HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-27 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, February 27, 2019
7:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
February 27, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
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 7:00
p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading
an item, it will be ready for Council action.
KARYL MATSUMOTO, Mayor
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Vice Mayor
MARK ADDIEGO, Councilman
MARK NAGALES, Councilman
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Councilwoman
FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer
ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk
MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager
JASON ROSENBERG, City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public
record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular
meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If,
however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the
document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this
agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019
February 27, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
Presentation by Public Works Director/City Engineer, Eunejune Kim on his visit to
South San Francisco’s sister city Kishiwada, Japan and his participation in the 26th
Senshu International Marathon. (Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works/City
Engineer)
1.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of January 23, 2019.2.
Motion confirming payment registers for February 27, 2019. (Christina Crosby,
Interim Director of Finance)
3.
Report regarding a motion to accept the South Airport Boulevard Bridge Replacement
Project (st1301) as complete in accordance with plans and specifications (Total
Construction Cost $9,052,218). (Robert T. Hahn, Project Manager)
4.
Authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter on the City's behalf supporting legislative
amendments to the San Mateo County Flood Control District. (Christina Fernandez,
City Manager’s Office)
5.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $2,000 donation from
the South San Francisco Asian Alliance to the Parks and Recreation Department’s
Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund supporting the purchase of building or site
amenities in the future co-located Community Center/Library building of the
Community Civic Campus Project. (Sharon Ranals, Director, Parks and Recreation
Department)
6.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $2,000 donation from the South San
Francisco Asian Alliance to the Parks and Recreation Department’s Community Civic
Campus Recreation Fund supporting the purchase of building or site amenities in the
future co-located Community Center/Library building of the Community Civic
Campus Project.
6a.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019
February 27, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Report regarding an Ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment making
modifications to the South San Francisco Zoning Code related to Signage Citywide.
(Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
7.
Ordinance making modifications to the South San Francisco Zoning Code related to
Signage Citywide.
7a.
PUBLIC HEARING
Report regarding a resolution approving the third amendments to the Purchase and
Sale Agreements for 201-219 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue, and an
ordinance approving the third amendment to the Development Agreement for 201-219
Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue properties with ROEM Development
Corporation. (Julie Barnard, Interim ECD Deputy Director)
8.
Resolution approving the Third Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreements
with ROEM Development Corporation for 201-219 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden
Avenue properties.
8a.
An Ordinance approving the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement for
201-219 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue properties with ROEM Development
Corporation.
8b.
Report recommending approval of a Zoning Map Amendment, Planned Development,
Tentative Parcel Map, Affordable Housing Agreement and Design Review to construct
22 single-family attached townhouse units at the corner of Westborough Blvd and
Oakmont Drive. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
9.
Resolution adopting the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Oakmont Meadows Planned Development Project at the southwest corner of
Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Drive
9a.
Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map (RZ18-0005) to rezone one
vacant parcel (APN 091-151-040) from Low Density Residential (RL-8) to a Planned
Development District (PD-1) to allow the construction of 22 single family attached
townhouse units at the corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Dr.
9b.
Resolution approving a Planned Development PD15-0001, Tentative Parcel Map
PM15-0001, Affordable Housing Agreement AHA18-0004, and Design Review
DR15-0041, to allow the construction of 22 single family attached townhouse units at
the corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Dr in a new Planned Development
District.
9c.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019
February 27, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Report regarding a resolution accepting mid-year financial report and amending the
Fiscal Year 2018-19 adopted budget. (Justin Lovell, Financial Services Manager)
10.
Resolution accepting mid-year financial report and amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19
adopted budget.
10a.
Report regarding a resolution approving an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
(ENRA) between the City of South San Francisco, and Firehouse Work, LLC and
Firehouse Live, LLC, for the property located at 201 Baden Avenue. (Ernesto Lucero,
Economic Development Coordinator)
11.
Resolution approving an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) between
the City of South San Francisco and, Firehouse Live, LLC and Firehouse Work, LLC
for the property located at 201 Baden Avenue (APNs 012-335-100 and 012-335-110).
11a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to
operate an extended care program in collaboration with the South San Francisco
Unified School District’s STEAM Summer Program, and adjusting the Parks and
Recreation Department’s operating budget by $41,152 in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 and
by $12,117 in Fiscal Year 2019-2020. (Sharon Ranals, Director, Parks and Recreation
Department)
12.
Resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended
care program in collaboration with the South San Francisco Unified School District’s
STEAM Summer Program, and adjusting the Parks and Recreation Department’s
operating budget by $41,152 in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 and by $12,117 in Fiscal Year
2019-2020.
12a.
Report regarding a planned budget request to expand the After School Recreation
Program at Buri Buri Elementary School by 50 students beginning in the 2019-2020
school year. (Sharon Ranals, Director, Parks and Recreation Department)
13.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-171 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
Presentation by Public Works Director/City Engineer, Eunejune Kim on his visit to South San Francisco’s sister
city Kishiwada, Japan and his participation in the 26th Senshu International Marathon.(Eunejune Kim, Director
of Public Works/City Engineer)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-156 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:2.
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of January 23, 2019.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-157 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:3.
Motion confirming payment registers for February 27,2019.(Christina Crosby,
Interim Director of Finance)
The payments shown in the attached payment register are accurate and sufficient
funds were available for payment (payroll items excluded).
Attachment: Payment Register
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Payment Listing by Department for City Council Review
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
CITY CLERK
AMAZON.COM 2/6/2019 273694CC 387229 E 100-02110-5020 430.63 AMAZON OFFICE SUPPLIES
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 2/15/2019 273967QZL4472 E 100-02110-5045 103.62 ADOBE PRO - CITY CLERK
CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF CA 2/6/2019 273694CC 387232 E 100-02110-5032 170.00 G R 2019 CCAC MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL THROUG
DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 2/6/2019 273647B3217075 E 100-02110-5024 144.00 ORD SUMMARY - OPEN TRENCH POST-ADOPT NO
SAN MATEO COUNTY ELECTIONS 2/6/2019 2736801/7/19 E 100-02110-5062 2,954.60 FINAL COST OF SSF CANDIDATE STATEMENTS FOR
Payments issued for CITY CLERK $3,802.85
CITY COUNCIL
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 2/8/2019 27370030652 E 100-01110-5020 322.53 BUSINESS CARD ORDER FOR MAYOR, VICE MAYO
CLEARLITE TROPHIES 2/13/2019 27385684030 E 100-01110-5025 16.24 LN: 2018 MAYOR'S GRAVEL PLAQUE
GRAND PALACE RESTAURANT 2/8/2019 273819CC387313 E 100-01110-5031 53.81 HE - CITY COUNCIL MEETING DINNER - 11/28/201
J AND J MARKET 2/8/2019 273819CC387316 E 100-01110-5031 63.22 HE - CITY COUNCIL MEETING DINNER - 12/17/201
MARK ADDIEGO 2/13/2019 2738321/17/18-12/20/18 E 100-01110-5031 111.62 MA: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT YEAR 2018
RICHARD GARBARINO 2/8/2019 273744JAN'19 E 100-01110-5032 82.57 COUNCIL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT - R. GARBAR
2/13/2019 273875013119 E 100-01110-5031 201.84 RG: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT JANUARY 2019
2/13/2019 2738751/22-2/21/19 E 100-01110-5071 35.27 RG: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT JAN 2019
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 2/8/2019 273819CC387311 E 100-01110-5031 534.26 HE - REFRESHMENTS FOR CITY MANAGER AND CI
Payments issued for CITY COUNCIL $1,421.36
CITY MANAGER
ELIZA MANCHESTER 2/8/2019 273761JAN'2019 E 100-05110-5020 260.76 STATEMENT OF EXPENSE - E. MANCHESTER
EXPERTISE LLC 2/6/2019 27365032274 E 100-05110-5005 330.00 MOVING AND STORAGE OF ANIP FILES
FEDEX 2/8/2019 2737396-407-70081 E 100-05110-5021 43.72 SANTA COMES TO TOWN EVENT SUPPLIES
SCOTT BUSCHMAN PHOTOGRAPHY 2/13/2019 27392418099 E 100-05110-5021 618.68 2019 CITY COUNCIL PHOTOGRAPHY
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 2/8/2019 273819CC387311 E 100-05110-5031 300.02 HE - REFRESHMENTS FOR CITY MANAGER AND CI
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/8/2019 2738098052379557 E 100-05110-5020 370.69 OFFICE SUPPLIES - CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
2/8/2019 273819CC387315 E 100-05110-5020 943.34 HE - OFFICE SUPPLIES - CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Payments issued for CITY MANAGER $2,867.21
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 1 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
COMMUNICATIONS
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS NETWORK INC2/13/2019 27385982822 E 100-05130-5005 120.00 LA: PROOFING SVCS FOR CITYWIDE NEWSLETTER
PROCLAIM PROMOTIONS, INC 2/13/2019 27391438578 E 100-05130-5025 724.69 2019 REPLACEMENT BREEZEWAY FENCE BANNER
WESCO GRAPHICS, INC 2/13/2019 27395044877 E 100-05130-5025 6,054.02 CITYWIDE NEWSLTR PRINTING SERVICES, FEBRUA
Payments issued for COMMUNICATIONS $6,898.71
CITY TREASURER
CHANDLER ASSET MGMT, INC 2/13/2019 2738541901SOSF E 100-03110-5001 7,025.38 JAN 2019 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO MGMT SVCS
Payments issued for CITY TREASURER $7,025.38
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
47 HILLS BREWING COMPANY. LLC 2/8/2019 273819CC386471 E 100-10410-5020 98.02 MC - PLANNING COMMISSION HOLIDAY EVENT F
CALED 2/13/2019 273940CC386922 E 100-10110-5035 600.00 AG: CALED AWARDS PAYMENT FOR 2 SUBMISSIO
CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 2/13/2019 273940CC386917 E 100-10110-5020 95.00 AG: CONSTANT CONTACT MONTHLY PAYMENT F
FARMGIRL FLOWERS 2/8/2019 273819CC386491 E 100-10410-5020 63.18 MC - FLOWERS FOR DRB MEMBER B.WILLIAMS S
FEDEX 2/6/2019 2736516-433-52229 E 100-10410-5027 136.62 DRB PACKETS JAN 2019
FEDEX OFFICE & PRINT SERVICES 2/8/2019 273740008000505527 E 100-10115-5020 4.07 FEDEX SERVICE - OFFICE SUPPLY MTG
2/8/2019 273740008200498593 E 100-10115-5020 84.57 FEDEREAL EXPRESS SERVICE - OFFICE SUPPLY MT
FEHR AND PEERS 2/8/2019 273741127359 E 100-10410-5005 5,481.31 EAST OF 101 STUDY 12/1 THROUGH 12/28/2018
KRIS ROMASANTA 2/8/2019 273791st of exp 1.28.19 E 100-10115-5031 15.42 STAT OF EXP FOR KRIS ROMASANTA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 2/13/2019 2739001000692 E 100-10410-5005 19,031.25 CONSULTANT PLANNER SVCS THROUGH 10.31.1
2/13/2019 2739001000753 E 100-10410-5005 19,897.50 CONSULTANT PLANNER SVCS THROUGH 11.30.1
2/13/2019 2739001000849 E 100-10410-5005 6,667.50 CONSULTANT PLANNER SVCS THROUGH 1.31.19
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 2/6/2019 2736652018110035 E 270-10414-5003 957.60 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1276 560 ECCLE
2/6/2019 2736652018110037 E 270-10415-5003 95.70 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1283 180 S. AIR
2/6/2019 273665201811029 E 270-10415-5003 453.60 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1235 - 300 MILL
2/8/2019 2737662018110026 E 270-10415-5003 9,889.00 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1168 - GENENTE
2/8/2019 2737662018110031 E 100-10110-5005 688.50 201, 207 & 217-219 GRAND AVENUE LRMP - MEY
2/8/2019 2737662018110034 E 270-10414-5003 1,646.40 216 MILLE AVENUE LRMP - MEYERS NAVE SERVIC
2/8/2019 2737662018110036 E 270-10415-5003 8,713.50 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1279 - 200 LIND
2/13/2019 2739012018110038 E 100-10110-5003 323.40 PUC PROPERTIES LRMP - MEYEERS NAVE
2/13/2019 2739012018120288 E 270-10414-5003 1,339.80 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1064 249 E. GR
2/13/2019 2739012018120290 E 270-10415-5003 4,466.00 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1168 GENENTEC
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 2/13/2019 2739012018120292 E 270-10415-5003 478.50 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1223 - 1256 MIS
2/13/2019 2739012018120293 E 270-10415-5003 1,486.80 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1235 300 MILLE
2/13/2019 2739012018120294 E 270-10415-5003 255.20 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1239 OAKMONT
2/13/2019 2739012018120296 E 270-10413-5005 223.30 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1267 2 TOWER
2/13/2019 2739012018120297 E 270-10414-5003 50.40 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1276 560 ECCLE
2/13/2019 2739012018120298 E 270-10415-5003 1,466.10 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1279 - 200 LIND
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/13/2019 273905256611853001 E 100-10110-5020 72.75 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ECD ADMIN (2 PPL)
2/13/2019 273905258286021001 E 100-10110-5020 137.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ECD ADMIN - PRIVACY SCRE
OMBUDSMAN SERVICES OF 2/8/2019 2737777615 E 222-10350-5063 2,709.81 FY 18-19 CDBG GRANT WITH OMBUDSMAN SERVI
PRECISE PRINTING AND MAILING 2/6/2019 27367322670 E 100-10410-5020 249.40 ENVELOPES FOR PLANNING DEPT MAILINGS
RAPE TRAUMA CENTER 2/8/2019 2737867508 E 222-10350-5063 4,281.00 FY 18-19 CDBG GRANT WITH RAPE TRAUMA CENT
REBUILDING TOGETHER PENINSULA 2/8/2019 2737887493 E 222-10343-5063 20,596.60 FY 18-19 CDBG GRANT WITH REBUILDING TOGET
RSG, INC 2/13/2019 2739201004265 E 241-10880-5005 2,913.75 FY 17-18 AGREEMENT WITH RSG, INC.
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 2/13/2019 273940CC387735 E 100-10110-5036 100.95 YM-LUNCH 6 PEOPLE ORAL BOARD 12/21/18 BLD
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/8/2019 2738098052052924 E 100-10520-5020 82.79 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738098052777995 E 100-10520-5020 579.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Payments issued for ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $116,431.57
FINANCE
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 2/13/2019 27383330655 E 100-06110-5020 91.20 BUSINESS CARDS: CC, JL
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 2/13/2019 273843837633 E 100-06110-5005 2,731.50 PROFESSIONAL SVCS RENDERED THROUGH 11/30
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL STAT. INC2/13/2019 27385118111906 E 100-06210-5005 500.00 DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT STATEMENT AS
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 2/15/2019 273967QZQ4957 E 100-06110-5045 245.00 ADOBE PRO - FINANCE
CPS HR CONSULTING 2/6/2019 273645SOP48182 E 100-06210-5036 583.00 TEST MATERIALS & EXAM FEES-FINANCE ACCT AS
CSMFO 2/6/2019 2736461267 E 100-06210-5031 110.00 KYLIE HICKS - 2019 CSMFO MEMBERSHIP RENEW
2/6/2019 273646834 E 100-06210-5031 110.00 LINDA FUJITOMI - 2019 CSMFO MEMBERSHIP RE
2/6/2019 273646836 E 100-06210-5031 110.00 JENNIFER CLEMENTE - 2019 CSMFO MEMBERSHI
2/6/2019 273646837 E 100-06210-5031 110.00 CHRISTINA CROSBY - 2019 CSMFO MEMBERSHIP
2/8/2019 273728832 E 100-06210-5031 110.00 STEVEN LEW - 2019 CSMFO MEMBERSHIP RENE
LENA BALAT 2/8/2019 27371311/01-12/11/18 E 100-06210-5033 48.07 CALPERS/TAX SEMINAR
MUNISERVICES, LLC 2/13/2019 273903INV06-005084 E 100-06210-5001 1,301.54 STARS SERVICE FOR 3RD QUARTER 2018 REPORTS
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/6/2019 273669231870285001 E 100-06210-5020 475.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
FINANCE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/6/2019 273669260686474001 E 100-06210-5020 149.38 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
2/13/2019 273905246693876001 E 100-06210-5020 1,193.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
2/15/2019 273991267644811001 E 100-06210-5020 98.31 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/15/2019 273991267644899001 E 100-06210-5020 35.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/15/2019 273991270111889001 E 100-06210-5020 95.67 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/15/2019 273991270186087001 E 100-06210-5020 124.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 2/13/2019 273911042103 E 100-06110-5005 2,278.08 APPLICATION MANAGEMENT FEE - W-2 PRINTING
2/13/2019 2739112019 PDS UGA CONFEE 100-06210-5032 1,200.00 MARIE BIEHLER-2019 PDS UGA CONFERENCE ATT
READYREFRESH 2/6/2019 27367509A0030587083 E 100-06210-5021 8.73 WATER COOLER RENTAL - FINANCE 12/21/18-01/
SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES 2/6/2019 2736787881605 E 100-06110-5022 100.00 1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION RENWAL:$100.00
Payments issued for FINANCE $11,810.08
FIRE
1455 MARKET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 2/8/2019 273819cc387495 E 100-11310-5033 26.00 KA-STAFF DEVELOPMENT/TRAINING
ADPI WEST, INC. 2/6/2019 273627INVADP127440 E 100-11610-5005 524.49 FORMER AMBULANCE BILLING PROVIDER BILL
2/6/2019 273627INVADP127464 E 100-11610-5005 6.14 FORMER BILLING PROVIDER BILL
2/6/2019 273627INVADP127465 E 100-11610-5005 124.41 FORMER BILLING PROVIDER BILLS
2/6/2019 273627INVADP127466 E 100-11610-5005 26.52 FORMER BILLING PROVIDER
2/6/2019 273627INVADP127467 E 100-11610-5005 99.43 FORMER BILLING PROVIDER
2/6/2019 273627INVADP127468 E 100-11610-5005 11.81 FORMER BILLING PROVIDER
2/6/2019 273627INVADP127469 E 100-11610-5005 16.08 FORMER BILLING PROVIDER
2/6/2019 273627INVADP127470 E 100-11610-5005 105.79 FORMER BILLING PROVIDER
AIRGAS USA, LLC 2/13/2019 2738359085167097 E 100-11610-5021 249.47 EMS OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2738359959645288 E 100-11610-5021 207.25 EMS OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2738359959645289 E 100-11610-5021 404.55 EMS OPERATING SUPPLIES
ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, INC. 2/8/2019 273704IS417711 E 100-11110-5033 62.00 LISTENING & SPEAKING TEST - BILINGUAL INCENT
B&H PHOTO 2/8/2019 273819cc387370 E 100-11720-5045 423.49 SC-TRAINING DISPLAY PORT
BOATING AND WATERWAYS, 2/6/2019 273694cc387100 E 100-11720-5033 10.00 JB-STAFF DEVELOPMENT/TRAINING
BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 2/15/2019 27396183105196 E 100-11610-5021 1,339.35 EMS SUPPLIES
BOX.NET BUS SRVCS, CA 2/8/2019 273819cc387492 E 100-11310-5021 45.00 KA-OPERATING SUPPLIES
CARDSDIRECT, INC 2/15/2019 273966C2200599 E 100-11110-5021 126.13 FIRE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN2/6/2019 2736448155 20 044 0364083 E 100-11310-5021 165.60 CABLE SERVICE
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 4 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC. 2/15/2019 27397181944964 E 100-11223-5045 250.00 REALQUEST-COUNTY FORECLOSURE/PROPERTY D
DAVE RAMSEY 2/13/2019 273917012619 E 100-11720-5033 10.00 CALIFORNIA BOATER LICENSE
EXTREME METERS.COM 2/8/2019 273819CC387334 E 100-11710-5021 257.80 BS-OPERATING SUPPLIES
FIRESTATS, LLC 2/13/2019 273872SSFFD States 419 E 100-11720-5033 1,635.00 ANALYTICS CLASS (5 SPOTS)
GAS HOUSE COVE MARINA INC 2/13/2019 2738763578 E 100-11710-5028 49.14 FUEL FOR BOAT
IRVINE & JACHENS INC 2/15/2019 2739822668 E 100-11110-5021 520.91 BADGES
JAMES ANDERSON 2/6/2019 273631012919 E 100-11720-5033 55.00 CPS RECERTIFCATION FEE
JASON JAMES 2/6/2019 273657012619 E 100-11720-5033 10.00 CALIFORNIA BOATER CARD
L N CURTIS & SONS 2/13/2019 273888INV208878 E 100-11710-5061 583.40 SAFETY CLOTHING
2/13/2019 273888INV229782 E 100-11710-5061 491.63 SAFTEY CLOTHING
2/13/2019 273888INV231452 E 100-11710-5061 395.43 SAFETY CLOTHING
2/13/2019 273888INV238264A E 100-11710-5061 925.89 SAFETY CLOTHING - FULL PAYMENT OF
2/13/2019 273888INV238641 E 100-11710-5061 99.18 SAFETY CLOTHING
2/13/2019 273888INV238989 E 100-11710-5061 409.96 SAFETY CLOTHING
2/13/2019 273888INV246986 E 100-11710-5061 917.34 SAFETY CLOTHING
2/13/2019 273888INV248386 E 100-11710-5061 453.39 SAFETY CLOTHING
2/13/2019 273888INV252032 E 100-11710-5061 586.67 SAFETY CLOTHING
2/13/2019 273888INV252938 E 100-11610-5036 1,349.24 SAFETY CLOTHING
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS 2/15/2019 2739861381524-20190131 E 100-11210-5021 50.00 OPERATING SUPPLIES
LIFE-ASSIST INC 2/13/2019 273891898480 E 100-11610-5021 864.33 EMS SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273891898510 E 100-11610-5021 951.03 EMS SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273891898937 E 100-11610-5021 386.02 EMS SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273891899191 E 100-11610-5021 72.66 EMS SUPPPLIES
2/13/2019 273891899418 E 100-11610-5021 380.19 EMS SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273891899615 E 100-11610-5021 1,282.54 EMS SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273891899645 E 100-11610-5021 1,066.18 EMS SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273987900246 E 100-11610-5021 690.24 EMS OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273987900271 E 100-11610-5021 63.74 EMS SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273987900596 E 100-11610-5021 451.42 EMS SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273987900597 E 100-11610-5021 890.24 EMS SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273987900598 E 100-11610-5021 811.31 EMS SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273987900680 E 100-11610-5021 323.38 EMS SUPPLIES
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 5 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
LOS CUATES TAQUERIA 2/8/2019 273819CC-387374 E 100-11310-5021 27.04 SC- FOOD FOR CREWS AT CHATHAM FIRE (3)
MOBILE CALIBRATION SERVICES LL2/6/2019 27366619-002686 E 100-11710-5021 447.93 GAS METER MAINTENANCE SERVICE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/13/2019 273905260131432001 E 100-11110-5021 16.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273905264208843001 E 100-11110-5021 61.32 OFFICE SUPPLIES
PAYPAL 2/8/2019 273819cc387493 E 100-11110-5021 755.00 KA-OPERATING SUPPLIES
PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIP INC2/6/2019 273671156940 E 100-11110-5036 26.10 CLASS A FORMAL UNIFORM - KAJ LAANEN
2/6/2019 273671158715 E 100-11710-5061 188.00 URBAN SEARCH & RESCUE PERSONNEL EQUIPME
READYREFRESH 2/15/2019 27399619A5711311000 E 100-11710-5021 277.39 WATER SERVICE
REFLECTIVE APPAREL FACTORY INC2/8/2019 273819cc387365 E 100-11611-5021 73.33 RW-OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273819cc387368 E 100-11611-5021 58.50 RW-OPERATING SUPPIES
RESOLVE INSURANCE SYSTEMS 2/8/2019 273790DECEMBER2018 E 100-11610-5005 3,724.05 SECONDARY AMBULANCE BILLING-DECEMBER
SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK INC2/15/2019 27399822864 E 100-11710-5071 1,006.75 FIRE STATION ALERTING SYSTEM
SHAUN HANSEN 2/13/2019 273879011419 E 100-11720-5033 409.96 STAFF DEVELOPMENT/TRAINING
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 2/15/2019 274002967580 E 100-11611-5021 26.95 OPERATING SUPPLIES
STEPHEN MANN 2/6/2019 27366301232019 E 100-11610-5033 675.00 EDUCATION TUITION REIMBUREMENT - S MANN
STRYKER SALES CORPORATION 2/13/2019 2739332582966M E 100-11610-5051 551.52 EMS EQUIPMENT
TAYLOR & FRANCIS BOOKS 2/8/2019 273819cc387491 E 100-11310-5033 69.88 KA-STAFF DEVELOPMENT/TRAINING
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENG ASSOC 2/15/2019 27400745800 E 100-11710-5031 1,059.00 FIRE STATIONS ALERT SYSTEM - MANAGEMENT A
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/15/2019 274014342015227-00001 E 100-11610-5071 7.02 DATA CHARGES FIRE - 1/2/19 - 2/1/2019
WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 2/8/2019 2738241-415-218-04-01 E 100-11210-5005 1,899.05 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SERVICES
2/8/2019 273824218-012-415-01 E 100-11210-5005 1,220.04 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SERVICES
2/8/2019 273824I-410-218-07-01 E 100-11210-5005 4,389.40 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SERVICES
WITTMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC 2/6/2019 2736981809745 E 100-11610-5005 8,937.08 SEP 2018 - AMBULANCE BILLING CONTRACTUAL S
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 2/13/2019 2739562727669 E 100-11610-5021 440.50 EMS SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2739562727684 E 100-11610-5021 146.83 EMS SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 2740182817661 E 100-11610-5021 31.46 EMS OPERATING SUPPLIES
ZORBA PIZZA & DELI 2/8/2019 273819cc387494 E 100-11310-5021 140.04 KA-CERT FOOD FOR WEATHER EVENT (15)
Payments issued for FIRE $47,922.82
HUMAN RESOURCES
IT'S PERSONNEL 2/6/2019 2736561528 E 100-09110-5005 712.50 DECEMBER 2018 HR CONSULTING SVCS-REBECCA
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/6/2019 273669243157555001 E 100-09110-5020 110.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES STND PANEL,HNG FOLDERS&OR
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 6 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
HUMAN RESOURCES
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/6/2019 273669243694924001 E 100-09110-5020 169.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES-HP410A TONER, FLOOR MAT &
2/6/2019 273669247641259001 E 100-09110-5020 541.15 OFFICE SUPPLIES-COLOR TONERS,HNG FOLDERS&
2/6/2019 273669249631085001 E 100-09110-5020 110.06 OFFICE SUPPLIES-DATE STAMP,DESKPAD,FILE STO
2/6/2019 273669249632712001 E 100-09110-5020 20.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES
TERI BLACK & COMPANY LLC 2/6/2019 27369109-0117-07 E 100-09110-5036 5,506.98 PROF SVCS & EXPENSES-FINANCE DIRECTOR RECR
Payments issued for HUMAN RESOURCES $7,170.87
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. 2/6/2019 273630167478795 E 785-16110-5040 126.82 CLOUD BACKUP SERVICES - JANUARY 2019
AZTECA SYSTEMS INC 2/6/2019 27363316363 E 785-16110-5040 21,690.00 CITYWORKS ANNUAL RENEWAL - 3/17/2019 - 3/
B&H PHOTO 2/15/2019 274011cc388121 E 785-16110-5021 295.00 DW-CONVERTER SDI TO ANALOG FOR PEG
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN2/15/2019 2739698155 20 044 0622357 E 785-16110-5071 239.05 INTERNET TERRABAY
DATA CENTER WAREHOUSE, LLC 2/8/2019 2737300000112446 E 785-16310-5005 6,726.67 HP DESIGN JET PLOTTER - EOC
GRANICUS, INC. 2/8/2019 273747108831 E 785-16110-5040 2,909.78 GRANICUS MONTHLY SERVICE FEE - FEBRUARY 20
KELSO COMMUNICATIONS 2/6/2019 273659I2019007 E 785-16110-5071 125.00 SERVICE CALL ADD PHONE EXTENSION - PUBLIC
2/8/2019 273756I2019011 E 785-16110-5005 2,867.39 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE - MARCH
LUCKY'S 2/15/2019 274011cc388033 E 785-16110-5031 22.32 JD-MEETING SUPPLIES - NEW PHONE SYSTEM VE
NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC 2/15/2019 274011cc388131 E 785-16110-5040 7.96 RC - RENEWAL WEBSITE URLS - SSFGOV.COM, NE
READYREFRESH 2/6/2019 27367519A0023270820 E 785-16110-5020 96.61 DRINKING WATER & COOLER RENTAL - IT DEPART
ROYAL PIN DONUTS 2/15/2019 274011cc388030 E 785-16110-5031 25.00 JD-MEETING SUPPLIES - NEW PHONE SYSTEM VE
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 2/15/2019 274011cc388025 E 785-16110-5031 20.02 JD-MEETING SUPPLIES - NEW PHONE SYSTEM VE
STARBUCKS 2/15/2019 274011cc388031 E 785-16110-5031 50.85 JD-MEETING SUPPLIES - NEW PHONE SYSTEM VE
TELLUS VENTURE ASSOCIATES 2/8/2019 273814INV-0002276 E 785-16110-5001 962.50 CONDUIT/FIBER CONSULTANT SERVICES, TELLUS
2/8/2019 273814INV-0002288 E 785-16110-5001 1,168.75 CONDUIT/FIBER CONSULTANT SERVICES, TELLUS
TIGERDIRECT.COM 2/15/2019 274011cc388308 E 785-16110-5021 65.54 DW-HARDRIVE FOR EOC LAPTOP
Payments issued for INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $37,399.26
LIBRARY
A&S LANDSCAPE 2/6/2019 273694cc387275 E 100-15999-5999 21.80 KB - PROGRAM SUPPLIES, HOMEWORK CLUB
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 2/6/2019 2736291LWV-T7DY-FK71 E 100-15410-5022 12.62 BOOKS
2/6/2019 2736291QRQ-QLG7-PYHY E 100-15110-5021 18.88 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CAUTION TAPE
2/6/2019 2736291TPT-QVHM-QF6D E 100-15999-5999 23.66 BOOKS
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 7 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 2/6/2019 2736291X74-NH6F-W3LH E 100-15110-5021 21.70 OPERATING SUPPLIES
AMERICAN BUTTON 2/6/2019 273694CC387047 E 100-15110-5021 118.40 EM - OPERATING SUPPLIES - BUTTON MACHINE
BAKER & TAYLOR INC 2/8/2019 273712L1084154 E 100-15220-5022 1,461.50 INV#401239900~
2/8/2019 273712L1084154 E 100-15320-5022 347.35 INV#401239900~
2/13/2019 273842L1105694 E 100-15999-5999 387.27 BOOKS
2/13/2019 273842L1105694 E 100-15410-5022 70.45 BOOKS
BRODART CO 2/6/2019 273635519064 E 100-15110-5021 12.53 PERIODICAL CARDS - OPERATING SUPPLIES
BROWNPAPERTICKETS.COM 2/6/2019 273694CC387039 E 100-15110-5031 16.52 SS - 2019 ACL PERFORMER'S SHOWCASE REGISTR
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER PARTNERS 2/15/2019 2739641017872 E 100-15310-5022 35.59 MERCURY NEWS NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION - G
2/15/2019 2739641470750 E 100-15210-5022 432.73 THE MERCURY NEWS NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION
CANVA PARTY LTD 2/15/2019 274011CC387990 E 100-15110-5021 12.95 AM - CANVA FOR WORK MONTHLY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2/15/2019 2739701455 E 100-15110-5004 525.00 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LIBRARY DISCOVER & G
COSTCO 2/6/2019 273694CC387069 E 100-15110-5020 15.00 EM - PROGRAM SUPPLIES - STORYTIME
2/6/2019 273694CC387069 E 100-15220-5030 84.13 EM - PROGRAM SUPPLIES - STORYTIME
2/6/2019 273694cc387136 E 100-15999-5999 877.77 AP - AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS
DEMCO INC. 2/13/2019 2738656520510 E 100-15110-5021 218.45 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2738656535146 E 100-15110-5021 415.07 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES
DIDDAMS PARTY & TOY STORE 2/6/2019 273694cc387260 E 100-15999-5021 29.40 KB - PROGRAM SUPPLIES, HOMEWORK CLUB
FACEBOOK 2/15/2019 274011CC387983 E 100-15110-5030 9.00 AM - FACEBOOK ADVERTISING SERVICES
GE MONEY BANK/AMAZON 2/6/2019 2736546045 7817 0010 3871 E 100-15210-5043 139.16 BOOKS / AV
2/6/2019 2736546045 7817 0010 3871 E 100-15210-5022 91.69 BOOKS / AV
2/6/2019 2736546045 7817 0010 3871 E 100-15110-5020 -2.35 BOOKS / AV
GOOGLE.COM 2/15/2019 274011CC387985 E 100-15230-5030 40.82 AM - ADULT SERVICES PROGRAM SUPPLIES - REFR
GRUBHUB 2/6/2019 273694cc387267 E 100-15410-5031 78.72 KB - PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS, BOOK CLUB
HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF SSF 2/6/2019 27365512312018 E 100-15110-5031 15.00 HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF SSF - MEMBERSHIP DUES
ILLUSIVE COMICS & GAMES LLC 2/8/2019 2737520152 E 100-15220-5022 147.10 SUPPLIES FOR FREE COMIC BOOK DAY - 2019
IMPARK 2/6/2019 273694cc387266 E 100-15410-5031 18.00 KB - PARKING FEE
ITUNES STORE 2/15/2019 274011CC387986 E 100-15210-5043 14.99 AM - HBO APP RENEWAL FOR PUBLIC IPADS
JALISCO PRODUCE 2/6/2019 273694cc387274 E 100-15999-5999 9.08 KB - REFRESHMENTS, STEM TRAINING
KAZUHIRO KIBUISHI 2/6/2019 27365801082019 E 100-15220-5030 100.00 YOUTH PROGRAM - FOL DONATION AUTHOR TAL
LEONARDO GOMEZ 2/15/2019 273979JAN'19 E 100-15110-5033 2,000.00 STATEMENT OF EXPENSE - EDUCATION REIMBUR
LIBRARY IDEAS, LLC 2/6/2019 27366266689 E 100-15220-5022 409.45 BOOKS
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 8 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
LIBRARY IDEAS, LLC 2/6/2019 27366267277 E 100-15320-5022 34.95 BOOKS - GRAND AVE LIBRARY - JUV
2/6/2019 27366267278 E 100-15320-5022 34.95 BOOKS - GRAND AVE. LIBRARY - JUV
MASE GROUP LLC 2/8/2019 27376300072A E 100-15110-5001 1,300.50 CATALOGING SERVICE
2/8/2019 27376300335 E 100-15110-5001 124.70 DVD LABELING SERIVCE
2/13/2019 27389700336 E 100-15110-5001 162.35 DVD LABELING SERVICE
2/15/2019 27398900337 E 100-15110-5001 83.70 DVD LABELING SERVICE
MICHAEL'S 2/6/2019 273694cc387264 E 100-15999-5021 207.03 KB - PROGRAM SUPPLIES, HOMEWORK CLUB
MIDWEST TAPE 2/13/2019 2739022000009742 E 100-15220-5043 390.75 A/V - JUV
OCLC WESTERN 2/8/2019 2737740000643541 E 100-15110-5001 501.22 CATALOGING AND METADATA SUBMONTHLY
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/6/2019 273669258935376001 E 100-15430-5021 112.77 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/6/2019 273694cc387265 E 100-15999-5021 47.93 KB - PROGRAM SUPPLIES, HOMEWORK CLUB
OLIVER CHIN 2/6/2019 27363902062019 E 100-15220-5030 150.00 AUTHOR TALK - YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM
PARIS BAGUETE 2/6/2019 273694cc387272 E 100-15999-5999 11.20 KB - REFRESHMENTS, STEM NETWORKING MEETI
PAYPAL 2/6/2019 273694CC386959 E 100-15110-5021 7.50 ABS - HISTORY TIMELINE
2/6/2019 273694CC387072 E 100-15110-5021 190.99 EM - OPERATING SUPPLIES
READYREFRESH 2/13/2019 27391919B5745298009 E 100-15430-5021 70.62 WATER COOLER RENTAL/REFILL
RECORDED BOOKS, INC. 2/6/2019 27367676165393 E 100-15210-5043 8.65 A/V
2/6/2019 27367676172394 E 100-15210-5043 121.12 A/V
SAFEWAY INC 2/6/2019 273677125129 E 100-15999-5021 26.95 PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS
2/15/2019 273997153302 E 100-15999-5999 313.22 SAFEWAY PURCHASES FOR CHILDCARE PROGRAM
SAFEWAY STORE 2/6/2019 273694CC387070 E 100-15110-5031 83.11 EM - MEETING SUPPLIES
2/6/2019 273694cc387270 E 100-15999-5999 22.96 KB - STEM MEETING REFRESHMENTS
SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION 2/6/2019 27368618614593 E 100-15220-5022 36.97 CHILDREN'S BOOKCLUB BOOKS
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/6/2019 2736893401218258 E 100-15110-5020 53.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND AVE LIBRARY - INV805
2/6/2019 2736898052777987 E 100-15110-5020 335.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND AVE LIBRARY - INV340
STARBUCKS 2/6/2019 273694cc387273 E 100-15999-5999 56.80 KB - STEM MEETING REFRESHMENTS
SUPER TEACHER WORKSHEETS 2/6/2019 273694cc387131 E 100-15999-5021 19.95 AP - MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL, SUPER TEACHER
SURVEY MONKEY 2/6/2019 273694CC387176 E 100-15110-5021 37.00 AE - SURVEY MONKEY MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION F
TARGET 2/6/2019 273694cc387261 E 100-15999-5021 131.86 KB - PROGRAM SUPPLIES, HOMEWORK CLUB
TRADER JOE'S 2/6/2019 273694CC387042 E 100-15110-5021 21.99 VS - KITCHEN SUPPLIES/ APPRECIATION GIFT
USPS 2/6/2019 273694CC387071 E 100-15110-5027 6.15 EM - POSTAGE - LIBRARY BOARD PACKETS
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 9 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
Payments issued for LIBRARY $12,936.24
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
AT&T 2/8/2019 2737109391060752 E 781-07210-5071 331.89 PHONE CHARGES
2/8/2019 2737109391060755 E 781-07210-5071 136.20 PHONE CHARGES
2/8/2019 2737109391060817 E 781-07210-5071 98.81 PHONE CHARGES
2/8/2019 2737109391060848 E 781-07210-5071 72.75 PHONE CHARGES
2/8/2019 2737109391060973 E 781-07210-5071 219.18 PHONE CHARGES
2/8/2019 2737119391060753 E 781-07210-5071 2,718.83 PHONE CHARGES
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST2/8/2019 27371402/06/2019 E 100-00000-5079 6,571.64 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT - DIST OF
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 2/8/2019 2737190165444444 E 781-07210-5073 129.46 WATER SERVICE
2/8/2019 2737193194444444 E 781-07210-5073 34.48 WATER SERVICE
2/8/2019 2737197807444444 E 781-07210-5073 15.27 WATER SERVICE
2/8/2019 2737199639955148 E 781-07210-5073 67.96 WATER SERVICE
COLMA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL DIST2/8/2019 27372402/06/2019 E 861-00000-5079 41,383.12 DISTRIBUTION OF NET SALE PROCEEDS OF SA PR
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN2/6/2019 2736448155 20 044 0045948 E 100-07110-5001 47.43 CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM BUSINESS
DU-ALL SAFETY LLC 2/8/2019 27373220353 E 100-07110-5001 10,150.00 NOVEMBER 2018 SAFETY PROGRAM CONSULTIN
2/13/2019 27386720499 E 100-07110-5001 11,750.00 JANUARY 2019 SAFETY PROGRAM CONSULTING S
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY2/6/2019 2736705616338496-1 E 781-07210-5070 102,273.54 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739080211654236-2 E 781-07210-5070 7.84 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739082500898977-1 E 781-07210-5070 48.56 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739082814692974-1 E 781-07210-5070 106.87 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739084575602530-5 E 781-07210-5070 2.56 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739085177240092-8 E 781-07210-5070 336.83 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739085534400076-9 E 781-07210-5070 23.85 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739085548997000-8 E 781-07210-5070 2,077.60 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739086152070396-0 E 781-07210-5070 52.01 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739087785237739-7 E 781-07210-5070 117.69 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739088177181277-3 E 781-07210-5070 66.57 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739088286202617-4 E 781-07210-5070 664.29 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739088634831335-3 E 781-07210-5070 102.96 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/13/2019 2739088923172305-0 E 781-07210-5070 38.80 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 10 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IN2/13/2019 273915102783 E 100-07888-5061 12,941.72 BOND SIZING/FINANCIAL ADVISOR SERVICES
SAN MATEO COUNTY 2/8/2019 27379402/06/2019 E 100-00000-5079 745,285.28 GENERAL COUNTY TAX - DIST OF NET PROCEEDS
SAN MATEO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDU2/8/2019 27379502/06/2019 E 100-00000-5079 110,981.31 COUNTY EDUCATION TAX - DIST OF NET PROCEED
SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE 2/8/2019 27379602/06/2019 E 100-00000-5079 105.13 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT - DIST OF NE
SAN MATEO CTY COMM COLLEGE DIS2/8/2019 27379702/06/2019 E 861-00000-5079 213,255.52 DISTRIBUTION OF NET SALE PROCEEDS OF SA PR
SAN MATEO CTY HARBOR DISTRICT 2/8/2019 27379802/06/2019 E 100-00000-5079 11,085.98 COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT DIST OF NET PROCEE
SSF UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2/8/2019 27380702/06/2019 E 861-00000-5079 1,269,596.65 DISTRIBUTION OF NET SALE PROCEEDS OF SA PR
THE PLANT CAFE 2/15/2019 274011CC387971 E 851-07110-5032 10.37 RL-BREAKFAST FOR NAGDCA CONFERENCE
TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 2/6/2019 273692106179 E 782-07410-5081 132,610.00 WORKER'S COMPENSATION LOSS REPLENISHMEN
2/6/2019 273692106180 E 782-07410-5081 86,729.00 JANUARY 2019 WORKERS' COMP LOSS REPLENISH
2/6/2019 27369396441 E 782-07410-5081 15,935.00 FEBRUARY 2019 WORKERS' COMP ADMIN SVCS
2/13/2019 273939106227 E 782-07410-5081 14,500.00 WORKER'S COMPENSATION LOSS REPLEN-PREFU
Payments issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $2,792,682.95
PARKS & RECREATION
A KARAOKE DJ RENTAL 2/13/2019 273940CC385887 E 100-17111-5061 420.00 ES - KAROAKE RENTAL FOR KARAOKE NIGHT
A+ LIVESCAN SERVICES 2/13/2019 2738304955 E 100-17275-5037 99.00 FINGERPRINTING/LIVE SCAN FEE FOR LISA WILSO
2/15/2019 2739575002 E 100-17275-5037 99.00 FINGERPRINTING/LIVE SCAN FEE FOR GUILLERM
ALPINE AWARDS 2/6/2019 2736285531220 E 100-17240-5021 196.76 AWARD RIBBONS FOR SPORTS PROGRAMS
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/13/2019 273940cc386177 E 100-17275-5021 60.00 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273940cc386208 E 100-17275-5021 18.56 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273940cc386339 E 100-17275-5021 130.70 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273940cc386344 E 100-17275-5021 67.97 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273940cc386345 E 100-17275-5021 7.46 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273940cc386346 E 100-17270-5021 49.32 LA- PROGRAM SUPPILES
2/13/2019 273940cc386347 E 100-17270-5021 260.02 LA- PRROGRAM SUPPLIES
AMAZON.COM 2/15/2019 274011CC388022 E 100-17230-5020 130.01 DS-AMAZON PRIME MEMBERSHIP FEE
2/15/2019 274011CC388104 E 100-17310-5020 49.11 GM: TURF MANAGEMENT BOOK
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 2/8/2019 273708760042200 E 100-17320-5034 266.06 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/8/2019 273708760053757 E 100-17320-5034 64.56 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/13/2019 273839760065375 E 100-17320-5034 308.56 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
ART'S PENINSULA LOCKSMITH 2/8/2019 273709444438 E 100-17250-5021 121.53 KEYS FOR OMP POOL
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 11 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
ART'S PENINSULA LOCKSMITH 2/13/2019 273840444413 E 100-17320-5050 588.68 PARKS DIV - KEYS
ASHLY MICHELSON 2/15/2019 27399012/14-12/15/18 E 100-17275-5031 19.87 EMPLOYEE REIMB. FOR PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES
BARNES & NOBLE 2/8/2019 273819CC387596 E 100-17999-5999 112.46 DG - PROGRAM SUPPLEIS FOR LITTLE STEPS PRES
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF SOCIAL SVCS2/15/2019 273963414002856 E 100-17275-5029 726.00 LICENSING FEES FOR AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM A
CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 464 2/6/2019 273640464253105 E 100-17230-5051 76.12 OMP POOL SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273720464246945 E 100-17230-5051 337.22 OMP POOL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
CITY MECHANICAL INC 2/8/2019 27372249093 E 100-17971-5061 521.29 HVAC MAINT @ WESTBOROUGH
2/8/2019 27372249165 E 100-17971-5061 2,241.46 HVAC MAINT @ WESTBOROUGH
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN2/13/2019 2738578155 20 044 0216218 E 100-17276-5021 53.75 MONTHLY CABLE SERVICE AT MAGNOLIA SENIOR
2/15/2019 2739698155 20 044 0252494 E 100-17240-5021 37.32 MONTHLY CABLE BILL FOR TERRABAY GLDG.
COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING 2/13/2019 273940cc386350 E 100-17275-5029 242.00 LA SPRUCE LISCENCING FEE
CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 2/15/2019 274011CC388102 E 100-17110-5050 195.00 GM: E-MARKETING MONTHLY SERVICE
COSTCO 2/8/2019 273819CC387592 E 100-17275-5021 675.40 DG - SNACK SUPPLES FOR WESTBOROUGH PRESC
2/8/2019 273819CC387593 E 100-17999-5999 327.68 DG - SNACK SUPPLEIS FOR LITTLE STEPS PRESCHO
2/8/2019 273819CC387594 E 100-17275-5021 683.12 DG - SNACKS FOR SIEBECKER PRESCHOOL
2/13/2019 273940cc386887 E 100-17275-5021 397.35 CR-PONDEROSA SNACK
DAN'S DRILLING & FENCING INC 2/13/2019 273862130192 E 100-17320-5050 2,750.00 PARKS DIV - FENCE REPAIR
DAVID L GATES & ASSOCIATES INC2/8/2019 27373151441 E 100-17970-5061 4,156.66 SIGN HILL MANAGMENT PLAN TASK ORDER #201
DEVIL MOUNTAIN NURSERY 2/15/2019 273972102358 E 100-17970-5061 3,053.10 CITY HALL PLANT MATERIAL
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 2/15/2019 273973W32943470101 E 100-17275-5021 464.98 PROGRAM SUPPLIES FOR AFTER SCHOOL SITES
2/15/2019 273973W33140900103 E 100-17999-5999 744.10 PROGRAM SUPPLIES FOR BIG LIFT PROGRAM
DOLLAR TREE STORE 2/13/2019 273940CC386176 E 100-17275-5021 64.71 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
ELISIA ESPINOZA 2/13/2019 27387112/11-12/12/2018 E 100-17275-5021 50.32 PROGRAM SUPPLIES
EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC 2/8/2019 2737376757308 E 231-17531-5050 29.00 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2737376757308 E 100-17320-5050 469.66 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2737376757308 E 100-17970-5061 431.00 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2737376761708 E 100-17970-5061 367.95 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2737376761708 E 100-17320-5050 367.95 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
FOOD SERVICE PARTNERS OF CA 2/15/2019 273976SSF0198 E 100-17276-5061 2,912.05 MEALS FOR MAGNOLIA SENIOR CENTER - JANUA
HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 2/8/2019 273750110856 E 100-17420-5050 45.19 W ORANGE LIBRARY - PAINT SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273750110879 E 100-17971-5061 112.81 W ORANGE LIBRARY - PAINT SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273750110883 E 100-17420-5050 95.33 MSB - PAINT SUPPLIES
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 12 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 2/8/2019 273750110913 E 100-17420-5050 65.57 MSB - PAINT SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273750110926 E 100-17420-5050 64.17 MSB - PAINT SUPPLIES
HUB INTERNATIONAL INSUR SVCS 2/8/2019 273751HubInsJan2019 E 100-17210-5004 2,007.44 INSURANCE PAYMENT FOR FACILITY RENTALS FO
INDEED 2/13/2019 273940cc386338 E 100-17275-5033 100.00 LA JOB POSTING
KATHLEEN GATELY 2/8/2019 27374511-4-18 E 100-17275-5033 2,000.00 FALL 2018 - EDUCATION REIMB FOR K. GATLEY
KELLI JO CULLINAN 2/13/2019 2738611-11-19 Cash Adv E 100-17276-5061 500.00 CASH ADVANCE FOR SENIOR SUPPLIES AND SERVI
KELLY PAPER CO 2/13/2019 273940CC386174 E 100-17275-5020 48.60 LA- OFFICE SUPPLIES
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 2/13/2019 273894902088 E 100-17320-5050 34.97 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273894902155 E 231-17531-5050 15.49 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/13/2019 273894902314 E 100-17320-5050 8.67 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/13/2019 273894902389 E 100-17320-5050 13.87 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/13/2019 273894902646 E 100-17320-5050 30.52 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/13/2019 273894903662 E 231-17531-5050 39.22 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/13/2019 273894903896 E 100-17320-5050 66.59 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/15/2019 273988901282 E 100-17420-5050 106.68 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/15/2019 273988902314 E 100-17320-5050 8.67 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/15/2019 273988902341 E 100-17320-5050 16.82 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/15/2019 273988902604 E 100-17420-5050 66.05 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273988902806 E 100-17420-5050 301.66 FIRE STATION 62 - OPER SUPP
2/15/2019 273988916452 E 100-17420-5050 46.67 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/15/2019 273988929851 E 100-17275-5021 6.61 SUPPLIES FOR PONDEROSA KIDS CLUB
MICHAEL KILMARTIN 2/6/2019 27366001/08-01/29/19 E 100-17310-5031 26.00 BRIDGE TOLL - KILMARTIN
MICHAEL'S 2/13/2019 273940CC386178 E 100-17275-5021 58.61 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273940cc386348 E 100-17275-5021 63.42 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLES
PET CLUB 2/15/2019 274011cc386164 E 100-17275-5021 103.80 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
POSTMASTER- SAN BRUNO OFFICE 2/6/2019 2736721/31/19 E 100-17110-5027 3,450.00 POSTAGE FOR SPRING LEISURE GUIDE 2019
QUENCH USA, INC. 2/8/2019 273785INV01428913 E 100-17410-5005 71.91 CORP YARD FILTERED WATER 10/1/18-11/30/18
2/8/2019 273785INV01519547 E 100-17410-5005 71.91 CORP YARD FILTERED WATER 12/1/18-1/31/19
READYREFRESH 2/13/2019 27391909A0030586945 E 100-17276-5021 20.52 MONTHLY BOTTLED WATER SERVICE AT MAGNOL
REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIB2/8/2019 27378939253533-00 E 100-17420-5050 104.09 FILTERS
2/8/2019 27378939254929-01 E 100-17420-5050 288.05 NON STOCK BOARD
SAFEWAY INC 2/15/2019 273997153302 E 100-17275-5021 1,460.62 SAFEWAY PURCHASES FOR CHILDCARE PROGRAM
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 13 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 2/6/2019 273687023296 E 100-17111-5061 89.19 EVENT SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273926032211 E 100-17275-5021 20.97 BURI BURI SNACK
2/13/2019 273926032212 E 100-17275-5021 38.53 PONDO COOKING AND SCIENCE SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274000037281 E 100-17275-5021 27.97 PONDEROSA SNACK SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 27400036590 E 100-17275-5021 209.71 COOKING SUPPLIES FOR MONTE VERDE AFTERSC
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 2/8/2019 273803965483 E 100-17420-5050 3.81 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803965516 E 100-17420-5050 27.95 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803965596 E 100-17420-5050 11.64 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803965834 E 100-17420-5050 7.63 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803965963 E 100-17320-5050 21.81 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803965966 E 100-17420-5050 11.68 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803965979 E 100-17320-5050 62.55 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966009 E 100-17420-5050 6.42 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966200 E 100-17420-5050 12.88 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966225 E 100-17320-5050 6.54 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966318 E 100-17420-5050 39.25 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966328 E 100-17420-5050 71.83 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966332 E 100-17420-5050 7.64 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966379 E 100-17420-5050 12.74 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966400 E 100-17420-5050 8.73 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966600 E 100-17420-5050 23.20 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966638 E 100-17420-5050 1.30 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966716 E 100-17420-5050 13.60 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966749 E 100-17420-5050 4.62 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966751 E 100-17420-5050 21.84 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966752 E 100-17420-5050 10.91 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803966977 E 100-17320-5050 44.20 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803967075 E 100-17420-5050 13.19 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803967080 E 100-17420-5050 22.92 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803967292 E 100-17420-5050 11.68 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803967297 E 100-17420-5050 34.96 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803967298 E 100-17320-5050 60.12 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 14 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 2/8/2019 273803967299 E 100-17420-5050 34.61 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803967329 E 100-17420-5050 12.87 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/8/2019 273803967410 E 100-17320-5050 28.80 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002936592 E 100-17240-5021 37.43 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR TERRABAY BUILDIN
2/15/2019 274002953750 E 100-17240-5021 40.91 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR TERRABAY BUILDIN
2/15/2019 274002955726 E 100-17240-5021 98.19 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR TERRABAY BUILDIN
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 2/8/2019 273819CC387075 E 100-17310-5036 93.51 MP: PMW ORAL PANEL LUNCH
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/15/2019 2740038053140836 E 100-17240-5020 91.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FERNEKES AND TERRABAY
2/15/2019 2740038053140836 E 100-17275-5021 555.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FERNEKES AND TERRABAY
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 2/13/2019 273940CC386169 E 100-17275-5020 211.01 LA- OFFICE SUPPLIES
TARGET 2/8/2019 273819CC387597 E 100-17999-5999 159.09 DG - PROGRAM SUPPLIES FOR LITTLE STEPS PRES
ULISESS CATERING SERVICES 2/6/2019 2736951-25-19 E 100-17111-5061 1,063.55 RECEPTION FOR PHOTOGRAPHY SHOW - 75 PEO
UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA 2/15/2019 274013114-7974165 E 100-17320-5001 149.99 PK - RESTROOMS @ COMMUNITY GARDENS
2/15/2019 274013114-7988275 E 100-17320-5001 118.13 PK - RESTROOMS @ PONDEROSA FIELD
2/15/2019 274013114-7988276 E 100-17320-5001 118.13 PK - RESTROOMS @ PARADISE FIELD
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 2/15/2019 2740159065103286 E 100-17320-5034 109.86 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 2740159065282510 E 100-17320-5034 601.19 OPERATING SUPPLIES
WESTERN EXTERMINATOR CO 2/8/2019 2738256561177 E 100-17410-5005 1,934.00 PEST CONTROL - NOVEMBER 2018
2/8/2019 2738256666833 E 100-17410-5005 2,283.00 PEST CONTROL - DECEMBER 2018
Payments issued for PARKS & RECREATION $45,669.13
POLICE
ALASKA AIR 2/13/2019 273940CC387882 E 100-12110-5032 160.20 JA - AIRFARE TO CHICAGO
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/8/2019 273819CC387356 E 100-12110-5020 14.99 KW - OFFICE SUPPLIES
AMERICAN AIRLINES 2/13/2019 273940CC387883 E 100-12110-5032 189.39 JA - RETURN AIRFARE FROM CHICAGO
AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES 2/8/2019 273705M7175147TB E 100-12410-5071 18.56 PAGER SERVICE - PD & WQCP
CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2/13/2019 2738532389 E 100-12110-5061 941.99 POLICE ID CARD SYSTEM - RENEWAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2/8/2019 27372503/13-03/15/19 E 100-12720-5033 470.00 FIELD TRAINING OFFICER - UPDATE SHAM/MILLE
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SHERIFF 2/8/2019 27372702/11-02/14/19 E 100-12720-5033 825.00 CRISIS INTERVENTION TRAINING (3)
2/8/2019 27372711327 E 100-12720-5033 618.53 COYOTE POINT RANGE FEE OCT 18 -DEC 18
D&M POLYGRAPH 2/8/2019 27372931 JAN 2018 E 100-12110-5061 300.00 POLYGRAPH FOR K. SOLANO
DATA911 2/13/2019 273863123249 E 100-12110-5045 7,722.00 POLICE VEHICLE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 15 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
POLICE
EQUIFAX 2/8/2019 273819CC387358 E 100-12720-5036 38.95 AP - PRE-EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND
EXPEDIA SALES 2/13/2019 273940CC387884 E 100-12110-5061 27.99 JA - EXPEDIA FEES FOR CHICAGO TRIP
IMPACT POWER TECHNOLOGIES LLC 2/13/2019 27388311081 E 100-12720-5051 371.00 RECHARGABLE LI ION BATTERIES FOR RADIOS
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 2/13/2019 2738894482905 E 100-12210-5001 248.97 PHONE TRANSLATIONS
LC ACTION POLICE SUPPLY LTD 2/8/2019 273759391395 E 100-12999-5999 504.56 BULLET PROOF VEST - MCGUIRE
2/8/2019 273759391395 E 100-12720-5034 504.57 BULLET PROOF VEST - MCGUIRE
2/8/2019 273759391668 E 100-12999-5999 504.57 BULLET PROOF VEST - VAZQUEZ
2/8/2019 273759391668 E 100-12720-5034 504.56 BULLET PROOF VEST - VAZQUEZ
2/8/2019 273759391669 E 100-12720-5034 504.56 BULLET PROOF VEST - ZHANG
2/8/2019 273759391669 E 100-12999-5999 504.57 BULLET PROOF VEST - ZHANG
2/8/2019 273759391731 E 100-12720-5034 504.57 BULLET PROF VEST - YOSHIDA
2/8/2019 273759391731 E 100-12999-5999 504.56 BULLET PROF VEST - YOSHIDA
METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 2/8/2019 273765055019 E 100-12720-5051 231.57 FACTORY DEPOT REPAIR - RADIO
OCEAN CYCLERY INC 2/13/2019 273940CC387852 E 100-12720-5051 211.55 AP - NEW BICYCLE PARTS
2/13/2019 273940CC387860 E 100-12720-5061 1,365.23 MS - NEW PATROL BICYCLE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/8/2019 273775231644020001 E 100-12110-5020 95.95 OFFICE SUPPLIES
PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIP INC2/8/2019 273781151897 E 100-12720-5034 451.26 BULLET PROOF VEST - ZOCCA
2/8/2019 273781151897 E 100-12999-5999 451.26 BULLET PROOF VEST - ZOCCA
2/8/2019 273781154119 E 100-12999-5999 451.26 BULLET PROOF VEST - ALVARENGA
2/8/2019 273781154119 E 100-12720-5034 451.26 BULLET PROOF VEST - ALVARENGA
PET FOOD EXPRESS 2/13/2019 27391201/03/19 DF E 100-12720-5051 163.09 CANINE FOOD - FINNEGAN
2/13/2019 27391201/21/19 MM E 100-12720-5061 205.50 CANINE FOOD - MAHON
2/13/2019 27391201/24/19 CD E 100-12720-5051 90.66 CANINE FOOD - DEVAN
2/13/2019 27391201/28/19 NM E 100-12720-5051 205.50 CANINE FOOD - MICHELS
PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRAPHICS2/8/2019 27378433445 E 100-12210-5025 387.84 SUBPOENA NOTICE (DOOR HANGER) 1,000
2/8/2019 27378433458 E 100-12210-5025 135.47 ARREST CARDS 2,000
READYREFRESH 2/8/2019 2737875709746001 E 100-12720-5051 301.79 WATER COOLER RENTAL 11/11-01/10/19 (2 MON
SAFEWAY STORE 2/13/2019 273940CC387861 E 100-12110-5061 75.07 MS - REFRESHMENTS FOR R. CHON'S RETIREMEN
SAN MATEO COUNTY LAW ENFORCEME2/13/2019 27392201/30/19 AP E 100-12110-5031 125.00 2019 SMCLETMA MEMBERSHIP DUES - PLANK
SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFE2/8/2019 27380102/26-02/27/19 E 100-12720-5033 250.00 FIREARMS - PATROL RIFLE OPERATOR (2) ZOCCA/
2/8/2019 273801219423 E 100-12720-5036 17,580.00 POLICE ACADEMY 5 - HAHN, HYDE, SAKURAI, TEN
2/15/2019 27400102/20-02/22/19 E 100-12720-5033 140.00 FIELD TRANING OFFICE UPDATE -BOWER/LEE
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 16 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
POLICE
SSF SCAVENGER CO INC 2/8/2019 2738060000790811 E 100-12110-5020 240.00 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION SERVICE
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/15/2019 2740038053140813 E 100-12110-5020 4,925.80 OFFICE SUPPLIES
STARBUCKS 2/13/2019 273940CC387864 E 100-12720-5061 115.00 MS - COFFEE FOR R. CHON'S RETIREMENT
2/13/2019 273940CC387864 E 100-12110-5061 115.00 MS - COFFEE FOR R. CHON'S RETIREMENT
TACTICAL K9 LLC 2/15/2019 27400603/04-03/8/19 E 100-12720-5051 1,500.00 ELECTRONIC COLLAR WORKSHOP- HANDLER
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENG ASSOC 2/13/2019 27393745809 E 100-12410-5005 16,583.33 PROF. MONTHLY SERVICES - JAN 2019
2/15/2019 27400745805 E 100-12410-5001 4,735.00 MONTHLY RADIOS MAINT JAN 2019
VOIANCE LANGUAGE SVCS, LLC 2/13/2019 273946890881 E 100-12210-5001 30.40 VIDEO TRANSLATIONS
Payments issued for POLICE $67,597.88
PUBLIC WORKS
AIRGAS USA, LLC 2/13/2019 2738359959688290 E 710-13922-5050 26.96 WELDING GAS RESTOCK
AIRPORT AUTO PARTS INC 2/8/2019 273701396443 E 781-13610-5021 7.31 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 518
2/15/2019 273958397867 E 781-13610-5021 7.63 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY2/8/2019 2737025200379 E 710-13962-5051 1,450.02 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES - REPLACEMENT POTENTIO
2/13/2019 2738365200439 E 710-13951-5051 655.35 ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2738365200597 E 710-13943-5051 546.20 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2738365200773 E 710-13922-5051 319.86 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2738365200774 E 710-13943-5050 276.51 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
ALL STAR GLASS 2/15/2019 273959WSF091749 E 781-13610-5001 581.51 GARAGE- VEH 5 WINDSHIELD
ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 2/8/2019 2737039013359MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 180.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/8/2019 2737039013576-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 80.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/8/2019 2737039013778-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 58.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/8/2019 2737039013779-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 58.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/13/2019 2738379014082-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 163.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/13/2019 2738379014464-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 58.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/13/2019 2738379014466-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 58.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/13/2019 2738379014467-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 58.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/13/2019 2738379014540-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 101.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/8/2019 273819CC387063 E 710-13910-5041 31.00 BS REPLACEMENT A/C ADAPTER DELL 0500
2/8/2019 273819CC387064 E 710-13953-5033 89.57 BS OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273819CC387065 E 710-13910-5041 96.72 BS OPERATING SUPPLIES
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 17 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/8/2019 273819CC387066 E 710-13910-5050 32.00 BS REPLACEMENT BATTERY CHARGER NIMH/ NIC
AMAZON.COM 2/8/2019 273819CC387061 E 710-13953-5020 162.66 BS OFFICE SUPPLIES
AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES 2/8/2019 273705M7175147TB E 710-13910-5071 77.78 PAGER SERVICE - PD & WQCP
APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH-CA,LLC2/13/2019 2738387015410872 E 710-13941-5051 3,526.62 ELECTRIC MOTOR REPLACEMENT - PRIMARY SLU
AQUA HAND WASH AND GAS 2/8/2019 2737071/28/19 E 781-13610-5001 851.78 CAR WASH SERVICE FOR SSFPD VEHICLES
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 2/8/2019 273708000758972282 E 710-13910-5001 229.25 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/8/2019 273708000758983880 E 710-13910-5001 144.27 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/8/2019 273708000758983881 E 710-13910-5001 202.75 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/8/2019 273708760019008 E 100-13410-5001 44.48 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760019008 E 710-13315-5001 44.47 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760019011 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE SHOP TOWELS
2/8/2019 273708760030585 E 710-13315-5001 379.73 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760030585 E 710-13310-5001 379.72 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760030587 E 781-13610-5001 15.95 GARAGE DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760030588 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE SHOP TOWELS & FENDER SEAT COVERS
2/8/2019 273708760042196 E 710-13310-5001 113.75 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760042196 E 710-13315-5001 113.76 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760042198 E 781-13610-5001 67.95 GARAGE DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760042199 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE FENDER SEAT COVERS
2/8/2019 273708760053753 E 710-13310-5001 41.75 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760053753 E 710-13315-5001 41.76 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760053755 E 781-13610-5001 15.95 GARAGE DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/8/2019 273708760053756 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE FENDER SEAT COVERS
2/13/2019 273839760053745 E 710-13910-5001 144.27 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/13/2019 273839760053748 E 710-13910-5001 172.30 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/13/2019 273839760065363 E 710-13910-5001 144.27 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/13/2019 273839760065366 E 710-13910-5001 172.30 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/13/2019 273839760076881 E 710-13910-5001 144.27 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/13/2019 273839760076882 E 710-13910-5001 172.30 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
2/15/2019 273960760065371 E 710-13315-5001 94.25 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/15/2019 273960760065371 E 710-13310-5001 94.26 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/15/2019 273960760065373 E 781-13610-5001 41.95 GARAGE DIVISION UNIFORMS
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 18 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 2/15/2019 273960760065374 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE SHOP TOWELS
2/15/2019 273960760076884 E 710-13310-5001 76.25 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/15/2019 273960760076884 E 710-13315-5001 76.26 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/15/2019 273960760076886 E 781-13610-5001 59.45 GARAGE DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/15/2019 273960760076887 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE - SHOP TOWELS
BAY AREA UPHOLSTERY 2/8/2019 2737158350 E 781-13610-5001 800.44 GARAGE- VEH 257 REPAIRS
BLUEBEAM INC 2/13/2019 2738451217811 E 100-13210-5045 1,745.00 BLUEBEAM REVU - ENGINEERING (5)
C H BULL CO 2/6/2019 2736361200577 E 710-13315-5021 174.58 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/6/2019 2736361200579 E 710-13315-5051 4,904.01 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
CAL SIGNAL CORP 2/13/2019 2738507526 E 100-13450-5021 1,286.60 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 2739627457 E 100-13450-5021 437.00 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 2739627529 E 100-13450-5021 965.59 SIGNAL OPER SUPPLIES
CARLOS FLORES-MARTINEZ 2/13/2019 27387312/30/2019 E 710-13910-5005 2,000.00 EDUCATION EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CAR
CITY AUTO SUPPLY 2/6/2019 2736413-595078 E 781-13610-5021 15.32 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 512
2/8/2019 2737213-597231 E 781-13610-5021 73.46 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 266
2/8/2019 2737213-597636 E 781-13610-5021 571.80 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 509
2/8/2019 2737213-598752 E 781-13610-5021 11.80 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2737213-600628 E 781-13610-5021 32.56 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 737
2/8/2019 2737213-601426 E 781-13610-5021 9.25 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 127
2/15/2019 2739683-601819 E 781-13610-5021 14.75 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 2739683-602484 E 781-13610-5021 10.38 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 272
2/15/2019 2739683-603147 E 781-13610-5021 20.05 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 521
2/15/2019 2739683-604136 E 781-13610-5021 6.80 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 289
2/15/2019 2739683-605192 E 781-13610-5021 310.84 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 2739683-605597 E 781-13610-5021 134.05 GARAGE SUPPLIES VEH 293 & 236
2/15/2019 2739683-605957 E 781-13610-5021 45.99 GARAGE- VEH 250 BRAKE PADS
2/15/2019 2739683-605978 E 781-13610-5021 12.79 GARAGE - VEH 250 FILTER
2/15/2019 2739683-606799 E 781-13610-5021 9.22 GARAGE - VEH 625 BELTS
CITY MECHANICAL INC 2/8/2019 27372248588 E 720-13720-5005 1,191.64 HVAC @ MPG
COLE-PARMER INSTRUMENT COMPANY2/8/2019 2737231750697 E 710-13944-5021 4,335.02 LABORATORY INSTRUMENTS - PH AND TURBIDITY
2/8/2019 2737231753351 E 710-13951-5021 68.50 LAB SUPPLIES
COSTCO 2/15/2019 274011cc388122 E 710-13910-5045 256.70 DW - WQCP DESKJET INK
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 19 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
CRANE & HOIST SERVICES 2/13/2019 2738584438 E 710-13930-5051 200.00 QUARTERLY CRANE INSPECTION
2/13/2019 2738584438 E 710-13943-5051 200.00 QUARTERLY CRANE INSPECTION
2/13/2019 2738584438 E 710-13931-5051 200.00 QUARTERLY CRANE INSPECTION
2/13/2019 2738584438 E 710-13932-5051 200.00 QUARTERLY CRANE INSPECTION
CULLIGAN SANTA CLARA 2/13/2019 2738600100178 E 710-13941-5051 202.40 WATER SOFTENER SERVICE
CWEA SPECIALTY CONFERENCES 2/8/2019 273819CC 387558 E 710-13315-5031 87.00 LL CC - CWEA GRADE I D.KEAHI
2/8/2019 273819CC 387560 E 710-13315-5031 280.00 LL CC - CWEA MEMB. RENEWAL H.GRAY
2/8/2019 273819CC 387580 E 710-13310-5031 188.00 LL CC - CWEA MEMB RENEWAL L.LANGI
DAN'S DRILLING & FENCING INC 2/13/2019 2738620120191 E 100-13411-5001 5,465.00 FENCE REPAIR @ TRAIN STATION E.GRAND/DUBU
2/13/2019 2738620124191 E 720-13720-5005 575.00 FENCE REPAIRS @ GRAND AND CYPRESS
DAVID WIGTON 2/13/2019 2739512/8/19 E 781-13610-5031 46.00 CLASS B DRIVER'S LICENSE REIMB - D.WIGTON
DEVIN KEAHI 2/13/2019 2738861/10-1/16/19 E 710-13310-5031 114.84 STANDBY MIILEAGE REIMB. D.KEAHI
2/13/2019 2738861/17-1/22/19 E 710-13315-5031 102.08 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMB. D.KEAHI
DISH NETWORK 2/8/2019 273819CC387060 E 710-13910-5005 115.84 BS DISH NETWORK
DKF SOLUTIONS GROUP LLC 2/8/2019 273819CC 387553 E 710-13315-5033 968.73 LL CC - SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
DYSERT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 2/8/2019 27373314128 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/8/2019 27373314129 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/8/2019 27373314130 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/8/2019 27373314155 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/8/2019 27373314156 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/13/2019 27386814161 E 710-13953-5005 350.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/13/2019 27386814166 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
E-BUILDER INC 2/15/2019 2739746378 E 100-13410-5001 2,310.00 ONSITE E-BUILDER TRAINING -
2/15/2019 2739746378 E 710-13310-5001 2,310.00 ONSITE E-BUILDER TRAINING -
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC. 2/13/2019 2738701000541649 E 710-13951-5021 1,560.37 LAB SUPPLIES
EXPROLINK 2/8/2019 27373835337 E 781-13610-5021 402.79 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 625
FASTENAL COMPANY 2/15/2019 273975CAS1036062 E 710-13315-5021 45.02 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC2/8/2019 2737426035793 E 710-13951-5021 371.47 LAB SUPPLIES
FLYERS ENERGY LLC 2/6/2019 27365319-832846 E 781-13610-5028 1,374.08 FS 61 FUEL
2/6/2019 27365319-832848 E 781-13610-5028 950.30 FS 61 FUEL
2/6/2019 27365319-832849 E 781-13610-5028 698.35 FS 64 DIESEL
2/8/2019 27374319-845061 E 781-13610-5021 376.71 CORP YARD DIESEL
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 20 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
FLYERS ENERGY LLC 2/8/2019 27374319-845599 E 781-13610-5028 1,908.57 FS 61 FUEL
2/8/2019 27374319-845600 E 781-13610-5028 1,044.23 FS 61 FUEL
2/8/2019 27374319-845601 E 781-13610-5028 2,489.44 FS 63 FUEL
2/8/2019 27374319-845602 E 781-13610-5028 622.37 FS 64 FUEL
2/8/2019 27374319-845603 E 781-13610-5028 1,452.17 FS 65 FUEL
2/13/2019 27387418-772903 E 781-13610-5028 594.48 GARAGE - LUBRICANTS
FRANK A OLSEN CO 2/15/2019 273977241947 E 710-13943-5051 150.89 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
GCS ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPT SVCS 2/8/2019 27374618751 E 781-13610-5021 1,809.53 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 310
GOLDEN GATE TRUCK CENTER 2/15/2019 273978F005900063:01 E 781-13610-5021 201.08 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 505
2/15/2019 273978F005900314:01 E 781-13610-5021 25.31 GARAGE- VEH 505 MIRROR SWITCH
HACH COMPANY 2/13/2019 27387811323285 E 710-13951-5021 346.21 LAB SUPPLIES
HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC 2/8/2019 273748003N1039 E 710-13942-5051 397.99 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273880003N1181 E 710-13942-5051 874.03 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273880003N1285 E 710-13944-5051 754.80 PVC EXPANSION JOINT RESTOCK
2/13/2019 273880003N1286 E 710-13964-5051 524.11 PVC FITTINGS RESTOCK
2/13/2019 273880003N1394 E 710-13951-5051 798.63 PVC SHOP SUPPLY RESTOCK
HILTI, INC. 2/8/2019 2737494613031591 E 710-13944-5021 655.38 REPLACEMENT SHOP TOOLS
HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 2/15/2019 273981111053 E 710-13910-5050 87.67 PAINT SUPPLIES
IDEXX DISTRIBUTION, INC. 2/13/2019 2738823042440529 E 710-13951-5021 1,721.42 LAB SUPPLIES
IPS GROUP, INC 2/8/2019 27375339303 E 720-13720-5005 195.91 PARKING - PAPER ROLL
2/8/2019 27375339373 E 720-13720-5005 5,765.63 PARKING - BATTERY PACK ASSEMBLY
2/13/2019 27388439882 E 720-13720-5005 6,067.25 JAN 2019 CC TRANS FEE FOR SINGLE SPACE PARKI
JAM SERVICES INC 2/8/2019 273754114597 E 100-13450-5021 4,894.40 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES
JUSTIN LOVELL 2/13/2019 27389301/15-01/18/19 E 710-13310-5033 329.18 LEADERSHIP ICMA CONFERENCE-01/15/2019-01/
K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 2/15/2019 27398376224 E 710-13953-5021 21.33 OPERATING SUPPLIES
KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 2/8/2019 273755H985408 E 710-13943-5050 370.08 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CONTACT BREAKER RE
2/13/2019 273885K776771 E 710-13943-5051 2,017.56 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273984F480657 E 710-13962-5051 236.35 LAB SUPPLIES
KENNETH DE LEON 2/13/2019 2738641/18/2018 E 710-13932-5051 13.93 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
2/13/2019 2738641/18/2018 E 710-13922-5050 35.47 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
2/13/2019 2738641/18/2018 E 710-13941-5021 12.29 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
KITCHELL CEM 2/15/2019 27398582281 E 100-13210-5001 5,440.00 KITCHELL CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION SVCS 1
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 21 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
LARRY YAN 2/8/2019 2738291/06-1/22/2019 E 710-13310-5031 159.73 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMB. L.YAN
2/13/2019 2739531/24-1/30/19 E 710-13315-5031 65.77 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMB - L.YAN
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 2/8/2019 273819CC 387555 E 740-13820-5021 58.07 LL CC - OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273894902012 E 100-13450-5021 30.97 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273894902041 E 100-13460-5021 8.22 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273894902640 E 710-13922-5050 142.53 MAINTENANCE SUPPLEIS
2/13/2019 273894902885 E 710-13315-5021 17.15 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273988902014 E 710-13943-5050 35.06 MIANTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273988902022 E 710-13315-5021 316.78 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273988902107 E 100-13411-5021 276.02 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273988902269 E 710-13315-5021 33.50 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273988902974 E 710-13943-5050 35.06 MIANTENANCE SUPPLIES
MARK WILLIAMS 2/8/2019 2738261/10-1/16/19 E 710-13315-5031 128.41 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMB. M.WILLIAMS
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 2/8/2019 27376484844482 E 710-13943-5050 273.63 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 27376484901582 E 710-13961-5051 4,435.94 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 27389985134486 E 710-13951-5051 66.34 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 27389985338352 E 710-13943-5051 339.02 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 27389985731142 E 710-13941-5050 229.94 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
MOBILE CALIBRATION SERVICES LL2/8/2019 27376819-002681 E 710-13910-5061 213.50 GAS METER CALIBRATION
MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPT CORP 2/6/2019 273668CA94-943747 E 740-13820-5021 320.52 STORM MAINT - MONTECINOS
2/8/2019 273771CA94-943750 E 740-13820-5021 131.10 STORM MAINT - BLAKISTON
2/8/2019 273771CA94-943932 E 740-13820-5021 114.18 STORM MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273771CA94-943973 E 710-13943-5051 730.40 REPLACEMENT RAIN GEAR - PLANT OPERATIONS
NELSON YUK 2/13/2019 2739541/29/2019 E 710-13951-5031 188.00 NELSON YUK CWEA MEMBERSHIP
NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 2/13/2019 273904050685 E 710-13951-5004 580.75 DISPOSAL OF SMALL QUANTITY HAZARDOUS WAS
NSI SOLUTIONS, INC. 2/8/2019 273773362379 E 710-13951-5021 383.00 LAB SUPPLIES
OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. 2/13/2019 273906S020705 E 740-13820-5021 941.30 CATCH BASIN INSERT MAINTENANCE
OLE'S CARBURETOR & ELEC INC 2/8/2019 273776427719 E 781-13610-5021 23.71 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 518
2/8/2019 273776427720 E 781-13610-5021 120.50 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 523
2/8/2019 273776427722 E 781-13610-5021 11.85 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 27399200010428324 E 720-13720-5021 6.61 MPG OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 27399200010428444 E 781-13610-5021 24.33 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 625
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 22 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 2/8/2019 273778SJ21155001 E 720-13720-5005 789.24 MPG ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
PANKEY'S RADIATOR INC. 2/15/2019 273993243361 E 781-13610-5001 402.85 GARAGE - VEH 625 REPAIRS
PENINSULA BATTERY CO 2/8/2019 273779127958 E 100-13450-5021 963.22 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES - VICTORY/S. SPRUCE
2/8/2019 273779128025 E 781-13610-5021 451.96 GARAGE - VEH 133, 2, 6 OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273994128104 E 781-13610-5021 240.17 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 1 & 8
2/15/2019 273994128107 E 781-13610-5021 565.53 GARAGE - VEH 14, 752 & STOCK
2/15/2019 273994128169 E 781-13610-5021 93.32 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 244
2/15/2019 273994128221 E 100-13450-5021 110.20 GRAND CROSSWALK LIGHTING
PENINSULA PUMP & EQUIPT INC. 2/8/2019 2737803085 E 740-13820-5051 825.00 STORM MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
PETERSON TRUCKS, INC. 2/15/2019 273995165705P E 781-13610-5021 6.65 GARAGE - VEH 515 BOLT
PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIP2/8/2019 2737837160 E 781-13610-5001 244.69 GARAGE - VEH 108 KEY INSTALLATION
2/8/2019 2737837164 E 781-13610-5001 244.69 GARAGE - VEH 112 FOB KEY INSTALL
PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRAPHICS2/8/2019 27378433451 E 100-13520-5001 136.56 BUSINESS CARDS FOR KIM VARNER
RDO EQUIPMENT CO 2/13/2019 273918W15910 E 781-13610-5001 9,332.78 GARAGE- VEH 609 REPAIRS
ROYALTY AUTO COLLISION CTR INC2/8/2019 27379221829 E 781-13610-5001 631.32 GARAGE - VEH 261 FENDER
SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS INC 2/8/2019 27379379077755 E 710-13943-5050 65.00 PARTS CLEANER SERVICE
SANTA CLARA SYSTEMS 2/8/2019 273819CC 387542 E 100-13450-5021 2.73 RC - SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273819CC 387547 E 100-13450-5021 1,187.83 RC CC - SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES
SERRAMONTE FORD INC 2/8/2019 273800231066 E 781-13610-5001 270.00 GARAGE - VEH 18 ENGINE REPAIRS
2/8/2019 273800644747 E 781-13610-5021 70.18 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 261
2/8/2019 273800644748 E 781-13610-5021 246.38 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 3 OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273800644784 E 781-13610-5021 1,344.77 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 14 OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273800644878 E 781-13610-5021 301.11 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 3 OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273800644948 E 781-13610-5021 103.79 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273800644950 E 781-13610-5021 155.69 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273800645291 E 781-13610-5021 655.09 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 5 OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273800645727 E 781-13610-5021 142.32 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 15
2/8/2019 273800645728 E 781-13610-5021 193.68 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273999645813 E 781-13610-5021 191.70 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 127
2/15/2019 273999646251 E 781-13610-5021 34.39 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 15 OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 273999647278 E 781-13610-5021 240.66 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 9
2/15/2019 273999647382 E 781-13610-5021 403.20 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 18
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 23 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
SERRAMONTE FORD INC 2/15/2019 273999647384 E 781-13610-5021 135.52 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 521
2/15/2019 273999647464 E 781-13610-5021 372.48 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 5 OPER SUPPLIES
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 2/8/2019 273803946680 E 100-13430-5021 26.84 CLEAN TEAM OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803949327 E 100-13430-5021 45.66 CLEAN TEAM OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803951369 E 100-13430-5021 36.51 CLEAN TEAM OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803951525 E 100-13430-5021 47.52 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803952435 E 100-13430-5021 53.38 CLEAN TEAM OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803953597 E 710-13315-5021 5.33 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803954427 E 710-13315-5021 26.20 SIDEWALK OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803954578 E 100-13430-5021 218.86 CLEAN TEAM OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273803965273 E 781-13610-5021 5.12 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002965509 E 710-13315-5021 21.83 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002965992 E 740-13820-5021 31.46 STORM MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002966592 E 781-13610-5021 11.76 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002966738 E 740-13820-5021 101.46 STORM MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002966907 E 740-13820-5021 86.20 STORM MAINT - 115 LOMITAS REPAIR
2/15/2019 274002966910 E 740-13820-5021 90.90 STORM MAINT - 115 LOMITAS SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002967016 E 781-13610-5021 18.55 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002967039 E 710-13962-5050 20.16 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002967418 E 710-13315-5021 5.78 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002967579 E 781-13610-5021 2.60 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002967844 E 740-13820-5021 110.89 STORM MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274002967916 E 100-13210-5021 36.30 ENGINEER SUPPLIES
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 2/8/2019 273819CC387059 E 710-13951-5031 74.90 BS BREAKFAST LAB AUDIT
2/8/2019 273819CC387062 E 710-13910-5002 181.70 BS LEAD RECRUITING BREAKFAST
2/13/2019 273940CC387731 E 710-13310-5036 123.65 YM-LUNCH 6 PEOPLE ORAL BOARD 1/10/19-MNG
STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY CO 2/8/2019 273808JDGQ76 E 720-13720-5021 196.88 MPG OPER SUPPLIES
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 2/8/2019 273819CC 387552 E 710-13315-5021 63.30 LL CC - SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL 2/8/2019 273810WD-0140007 E 740-13820-5002 6,129.50 ANNUAL WASTE DISCHARGE FEES
2/8/2019 273810WD-0140007 E 710-13315-5002 6,129.50 ANNUAL WASTE DISCHARGE FEES
STEWART CHEVROLET 2/15/2019 274004117621CVW E 781-13610-5021 105.38 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 119
TANKO STREETLIGHTING SERVICES 2/8/2019 27381351521 E 100-13460-5021 7,866.00 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 24 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
THE ADAM-HILL COMPANY 2/15/2019 27400830053505 E 781-13610-5021 53.02 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 625
THE LIGHTHOUSE, INC 2/8/2019 2738150708292 E 781-13610-5021 180.94 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 320
THOMAS BLAKISTON 2/8/2019 2737181/14-1/15/19 E 710-13315-5031 44.03 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMB. FOR T.BLAKISTON
2/8/2019 2737182/2 - 2/6/19 E 710-13310-5031 70.30 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMB T.BLAKISTON
THOMAS FISH COMPANY 2/15/2019 27400923307 E 710-13951-5021 145.75 BIOASSAY SPECIMEN
TRACTION-GENUINE PARTS CO. 2/8/2019 2738161801P113372 E 781-13610-5021 34.41 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 310
2/8/2019 2738161801P113588 E 781-13610-5021 50.00 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 625 OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738161801P113931 E 781-13610-5021 219.67 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 510 OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738161801P113987 E 781-13610-5021 18.81 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 316
2/15/2019 2740101801P114612 E 781-13610-5021 17.85 GARAGE- VEH 774 DOC HOLDER
TRANSENE COMPANY, INC 2/8/2019 273817165462 E 710-13951-5021 730.86 LAB SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 273938165844 E 710-13951-5021 1,875.29 LAB SUPPLIES
UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORP 2/15/2019 274012CI229917 E 781-13610-5021 882.02 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 310
UNIVAR USA INC 2/8/2019 273820SJ922861 E 710-13944-5021 3,347.98 FY 2018-2019 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
2/8/2019 273820SJ923248 E 710-13964-5021 5,453.18 FY 2018-2019 SODIUM BISULFITE
2/13/2019 273942SJ923912 E 710-13964-5021 5,423.63 FY 2018-2019 SODIUM BISULFITE
2/13/2019 273942SJ923970 E 710-13944-5021 3,349.47 FY 2018-2019 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
VIRIDIAN WASTEWATER CONSULTING2/13/2019 2739453/18-3/20/19 E 710-13910-5033 700.00 GRADE 4 REVIEW FOR MARGARET KELLEY
VWR INTERNATIONAL LLC 2/8/2019 2738218084992642 E 710-13951-5021 2,802.51 LAB SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738218085015918 E 710-13951-5021 64.76 LAB SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2739478085101220 E 710-13951-5021 546.84 LAB SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2739478085117047 E 710-13951-5021 30.82 LAB SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2739478085140294 E 710-13951-5021 25.71 LAB SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2739478085168005 E 710-13944-5021 554.12 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 2/6/2019 2736979045378347 E 100-13460-5021 731.07 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738229064444301 E 710-13941-5050 210.31 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738229065455421 E 100-13450-5021 43.21 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES- OPD
2/8/2019 2738229065692460 E 100-13450-5021 40.39 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES - OPD
2/8/2019 2738229065894355 E 710-13943-5051 24.83 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738229066304156 E 710-13943-5050 47.90 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 27382290668663664 E 710-13951-5051 468.61 MAINTENANCE LAB SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738229067425323 E 710-13922-5002 21.60 ELECTRIAL SUPPLIES
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 25 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 2/8/2019 2738229068515841 E 710-13964-5050 380.03 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738229069333749 E 100-13460-5021 139.23 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 2738229938198679 E 100-13450-5021 22.46 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2739489070225504 E 710-13941-5050 337.65 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2739489072003453 E 710-13962-5050 337.65 OPERATING SUPPLIES - REPLACEMENT LED LAMP
2/13/2019 2739489074517708 E 710-13943-5051 237.28 OPERATING SUPPLIES
WECO INDUSTRIES LLC 2/8/2019 2738230042224-IN E 710-13315-5051 7,051.91 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/13/2019 2739490042671-IN E 710-13315-5051 685.88 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
WIEDAMARK LLC 2/8/2019 273819CC 387536 E 100-13460-5021 368.00 RC - CITY HALL LIGHTING
2/8/2019 273819CC 387540 E 100-13460-5021 234.00 RC - CITY HALL STREETLIGHTING
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 2/13/2019 273952010-40316 E 710-13910-5060 1,000.00 FY2017/18 ANNUAL CONTINUING DISCLOSURE SE
WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTM2/8/2019 273828184-1085752 E 781-13610-5021 1,222.12 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/8/2019 273828184-1085801 E 781-13610-5021 636.57 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 261
2/8/2019 273828184-1085948 E 781-13610-5021 608.07 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/15/2019 274016184-1086009 E 781-13610-5021 532.52 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 224
WORLD OIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 2/15/2019 274017I500-00409790 E 781-13610-5028 65.00 GARAGE - USED OILS
ZAP MANUFACTURING INC 2/13/2019 2739552205 E 100-13430-5021 1,438.37 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
Payments issued for PUBLIC WORKS $192,440.00
BALANCE SHEET
BEST ROOF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY2/8/2019 273716B15-1743 B 270-21724 200.00 RELEASE OF C & D DEPOSIT FOR ROOFING PERMI
CALIFORNIA BANK OF COMMERCE 2/6/2019 27363701292019 B 720-21208 15,435.60 5% RETENTION TO ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR ST130
2/6/2019 27363702042019 B 720-21208 17,638.32 5% RETENTION TO ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR ST130
DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 2/6/2019 273647B3211389 B 100-21742 118.50 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PC MTG 1-24-19
DANIEL J. BAHAMONDES 2/13/2019 273841B17-1618 B 270-21724 200.00 RELEASE OF C&D DEPOSIT, 136 FIR AVENUE,
FLATIRON WEST INC 2/6/2019 2736524 B 720-21208 -99,496.99 WQCP WET WEATHER AND DIGESTOR IMPROVE
FRED MOLTZEN 2/6/2019 2736671139 B 100-21214 571.58 AMBULANCE REFUND ACCT# 1595180
JOSEPH MILLER 2/8/2019 273767B17-1569 B 270-21724 200.00 RELEASE OF WASTE MGT DEPOSIT, 819 MILLER A
LUCIANO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 2/13/2019 273895E18-0700 B 270-21703 2,000.00 ECHROACHMENT DEPOSIT & FEE REFUND
METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 2/13/2019 2739001000693 B 100-21742 1,575.00 SMALL CELL SERVICES THROUGH 10.31.18
2/13/2019 2739001000752 B 100-21742 656.25 SMALL CELL SERVICES THROUGH 11.30.18
2/13/2019 2739001000850 B 100-21742 1,102.50 SMALL CELL SERVICES THROUGH 1.31.19
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 26 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
BALANCE SHEET
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 2/13/2019 273901201810306 B 100-21742 1,877.30 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1316 GATEWAY
2/13/2019 2739012018110039 B 100-21742 2,418.00 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1285 CADENCE
2/13/2019 2739012018110040 B 100-21742 2,262.90 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1286 HASKINS
