROAD AVENUE Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 2/9/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Emit mid-point on segment 32.6 24 - 33 78.4% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (AccJMVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 10 3.136 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors iAverage Daily Traffic 'Length of Segment ~'Lane Configuration · Street Ciassifaction 10812 2130 Single Lane Each Direction Minor Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Abrupt grade change between North and South Canal Streets over Colma Creek. Roadway Geometrics Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Dense parking. Railroad crossing at Railroad Avenue. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Umit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc.# City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE Limits: VICTORY AVENUE to RAILROAD AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea curn.% ×X IIII 2 2.1% 95.9% 35 X IIII 1 1.0% 193.8% XXXX III II I II IIII 4 4.1% 92,8%, ×XXX×XXXXX I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ! I I I I I 10 10.3% 88.7% ×XXXXX:X::X'X III I I IIIIIII 9 9.3% 78.4% X;XXX)<X II11111 IIIIIIIIII 6 6.2% 69.1% 30 )tX)<XX XXX XXX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ×X)<×)<XX I I I I I I I I I II I I t I ii I II I 7 7.2% 51.5% X ×× >4× I I I I I I I I I I 5 5.2% 27.8% 25 X ×× >(X[XX I II I I I I I I II II II II I I II I 7 7.2% 22.7% I 5 5.2% 15.5% X X >(X >( I IIlllllllllll 4.1%6.2% 1 1.0%2.1% '""""' Total Samples 97 Date of Survey: 2/9/2005 Start Time: 15:15 85th Percentile Speed: 32.6 Weather: clear End Time: 16:15 50th Percentile Speed: 28.8 15th Percentile Speed: 23.9 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 2.~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 7._~6 Conditions not Abrupt grade change between North and South Canal Percent in Pace: 78.4% Apparent: Streets over Colma Creek. Street: Limits: SOUTH MAPLE AVENUE SOUTH CANAL STREET TANFORAN AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/24/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 32.6 24 - 33 64.9% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 5 1.63 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic "Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 51 O6 4340 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Dense on-street parking. NEEDS SPEED LIMIT SIGNAGE IN SOUTHBOUND NEAR SOUTH CANAL STREET. E. Adiacent Land Use commercial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH MAPLE AVENUE Limits: SOUTH CANAL STREET to TANFORAN AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% x I lllllllllllllll 1 1.1% 100°/,, 40 × I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1.1%~98.9% x× IlllllllllllllI 22.1%97.9°/,, x I I IIIIItlllll 1 1.1% 95.7% 35 X × IIIII 3 3.2% 91.5'/o X~X I 3 3.2% 86.2% X X× >(×X X III IIII 7 7.4°/. 81.9O/o, 30 XXX >4×XX× I I I I I I 8 8.5% 74.5% XXX K× ×X I I I I I I I 7 7.4% 66.0% ×XX >(XXXX I I I I I I I I 8 8.5%158.5% XX~XXX×X l I I I IllI 7 7.4% 50.0% X:X:X IIIIII 5 5.3% 42.6% IIIIIIII I 1.1°/,=, 21.3% IIIII 2 2.1o/0 10.6% xX:x IIIII 2 2.1'/. 8.5% ×X Illllllllllllllllllll 3 3.2% 6.4% IIIIIII 15 ~× IIIII 1 1.1% 1.1% Total Samp~,~ 4 Date of Survey:. 2/24/2005 Start Time: 11:00 85th Percentile Speed: 32.6 Weather: clear End Time: 12:00 50th Percentile Speed: 27.0 15th Percentile Speed: 19.8 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 2~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Collector Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 6._.~1 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 64.9% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRIVE HILLSIDE BOULEVARD EXTENSION SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/16/2005 Factors Direction: EastJWest A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 54.6 41 - 50 48.6% B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 1 1.201 3.05 To 12/31/2004 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic i Length of Segment · Lane Configuration Street' Classifaction 1336 4500 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve Comments SSF Fire Station and Terrabay Recreation Center located on segment. High pedestrian traffic near Recreation Center. Posted eastbound near Fire Station at 20 MPH. RECOMMEND POSTING 25 MPH BETWEEN HILLSIDE BLYD EXT AND GREENPARK TERRACE. RECOMMEND POSTING 40 MPH BETWEEN GREEN PARK TERRACE AND SISTER CITIES BLVD. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential and Open Space Posted Speed Limit Speed Limit Change? Yes Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRIVE Limits: HILLSIDE BOULEVARD EXTENSION to SISTER CITIES BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=EastJWest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% XXXX I I 4 5.6% 87.5% 55 ××× II IIIIIIIII 3 4.2°/0 81.9% ×X I 2 2.8% 77.8°/00 J I I III I 2 2.8% 63.9% X)<XX Illlllll Illll 45.6%61.1%o ×~<× Iii IIIll IIIIJ 3'4.2%55.6% ×)<× I IIIIIIIIII IIII 3 4.2%51.4% × I I I I I I I I I I II I I I It I I I 1 1.4% 37.5% ~(××:x; I I II I I I III II II II 4 5.6% 36.1% IIIIIIIIII 40 ~(×:X× I I II I I I III II I 11 I I II I 4 5.6%26.4% ~× IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII 2 2.8%20.8% I IIII II III II III I I III 2 2.8%16.1% ~(× IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII 1 1.4% 15.3%  I IIIII 1 1.4% 13.9% IIIII 2 2.8% 12.5% X IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII 1 1.4%6.9% 30X IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII 1 1.4%1 5.6% 25X IIIIIIIIIII Total Samoles '72 Date of Survey: 3/16/2005 Start Time: 14:50 85th Percentile Speed: 54.6 5Otb Percentile Speed: 45.7 Weather: clear. End Time: 15:50 15th Percentile Speed: 36.8 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 10 MPH Pace: 41- 50 Street Class.: Collector Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 3_.~5 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 48.6% Apparent: Street: Limits: SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL VICTORY AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 3/312005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 37.1 29 - 38 84.5% 3O B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 11 1.26 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors A~erage Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 22935 2750 2 Lanes Each Direction With Shared Left Turn Lanes Minor Arterial D. COnditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Many busy driveways with slow traffic entering/exiting. Many driveways. High pedestrian traffic. High truck ratio. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of S_outh San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE Limits: EL CAMINO REAL to VICTORY AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 5O X I 1.0% 100% 45 X 1 1.0% 99.0O/o X )~X 3 2.9% 98.1% 40 × X~< × 4 3.9% 95.1% × ~,~ ~ )~~ × 6 5.8°/0 90.3% XXX XX XXXXXXX 12 11.7%, 74.8°/° 35,XX×; X×XXXX -9 8.7% 54.4% XXXXXXXXXXX I I I I[ 11 10.7% 45.6% XX×/~)< 5 4.9% 35.0% 30 X~X×X×XXXXXXX 12 ~.7~,o 20.,,% x X I I I I II I I I I 2 1.9% $.8% X IIII i 1.0%, 2.9% X 1 1.0% 1.0% IIII IIIII Illll Total Somples Il 03~ Date of Survey:. 3/3/2005 Start Time: .13:44 85th Percentile Speed: 37.1 Weather: clear End Time: .14:44 50th Percentile Speed: 33.5 15th Percentile Speed: 29.5 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 3_~0 10 MPH Pace: 29- 38 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 87 -- Conditions not Percent in Pace: 84.5% Apparent: Street: Limits: SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE VICTORY AVENUE RAILROAD AVENUE City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 3/3/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 37.6 27 - 36 70.0% 30 B. Collision History Date Range Covered 1/1/2003 Total Collisions 22 Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) 5.16 Expected Collision Rate 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic 14664 Lengtli'bf Segment 2100 Lane COnfiguration 2 Lanes Each Direction Street.Classifacfion Minor Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Abrupt grade change over Colma Creek. Roadway Geometrics Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE Limits: VICTORY AVENUE to RAILROAD AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 1.0% 100% ×× ×XX I lllllll s 5.0% 87.0% ××X IIIII II IIII 3 3.0% 82.0% >(XX I I I I I I I I I I 35XXX)< X 5 5.0% 76.0% XXXX×)<X),/X I I I I I I I I I I I I g 9.0% 63.0% XXXX X)< X)< XX]XIX]X] I I I I I I I 13 13.0% 54.0% X XXXX IIIIIIII IIIIII 5 5.0% 41.0% 30XXXXX× X× XX[X] I I I I I I I 1~ 11.0'Y, 36.0% )<× I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 2.0% 9.0% 25)<×)< II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111113,3.0% 7.0% )<×)< I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111113 3.0% 4.0% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I-IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII X I I I I I I I I I I i 1.o%: 1.o% Total Samr)les 100 Date of Survey: 3/3/2005 Start Time: 14:09. 85th Percentile Speed: 37.6 50th Percentile Speed: 31.7 Weather: clear End Time: 15:09 15th Percentile Speed: 27.3 Road Condition: ,qood Posted Speed: 30 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 70 Conditions not Abrupt grade change over Colma Creek. Percent in Pace: 70.0% Apparent: Street: SPRUCE AVENUE Limits: PARK WAY MAPLE AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 2/24/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 26.7 19 - 28 88.0% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 6 8.784 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 2667 1850 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve/Horizontal Curve Comments · Street is narrow with dense parking on both sides of the roadway. Roadway splits and separated by large vertical curve. Many school age pedestrians due to Martin School and Spruce School. Advisory speed is posted at 15 MPH prior to curves. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SPRUCE AVENUE Limits: PARK WAY to MAPLE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 4O X XX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / t//3 3.0% ee.0% 30)~XXX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I/  X I I I I I I I II I IIIII/I /|//2 2.o% ~.o% X)<X I I I I I I I I I I I II ////~ 4.OO/o ~0.o% ××~ II I I I IIIIIIIIIII |//|3 3.0% a~.o% 25 X XXX XXXX~ I I I II I II ~0,~0.0~ 7s.o% ~ I I I I II I I II ~s ~.o%~.0% XXXXXXX~ XX III l I Ill ~ 11.0% ~.0% X~X~X~X~XXX I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I J//////l~2 12.0~1s.0% 20X~X~ II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII ////////4 4.0~ s.o~ X~ I IIllllllllll I ////////2 2.0% 2.0% III I I. II 15 I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII /////// ,,,"'"'"'"111,,, II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII /////// IIIIII1 10 Illlllllllll II II II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII //// II IIit1111111111111 II//// 5 I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIll/ll / t11111111111 o I I III IIIIIIIIIIII I I//111 'JlOOTotal SamPle~ Date of Su~e~ ~005 Sta~ Time: 15:09 85th Percentile Speed: 26.7 50th Percentile Speed: 22.5 Weather: clear End Time: 16:0~ 15th Percentile Speed: 19.8 Road Condition: ~ood Posted Speed: 2~ 10 MPH Pace: 19- 28 Street Class.: Collator Obse~er: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 8~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 88.0% Apparent: I Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary SPRUCE AVENUE PARK WAY RAILROAD AVENUE Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer RIORDAN Checked By: TAS Date: 4/13/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 29.9 21 - 30 78.4% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 9 2.78 3.05 To 12/31/2004 2-Years ) C. Traffic: Factors Average Daily Traffic Length 'of Segment Lane 'COnfiguration Street Classifaction 10301 2270 Single Lane Each Direction Collector/Minor Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve/Horizontal Curve Comments Many driveways. High pedestrian traffic. Spruce School located on segment. Dense parking on both sides. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential and Commercial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: SPRUCE AVENUE Limits: PARK WAY to RAILROAD AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 4.51 lllllillllllllltl// II I~ I I I I I I III II I1~/// III I I Il i//l///~ 1.0% 100% ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i i I I I /!/ Il/2 2.0% 99.0% 351111111111111 II Il/il/Il MX[X] I IIIIIIIIIIIIIllJ/llllllllllllll //f/l/2 2.0%~97.~% ~ I III I I I I I I I I I I a 2.9% 7.8% ~.7% J 9 8.8%, ~.~ 25~ I II I I I III7 s.~% 47.~% 20~lllJllll 2.9% 0.9% 3~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2 2.0% 3.~% IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII II [111111111 I IIIIIIIIIIII/11111111 IIIl/ll//ll///l/I o I IIIIllllliiJIIIIIIIIlil/l/l///i/////////i I Total Sample~ I1~ Date of Su~e~ 4/13~005 S~ Time: 10:10 85th Percentile Speed: 29.9 5~h Percentile Speed: 25.3 Weather: clear End Time: 11:10 15th Percentile Speed: 21.6 Road Condition: ~ood Posted Speed: 2~ 10 MPH Pace: 21- 30 Street Class.: CollectodMinor ~ Obse~er: RIORDAN Number in Pace: 8~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 78.4% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary UTAH AVENUE HARBOR WAY SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By.' TAS Date: 3/1/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 38.3 27 - 36 59.3% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 4 1.569 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic. ~.ength'of Segment Lane Configuration ,Street Classifaction 11583 1590 2Lanes Each Direction Minor A~erial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Abrupt grade change over canal. Roadway Geometrics Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: UTAH AVENUE Limits: HARBOR WAY to SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # °/0ea cum?/. iiiiiii , 5°XIlll IIIIjJl o.8% ~OO%o ×× IIIIII 2 1.6%o 99.2°/0 ~ IIIIII 1 0.8%97.6% 45 × × II I II I 2 1.6%96.7% ×× I I Iii/ 2 1.5%95.