2/13/2019 2739012018110042 B 100-21742 829.40 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1293 - 410 NOO
2/13/2019 2739012018110043 B 100-21742 201.60 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1294 - 490 SOU
2/13/2019 2739012018110045 B 100-21742 2,137.30 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1299 - 700-1000
2/13/2019 2739012018110046 B 100-21742 594.60 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1300 - 645 BAD
2/13/2019 2739012018110047 B 100-21742 95.70 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1306 - 40 AIRPO
2/13/2019 2739012018110048 B 100-21742 75.60 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1309 - VERIZON
2/13/2019 2739012018110049 B 100-21742 1,742.00 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1313 - 500 S AIR
2/13/2019 2739012018110402 B 100-21742 515.50 PROF SERV THRU 11/30/18 - 405.1318 - OAKMON
2/13/2019 273901201811120304 B 100-21742 25.20 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1300 - 645 BAD
2/13/2019 2739012018120300 B 100-21742 831.90 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1285 CADENCE
2/13/2019 2739012018120301 B 100-21742 3,598.20 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1286 HASKINS
2/13/2019 2739012018120303 B 100-21742 1,116.50 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1293 - 410 NOO
2/13/2019 2739012018120305 B 100-21742 25.20 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1313 - 500 S AIR
2/13/2019 2739012018120308 B 100-21742 1,481.70 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1324 380 S AIRP
2/13/2019 2739012018120309 B 100-21742 151.20 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1326 701 AIRPO
2/13/2019 273901201812307 B 100-21742 2,979.10 PROF SERV THRU 12/31/18 - 405.1318 OAKMONT
NEW PACIFIC ROOFING CO. INC. 2/8/2019 273772B18-1397 B 270-21724 200.00 RELEASE OF C&D DEPOSIT FOR ROOFING PERMIT
PINEFINO LLC 2/13/2019 273913E17-0116 B 270-21703 46,400.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT REFUND
PROVEN MANAGEMENT INC 2/6/2019 27367417109-09 B 720-21208 -17,638.32 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD & NORTH ACCESS RD SAN
2/6/2019 27367417109-8 B 720-21208 -15,435.60 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD & NORTH ACCESS RD SAN
SF GONZALEZ CONCRETE INC 2/13/2019 273925E18-1273 B 270-21703 2,595.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT REFUND
Payments issued for BALANCE SHEET ($20,719.26)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
BIGGS CARDOSA 2/8/2019 27371775141 E 510-99999-5999 123,579.01 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD AT SAN BRUNO CANAL BRI
2/13/2019 27384475427 E 510-99999-5999 34,145.87 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD AT SAN BRUNO CANAL BRI
CALTRAIN 2/13/2019 2738524416-1 E 510-99999-5999 1,545,114.27 CALTRAIN STATION SERVICE PERIOD 3/1/16-10/2
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, PC 2/6/2019 2736380172626 E 710-99999-5999 69,190.04 ESDC - WET WEATHER AND DIGESTER IMPROVEM
CIVIL ENGINEERS SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSUL2/6/2019 27368530642 E 740-99999-5999 575.00 FRANCISCO TERRACE STORM DRAIN
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 27 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CIVIL ENGINEERS SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSUL2/8/2019 27379930542 E 740-99999-5999 922.50 ON CALL WATER RESOURCES SERVICES FY 17-18
2/8/2019 27379930543 E 740-99999-5999 3,075.00 ON CALL WATER RESOURCES
2/8/2019 27379930643 E 740-99999-5999 1,742.50 ON CALL WATER RESOURCES
CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE & MONITO2/8/2019 27372610947 E 710-99999-5999 1,531.25 CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2/13/2019 27386619003927 E 510-99999-5999 384.32 ROADSIDE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS L
DKS ASSOCIATES 2/6/2019 2736480068673 E 510-99999-5999 1,033.25 SPRUCE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS (L
ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. 2/6/2019 273649B70050.04-10 E 710-99999-5999 9,980.54 PM SERVICES: WQCPLANT WET WEATHER & DIGE
FLATIRON WEST INC 2/6/2019 2736524 E 710-99999-5999 1,989,939.81 WQCP WET WEATHER AND DIGESTOR IMPROVE
I & A CONTRACTOR INC 2/13/2019 2738811 E 510-99999-5999 153,317.18 CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC2/8/2019 273757127302 E 710-99999-5999 60,544.20 CM & Inspection Services: WQCP Wet
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 2/13/2019 273887097009007-1118 E 510-99999-5999 19,990.00 IMPLEMENTATION OF KADENCE ADAPTIVE TRAFF
KITCHELL CEM 2/8/2019 27375882279 E 510-99995-5999 60,769.00 FY16-17 CONSULTANT SVCS-CIVIC CTR- MEASURE
LC GENERAL ENGINEERING & CONST2/6/2019 2736614A E 510-99999-5999 148,870.12 GBI PHASE II: KAISER WAY TO BART - CONSTRUCT
2/6/2019 2736614B E 510-99999-5999 10,013.46 GBI PHASE I: CHESTNUT TO ARROYO - CONSTRUC
LOTUS WATER 2/13/2019 2738923062 E 740-99999-5999 13,924.87 ORANGE PARK STORM WATER CAPTURE
MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. 2/6/2019 27366431559 E 510-99999-5999 11,806.75 LINDEN AVE. COMPLETE STREETS (ASPEN TO MILL
2/6/2019 27366431797 E 510-99999-5999 19,412.50 ON CALL SERVICES FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING
2/6/2019 27366431807 E 510-99999-5999 13,763.25 LINDEN AVE. COMPLETE STREETS (ASPEN TO MILL
2/6/2019 27366432328 E 510-99999-5999 6,627.89 SSF GRAND BOULEVARD PROJECT (KAISER WAY T
2/6/2019 27366432328A E 510-99999-5999 3,046.45 SSF GRAND BOULEVARD PROJECT (CHESTNUT TO
2/6/2019 27366432340 E 510-99999-5999 2,248.00 SO. AIRPORT BLVD. BRIDGE @ NO. ACCESS RD
2/8/2019 27376232547a E 510-99999-5999 7,127.00 ON CALL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES
2/8/2019 27376232547b E 510-99999-5999 1,736.92 Design Services During Construction:
2/8/2019 27376232547c E 510-99999-5999 1,024.58 ON CALL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES
PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES GROUP 2/13/2019 273909PRG #SSF1807 E 510-99995-5999 7,450.00 CAPITAL FUNDRAISING PLANNING AND ASSESSM
2/13/2019 273909PRG #SSF1901E E 510-99995-5999 766.26 PRG TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT
2/13/2019 273909PRG #SSF1901R E 510-99995-5999 7,450.00 CAPITAL FUNDRAISING PLANNING AND ASSESSM
PROVEN MANAGEMENT INC 2/6/2019 27367417109-09 E 510-99999-5999 352,766.31 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD & NORTH ACCESS RD SAN
2/6/2019 27367417109-8 E 510-99999-5999 308,712.01 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD & NORTH ACCESS RD SAN
SSA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.2/8/2019 2738056384 E 510-99999-5999 1,115.00 2019-LA1: Landscape Architectural
SWA GROUP 2/8/2019 273812175609 E 510-99999-5999 6,386.05 GRAND AVE STREETSCAPE DESIGN
SWINERTON MGMT & CONSULTING 2/6/2019 27369018100044-4 E 510-99999-5999 2,375.00 AVALON-BRENTWOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD TR
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 28 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
SWINERTON MGMT & CONSULTING 2/13/2019 27393417100051-12 E 710-99999-5999 3,137.00 ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLINARY EN
2/13/2019 27393417100059-13 E 710-99999-5999 6,016.00 ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLINARY EN
2/13/2019 27393418100047-03 E 510-99999-5999 9,520.00 ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLINARY EN
2/15/2019 27400517100052-6 E 710-99999-5999 1,360.00 WQCP EFFLUENT STORAGE BASIN LINER REPLACE
TRC ENGINEERS INC 2/8/2019 27381822747 E 510-99999-5999 13,297.80 SSF GRAND BOULEVARD PROJECT (CHESTNUT TO
2/8/2019 27381822747st1502 E 510-99999-5999 28,930.84 CM SERVICES FOR EL CAMINO REAL GBI - PHASE II
VERDE DESIGN INC 2/13/2019 2739444-17190000 E 510-99999-5999 4,297.50 ON-CALL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SERVICES
WILSEY HAM, INC 2/8/2019 27382722396 E 710-99999-5999 7,989.93 ON-CALL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Payments issued for CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $5,077,005.23
DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 2/6/2019 2736291D7J-VDWK-4X4G B 280-27423 182.27 HOMEWORK CLUB PROGRAM SUPPLIES
ASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION 2/6/2019 27363202092019 B 280-27408 68.00 ADULT SERVICES - LUNAR NEW YEAR PRESENTATI
CLEARLITE TROPHIES 2/13/2019 27385683833 B 280-27409 15.00 TROPHY ENGRAVING, TRIVIA
COSTCO 2/15/2019 274011CC387846 B 280-27463 246.21 SR-SUPPLIES FOR WREATH MAKING WORKSHOP
DIANA GONZALEZ 2/15/2019 27398012/1/2018 B 280-27434 154.54 EMPLOYEE REIMB. PRESCHOOL PROGRAM SUPPLI
GOURMET COFFEE SOLUTIONS INC. 2/13/2019 27387702081907 B 280-27408 64.16 WATER FILTER FOR PUBLIC COFFEE MACHINE
HOME DEPOT/GECF 2/15/2019 274011CC387848 B 280-27463 122.84 SR-SUPPLIES FOR WREATH MAKING WORKSHOP
KAZUHIRO KIBUISHI 2/6/2019 27365801082019 B 280-27408 400.00 YOUTH PROGRAM - FOL DONATION AUTHOR TAL
LA LOMA PRODUCE 2/8/2019 273819cc387499 B 280-27410 7.47 KA- DONATIONS- HOLIDAY FOOD DRIVE
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 2/15/2019 274011CC387842 B 280-27463 41.22 SR-SUPPLIES FOR WREATH MAKING WORKSHOP
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/6/2019 273669229765834001 B 280-27409 27.73 TRIVIA SUPPLIES
2/6/2019 273669229765937001 B 280-27409 31.45 TRIVIA SUPPLIES
PENSKE TRUCK LEASING 2/15/2019 274011CC388018 B 280-27405 201.00 EO-TRUCK RENTAL CHARGES FOR NUTCRACKER
SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTR2/13/2019 27392312181005 B 280-27402 208.25 SENIOR REDIWHEELS - DECEMBER 2018
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 2/8/2019 273819cc387497 B 280-27410 69.90 KA-DONATIONS- HOLIDAY FOOD DRIVE
SUMMIT HOLDING 2/8/2019 273811296 UTAH AVE B 280-27404 700.00 TREE PERMIT DEPOSIT REFUND - 206 UTAH AVE
TARGET 2/6/2019 273694cc387000 B 280-27410 858.79 BA-DONATIONS-HOLIDAY TOY DRIVE
Payments issued for DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE $3,398.83
REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS
1ST CHOICE LOGISTICS, LLC 2/8/2019 273699110681 BL R 100-00000-30403 158.50 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENT
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 29 of 30
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/4/2019 2/17/2019 -City of South San Francisco
REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS
APEX FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. 2/8/2019 27370699554 BL R 100-00000-30403 191.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENT
BRINK'S, INCORPORATED 2/13/2019 27384610665605 R 110-00000-36010 1,532.28 FEB 2019 ARMORED CAR SVCS
2/13/2019 2738462559887 R 110-00000-36010 531.85 JAN 2019 ARMORED CAR SVCS-EXCESS
DANIEL LEONARD 2/8/2019 27376040009732 R 100-12720-33001 38.00 CITATION REFUND
DAVID ORTIZ 2/13/2019 2739071060239 R 100-17250-35301 500.00 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR A HALL RENT
DONNA LYNN COATES 2/6/2019 273642485638 R 100-00000-35705 16.00 FINES AND FEES REFUND - D. COATES
ELMCO & ASSOCIATES 2/8/2019 273734107513 BL R 100-00000-30403 158.50 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENT
ERLY'S SHEAR BEAUTY 2/8/2019 273735108070 BL R 100-00000-30403 19.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND INCORRECT PAYMENT
JENNIFER VARGAS 2/6/2019 273696897502 R 100-00000-35301 200.00 REFUND OF WEST. PARK SHELTER DEPOSIT FROM
JIANINA MORALES 2/8/2019 27377012714558 R 100-17260-35306 35.00 REFUND FOR CANCELLED WINE GLASS PAINTING
LANCE PEREZ 2/8/2019 273782SS-425185 R 100-12720-33001 53.00 CITATION DISMISSAL
PETER MANANSALA 2/13/2019 27389612806934 R 100-17250-35301 500.00 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR HALL RENTAL
RACHEL CAMILOSA 2/15/2019 27396512860945 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF WEST. REC BLD
SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER'S 2/13/2019 273921JAN 2019 R 100-12720-33001 23,208.20 ALLOCATION OF PARKING PENALTIES - JAN 19
SOUTH CITY SHELL AUTO SERVICE 2/8/2019 27380418594 BL R 100-00000-30403 274.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENT
VANESSA BUMANGLAG 2/13/2019 27384712790937 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF FERNEKES BUIL
VANESSA TALLEY 2/13/2019 27393512781487 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF FERNEKES BLDG
VICTORIA ANN ETCHETO 2/8/2019 273736509064 R 100-00000-35705 27.00 FINES AND FEES REFUND - V. ETCHETO
WILLIAM MOHR 2/8/2019 273769588557 R 100-00000-35705 14.00 FINES AND FEES REFUND - W. MOHR
Payments issued for REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS $28,506.83
TOTAL PAYMENTS FOR PERIOD $8,442,267.94
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Page 30 of 30
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-19 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:4.
Report regarding a motion to accept the South Airport Boulevard Bridge Replacement Project (st1301)as
complete in accordance with plans and specifications (Total Construction Cost $9,052,218).(Robert T.Hahn,
Project Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council,by motion accept the South Airport Boulevard Bridge
Replacement project (CIP Project No.st1301)as complete in accordance with plans and specifications
(Total Construction Cost $9,052,218).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On December 13,2017,the City Council of South San Francisco awarded the South Airport Boulevard Bridge
Replacement Project to ProVen Management, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $5,232,872.75.
On September 26,2018,staff came back to City Council to amend the funding for the closure of the bridge for
public safety due to the deteriorated condition of the bridge piers,as well as,the extensive traffic control to
alleviate traffic congestion during the afternoon commute.To accelerate construction schedule to complete
project in one (1)season,City Council accepted a donation from Genentech as an incentive to ProVen to open
the bridge to traffic prior to November 16,2018.City Council amended the project budget to $10,300,740 and
the construction contract to ProVen to an amount not to exceed $7,392,400.
The bridge was opened to traffic on October 14,2018.Punch list items have been completed,and project
construction was determined to be substantially complete on December 13, 2018.
The total construction cost incurred to date for the project is summarized as follows:
Projected Actual
ProVen Construction Contract $7,392,400.00 $7,392,400.00
Construction contingency (10%) $ 739,240.00 $ 363,589.61
Contract Construction Mgmt. (Biggs Cardosa) $1,181,607.00 $ 975,644.00
Construction Engr. Support (Mark Thomas) $ 318,230.00 $ 205,088.97
Right of Way Work $ 80,000.00 $ 13,065.50
Construction Administration (2%)$ 119,993.00 $ 102,430.29
Total Project Budget $ 9,831,470.00 $9,052,218.37
FISCAL IMPACT
This project is funded by a combination of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),Highway Bridge
Program Grant,Measure A,and General Funds from the City.On August 23,2018,staff submitted revised
financial documents with supporting justification for review and approval of additional funding from FHWA for
additional costs incurred as a result of the accelerated single-season schedule for the project.Caltrans is still in
the process of reviewing our request for additional funding prior to forwarding to FHWA.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-19 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:4.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Approval of this action will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan outcome of improved Quality of Life by
replacing the South Airport Boulevard Bridge to help maintain City infrastructure.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends acceptance of the project as complete.Upon acceptance,a Notice of Completion will be
filed with the County of San Mateo Recorder’s office.At the end of the thirty day lien period,the retention
funds will be released to the contractor after the City receives one-year guaranty bond.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco•City received Caltrans 2009 Bridge Inspection Report ‐timber piers are deteriorating•City awards contract to Mark Thomas to do bridge inspection and evaluation.•City submits to Caltrans bridge evaluation & request for funding to replace the bridge•Caltrans approved the bridge for funding•City awarded Mark Thomas & Company contract to design replacement bridge•City received Caltrans 2011 Bridge Inspection Report –timber piers noted to be the same condition•December: City receives Preliminary Engineering Authorization to begin design services•Design services begin in May after field kickoff meeting with Caltrans in April•Caltrans signs NEPA Determination that project has no significant impacts on the environment.•City received Caltrans 2013 Bridge Inspection Report –timber piers noted to be the same condition•Project design efforts on going.•November: Army Corps permit received for the project•December: Preliminary drawings sent to Caltrans for review. •City received permits from RWQCB, CDFW, and FAA•City received Caltrans 2015 Bridge Inspection Report –timber piers noted to be the same condition. Caltrans did a structuralanalysis to confirm that the bent cap could span one bad pile and still be acceptable.•Caltrans Encroachment Permit and Right of Way Certification was Received•April: City received from Caltrans letter Authorization to Proceed to Construction•December: Project was awarded to ProVen Management•May 21: Bridge closed to traffic due to deteriorated condition of piles and •City received Caltrans 2017 Bridge Inspection Report that lowered the Sufficiency Rating to 48.2 from61.2 (2015)•Oct 14: Replacement Bridge was opened to traffic2009201020112012201320142015201620172018
City of South San FranciscoCITY BRIDGE MAINTENACE PROGRAM•REVIEW CALTRANS INSPECTION REPORTS•INDENTIFY BRIDGE REPAIR/REPLACEMENTS•REPORT TO CITY CIP•APPLY TO CALTRANS FOR HBP/BPMP FUNDING•SELECT CONSULTANT:oENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCEoPERMITTINGoPS&E DOCUMENTS
City of South San Francisco
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-169 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:5.
Authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter on the City's behalf supporting legislative amendments to the San Mateo
County Flood Control District.(Christina Fernandez, City Manager’s Office)
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on the City’s behalf supporting legislative amendments to the San
Mateo County Flood Control District.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City of South San Francisco has supported San Mateo County’s efforts to combat Sea Level Rise through
its partnership in the Sea Change San Mateo County initiative.As a part of that effort,the San Mateo County
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment projects sea level to rise 6 inches by 2030 and 1-2 feet by 2050.
As evidenced by the vulnerability assessment, critical infrastructure such as roads and highways, levees,
electric substations, transmission towers, wastewater treatment plants, and pump stations in the county are at
risk. Specific to South San Francisco, the South San Francisco- San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant
(WQCP) is very sensitive to inundation and high water. The power distribution system is the WQCP’s most
critical component and is subject to flooding. If flooded, the WQCP’s main and back up power would be lost,
impacting service to not only South San Francisco, but also to San Bruno, Colma, and part of Daly City. In
addition, the plant dechlorinates treated effluent for Millbrae, Burlingame, and San Francisco International
Airport. While South San Francisco has been successful in securing some grant funding to do initial studies of
the impacts of sea level rise around the WQCP and surrounding area, additional and more substantial grant
funding is highly competitive and a difficult undertaking for cities individually.
The County of San Mateo is supporting legislative amendments to the San Mateo County Flood Control
District and encourages the 20 cities within the county to support the formation of a Flood and Sea Level Rise
Resiliency Agency. The Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency will allow San Mateo County to advocate
as one voice for regional, state, and federal grants in order to obtain funding for critical infrastructure projects.
To date, no formal legislation has introduced to codify the creation of a Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency
Agency. However, Assembly Speaker pro Tem Kevin Mullin and Senator Jerry Hill are supportive of future
efforts to create legislative amendments to the San Mateo County Flood Control District in order to create the
agency.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for Fiscal Year (FY)2018-2019.If a Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency is
created,there will be an impact to FY 2019-2020.The proposed annual funding contribution of the 20 cities
and the County of San Mateo is population based (See Attachment A).The City of South San Francisco has a
population of 67,082 (2018). The City’s proposed annual contribution would be $55,000.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-169 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:5.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Supporting legislative amendments to the San Mateo County Flood Control District meets the strategic goal of
Quality of Life by building and maintaining a sustainable city.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on the City’s behalf supporting
legislative amendments to the San Mateo County Flood Control District.
Attachments:
1.Attachment 1 - Proposed Letter from Mayor Matsumoto - Assemblymember Mullin
2.Attachment 2 - Proposed Letter from Mayor Matsumoto - Senator Hill
3.Attachment 3 - Proposed Letter from Mayor Matsumoto - Assemblymember Ting
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
February 27, 2019
Kevin Mullin
Assembly California Legislature
Twenty-Second District
1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 302
San Mateo, CA 94402
Re: San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency
Dear Speaker pro Tem Mullin,
Thank you for your continued support of San Mateo County’s efforts to combat sea level rise
through your partnership in the Sea Change San Mateo County initiative. The San Mateo County
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment projects sea level to rise 6 inches by 2030 and 1-2 feet
by 2050. Critical infrastructure such as roads and highways, levees, electric substations,
transmission towers, wastewater treatment plants, and pump stations in the county are at risk.
South San Francisco fully supports the current effort to form a Flood and Sea Level Rise
Resiliency Agency. This will require legislative approval to transform the current San Mateo
County Flood Control District into a new, more robust agency able to tackle big water issues in
our County. I hope you will be supportive of this effort, too.
As you know, grant funding is highly competitive and a difficult undertaking for cities
individually. The formation of a new agency will allow San Mateo County to advocate as one
voice for regional, state, and federal grants in order to obtain funding for critical infrastructure
projects.
We cannot thank you enough for your support of this effort. Your ongoing advocacy for the City
of South San Francisco and the region have ensured that the City and the region maintain its
place as a viable economic hub of innovation and a safe place to live, work, and play.
Sincerely,
Karyl Matsumoto
Mayor, South San Francisco
CITY COUNCIL 2019
KARYL MATSUMOTO, MAYOR
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR
MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
MARK NAGALES, COUNCILMEMBER
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
February 27, 2019
Jerry Hill
California State Senate
Thirteenth Senate District
1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 303
San Mateo, CA 94402
Re: San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency
Dear Senator Hill,
Thank you for your continued support of San Mateo County’s efforts to combat sea level rise
through your partnership in the Sea Change San Mateo County initiative. The San Mateo County
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment projects sea level to rise 6 inches by 2030 and 1-2 feet
by 2050. Critical infrastructure such as roads and highways, levees, electric substations,
transmission towers, wastewater treatment plants, and pump stations in the county are at risk.
South San Francisco fully supports the current effort to form a Flood and Sea Level Rise
Resiliency Agency. This will require legislative approval to transform the current San Mateo
County Flood Control District into a new, more robust agency able to tackle big water issues in
our County. I hope you will be supportive of this effort, too.
As you know, grant funding is highly competitive and a difficult undertaking for cities
individually. The formation of a new agency will allow San Mateo County to advocate as one
voice for regional, state, and federal grants in order to obtain funding for critical infrastructure
projects.
We cannot thank you enough for your support of this effort. Your ongoing advocacy for the City
of South San Francisco and the region have ensured that the City and the region maintain its
place as a viable economic hub of innovation and a safe place to live, work, and play.
Sincerely,
Karyl Matsumoto
Mayor, South San Francisco
CITY COUNCIL 2019
KARYL MATSUMOTO, MAYOR
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR
MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
MARK NAGALES, COUNCILMEMBER
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
February 27, 2019
Phil Ting
California State Assembly
Nineteenth Assembly District
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14600
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency
Dear Assemblymember Ting,
Thank you for your continued support of San Mateo County’s efforts to combat sea level rise
through your partnership in the Sea Change San Mateo County initiative. The San Mateo County
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment projects sea level to rise 6 inches by 2030 and 1-2 feet
by 2050. Critical infrastructure such as roads and highways, levees, electric substations,
transmission towers, wastewater treatment plants, and pump stations in the county are at risk.
South San Francisco fully supports the current effort to form a Flood and Sea Level Rise
Resiliency Agency. This will require legislative approval to transform the current San Mateo
County Flood Control District into a new, more robust agency able to tackle big water issues in
our County. I hope you will be supportive of this effort, too.
As you know, grant funding is highly competitive and a difficult undertaking for cities
individually. The formation of a new agency will allow San Mateo County to advocate as one
voice for regional, state, and federal grants in order to obtain funding for critical infrastructure
projects.
We cannot thank you enough for your support of this effort. Your ongoing advocacy for the City
of South San Francisco and the region have ensured that the City and the region maintain its
place as a viable economic hub of innovation and a safe place to live, work, and play.
Sincerely,
Karyl Matsumoto
Mayor, South San Francisco
CITY COUNCIL 2019
KARYL MATSUMOTO, MAYOR
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR
MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
MARK NAGALES, COUNCILMEMBER
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-82 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:6.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $2,000 donation from the South San Francisco
Asian Alliance to the Parks and Recreation Department’s Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund
supporting the purchase of building or site amenities in the future co-located Community Center/Library
building of the Community Civic Campus Project.(Sharon Ranals,Director,Parks and Recreation
Department)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $2,000
donation from the South San Francisco Asian Alliance to the Parks and Recreation Department’s
Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund supporting the purchase of building or site amenities in the
future co-located Community Center/Library building of the Community Civic Campus Project.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In January 2019,Hilda Barradas,Board Member of the nonprofit organization South San Francisco Asian
Alliance (Asian Alliance),approached Parks and Recreation Director,Sharon Ranals,with a desire to donate
$2,000 to support parks and recreation programs.The Asian Alliance has dissolved and the Parks and
Recreation Department was one of the organizations to receive a donation so that the Asian Alliance could fully
expend their fund balance.Following a discussion about the various program opportunities that could benefit
from this donation,Board Member Barradas agreed to designate the Asian Alliance’s donation to the Parks and
Recreation Department’s Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund.Subject to City Council’s approval,
expenditures from the Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund could support the purchase of new or
enhanced building or site amenities in the future co-located Community Center/Library building of the
Community Civic Campus Project.
The Community Civic Campus project will be located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut
Avenue in South San Francisco.The new campus,scheduled to open in late 2022,will consist of new state-of-
the-art facilities:a Police Station (located at the corner of Chestnut and Antoinette Lane),a Fire Station (located
at the corner of Arroyo Drive and Camaritas Avenue as part of Phase II),and a combined Library and Parks &
Recreation Community Center, with parking and landscaping improvements.
The $210 million budgeted to fund the Community Civic Campus project is expected to cover costs from
design through construction as well as modest building amenities.In order to support the purchase of additional
or enhanced building or site amenities in the co-located Community Center/Library building that may not be
covered by the established budget,the Parks and Recreation Department has established the Community Civic
Campus Recreation Fund to reserve designated donations to support such costs.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Acceptance of this donation supports Strategic Plan Priority #2:Build and Maintain a Sustainable City.Any
funds donated towards the Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund have the potential to support the tenants
of Priority #2.Donations not only offset the estimated project cost,but have the potential to make additional
improvements that would otherwise not have been funded and that could help South San Francisco be an
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-82 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:6.
economically, environmentally, socially healthy, and resilient city.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds from this donation will be received and expended from the Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund,
a donation account established to support the purchase of additional or enhanced building or site amenities in
the co-located Community Center/Library building of the Community Civic Campus Project.Receipt of these
funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $2,000 donation
from the South San Francisco Asian Alliance to the Parks and Recreation Department’s Community Civic
Campus Recreation Fund.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-83 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:6a.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $2,000 donation from the South San Francisco Asian Alliance to the
Parks and Recreation Department’s Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund supporting the purchase of
building or site amenities in the future co-located Community Center/Library building of the Community Civic
Campus Project.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)is planning to build a new Community Civic Campus
that is scheduled to open in late 2022 that will consist of new state-of-the-art facilities:a Police Station (located
at the corner of Chestnut and Antoinette Lane),a Fire Station (located at the corner of Arroyo Drive and
Camaritas Avenue as part of Phase II),and a combined Library and Parks &Recreation Community Center,
with parking and landscaping improvements; and
WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Department has established a Community Civic Campus Recreation
Fund to collect donations designated to support the purchase of new or enhanced building or site amenities in
the future co-located Community Center/Library building of the Community Civic Campus Project; and
WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Asian Alliance has generously offered to make a $2,000 donation to the
Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund; and
WHEREAS,staff recommends the acceptance of a $2,000 donation from the South San Francisco Asian
Alliance to the Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund; and
WHEREAS,the foregoing donation will be received and expended from the Community Civic Campus
Recreation Fund, and expenditures may be subject to City Council’s approval.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
accepts a $2,000 donation from the South San Francisco Asian Alliance to the Parks and Recreation
Department’s Community Civic Campus Recreation Fund.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-141 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:7.
Report regarding an Ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment making modifications to the South San
Francisco Zoning Code related to Signage Citywide.(Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council waive reading and adopt an Ordinance making revisions to
Chapter 20.360 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,related to Electronic Changeable Copy
Signs.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City Council previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinances.The ordinances are now
ready for adoption.
Ordinance making modifications to the South San Francisco Zoning Code related to Signage Citywide.
(Introduced on 02/13/19: Vote 4-0)
Associations
1.Final Ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (19-142)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-142 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:7a.
Ordinance making modifications to the South San Francisco Zoning Code related to Signage Citywide.
WHEREAS,in July of 2010,the City Council for the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted a
comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance,which repealed the then-existing Title 20 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code,and replaced it with an entirely new Title 20 that,among other actions,
established new zoning districts,revised and reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions,eliminated
inconsistent and outdated provisions,and codified entirely new zoning provisions,including new land use
regulations and development standards (“Zoning Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010,the City has identified areas of the Zoning
Ordinance that require refinement,clarification,and/or correction,including revisions to the City’s Chapter
20.360 regulating signs in order to provide standards to allow digital billboards and other minor
modifications (“Zoning Text Amendment”); and
WHEREAS,the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation,circulation,consideration,and adoption of
an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“Zoning Ordinance IS/ND”)in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000,et seq.(“CEQA”),which IS/ND
analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance and concluded that adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the environment because none of the impacts
required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS,the City Council adopted an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”)on
August 26,2015 (State Clearinghouse number 2013062062)in accordance with the provision of CEQA and
CEQA Guidelines,which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of billboards along the west side of
U.S. Highway 101; and
WHEREAS,the refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections to the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to
signage are minor in nature,the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and
analyzed in the Zoning Ordinance IS/ND or IS/MND prepared and circulated for the siting of billboards
along U.S.Highway 101,nor do the refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections constitute a change in the
project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before it,as described
below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I.FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of South
San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/11/2019Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-142 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:7a.
A.General Findings.
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2.The Record for these proceedings,and upon which this Ordinance is based,includes without limitation,Federal
and State law;the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.(“CEQA”))and the CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.);the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan
Environmental Impact Report,including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2015 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the siting of
billboards along the west side of U.S.Highway 101 (“101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project”)and related Zoning
Text Amendment,including all written comments received;the project applications;the project plans,as prepared by YESCO,
dated April 26,2017;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed
meeting on December 20,2018;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed
meeting on February 13, 2019; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning
Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080,and in the custody of the
Planning Manager.
B.Zoning Amendment Findings
1.The proposed Zoning Text Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan because they establish
regulations that balance the need of different users for adequate identification,communication and advertising with the objectives
of protecting the public and promoting a visually attractive community.By allowing the installation of electronic changeable copy
signs,subject to a sign permit,the proposed zoning amendments will allow uses that typically have public messaging to
incorporate digital signage that provide more timely messaging,strengthen and promote economic development objectives and
actively market South San Francisco.The proposed Zoning Text Amendment related to the regulation of electronic reader boards
will remain consistent with the City’s General Plan vision for community and economic development by promoting economic
development within the City and expanding the communication of community services.The proposed Zoning Text Amendment
will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2.The proposed Zoning Text Amendment related to electronic changeable copy signs would only affect properties
located in the Freeway Commercial (FC)zoning district,which provides areas for regional-serving retail uses,commercial lodging,
visitor services and similar uses that benefit from proximity to the Bayshore Freeway.The affected properties in the FC zoning
district are also in keeping with existing zoning ordinance language,including SSFMC Section 20.360.011(A)4,which allows
signs in the Airport/South Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 corridor areas which have special sign needs due to the regional
nature of the use,the traveler-oriented nature of the use,or other special requirements.The electronic changeable copy signs will
also be designed to be appropriate for surrounding uses.The existing standards ensure that proposed projects are suitable in terms
of architectural compatibility,consistency with area character,legibility,readability,finish and visibility,and other considerations
deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the performance standards for electronic changeable copy
signs,including operational limitations related to static messages,maximum lighting levels,a requirement for a light sensing
device that adjusts the sign brightness as ambient light conditions change,and location limitations,are included in the existing
standards and would be applied to proposed Project to minimize visual impacts.
3.The proposed Zoning Text Amendment related to electronic changeable copy signs would not result in any
change of zoning districts and therefore would not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone.
SECTION II.AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows.Sections
and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A.Amend Section 20.360.004 to clarify when an Electronic Changeable Copy Signs is not considered a prohibited
sign, as follows:
The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained within the City of South San Francisco.
A.Animated,Flashing,or Moving Signs.Any sign with lights or illuminations which flash,move,rotate,scintillate,blink,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/11/2019Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-142 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:7a.
A.Animated,Flashing,or Moving Signs.Any sign with lights or illuminations which flash,move,rotate,scintillate,blink,
flicker,reflect,vary in intensity,vary in color,or use intermittent electrical pulsations.A digital billboard when operated in
accordance with the operating standards set forth in Section 20.360.006(Q)and an electronic changeable copy sign when
operated in accordance with the operating standards set forth in Section 20.360.006(O) do not fall within this prohibition.
B.Emissions. Signs that produce noise in excess of 40 decibels and signs that emit odor or visible smoke, vapor or particles.
C.Exposed Raceway. Exposed sign raceway is prohibited.
D.Fences Signs. Signs attached or painted on fences or freestanding walls that are not part of a building.
E.Internally Illuminated Signs and Bare Bulbs.
F.Obstruction of Ingress and Egress or Ventilation.Signs shall not obstruct any door,window,or fire escape.No sign
shall be attached to a standpipe,gutter drain,handicap access or fire escape.Signs shall not interfere with any opening
required for ventilation.
G.Off-Premises Signs.To the extent allowed by law,with the exception of off-premises signs legally in existence at the
time of adoption of this chapter;or permitted pursuant to a relocation agreement under Section 20.360.002(A)and a Sign
Permit under Section
20.360.009,off-premises signs are prohibited.Electronic changeable copy signs permitted pursuant to Section 20.360.006(O)
are only permitted as on-site premise signs.Messages placed on transit benches or shelters sponsored or contracted by the
transit agency pursuant to a contract and with its consent are exempted from this prohibition.Legally established off-premises
signs are subject to the nonconforming sign provisions of Section 20.360.012 (“Nonconforming Signs”).
H.Pole Signs.A Pole Sign permitted pursuant to a relocation agreement under Section 20.360.002(A)and a Sign Permit
under Section 20.360.009 does not fall within this prohibition.
B.Amend Section 20.360.006(D) to clarify that Electronic Changeable Copy Signs are also allowed to be internally
illuminated, as follows:
D.Illumination.Illuminated channel letters and neon signs are allowed.However,internally illuminated signs and bare bulbs
are prohibited except with respect to Electronic Changeable Copy Signs and Digital Billboards as otherwise provided herein.
Lighting fixtures used to illuminate an outdoor sign shall be mounted on the top of the sign structure,unless approved with a
Minor Use Permit,and shall be shielded according to the following table.All sign illumination shall adhere to the performance
standards for lighting and glare in Section 20.300.010 (“Performance Standards”)other than Electronic Changeable Copy Sign
illumination,which illumination standards shall be in accordance with subsection O of this section,and Digital Billboard
illumination,which illumination standards shall be as provided in the applicable relocation agreement and in accordance with
subsection Q of this section.
C.Amend Section 20.360.006(O) to clarify the standards to allow electronic changeable copy signs, as follows:
O.Changeable Copy.
1.Changeable copy shall cover no more than 25 percent of the total sign area,and be no larger than 75 square feet,except as
otherwise provided in this chapter.
2.Electronic Changeable Copy Signs are allowed for uses located in the Freeway Commercial zoning district,in accordance
with the following standards:
a.Maximum Number of Signs per Property.Where permitted,one (1)electronic changeable copy sign is permitted per
property.
b.Operational Limitations.Electronic Changeable Copy Signs shall contain static messages only,and shall not contain
any display with movement,or the appearance or optical illusion of movement during the static display period,or any
part of the sign structure,including the movement or appearance of movement.Every static message contained on an
electronic changeable copy sign shall not include flashing or the varying of light intensity.The content of an
Electronic Changeable Copy Sign must transition by changing instantly, with no transition graphics.
c.Minimum Display Time.Each message on the Electronic Changeable Copy Sign must be displayed for a minimum
of 15 seconds.
d.Light Level.Lighting levels will not increase by more than 0.3 foot candles (over ambient levels)as measured using a
foot candle meter at a distance of one hundred and fifty feet.
e.Light Sensor.Each display must have a light sensing device that will adjust the brightness as ambient light conditions
change.
f.Hours of Operation.Electronic Changeable Copy Signs may be illuminated from 6am until 11pm,or one-half hour
past the close of business that the Electronic Changeable Copy Sign is permitted for, whichever is later.
g.Alternative Lighting Technology.The technology currently being deployed for digital billboards is LED (light
emitting diode),but there may be alternate,preferred and superior technology available in the future.Any other
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/11/2019Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-142 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:7a.
emitting diode),but there may be alternate,preferred and superior technology available in the future.Any other
technology that operates under the maximum brightness stated in this subsection O shall not require an ordinance
change for approval,unless the Planning Commission finds it in the best interest of the public to do so.The City shall
expedite any required approvals for technology that is superior in energy efficiency over previous generations or
types.
h.Malfunction.Electronic Changeable Copy Signs shall be operated with systems and monitoring in place to either turn
the display off or show a “full black” image on the display in the event of a malfunction.
i.Emergency Information.Owners of Electronic Changeable Copy Signs are encouraged to coordinate with law
enforcement and emergency management authorities to display,when appropriate,regional emergency information
important to the traveling public including, but not limited to, Amber Alerts or emergency management information.
j.Prohibited.The following are prohibited:addition of an Electronic Changeable Copy Sign to a nonconforming
sign,an orientation of the Electronic Changeable Copy Sign towards Highway 101,and an Electronic Changeable
Copy Sign located off-premises.
k.Fuel Pricing Displays.Automobile Service Station fuel pricing displays are permitted as an Electronic Changeable
Copy Sign.
3.Uses located in other zoning designations may be allowed an Electronic Changeable Copy Sign if granted a Type C sign
permit pursuant to the Special Circumstances Section 20.360.011, subject to compliance with appropriate environmental
review under CEQA.
D.Amend Section 20.360.011(A) to clarify when electronic changeable copy signs are subject to Special Circumstances
Sign processing, as follows:
A.Purpose.Unusual site conditions,locations,particular unique signing requirements,or other design factors may warrant
types,heights,and sizes of signs not otherwise permitted by the regulations of this chapter.Such signs,including,but not
limited to, the following, shall require a Type C permit and shall be processed in accordance with Section 20.360.009.
1.Roof signs which extend above the highest point on the roof or of the type not allowed by Section 20.360.006(P)
Temporary Signs.
2.Any individual sign,or combination of all signs on any one property,which exceeds the height or area limitations
prescribed in this chapter.
3.Signs in the Grand Avenue Core (GAC)Zone District which are of a classic design style,consistent with those
designed and erected in the 1940s and 1950s.
4.Signs in the Airport/South Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 corridor areas which have special sign needs due
to the regional nature of the use, the traveler-oriented nature of the use, or other special requirements.
5.Employee-oriented signs for multi-building campus-like facilities in the east of
101 area, of which at least four hundred thousand total square feet of development is occupied by a single tenant. Signs
approved pursuant to this subsection shall:
a.Be architecturally integrated with the buildings to which they are attached;
b.Be oriented toward the interior of the campus and not a public area,including public rights-of-way and
public open space;
c.Hide from view or disguise any separate structure or apparatus required to attach the signs to buildings;
and
d.Only contain copy that is directly associated with the entity for which the sign permit is issued.
6.Electronic Changeable Copy Signs for uses located in other zoning designations not specified by Section
20.360.006(O) Changeable Copy Signs.
E.Amend Section 20.360.015 to provide a definition for an electronic changeable copy signs, as follows:
Unless otherwise specifically provided, the terms used in this chapter shall have the following meanings:
A.Alter.Any change in the weight,depth,height,area,thickness,location,or type of display of an existing sign but
shall not be construed to prevent normal or periodic maintenance, upkeep, or repair of a sign or change of copy.
B.Animated Sign.A sign that uses movement or change of lighting to depict action or create a special effect or
scene.
C.Area of Sign.The area included within the outer dimensions of a sign face display area including all portions not
part of the necessary supporting structure.
D.Awning Sign. A sign painted or otherwise affixed permanently to the exterior surface of an awning.
E.Balloon.An inflatable,airtight bag that can be strung together in multiple numbers to attract attention to a
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/11/2019Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-142 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:7a.
E.Balloon.An inflatable,airtight bag that can be strung together in multiple numbers to attract attention to a
business location. A balloon shall not be considered an inflatable sign.
F.Building-Mounted Sign.Any sign mounted or erected on or against any building or façade,including all wall
signs, awning and canopy signs, projecting signs, and shingle signs.
G.Canopy Sign.Any sign of any nature which is painted,printed,stamped,sewed,or otherwise attached to a
canopy.
H.Changeable Copy Sign.A sign whose informational content can be changed or altered either automatically or
manually.
I.Channel Letters.Three-dimensional individual letters or figures,with an open back or front,illuminated or non-
illuminated, that are affixed to a building or to a freestanding sign structure.
J.Digital Billboard.An off-site sign utilizing digital message technology,capable of changing the static message or
copy on the sign electronically.A Digital Billboard is distinct from,and shall not constitute an Animated Sign or
Changeable Copy Sign in the context of this chapter.
K.Double-Faced Sign. A sign designed to be viewed from two directions.
L.Electronic Changeable Copy Sign.A type of Changeable Copy Sign whose informational content can be changed
or altered electronically.
M.Flag.A sign attached to a pole or a structure that has characters,letters,illustrations,or ornamentations applied to
cloth,paper,fabric,or other lightweight material,with only such material for a backing.Flags include banners or pennants
that are suspended so that they are actuated by wind currents.
N.Flashing. A light or message that changes more than once every four seconds.
O.Freestanding Sign.A sign that is permanently supported upon the ground by poles or braces and is not attached to
any building or other structure. Examples of freestanding signs are pole and monument signs.
P.High-Rise Building Identification Sign.A wall sign located on the upper-most story of a building of at least four
stories that identifies the occupant of the building,company logo,generic type of business,or the name of a business or
building.
Q.Identification Sign.A permanent sign used to identify a building or group of buildings,residential area,shopping
district, industrial district, or any area that fulfills the definition of an identifiable area.
R.Illuminated Sign.A sign with an artificial source of light incorporated internally or externally for the purpose of
illuminating the sign.
S.Inflatable Sign.A form of inflatable device (e.g.,shaped as an animal,blimp,or other object)that is displayed,
printed,or painted on the surface of an inflatable background,and is primarily installed outside a building to attract
attention to or to advertise a business,a business location,a service,a product,or an event.An inflatable sign shall not be
considered a balloon.
T.Logo.A specially designed graphic symbol of a business establishment,company,institution,organization,or any
other legal private or public entity.
U.Marquee Sign.A sign advertising an event,performance,service,seminar,conference,or show,and displayed on
a permanent roof-like structure or canopy made of rigid materials supported by and extending from the façades of a
building.
V.Master Sign Program.A coordinated program of signage designed to encourage consistency in signage for
developments with multiple tenants or for developments with a single tenant, occupant, or user proposing multiple signs.
W.Monument Sign.A low-profile freestanding sign erected upon or supported solely by a planter,pedestal base,or
similar ground structure approximately the same dimension as the height of the sign and which is designed to incorporate
the architectural theme and building material of the building on the premises.
X.Neon Sign. A sign with tubing that is internally illuminated by neon or other electrically charged gas.
Y.Off-Premises Sign.A sign which advertises goods,products or services which are not sold,manufactured or
distributed on or from the premises or facility on which the sign is located or advertises a business,owner,occupant or
activity not located on the premises or facility on which the sign is located.
Z.On-Premises Sign. A sign which advertises goods, products or services which are
sold,manufactured or distributed on or from the premises or facility on which the sign is located or advertises a business,
owner,occupant or activity located on the premises or facility on which the sign is located.This definition also includes
on-premises traffic signs.
AA.Pole Sign.A sign supported wholly by a pole or poles placed in,or upon,the ground and which are not part of a
building.
BB.Portable Sign.Any sign over six square feet in size designed to be easily transported,including,but not limited to,
signs designed to be transported by means of wheels;signs made as A-frames or T-frames;menu and sandwich board
signs;and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way.This definition
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/11/2019Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-142 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:7a.
expressly excludes hand-held signs and signs affixed to vehicles that are less than six square feet in size.
CC.Projecting Sign.Any sign which is attached to a building or other structure and extends beyond the line of the
building or structure to which it is attached.
DD.Roof Sign.Any sign of any nature,together with all its parts and supports,which is erected,constructed or
maintained on or above the roof or parapet of any building.
EE.Shingle Sign.A type of projecting sign suspended beneath a marquee,covered walkway,or canopy and visible to
pedestrians from the sidewalk.
FF.Sign.Any metal,wood,paper,cloth,plastic,paint,material,structure,or part thereof,device,or other thing
whatsoever which is located in or upon,placed,erected,constructed,posted,painted,tacked,nailed,glued,stuck,carved,
fastened,or affixed to any building or structure,on the outside or inside of a window or on any awning,canopy,marquee,
or similar appendage,or on the ground or on any tree,wall,bush,rock,post,fence,or other thing whatsoever in such
manner as to be visible out-of-doors and which displays or includes any numeral,letter,word,model,banner,air-inflated
balloon,emblem,insignia,symbol,device,light,illuminated device,searchlight,trademark,or other representation used
as,or in the nature of,an announcement,advertisement,attention arrester,direction,warning,or designation of any
person,firm,group,organization,place,commodity,product,service,business,profession,enterprise,or industry.“Sign”
shall include any portable sign.
GG. Sign Area. See Area of Sign.
HH.Sign Copy.That portion of a sign which consists of the actual writing,pictorial representation,decoration,
emblem,or flag,or any other device,figure,logo,or similar character,as distinguished from that portion of the sign
which forms
the background of any such writing or other said elements.
II.Sign Face.That portion of a sign containing sign copy,which constitutes a single plane,which is intended to be
visible from a single vantage point.
JJ.Temporary Sign.A sign that is designed to be temporarily mounted or displayed and that is not intended for
permanent or long-term use.
KK.Traffic Sign.A sign designed to direct or guide pedestrian or vehicular traffic by identifying an attraction,service,
or use and providing directional information (e.g., handicapped parking, one-way, exit, and entrance).
LL.Vehicle Display Sign.A sign mounted,attached,affixed or painted upon any surface of a vehicle,trailer or similar
wheeled conveyance within the City or outside the City.
MM. Vehicle for Sale Sign. A sign painted or affixed onto vehicles for sale that are
kept in vehicle display areas of new and used motor vehicle dealership lots.
NN.Wall Sign.Any sign attached to,painted on,or erected against,and in a plane parallel to,the exterior front,rear,or
side wall of any building or other structure; wall signs include painted wall signs and individual letter signs.
OO.Window Sign.A sign painted or installed on a glass window or door or located within 12 inches from inside the
window in a manner that it can be viewed from the exterior of a structure.
SECTION III.SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional,the
remainder of this Ordinance,including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.To this end,provisions of this Ordinance are severable.The City
Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section,subsection,subdivision,
paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV.PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City
Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk
shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days
after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified
copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance
or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/11/2019Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-22 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8.
Report regarding a resolution approving the third amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreements for 201-
219 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue,and an ordinance approving the third amendment to the
Development Agreement for 201-219 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue properties with ROEM
Development Corporation.(Julie Barnard, Interim ECD Deputy Director)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council take the following actions:
1.Adopt a resolution approving the third amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreements for 201-219
Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue, and
2.Introduce an Ordinance approving the third amendment to the Development Agreement for 201-219
Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue properties with ROEM Development Corporation,and waive further
reading.
BACKGROUND
On September 6,2017,the City Council (“Council”)approved two Purchase and Sale Agreements (“PSAs”),
two Affordable Housing Agreements (“AHAs”)and a Development Agreement (“DA”)between the City and
the developer,ROEM Development Corporation (“ROEM”)for the properties 201-219 Grand Avenue and 418
Linden Avenue.At that time,the City Council also provided $3.5 million in grant funding assistance ($2.45
million in Housing Successor Funds and $1.05 million in Developer In-Lieu Fee Funds)for the 17 Below
Market Rate (“BMR”)units included in the project.The City Council also approved the reduced purchase price
of 418 Linden Avenue from $1 million to $500,000.Since initial approval of project in September 2017,the
developer has made two requests to the City to amend the DA in attempts to secure adequate financing.At that
time,Staff noted that the developer performed well and submitted their Construction Drawings (“CDs”)for
building permits by the deadline.The first set of CDs were submitted on July 13,2018.ROEM has
subsequently paused further iterations of the CDs while they focus on pursuing the necessary financing.
First Amendment to the PSAs and DA
In January 2018,ROEM informed City staff of some of the complexities relating to the 201-219 Grand Avenue
site.The developer noted that the neighboring building was bonded to the City’s building.The developer
suspected that the neighboring building may be leaning onto the City’s building and they required more time to
conduct some investigative demolition.The developer also required more time to develop a demolition strategy
and demolition drawings,in order to ensure that the demolition process does not compromise the neighbors
building. The City granted ROEM the requested 120 days to complete the process.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-22 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8.
Second Amendment to the PSAs and DA
In early July 2018,ROEM approached the City again with a request to extend the deadlines by a further 90
days.This extension related to the Financing Plan portion of the project with the application for building
permits remaining the same. The City Council approved both requests.
DISCUSSION
In October 2018,ROEM informed City staff that,even with the prior City assistance summarized above,they
are still unable to make the project financially feasible.In their letter to the City Council dated November 9,
2018,ROEM outlined the complexities that the project is experiencing including;escalating construction costs,
the requirement to pay prevailing wage and the inclusion of BMR units.As a result of these difficulties,ROEM
represented that there is a funding gap of $8.5 to $9 million that they need to close in order for the project to
achieve a 5.40 percent Return on Cost (“ROC”),which is the minimum return the project needs to achieve in
order to secure financing.ROEM recognized that they need an extra year to close escrow in order to seek the
funding needed to close the gap.
Amendment to the number of BMRs and Affordability Levels
There are many more public funding sources that become available,if the development increases the number
BMR units.ROEMs current proposal revises the number of BMR units from 20 percent (%)of the total units to
100%of the total number units.In addition to increasing the number of affordable units,the Area Median
Income (“AMI”)limits have been modified and have resulted in deeper affordability levels for lower income
household eligibility.
The current AHA comprises the following:
AMI levels Number of units
0-60% AMI 2
60-80% AMI 10
80-120% AMI 5
Although it is not yet finalized,ROEMs new proposal includes units at 30%AMI and 50%AMI.The final AMI
determination levels will be finalized at a later date,since it is driven by the source of funding and the final
financing is not yet determined. For AMI levels in the County of San Mateo, see Attachment 1.
Some examples of funding sources include;Tax Credits,Measure K,Project Based Vouchers,Infill
Infrastructure Grant and,Cap and Trade.Therefore,ROEM’s current request to amend the proposal to increase
the number of BMR units ensures that the developments will qualify for these gap financing opportunities.The
increased number of BMR units will allow the developer to secure a total of 75 vouchers.These vouchers
provide long-term financial assistance and oftentimes improve the developer’s likelihood of securing additional
(private) financing, as well as, improved financing terms.
The challenge of relying on public funding sources is that there are usually only one or two application
opportunities per grant per year.Based on this timing cycle,in order to seek affordable housing funds to make
the project fully affordable,ROEM requested to delay the start of construction and close of escrow,for a year,
while they wait for the application periods to open and outcomes to be announced.This will allow the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-22 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8.
developer to apply to additional funding sources to help fill the funding gap.
Once financing has been secured,Staff and ROEM will return to City Council for final approval of the AHAs
which will include final AMI levels.Staff are requesting the conceptual approval of the change in number of
units and AMI levels at this stage.
Third amendment to the PSAs and DA
City staff and ROEM have negotiated agreement that would allow ROEM to extend the deadline to close
escrow and start construction pending securing additional funding.In exchange,during this time period,ROEM
has agreed to demolish the structures on the 201 Grand Avenue site,at their risk and expense.The key changes
to the agreements that require Council’s approval include:
·Delay to the close of escrow (reflected in the PSAs and the DA)
·The inclusion of a Pre-Construction Agreement as an exhibit to the Development Agreement that will
set forth the terms of building demolition at 201-219 Grand Avenue.
As noted above,the one year schedule of performance extension is required in order to give the Developer
adequate time to secure financing that will fill the approximately $8.5 to $9 million funding gap.Staff and
ROEM have agreed that,subject to Council approval,demolition can take place earlier since it is likely that it is
a complicated and lengthy activity.Allowing ROEM to perform this action will ultimately compress the
construction schedule once the developer is ready to begin.The demolition will be conducted at their risk and
expense.Once complete the parking lot will be reopened.The purpose of the Pre-Construction Agreement
would be to allow ROEM access to the properties and begin the construction process prior to transferring
ownership.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On January 24,2019,the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Staff recommendation that the City
Council adopt a resolution approving the extension, changes to the Development Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
Aside from additional staff and City Attorney costs,this one-year extension request has no impact on the City’s
finances.
CONCLUSION
In order to ensure that the 201 Grand and 418 Linden developments proceed,the developer is proposing to
increase number of BMR units from 20%of the total to 100%of the total and to reduce affordability levels.
The AMI levels have not yet been set and will ultimately be driven by the financing,however,it is expected
that the affordability levels will be between 30 and 50% AMI.
In order to allow ROEM to pursue alternative financing sources,the City is proposing to remain in escrow for
an additional year.In the meantime,ROEM will proceed with demolishing the buildings at 217-219 Grand
Avenue and 212 Third Lane which may be complex and time consuming.This will then mean that the
developer will be ready to commence construction of the buildings as soon as escrow closes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council take the following actions:
1.Adopt a resolution approving the third amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreements for 201-219
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-22 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8.
Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue, and
2.Introduce an Ordinance approving the third amendment to the Development Agreement for 201-219
Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue properties with ROEM Development Corporation,and waive further
reading.
Attachments
1.San Mateo County AMI levels
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
revised 06/01/18
For HUD-funded programs, use the Federal Income Schedule. For State or locally-funded programs, you may use
the State Income Schedule. For programs funded with both federal and state funds, use the more stringent income levels.
Please verify the income and rent figures in use for specific programs.
San Mateo County (based on Federal Income Limits for SMC)
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *30,800 35,200 39,600 44,000 47,550 51,050 54,600 58,100
Very Low (50% AMI) *51,350 58,650 66,000 73,300 79,200 85,050 90,900 96,800
HOME Limit (60% AMI) *61,620 70,380 79,200 87,960 95,040 102,060 109,080 116,160
Low (80% AMI) *82,200 93,950 105,700 117,400 126,800 136,200 145,600 155,000
NOTES
*
California State Income Limits
Effective 4/26/18 - Area median Income $118,400 (based on household of 4)
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *30,800 35,200 39,600 44,000 47,550 51,050 54,600 58,100
Very Low (50% AMI) *51,350 58,650 66,000 73,300 79,200 85,050 90,900 96,800
Low (80% AMI) *82,200 93,950 105,700 117,400 126,800 136,200 145,600 155,000
Median (100% AMI)82,900 94,700 106,550 118,400 127,850 137,350 146,800 156,300
Moderate (120% AMI)99,450 113,700 127,900 142,100 153,450 164,850 176,200 187,550
NOTES
*2018 State Income limits provided by State of California Department of Housing and Community Development ;
2018 San Mateo County Income Limits
as determined by HUD - effective December 18 , 2013
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
Income figures provided by HUD for following San Mateo County federal entitlement programs: CDBG, HOME, ESG.;
Prepared 5/31/2018 - HUD-established area median Income $118,400 (based on household of 4).
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
Income limits effective 06/01/2018.
Please verify the income and rent figures in use for specific programs.
NOTES
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *30,800 35,200 39,600 44,000 47,550 51,050 54,600 58,100
Very Low (50% AMI) *51,350 58,650 66,000 73,300 79,200 85,050 90,900 96,800
HOME Limit (60% AMI) *61,620 70,380 79,200 87,960 95,040 102,060 109,080 116,160
HERA Special VLI (50% AMI) ***51,350 58,650 66,000 73,300 79,200 85,050 90,900 96,800 See Note regarding HERA for FY2018***
HERA Special Limit (60% AMI) ***61,620 70,380 79,200 87,960 95,040 102,060 109,080 116,160 See Note regarding HERA for FY2018***
Low (80% AMI) *82,200 93,950 105,700 117,400 126,800 136,200 145,600 155,000
State Median (100% AMI) 82,900 94,700 106,550 118,400 127,850 137,350 146,800 156,300
Income Category SRO *+Studio 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Extremely Low *770 825 990 1,143 1,275
Very Low *1,283 1,375 1,650 1,906 2,126
Low HOME Limit*1,511 1,283 1,375 1,650 1,906 2,126 effective 6/01/2018; 2018 HOME Limit
High HOME Limit *1,511 1,650 1,769 2,126 2,447 2,710 effective 6/01/2018; 2018 HOME Limit
HERA Special VLI (50% AMI) ***HERA Spec. Rents - Go to www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2018/supplemental.asp
HERA Special Limit (60% AMI) ***
Low**2,054 2,200 2,640 3,050 3,402 CA Tax Credit Rent limits for Low and Median Income Group
HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR)2,014 2,499 3,121 4,070 4,346 HUD-published Fair Market Rents
Median **2,566 2,750 3,300 3,812 4,252 CA Tax Credit Rent limits for Low and Median Income Group
NOTES
*
**CA Tax Credit Rent Limits for Low and Median Income Group
***
*+
HUD-defined Area Median Income $118,400 (based on householdof 4). State median $118,400 (household of 4) due to hold harmless policy.
2018 San Mateo County Income Limits
as determined by HUD, State of CA HCD, and County of San Mateo
Income figures provided by HUD for following San Mateo County federal entitlement programs: CDBG, HOME, ESG.
For San Mateo County, the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) & the HUD 2010 HOME hold-harmless provision permit
multifamily tax subsidy projects (MTSPs) & HOME projects placed in service before 1/1/2009 to continue to use HOME/tax credit/tax exempt
bond rents based on the highest income levels that project ever operated under. Once these units are placed in service, the rents will not adjust
downward should HUD establish lower incomes/rents in any subsequent year. Marketing of vacant units should be targeted to the current
year's income schedule. However, HUD's Section 8 income limits are larger that those defined by Section 3009(a)(E)(ii) of the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289). Therefore, for FY2018 no special income limits are necessary.
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
Maximum Affordable Rent Payment ($)
SROs with -0- or 1 of the following - sanitary or food preparation facility in unit; if 5+ SRO HOME-assisted units, then at least 20% of units to be
occupied by persons with incomes up to 50% AMI.
OTHER NOTES (generic)
1
High HOME Limit rent set at lower of: (a) 30% of 60% AMI,or (b) FMR (HUD Fair Market Rent).
For 2011, the FMR for Studio is the lower rent.
2
3 Table below provides rent guidance on appropriate income schedule to use:
2009
5/14/2010 - 5/31/2011
12/01/2011 - 11/30/2012
2012
1/1/2009 to 5/13/2010
2018 HERA Special
Rent Calcuations - The following is the assumed family size for each unit: Studio:1 person 1-BR:1.5 persons 2-BR:3 3-BR: 4.5 4-BR:6
Maximum affordable rent based on 30% of monthly income and all utlilites paid by landlord unless further adjusted by HUD. Utliity allowances
for tenant-paid utliites may be established by Housing Authority of County of San Mateo Section 8 Program.
Maximum Inc. Limits SchedulePlaced in Service Date
On or before 12/31/2008
Rent schedules at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdrdatas_landing.html for additional information as well as the various income schedules. Please also refer to
www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2018/supplemental.asp
12/18/2013 - 03/05/2015
04/14/2017 to 3/31/18 2017
20126/1/2011 - 11/30/2011
2012
03/06/2015 - 03/27/16 2015
4/01/2018 to present 2018
03/28/2016 - 4/14/2017 2016
2014
12/01/2012 - 12/17/2013 2013
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-1059 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8a.
Resolution approving the Third Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreements with ROEM Development
Corporation for 201-219 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue properties.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)is the owner of certain real property located in the City
of South San Francisco,California,with the address of 418 Linden Avenue,known as County Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers (“APN”) 012-314-010 (“418 Linden”); and
WHEREAS,the City is also the owner of former Redevelopment Agency property located in the City of South
San Francisco,California,with the address of 201-219 Grand Avenue,known as APNs 012-316-100,012-316-
110, 012-316-080 and 012-316-090 (collectively, “201 Grand Avenue”); and
WHEREAS,in December 2015 the City approved entitlements for a residential project at 418 Linden Avenue
and a mixed-use project at 201 Grand Avenue (“Project”); and,
WHEREAS,in December 2016,following a competitive process,the City and Agency selected a developer,
ROEM Development Corporation (“Developer”),to develop the 418 Linden Avenue and 201 Grand Avenue
Projects; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)on January 28,2015 (State
Clearinghouse number 2013102001)in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines,which
analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan;
and,
WHEREAS,the 418 Linden Avenue and 201 Grand Avenue Projects are both within the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”)area and were found to be within the parameters analyzed within the DSASP
EIR; and,
WHEREAS,the Project will not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR,and
wound not constitute a change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on July 6,2017 to solicit public
comment and consider the proposed entitlements,take public testimony,and make a recommendation to the
City Council on the Project; and
WHEREAS,on September 6,2017,the City Council (“Council”)approved two Purchase and Sale Agreements,
two Affordable Housing Agreements (“AHAs”),and a Development Agreement between the City and the
Developer for the properties at 201 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue; and
WHEREAS,in January 2018,Developer requested more time to develop a demolition strategy and demolition
drawings and requested a 120 day extension to the Performance Schedule in the Purchase and Sale Agreements
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1059 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8a.
without adjusting the overall project completion date; and
WHEREAS,on March 28,2018,Developer and City entered into the First Administrative Amendments to the
Purchase and Sale Agreements (“First Amendment”)to modestly extend the deadlines within the Performance
Schedule in order to provide sufficient time to undertake the complex demolition presented at 201-219 Grand
Avenue; and
WHEREAS,in July 2018,Developer entered into the Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreements
extending the deadlines by a further 90 days; and
WHEREAS,City staff has prepared documentation approving the one-year time extension,an adjustment in the
Affordable Housing Agreement’s AMI from 20 percent to 100 percent, and demolition prior to conveyance; and
WHEREAS,the Performance Schedule in the Purchase and Sale Agreements now needs to be further amended
in order to accommodate the one-year extension, as set forth in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS,the Developer has not requested a change in entitlements,and the Project as currently entitled is
located within the DSASP area and remains within the parameters analyzed within the DSASP EIR; and,
WHEREAS,the proposed Third Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreements will not result in any new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects
beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR,and wound not constitute a change in circumstances
that would require additional environmental review.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council does hereby resolve as follows:
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as part of this Resolution.
2.The proposed actions in this Resolution are consistent with the Long Range Property Management Plan.
3.The Third Amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreements,attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit
B, respectively, are incorporated herein and hereby approved.
4.The City Manager,or his designee,is authorized to execute Third Amendments to the Purchase and Sale
Agreements and any necessary related documents.
5.The City Manager,or his designee,is authorized take any and all other actions necessary to implement
this intent of this Resolution, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (this “Third
Amendment”) is made effective as of ________, 2019 (“Effective Date”) by and between
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation (“Seller”) and ROEM
Development Corporation, a California Corporation (“Buyer”). Seller and Buyer are
sometimes individually referred to herein as a “party” and collectively as “the parties.”
RECITALS
A. Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement
dated November 14, 2017 (the “Agreement”) with respect to that certain real property
located at 201-219 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California (Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 012-316-110, 012-316-100, 012-316-090 and 012-316-080) (collectively, the
“Property”).
B. On March 28, 2018, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain First
Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement dated March 28, 2018 (the “First
Amendment”), whereby the parties agreed to adjust the deadlines within the Buyer’s
Schedule of Performance as set forth in Section 5 of the Agreement. On August 22, 2018
Seller and Buyer entered into Second Amendment, whereby the parties agreed to further
adjust the deadlines within Buyer’s Schedule of Performance, as set forth therein
(“Second Amendment”).
C. On November 9, 2018, Buyer submitted a letter to City detailing its desire
and proposal to modify the number of below market rate units within the Project and
outlining the corresponding need for a 12-month extension of time to secure the
necessary funding sources. The City has determined that additional affordable housing is
desirable to the City and agreeable, and it is willing to extend the Schedule of
Performance for an additional 12-month period so Buyer may secure such financing.
D. Seller and Buyer now desire to amend certain provisions of the
Agreement, as amended by the First and Second Amendment, to reflect this
understanding, as set forth herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and incorporating all of the above as
though set forth in full herein and in consideration of all the recitals, conditions and
agreements contained herein, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Revision to Schedule of Performance. The Schedule of Performance set
forth in Section 5 of the Agreement, as amended by the First and Second Amendment, is
amended to read as follows:
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT –
201-219 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Page 2 of 5
5.1 Buyer’s Schedule of Performance. Subject to Force Majeure
Delays (as defined in Section 8.4) and Buyer and Seller’s closing conditions (as
set forth in Section 6.2 and 6.3), Buyer shall complete the following milestones in
furtherance of the Closing, in accordance with the following schedule:
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT –
201-219 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Page 3 of 5
Deadline Milestone
(a) May 15, 2018
Buyer shall have completed 50% of the Construction
Drawings and submitted the Financial Proforma to
Seller (Completed)
(b) July 14, 2018
Buyer shall have completed all Final Plans and
submitted 100% construction drawings to the City for
building permits, and submitted an Updated Proforma
to Seller (Completed)
(c) May 14, 2019 Buyer shall have started the required demolition of
existing structures in accordance with the Pre-
Construction Activity Agreement executed by the
parties
(d) November 30, 2019
November 12, 2018
August 13, 2018
Buyer shall have secured Construction Financing and
executed a contract with a general contractor for
construction of the Project in accordance with the
final plans
(e) By December 21,
2019
Within 10 days
from satisfaction
of all
contingencies on
December 11, 2019
December 21, 2018
Within 10 days from
satisfaction of all
contingences on
December 11, 2018
September 12, 2018
Buyer and Seller shall have satisfied (or waived in
writing) all contingencies to Closing set forth in this
Agreement, and be prepared to Close Escrow
2. Affordability Component of Project. Seller approves Buyer’s proposal
to re-purpose the units of the Project to all below market rate (affordable) housing (except
for any “manager units”). Upon Buyer’s acquisition of the Property, Buyer shall re-
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT –
201-219 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Page 4 of 5
develop the Property into a high-density, mixed-use project including below market rate
residential units, as further described in the AHA.
3. Demolition. Pursuant to that certain Pre-Construction Activity Access
Agreement dated _____, attached to and incorporated therein to the Third Amendment to
the Development Agreement, Seller will retain a general contractor to demolish all
structures located on the Property prior to the anticipated Closing. As such, upon the
Closing, the Property will be delivered in a “bare-land” condition, with all buildings and
improvements demolished and removed.
4. General Provisions. Each party has received independent legal advice
from its attorneys with respect to the advisability of executing this Third Amendment and
the meaning of the provisions hereof. The provisions of this Third Amendment shall be
construed as to the fair meaning and not for or against any party based upon any
attribution of such party as the sole source of the language in question. Except as
expressly amended pursuant to this Third Amendment, the terms and provisions of the
Agreement shall remain unmodified and shall continue in full force and effect, and Buyer
and Seller hereby ratify and affirm all their respective rights and obligations under the
Agreement. Any capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to
them in the Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Third Amendment and
the Agreement, this Third Amendment shall govern. The terms and provisions of this
Third Amendment, together with the Agreement, shall constitute all of the terms and
provisions to which Buyer and Seller have agreed with respect to the transaction
governed hereby, and there are no other terms and provisions, oral or written, that apply
to the Agreement and/or the Property other than as set forth in the Agreement as modified
by this Third Amendment. The provisions of this Third Amendment shall apply to, be
binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their respective
successors and assigns. This Third Amendment may be executed in multiple
counterparts, all of which shall constitute an original, and all of which together shall
constitute a single instrument. Counterparts of this Third Amendment executed and
delivered by facsimile, email or other means of electronic delivery shall constitute
originals for all purposes.
{Signatures on Following Page}
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT –
201-219 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Page 5 of 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Third Amendment as
of the Effective Date.
BUYER:
ROEM Development Corporation,
a California corporation
By: _______________________
Name: Alex Sanchez
Its Executive Vice President
SELLER:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By: __________________________
Name: Charles Michael Futrell
Its City Manager
The Title Company has executed this Third Amendment to acknowledge its agreement to
act in accordance with the terms of this Third Amendment.
Chicago Title Insurance Company
By:
Name: Sherri Keller
Title: Escrow Officer
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (this “Third
Amendment”) is made effective as of _________, 2019 (“Effective Date”) by and
between CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation (“Seller”) and
ROEM Development Corporation, a California Corporation (“Buyer”). Seller and Buyer
are sometimes individually referred to herein as a “party” and collectively as “the
parties.”
RECITALS
A. Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement
dated November 14, 2017 (the “Agreement”) with respect to that certain real property
located at 418 Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, California (Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 012-314-010) (the “Property”);
B. On March 28, 2018, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain First
Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (“First Amendment”), whereby the parties
agreed to adjust the deadlines within the Buyer’s Schedule of Performance as set forth in
Section 5 of the Agreement. On August 22, 2018, Seller and Buyer entered into that
certain Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Second Amendment”),
whereby the parties agreed to further adjust the deadlines within Buyer’s Schedule of
Performance, as set forth therein (“Second Amendment”).
C. On November 9, 2018, Buyer submitted a letter to City detailing its desire
and proposal to modify the number of below market rate units within the Project and
outlining the corresponding need for a 12-month extension of time to secure the
necessary funding sources. The City has determined that additional affordable housing is
desirable to the City and agreeable, and it is willing to extend the Schedule of
Performance for an additional 12-month period so Buyer may secure such financing.
D. Seller and Buyer now desire to amend certain provisions of the
Agreement, as amended by the First and Second Amendment, to reflect this
understanding, as set forth herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and incorporating all of the above as
though set forth in full herein and in consideration of all the recitals, conditions and
agreements contained herein, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Revision to Schedule of Performance. The Schedule of Performance set
forth in Section 5 of the Agreement, as amended by the First and Second Amendment, is
amended to read as follows:
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT –
418 LINDEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Page 2 of 4
5.1 Buyer’s Schedule of Performance. Subject to Force Majeure
Delays (as defined in Section 8.4) and Buyer and Seller’s closing conditions (as
set forth in Section 6.2 and 6.3), Buyer shall complete the following milestones in
furtherance of the Closing, in accordance with the following schedule:
Deadline Milestone
(a) May 15, 2018
Buyer shall have completed 50% of the Construction
Drawings and submitted the Financial Proforma to
Seller (Completed)
(b) July 14, 2018
Buyer shall have completed all Final Plans and
submitted 100% construction drawings to the City for
building permits, and submitted an Updated Proforma
to Seller (Completed)
(c) November 30, 2019
November 12, 2018
August 13, 2018
Buyer shall have secured Construction Financing and
executed a contract with a general contractor for
demolition and construction of the Project in
accordance with the final plans
(d) By December 21,
2019
Within 10 days
from satisfaction
of all
contingencies on
December 11, 2019
December 21, 2018
Within 10 days from
satisfaction of all
contingences on
December 11, 2018
September 12, 2018
Buyer and Seller shall have satisfied (or waived in
writing) all contingencies to Closing set forth in this
Agreement, and be prepared to Close Escrow
2. Affordability Component of Project. Seller approves Buyer’s proposal to
re-purpose the units of the Project not used as a “manager’s unit” to all below market rate
(affordable) housing. Upon Buyer’s acquisition of the Property, Buyer shall re-develop the
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT –
418 LINDEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Page 3 of 4
Property into a high-density, residential use-only project, with some flexibility for
live/work spaces, including below market rate residential units, as further described in the
AHA.
3. General Provisions. Each party has received independent legal advice
from its attorneys with respect to the advisability of executing this Third Amendment and
the meaning of the provisions hereof. The provisions of this Third Amendment shall be
construed as to the fair meaning and not for or against any party based upon any attribution
of such party as the sole source of the language in question. Except as expressly amended
pursuant to this Third Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain
unmodified and shall continue in full force and effect, and Buyer and Seller hereby ratify
and affirm all their respective rights and obligations under the Agreement. Any capitalized
terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. In the
event of any conflict between this Third Amendment and the Agreement, this Third
Amendment shall govern. The terms and provisions of this Third Amendment, together
with the Agreement, shall constitute all of the terms and provisions to which Buyer and
Seller have agreed with respect to the transaction governed hereby, and there are no other
terms and provisions, oral or written, that apply to the Agreement and/or the Property other
than as set forth in the Agreement as modified by this Third Amendment. The provisions
of this Third Amendment shall apply to, be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and to their respective successors and assigns. This Third Amendment may
be executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall constitute an original, and all of
which together shall constitute a single instrument. Counterparts of this Third Amendment
executed and delivered by facsimile, email or other means of electronic delivery shall
constitute originals for all purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Third Amendment as
of the Effective Date.
BUYER:
ROEM Development Corporation,
a California corporation
By: ______________________
Name: Alex Sanchez
Its Executive Vice President
SELLER:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By: __________________________
Name: Charles Michael Futrell
Its City Manager
THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT –
418 LINDEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Page 4 of 4
The Title Company has executed this Third Amendment to acknowledge its agreement to
act in accordance with the terms of this Third Amendment.
Chicago Title Insurance Company
By:
Name: Sherri Keller
Title: Escrow Officer
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-128 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8b.
An Ordinance approving the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement for 201-219 Grand Avenue and
418 Linden Avenue properties with ROEM Development Corporation.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)is the owner of certain real property located in the City
of South San Francisco,California,with the address of 418 Linden Avenue,known as County Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers (“APN”) 012-314-010 (“418 Linden”); and
WHEREAS,the City is also the owner of former Redevelopment Agency property located in the City of South
San Francisco,California,with the address of 201-219 Grand Avenue,known as APNs 012-316-100,012-316-
110, 012-316-080 and 012-316-090 (collectively, “201 Grand Avenue”); and
WHEREAS,in December 2015 the City approved entitlements for a residential project at 418 Linden Avenue
and a mixed-use project at 201 Grand Avenue (“Project”); and,
WHEREAS,in December 2016,following a competitive process,the City and Agency selected a developer,
ROEM Development Corporation (“Developer”),to develop the 418 Linden Avenue and 201 Grand Avenue
Projects; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)on January 28,2015 (State
Clearinghouse number 2013102001)in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines,which
analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan;
and,
WHEREAS,the 418 Linden Avenue and 201 Grand Avenue Projects are both within the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”)area and were found to be within the parameters analyzed within the DSASP
EIR; and,
WHEREAS,the Project will not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR,and
wound not constitute a change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on July 6,2017 to solicit public
comment and consider the proposed entitlements,take public testimony,and make a recommendation to the
City Council on the Project; and
WHEREAS,on September 6,2017,the City Council (“Council”)approved two Purchase and Sale Agreements,
two Affordable Housing Agreements (“AHAs”),and a Development Agreement between the City and the
Developer for the properties at 201 Grand Avenue and 418 Linden Avenue; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 7.2 of the Development Agreement,any amendment to the Development
Agreement which the City determines is minor and does not substantially affect the term and schedule of
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-128 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8b.
Agreement which the City determines is minor and does not substantially affect the term and schedule of
performance is considered an administrative agreement amendment; and
WHEREAS,in January 2018,Developer requested more time to develop a demolition strategy and demolition
drawings and requested a 120 day extension to the Performance Schedule in the Purchase and Sale Agreements
and Development Agreement without adjusting the overall project completion date; and
WHEREAS,on March 28,2018,Developer and City entered into the First Administrative Amendments to the
Purchase and Sale Agreements and Development Agreement (“First Amendment”)to modestly extend the
deadlines within the Performance Schedule in order to provide sufficient time to undertake the complex
demolition presented at 201-219 Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS,in July 2018,Developer received Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (“HACSM”)
vouchers for twelve of the Below Market Rate units (“BMRs”),which will provide approximately $1.5 million
to finance the project; and
WHEREAS,in July 2018,Developer entered into the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement
extending the deadlines by a further 90 days; and
WHEREAS,on November 14,2018,the City Council authorized City staff to prepare the documentation
approving the one-year time extension,an adjustment in the Affordable Housing Agreement’s AMI from 20
percent to 100 percent, and demolition prior to conveyance; and
WHEREAS, the one-year extension and the adjustment in the AMI do not impact the City’s General Fund; and
WHEREAS,the Performance Schedule in the Development Agreement now needs to be further amended in
order to accommodate the one-year extension, as set forth in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS,the Developer has not requested a change in entitlements,and the Project as currently entitled is
located within the DSASP area and remains within the parameters analyzed within the DSASP EIR; and,
WHEREAS,the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement will not result in any new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects
beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR,and wound not constitute a change in circumstances
that would require additional environmental review; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 19.60.100 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,the proposed Third
Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objective,polices,general land uses and
programs specified in the General Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District to provide high
density residential housing;is compatible with the uses authorized in,and the regulations prescribed for the
Downtown Transit Core and Grand Avenue Core sub-districts;is in conformity with public convenience,
general welfare and good land use practice because the project will provide BMR units for City residents;will
not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare;and will not adversely affect the orderly
development of property or the preservation of property valued.
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on January 24,2019 to solicit
public comment and consider the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement,take public
testimony,and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance approving the Third
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-128 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8b.
testimony,and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance approving the Third
Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Project; and
WHEREAS,the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on February 27,2019 to solicit public
comment and consider an ordinance adopting the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement,
and take public testimony on the Project; and
NOW,THEREFORE,based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the
California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.and the CEQA Guidelines,14
California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan,and General Plan EIR;
the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;the Project applications;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony
submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed meetings on July 6,2017 and January 24,2019
and the City Council’s duly noticed meetings on September 6,2017 and February 27,2019;Planning
Commission and City Council deliberations;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources
Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
A.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as part of this Resolution.
2.The Third Amendment to the Development Agreement and its attachments,attached hereto as Exhibit A
is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Resolution,as if they were each set forth
fully herein.
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
4.The 418 Linden Avenue and 201 Grand Avenue Projects are consistent with the General Plan by
creating a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the
property line on Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue,respectively,provide well-articulated and visually
engaging development that implements the goals of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan,are
consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design,form and articulation and,
in the case of the 201 Grand Avenue project,provide commercial uses along both Grand and Cypress
Avenues.
B.Third Amendment to the Development Agreement
1.The Developer and City have negotiated a Third Amendment to the Development Agreement pursuant
to Government Code sections 65868 and 65867.5. The Third Amendment Development Agreement and
its attachments, attached hereto as Exhibit A, sets forth the duration, property, project criteria, and other
required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Based on the findings in support
of the Project, the City Council finds that the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement is
consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-128 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8b.
Francisco General Plan and any applicable zoning regulations.
2.The Third Amendment to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and
the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located. The subject site
is suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Plan specifically
contemplates the proposed type of project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed
thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the Project.
3.The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land
use practice.
4.The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare.
5.The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the
preservation of property values.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby:
1.Approve the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement between ROEM Development
Corporation and the City of South San Francisco for the development of the properties located at 418
Linden Avenue and 201-219 Grand Avenue, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
2.Authorizes the City Manager to enter into and execute the Third Amendment to the Development
Agreement on behalf of the City Council in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A;
to make any revisions,amendments,or modifications,subject to the approval of the City Attorney,
deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this Ordinance and which do not materially alter or increase
the City’s obligations thereunder.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or
unconstitutional,the remainder of this Ordinance,including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.To this end,
provisions of this Ordinance are severable.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
declares that it would have passed each section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase
hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences,
clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared
by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to
be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy
of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1)publish
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-128 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:8b.
of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1)publish
the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along
with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting.This
Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
Recording Requested by
and when Recorded, return to:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)
THIRD AMENDMENT
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to Development Agreement (“Third Amendment”) is entered into
by and between ROEM Development Corporation, a California corporation (“Developer”) and the
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation (“City”) on this _____ day of
_________________, 2019.
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 1541-2017 (“DA Ordinance”), the City entered
into a Development Agreement between City and Developer (“Development Agreement”) for the
development of a residential project at 418 Linden Avenue and a mixed-use project at 201-219
Grand Avenue (together, the “Project”).
B. Pursuant to Section 7.2(a) of the Development Agreement, any amendment to the
Development Agreement which the City determines is minor and does not substantially affect the
term and schedule of performance is considered an administrative agreement amendment.
C. On March 28, 2018, Developer and City entered into that certain First Administrative
Amendment to Development Agreement (“First Amendment”), whereby the parties agreed to
modestly adjust the deadlines within the Performance Schedule contained within the Development
Agreement in order to provide sufficient time to undertake the complex demolition presented at
201-219 Grand Avenue. On August 23, 2018, Developer and City entered into a Second
Amendment to the Development Agreement (“Second Amendment”) to further adjust the deadlines
within the Schedule of Performance contained in the First Amendment to the Development
Agreement and First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreements for the Project.