~% x IIIIJ 1 0.8%93.5% x× IIIII 2 1.6%92.7% 40 XXX IIIII 3 2.4%91.1% x X X),<:× x::] I I I I 8 4.9%88.6% XXXXXX] IIII 8 4.9%83,7% ×XXXXX] I I I I I 8 4.9%78.9% 35 EX)< ×F"X)4X~:~::~C4~ I 12 9.8%68.3% X× ×)< X X] I I I I I I 8 4.9%58.5% XXX)< X::4XIX]X~ I I j 10 8.1%53,7% 30XXXXXX] I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIII 6 4.9%, 35.0% XXXXXX] I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIII 8 4.9%30.1% XXXXXX] I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIII 6 4.9%25.2% X'×XXXXIX] I llllllllllllllllll IIII 7 5.7%20.3% )< IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 1 0.8%14.6% 25××)<×X>4XI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JI IJlllll 75.7%13.8% X~<X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 3 2.4%5.'7'% XX IIIIlllllllllllllllll Illl 2 1.6. 3.3% XX Illllllllllllllll Illll 21.6%1.6% ,,,,,,,,,,,,,11 ,,,,,, Total Samples 123 Date of Survey: 3/1/2005 Start Time: 9:10 85th Percentile Speed: 38.3 50th Percentile Speed: 32,6 Weather: clear End Time: 10:10 15th Percentile Speed: 26,1 Road Condition: good Posted Speed: 3_~5 10 MPH Pace: 27- 36 Street Class.: Minor Arterial Observer: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 7_~3 Conditions not Abrupt grade change over canal. Percent in Pace: 59,3% Apparent: Street: Limits: UTAH AVENUE HARBOR WAY LITTLEFIELD AVENUE City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 3/1/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 38.6 29 - 38 69.8% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 5 2.751 4.95 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic I~ngth of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 8154 1610 2 Lanes Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Poor roadway condition. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Industrial Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: UTAH AVENUE Limits: HARBOR WAY to LITTLEFIELD AVENUF Radar Survey Sheet X=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 501X] II I lll I I 1 0.8°/0 100%: IXI IIIIIIII Il/It J l / 1 0.00'° 97.6% IX] IIIII / /I I I I I I II I I II I II I 1 0.80'° 95.2-'/0 IXIXI III II I tl / /llll I I I I II III II 2 1.6O/o 94.,~% I)'C<]XIXI I II I I I / /I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I 4 3.2°/0 92.9% 401XIXIX]XI I I I I / I / / // I I I I I I I I / / / I 4 3.2°'° 09.7% IXiXIXIXIXI I I I I //////111111 I///// 5 4.0% ~.5% ~ Illl I I ////111 I I I II I I///// 5 4.0%02.50'° ~X'X]X1 l/l/ I t t I I I I / / /// ~310.3% 70.6% [x~xl~xlx[;~× X:] I I I / / I I I I I I I 12 9.5%r~.3% 35~×Xl I /// II I I I I Ill ~2 9.5%'50.7o~, ~,~,~,~qx~x I I I I.// / I / I I ~1 0.7%49.2% tXiXiXIXIX~ IIII /I IIIIII III II 6 4.0%:4o.5% IX]XIX]X]X~ III III/ /111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII III 6 4.00'° ~.7% ~111 3 2.4% 4.0% ~111111 a 0.8% 1.6% IIIIllllll IIIIIIIIII a 0.8% 0.8% IIIII ~ I I Total Sample~ 126 Date of Su~e~ 3/1~005 S~ Time: 9:55 85th Percentile Speed: 38.6 5~h Percentile Speed: 34.1 W~ther: clear End Time: 10:55 15th Percentile Speed: 28.6 Road Condition: poor Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 29- 38 Street Class.: Collator Obse~er: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 8~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 69.8% Apparent: Street: Limits: VALVERDE DRIVE ALTA VISTA DRIVE AVALON DRIVE City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Factors Direction: North/South Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/16/2005 A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 36.8 28 - 37 78.7% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 1 2.368 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Avera~ Daily Traffic Length-of Segment Lane Configuration Street :Classifaction 29O5 1050 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Steep Southbound Grade Comments High pedestrian traffic. Many driveways. Dense parking. No speed limit signs are posted on the segment. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: VALVERDE DRIVE Limits: ALTA VISTA DRIVE to AVALON DRIVE Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% X IIIIIIII 1 1.3% 98.7% X)< IIIIIIII 2 2.7% 97.3°/° × l I Ill 1 1.3% 80.o% ××XXX I IIIIIIIlllllll 5 6.7% 86.7% X×XXXxX IIIIIIIIIIIIII 7 9.3% ! 80.0% 35XXXX)dXXXXXXX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 16.0%70.7% *XXx)<XIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII/ 6 8.0% 54.7% XX>,"X×X×XX 1] I lilllliilliil ~ 12.o°/,,2.OO/o 30XX)< X X I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 6.7% 20.0°/° X IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I 1.3% 8.0% X××X X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 56.7% 6.7% ,,, II/ 0 Total Samples Date of Survey: 3/16/2005 Start Time: 10:20. 