D. On November 9, 2018, Developer submitted a letter to City detailing its desire and
request to modify the number of below market rate units within the Project and outlining the
corresponding need for a 12-month extension of time to secure the necessary affordable housing
funding sources.
E. The City has determined that additional affordable housing is desirable to the City, and it is
willing to extend the Schedule of Performance for an additional 12-month period so Developer may
secure such financing, provided that Developer engages in certain pre-construction activities,
specifically causing improvements and structures located on the Grand Property to be demolished.
F. The additional time requested adjusts the overall Project completion date by twelve-
months. Pursuant to Section 7.2(b) of the Development Agreement, the City has determined that
this Third Amendment requires notice and public hearing, and shall be approved by ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the
parties herein contained, the City and Developer agree as follows:
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated herein.
2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Development Agreement.
3. Amendment to Recital E. As set forth in the recitals to this Third Amendment, the City
approves Developer’s proposal to revise the Project so that all units within the Project not
used as a “manager unit” are below market rate (affordable) housing. Recital E of the
Development Agreement shall be stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following:
E. As set forth herein, upon Developer’s acquisition of the Properties,
Developer shall re-develop the Grand Project Site into a high-density, mixed-use project,
where all residential units not used as a “manager unit” will be below market rate (“BMR”)
units, and ground floor retail (the “Grand Project”); and, Developer shall re-develop
the Linden Project Site into a high-density, residential use only project, with some
flexibility for live/work spaces, where all residential units not used as a “manager unit”
will be BMR units (the “Linden Project”). City and Developer acknowledge and agree
that the BMR units developed as part of the Projects will be subject to those restrictions
provided for in the respective AHAs. The Grand Project and the Linden Project are
collectively referred to herein as the “Project” or the “Projects”.
4. Amendment to Section 3.6. Section 3.6 to the Development Agreement is revised to read
as follows, with additions in double underline and deletions in strikethrough:
3.6 Affordable Housing. Developer acknowledges that upon Developer’s acquisition
of the Properties, the Properties will be subject to recorded covenants that will restrict
use of the Properties for a term of not less than fifty-five (55) years, commencing upon
the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the Project, as further set forth in the
Linden Affordable Housing Agreement (“Linden AHA”) and the Grand Affordable
Housing Agreement (“Grand AHA”), each substantially in the forms attached hereto as
Exhibits C and D (the “AHAs”), each of which shall be recorded in the Official
Records on the date that Developer acquires the Project Site. The AHAs shall provide
that not less than twenty one hundred percent (20100%) of the residential units in the
Project not used as a “manger unit” as a whole shall be rented at an affordable cost (as
defined in the respective AHA).
5. Further Amendment to Exhibit E. Exhibit E to the Development Agreement is revised
to read as follows, with additions in double underline and deletions in strikethrough:
EXHIBIT E
Developer’s Project Schedule of Performance
Milestone Deadline
1 50% Construction Drawings (CDs) and
Proforma
May 15, 2018
(Completed)
2 100% CDs submitted for building permits
and Updated Proforma
July 14, 2018
(Completed)
3 Construction Financing Secured and
Construction Contract Executed
November 30, 2019
November 12, 2018
August 13, 2018
4 If building permit application and 100%
CDs were completed in #2, building permit
ready for issuance
December 11, 2019
December 11, 2018
September 12, 2018
5 Close of Escrow and Property Conveyance By December 21, 2019
Within Ten (10) Days from Satisfaction
of All Contingencies
By December 21, 2018
Within Ten (10) Days from Satisfaction
of All Contingencies
September 12, 2018
6 Grand Avenue Demolition Start May 14, 2019
January 5, 2019
September 27, 2018
Within fifteen (15) days from Close of
Escrow
Grand Avenue Demolition Complete September 11, 2019
7 Construction Start April 5, 2020
April 5, 2019
December 26, 2018
Within One Hundred and Five (105) days
after Close of Escrow
8 Construction Completion August 31, 2021
August 13, 2020
May 14, 2020
Thirty (30) months after Effective Date
6. Pre-Closing Activities. Pursuant to that certain Pre-Construction Activity Access
Agreement dated _____, and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A,
Developer or Developer’s affiliated general contractor will demolish the structures
located on the Property prior to the anticipated Closing. As such, upon the Closing, the
Property will be delivered in a “bare-land” condition, as set forth in the Pre-
Construction Activity Access Agreement.
7. Effect of Third Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Third Amendment,
the Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms,
and Developer and City hereby ratify and affirm all their respective rights and obligations
under the Development Agreement, including but not limited to Developer’s
indemnification obligations as set forth in Section 13 of the Development Agreement. In
the event of any conflict between the Third Amendment or the Development Agreement,
the provisions of this Third Amendment shall govern.
8. Binding Agreement. This Third Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of
the parties hereto. Any reference in this Third Amendment to a specifically named party
shall be deemed to apply to any successor, administrator, executor, or assign of such party
who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Third Amendment or
under law.
9. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Third Amendment together with
recordation of the Development Agreement.
10. Counterparts. This Third Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute
the same document.
11. California Law. This Third Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action to enforce or interpret this
Agreement shall be filed and heard in the Superior Court of San Mateo County,
California.
12. Invalidity. Any provision of this Third Amendment that is determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed severed from this
Third Amendment, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if
the invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part hereof
13. Headings. The headings used in this Third Amendment are for convenience only and
shall be disregarded in interpreting the substantive provisions of this Third Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Third Amendment has been entered into by and between
Developer and City as of the date and year first above written.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
ROEM Development Corporation,
a California Corporation
By: ROEM Development Corporation,
a California Corporation, President
By: ______________________________________________________________
Name: ____________________________________________________________
Title: _____________________________________________________________
Date: _____________________________________________________________
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
By:
Name: Charles Michael Futrell
Title: City Manager
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ___________________
Jason Rosenberg,
City Attorney
ATTEST:
By: ____________________
Rosa Govea Acosta
City Clerk
Exhibit A
PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RIGHT OF ACCESS AGREEMENT
201-219 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco
This PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RIGHT OF ACCESS AGREEMENT
(“Agreement”) is made as of _______________, 2019 (“Effective Date”), by and
between ROEM Development Corporation, a California Corporation (“Developer”) and
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a California municipal corporation (“City”).
RECITALS
A. The City and Developer entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
November 14, 2017 (the “Purchase Agreement”) with respect to that certain real
property located at 201-219 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco (the “Grand
Property”) and that certain Development Agreement dated ____, 2017 for the
development of a mixed-use project thereon (the “Development Agreement”).
B. The Purchase Agreement was amended by that certain First Amendment to Purchase
Agreement dated March 28, 2018, that certain Second Amendment to Purchase
Agreement dated August 22, 2018, and that certain Third Amendment to Purchase
Agreement dated ______, 2019 (together, as amended, the “Purchase Agreement”).
C. The Development Agreement was amended by that certain First Administrative
Amendment to Development Agreement dated March 28, 2018, that certain Second
Amendment to Development Agreement dated August 23, 2018, and that certain Third
Amendment to Development Agreement dated ____, 2019 (together, the “Development
Agreement”).
D. Within the Third Amendment to Development Agreement, the parties agreed that
Developer would cause certain pre-construction activities on the Grand Property to be
performed, specifically, the demolition of certain improvements and structures thereon,
prior to the close of escrow.
E. The parties now desire to enter into this Agreement to establish the terms and conditions
on which Developer may enter onto the Grand Property to perform those Pre-
Construction Activities, as the term is defined below.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the
parties herein contained, the City and Developer agree as follows:
1. Definitions. The following terms, as used herein, shall be defined as follows:
(a) “Access Area” shall mean the entirety of the Grand Property, as described
in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A.
(b) “Developer’s Agents” shall mean Developer’s employees, agents,
contractors, and authorized representatives, and Developer’s Affiliated General Contractor.
(c) “Pre-Construction Activities” shall mean the demolition of existing
structures located in the Access Area/Grand Property and the rehabilitation of the surface parking
lot to a usable condition as further described in the Pre-Construction Activities Scope of Work
attached as Exhibit B (the “Scope of Work”).
(d) “Developer’s Affiliated General Contractor” shall mean ROEM Builders
Incorporated, a California corporation.
All other defined terms used in this Agreement shall be defined where first appearing in this
Agreement.
2. Developer’s Obligation to perform Pre-Construction Activities. Developer shall
cause all Pre-Construction Activities listed in the Scope of Work to be performed in accordance
with the Schedule of Performance outlined in Exhibit C (the “Schedule”). All Pre-Construction
Activities must be completed in a good, safe, and professional manner in compliance with all
applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations, and in accordance with industry standards and best
practices. Developer shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for causing the performance
of all tasks necessary to complete the Pre-Construction Activities, including, but not limited to,
demolition of existing structures, obtaining all permits required under applicable law, the proper
disposal of all hazardous and non-hazardous debris resulting from said demolition, and the
rehabilitation of the surface parking lot on the Grand Property as set forth in the Scope of Work.
3. Grant of Right of Access. City hereby grants to Developer and Developer’s Agents
the right to access/enter onto the Grand Property to perform all Pre-Construction Activities
contemplated by this Agreement. The right of access granted hereunder shall be subject to the
terms and conditions set forth herein. Pursuant to the right of access granted hereunder, Developer
and Developer’s Agents may enter onto the Grand Property with tools and equipment as may be
reasonably necessary to perform the Pre-Construction Activities. During the performance of the
Pre-Construction Activities, the City will endeavor to provide Developer with at least twenty-four
hours’ notice to Developer, prior to accessing active construction areas of the Grand Property.
When accessing the Grand Property during the term of this Agreement, the City will endeavor to
follow all reasonable safety requirements, including accompanying a safety escort, and utilizing
all safety equipment and attire requested by Developer.
4. Hazardous Materials. Developer shall ensure that any hazardous materials that are
encountered, generated, or uncovered by Developer or Developer’s Agents during the Pre-
Construction Activities are properly contained, handled, and disposed of in accordance with all
environmental laws, all laws governing the handling and disposal of hazardous materials, and any
regulations promulgated pursuant to such laws. In connection with the disposal of any hazardous
waste encountered or generated as part of the Pre-Construction Activities, City shall be listed as
the generator of any such hazardous waste on all transportation manifests and any other required
instruments. City shall execute all manifests for the transportation and disposal of any such
hazardous waste associated with the Pre-Construction Activities.
5. Ownership of Property/Improvements. The Developer is required to complete Pre-
Construction Activities pursuant to its obligations under this Agreement and the Development
Agreement. If for any reason the parties fail to close Escrow pursuant to the Purchase and Sale
Agreement, Developer has no legal or equitable claim to ownership of the Grand Property or the
improvements resulting from the Pre-Construction Activities. Further, in the event of such failure
to close, the Developer and Developer’s Agents waive, forego, and disclaim any claim to
reimbursement for any and all costs associated with such Pre-Construction Activities.
6. Pre-Construction Activities Security; Remedies.
(a) Prior to the commencement of the Pre-Construction Activities, Developer
shall furnish: (1) a surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundred percent (100%) of the
estimated cost of the construction and completion of the works and improvements of the Pre-
Construction Activities as security for the faithful performance of this Agreement; and (2) a
separate surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated
cost of the construction and completion of the work and improvements of the Pre-Construction
Activities as security for the payment of all persons performing labor and providing materials in
connection with this Agreement. Developer shall require all subcontractors to file a labor and
materials corporate surety bond as security for payment of all persons furnishing labor and
materials in connection with this Agreement. In lieu of a surety bond(s), Developer may fulfill the
requirements of subsection (a) of this section by providing a Standby Irrevocable Letter of Credit
in favor of the City, a cash deposit, or another pledge of security in a form approved by the City.
(b) If Developer fails to cause the Pre-Construction Activities to be completed
in accordance with the Schedule, City, in its sole discretion, may call upon the security provided
pursuant to subsection (a). Additionally, City may, but has no obligation to, assume control over
the activities in order to ensure completion and avoid any potential threats to health and safety. If
the City assumes such control over the Pre-Construction Activities, City may charge Developer
for any and all costs and expenses that the City incurs as a result of assuming control over the
completion of said Pre-Construction Activities. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
requiring the City to assume control and complete the Pre-Construction Activities if Developer
fails to cause them to be completed.
7. Fencing and Enclosures; Security Precautions. Prior to commencing the Pre-
Construction Activities, Developer shall cause Developer’s Agents to erect fencing and/or other
barriers sufficient to obscure the activities taking place on the Grand Property and to prevent the
unauthorized entry of persons onto the site. If the City determines, in its sole discretion, that the
erected fencing and/or barriers are insufficient to obscure the site and/or prevent unauthorized
entry onto the site, the City may require Developer to implement additional safety and security
precautions in order to obscure the site and/or prevent such entry. If Developer fails to implement
additional such safety and security precautions after notice from the City, then the City may cause
such additional safety and security precautions to be implemented and charge the Developer for
the costs of such additional precautions.
8. Notice of Completion; Acceptance of the Work. Upon completion of the Pre-
Construction Activities, Developer shall send written notice to the City stating that all required
Pre-Construction Activities have been completed. Upon receipt of such notice, City will inspect
the site to confirm whether all required Pre-Construction Activities have been satisfactorily
completed in accordance with the Scope of Work. In the event that the City determines, in its sole
discretion, that there are outstanding Pre-Construction Activities, then City will advise Developer
in writing what items remain outstanding and Developer will promptly cause any outstanding tasks
to be completed. If the outstanding tasks are not complete within sixty (60) days of such written
notice, City, in its sole discretion, may complete the outstanding tasks in accordance with Section
6 above.
9. Indemnity. Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City from any
and all claims, demands, losses, costs, damages, suits, judicial or administrative proceedings,
liability, judgments, penalties, fines, deficiencies, orders, and/or expenses, including consultants
and attorneys’ fees (“Losses”). Such indemnity obligations shall include, but not be limited to,
Losses associated with:
(a) the improper release, handling or disposal of hazardous materials or any
resulting contamination associated with the performance of Pre-Construction Activities;
(b) bodily injury or property damage related to or arising from the Pre-
Construction Activities or Developer’s and Developer’s Agents’ presence on the Grand Property,
including any such injuries or damage caused by Developer’s employees, agents, or contractors or
failure to properly obscure or secure the site.
Developer shall not seek reimbursement or payment from the City for any of the
costs associated with the indemnity obligations herein and hereby waives any right it may
otherwise have under applicable law to statutory or equitable contribution from the City for such
costs. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Developer’s indemnity under this Section 9 shall
survive in perpetuity.
10. Defense of Claim. City shall give prompt written notice to Developer of any claim
giving rise to the indemnity obligations of Developer hereunder. Developer shall defend the claim
with counsel reasonably acceptable to City. Subject to ethical rules of conflict of interest,
Developer shall at all times have the right to lead and conduct the defense of the claim. Developer
shall not settle a claim without the prior written approval of City, which shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
11. Attorneys’ Fees. If either party brings an action or proceeding against the other to
enforce or interpret any term or condition hereof, the party prevailing in such action or proceeding
shall be entitled to receive from the party not prevailing its reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and
expenses of suit as determined by the court.
12. Consent to Jurisdiction. City and Developer consent to the exercise of jurisdiction
by the federal or state courts of California, and consent to venue in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California and the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo.
13. Notices. All notices, demands, requests and other communications required
hereunder (i) shall be in writing, (ii) shall be deemed to be duly given if mailed by United States
registered or certified mail, with return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by United States
Express Mail, or if sent by an overnight delivery service providing evidence of receipt or if
personally served, and the same is sent to a party at its address set forth below:
If to Developer:
ROEM Development
1650 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Attn: Alex Sanchez
With a copy to: Situs Law, PC
17485 Monterey Road, Suite 201
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Attn: Summer Ludwick, Esq.
To City: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
With a Copy to: Meyers Nave
555 12th Street
Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Notices will be effectively served upon personal delivery, or if mailed or sent by overnight
delivery service, upon receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Any party may designate a change of
address by written notice to the others given at least ten (10) days before such change of address
is to become effective.
14. Insurance. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Developer shall
ensure that Developer or any of Developer’s Agents performing work under this Agreement shall
maintain the applicable types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
Pre-Construction Activities by the Developer and Developer’s Agents. Consistent with the
following provisions, Developer’s Affiliated General Contractor shall provide Certificates of
Insurance indicating that Developer’s Affiliated General Contractor has obtained or currently
maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance
satisfactory, in all respects, to the City. Developer and Developer’s Agents shall maintain the
insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. Developer
shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Developer has
obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s).
14.1 Workers’ Compensation. Developer and Developer’s Agents shall, at its sole cost
and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and
Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or
indirectly by Developer or Developer’s Agents. The Statutory Workers’
Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided
with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per
accident. In the alternative, Developer’s and Developer’s Agents may rely on a
self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of
self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code.
Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the
Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the City. The insurer, if insurance
is provided, or the Developer’s Affiliated General Contractor, if a program of
self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City
and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work
performed under this Agreement.
14.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.
14.2.1 General requirements. Developer and Developer’s Agents, at its own cost
and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability
insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single
limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this
Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an
Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work
to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall
be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall
include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from
bodily and personal injury, including death resulting there from, and
damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this
Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles.
14.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at
least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
occurrence form CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering
comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form
number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability.
Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services
Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8 and 9. No
endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.
14.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the
insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:
a. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis,
and not on a claims-made basis.
b. Any failure of Developer and Developer’s Agents to comply with
reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage
provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers.
14.3 Professional Liability Insurance.
14.3.1 General requirements. Developer and Developer’s Agents, at its own cost
and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement
professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work
pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals’ errors and
omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $150,000 per claim.
14.3.2 Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the
professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:
a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be
before the date of the Agreement.
b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be
provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Pre-
Construction Activities, so long as commercially available at
reasonable rates.
c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with
another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that
precedes the date of this Agreement, Developer must provide
extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after
completion of the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the
right to exercise, at the Developer’s sole cost and expense, any
extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Developer
cancels or does not renew the coverage.
d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to
the City prior to the commencement of any work under this
Agreement.
14.4 All Policies Requirements.
14.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be
placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.
14.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this
Agreement, Developer shall furnish City with complete copies of all
policies delivered to Developer by the insurer, including complete copies
of all endorsements attached to those policies. All copies of policies and
certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by
that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. If the City does not receive the
required insurance documents prior to the Developer’s beginning work, it
shall not waive the Developer’s obligation to provide them. The City
reserves the right to require complete copies of all required insurance
policies at any time.
14.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. A certified
endorsement shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this
Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled
by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after ten (10)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has
been given to the City. In the event that any coverage required by this
section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other
manner, Developer shall provide written notice to City at Developer’s
earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working
days after Developer is notified of the change in coverage.
14.4.4 Named insured; primary insurance. City and its officers, employees,
agents, and volunteers shall be covered as named insureds with respect to
each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed on
behalf of Developer; products and completed operations of Developer and
Developer’s Agents, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by
Developer and Developer’s Agents; and automobiles owned, leased, or
used by the Developer and Developer’s Agents in the course of providing
services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no
special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that
coverage is primary insurance with respect to the City and its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-
insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a
loss under the coverage.
14.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Developer and Developer’s
Agents shall disclose to and obtain the approval of City for the self-
insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or
work called for by any term of this Agreement. Further, if the Developer
and Developer’s Agents insurance policy includes a self-insured retention
that must be paid by a named insured as a precondition of the insurer’s
liability, or which has the effect of providing that payments of the self-
insured retention by others, including additional insureds or insurers do
not serve to satisfy the self-insured retention, such provisions must be
modified by special endorsement so as to not apply to the additional
insured coverage required by this agreement so as to not prevent any of
the parties to this agreement from satisfying or paying the self-insured
retention required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer’s liability.
Additionally, the certificates of insurance must note whether the policy
does or does not include any self-insured retention and also must disclose
the deductible.
During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express
written authorization of City, Developer and Developer’s Agents may
increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The City may condition
approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a
requirement that Developer and Developer’s Agents procure a bond,
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to
each of them.
14.4.6 Subcontractors. Developer and Developer’s Agents shall include all
subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate
certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All
coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated herein.
14.4.7 Wasting Policy. No insurance policy required by Section 4 shall include a
“wasting” policy limit.
14.4.8 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance
requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and
forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the
City’s interests are otherwise fully protected.
14.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Developer and
Developer’s Agents fail to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy
endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its
sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other
remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Developer’s breach:
a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for
such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; and/or
b. Order Developer to stop work under this Agreement.
15. Termination. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and terminate
upon the completion of the Pre-Construction Activities, Developer’s acquisition of the Grand
Property, as evidenced by the recording of a grant deed, upon City’s written notice of an uncured
default, or upon sixty (60) days following the City’s written notification of termination to the
Developer without cause. If the City terminates this Agreement for cause prior to the completion
of the Pre-Construction Activities, the City may elect to complete any outstanding activities and
charge the Developer the cost of such completion in accordance with Section 6 above. However,
if the City terminates without cause and Developer is in compliance with all of its obligations
under this Agreement and the DA, the City may elect to complete any outstanding activities but
will not charge the Developer the cost of such completion.
16. Severability. If any clause or provision herein contained operates or would
prospectively operate to invalidate this Agreement in whole or in part, then such clause or
provision shall be held for naught as though not contained herein, and the remainder of this
Agreement shall remain operative and in full force and effect.
17. Modification. This Agreement may not be modified, amended or otherwise
changed in any manner, except by a written amendment executed by both City and Developer, or
their respective successors in interest.
18. Controlling Laws. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of California.
19. Effect on Third Parties. The rights, benefits and obligations conferred hereunder
are for the benefit of the parties hereto and not for the benefit of any third party.
20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement along with the Development Agreement and
Purchase and Sale Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
specific subject matter hereof, and all prior negotiations, agreements and understandings between
Developer and City with respect to the specific subject matter hereof are merged into this
Agreement.
21. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which
together constitute one and the same agreement.
22. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned without the express written
consent of the non-assigning Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
23. Further Assurances. City and Developer each agree to perform such other acts, and
to execute, acknowledge and deliver such other instruments, documents and other materials as the
other may reasonably request and as shall be necessary in order to effect the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby.
[The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer and City have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written.
“DEVELOPER”
ROEM Corporation, a California corporation
By:
Name:
Title:
“CITY”
CITY OF South San Francisco,
A California municipal corporation
By: ______________________
Name: ______________________
Its: ______________________
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ACCESS AREA
EXHIBIT B
Pre-Construction Activities Scope of Work
At the Grand Property site, after utilities are shut off and capped, Developer will fence off the
first row of parking against 217-219 Grand, allowing the remainder of the parking lot to be used
while the building is brought down if possible.
Developer will demolish the existing buildings on the Grand Property. Developer will obtain a
demolition permit from the City’s Building Division and the demolition will be in conformance
with the City’s approved plans and in accordance with the Schedule. All structures will be
demolished, to grade, and all debris will be off-hauled.
If building permits have not been issued upon completion of the demolition, Developer will
fence off the site at 217-219 and reopen the parking until the permits are pulled. If reopened, the
parking lot may be in a rough-grade, graveled condition, and not a smooth surface paved and
striped condition. The condition of the party-wall between 217-219 and 223-225 Grand is
unknown. Further testing will need to be done once 217-219 has been demolished. The
condition of that wall could impact the proposed schedule.
EXHIBIT C
Schedule of Performance
City Council approval of agreement TBD
Agreement executed and becomes effective
Site fenced and demolition begins: 90 days following City Council approval
(May 14, 2019)
Demolition complete: 4 months following commencement of
demolition
(September 11, 2019)
Surface parking lot reopened: If building permits have not been issued,
Developer will reopen the parking lot
within 30 days of demolition completion
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
Report recommending approval of a Zoning Map Amendment,Planned Development,Tentative Parcel Map,
Affordable Housing Agreement and Design Review to construct 22 single-family attached townhouse units at
the corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Drive.(Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing,follow the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, and take the following actions:
1.Adopt a resolution making findings and adopting Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(ND18-0001);
2.Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map (RZ18-0005)to rezone one vacant parcel as a
Planned Development; and,
3.Adopt a resolution making findings and approving a Planned Development (PUD15-0001),
Tentative Parcel Map (PM15-0001),Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA18-0004)and Design
Review (DR15-0041), subject to the draft Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Site Overview
The vacant site located at the southwesterly corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Drive originally
consisted of a 10 acre site.In 1998,the property owner submitted an application proposing residential units on
the southerly portion of the site,away from the main traces of the San Andreas Fault,and a mini-storage project
on the northerly portion.In 2000,the City Council ultimately approved the residential development on the
southerly 5.1 acres of the site,which consists of 33 single family units approved as a Planned Development;
this development was originally known as Oakmont Vistas and is now called Oakmont Estates (construction
was completed in the early 2000s).The City Council denied the entitlements request for the mini-storage
facility.The 2000 approvals for the Oakmont Vistas project included a Development Agreement;one of the
terms of this agreement related to the development of the northerly portion of the property,with the intent that
it also be developed with low-density residential uses.The term of the Development Agreement was for ten
years.The previous applicant submitted an application for an 18-unit residential development in 2006,but due
to various delays and inactivity,the City ultimately deemed that application incomplete in 2013 (after the
Development Agreement had expired).
The previous applicant submitted the current entitlements application (P15-0048)in July 2015.In 2017,the
current applicant,Warmington Residential,joined the project team and made modifications to the project,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 1 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
current applicant,Warmington Residential,joined the project team and made modifications to the project,
resulting in the project that is before the Planning Commission for consideration.
Project Description
The northerly portion of the original 10-acre parcel is the proposed development site,approximately 4.91-acres
in area.The site continues to be undeveloped land.A known constraint on the project site is the presence of the
San Andreas fault traces;because of the presence of the fault traces,habitable structures are not permitted
within a 50-foot setback zone from the main San Andreas fault trace and a 25-foot setback zone from the
ancillary fault traces,though roadways,open spaces and detached garages are permitted within these setbacks.
According to the “Residential Developable Areas”site plan (Attachment 1),3.39 acres (69%)of the site are
comprised of existing earthquake fault and setback zones,and an additional 0.49 acres (10%)are considered
too steeply sloped to be developed.Based on this,the remaining developable area for residential uses is 1.03
acres (21%).
Warmington Residential is proposing to subdivide the parcel to develop 22 single-family attached townhomes.
Of the 22 townhomes,eight would be located near the intersection of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Drive,
accessed from a new road off of Oakmont Drive,directly across from Bantry Lane.The remaining fourteen
townhomes would be located along the interior of the site,accessed from Shannon Park,which would be
extended as a private road from its current terminus within the Oakmont Estates development.
While the fault traces present a development constraint,the applicant has utilized the required setback areas to
provide open space amenities,including both active and passive areas,planted storm basins,and all interior
connections for the site,including the extension of Shannon Park Court,sidewalks,and guest parking areas.
Approximately 70% of the total site area would serve as common areas.
The residential component includes seven three-bedroom units,ranging from 1,544 square feet (sq.ft.)to 2,173
sq.ft.,and fifteen four-bedroom units,ranging from 2,441 sq.ft.to 2,616 sq.ft.All of the units include a two-
car garage (detached for five of the units,attached for the remaining seventeen units),with fourteen guest
parking spaces.The proposed site plan,architectural details,and landscaping plan are all detailed in the project
plan set (Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit B).
Building Architecture
The Oakmont Meadow project’s architectural design reflects a contemporary design,with a stucco and lap
siding material palette that is common throughout the area.The design includes muted colors that are intended
to allow the buildings to blend into the surrounding hills and trees.Rooflines are a mixture of gable and shed
roofs.Architectural elevations are included on Sheets A2.0-2.6 in the project plan set (Entitlements Resolution,
Exhibit B).
Landscaping and Open Space
The project provides private open space to each residential unit,with a fenced in area adjacent to each unit.In
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 2 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
The project provides private open space to each residential unit,with a fenced in area adjacent to each unit.In
the center of the lot,a variety of common areas are provided,available to all development residents.The
majority of the central open space area will consist of a wild-grass area,which will be ringed by a sidewalk
along the southern boundary,with a decomposed granite path meandering through the eastern and northern
portions of the open space area.The central portion of the open space area will contain more formal areas,
including a trellis-covered seating and barbecue area,a bocce ball court,and area with a fire pit and chairs,and
a large lawn area.The formal open space areas will be surrounded by Orchard Trees,while the remainder of the
open space area throughout the site will include a mixture of trees,shrubs/perennials and groundcovers.
Additional trees are also planned to fill-in existing gaps along Westborough Blvd,to help screen the
development from the road.The landscape plans are included on Sheets L-1.0 and L-1.1 in the project plan set
(Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit B).
Circulation
Two separate vehicular access points are proposed for the development.The first access point would be a new
road off of Oakmont Drive,directly across from Bantry Lane.This access point would serve only the eight
residential units located near the intersection of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Dr.The remaining fourteen
townhomes located within the interior of the site would access the development on Shannon Drive and Shannon
Park Court,which currently terminates at the boundary with the subject property.This road would be extended
as a private road from its current terminus to a cul-de-sac serving the fourteen units.
The site plan also shows an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)road between the cul-de-sac and the access road
for the eight residential units.This EVA will be only be used by vehicles in emergency situations;it would be
permanently accessible for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Pedestrian access is provided throughout the project,with sidewalks on both sides of each road (subject to
Condition of Approval A-13),pedestrian access on the EVA road,and a pedestrian path through the common
open space area.
Entitlements Request
The project is seeking the following entitlements:
·Zoning Map Amendment to rezone from Low Density Residential (RL-8)to Planned Development
District (PD-1)
·Planned Development for:
o Reduction of minimum lot sizes
o Increase of maximum lot coverage from 50% to 65%
o Increase the maximum building heights from 28 feet to 38.5 feet
o Reduction of required setback areas along Westborough Blvd, Oakmont Dr, and interior streets
o Increase in allowed number of stories from two- to three-story structures
o Parking reduction from three spaces to two spaces for ten of the residential units
o Increase the maximum floor area ratio to 1.8 for individual lots
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 3 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
·Design Review
·A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the single parcel into 26 building parcels and five common area
parcels
·Affordable Housing Agreement
·Approval of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Low Density Residential.This designation allows for
single-family residential development with densities up to 8 units per net acre.Typical lots would be 6,000
square feet,but smaller lots (4,500 sq.ft.or less)may be permitted in neighborhoods meeting specified
community design standards.This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family dwellings,but
attached single-family units may be permitted,provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private
outdoor open space.
The Westborough sub-area includes an implementing policy related to the project site:
·3.11-I-1:Require development of the vacant Oakmont-Westborough,and require new development of
the vacant property to be Low Density Residential -either single-family detached or cluster
development -and designated to be compatible with adjacent single-family dwellings.Do not permit
direct vehicular access from the site to Westborough Boulevard.
The Zoning Ordinance District for the project site is Low Density Residential (RL-8),which is intended to
provide areas for detached and semi-attached single-unit housing outside the downtown at densities of one to
eight units per net acre that conform to specified standards to ensure land use compatibility.
Planned Development
South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Chapter 20.140 “Planned Development District”allows the
City Council to establish a Planned Development District;the purpose of such a district is to provide for one or
more properties to be developed under a plan that provides for better coordinated development and incorporates
crafted development standards.One of the key aspects of a Planned Development District is the ability to have
more flexible regulations,including setbacks,height limitations,lot sizes,types of structures,parking and the
amount and location of open space.The Planned Development District must also show substantial compliance
with the land use and density policies of the General Plan.
As indicated in Attachment 1,“Residential Developable Areas,”due to site constraints,including the fault
traces on the interior of the site and the steeper slopes along the western portion of the site,only 21%of the
property is acceptable for residential development.Based on this,the applicant is requesting a Planned
Development with requests for the following exceptions to the RL-8 Zoning Standards:
Permitted Uses
·Allow Single-Unit Attached as a permitted use (it is not listed as an allowed use in the RL-8 district)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 4 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
The General Plan stipulates that attached single-family units may be permitted,provided each unit has ground-
floor living area and private outdoor open space.As currently proposed,each unit would include both ground-
floor living area and a minimum of 150 square feet of private outdoor open space.
Lot Development Standards
·Allow a Minimum Lot Size less than 5,000 sq.ft.(proposed lot sizes range from 1,271 sq.ft.to 3,573
sq. ft.)
·Allow a Minimum Lot Width less than 50 feet (proposed lot widths range from 17.3 feet to
approximately 30 feet)
·Allow a Minimum Lot Depth less than 80 feet (proposed lot depths range from 61.5 feet to greater than
80 feet)
·Allow exceptions to Minimum Yards
o Front Yards less than 15 feet (proposed front yards range from 6 feet to 19 feet)
o Side Yards less than 5 feet (proposed as no setback where units are attached,4 feet between
detached buildings)
o Street Side Yards less than 10 feet (only two units subject to this setback -proposed as 7.3 feet
for one residence, 15.2 feet for second residence)
o Rear Yards less than 20 feet (proposed minimum rear yards range from 6 feet to 15 feet)
·Allow a Maximum Lot Coverage greater than 50% (proposed maximum lot coverage of 65%)
·Allow a Maximum Floor Area Ratio greater than 0.50 (proposed average maximum FAR of 1.09)
The residential developable areas for the property are constrained to two small portions of the site,within the
northeast corner and a narrow band in the western portion of the site.Based on this,minimum lot dimensions
and coverage allowances need to be revised to allow for residential development.
Staff is recommending that the Minimum Street Side Yard setback continue to be required to be 10 feet,rather
than seven feet as proposed.This setback would be applicable to only two proposed residences with street
frontage on Oakmont Drive;keeping the 10-foot setback requirement would be more in keeping with existing
residences on that street.Staff has included Condition of Approval A-13 requiring this change prior to issuance
of building permits.
Height Allowance
·Allow a Maximum Height greater than 35 feet,which is allowed in RL-8 with a Minor Use Permit
(proposed maximum height is 38.5 feet)
·Allow a Maximum Number of Stories greater than 2 stories (all units are proposed to be 3 stories)
The maximum height proposed is 3.5 feet above the maximum height allowed in the adjacent low-and medium
-density zoning districts,and the proposed maximum number of stories is the same allowed in medium-density
zoning districts to the north,and therefore these proposed standards are generally in keeping with the
surrounding areas and would serve as an appropriate transition between the low-density developments to the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 5 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
surrounding areas and would serve as an appropriate transition between the low-density developments to the
south and the medium-density developments to the north.
Parking Requirements
According to South San Francisco Municipal Code Table 20.330.004 “Required On-Site Parking Spaces”,
single-unit attached uses are subject to the following parking requirements:
·Less than 2,500 square feet and less than 5 bedrooms - 2 parking spaces per unit
·2,500 to 2,999 square feet or 5 bedrooms - 3 parking spaces per unit
All of the proposed townhomes will have either three-or four-bedrooms,and would therefore fall within the
first standard (less than five bedrooms);however,ten of the units will have more than 2,500 square feet,which
has a requirement of three parking spaces per unit.The applicant is proposing that all of the units within the
Planned Development be required to provide a minimum of two parking spaces per unit.Parking requirements
are more closely associated with bedroom counts rather than square footage,and therefore the proposed parking
requirement would be in keeping with the standard for units with less than five bedrooms.
Each of the townhome units will have a two-car garage;seventeen of the units will have an attached garage,
and five units will have detached garages.The development will also provide a total of fourteen guest parking
spaces,with six adjacent to the residential area within the northeast corner of the site and eight guest spaces
adjacent to the common open space.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
The proposed development is obligated to provide 15%of the proposed dwellings as affordable to low and
moderate income households (SSFMC 20.380 “Inclusionary Housing Regulations”).The applicant is proposing
to construct 22 dwellings,and therefore the applicant is required to restrict a minimum of three units to fulfill
the affordable housing obligation.A Draft Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City
has been prepared and is attached for review (Entitlements Resolution,Exhibit D).The Affordable Housing
Agreement has been drafted to comply with the requirements contained in SSFMC 20.380.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
As part of the overall entitlements,the applicant has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map,prepared by Carlson,
Barbee &Gibson,Inc.and dated June 15,2018,to subdivide the existing parcel into 26 separate lots with five
common area parcels (see Entitlements Resolution,Exhibit C).The proposed development complies with the
requirements of SSFMC Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance.SSFMC Section 19.48.080 requires that the Planning
Commission make a determination that the proposed parcel map is in conformity with the State Subdivision
Map Act and SSFMC Title 19 as to design,drainage,utilities,road improvements,and offers of dedication or
deed.The Engineering Division has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map application,and has included relevant
conditions of approval.Subject to approval of the Planned Development,the Tentative Parcel Map is in
compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and SSFMC Title 19 requirements.
SUSTAINABILITY / CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (“CAP”)in February 2014;the CAP serves as South San Francisco’s
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 6 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (“CAP”)in February 2014;the CAP serves as South San Francisco’s
greenhouse gas reduction strategy.The CAP includes requirements applicable to new development projects;the
following are the specific requirements applicable to the proposed project.
·Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
·Encourage the use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate,as identified in the
voluntary CALGreen standards.
·Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking
the following:
-Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features.
-Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise.
-Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
-Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants.
-Installing drip irrigation systems.
-Reducing impervious surfaces.
In addition to the requirements listed above,the CAP includes additional measures that are encouraged in order
to help with the City’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts:
·Integrate higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and community
facilities, and reduce dependence on autos through smart parking practices.
·Work with developers of multi-family properties and nonprofit groups to maximize energy efficiency in
new construction.
·Encourage the use of CALGreen energy efficiency measures as a preferred mitigation for CAP
streamlining.
·Promote on-site renewable energy or distributed generation energy systems in new and existing
residential and nonresidential projects.Encourage developers of multi-family and mixed-use projects to
provide options for on-site renewable electricity or install distributed generation energy systems,similar
to the statewide Homebuyer Solar program.
As currently designed,the proposed project will comply with many of the standards above,and staff will
continue to work with the applicant to incorporate as many sustainable features beyond those required by the
CAP as possible into the project.Staff has included Condition of Approval A-12 which requires the applicant to
revise the project drawings to include the CAP requirements stated above subject to Chief Planner review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.Subject to the conditions of approval,the project is
consistent with the City’s CAP.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The South San Francisco Design Review Board (DRB)reviewed the proposed project at their meeting of May
15,2018.The Board was generally supportive of the project,and recommended approval with the following
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 7 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
conditions:
1.Revise the landscape plan to incorporate the following changes:
a.Add street trees along the southern portion of Westborough Blvd where needed to provide
additional screening of the residential development.
b.Remove Arctostaphylos groundcover, which is not a successful species for the SSF elements,
and consider replacing with Ceanothus “Anchor Bay” which can tolerate the SSF elements or
propose a different ground cover that will strive in SSF.
c.Remove Muhlenbergia Rigens (Deer Grass), which is not a successful species due to the windy
conditions in this area. Consider replacing with Muhlenbergia Capillaris (Pink Muhly) as this can be
a successful species. Review other clumping grasses that can tolerate the elements in this area.
2.Revise the project plans to incorporate common areas for children to use recreationally; these may
include a grass area, a play area or other family-oriented amenities.
Following the DRB meeting,the applicant submitted the revised plans that are part of the Planning
Commission’s packet,which attempt to address the DRB’s comments.Draft condition of approval A-11
requires that the applicant incorporate the DRB’s recommendations prior to the issuance of building permits.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 1,2018,and provided a brief overview of the proposed
project design followed by an opportunity for discussion.Five members of the community attended the
meeting.Community members expressed general concerns about traffic in the project vicinity,allowing
townhomes in a detached single-family neighborhood, and property values.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
An IS/MND (Associated CEQA Resolution,Exhibit A)was prepared by Lamphier Gregory for an earlier
iteration of the project;the IS/MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public
review period,beginning on April 25,2016 and ending on May 24,2016 (2016 IS/MND).Subsequent to the
public review period and prior to adoption of the 2016 IS/MND,the applicant revised the project to revise the
type and increase the number of residential units proposed.As a result of these revisions,a number of changes
to the 2016 IS/MND are necessary for a legally complete and adequate evaluation of the environmental effect,
and therefore a revised IS/MND (2018 IS/MND)was recirculated for 30 days to state and other reviewing
agencies/jurisdictions, and interested parties, from October 12, 2018 - November 13, 2018.
The 2018 IS/MND finds that the following resources could be potentially impacted by this proposed project:
Air Quality,Biological Resources,and Transportation.However,mitigation measures are proposed that would
ensure the potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed mitigation measures are typical for a modern construction project and detailed within the 2018
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 8 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
IS/MND. A brief summary is also included below:
1.Air Quality -Implementation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)construction
best management practices to reduce air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction;
2.Biological Resources - Mitigation measures designed to protect any nesting birds that may be on site;
3.Transportation - Providing adequate sight distance at the project’s connection to Oakmont Drive.
Five comment letters were submitted for the 2018 IS/MND,on behalf of the Native American Heritage
Council,the California Department of Toxic Substances Control,and three South San Francisco residents that
live in close proximity to the project site.Lamphier Gregory prepared a memorandum responding to these
comment letters (Associated Draft CEQA Resolution,Exhibit B “2018 IS/MND -Errata,Responses and
Comments”). Following is a summary of the comments and responses:
Agency Comment Letters
·Native American Heritage Commission -Requested that the Tribal Cultural Resources assessment be
updated to the current standards.Revisions to address the request include the addition of the updated
checklist language and identification of the appropriate procedures in the event of discovery.
·California Department of Toxic Substance Control -Requested a Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA)be completed for the site,and requested reference to the potential for residences to
store limited quantities of household hazardous waste.The Project Phase 1 and Phase 2 ESAs were
provided;these documents conclude that constituents in the undocumented fill on the site were below
applicable residential screening criteria or within background concentrations of the San Francisco Bay
Area and therefore that development of the site would not pose a human health risk.Based on the
conclusions of the ESAs,the potential impact and mitigation measure Haz-1 related to the
undocumented fill has been removed from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Public Comment Letters
The South San Francisco resident letters include many similar topics,which are listed in a general format
below:
·Traffic -Commenters discussed the increased volume of traffic resulting from Project development,
either in general or related to vicinity streets and intersections.The resultant level of traffic from the
Project would be within traffic levels expected in low-density residential neighborhood developments,
and would be within Level of Service thresholds adopted by the City.
·Construction Dust and Noise -The 2018 IS/MND includes mitigation measures Air-1 and Air-2,which
require the implementation of construction management practices and construction emissions
minimization practices to minimize dust and emissions during the construction period.The Project
would also be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance as it relates to noise limits on
construction equipment and hours of construction activity.
·Parking Related Issues -Commenters discussed concern with reduction in parking on Oakmont Drive
and potential to impact the existing SamTrans bus stop.The proposed Project provides adequate parking
on-site for its use;parking on Oakmont Drive would be reduced to allow for better site clearance for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 9 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
on-site for its use;parking on Oakmont Drive would be reduced to allow for better site clearance for
vehicles existing the Project driveway.Engineering Division Condition of Approval 27 requires that the
developer shall coordinate with SamTrans to relocate a bus stop along the property’s fronting roadway,
Oakmont Drive,during the proposed development.Condition of Approval 28 requires that upon
completion of the development,the developer shall coordinate with SamTrans to locate a new bus stop
along Oakmont Drive.
·Non-Environmental/Non-CEQA Issues -Commentators also discussed concerns related to use of
facilities under the Homeowners’Association’s purview,as well as impacts to property values and
privacy.None of these issues raise environmental concerns under CEQA and thus,are not relevant to
the determination regarding the adequacy of the environmental analysis for the Project.However,
independent of the environmental analysis, staff has the following responses to the above-raised issues:
o Homeowner’s Association (HOA)Issues -Concerns between the existing Oakmont Estates
HOA and the proposed Project HOA will be worked out between the developer and the Oakmont
Estates HOA.
o Privacy -Privacy is addressed between the Project and adjacent parcels by the inclusion of
fencing and landscaping, all designed to meet existing City development standards.
o Property values -No effect to property values are likely because the Project will create high-
quality,multi-bedroom residential units that are in keeping with the broader neighborhood and
will enhance the aesthetics of the currently vacant parcel with additional open space and
landscaping amenities.The single-family units are attached due to the site constraints created by
the fault traces,but are in keeping with the single-family nature of the surrounding
neighborhood.
As noted above,none of the letters raised a significant environmental issue under the requirements of CEQA or
alleged that the IS/MND was legally inadequate.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to the CEQA Resolution (Exhibit D);staff will
work with the applicant during project construction to ensure that all required mitigation measures are
incorporated.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
At the Planning Commission meeting on December 20,2018,the Commission reviewed the proposed project.
One member of the public spoke on the project and expressed concerns that the parcel had been promised as
park space in the 1990s with the proposed development.The Commission had general questions related to the
project design in relation to adjacent properties,where the affordable housing units would be located,parking
in the area,and common area maintenance.Some of the Commissioners recommended that the affordable units
be spread throughout the development rather than clustered together.In response to this,the applicant has
submitted a narrative regarding the proposed affordable unit placement (Attachment 3).The Commission was
supportive of the proposed Planned Development and recommended by a vote of 4-0 that the City Council find
that the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and project were sufficiently analyzed in the IS/MND,and approve
the Zoning Map Amendment and the other project entitlements.The draft minutes of the Commission meeting
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 10 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
are attached (Attachment 2).
FISCAL IMPACT
The developer of the project has funded the preparation of all applicable studies for the proposed project and
paid entitlement fees to process the application through the review process.Direct revenue associated with this
project would include property tax revenue increase from the improvements and construction of 22 single-
family dwellings.The project would pay the costs of meeting City requirements for off-site improvements to
public right-of-way, so the City does not expect to incur project specific costs.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The proposed project helps achieve the following goal/objective of the City’s Strategic Plan:
·Initiative 2.3 - Promote a balanced mix of housing options.
The projects entails the construction of 22 new single-family dwellings,of which three will be
affordable,on an undeveloped parcel.These 22 townhomes will add to the City’s diverse housing stock,
which will achieve this goal contained in the Strategic Plan.
CONCLUSION
The proposed multi-family development is consistent with both General Plan goals and the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.The project would develop 22 single-family attached units,of which three will be affordable
units,on a vacant parcel with fault setbacks and steel slopes that limit the buildable area to approximately 20%
of the site.The project will serve as a transitional development between the single-family detached residential
neighborhoods to the south and east and the higher-density residential and commercial neighborhoods to the
north.
Based on the information included in the public record,the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council make the required findings and adopt the attached resolution to find that the proposed Zoning Map
Amendment and project entitlements were sufficiently analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration,adopt the attached ordinance amending the Zoning Map to rezone one vacant parcel as a Planned
Development, and adopt a resolution approving the project entitlements.
Attachments
1.Oakmont Meadows Residential Developable Areas Plan
2.Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2018
3.Applicant Narrative regarding Affordable Unit Placement
4.Planning Commission Resolutions:
a.CEQA Resolution 2832-2018 (without exhibits)
b.Entitlements Resolution 2833-2018 (without exhibits)
5.Power Point Presentation
Associated
1.Draft CEQA Resolution (19-14)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 11 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-13 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
A.2018 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i.Attachment A - 2016 IS/MND
ii.Attachment B - Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment
B.2018 IS/MND - Errata, Responses and Comments
C.2016 IS/MND - Errata, Responses and Comments
D.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2.Draft Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance (19-15)
3.Draft Entitlements Resolution (19-16)
A.Draft Conditions of Approval
B.Oakmont Meadows Planning Application Project Plans
C.Oakmont Meadows Tentative Parcel Map Plans
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 12 of 12
powered by Legistar™
OAKMONT DRIVE
PARCEL 1
73 PM 21
SHAN N O N PA R K C T .WE
S
T
B
O
R
O
U
G
H
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
1
3
4
2
6
5
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
0'90'30'120'
1" = 30'SCALE:
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPABLE AREAS
OAKMONT MEADOWS
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
F:\2820-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-009 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE AREAS.DWG9/12/2018 7:08 AMLEGEND
SHANNON DRIVE
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
SACRAMENTO
(925) 866-0322
(916) 375-1877
EXISTING EASEMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
EXISTING EARTHQUAKE FAULT & SETBACK ZONE
(3.39 AC±) - 69.0%
EXISTING STEEPLY SLOPED AREAS (2:1 OR GREATER)
(0.49 AC±) - 10.0%
NET RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE AREA
(1.03 AC±) - 21.0%
PROJECT BOUNDARY (GROSS SITE AREA: 4.91 AC±)
APPROXIMATE FAULT TRACE
6
Affordable Housing Discussion
Oakmont Meadows
Warmington Residential California Inc. seeks approval to build 22 new single-family attached
townhomes on the vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Rd.
in the City of South San Francisco. As part of the approval, Warmington proposes to comply with the
Affordable Housing Policy that went into effect on November 1, 2018 by building and selling 15% of the
total units as Affordable housing units (3 units) and paying a residual in-lieu fee for the remainder 0.3
unit.
Warmington has worked closely with City Staff over the past year to draft an Affordable Housing
agreement that will meet the housing needs of the City and still make the project financially viable. The
agreement was based on the proposed units, locations, and affordability level for each of the 3 BMR
units.
There are many constraints on this site, such as fault lines, sloping hillsides and access, that affect the
quantity, style and placement of buildings that can be constructed. The two main types of structures
designed for the site are homes with attached garages and homes with detached garages. The homes
with detached two-car garages are located closest to Oakmont, due to the available space between
street set-backs and fault line setbacks.
Due to the site constraints discussed above, the financial viability of the project has been challenging.
There are substantial infrastructure costs spread over a small number of homes. The units selected as
the affordable units are the most cost effective to build and therefore minimize the negative financial
impact to the project. To deviate from these units would mean the project is no longer economically
viable to construct and therefore result in a loss of 3 affordable housing units and 19 market-rate family
housing units in the City of South San Francisco.
The Affordable units have been designed to match the market rate units architecturally. The Affordable
units will be built at the same time as the market rate homes, using the same vendors and trades, so the
construction quality will be the same for both types of units. The interior finishes will be durable and of
lasting quality. The Affordable units will carry the same warranty as the market rate units.
RESOLUTION NO. 2832-2018
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE OAKMONT MEADOWS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WESTBOROUGH BLVD AND
OAKMONT DRIVE
WHEREAS, Warmington Residential (“Applicant”) has proposed construction of 22 single-family
attached townhouse units and 3.41 acres of open space on the vacant 4.91acre site at the southwest
corner of Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive, APN 091-151-040 (collectively referred
to as “Project”); and,
WHEREAS, approval of Warmington Residential’s proposal is considered a “Project” as that term
is defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections
21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, an initial study was performed, the result of which was
preparation and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) analyzing the
proposed Project and concluding that approval of the Project could not have a significant effect on
the environment because the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels below
established CEQA thresholds of significance with the adoption of mitigation measures and
enforcement of such measures through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(“MMRP”); and,
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day
public review period, beginning on April 25, 2016, with the review period ending May 24, 2016
(“2016 IS/MND”); and,
WHEREAS, subsequent to the public review period, and prior to adoption of the 2016 IS/MND,
the Applicant changed the number and type of residential units proposed under the Project
(“Revised Project”); and,
WHEREAS, as a result of the Revised Project, a number of changes to the 2016 IS/MND were
necessary for a legally complete and adequate evaluation of the environmental effect of the
Revised Project, and therefore, a revised IS/MND was recirculated for a second round of public
input and comment (“2018 IS/MND”); and,
WHEREAS, the 2018 IS/MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-
day public review period, beginning on October 12, 2018, during which time members of the
public were invited to comment on the environmental analysis and conclusions for the proposed
Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, nine comment letters were submitted on the 2016 IS/MND, from the San Francisco
International Airport, San Mateo County Department of Public Works, Oakmont Vistas
Homeowners Association, and four neighborhood residents; and,
WHEREAS, five comment letters were submitted on the 2018 IS/MND, from the Native American
Heritage Council, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and three neighborhood
residents; and,
WHEREAS; none of the nine comment letters submitted on the 2016 IS/MND or the five comment
letters submitted on the 2018 IS/MND raised a significant environmental issue or alleged that the
IS/MND was legally inadequate; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the 2016 IS/MND and
the 2018 IS/MND, revisions to the 2018 IS/MND, and a MMRP; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to take public comment
and consider action on the 2018 IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the 2018 IS/MND, including all comment letters submitted, and makes the findings contained in
this Resolution, and recommends that the City Council adopt the 2018 IS/MND, as an objective
and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the
discussion of the Revised Project’s environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which
includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
§21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000,
et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco
Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Project plans, as prepared by KTGY Group, Inc.,
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. and BFS Landscape Architects, dated June 25, 2018; the
Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Revised Oakmont Meadows
Residential Development Project, including all attachments thereto; all site plans, and all reports,
minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed
December 20, 2018 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources
Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The exhibits and attachments, including the 2018 IS/MND (attached as Exhibit A), the Comments,
Response and Errata for the 2018 IS/MND (attached as Exhibit B), the Comments, Response and
Errata for the 2016 IS/MND (attached as Exhibit C) and the MMRP (attached as Exhibit D) are each
incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at
the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco,
CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the
land use, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are
compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see
Gov’t Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and
intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the
any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
5. Based on the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis, the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings regarding the
environmental analysis of the Project:
a. In October 1999, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the
General Plan; in 2001 the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report for updates to the General Plan. CEQA allows for streamlined approval of actions
that are consistent with adopted General Plans for which an EIR was certified. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15152, 15183.) An initial study was
prepared for the proposed Project and a mitigated negative declaration analyzed the
potential for impacts that were peculiar to the Project or not analyzed as significant
impacts in the General Plan EIR or Supplemental EIR. The 2018 IS/MND, which expressly
considers the City’s previous EIRs, concludes that approval of the Project will not result in
any significant environmental impacts.
b. Design features of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures proposed in the 2018
IS/MND and included in the MMRP, will operate to ensure the impacts of the proposed
Project will not exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, and as
further documented in the 2018 IS/MND for the Project, additional mitigation measures
beyond those established in the MMRP are not required for the Project.
c. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Planning Commission finds that there is no
substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project
will result in a significant environmental effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt ND18-0001 attached as Exhibit A, and adopt the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit D.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of December, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairperson Murphy, Commissioner Wong, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner
Shihadeh
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:_ _
ABSENT: Commissioner Tzang, CommissionerEvans
Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________
Secretary to the Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 2833-2018
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (RZ18-0005) TO
REZONE ONE VACANT PARCEL AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD15-0001, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
PM15-0001, AND DESIGN REVIEW DR15-0041, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF
22 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNITS AT THE CORNER OF
WESTBOROUGH BLVD AND OAKMONT DR IN A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Warmington Residential (“Applicant”) has proposed construction of 22 single-family
attached townhouse units and 3.41 acres of open space on the vacant 4.91acre site at the southwest
corner of Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive, APN 091-151-040 (collectively referred
to as “Project”); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning
District; and,
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of an amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning Map
(RZ18-0005), Planned Development (PD15-0001), Tentative Parcel Map (PM15-0001),
Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA18-0004) and Design Review (DR15-0041), for the Project;
and,
WHEREAS, approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2018 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco
held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and the proposed entitlements, take public
testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which
includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
§21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000,
et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco
Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Project plans, as prepared by KTGY Group, Inc.,
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. and BFS Landscape Architects, dated June 25, 2018; the
Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Revised Oakmont Meadows
Residential Development Project, including all attachments thereto; all site plans, and all reports,
minutes and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed
December 20, 2018 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources
Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Draft Zoning Map Amendment
(Exhibit A), Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B), the Oakmont Meadows Planning
Application Project Plans (Exhibit C), and the Oakmont Meadows Tentative Parcel Map
Plans (Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as
if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located
at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
4. By Resolution No. ________, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent
judgment and analysis, has recommended that the City Council find that an IS/MND was
prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which IS/MND adequately discloses
and analyzes the proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. For
those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance, the City has
identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of
less-than-significant.
B. Zoning Map Amendment Findings
1. As described in more detail in Exhibit A, approval of the proposed Project will include
adoption of an amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning Map, maintained by the
Planning Division. The Zoning Map will be amended to revise the zoning district
designation from Low Density Residential (RL-8) to a Planned Development (PD-1) for
Assessor’s Parcel Number 091-151-040.
2. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment meets the purposes of Chapter 20.550 of the
Municipal Code and is consistent with the General Plan because the General Plan land use
designation of Low Density Residential allows for single-family residential development
with densities up to 8 units per acre. This classification is mainly intended for detached
single-family dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each
unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The Planned
Development project is proposing attached single-family units that provide both ground-
floor living space and private outdoor open space, is within the allowable density over the
entire property, and that is in keeping with the single-family residential uses in close
proximity to the site. Further, the change in zoning designation does not conflict with any
specific plans, and will remain consistent with the surrounding land uses, which include
single-family residential to the south and east, and will serve as a transitional use for the
commercial and high-density residential uses to the north and west. The proposed
amendment will not conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or
land use designations established in the General Plan.
3. The subject property is suitable for the uses proposed in the Planned Development district
in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other
considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
Project proposes single-family attached residential units and open space areas in the Low
Density Residential land use designation, which is intended for this type of use, and would
be developing a vacant underutilized parcel that is adjacent to Westborough Boulevard,
with site access provided off of Oakmont Drive. The General Plan has analyzed this type
of use and concluded that such uses are suitable to the surrounding area. The proposed
parcels are smaller than typical due to the limitations created by the required setbacks to
the fault traces and the fact that sloped portions of the site are not being built on, but the
overall density and access is in keeping with surrounding development in the area. The
Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those related
to low density residential uses.
4. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent
zone because the Planned Development District will provide low-density residential
development within the Low Density Residential land use classification. The Project will
provide a transition between the existing single family residential neighborhoods south of
the site to multi-family residential and commercial neighborhoods to the north and west.
C. Planned Development
1. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan, including the density and
intensity limitations that apply, because the General Plan land use designation of Low
Density Residential allowed for single-family residential development with densities up to
8 units per acre. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family
dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each unit has
ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The project is proposing attached
single-family units that provide both ground-floor living space and private outdoor open
space, and is within the allowable density over the entire property.
2. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the single-family land
use being proposed, because the proposed use is consistent with the approved uses in both
the General Plan and the density of the proposed project is consistent with densities
approved in the adjacent Low Density Residential zoning district and the nearby Medium
Density Residential zoning district. The Project proposes single-family attached
residential units and open space areas in the Low Density Residential zoning district, which
is intended for this type of use, and would be developing a vacant underutilized parcel that
is adjacent to Westborough Boulevard. The General Plan has analyzed this type of use and
concluded that such uses are suitable to the surrounding area. Further, the project applicant
has prepared environmental studies, including a geotechnical report, which confirms
residential structures can be supported with standard post tension slab foundations, and that
underlying soils are suitable for installation of roads and utilities.
3. Adequate transportation facilities and public services exist or will be provided in accord
with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development, and
the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of traffic levels of
service or public services so as to be a detriment to public health, safety or welfare because
the Project is bounded by Westborough Boulevard to the northwest, which provides access
to a regional highway just to the west of the project site and to the remainder of South San
Francisco to the northeast, and by Oakmont Drive to the east, from which direct access to
the Project Site will occur. The Transportation Assessment prepared for the Project
concludes that upon the addition of the project trips, the study intersections would continue
operating at acceptable levels of service as set forth by the General Plan. All public
services are in existence in the surrounding neighborhoods, and will be provided in the
Project Site per the conditions of development plan approval.
4. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding land
uses and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the
surrounding area, because the Project proposes single-family attached residential uses in
the Low Density Residential land use classification, which specifically allows for such uses
subject to specific standards related to living area on the ground floor and private open
space, which the Project meets. The overall Project site, which is comprised of 4.91 acres,
will only have development on 21-percent of the site, while the remainder of the site will
remain undeveloped or will be comprised of common open space, pathways and roads.
5. The Project generally complies with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City
Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Residential District Standards
included in Chapter 20.080, except as requested to be amended by the Planned
Development request, and is also consistent with the applicable design review criteria in
Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated by
the Design Review Board on May 15, 2018 and found to be consistent with each of the
eight design review criteria.
6. The Project is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the
standards applicable to the underlying base district, and will achieve superior community
design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit, due to the following
factors:
a. The Project is appropriate at the proposed location because it is a low-density
residential development within the Low Density Residential land use classification.
The Project will provide a transition between the existing single family residential
south of the site to multi-family residential to the north and west.
b. The mix of uses, housing types, and housing price levels includes 22 single-family
attached residences that will all have either three- or four-bedrooms. Nineteen of
the residences will be sold at market rate, while the remaining three residences will
be affordable to low and moderate income households.
c. The provision of units affordable to persons and families of low and moderate
income or to lower income households. The proposed development is obligated to
provide fifteen percent of the proposed dwellings as affordable to low and moderate
income households, and therefore the applicant is required to restrict a minimum of
three units to fulfill the affordable housing obligation.
d. Provision of infrastructure improvements. The Project will include new water,
sanitary sewer, storm drains, gas, electric, communications, streets, sidewalks and
landscaping throughout the site.
e. Provision of open space, because the Project will provide each home with a
minimum of 150 square feet of private outdoor open space, and an additional 2.75
acres of common landscaped open space. The majority of the central open space
area will consist of a wild-grass area, which will be ringed by a sidewalk along the
southern boundary, with a decomposed granite path meandering through the eastern
and northern portions of the open space area. The central portion of the open space
area will contain more formal areas, including a trellis-covered seating and
barbecue area, a bocce ball court, and area with a fire pit and chairs, and a large
lawn area. The formal open space areas will be surrounded by Orchard Trees, while
the remainder of the open space area throughout the site will include a mixture of
trees, shrubs/perennials and groundcovers.
f. Compatibility with uses within the development area because it will create a
residential community in an area designated as Low Density Residential in the
General Plan, and will provide a transition between the existing single family
residential south of the site to multi-family residential to the north and west.
g. Quality of design and adequacy of light and air to the interior spaces of the
buildings, because the design has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and
found to be consistent with applicable design review criteria. The units will all
have ample glazing to allow in natural light, with many of the units having a second
story deck with sliding glass doors that provide additional light and air.
h. Overall contribution to the enhancement of neighborhood character and the
environment of South San Francisco in the long term, because the Project will
develop one of the last vacant properties in the area with a residential development
that is of suitable density to the neighborhood, serving as a transition between the
existing single family residential south of the site to multi-family residential to the
north and west. The Project will also provide larger units and affordable housing,
which will allow more families to reside in South San Francisco.
i. Creativity in design and use of land, because the Project efficiently uses the smaller
amount of buildable area on the property to construct a small residential
community. The fault setbacks do not allow for residential development within the
setback areas, so the non-residential detached garages were able to be placed within
these otherwise unusable areas. The balance of the unbuildable area is committed
to open space, trails and amenities.
C. Design Review
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a low-density
residential development which will provide a residential environment with extensive
landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated.
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan for the reasons
stated in Findings B.2, C.1 and C.2 above.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City Council for the reasons stated in Finding C.3 above.
4. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco
Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has
been evaluated by the Design Review Board on April 18, 2017 and July 18, 2017, and
found to be consistent with each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design
Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance, and the Design Review Board.
D. Tentative Parcel Map
1. The proposed tentative subdivision map, including the proposed designs and
improvements, are consistent with the City’s General Plan as set forth in Findings B.2 and
C.2 above, and because the tentative subdivision map would facilitate the development of
a low density residential development that would not conflict with the Low Density
Residential Land Use designation.
2. The proposed tentative subdivision map is consistent with the standards and requirements
of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Planned Development
Zoning District.
3. The tentative subdivision map complies and meets all of the requirements of Title 19 of
the South San Francisco Municipal Code (“Subdivisions”), and with the requirements of
the State Subdivision Map Act.
4. The Project site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as
the low-density residential development will be located in a new Planned Development
adjacent to the Low Density Residential zoning district, and subject to the adoption of the
Planned Development the size and number of residential units is appropriate for the
location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards.
5. The Project, including the proposed designs and improvements, are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage, or serious public health problems, since such impacts
have been thoroughly evaluated as part of the CEQA process and determined not to exceed
any stated thresholds of significance.
6. The design and improvements of the tentative subdivision map are not in conflict with any
existing public easements.
7. The property is located in a developed, urban setting, and is not subject to a Williamson
Act contract, on open space easement, a conservation easement, or an agricultural
conservation easement. The surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support
agricultural uses; the resulting parcels would result in residential development not
incidental to commercial agricultural use of the land.
SECTION 2 DETERMINATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings made in this Resolution, and recommends that
the South San Francisco City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to rezone one vacant parcel as a Planned
Development, attached as Exhibit A; and,
2. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development, Tentative Parcel Map, and Design
Review, subject to the draft Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of December, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairperson Murphy, Commissioner Wong, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner
Shihadeh
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:_ _
ABSENT: Commissioner Tzang, Commissioner Evans
Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________
Secretary to the Planning Commission
City Council
February 27, 2019
1
2
3
Oakmont Dr
Oakmont Estates
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Planned Development allows flexibility in
regulations
◦Building Relationships
◦Setbacks
◦Height Limitations
◦Lot Sizes
◦Types of Structures
◦Parking
◦Amount and location of open space
Must be in substantial compliance with land
use and density policies of General Plan
17
15% (3 units) will be restricted as affordable
Affordable Housing Agreement drafted to
comply with the SSFMC requirements
18
Gen Plan Designation “Low Density Residential”
Attached single-family units may be permitted,
provided each unit has ground floor living area
and private outdoor open space
3.11-I-1: Require development of the vacant
Oakmont-Westborough, and require new
development of the vacant property to be Low
Density Residential –either single-family detached
or cluster development –and designated to be
compatible with adjacent single-family dwellings.
Do not permit direct vehicular access from the site
to Westborough Boulevard
19
RL-8 Standard Proposed PD Standard
-Lot Size 5,000sf 1,271 –3,573sf
-Lot Width 50 ft 17.3 –30 ft
-Lot Depth 80 ft 61.5 ft
-Front Yard Setback 15 ft 6 –19 ft
-Side Yard Setback 5 ft 0 –4 ft
-Street Side Yard Setback 10 ft 7.3 –15.2 ft
-Rear Yard Setback 20 ft 6 –15 ft
-Lot Coverage 50%65%
-Floor Area Ratio 0.50 1.09
-Height 35 ft 38.5 ft
-# of Stories 2 stories 3 stories
-Parking 3 spaces for
>2,500sf
2 spaces for >2,500sf
20
21
22
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Original IS/MND circulated for review in 2016
Prior to adoption of the 2016 IS/MND, applicant revised
the project
Revised 2018 IS/MND was prepared and recirculated
Potentially impacted resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Transportation
23
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
Implementation of BAAQMD construction best management
practices to reduce air quality impacts associated with
grading and new construction
Biological Resources
Mitigation measures designed to protect any nesting birds
that may be on site
Transportation
Providing adequate sight distance at the project’s connection
to Oakmont Drive
24
Comment Letters
Agency Comment Letters
Public Comment Letters
Traffic
Construction Dust and Noise
Parking Related Issues
HOA Issues
Privacy
Property Values
25
That the City Council conduct a public hearing and
take the following actions:
1.Adopt a Resolution making findings and adopting
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration;
2.Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning
Map to rezone one vacant parcel as a Planned
Development; and,
3.Adopt a Resolution making findings and
approving a Planned Development, Tentative
Parcel Map, Affordable Housing Agreement and
Design Review, subject to the draft Conditions of
Approval.
1/31/2019Planning Div.26
1/31/2019Planning Div.27
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-14 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9a.
Resolution adopting the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oakmont Meadows Planned
Development Project at the southwest corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Drive
WHEREAS,Warmington Residential (“Applicant”)has proposed construction of 22 single-family attached
townhouse units and 3.41 acres of open space on the vacant 4.91acre site at the southwest corner of
Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive, APN 091-151-040 (collectively referred to as “Project”); and,
WHEREAS,approval of Warmington Residential’s proposal is considered a “Project”as that term is defined
under the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000,et seq.(“CEQA”);
and,
WHEREAS,in accordance with CEQA,an initial study was performed,the result of which was preparation and
circulation of a mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”)analyzing the proposed Project and concluding that
approval of the Project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the impacts of the
Project could all be mitigated to levels below established CEQA thresholds of significance with the adoption of
mitigation measures and enforcement of such measures through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (“MMRP”); and,
WHEREAS,the IS/MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public review
period, beginning on April 25, 2016, with the review period ending May 24, 2016 (“2016 IS/MND”); and,
WHEREAS,subsequent to the public review period,and prior to adoption of the 2016 IS/MND,the Applicant
changed the number and type of residential units proposed under the Project (“Revised Project”); and,
WHEREAS,as a result of the Revised Project,a number of changes to the 2016 IS/MND were necessary for a
legally complete and adequate evaluation of the environmental effect of the Revised Project,and therefore,a
revised IS/MND was recirculated for a second round of public input and comment (“2018 IS/MND”); and,
WHEREAS,the 2018 IS/MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public
review period,beginning on October 12,2018,during which time members of the public were invited to
comment on the environmental analysis and conclusions for the proposed Revised Project; and,
WHEREAS,nine comment letters were submitted on the 2016 IS/MND,from the San Francisco International
Airport,San Mateo County Department of Public Works,Oakmont Vistas Homeowners Association,and four
neighborhood residents; and,
WHEREAS,five comment letters were submitted on the 2018 IS/MND,from the Native American Heritage
Council, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and three neighborhood residents; and,
WHEREAS;none of the nine comment letters submitted on the 2016 IS/MND or the five comment letters
submitted on the 2018 IS/MND raised a significant environmental issue or alleged that the IS/MND was legally
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-14 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9a.
inadequate; and,
WHEREAS,the City prepared written responses to comments received on the 2016 IS/MND and the 2018
IS/MND, revisions to the 2018 IS/MND, and a MMRP; and,
WHEREAS,on December 20,2018 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to review the
Project and the 2018 IS/MND,as well as supporting documents,at the conclusion of which the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council find that the 2018 IS/MND is the appropriate environmental
document and to approve the Project; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2018 IS/MND,
including all comment letters submitted,and makes the findings contained in this Resolution,and adopts the
2018 IS/MND,as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of
the City in the discussion of the Revised Project’s environmental impacts.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the Project
applications;the Project plans,as prepared by KTGY Group,Inc.,Carlson,Barbee &Gibson,Inc.and BFS
Landscape Architects,dated June 25,2018;the Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project,including all attachments thereto;all site
plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly
noticed December 20,2018 meeting;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as
part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 27,2019 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning
of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
1.The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2.The exhibits and attachments,including the 2018 IS/MND (attached as Exhibit A),the Comments,
Response and Errata for the 2018 IS/MND (attached as Exhibit B),the Comments,Response and Errata
for the 2016 IS/MND (attached as Exhibit C)and the MMRP (attached as Exhibit D)are each
incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
4.The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the land
use,development standards,densities and intensities,buildings and structures proposed are compatible
with the goals,policies,and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov’t Code,§
65860),and none of the land uses,development standards,densities and intensities,buildings and
structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals,policies,or land
use designations established in the General Plan.
5.Based on the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis,the City Council makes the following
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-14 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9a.
5.Based on the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis,the City Council makes the following
findings regarding the environmental analysis of the Project:
a.In October 1999,the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General
Plan;in 2001 the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
updates to the General Plan.CEQA allows for streamlined approval of actions that are consistent
with adopted General Plans for which an EIR was certified.(Pub.Resources Code,§21083;
CEQA Guidelines,§§15152,15183.)An initial study was prepared for the proposed Project and
a mitigated negative declaration analyzed the potential for impacts that were peculiar to the
Project or not analyzed as significant impacts in the General Plan EIR or Supplemental EIR.The
2018 IS/MND,which expressly considers the City’s previous EIRs,concludes that approval of
the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts.
b.Design features of the Project,as well as the mitigation measures proposed in the 2018 IS/MND
and included in the MMRP,will operate to ensure the impacts of the proposed Project will not
exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance.Therefore,and as further documented in
the 2018 IS/MND for the Project,additional mitigation measures beyond those established in the
MMRP are not required for the Project.
c.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,the City Council finds that there is no substantial
evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in a
significant environmental effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the 2018
Initial Study and Mitigation Negative Declaration (ND18-0001)attached as Exhibit A,and adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit D.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
RECIRCULATED
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REVISED
OAKMONT MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Prepared for:
City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083-0711
PREPARED BY:
LAMPHIER – GREGORY
1944 EMBARCADERO
OAKLAND, CA 94606
OCTOBER 2018
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2016042067
OAKMONT MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, Recirculated IS/MND Errata Page 1
ERRATA
PURPOSE OF THE ERRATA SHEET
This errata document is intended to be amended to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) for the proposed Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project (Project).
The revisions in this document are considered minor only and not “substantial revision” that would
trigger recirculation of the IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. These revisions do not
identify a new significant effect, or revise findings of the residual levels of effects.
REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND
The following are minor text changes, additions or modifications made to the IS/MND.
A page number from the IS/MND and explanation of each revision is included in italics preceding each
revision.
Existing and revised IS/MND text is indented. Deletions are noted by strikethrough; additions are
underlined.
Page 12: The Hazardous Materials Impact and Mitigation Measure Haz-1 are hereby removed from the
list of potentially significant impacts requiting mitigation. As detailed in changes to pages 36 to 37, the
results of the Environmental Site Assessments conclude hazardous materials are not present at the site
and therefore there is no potentially significant impact related to this topic and no mitigation is needed.
a-d) Hazardous Materials. The Project site was fully assessed for hazardous materials under the Prior
MND, which found that the site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but that portions of the site were filled in the 1960s,
before there were regulatory requirements for the source and contents of fill material and the potential
exists for fill at the site to contain materials which would now be classified as hazardous and could be
released during construction activities. Since that time, the site has been maintained as a vacant lot so
conditions related to hazardous materials would not have changed. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment was performed by ENGEO for the applicant in November 2017, which confirmed there
were no other concerns of hazardous materials at the site other than the undocumented fill. A follow-
up Phase II Environmental Site Assessment performed by ENGEO in December 2017 included
sampling of the undocumented fill and determined that all tested constituents were below applicable
residential screening criteria or within background concentrations of the San Francisco Bay Area and
Page 2 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, Recirculated IS/MND Errata
therefore that development of the site (with no further need for studies or restrictions) would not pose
a human health risk. The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are available with the
Project case file at the South San Francisco Planning Division.
Page 30: The following revisions are hereby made to the Cultural Resources section to include updated
discussion of Tribal Cultural Resources per the request by NAHC.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Public Resources Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either: 1) a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in ter ms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or 2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the
historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1 (c), and
considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American
tribe.
a) Historic Resources. There are no existing structures at the site. The revised Project would have no
impact related to historic resources.
b, c, e) Archaeological/Paleontological Resources/Human Remains. The Project site was fully assessed
for cultural resources under the Prior MND, which found no known cultural, Native American, or
archaeological resources at the site but recommended measures to address the unexpected discovery
of such resources during ground-disturbing construction activities. These measures are covered under
current regulations, as outlined below.
If Native American, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered on site, these
resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5(c), which calls on lead agencies to
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, Recirculated IS/MND Errata Page 3
refer to the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 21084.1 if the
archaeological site is determined to be a historical resource or Section 21084.3(a) if the site is
determined to be a tribal cultural resource. This is standard procedure for any project in California, so
the impact is considered less than significant.
d, e) Human Remains. There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the proposed
Project. If human remains are found during construction activities at the Project site, they will be
handled according to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native
American, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code as per CEQA Section 15064.5(d). This is
standard procedure for any project in California, so the impact is considered less than significant.
Pages 36 to 37: The following revisions are hereby made under the Hazardous Materials discussion to
add in results of the Environmental Site Assessments, which conclude hazardous materials are not
present at the site and mitigation is not needed, and to note expected use of common household hazardous
waste products by future residential uses upon request from DTSC.
a-d) Hazardous Materials. The Project site was fully assessed for hazardous materials under the Prior
MND, which found that the site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but that portions of the site were filled in the 1960s,
before there were regulatory requirements for the source and contents of fill material and the potential
exists for fill at the site to contain materials which would now be classified as hazardous and could be
released during construction activities. Since that time, the site has been maintained as a vacant lot so
conditions related to hazardous materials would not have changed. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment was performed by ENGEO for the applicant in November 2017, which confirmed there
were no other concerns of hazardous materials at the site other than the undocumented fill. A follow-
up Phase II Environmental Site Assessment performed by ENGEO in December 2017 included
sampling of the undocumented fill and determined that all tested constituents were below applicable
residential screening criteria or within background concentrations of the San Francisco Bay Area and
therefore that development of the site (with no further need for studies or restrictions) would not pose
a human health risk. The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are available with the
Project case file at the South San Francisco Planning Division.
The Project site is located approximately 450 feet southwest of the Westborough Middle School, so is
within the vicinity of a school. To mitigate the potential for upset of hazardous materials during the
construction period, the revised Project shall implement the following measure:
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1: Halting Work on Encountering Materials Believed to be Hazardous. In the event
that materials which are believed to be hazardous are encountered during site
preparation or excavation work, all such activity at the project site shall be halted
until the material in question has been evaluated by the South San Francisco Fire
Department and/or the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department. Prior to
the resumption of work at the project site, implementation of appropriate response
measures and disposal methods in accordance with applicable state and local
regulations and as approved by the Fire Department would reduce the impact to a
level of less than significant.
Additionally, it is likely that equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize
substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline. However,
all construction activities would be required to conform with Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Page 4 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, Recirculated IS/MND Errata
Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances
and procedures, which would minimize the potential for accidental release.
The average household on the project site may at times purchase and store cleaning products, paint,
solvents, and garden-related supplies that may be classified as hazardous waste. These are referred to
as of household hazardous waste (HHW) would be handled in such limited quantities and stored/used
in such a manner so as not to pose a significant threat to the environment.
Potential impacts are confined to the temporary construction period. As discussed above oOnce
operational, residential uses would not be considered a substantial potential source for hazardous
material use or release. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 and conformance with
applicable regulations, the impact related to hazardous materials would be less than significant with
mitigation.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
Introduction to this Document ........................................................................................................................... 1
Prior Project and Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................... 1
Public Review ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Project Information ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Description and Changes from the 2016 Project .............................................................................. 5
Mitigated Negative Declaration ......................................................................................................................... 9
Potentially Significant Impacts Requiring Mitigation .................................................................................. 9
Summary of Changes from the 2016 MND ................................................................................................. 13
Proposed Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Initial Study Checklist ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................................... 15
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................... 16
Summary of Changes from the 2016 IS/MND ............................................................................................. 16
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................................ 19
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 20
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 27
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 34
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 36
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 39
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................. 42
Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Noise ............................................................................................................................................................ 44
Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................... 46
Public Services ............................................................................................................................................ 47
Recreation ................................................................................................................................................... 48
Transportation and Traffic ....................................................................................................................... 49
Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................... 52
Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................................... 53
Document Preparers ........................................................................................................................................... 54
Sources ................................................................................................................................................................. 54
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2: Illustrative Site Plan ...................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Preliminary Grading Plan ............................................................................................................ 8
ATTACHMENTS
Attachments are included on CD affixed to the back cover of printed copies of the document.
Attachment A: 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment B: Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment, Revised Project
ii
This page intentionally left blank
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 1
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Oakmont
Meadows Residential Development Project (“2016 Project”) was prepared and released for
public review on April 25, 2016, with the review period ending May 24, 2016 (“2016 IS/MND”).
Subsequent to the public review period, and prior to adoption of the 2016 IS/MND, the Project
applicant changed the number and type of residential units proposed under the Project in order
to meet affordable housing requirements (“Revised Project”). Full details of the Revised Project
are included in the following Project Information section.
As a result of the Revised Project, a number of changes to the original IS/MND are necessary for
a legally complete and adequate evaluation of environmental effect of the proposed project.
Accordingly, the City of South San Francisco has decided to incorporate changes to the Project
Description and to the original IS/MND and to recirculate the revised IS/MND for a second
round of public input and comment.
This document serves as the recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) for the Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project (“2018 Project”). Per
CEQA Guidelines (Section 15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet
the requirements of CEQA review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant
environmental effects, but revisions in the project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects
to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
Introduction and Project Description. This section introduces the document and discusses
the project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and
contacts.
Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this
document as the CEQA review document for the proposed project.
Initial Study. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions
and identifies the potential for impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid these
impacts.
PRIOR PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Prior MND) for the Oakmont Vistas/Storage
USA Project (Prior Project) was adopted in 1999 for construction of a residential and mini‐
storage facility development on approximately 10 acres at the intersection of Oakmont Drive
and Westborough Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco (State Clearinghouse Number
1999072033). The Prior MND is hereby incorporated by reference and is included as Attachment
A to the 2016 IS/MND (included in full as an attachment to this document).
Page 2 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Three parcels comprised the Prior Project. The Prior Project proposed residential development
on a 5.19‐acre portion (Parcels 2 and 3) consisting of 33 single‐family homes known as Oakmont
Estates. The Oakmont Estates development has since been completed as proposed.
The remainder of the Prior Project, the 4.91‐acre Parcel 1, which is the current Project site, was
proposed for a five‐building mini‐storage development (with caretaker’s unit), totaling 110,770
square feet. The proposed mini‐storage development and associated rezone and General Plan
amendment for Parcel 1 was not approved and the parcel has remained undeveloped.
The development concept for Parcel 1 changed after the Prior MND: the mini‐storage was not
proposed, and instead, residential development consistent with the existing zoning and land
use designation has been proposed. The development proposal also incorporated updated fault
setbacks, grading plans, and conformance with current stormwater controls.
Due to the time that had passed and the change in the proposal for the Project site, the City of
South San Francisco determined that a new Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was
the appropriate environmental document, rather than an addendum or supplemental document
to the Prior MND.
PUBLIC REVIEW
The Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 30‐
day public review period. Written comments may be submitted to the following address:
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711
Email: Billy.Gross@ssf.net
Phone: 650.877.8535
Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the project
itself, which is a separate action to be taken by the approval body. Approval of the revised
Project can take place only after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 3
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
Requested approvals from the City of South San Francisco include Planned Development,
Tentative Parcel Map, and Design Review.
The Project also requires San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission review of a project
within San Francisco International Airport’s Airport Influence Area B.
LEAD AGENCY
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711
CONTACT PERSON
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711
Phone: 650.877.8535
PROJECT SPONSOR
Michael Banducci
Warmington Residential
2400 Camino Ramon, Suite 234
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: 925.866.6700
PROJECT LOCATION
The 4.91‐acre Project site is on the southwest side of the intersection of Oakmont Drive and
Westborough Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco, California. The assessor’s parcel
number is 091‐151‐040. Figure 1 shows the project location.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and Low Density Residential (RL‐8)
Zoning District
EXISTING USES
The Project Site is currently vacant and is mowed annually for weed control and abatement.
Page 4 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Figure 1: Project Location
Source: The Paul Davis Partnership, undated
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 5
SURROUNDING LAND USES
Land uses adjacent to the Project site are primarily single‐family residential. Surrounding land
uses across Westborough Boulevard consist of a commercial shopping center and medium‐
density residential. Westborough Middle School is located approximately 450 feet to the
northeast of the Project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CHANGES FROM THE 2016 PROJECT
Project Summary
Project Site
The 4.91‐acre Project site is undeveloped land, adjacent to an existing residential development
known as Oakmont Estates, which was developed as part of the Prior Project.
A known constraint on the Project site is the presence across the site of San Andreas fault traces.
This has not changed since the 2016 Project. Habitable structures are not permitted within the
setback zones from the fault traces, though roadways, open spaces, and detached garages are
permitted within the fault zone setback areas. These fault traces and required setback zones
have been refined and incorporated into the Project, as discussed in more detail in the Geology
checklist Section 6.
The Project site is in the Low Density Residential (RL‐8) Zoning District, which is consistent
with the site’s Low Density Residential designation in the City’s General Plan. The proposed
subdivision of the parcels to accommodate the fault setback areas would exceed the density
allowed under the RL‐8 designation. Requested approvals include Planned Development,
Tentative Parcel Map, and Design Review. This has not changed since the 2016 Project.
The revised site plan is shown on Figure 2. As under the 2016 Project, a large portion of the site
serves as a common area portion and would include roadways, guest parking areas, sidewalks,
a bocce ball court, a grass play area/open space, a BBQ area with tables, a fire pit with seating, a
bioretention basin, and landscaping.
Residential Units
The 2016 Project included lot subdivision and development of 7 attached townhomes
and 12 single‐family detached units for a total of 19 single‐family residences.
The revised Project proposes to increase the number of attached townhomes to 22 and
does not propose any single‐family detached residences.
Access
The 2016 Project proposed to extend the current Shannon Drive terminus at the
boundary of the Project site to Oakmont Drive through the site as a private road
providing access to all units.
Page 6 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
The revised Project does not propose a through street, but rather proposes access to 14 of
the lots from an extension of the current Shannon Drive and access to the remaining 8
lots from a new driveway off Oakmont Drive. The two access points would be
connected with an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only.
Development Footprint and Grading
With more residential units, but the space efficiency of attached townhome units, the Project
footprint under the revised Project is similar to that under the 2016 Project. The grading plan is
shown on Figure 3. The revised Project proposes grading to be balanced on site to accommodate
the proposed roadway, building sites, open space improvements, and on‐site storm drainage
system. Approximately 14,000 cubic yards will be moved on site, with no soil intended to be
brought to or from the site. The 2016 Project has a similar plan but estimated 10,000 cubic yards
would need to be moved on site.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 7 Figure 2: Illustrative Site Plan Source: Applicant, dated 6/25/2018 Garages EVA
Page 8 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Figure 3: Preliminary Grading Plan Source: Applicant, dated 6/25/2018
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 9
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the revised Oakmont Meadows
Residential Development Project. See the Introduction and Project Information section of this
document for details of the Project.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following is a list of potential Project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to
reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section
of this document for a more detailed discussion.
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Air Quality, Construction Emissions Impact: Construction of the revised Project would
result in emissions and fugitive dust. While the Project is below the size at which significant
impacts are anticipated, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction‐
related criteria pollutant and fugitive dust emissions for all projects. These basic measures are
included in Mitigation Measure Air Quality‐1, below and would further reduce construction‐
period criteria pollutant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Air‐1: Standard Construction Best Management Practices. The contractor
shall implement the following BAAQMD recommended Best
Management Practices:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, 1.
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐2.
site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall 3.
be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least
once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 4.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be 5.
completed as soon as possible and feasible. Building pads shall be
laid as soon as possible and feasible, as well, after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off 6.