85th Percentile Speed: 36.8 50th Percentile Speed: 33.4 Weather: clear End Time: 11:20 15th Percentile Speed: 28.3 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 28- 37 Street Class.: Collector Observer: BOWER Number in Pace: 5._~9 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 78.7% Apparent: Street: Limits: VICTORY AVENUE SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE Factors City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer SHAM Checked By: TAS Date: 2/17/2005 Direction: EastJWest A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 31.1 24 - 33 82.6% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 13 6.72 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Lengtl~-of Segment Lane Configuration Street. Classifaction 7763 1800 Single Lane Each Direction Collector D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments High truck ratio. Many driveways. Dense on-street parking both sides. Poor roadway condition. E. Adiacent Land Use Industrial and Commercial Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: VICTORY AVENUE Limits: SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE to SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE Radar Survey Sheet ×=East/West 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %oea cum. To 35 X X I 2 1.8% 98.2% × I IIIlllllllll 1 0.9% 96.3% XX I I 2 1.8% 84.4% xX× X× × I I I I I I 6 5.5%,70.6% XXXXX ×XX x"XXXXIXXX X I II I I I I 17 15.8'/, ~.1% 25,xXXXXX)< ×X ×X IIIII 11 10.1'%!22.9% x XX IIIIIIIIIIII IIII 32.8% 9.2% ,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,, ,.,, 20 XXX IIII ,,,,,,'"'ll'"lllI ,o.,, o.,, ,o IllllllllllllllI Total Saml;)les I109 Date of Survey:. 2/17/2005 Start Time: 13:40 85th Percentile Speed: 31.1 Weather: clear End Time: 14:40 50th Percentile SPeed: 27.0 15th Percentile Speed: 22.4 Road Condition: Poor Posted Speed: 2_~5 10 MPH Pace: 24- 33 Street Class.: Collector Observer: SHAM Number in Pace: 9._fi0 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 82.6% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD EL CAMINO REAL CAMARITAS AVENUE/WEST ORANGE AVENUE Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 37.1 29 - 38 70.3% 30 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (AccJMVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 13 4.751 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 28236 7OO 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Comments Many driveways. High pedestrian traffic. E. Adjacent Land Use Commercial Posted Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD Limits: EL CAMINO REAL to CAMARITAS AVENUEJWEST ORANGE AVENUF i Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 45 X IIIII ~.0% 98.0% X×~×)~××X]X] I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I 5.9% ~o.~% 8.9%84.2% x.x)~××××x] I I I I I I I I 7.9% 75.2% 351XX×~×X×x]X]XiXl I I I I x××~(X I I I I I I I I i 'm.9%67.3% 5.O% 56.4% X×X XX I I I I I I J 'm'~'~.9% ××× ,,,.,,,, I11111~.o~ "'"~ ~"'~ '~××××××~""" l lllll~''''' "ill ~ ,.~% ~°~×x ,,,,,,,I '""Ill,,,,,,,,,~ ~ ,.,,lllll,~,,,,,,,' ,,~, IIIl~ ~.o%~.~% × "" X)~X I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 3.o% 25××X×X I I I'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I $ s.o% ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ii ,,,,,,11 ~.o~ ,.,% × II I II I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIJl Illll II1~ ~.o% zo% "" "'iji[i Total Samples 101 Date of Survey:. 3/9/2005 Start Time: 13:03 85th Percentile Speed: 37.1 50th Percentile Speed: 32.9 Weather: clear End Time: 14:03 15th Percentile Speed: 25.1 Road Condition: .qood Posted Speed: 3..~0 10 MPH Pace: 29- 38 Street Class.: Major Arterial Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 7._! Conditions not Percent in Pace: 70.3% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CAMARITAS AVENUE JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/2/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 55.4 47 - 56 88.5% 45 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 19 1.075 2.1 To 12J31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Averag~ Daily Traffic Length"of Segment Lane (~onfigumtion Street- Classifaction 26268 4860 2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Major Arterial D. COnditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve/Steep Northbound Grade Comments High bicyclist traffic. No sidewalks on either side. E. Adiacent Land Use Open Space Posted Speed Limit 45 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD Limits: CAMARITAS AVENUE to JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% x X;x XTxxxxx ) I I I I I I I I I I I 10 8.8% 27.4% X× IIIIIIIIII I 2 1.8o,,,, ~6.6% Xx:×××X IIIIIIIIIIII 6 5.3%16.8% × ×× II I II I II 7 6.2%8.8% 4o, II Total Samples 11~ Date of Su~e~ 3~005 ~aA Time: 10:40 85th Percentile Speed: 55,4 50th Percentile Speed: 51.3 Weather: clear End Time: 11:40 15th Percentile Speed: 46.7 Road Condition: ~ood Posted Speed: ~ 10 M PH Pace: 47- 56 Street Class.: Maior ~erlal Obse~er: BOWER Number in Pace: 100 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 88.5% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD GELLERT BOULEVARD Field Observer LEDESMA Checked By: TAS Date: 3/9/2005 Factors Direction: East/West A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 39.0 28 - 37 67.3% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 38 4.021 2.4 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic I~ength of Segment iLane Configuration Street Classifaction 41873 1630 2/3 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Islands Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Steep Eastbound Grade Comments High volume of merging traffic after 280 southbound off ramp heading west. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Residential Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD Limits: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD to GELLERT BOULEVARD Radar Survey Sheet X=EastJWest 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% ;x I t I t I I I 1 1.o% 9e.o% 8 8.2% 92.9% × IIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 1.0% 80.6% 8 8.2% 79.6% 35 ! IIIIIIIII 8 6.1% 66.30/o XX ×XXXX IIIIIIIIIIIII 7 7.1% 51.0% 30 ×X >()< XXX 7 7.1% 31.6% XX XX I 4 4.1% 24,5% X X~× ×)<X ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 8.2% 20.4% .. ×x::x:×X II IIIIIIIIIIII 5 5.1% 12.2%' 1 1.0% 4.1% ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 1.0% 1.00/o IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Total Samples 198 Date of Survey: 3~9~2005 Start Time: 13:32 85th Percentile Speed: 39.0 50th Percentile Speed: 32.9 Weather: clear End Time: 14:32 15th Percentile Speed: 27.3 Road Condition: good Posted Speed: 3_~5 10 MPH Pace: 28- 37 Street Class.: Maior Aderlal Observer: LEDESMA Number in Pace: 6_..~6 Conditions not Percent in Pace: 67.3% Apparent: Street: Limits: City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD GELLERT BOULEVARD CITY LIMITS Field Observer BOWER Checked By: TAS Date: 3/2/2005 Factors Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 46.4 38 - 47 71.6% 35 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 29 1.777 3.35 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length- of Segment Lane-Configuration Street..Classifaction 25332 4654 3 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Major Arterial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Horizontal Curve/Vertical Curve/Steep North Bound Grade Comments School adjacent to segment. High pedestrian traffic. Merging traffic at Olympic Drive. E. Adiacent Land Use Commercial and Residential Posted Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD Limits: GELLERT BOULEVARD to CITY LIMITS Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.% 50 ~)<~XX 3.4% 100% X ~ X I 3.4% 94.8% XX )~ 10.3% 91.4% X X ~X 7.8% 81.0% 45 XX× × 18.~o,,, 73.3% X X×~ II I I I I I I I I I I/ 3.4% ~.2% ~X×~/ 6.0% s1.7% X XX 3.4% 4s.7% X X~' 13.8% 42.2% IllJll,,,,,,,,, i iiiiiIIIIlllll 1 0.9% 0.9% 30 " / ,,,,,'"""'llll"' lotal Samples Date of Su~e~ 3~005 Sta~ Time: 11:15 85th Percentile Speed: 46.4 50th Percentile Speed: 42.7 Weather: clear End Time: 12:15 15th Percentile Speed: 36.2 Road Condition: good Posted Speed: 3~ 10 MPH Pace: 38- 47 Street Class.: Major ~erlal Obse~er: BOWER Number in Pace: 8~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: ~1.6% Apparent: Street: Limits: Factors WEST ORANGE AVENUE RAILROAD AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL City of South San Francisco Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Field Observer GONZALEZ Checked By: TAS Date: 2/24/2005 Direction: North/South A. Prevailinq Speed Data Location of Survey 85th Percentile 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Posted Speed Limit mid-point on segment 33.1 25 - 34 81.7% 25 B. Collision History Date Range Covered Total Collisions Collision Rate (Acc/MVM) Expected Collision Rate 1/1/2003 22 5.953 3.05 To 12/31/2004 ( 2-Year ) C. Traffic Factors Average Daily Traffic Length of Segment Lane Configuration Street Classifaction 9924 2690 Single Lane Each Direction Minor AAerial D. Conditions Not Readily Apparent Conditions Roadway Geometrics Vertical Curve Comments High volume of pedestrians due to Boys and Girls Club, Orange Memorial Park, Los Cerritos School, and South San Francisco High School. Also, linear park is planned mid-way on segment. Sidewalk bulbs at future linear park crossing. E. Adiacent Land Use Residential Posted Speed Limit 25 Speed Limit Change? No Revised Speed Limit Approved and Authorized for release by City of South San Francisco: Date Loc. # City of South San Francisco Traffic Enginnering Department Street Name: WEST ORANGE AVENUE Limits: RAILROAD AVENUE to EL CAMINO REAL Radar Survey Sheet X=North/South 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 it %ea cum.