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5
Page 10 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers
at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly 7.
tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All
equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person 8.
to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This
person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Air Quality, Construction Exposure Impact: Construction activity would use diesel‐powered
equipment and therefore results in the emission of diesel particulate matter including fine
particulate matter, which are considered toxic air contaminants and a potential health risk.
While the proposed construction activates would less than that which generally could result
in significant health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, due to the proximity of residences
and students to the Project site, potential health risks due to construction‐period emissions
impacts would be minimized through implementation of construction management practices
detailed in Mitigation Measure Air Quality‐2.
Mitigation Measure
Air‐2: Construction Emissions Minimization Practices. The project shall
demonstrate compliance with the following Construction Emissions
Minimization Practices prior to issuance of demolition, building or
grading permits:
1. All off‐road equipment greater than 25 horse power (hp) and
operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of
construction activities shall meet the following requirements:
a) Where access to alternative sources of power are available,
portable diesel engines shall be prohibited;
b) All off‐road equipment shall have:
i. Engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or California Air
Resources Board (ARB) Tier 2 off‐road emission
standards, and
ii. Engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 11
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).
c) Exceptions:
i. Exceptions to 1(a) may be granted if the project sponsor
has submitted information providing evidence to the
satisfaction of the City that an alternative source of power
is limited or infeasible at the project site and that the
requirements of this exception provision apply.
ii. Exceptions to 1(b)(ii) may be granted if the project sponsor
has submitted information providing evidence to the
satisfaction of the City that a particular piece of off‐road
equipment with an ARB Level 3 VDECS is: (1) technically
not feasible, (2) would not produce desired emissions
reductions due to expected operating modes, (3) installing
the control device would create a safety hazard or
impaired visibility for the operator, or (4) there is a
compelling emergency need to use off‐road equipment
that are not retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 VDECS and
the sponsor has submitted documentation to the City that
the requirements of this exception provision apply. If
granted an exception to 1(b)(ii), the project sponsor must
comply with the requirements of 1(c)(iii).
iii. If an exception is granted pursuant to 1(c)(ii), the project
sponsor shall provide the next cleanest piece of off‐road
equipment, including a Tier 2 engine standard and the
following emissions control/alternative fuel in order of
preference if available: 1) ARB Level 2 VDECS, 2) ARB
Level 2 VDECS, or 3) Alternative Fuel.
Biological Impact: Trees on the Project site or in the vicinity could host the nests of common
birds such as house finch, American robin, northern mockingbird, European starling, and/or
Brewer’s blackbird. These species are locally and regionally abundant, and Project effects on
these species would be minimal or nil. However, nearly all native birds are protected under
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code, so the
following mitigation would be applicable to prevent a “take” of these species under these
regulations related to disturbance during nesting.
Mitigation Measure
Bio‐1: Nesting Birds. If construction occurs during the breeding season
(February through August), the site and a surrounding radius of not
less than 0.5 miles shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify
Page 12 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
the presence or absence of nesting birds protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code.
Pre‐construction surveys shall be conducted within 15 days prior to
start of work and shall be submitted to the Building Division. If the
survey indicates the potential presences of nesting birds, the applicant
shall comply with recommendations of the biologist regarding an
appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be
allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest
buffer will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its
sensitivity to disturbance.
Hazardous Materials Impact: The Project is not included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but portions of the site were
filled in the 1960s, before there were regulatory requirements for the source and contents of
fill material and the potential exists for fill at the site to contain materials which would now
be classified as hazardous and could be released during construction activities. To mitigate
the potential for upset of hazardous materials during the construction period, the Project
shall implement the following measure:
Mitigation Measure
Haz‐1: Halting Work on Encountering Materials Believed to be
Hazardous. In the event that materials which are believed to be
hazardous are encountered during site preparation or excavation
work, all such activity at the project site shall be halted until the
material in question has been evaluated by the South San Francisco
Fire Department and/or the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department. Prior to the resumption of work at the project site,
implementation of appropriate response measures and disposal
methods in accordance with applicable state and local regulations and
as approved by the Fire Department would reduce the impact to a
level of less than significant.
Transportation/Traffic Impact: Sight distance at the proposed driveway on Oakmont Drive
are inadequate due to on‐street parking on west side of Oakmont Drive along the project
frontage near the proposed driveway. To mitigate the potential for site hazards related to
inadequate sight distances, the Project shall implement the following measure:
Mitigation Measure
Traffic‐1: Sight Distance. To provide adequate sight lines at the
project’s connection to Oakmont Drive, parking shall be
prohibited for at least 60 feet to the north of the project
driveway on the west side of Oakmont Drive, and
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 13
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
prohibited to the south of the project driveway for at
least 20 feet on the west side of Oakmont Drive.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2016 MND
With a project driveway proposed on Oakmont Drive under the Revised Project that had not
been proposed under the 2016 Project, Mitigation Measure Traffic‐1 has been added in this
Recirculated IS/MND. No other significant impacts or mitigation measures were added or
revised in significance.
Page 14 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
PROPOSED FINDINGS
On the basis of this evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures to reduce these impacts will be required of the project. 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 the proposed project MAY have a ʺpotentially significant impactʺ or
ʺpotentially significant unless mitigatedʺ impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
10/11/18
Signature Date
Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 15
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project are listed by topic below. Factors
marked with an “X” () were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at
least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the Checklist on the
following pages. Unmarked factors () were determined to not be significantly affected by the
Project or reduced to a level of less than significant through mitigation, based on discussion
provided in the Checklist.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Page 16 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins on the following page, with explanations of
each CEQA issue topic. Four outcomes are possible, as explained below.
1. A “no impact” response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the
environment would occur due to the Project.
2. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an
environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other
features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of
“less than significant.”
3. Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be “less than significant with
mitigation” indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will
be required as a condition of Project approval in order to effectively reduce potential
Project‐related environmental effects to a level of “less than significant.”
4. A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that further analysis is required to
determine the extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. If any
topics are indicated with a “potentially significant impact,” these topics would need to be
analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report.
Note that this document does not indicate that any environmental topics would be considered
to be “potentially significant” after application of mitigation measures identified in this
document.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2016 IS/MND
With a project driveway proposed on Oakmont Drive under the Revised Project that had not
been proposed under the 2016 Project, Mitigation Measure Traffic‐1 has been added in this
Recirculated IS/MND to address the potential for sight distance hazards.
Minor revisions were made throughout the document to update the specifics of the site
development plan and number of units and related emissions, population, and traffic.
However, no other significant impacts or mitigation measures were added or revised in
significance.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 17
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a‐c) Scenic Vistas, Resources, Visual Character. Both I‐280 and CA‐1 are designated or eligible
State Scenic Highways through South San Francisco. However, the Project site is located
approximately 3,600 feet and 7,700 feet from these highways and would not generally be
visible in views from these highways due to intervening topography and trees/structures.
The City’s General Plan does not further identify scenic roadways or scenic vistas.1, 2
The revised Project would be visible from nearby properties and those at higher vantage
points, but a residential use as proposed is consistent with the existing and planned
character of the neighborhood. (Such a determination under CEQA does not preclude the
City from considering specifics of design during design review.)
Again due to the Project location and relative topography and existing trees/structures in the
vicinity, the revised Project would not substantially change the views of nearby properties
toward regional features such as the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay, or the local
landmark of Sign Hill. A change to private views would not generally be considered an
environmental impact under CEQA in any case.
Therefore, the revised Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to scenic
vistas, scenic resources, and visual character.
1 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm
2 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October
1999, as amended.
Page 18 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
d) Light and Glare. The revised Project proposes residential development generally consistent
with surrounding properties and would comply with City regulations regarding lighting
that will ensure glare is minimized and light levels are limited to those expected in
residential developments and existing in the surrounding developed area.3 The Project’s
impact related to light and glare is less than significant.
3 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code, including sections 20.300.008.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 19
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
a‐e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Project site is located in an urban area on a lot
designated for residential development. No part of the site is zoned for or currently being
used for agricultural or forestry purposes or is subject to the Williamson Act. There would
be no impact to agricultural and forestry resources as a result of this Project.
Page 20 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Air Quality Plan. The Project site is subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, first adopted by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (in association with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments) in
1991 and last updated in April 2017, called the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. The plan is
meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting ozone standards, but also includes other
elements related to particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases. 4
BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan
primary goals and control measures. The impact would be significant if the Project would
conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control
measures.
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are:
Attain all state and national air quality standards
Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic
air contaminants
Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050. [This standard is addressed in Section 7:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.]
4 BAAQMD, April 2017, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Cir – Cool the Climate, A Blueprint for Clean Air and
Climate Protection in the Bay Area.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 21
The Project would be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations related to
emissions and health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or
toxic air contaminants or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air
Plan.
Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area‐wide improvements,
large stationary source reductions, or large employers and these are not applicable to the
proposed Project. However, the Project would be consistent with all rules and regulations
related to construction activities and the proposed development would meet current
standards of energy and water efficiency (Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water Control
Measure WR2) and recycling and green waste requirements (Waste Management Control
Measures WA3 and WA4) and does not conflict with applicable control measures aimed at
improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation Control
Measure TR9) or any other control measures.
Therefore, there would be no impact in relation to inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan.
b‐c) Air Quality Standards/Criteria Pollutants. Ambient air quality standards have been
established by state and federal environmental agencies for specific air pollutants most
pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria air pollutants
because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific health and
welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and include ozone precursors (NOx and
ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The Bay
Area is considered “attainment” for all of the national standards, with the exception of
ozone. It is considered “nonattainment” for State standards for ozone and particulate
matter.
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality
impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative
impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient
air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing
cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the
cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be
considered significant.5 Emissions from operation of the Project could cumulatively
contribute to air pollutant levels in the region.
The Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and therefore under the
jurisdiction of BAAQMD. BAAQMD publishes a document titled California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (“BAAQMD Guidelines”), which provides guidance for
consideration by lead agencies, consultants, and other parties evaluating air quality impacts
in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin conducted pursuant to CEQA. The document
provides guidance on evaluating air quality impacts of development projects and local
5 BAAQMD, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2‐1.
Page 22 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
plans, determining whether an impact is significant, and mitigating significant air quality
impacts.
BAAQMD updated these Guidelines in coordination with adoption of new thresholds of
significance on June 2, 2010.6 The most recent version of the Guidelines are dated May 2017.
The relevant analysis in this document is based upon guidance from the current BAAQMD
Guidelines.
Construction Emissions
BAAQMD presents screening criteria in their Guidelines that identify project sizes by type
that could have the potential to result in emissions over criteria levels. The Project is well
below BAAQMD’s construction‐period criteria pollutant screening size of 114 single‐family
dwelling units and therefore is not anticipated to result in emissions of criteria pollutants
over threshold levels during construction.7 The impact related to construction‐period air
quality emissions is less than significant.
However, BAAQMD recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to
reduce construction‐related criteria pollutant and fugitive dust emissions for all projects,
regardless of the significance level of construction‐period impacts. These basic measures are
included in Mitigation Measure Air‐1, below and would further reduce construction‐period
criteria pollutant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Air‐1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate
proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating
procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits,
including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures”.
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site
shall be covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2, 2010. News Release
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News%20Releases/2
010/ceqa_100602.ashx.
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017,
Table 3‐1.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 23
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required
by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Mitigation Measure Air‐1 would further reduce less than significant construction‐period
criteria pollutant impacts. Because construction‐period emissions do not exceed applicable
criteria pollutant significance thresholds, additional construction mitigation measures
would not be required to mitigate impacts.
Operational Emissions
Similar to the analysis for construction‐period impacts above, the Project was compared to
BAAQMD screening criteria for operational pollutants. The Project is well below
BAAQMD’s operational criteria pollutant screening size of 325 single‐family dwelling units
and therefore not anticipated to result in emissions of criteria pollutants over threshold
levels during operations.8 Therefore, operation of the Project would have a less‐than‐
significant impact on regional air quality.
Additionally, because carbon monoxide hot spots can occur near heavily traveled and
delayed intersections, BAAQMD presents traffic‐based criteria as screening criteria for
carbon monoxide impacts. As operation of the proposed Project would not result in any
significantly affected intersections (see section 15 Transportation and Traffic for additional
details), the Project would be below carbon monoxide threshold levels.
8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017,
Table 3‐1.
Page 24 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Therefore, the Project impact related to operational pollutant emissions would be less than
significant.
d) Sensitive Receptors. For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on exposure
of sensitive receptors to risks and hazards, the threshold of significance is exceeded when
the Project‐specific cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million, the non‐cancer risk exceeds a
Hazard Index of 1.0 (or cumulative risk of 100 in one million or a Hazard Index of 10.0
respectively is exceeded), and/or the annual average PM2.5 concentration would exceed 0.3
μg/m3 (or 0.8 μg/m3 cumulatively). Examples of sensitive receptors are places where people
live, play or convalesce and include schools, hospitals, residential areas and recreation
facilities.
Construction‐Period Health Risks
The Project site is located adjacent to existing residential uses and approximately 450 feet
southwest of the Westborough Middle School. Residents and students are considered
sensitive uses. Construction‐period TAC emissions could contribute to increased health
risks to nearby residents and students from TACs. While BAAQMD does not provide a
screening level to determine projects that are small enough that they can be assumed to be
below significance thresholds, significant impacts in this regard are not usually seen unless
residential projects include about 200 dwelling units or more. Additionally, the modeling to
quantify health risks was not originally intended for emissions periods spanning less than 7
years and is not recommended by any agency for use for less than a 2 year period.
Therefore, due to the small size of the Project and relatively low potential for impacts to
nearby sensitive users, similar to the approach for construction‐period criteria pollutants,
potential health risks due to construction‐period emissions impacts shall be minimized
through implementation of construction management practices.
Mitigation Measure
Air‐2: Construction Emissions Minimization Practices. The project shall
demonstrate compliance with the following Construction Emissions
Minimization Practices prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading
permits:
1. All off‐road equipment greater than 25 horse power (hp) and operating
for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction
activities shall meet the following requirements:
a) Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable
diesel engines shall be prohibited;
b) All off‐road equipment shall have:
i. Engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 2
off‐road emission standards, and
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 25
ii. Engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 Verified Diesel
Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).
c) Exceptions:
i. Exceptions to 1(a) may be granted if the project sponsor has
submitted information providing evidence to the satisfaction of
the City that an alternative source of power is limited or infeasible
at the project site and that the requirements of this exception
provision apply.
ii. Exceptions to 1(b)(ii) may be granted if the project sponsor has
submitted information providing evidence to the satisfaction of
the City that a particular piece of off‐road equipment with an ARB
Level 3 VDECS is: (1) technically not feasible, (2) would not
produce desired emissions reductions due to expected operating
modes, (3) installing the control device would create a safety
hazard or impaired visibility for the operator, or (4) there is a
compelling emergency need to use off‐road equipment that are
not retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 VDECS and the sponsor has
submitted documentation to the City that the requirements of this
exception provision apply. If granted an exception to 1(b)(ii), the
project sponsor must comply with the requirements of 1(c)(iii).
iii. If an exception is granted pursuant to 1(c)(ii), the project sponsor
shall provide the next cleanest piece of off‐road equipment,
including a Tier 2 engine standard and the following emissions
control/alternative fuel in order of preference if available: 1) ARB
Level 2 VDECS, 2) ARB Level 2 VDECS, or 3) Alternative Fuel.
Mitigation measure Air‐2 would ensure construction‐period health risk impacts remain at a
level of less than significant with mitigation.
Operational Health Risks
The Project, as a residential development, would not be considered a significant source of
operational TACs.
While the future residents of the proposed Project would be considered sensitive receptors,
the effects of the environment on a project are not considered a CEQA impact (which is
focused to the effects of a project on the environment, and not the reverse).9 The following is
included for informational purposes:
9 California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, Case No.
S213478.
Page 26 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
BAAQMD recommends consulting screening tools to identify whether any substantial TAC
sources are located within 1,000 feet of the project.
BAAQMD’s county‐specific Google Earth Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool
indicates there are no stationary sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the Project site.
BAAQMD’s county‐specific Google Earth Highway Screening Analysis Tool indicates
there is one highway within 1,000 feet of the Project site:
o CA‐35 (Skyline Boulevard), at over 500 feet from the Project site, has a screening
level cancer risk of 0.83 in one million, a Hazard Index of 0.001 to 0.002, and an
annual average PM2.5 concentration of 0.014 μg/m3. These are well below
BAAQMD’s indicated threshold levels.
There are no substantial sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the Project, so it can be
assumed future residents would not be subjected to levels of TACs above screening levels.
As noted above, this is presented as an informational item.
e) Objectionable Odors. As a residential development, operation of the Project would not be a
source of objectionable odors. During construction, diesel‐powered vehicles and equipment
would create odors that some may find objectionable. However, these odors would be
temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project site’s boundaries.
Therefore, the potential for objectionable odor impacts is considered less than significant.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 27
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
a, b) Special Status Species and Habitat. The Project site was fully assessed for biological
resources and habitat under the Prior MND, which found no special‐status species or
habitat at the Project site except for a small patch of remnant native grassland surrounded
by non‐native grassland, that was not considered a substantial community or significant
impact for its removal. Since that time, the site has been maintained as a vacant lot with
non‐native grassland and landscaping maintained and weeded regularly to avoid invasive
species. Additionally, the City’s General Plan does not include the Project site on maps or
lists or locations with biological resources.10 The revised Project would result in the
10 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October
1999, as amended, Section 7.1. Habitat and Biological Resources.
Page 28 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
removal of non‐native grasslands and landscaping, which are not a special status species or
habitat.
Existing trees at the Project site, which are not special‐status, are potentially covered under
the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.30), depending on size
and type of tree. While the revised Project proposes retention of most trees at the site as
well as additional trees to be planted per the landscaping plan, any trees to be removed
would require issuance by the City of a Tree Removal Permit. Compliance with this
process will ensure the Project does not result in conflict with the Tree Preservation
Ordinance.
Additionally, trees on the Project site or in the vicinity could host the nests of common
birds such as house finch, American robin, northern mockingbird, European starling,
and/or Brewer’s blackbird. These species are locally and regionally abundant, and Project
effects on these species would be minimal or nil. However, nearly all native birds are
protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife
Code, so the following mitigation would be applicable to prevent a “take” of these species
under these regulations related to disturbance during nesting.
Mitigation Measure
Bio‐1: Nesting Birds. If construction occurs during the breeding season (February
through August), the site and a surrounding radius of not less than 0.5 miles
shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of
nesting birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
California Fish and Wildlife Code. Pre‐construction surveys shall be
conducted within 15 days prior to start of work and shall be submitted to the
Building Division. If the survey indicates the potential presences of nesting
birds, the applicant shall comply with recommendations of the biologist
regarding an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work
will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest
buffer will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity
to disturbance.
As noted above, there are no other special‐status species with the potential to be
significantly impacted by the revised Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
Bio‐1, the impact related to special‐status species and habitats would be less than significant
with mitigation.
c) Wetlands. The Project site was fully assessed for biological resources and habitat under the
Prior MND, which found no wetlands at the Project site. Since that time, the site has been
maintained as a vacant lot with non‐native grassland and landscaping maintained and
weeded regularly so conditions related to wetlands would not have changed and the
revised Project would have no impact related to wetlands.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 29
d) Wildlife Corridors. The Project site is surrounded by roadways and other developed areas
and does not have the potential to act as a substantial wildlife corridor. The revised Project
would have a less than significant impact related to movement of wildlife.
e, f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Conservation Plans. The Project site is not subject to any
habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans and thus would not conflict
with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As noted under items
“a, b” above, the Project would comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and
therefore not cause a conflict with local policies. There are no other local policies applicable
to the revised Project. There would be no impact.
Page 30 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Public Resources Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
a) Historic Resources. There are no existing structures at the site. The revised Project would
have no impact related to historic resources.
b, c) Archaeological/Paleontological Resources/Human Remains. The Project site was fully
assessed for cultural resources under the Prior MND, which found no known cultural,
Native American, or archaeological resources at the site but recommended measures to
address the unexpected discovery of such resources during ground‐disturbing construction
activities. These measures are covered under current regulations, as outlined below.
If Native American, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered on site,
these resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5(c), which calls on lead
agencies to refer to the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, or
Section 21084.1 if the archaeological site is determined to be a historical resource. This is
standard procedure for any project in California, so the impact is considered less than
significant.
d) Human Remains. There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the
proposed Project. If human remains are found during construction activities at the Project
site, they will be handled according to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code or, if the
remains are Native American, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code as per CEQA
Section 15064.5(d). This is standard procedure for any project in California, so the impact is
considered less than significant.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 31
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐
or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
a‐ d) Geologic Hazards. According to the currently‐adopted CEQA Guidelines, exposure of
people or structures to major geological hazards is considered a significant adverse impact.
Per the California Supreme Court CBIA vs BAAQMD decision (Case No. S213478, decided
December 17, 2015), the scope of CEQA analyses should be limited to the effect of the
environment on a project (as opposed to the effect of a project on the environment).
Therefore, thresholds related to geological and seismic risks are limited to whether or not a
project will exacerbate existing seismic risks. “Induced seismicity” is the term for
earthquakes caused by human activity, and while the mechanisms have been scientifically
proven, all suspected forms of induced seismicity involve substantial increase or loss of
mass in an area, such as through the creation of artificial lakes through dam construction,
large‐scale removal of coal from mining, large‐scale extraction of oil deposits or
groundwater reserves, or large‐scale liquid injection for waste disposal or hydraulic
Page 32 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
fracturing. The revised Project is a substantially smaller scale than these types of projects
and would not have the potential to result in induced seismicity.
The revised Project’s potential geological hazards impacts under CEQA therefore are
focused to those that could impact biological or hydrological resources or nearby properties
(such as through erosion, creation of unstable slopes, or inadequate septic systems), and not
those that could affect future residents or structures at the Project site. Additional discussion
of non‐CEQA topics are also included below as informational items.
Note that information in this section is based on a series of geotechnical reports and fault
evaluations, as fully detailed in the sources section at the end of this document, including
the most recent Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants report in 2008.
Unstable Soil/Seismically‐Induced Landslides
The preliminary grading plan for the revised Project includes cut slopes across much of the
site which would expose fill materials, and fill slopes which would have a height of
approximately nine feet near the southeastern corner of the site. As a result, the geotechnical
report contains specific recommendations for the grading plan to ensure support along cut
and fill slopes where grading could remove existing toe support or affect the stability of the
planned fill slopes. The final detailed project plans are required to incorporate the
recommendations in the geotechnical report to avoid or reduce the potential impacts related
to slope instability on the site. Per standard procedures, compliance with design‐level
recommendations will be verified during the construction permitting process.
The report concluded that grading in accordance with the recommendation would reduce
the risk of seismically induced landslides to low. Therefore, the revised Project’s potential to
result in unstable soils that could impact existing people and structures is less than
significant.
Erosion
Grading and construction activities will expose soil to the elements, which would be subject
to erosion during storm events. Implementation of a construction‐period stormwater plan
will mitigate the potential for erosion and loss of top soil.
In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), the Applicant is required to file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the
General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction General Permit, 99‐08‐DWQ). Per standard procedures, compliance with
SWPPP requirements will be verified during the construction permitting process. Therefore,
the revised Project’s potential to result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil is less than
significant through compliance with SWPPP requirements.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 33
Informational Items
As noted above, CEQA does not require an agency to consider the impact of existing
conditions on future project users. Therefore, the following discussion is included for
informational purposes and is not related to CEQA impacts.
The site is situated within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and three active traces of
the San Andreas Fault are on the site. The main trace lies beneath the fill in the center of the
site; two other traces lie on either side of the main trace. The location of fault traces on the
site have been explored in a series of technical studies and earthquake setback zones
incorporated into the revised Project per applicable regulations. Within the fault zone,
surface rupture could result in displacement of more than 10 feet. The risk of major faulting‐
induced displacement outside of the setback zones is considered low. All habitable
structures are located outside of the setback zone. As allowable under applicable
regulations, non‐habitable detached garages, park and open space areas, and infrastructure
including roadways, are located within the setback zone.
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region and the revised Project, along with
the region as a whole, is likely to experience strong seismic ground shaking during its
lifetime. A moderate to major earthquake on the San Andreas fault or a major earthquake on
other regional faults including the Hayward, Calaveras, or Seal Cove faults would likely
cause severe ground shaking on the Project site that could damage structures and
infrastructure.
A geotechnical report was prepared for the Project that contains specific recommendations
to the seismic parameters for design of the proposed structures (e.g., related to foundations
and soft‐story conditions) and utilities. The report concluded that the risk of liquefaction,
ground subsidence, and landslides at the site is low. Based on site soil analysis, this report
included specific recommendations for construction of structures and infrastructure. These
recommendations will be updated to reflect the current Project plans as recommendations
were made based on a previous version. In addition to designing the revised Project in
accordance with the current standards set forth in the California Building Code, the revised
Project design and construction shall incorporate the recommendations in the geotechnical
report to avoid or reduce the geotechnical hazards to structures and utilities on the site. Per
standard procedures, compliance with design‐level recommendations will be verified
during the construction permitting process.
e) Septic Tanks. The revised Project would not include the use of septic tanks and associated
disposal facilities. Therefore, the Project would have no impact in this regard.
Page 34 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. BAAQMD has determined that greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and global climate change represent cumulative impacts. BAAQMD adopted a
threshold of significance for operational GHGs of 1,100 metric tons carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) per year or, if the project is too large to meet that threshold, an efficiency
threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2e per service population per year.
Similar to the analysis for Air Quality impacts (Section 3 of this document), the Project was
compared to BAAQMD screening criteria that identify project sizes by type that could have
the potential to result in emissions over criteria levels. As it relates to greenhouse gas
emissions, this table includes screening levels of 56 single family dwelling units.11 At 22
units, the Project would be below the screening size for a project of this type, and would
therefore be below threshold levels. The impact related to GHG emissions is less than
significant.
b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. The City adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan in 2014,
the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. This plan estimated community‐wide
GHG emissions of 548,600 metric tons CO2e in 2005 and a target reduction of 15% below the
2005 baseline levels.
Many of the Climate Action Plan’s reduction measures are targeted to city‐wide strategies
that are not directly applicable to the proposed Project. As a small infill residential project
located in an otherwise developed area, the Project would not substantially contribute to
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity or support of public transit or automobile dependence
(Measures 1.1 through 1.3), but would not conflict with these measures either. The Project
would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency (Measures 3.1 and 6.1), and
residents would participate in recycling for waste reduction (Measure 5.1). A discussion of
the Project in relation to the Clean Air Plan is included in Section 3: Air Quality.
11 BAAQMD, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, pp. 3‐2 to 3‐3.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 35
Additionally, GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project were analyzed per the
BAAQMD Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account
implementation of state‐wide regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan and
adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. Therefore, there
would be no impact in relation to consistency with GHG reduction plans.
Page 36 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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?
a‐d) Hazardous Materials. The Project site was fully assessed for hazardous materials under the
Prior MND, which found that the site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but that portions of the site were
filled in the 1960s, before there were regulatory requirements for the source and contents of
fill material and the potential exists for fill at the site to contain materials which would now
be classified as hazardous and could be released during construction activities. Since that
time, the site has been maintained as a vacant lot so conditions related to hazardous
materials would not have changed. The Project site is located approximately 450 feet
southwest of the Westborough Middle School, so is within the vicinity of a school. To
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 37
mitigate the potential for upset of hazardous materials during the construction period, the
revised Project shall implement the following measure:
Mitigation Measure
Haz‐1: Halting Work on Encountering Materials Believed to be Hazardous. In the
event that materials which are believed to be hazardous are encountered
during site preparation or excavation work, all such activity at the project site
shall be halted until the material in question has been evaluated by the South
San Francisco Fire Department and/or the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department. Prior to the resumption of work at the project site,
implementation of appropriate response measures and disposal methods in
accordance with applicable state and local regulations and as approved by
the Fire Department would reduce the impact to a level of less than
significant.
Additionally, it is likely that equipment used at the site during construction activities could
utilize substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and
gasoline. However, all construction activities would be required to conform with Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of
California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures, which would minimize the potential
for accidental release.
Potential impacts are confined to the temporary construction period. Once operational,
residential uses would not be considered a potential source for hazardous material use or
release. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz‐1 and conformance with
applicable regulations, the impact related to hazardous materials would be less than
significant with mitigation.
e, f) Airport Hazards. The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport, located
approximately 4 miles from the Project site. The Project site is within Airport Influence
Areas A and B of the October 2012 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs for
the San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP).12 The Project site is outside the constraints
related to heights and would not contain other incompatible flight hazards as described in
the ALUCP.13 There are no other airports, either public or private within the vicinity of the
Project. There would be no impact related to airport hazards.
g) Emergency Response Plan. The revised Project would not substantially alter traffic patterns
and would not impair implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the revised Project would have no impact in this
regard.
12 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, Exhibits IV‐1 and IV‐2.
13 Ibid, pages IV‐59 to IV‐60.
Page 38 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
h) Wildland Fire. The Project site is identified in the City’s General Plan (Figure 8‐4) as a Low
Priority Management Unit, which requires vegetation management to reduce potential fuel
for wildfires. Once developed, the site will likely be removed from the designation as a
Management Unit. At that point, the potential for wildlife fire would be considered low, as
the site is surrounded by other development and roadways, although the Fire Department
can establish additional conditions during their review prior to the issuance of construction
permits. Therefore, the revised Project would have a less than significant impact related to
wildland fire.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 39
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in
a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or
off‐site?
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems due to changes in
runoff flow rates or volumes?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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 hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a, e) Water Discharge Quality and Capacity
Construction Period
As noted in Section 6: Geology and Soils, the Applicant is required to file a SWPPP prior to
the start of construction to detail measures to control the level and quality of stormwater
during the construction period. Per standard procedures, compliance with SWPPP
Page 40 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
requirements will be verified during the construction permitting process. Therefore, the
revised Project’s potential to result in construction‐period impacts to runoff volume or
quality would be less than significant.
Operational Period
Federal Clean Water Act regulations require municipalities to obtain NPDES permits that
outline programs and activities to control surface stormwater pollution. Municipalities, such
as the City of South San Francisco, must eliminate or reduce ʺnon‐pointʺ pollution,
consisting of all types of substances generated as a result of urbanization (e.g. pesticides,
fertilizers, automobile fluids, sewage, litter, etc.), to the “maximum extent practicable” (as
required by Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii)). Clean Water Act Section 402(p) and
U.S. EPA regulations (40 CFR 122.26) specify a municipal program of “best management
practices” to control stormwater pollutants. Best Management Practices (BMP) refers to any
kind of procedure or device designed to minimize the quantity of pollutants that enter the
storm drain system. To comply with these regulations, each incorporated city and town in
San Mateo County joined with the County of San Mateo to form the San Mateo County
Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) in applying for a regional NPDES
permit.14
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted a Municipal Regional Permit
(MRP) on October 14, 2009 as the NPDES permit for all Bay Area municipalities, which
includes Provision C.3. The C.3 requirements are intended to protect water quality by
minimizing pollutants in runoff, and to prevent downstream erosion by: designing each
project site to minimize imperviousness, detain runoff, and infiltrate runoff where feasible;
treating runoff prior to discharge from the site; ensuring runoff does not exceed pre‐project
peaks and durations; and maintaining treatment facilities. Project applicants must prepare
and implement a Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment and source control
measures that meet the “maximum extent practicable” standard as specified in the NPDES
permit and the SMCWPPP C.3 Guidebook. Project applicants must also prepare a
Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to ensure the
stormwater treatment and flow‐control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.
The site is currently entirely pervious surfaces (100% of the site). The revised Project would
reduce the pervious surfaces by approximately 1.45 acres, resulting in pervious surfaces on
approximately 70% of the site. Runoff generated at the site will be directed to bioretention
areas where water will be naturally slowed and filtered prior to entering the storm drainage
system. The revised Project will be required to submit preliminary stormwater treatment
plans and C.3 worksheets demonstrating the change in impervious area at the site and
appropriateness of stormwater system elements.
14 Regional Water Board, 2007, Order No. R2‐2007‐0027, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 41
Through compliance with post‐construction requirements related to implementation of the
NPDES permit C.3 requirements, including Project preparation and implementation of a
Stormwater Control Plan and Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan, the
long‐term volume of water and water quality impacts from Project operation would be less
than significant.
b) Groundwater Recharge and Supplies. The Project site and surrounding area are connected
to the municipal water supply and groundwater at the site is not used directly by this or
other properties as a water supply. Additionally, the revised Project would comply with
stormwater drainage requirements (see item “a, e” above), including permeable bioretention
areas. The revised Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge, and would have a less than significant impact
related to groundwater.
c, d) Drainage Pattern Alteration. As discussed under item “a, e” above, the revised Project will
increase impervious site area and slow and treat runoff with bioretention areas prior to
discharge into the storm drainage system. Through compliance with applicable regulations,
the runoff from the site will be the same or reduced from that existing and will not cause
erosion, siltation, or flooding. Project impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns
would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality. Construction‐related and post‐construction
water quality are discussed under item “a, e” above and the revised Project does not
otherwise degrade water quality (less than significant).
g‐j) Flooding and Inundation. The revised Project is not located in a 100‐year flood zone15 so
would have no impact related to flood zones.
The Project site is located at elevations of over 500 feet and is not located downhill from a
dam or large body of water and is therefore not considered to have substantial risk for
inundation from tsunami, seiche, levee or dam failure or mudflow.16 Therefore, there would
be no impact related to inundation.
15 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), October 15, 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM),
Countywide map, Panel 06081C0039E (unprinted), accessed at https://msc.fema.gov/portal.
16 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October
1999, as amended, page 250.
Page 42 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
a) Physical Division of a Community. The revised Project involves residential development of
an infill residential lot surrounded by existing development and roadways and would not
have the potential to divide the established community. (No Impact)
b) Conflict with Land Use Plan. Development of the revised Project would be generally
compatible with existing surrounding land uses. The development would exceed the
allowable density for the existing RL‐8 zoning designation without averaging among the
site’s parcels, therefore the Project applicant is requesting a Planned Development
designation. With approval of the Planned Development designation, the revised Project
would be consistent with the zoning and General Plan designation at the site. The potential
for the revised Project as proposed to result in environmental impacts is assessed
throughout this document. While the City will make determinations regarding consistency
with all their policies and regulations, the revised Project would have no impact with regard
to land use plan conflicts related to environmental effects.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan. The revised Project site is not subject to a conservation
plan. It is an infill site surrounded by urban development and roadways. The revised Project
would, therefore, have no impact under this item.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 43
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
a, b) Mineral Resources. No known mineral resources are located on the site according to the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Data System.17 The City’s
General Plan does not identify mineral resources within City limits. The revised Project
would have no impact with regard to mineral resources.
17 US Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System, publication date 2005, edition 20120127, accessed at
http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/.
Page 44 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
12. NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a‐d) Excessive Noise or Vibration.
Construction Noise
Construction activities generate noise. Ambient and maximum intermittent noise levels
would increase throughout the period when the Project builds out. The South San Francisco
Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section 8.32.050) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also
limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the
property line. Construction activities will comply with the Noise Ordinance. Additionally,
the revised Project is relatively small, and construction activities involving noisy machinery
are not expected to span more than one construction season.
Groundborne noise and vibration can result from heavy construction practices utilizing pile
drivers or hoe‐rams. No such activities are planned for construction of the revised Project.
Construction truck traffic traveling at low speed (25 mph or less) would access the site via
Oakmont Drive, Shannon Drive, and Shannon Court Park, where residential structures are
within about 25 feet of the roadways. Groundborne vibration from a loaded truck at low
speed would be less than 0.08 in/sec Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 45
(Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of
Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May
2006). Vibration levels may be intermittently perceptible, but would be well below a level of
0.30 in/sec PPV that could cause damage to normal structures.
With standard construction practices and hours, consistent with City regulations, impacts
from noise and vibration generated by construction of the revised Project would be less
than significant.
Operational Noise
Operation of residential properties does not produce substantial levels of vibration or noise.
Traffic‐related noise impacts generally occur with at least a doubling of traffic volumes on
roadways adjacent to areas already at or above acceptable noise conditions. As detailed in
the Transportation Assessment (Attachment B), the net new traffic would be well below a
doubling of volumes on area roadways. Therefore, impacts related to noise and vibration
during operation would be less than significant.
While the future residents of the revised Project would be considered sensitive receptors for
noise, the effects of the environment on a project are not considered a CEQA impact (which
is focused to the effects of a project on the environment, and not the reverse).18 The
following is included for informational purposes:
The ambient noise environment at the Project site is primarily affected by traffic nose and is
anticipated to be approximately 60 to 65 dBA, which is considered acceptable for residential
uses. 19
e, f) Airport Noise. The revised Project is unrelated to airport operation and would not result in
changes or increases in airport noise that could affect others. The revised Project would have
no impact related to airport noise.
As noted above, the effects of the environment on a project are not considered
environmental impacts under CEQA, and the following is included for informational
purposes. The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport, located
approximately 4 miles from the Project site. The Project site is within Airport Influence
Areas A and B of the October 2012 ALUCP for the Environs for the San Francisco
International Airport, but is not within the area impacted by airplane flyover noise.20 There
are no other airports, either public or private within the vicinity of the Project.
18 California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, Case No.
S213478.
19 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October
1999, as amended, Table 9.2‐1 and Figure 9‐2.
20 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, Exhibit IV‐6.
Page 46 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Substantial Population Growth. The revised Project would increase the number of previously
proposed housing units from 19 to 22, with a correlated increase in population from
approximately 59 to 70 residents.21 With approval of the Planned Development designation,
the proposed development is consistent with site zoning and the site’s land use designation
and would be within the population growth assumed in the General Plan. As an infill
project surrounded by developed properties and roadways, the revised Project would not
indirectly induce additional population growth. Therefore, the impact in relation to
inducement of substantial population growth would be a less than significant.
b‐c) Displacement of People or Housing. There is no housing or residents at the existing Project
site, which is currently vacant. The revised Project would displace neither existing housing
nor people. (No impact)
21 State Department of Finance, E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011‐
2018, indicates an average household size of 3.16 persons in South San Francisco in 2018.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 47
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public services? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fire protection.
b) Police protection.
c) Schools.
d) Parks.
e) Other public facilities.
a‐e) Public Services. The revised Project is located on a developed site within South San
Francisco that is already served by public services. The revised Project would add
population consistent with development assumptions under the General Plan, but the
minimal increases in demand for services expected with the population growth (see section
13), would be offset through payment of development fees and annual taxes, a portion of
which go toward ongoing provision of and improvements to public services. The revised
Project is not large enough to require the need for new or physically altered facilities to
address Project demand, and such demand is consistent with and would have been
assumed under the General Plan. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less
than significant.
Page 48 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
15. RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.
a‐b) Recreation. Development of the revised Project would result in an increase in the number
of previously proposed housing units from 19 to 22, with a correlated increase in additional
residents, from approximately 59 to 70 residents. The City’s Quimby Act Park dedication
ordinance requires three acres of park dedication for every 1,000 persons, which would
equate to 0.21 acres of park required for the revised Project. The revised Project includes a
private 1.79‐acre open space area to provide recreational opportunities to Project residents,
which greatly exceeds the Quimby Act park dedication ratio. A development impact fee
would additionally be assessed for the Project unless the on‐site open space area is
dedicated to the City as public park to meet the 0.21‐acre public park requirement. Increased
recreational demand of Project residents would be largely met through on‐site provisions
and contribution to public parks through in‐lieu fees, but in any case, would not be large
enough to substantially physically deteriorate existing parks or require the need for new or
physically expanded facilities to address Project demand. The construction of the on‐site
open space has been included in the environmental analysis of the revised Project. The
impact related to recreation would be considered less than significant.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 49
16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
a, b) Vehicle Circulation and Congestion. A revised transportation assessment was prepared by
W‐Trans (2018) to assess the potential for transportation impacts resulting from
development of the revised Project. The transportation assessment was used to complete
this section and is included as Attachment B to this document.
The revised Project would generate an average of 128 new trips daily, which is 27 fewer
than under the 2016 Project, with 10 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 11 new trips
during the p.m. peak hour (was 12 and 16 respectively under the 2016 Project). The reduced
amount of projected trips compared to the 2016 Project is due to lower trip generation of
townhouse units compared to single‐family detached units.
The City of South San Francisco has established the minimally acceptable LOS standard of D
or better at all intersections in the City. The Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard
Page 50 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
intersection is located on State Route 35, Skyline Boulevard, which is a facility in the
County’s Management Program (CMP) and included in the traffic assessment for this
Project. All study intersections were operating between LOS A and LOS D during the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours and would continue to do so with the addition of Project traffic (see
Table 5 in the traffic study included as Attachment A). The transportation assessment
therefore determined that, based on the addition of the revised Project generation trips to
current conditions, the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS and
impacts would be less than significant.
Alternate modes (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit) are discussed under item “f” below.
c) Air Traffic Patterns. The revised Project would not contain any features or characteristics
that would result in a change in air traffic patterns nor would any feature be of sufficient
height to affect air traffic. (No Impact.)
d) Hazards. At unsignalized intersections, a substantially clear line of sight should be
maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an
approaching vehicle. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either
cross, turn left, or turn right, without requiring the through traffic to radically alter their
speed.
Although sight distance requirements are not technically applicable to urban driveways,
sight distance along Oakmont Drive at the project driveway was evaluated based on sight
distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. The
recommended sight distance at a driveway is based on stopping sight distance, which uses
the approach travel speeds as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance.
Additionally, the stopping sight distance needed for a following driver to stop, if there is a
vehicle waiting to turn into a driveway, is evaluated based on stopping sight distance
criterion and the approach speed on the major street.
Based on a posted speed limit of 25 mph, the minimum stopping sight distance needed is
150 feet. Sight distance at the proposed driveway was field measured, and in both
directions there is not a clear line of sight due to on‐street parking on west side of Oakmont
Drive along the project frontage near the proposed driveway.
The design of the project would be required to meet all local design and construction
standards, and as such, would not otherwise have the potential to substantially increase
hazards due to a design feature.
Mitigation Measure
Traffic‐1: Sight Distance. To provide adequate sight lines at the project’s connection to
Oakmont Drive, parking shall be prohibited for at least 60 feet to the north of
the project driveway on the west side of Oakmont Drive and prohibited to
the south of the project driveway for at least 20 feet on the west side of
Oakmont Drive.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 51
With the proposed parking prohibitions on Oakmont Drive specified in Mitigation Measure
Traffic‐1 , stopping site distances would be consistent with design safety standards, and the
impact related to site hazards would be less than significant with mitigation.
e) Inadequate Emergency Access. For the residential units, access would be split between an
extension of Shannon Drive and via a new driveway on Oakmont Drive. Internally, there
would be a road connecting these two areas and access points though it would only serve as
an emergency vehicle access road. Emergency vehicles would be able to enter the site and
maneuver in the designated cul‐de‐sac or turnaround areas or could proceed through the
site along the emergency vehicle access road. The project would result in adequate
emergency access (no impact).
f) Alternative Modes. The assessment found that bicycle trips generated by the revised Project
would be adequately served by the existing dedicated Class II bicycle lanes along the
northern project frontage and Class III bicycle route on the west side of the Project frontage
on Oakmont Drive. The revised Project would also be adequately served by existing transit
facilities and would adhere to the General Plan’s Guiding Policy that alternative modes
should be encouraged. The site plan has a pedestrian path to and from the site to Oakmont
Drive near an existing SamTrans bus stop. Sidewalks are planned along the private
roadway, providing direct routes in and out of the development. As onsite roadways would
not be public streets, they would not be required to meet City of South San Francisco
standards requiring sidewalks on both sides of a minor street’s right‐of way although this is
recommended. The inclusion (or not) of additional sidewalks would not be an
environmental impact and would be negotiated between the City and the Applicant. The
revised Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to alternative modes.