°/. XXXX)< X×X~X I Ill IIII ~0 8.3%,84.2% ~XXX~XXX~ 10 8.3% 51.7% 30 ~ XXx I I I I 5 4.2% ~.3% ~ I I I I II I II 7 5.a% 15 12.5% ~.8% X XX~ X IIIIIIII IIIII 4 3.3% 8.3% IIIIII 2Ox IIII1 Total $omples 112~ Date of Su~ey: ~4~005 Sta~ Time: 10:20 85th Percentile Speed: 33.1 Weather: clear End Time: 11:20 50th Percentile Speed: 29.8 15th Percentile Speed: 25.4 Road Condition: flood Posted Speed: 2~ 10 MPH Pace: 25- 34 Street Class.: Minor ~erial Obse~er: GONZALEZ Number in Pace: 9~ Conditions not Percent in Pace: 81.7% Apparent: { StaffRe ort #14 DATE: May 11, 2005 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries: Regulatory Ordinance and Alternative Urgency Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council waive reading, introduce and adopt an urgency ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Staffhas prepared an urgency ordinance that will place a temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City. The urgency ordinance, if adopted, will direct City staffto continue studying the potential zoning impacts of allowing the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City. URGENCY ORDINANCE As the Council is aware, the operation and location of medical marijuana dispensaries is a complicated issue. State and federal law are not in agreement on whether such facilities are legal, the state's laws on the issue are not clear, and community sentiment regarding such facilities and the purpose of their existence is mixed. Furthermore, the existence and operation of dispensaries is a relatively new concept and the full scope of the potential impacts of dispensaries is not known, although other California communities where dispensaries have opened have reported the occurrence of such negative secondary impacts as: Increased crime in the vicinity of the dispensaries; Robbery of patients as they go in or leave the dispensaries; A burglary attempt on a dispensary; Increased DUIs in the vicinity of the dispensaries; Increased street dealing in the vicinity of the dispensaries; Individuals smoking marijuana in the vicinity of the dispensaries; and Reports of impacts on neighboring businesses due to the criminal element being drawn to dispensaries. These impacts and others are listed in a report staff obtained from the City of Rocklin which was prepared by Rocklin's Chief of Police. Based upon these reports, it is clear that allowing medical marijuana dispensaries within the City poses a risk to the public safety, health and welfare. In order to insure that any zoning provisions adopted by the City regarding the location of dispensaries in the City are adequate to protect the public, the Council, may direct staff to conduct further study of the potential impacts and the possible amendment of the City's Zoning Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, the City may establish a 45-day moratorium on the establishment prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal that the legislative body or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. Moratoriums maybe extended for up to 22 additional months provided that a current and immediate threat to the public safety, health and welfare still exists. ~~M~. N~ge~anager Enclosure: Ordinance CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE NO AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND MAKING FINDINGS AND ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings A. In 1996 the voters of the state of California approved Proposition 215 (codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et. seq. and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996"). B. The intent of Proposition 215 was to enable persons who are in need of medical marijuana for specified medical purposes to obtain and use it under limited, specified circumstances. C. On January 1, 2004, SB 420 went into effect. SB 420 was enacted by the State to clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and to allow cities and other governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with SB 420. D. The South San Francisco Municipal Code and Zoning Code are silent with regard to the regulation and location of medical marijuana dispensaries. E. The City of South San Francisco has recently received inquiries regarding the permitting and establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City. F. In order to address both community and statewide concerns regarding the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries, it is necessary for the City of South San Francisco to study the potential impact such facilities may have on the public health, safety and welfare. G. Other California cities which have permitted the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries have recognized an increase in crime, such as burglary, robbery and sale of illegal drugs in the areas immediately surrounding such medical marijuana dispensaries. H. The City Council finds that it is necessary to study the possible adoption of amendments to the City's Zoning Code in order to adopt legislation which conforms with recently enacted SB 420 as well as recent state and federal case law. I. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that issuing permits, business licenses or other applicable entitlements providing for the establishment and/or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, prior to the completion of the City's study of the potential impact of such facilities, poses a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and that therefore a temporary moratorium on the issuance of such permits, licenses and entitlements is necessary. J. The Chief Planner, in conjunction with the City Manager and the City Attorney, shall immediately commence to take steps to conduct a study of the potential impacts of medical marijuana dispensaries and possible amendments to the City's Zoning Code related to medical marijuana dispensaries. Section 2. Imposition of Moratorium A. In accordance with the authority granted the City of South San Francisco under Government Code Section 65858, from and after the date of this ordinance, no use permit, variance, building permit, or any other applicable entitlement for use, including but not limited to the issuance of a business license, shall be approved or issued for the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana dispensary for a period of 45 days. B. For purposes of this ordinance, "medical marijuana dispensary" means any facility or location where a primary caregiver intends to make available, sell, transmit, give, or otherwise provide medical marijuana to two or more of the following: a qualified patient or a person with an identification card, or a primary caregiver in strict accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq., including but not limited to Health & Safety Code Section 11362.7 (d) (2) and (3). The terms "primary caregiver", "qualified patient", and "person with an identification card" shall be as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. C. For purposes of this ordinance, a "medical marijuana dispensary" shall not include the following uses, as long as the location of such uses are otherwise regulated by applicable law: a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health & Safety Code, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health & Safety Code, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health & Safety Code, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health & Safety Code, a residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of the Health & Safety Code, as long as any such use complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. D. This ordinance is an interim ordinance adopted as an urgency measure 2 pursuant to the authority granted the City of South San Francisco under Government Code Section 65858 and is for the immediate preservation of the public safety, health and welfare. The facts constituting the urgency are: California cities which have permitted the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries have recognized that doing so has resulted in the creation of negative secondary effects such as an increase in crime, including burglary, robbery and the sale of illegal drugs, in the areas immediately surrounding medical marijuana dispensaries. The City of South San Francisco has recently received inquiries regarding the permitting and establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City. The City of South San Francisco does not currently have standards in the South San Francisco Zoning Code related to the location, operation and concentration of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City. Absent the adoption of this urgency ordinance, the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City would result in the harmful secondary effects identified above. As a result of the harmful secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries and the current and immediate threat such secondary effects pose to the public health, safety and welfare, it is necessary to, in accordance with Government Code Section 65858, temporarily establish a 45-day moratorium on the establishment and operation of new medical marijuana dispensaries in the City pending the completion of the City's study of the potential impacts of medical marijuana dispensaries and possible amendments to the City's Zoning Code. Section 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Zoning Code review. Section 4. Severability If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. Section 5. Effective Date -3- This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption if adopted by at least four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five days from the date of adoption unless extended by the City Council as provided for in the Government Code. ADOPTED, THIS 11th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: APPROVED: ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK -4-