Page 52 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
a‐g) Utilities. Development of the revised Project would add approximately 70 people to the
Project area (11 more than with the 2016 Project), resulting in a slightly increased demand
for utilities at the site. The increases would be incremental and remain a very small fraction
of city or area‐wide utility demand that is not expected to substantially contribute to any
exceedances of available capacity or requirement for new or expanded facilities. As infill
development generally consistent with site zoning and land use designation, the demand for
utilities at the site would have been accounted for in the General Plan and utility planning.
The impact on utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 53
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
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?
a) Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality. With the implementation of mitigation
measure Bio‐1 to protect nesting birds during construction, the revised Project would not
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, or threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community. The revised Project would not impact rare or
endangered wildlife species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
b) Cumulative Impacts. The revised Project would not result in adverse impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable, including effects for which project‐level
mitigation were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. All of these
potential effects would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures
identified in this document, including mitigation measures Air‐1 and Air‐2 to address
construction period dust and emissions, and would not contribute in considerable levels to
cumulative impacts.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings. The revised Project would not result in substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures Air‐1,
Air‐2, Haz‐1, and Traffic‐1 will minimize the potential for safety impacts related to
construction‐period emissions, disturbance of potentially hazardous undocumented fill, and
sight distance hazards, and the potential adverse effects on human beings would be less
than significant.
Page 54 Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
DOCUMENT PREPARERS
Lamphier–Gregory, Inc.
Rebecca Auld, Senior Planner
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
510.535.6690
City of South San Francisco
This document was prepared in consultation with Billy Gross, Senior Planner, City of South San
Francisco.
SOURCES
The following document sources are included as attachments with this document:
1. South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier‐Gregory, Oakmont Meadows Residential
Development Project, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, April 2016.
(Attachment A)
2. W‐Trans, Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment, September 27, 2018. (Attachment
B)
The document sources listed below are available for review at the City of South San Francisco.
3. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, June 2008. Responses to Geotechnical Peer Review
Comments, Oakmont Meadows Development, Westborough Unit 5, Parcel One, Southwest
Corner of Oakmont Drive and Westborough Boulevard, South San Francisco, California.
4. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, April 2008. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation,
Oakmont Meadows, Oakmont Drive and Westborough Boulevard, South San Francisco,
California.
5. Smith‐Emery Company, February 2007. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Westborough
Unit 5, Parcel 1, Proposed Oakmont Meadows, South San Francisco, California.
6. Earth Systems Consultants, December 2003. Supplemental Geologic Fault Study,
Westborough Unit 5, Parcel 1, “Proposed Oakmont Village,” Westborough Boulevard at
Oakmont Drive, South San Francisco, California.
7. Earth Systems Consultants, December 2000. Geologic Fault Study, Westborough Unit 5,
Parcel One, Proposed Oakmont Village, Westborough Boulevard & Oakmont Drive, South
San Francisco, California.
8. City of South San Francisco, prepared by PMC, February 2014. City of South San Francisco
Climate Action Plan.
9. City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General
Plan, adopted October 1999, as amended.
APPENDIX A:
2016 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Attachment to the October 2018 Recirculated IS/MND for the Revised
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OAKMONT MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Prepared for:
City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083-0711
PREPARED BY:
LAMPHIER – GREGORY
1944 EMBARCADERO
OAKLAND, CA 94606
APRIL 2016
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
Introduction to this Document ........................................................................................................................... 1
Prior Project and Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................... 1
Public Review ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Project Information ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Mitigated Negative Declaration ......................................................................................................................... 9
Potentially Significant Impacts Requiring Mitigation .................................................................................. 9
Proposed Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Initial Study Checklist ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................................... 14
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................... 15
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................................ 18
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 26
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 33
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 35
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 37
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................. 40
Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 41
Noise ............................................................................................................................................................ 42
Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................... 44
Public Services ............................................................................................................................................ 45
Recreation ................................................................................................................................................... 46
Transportation and Traffic ....................................................................................................................... 47
Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................... 49
Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................................... 50
Document Preparers ........................................................................................................................................... 51
Sources ................................................................................................................................................................. 51
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2: Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3: Preliminary Grading Plan .......................................................................................................... 18
ATTACHMENTS
Attachments are included on CD affixed to the back cover of printed copies of the document.
Attachment A: Oakmont Vistas/Storage USA Project, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment B: Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment
ii
This page intentionally left blank
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 1
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT
This document serves as the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project (“Project”). Per CEQA Guidelines (Section
15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet the requirements of CEQA
review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental effects, but
revisions in the project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
Introduction and Project Description. This section introduces the document and discusses
the project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and
contacts.
Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this
document as the CEQA review document for the proposed project.
Initial Study. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions
and identifies the potential for impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid these
impacts.
PRIOR PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Prior MND) for the Oakmont Vistas/Storage
USA Project (Prior Project) was adopted in 1999 for construction of a residential and mini‐
storage facility development on approximately 10 acres at the intersection of Oakmont Drive
and Westborough Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco (State Clearinghouse Number
1999072033). The Prior MND is hereby incorporated by reference and is included as Attachment
A to this document.
Three parcels comprised the Prior Project. The Prior Project proposed residential development
on a 5.19‐acre portion (Parcels 2 and 3) consisting of 33 single‐family homes known as Oakmont
Estates. The Oakmont Estates development has since been completed as proposed.
The remainder of the Prior Project, the 4.91‐acre Parcel 1, which is the current Project site, was
proposed for a five‐building mini‐storage development (with caretaker’s unit), totaling 110,770
square feet. The proposed mini‐storage development and associated rezone and General Plan
amendment for Parcel 1 was not approved and the parcel has remained undeveloped.
The development concept for Parcel 1 has changed since the Prior MND: mini‐storage is no
longer proposed, and instead, a 19‐unit residential development consistent with the existing
zoning and land use designation is currently proposed. The development proposal for the
current Project also incorporates updated fault setbacks, grading plans, and conformance with
Page 2 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
current storm water controls as described in greater detail in the following pages are addressed
in this document.
Due to the time that has passed and the change in the proposal for the Project site, the City of
South San Francisco has determined that a new Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is
the appropriate environmental document, rather than an addendum or supplemental document
to the Prior MND.
PUBLIC REVIEW
The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 30‐day
public review period. Written comments may be submitted to the following address:
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711
Email: Billy.Gross@ssf.net
Phone: 650.877.8535
Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the project
itself, which is a separate action to be taken by the approval body. Approval of the Project can
take place only after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 3
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
Requested approvals include Planned Development, Tentative Parcel Map, and Design Review.
LEAD AGENCY
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711
CONTACT PERSON
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083‐0711
Phone: 650.877.8535
PROJECT SPONSOR
John R. Hansen
Pacific States Capital Corp.
PO Box 7602
Menlo Park, CA 94026
Phone: 800.393.9781
PROJECT LOCATION
The 4.91‐acre Project site is on the southwest side of the intersection of Oakmont Drive and
Westborough Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco, California. The assessor’s parcel
number is 091‐151‐040. Figure 1 shows the project location.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and Low Density Residential (RL‐8)
Zoning District
EXISTING USES
The Project Site is currently vacant and is mowed annually for weed control and abatement.
Page 4 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Figure 1: Project Location
Source: The Paul Davis Partnership, undated
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 5
SURROUNDING LAND USES
Land uses adjacent to the Project site are primarily single‐family residential. Surrounding land
uses across Westborough Blvd consist of a commercial shopping center and medium‐density
residential. Westborough Middle School is located approximately 450 feet to the northeast of the
Project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Summary
The 4.91‐acre Project site is undeveloped land, adjacent to an existing residential development
known as Oakmont Estates, which was developed as part of the Prior Project.
The proposal includes lot subdivision and development of 7 attached townhomes and 12 single‐
family lots for single‐family residences. The current Shannon Park Court terminus at the
boundary of the Project site would be extended as a private road, Shannon Place, to provide
access to the 19 proposed dwelling units. The site plan is shown on Figure 2.
The Project proposes grading to be balanced on site to accommodate the proposed roadway,
building sites, and on‐site storm drainage system. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards will be
moved on site, with no soil intended to be brought to or from the site. The grading plan is shorn
on Figure 3.
The Project site is in the Low Density Residential (RL‐8) Zoning District, which is consistent
with the site’s Low Density Residential designation in the City’s General Plan. Requested
approvals include Planned Development, Tentative Parcel Map, and Design Review.
A known constraint on the Project site is the presence across the site of San Andreas fault traces.
Habitable structures are not permitted within the setback zones from the fault traces, though
roadways, open spaces, and detached garages are permitted within the fault zone setback areas.
These fault traces and required setback zones have been refined and incorporated into the
Project, as discussed in more detail in the Geology checklist Section 6.
A large portion of the site (3.41 acres) serves as a common area portion and would include
Shannon Place, guest parking areas, sidewalks, a private bocce ball court, a private grass play
area/open space, planted storm basins, and landscaping.
Page 6 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
This page intentionally left blank
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 7 Figure 2: Site Plan Source: The Paul Davis Partnership, dated 3/3/2015
Page 8 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Figure 3: Preliminary Grading Plan Source: Tronoff Engineers, dated 1/16/2013
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 9
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Oakmont Meadows Residential
Development Project. See the Introduction and Project Information section of this document for
details of the Project.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following is a list of potential Project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to
reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section
of this document for a more detailed discussion.
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Air Quality, Construction Emissions Impact: Construction of the Project would result in
emissions and fugitive dust. While the Project is below the size at which significant impacts
are anticipated, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommends
implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction‐related criteria
pollutant and fugitive dust emissions for all projects. These basic measures are included in
Mitigation Measure Air Quality‐1, below and would further reduce construction‐period
criteria pollutant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Air‐1: Standard Construction Best Management Practices. The contractor
shall implement the following BAAQMD recommended Best
Management Practices:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, 1.
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐2.
site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall 3.
be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least
once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 4.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be 5.
completed as soon as possible and feasible. Building pads shall be
laid as soon as possible and feasible, as well, after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off 6.
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5
Page 10 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers
at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly 7.
tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All
equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person 8.
to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This
person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Air Quality, Construction Exposure Impact: Construction activity would use diesel‐powered
equipment and therefore results in the emission of diesel particulate matter including fine
particulate matter, which are considered toxic air contaminants and a potential health risk.
While the proposed construction activates would less than that which generally could result
in significant health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, due to the proximity of residences
and students to the Project site, potential health risks due to construction‐period emissions
impacts would be minimized through implementation of construction management practices
detailed in Mitigation Measure Air Quality‐2.
Mitigation Measure
Air‐2: Construction Emissions Minimization Practices. The project shall
demonstrate compliance with the following Construction Emissions
Minimization Practices prior to issuance of demolition, building or
grading permits:
1. All off‐road equipment greater than 25 horse power (hp) and
operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of
construction activities shall meet the following requirements:
a) Where access to alternative sources of power are available,
portable diesel engines shall be prohibited;
b) All off‐road equipment shall have:
i. Engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or California Air
Resources Board (ARB) Tier 2 off‐road emission
standards, and
ii. Engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 11
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).
c) Exceptions:
i. Exceptions to 1(a) may be granted if the project sponsor
has submitted information providing evidence to the
satisfaction of the City that an alternative source of power
is limited or infeasible at the project site and that the
requirements of this exception provision apply.
ii. Exceptions to 1(b)(ii) may be granted if the project sponsor
has submitted information providing evidence to the
satisfaction of the City that a particular piece of off‐road
equipment with an ARB Level 3 VDECS is: (1) technically
not feasible, (2) would not produce desired emissions
reductions due to expected operating modes, (3) installing
the control device would create a safety hazard or
impaired visibility for the operator, or (4) there is a
compelling emergency need to use off‐road equipment
that are not retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 VDECS and
the sponsor has submitted documentation to the City that
the requirements of this exception provision apply. If
granted an exception to 1(b)(ii), the project sponsor must
comply with the requirements of 1(c)(iii).
iii. If an exception is granted pursuant to 1(c)(ii), the project
sponsor shall provide the next cleanest piece of off‐road
equipment, including a Tier 2 engine standard and the
following emissions control/alternative fuel in order of
preference if available: 1) ARB Level 2 VDECS, 2) ARB
Level 2 VDECS, or 3) Alternative Fuel.
Biological Impact: Trees on the Project site or in the vicinity could host the nests of common
birds such as house finch, American robin, northern mockingbird, European starling, and/or
Brewer’s blackbird. These species are locally and regionally abundant, and Project effects on
these species would be minimal or nil. However, nearly all native birds are protected under
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code, so the
following mitigation would be applicable to prevent a “take” of these species under these
regulations related to disturbance during nesting.
Mitigation Measure
Bio‐1: Nesting Birds. If construction occurs during the breeding season
(February through August), the site and a surrounding radius of not
less than 0.5 miles shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify
Page 12 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
the presence or absence of nesting birds protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code.
Pre‐construction surveys shall be conducted within 15 days prior to
start of work and shall be submitted to the Building Division. If the
survey indicates the potential presences of nesting birds, the applicant
shall comply with recommendations of the biologist regarding an
appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be
allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest
buffer will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its
sensitivity to disturbance.
Hazardous Materials Impact: The Project is not included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but portions of the site were
filled in the 1960s, before there were regulatory requirements for the source and contents of
fill material and the potential exists for fill at the site to contain materials which would now
be classified as hazardous and could be released during construction activities. To mitigate
the potential for upset of hazardous materials during the construction period, the Project
shall implement the following measure:
Mitigation Measure
Haz‐1: Halting Work on Encountering Materials Believed to be
Hazardous. In the event that materials which are believed to be
hazardous are encountered during site preparation or excavation
work, all such activity at the project site shall be halted until the
material in question has been evaluated by the South San Francisco
Fire Department and/or the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department. Prior to the resumption of work at the project site,
implementation of appropriate response measures and disposal
methods in accordance with applicable state and local regulations and
as approved by the Fire Department would reduce the impact to a
level of less than significant.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 13
PROPOSED FINDINGS
On the basis of this evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures to reduce these impacts will be required of the project. 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 the proposed project MAY have a ʺpotentially significant impactʺ or
ʺpotentially significant unless mitigatedʺ impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
April 25, 2016
Signature Date
Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner
Page 14 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project are listed by topic below. Factors
marked with an “X” () were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at
least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the Checklist on the
following pages. Unmarked factors () were determined to not be significantly affected by the
Project or reduced to a level of less than significant through mitigation, based on discussion
provided in the Checklist.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 15
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins on the following page, with explanations of
each CEQA issue topic. Four outcomes are possible, as explained below.
1. A “no impact” response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the
environment would occur due to the Project.
2. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an
environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other
features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of
“less than significant.”
3. Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be “less than significant with
mitigation” indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will
be required as a condition of Project approval in order to effectively reduce potential
Project‐related environmental effects to a level of “less than significant.”
4. A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that further analysis is required to
determine the extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. If any
topics are indicated with a “potentially significant impact,” these topics would need to be
analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report.
Note that this document does not indicate that any environmental topics would be considered
to be “potentially significant” after application of mitigation measures identified in this
document.
Page 16 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a‐c) Scenic Vistas, Resources, Visual Character. Both I‐280 and CA‐1 are designated or eligible
State Scenic Highways through South San Francisco. However, the Project site is located
approximately 3,600 feet and 7,700 feet from these highways and would not generally be
visible in views from these highways due to intervening topography and trees/structures.
The City’s General Plan does not further identify scenic roadways or scenic vistas.1, 2
The Project would be visible from nearby properties and those at higher vantage points, but
a residential use as proposed is consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood. (Such a determination under CEQA does not preclude the City from
considering specifics of design during design review.)
Again due to the Project location and relative topography and existing trees/structures in the
vicinity, the Project would not substantially change the views of nearby properties toward
regional features such as the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay, or the local landmark of
Sign Hill. A change to private views would not generally be considered an environmental
impact under CEQA in any case.
Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to scenic vistas,
scenic resources, and visual character.
1 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm
2 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October
1999, as amended.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 17
d) Light and Glare. The Project proposes residential development generally consistent with
surrounding properties and would comply with City regulations regarding lighting that will
ensure glare is minimized and light levels are limited to those expected in residential
developments and existing in the surrounding developed area.3 The Project’s impact related
to light and glare is less than significant.
3 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code, including sections 20.300.008.
Page 18 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
a‐e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Project site is located in an urban area on a lot
designated for residential development. No part of the site is zoned for or currently being
used for agricultural or forestry purposes or is subject to the Williamson Act. There would
be no impact to agricultural and forestry resources as a result of this Project.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 19
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Air Quality Plan. The Project site is subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, first adopted by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (in association with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments) in
1991 and last updated in September 2010, called the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The plan
is meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting ozone standards, but also As a project
consistent with local land use designations and zoning, the Project would be consistent with
growth and vehicle miles assumptions in the Clean Air Plan.
BAAQMD additionally recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air
quality plan control measures. The impact would be significant if the Project would conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan, in this case, the 2010 Clean
Air Plan.
Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area‐wide improvements,
large stationary source reductions, or large employers, and these are not directly applicable
to the proposed Project. However, the Project would meet current standards of energy
efficiency (Energy and Climate Measure 1) and does not conflict with applicable control
measures aimed at improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians
(Transportation Control Measures D‐1 and D‐2) though, being a small infill residential
project located in an otherwise developed area, does not substantially contribute to
connectivity either.
Therefore, there would be no impact in relation to inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan.
Page 20 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
b‐c) Air Quality Standards/Criteria Pollutants. Ambient air quality standards have been
established by state and federal environmental agencies for specific air pollutants most
pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria air pollutants
because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific health and
welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and include ozone precursors (NOx and
ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The Bay
Area is considered “attainment” for all of the national standards, with the exception of
ozone. It is considered “nonattainment” for State standards for ozone and particulate
matter.
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality
impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative
impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient
air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing
cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the
cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be
considered significant.4 Emissions from operation of the Project could cumulatively
contribute to air pollutant levels in the region.
The Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and therefore under the
jurisdiction of BAAQMD. BAAQMD publishes a document titled California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (“BAAQMD Guidelines”), which provides guidance for
consideration by lead agencies, consultants, and other parties evaluating air quality impacts
in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin conducted pursuant to CEQA. The document
provides guidance on evaluating air quality impacts of development projects and local
plans, determining whether an impact is significant, and mitigating significant air quality
impacts.
BAAQMD updated these Guidelines in coordination with adoption of new thresholds of
significance on June 2, 2010.5 The most recent version of the Guidelines are dated May 2012
(though the May 2011 version includes the updated thresholds and screening levels).
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were the subject of a court case ultimately decided by the
California Supreme Court (CBIA vs BAAQMD, Case No. S213478, filed December 17, 2015).
The decision is expected to lead to revision or removal of thresholds that are based on the
effect of the environment on a project (as opposed to the effect of a project on the
environment). BAAQMD has yet to revise/reissue updated thresholds or guidelines
following this decision.
4 BAAQMD, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2‐1.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2, 2010. News Release
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News%20Releases/2010/
ceqa_100602.ashx .
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 21
Consistent with what is being done in many other jurisdictions, the analysis in this
document is based upon guidance from the updated BAAQMD Guidelines (as opposed to
the previous 1999 version), as the newer thresholds are more conservative and based upon
current regulations, scientific understanding and methodologies and therefore considered
the most appropriate for a conservative CEQA analysis.
Construction Emissions
BAAQMD presents screening criteria in their Guidelines that identify project sizes by type
that could have the potential to result in emissions over criteria levels. The Project is well
below BAAQMD’s construction‐period criteria pollutant screening size of 114 single‐family
dwelling units and therefore is not anticipated to result in emissions of criteria pollutants
over threshold levels during construction.6 The impact related to construction‐period air
quality emissions is less than significant.
However, BAAQMD recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to
reduce construction‐related criteria pollutant and fugitive dust emissions for all projects,
regardless of the significance level of construction‐period impacts. These basic measures are
included in Mitigation Measure Air‐1, below and would further reduce construction‐period
criteria pollutant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Air‐1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate
proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating
procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits,
including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures”.
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site
shall be covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011,
Table 3‐1.
Page 22 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required
by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Mitigation Measure Air‐1 would further reduce less than significant construction‐period
criteria pollutant impacts. Because construction‐period emissions do not exceed applicable
criteria pollutant significance thresholds, additional construction mitigation measures
would not be required to mitigate impacts.
Operational Emissions
Similar to the analysis for construction‐period impacts above, the Project was compared to
BAAQMD screening criteria for operational pollutants. The Project is well below
BAAQMD’s operational criteria pollutant screening size of 325 single‐family dwelling units
and therefore not anticipated to result in emissions of criteria pollutants over threshold
levels during operations.7 Therefore, operation of the Project would have a less‐than‐
significant impact on regional air quality.
Additionally, because carbon monoxide hot spots can occur near heavily traveled and
delayed intersections, BAAQMD presents traffic‐based criteria as screening criteria for
carbon monoxide impacts. As operation of the proposed Project would not result in any
significantly affected intersections (see section 15 Transportation and Traffic for additional
details), the Project would be below carbon monoxide threshold levels.
Therefore, the Project impact related to operational pollutant emissions would be less than
significant.
d) Sensitive Receptors. For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on exposure
of sensitive receptors to risks and hazards, the threshold of significance is exceeded when
the Project‐specific cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million, the non‐cancer risk exceeds a
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011,
Table 3‐1.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 23
Hazard Index of 1.0 (or cumulative risk of 100 in one million or a Hazard Index of 10.0
respectively is exceeded), and/or the annual average PM2.5 concentration would exceed 0.3
μg/m3 (or 0.8 μg/m3 cumulatively). Examples of sensitive receptors are places where people
live, play or convalesce and include schools, hospitals, residential areas and recreation
facilities.
Construction‐Period Health Risks
The Project site is located adjacent to existing residential uses and approximately 450 feet
southwest of the Westborough Middle School. Residents and students are considered
sensitive uses. Construction‐period TAC emissions could contribute to increased health
risks to nearby residents and students from TACs. While BAAQMD does not provide a
screening level to determine projects that are small enough that they can be assumed to be
below significance thresholds, significant impacts in this regard are not usually seen unless
residential projects include about 200 dwelling units or more. Additionally, the modeling to
quantify health risks was not originally intended for emissions periods spanning less than 7
years and is not recommended by any agency for use for less than a 2 year period.
Therefore, due to the small size of the Project and relatively low potential for impacts to
nearby sensitive users, similar to the approach for construction‐period criteria pollutants,
potential health risks due to construction‐period emissions impacts shall be minimized
through implementation of construction management practices.
Mitigation Measure
Air‐2: Construction Emissions Minimization Practices. The project shall
demonstrate compliance with the following Construction Emissions
Minimization Practices prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading
permits:
1. All off‐road equipment greater than 25 horse power (hp) and operating
for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction
activities shall meet the following requirements:
a) Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable
diesel engines shall be prohibited;
b) All off‐road equipment shall have:
i. Engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 2
off‐road emission standards, and
ii. Engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 Verified Diesel
Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).
c) Exceptions:
Page 24 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
i. Exceptions to 1(a) may be granted if the project sponsor has
submitted information providing evidence to the satisfaction of
the City that an alternative source of power is limited or infeasible
at the project site and that the requirements of this exception
provision apply.
ii. Exceptions to 1(b)(ii) may be granted if the project sponsor has
submitted information providing evidence to the satisfaction of
the City that a particular piece of off‐road equipment with an ARB
Level 3 VDECS is: (1) technically not feasible, (2) would not
produce desired emissions reductions due to expected operating
modes, (3) installing the control device would create a safety
hazard or impaired visibility for the operator, or (4) there is a
compelling emergency need to use off‐road equipment that are
not retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 VDECS and the sponsor has
submitted documentation to the City that the requirements of this
exception provision apply. If granted an exception to 1(b)(ii), the
project sponsor must comply with the requirements of 1(c)(iii).
iii. If an exception is granted pursuant to 1(c)(ii), the project sponsor
shall provide the next cleanest piece of off‐road equipment,
including a Tier 2 engine standard and the following emissions
control/alternative fuel in order of preference if available: 1) ARB
Level 2 VDECS, 2) ARB Level 2 VDECS, or 3) Alternative Fuel.
Mitigation measure Air‐2 would ensure construction‐period health risk impacts remain at a
level of less than significant with mitigation.
Operational Health Risks
The Project, as a residential development, would not be considered a significant source of
operational TACs.
While the future residents of the proposed Project would be considered sensitive receptors,
the effects of the environment on a project are not considered a CEQA impact (which is
focused to the effects of a project on the environment, and not the reverse).8 The following is
included for informational purposes:
BAAQMD’s recommends consulting screening tools to identify whether any substantial
TAC sources are located within 1,000 feet of the project.
BAAQMD’s county‐specific Google Earth Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool
indicates there are no stationary sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the Project site.
8 California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, Case No.
S213478.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 25
BAAQMD’s county‐specific Google Earth Highway Screening Analysis Tool indicates
there is one highway within 1,000 feet of the Project site:
o CA‐35 (Skyline Boulevard), at over 500 feet from the Project site, has a screening
level cancer risk of 0.83 in one million, a Hazard Index of 0.001 to 0.002, and an
annual average PM2.5 concentration of 0.014 μg/m3. These are well below
BAAQMD’s indicated threshold levels.
There are no substantial sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the Project, so it can be
assumed future residents would not be subjected to levels of TACs above screening levels.
As noted above, this is presented as an informational item.
e) Objectionable Odors. As a residential development, operation of the Project would not be a
source of objectionable odors. During construction, diesel‐powered vehicles and equipment
would create odors that some may find objectionable. However, these odors would be
temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project site’s boundaries.
Therefore, the potential for objectionable odor impacts is considered less than significant.
Page 26 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
a, b) Special Status Species and Habitat. The Project site was fully assessed for biological
resources and habitat under the Prior MND, which found no special‐status species or
habitat at the Project site except for a small patch of remnant native grassland surrounded
by non‐native grassland, that was not considered a substantial community or significant
impact for its removal. Since that time, the site has been maintained as a vacant lot with
non‐native grassland and landscaping maintained and weeded regularly to avoid invasive
species. Additionally, the City’s General Plan does not include the Project site on maps or
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 27
lists or locations with biological resources.9 The Project would result in the removal of non‐
native grasslands and landscaping, which are not a special status species or habitat.
Existing trees at the Project site, which are not special‐status, are potentially covered under
the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.30), depending on size
and type of tree. While the Project proposes retention of most trees at the site as well as
additional trees to be planted per the landscaping plan, any trees to be removed would
require issuance by the City of a Tree Removal Permit. Compliance with this process will
ensure the Project does not result in conflict with the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Additionally, trees on the Project site or in the vicinity could host the nests of common
birds such as house finch, American robin, northern mockingbird, European starling,
and/or Brewer’s blackbird. These species are locally and regionally abundant, and Project
effects on these species would be minimal or nil. However, nearly all native birds are
protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife
Code, so the following mitigation would be applicable to prevent a “take” of these species
under these regulations related to disturbance during nesting.
Mitigation Measure
Bio‐1: Nesting Birds. If construction occurs during the breeding season (February
through August), the site and a surrounding radius of not less than 0.5 miles
shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of
nesting birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
California Fish and Wildlife Code. Pre‐construction surveys shall be
conducted within 15 days prior to start of work and shall be submitted to the
Building Division. If the survey indicates the potential presences of nesting
birds, the applicant shall comply with recommendations of the biologist
regarding an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work
will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest
buffer will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity
to disturbance.
As noted above, there are no other special‐status species with the potential to be
significantly impacted by the Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio‐1, the
impact related to special‐status species and habitats would be less than significant with
mitigation.
c) Wetlands. The Project site was fully assessed for biological resources and habitat under the
Prior MND, which found no wetlands at the Project site. Since that time, the site has been
maintained as a vacant lot with non‐native grassland and landscaping maintained and
weeded regularly so conditions related to wetlands would not have changed and the Project
would have no impact related to wetlands.
9 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October
1999, as amended, Section 7.1. Habitat and Biological Resources.
Page 28 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
d) Wildlife Corridors. The Project site is surrounded by roadways and other developed areas
and does not have the potential to act as a substantial wildlife corridor. The Project would
have a less than significant impact related to movement of wildlife.
e, f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Conservation Plans. The Project site is not subject to any
habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans and thus would not conflict
with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As noted under items
“a, b” above, the Project would comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and
therefore not cause a conflict with local policies. There are no other local policies applicable
to the proposed Project. There would be no impact.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 29
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Public Resources Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
a) Historic Resources. There are no existing structures at the site. The Project would have no
impact related to historic resources.
b, c) Archaeological/Paleontological Resources/Human Remains. The Project site was fully
assessed for cultural resources under the Prior MND, which found no known cultural,
Native American, or archaeological resources at the site but recommended measures to
address the unexpected discovery of such resources during ground‐disturbing construction
activities. These measures are covered under current regulations, as outlined below.
If Native American, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered on site,
these resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5(c), which calls on lead
agencies to refer to the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, or
Section 21084.1 if the archaeological site is determined to be a historical resource. This is
standard procedure for any project in California, so the impact is considered less than
significant.
d) Human Remains. There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the
proposed Project. If human remains are found during construction activities at the Project
site, they will be handled according to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code or, if the
remains are Native American, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code as per CEQA
Section 15064.5(d). This is standard procedure for any project in California, so the impact is
considered less than significant.
Page 30 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐
or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
a‐ d) Geologic Hazards. According to the currently‐adopted CEQA Guidelines, exposure of
people or structures to major geological hazards is considered a significant adverse impact.
Per the California Supreme Court CBIA vs BAAQMD decision (Case No. S213478, decided
December 17, 2015), the scope of CEQA analyses should be limited to the effect of the
environment on a project (as opposed to the effect of a project on the environment).
Therefore, thresholds related to geological and seismic risks are limited to whether or not a
project will exacerbate existing seismic risks. “Induced seismicity” is the term for
earthquakes caused by human activity, and while the mechanisms have been scientifically
proven, all suspected forms of induced seismicity involve substantial increase or loss of
mass in an area, such as through the creation of artificial lakes through dam construction,
large‐scale removal of coal from mining, large‐scale extraction of oil deposits or
groundwater reserves, or large‐scale liquid injection for waste disposal or hydraulic
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 31
fracturing. The Project is a substantially smaller scale than these types of projects and would
not have the potential to result in induced seismicity.
The Project’s potential geological hazards impacts under CEQA therefore are focused to
those that could impact biological or hydrological resources or nearby properties (such as
through erosion, creation of unstable slopes, or inadequate septic systems), and not those
that could affect future residents or structures at the Project site. Additional discussion of
non‐CEQA topics are also included below as informational items.
Note that information in this section is based on a series of geotechnical reports and fault
evaluations, as fully detailed in the sources section at the end of this document, including
the most recent Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants report in 2008.
Unstable Soil/Seismically‐Induced Landslides
The preliminary grading plan for the Project includes cut slopes across much of the site
which would expose fill materials, and fill slopes which would have a height of
approximately nine feet near the southeastern corner of the site. As a result, the geotechnical
report contains specific recommendations for the grading plan to ensure support along cut
and fill slopes where grading could remove existing toe support or affect the stability of the
planned fill slopes. The final detailed project plans are required to incorporate the
recommendations in the geotechnical report to avoid or reduce the potential impacts related
to slope instability on the site. Per standard procedures, compliance with design‐level
recommendations will be verified during the construction permitting process.
The report concluded that grading in accordance with the recommendation would reduce
the risk of seismically induced landslides to low. Therefore, the Project’s potential to result
in unstable soils that could impact existing people and structures is less than significant.
Erosion
Grading and construction activities will expose soil to the elements, which would be subject
to erosion during storm events. Implementation of a construction‐period stormwater plan
will mitigate the potential for erosion and loss of top soil.
In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), the Applicant is required to file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the
General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction General Permit, 99‐08‐DWQ). Per standard procedures, compliance with
SWPPP requirements will be verified during the construction permitting process. Therefore,
the Project’s potential to result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil is less than significant
through compliance with SWPPP requirements.
Page 32 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Informational Items
As noted above, CEQA does not require an agency to consider the impact of existing
conditions on future project users. Therefore, the following discussion is included for
informational purposes and is not related to CEQA impacts.
The site is situated within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and three active traces of
the San Andreas Fault are on the site. The main trace lies beneath the fill in the center of the
site; two other traces lie on either side of the main trace. The location of fault traces on the
site have been explored in a series of technical studies and earthquake setback zones
incorporated into the Project per applicable regulations. Within the fault zone, surface
rupture could result in displacement of more than 10 feet. The risk of major faulting‐
induced displacement outside of the setback zones is considered low. All habitable
structures are located outside of the setback zone. As allowable under applicable
regulations, non‐habitable detached garages, park and open space areas, and infrastructure
including roadways, are located within the setback zone.
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region and the Project, along with the
region as a whole, is likely to experience strong seismic ground shaking during its lifetime.
A moderate to major earthquake on the San Andreas fault or a major earthquake on other
regional faults including the Hayward, Calaveras, or Seal Cove faults would likely cause
severe ground shaking on the Project site that could damage structures and infrastructure.
A geotechnical report was prepared for the proposed Project that contains specific
recommendations to the seismic parameters for design of the proposed structures (e.g.,
related to foundations and soft‐story conditions) and utilities. The report concluded that the
risk of liquefaction, ground subsidence, landslides at the site is are low. Based on site soil
analysis, this report included specific recommendations for construction of structures and
infrastructure. These recommendations will be updated to reflect the current Project plans
as recommendations were made based on a previous version. In addition to designing the
Project in accordance with the current standards set forth in the California Building Code,
the Project design and construction shall incorporate the recommendations in the
geotechnical report to avoid or reduce the geotechnical hazards to structures and utilities on
the site. Per standard procedures, compliance with design‐level recommendations will be
verified during the construction permitting process.
e) Septic Tanks. The Project would not include the use of septic tanks and associated disposal
facilities. Therefore, the Project would have no impact in this regard.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 33
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. BAAQMD has determined that greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and global climate change represent cumulative impacts. BAAQMD adopted a
threshold of significance for operational GHGs of 1,100 metric tons carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) per year or, if the project is too large to meet that threshold, an efficiency
threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2e per service population per year.
Similar to the analysis for Air Quality impacts (Section 3 of this document), the Project was
compared to BAAQMD screening criteria that identify project sizes by type that could have
the potential to result in emissions over criteria levels. As it relates to greenhouse gas
emissions, this table includes screening levels of 56 single family dwelling units.10 At 19
units, the Project would be below the screening size for a project of this type, and would
therefore be below threshold levels. The impact related to GHG emissions is less than
significant.
b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. The City adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan in 2014,
the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. This plan estimated community‐wide
GHG emissions of 548,600 metric tons CO2e in 2005 and a target reduction of 15% below the
2005 baseline levels.
Many of the Climate Action Plan’s reduction measures are targeted to city‐wide strategies
that are not directly applicable to the proposed Project. As a small infill residential project
located in an otherwise developed area, the Project would not substantially contribute to
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity or support of public transit or automobile dependence
(Measures 1.1 through 1.3), but would not conflict with these measures either. The Project
would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency (Measures 3.1 and 6.1), and
residents would participate in recycling for waste reduction (Measure 5.1). A discussion of
the Project in relation to the Clean Air Plan is included in Section 3: Air Quality.
10 BAAQMD, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, pp. 3‐2 to 3‐3.
Page 34 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Additionally, GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project were analyzed per the
BAAQMD Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account
implementation of state‐wide regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan and
adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. Therefore, there
would be no impact in relation to consistency with GHG reduction plans.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 35
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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?
a‐d) Hazardous Materials. The Project site was fully assessed for hazardous materials under the
Prior MND, which found that the site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but that portions of the site were
filled in the 1960s, before there were regulatory requirements for the source and contents of
fill material and the potential exists for fill at the site to contain materials which would now
be classified as hazardous and could be released during construction activities. Since that
time, the site has been maintained as a vacant lot so conditions related to hazardous
materials would not have changed. The Project site is located approximately 450 feet
southwest of the Westborough Middle School, so is within the vicinity of a school. To
Page 36 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
mitigate the potential for upset of hazardous materials during the construction period, the
Project shall implement the following measure:
Mitigation Measure
Haz‐1: Halting Work on Encountering Materials Believed to be Hazardous. In the
event that materials which are believed to be hazardous are encountered
during site preparation or excavation work, all such activity at the project site
shall be halted until the material in question has been evaluated by the South
San Francisco Fire Department and/or the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department. Prior to the resumption of work at the project site,
implementation of appropriate response measures and disposal methods in
accordance with applicable state and local regulations and as approved by
the Fire Department would reduce the impact to a level of less than
significant.
Additionally, it is likely that equipment used at the site during construction activities could
utilize substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and
gasoline. However, all construction activities would be required to conform with Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of
California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures, which would minimize the potential
for accidental release.
Potential impacts are confined to the temporary construction period. Once operational,
residential uses would not be considered a potential source for hazardous material use or
release. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz‐1 and conformance with
applicable regulations, the impact related to hazardous materials would be less than
significant with mitigation.
e, f) Airport Hazards. The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport, located
approximately 4 miles from the Project site. The Project site is not within the airport land
use plan area (generally 2 miles) or the constraints related to heights and airplane safety.
There are no other airports, either public or private within the vicinity of the Project. There
would be no impact related to airport hazards.
g) Emergency Response Plan. The Project would not substantially alter traffic patterns and
would not impair implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would have no impact in this regard.
h) Wildland Fire. The Project site is identified in the City’s General Plan (Figure 8‐4) as a Low
Priority Management Unit, which requires vegetation management to reduce potential fuel
for wildfires. Once developed, the site will likely be removed from the designation as a
Management Unit. At that point, the potential for wildlife fire would be considered low, as
the site is surrounded by other development and roadways, although the Fire Department
can establish additional conditions during their review prior to the issuance of construction
permits. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to wildland
fire.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 37
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in
a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or
off‐site?
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems due to changes in
runoff flow rates or volumes?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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 hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a, e) Water Discharge Quality and Capacity
Construction Period
As noted in Section 6: Geology and Soils, the Applicant is required to file a SWPPP prior to
the start of construction to detail measures to control the level and quality or stormwater
Page 38 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
during the construction period. Per standard procedures, compliance with SWPPP
requirements will be verified during the construction permitting process. Therefore, the
Project’s potential to result in construction‐period impacts to runoff volume or quality
would be less than significant.
Operational Period
Federal Clean Water Act regulations require municipalities to obtain NPDES permits that
outline programs and activities to control surface stormwater pollution. Municipalities, such
as the City of South San Francisco, must eliminate or reduce ʺnon‐pointʺ pollution,
consisting of all types of substances generated as a result of urbanization (e.g. pesticides,
fertilizers, automobile fluids, sewage, litter, etc.), to the “maximum extent practicable” (as
required by Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii)). Clean Water Act Section 402(p) and
U.S. EPA regulations (40 CFR 122.26) specify a municipal program of “best management
practices” to control stormwater pollutants. Best Management Practices (BMP) refers to any
kind of procedure or device designed to minimize the quantity of pollutants that enter the
storm drain system. To comply with these regulations, Each incorporated city and town in
San Mateo County joined with the County of San Mateo to form the San Mateo County
Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) in applying for a regional NPDES
permit.11
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted a Municipal Regional Permit
(MRP) on October 14, 2009 as the NPDES permit for all Bay Area municipalities, which
includes Provision C.3. The C.3 requirements are intended to protect water quality by
minimizing pollutants in runoff, and to prevent downstream erosion by: designing each
project site to minimize imperviousness, detain runoff, and infiltrate runoff where feasible;
treating runoff prior to discharge from the site; ensuring runoff does not exceed pre‐project
peaks and durations; and maintaining treatment facilities. Project applicants must prepare
and implement a Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment and source control
measures that meet the “maximum extent practicable” standard as specified in the NPDES
permit and the SMCWPPP C.3 Guidebook. Project applicants must also prepare a
Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to ensure the
stormwater treatment and flow‐control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.
The site is currently entirely pervious surfaces (100% of the site). The proposed Project
would reduce the pervious surfaces by approximately 1.73 acres, resulting in pervious
surfaces on approximately 65% of the site. Runoff generated at the site will be directed to
bioretention areas where water will be naturally slowed and filtered prior to entering the
stormdrainage system. The Project will be required to submit preliminary stormwater
treatment plans and C.3 worksheets demonstrating the change in impervious area at the site
and appropriateness of stormwater system elements.
11 Regional Water Board, 2007, Order No. R2‐2007‐0027, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 39
Through compliance with post‐construction requirements related to implementation of the
NPDES permit C.3 requirements, including Project preparation and implementation of a
Stormwater Control Plan and Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan, the
long‐term volume of water and water quality impacts from Project operation would be less
than significant.
b) Groundwater Recharge and Supplies. The Project site and surrounding area are connected
to the municipal water supply and groundwater at the site is not used directly by this or
other properties as a water supply. Additionally, the Project would comply with stormwater
drainage requirements (see item “a, e” above), including permeable bioretention areas. The
Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, and would have a less than significant impact related to
groundwater.
c, d) Drainage Pattern Alteration. As discussed under item “a, e” above, the Project will
increase impervious site area and slow and treat runoff with bioretention areas prior to
discharge into the stormdrainage system. Through compliance with applicable regulations,
the runoff from the site will be the same or reduced from that existing and will not cause
erosion, siltation, or flooding. Project impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns
would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality. Construction‐related and post‐construction
water quality are discussed under item “a, e” above and the Project does not otherwise
degrade water quality (less than significant).
g‐j) Flooding and Inundation. The Project is not located in a 100‐year flood zone12 so would
have no impact related to flood zones.
The Project site is located at elevations of over 500 feet and is not located downhill from a
dam or large body of water and is therefore not considered to have substantial risk for
inundation from tsunami, seiche, levee or dam failure or mudflow.13 Therefore, there would
be no impact related to inundation.
12 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), October 15, 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM),
Countywide map, Panel 06081C0039E (unprinted), accessed at https://msc.fema.gov/portal.
13 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October
1999, as amended, page 250.
Page 40 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
a) Physical Division of a Community. The Project involves residential development of an infill
residential lot surrounded by existing development and roadways and would not have the
potential to divide the established community. (No Impact)
b) Conflict with Land Use Plan. Development of the proposed Project would be generally
compatible with existing surrounding land uses and the existing residential zoning (RL‐8)
and General Plan designation (Low Density Residential) at the site. The potential for the
Project as proposed to result in environmental impacts is assessed throughout this
document. While the City will make determinations regarding Project consistency with all
their policies and regulations, the Project would have no impact with regard to land use
plan conflicts related to environmental effects.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan. The Project site is not subject to a conservation plan. It is
an infill site surrounded by urban development and roadways. The Project would,
therefore, have no impact under this item.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 41
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
a, b) Mineral Resources. No known mineral resources are located on the site according to the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Data System.14 The City’s
General Plan does not identify mineral resources within City limits. The Project would have
no impact with regard to mineral resources.
14 US Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System, publication date 2005, edition 20120127, accessed at
http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/.
Page 42 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
12. NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a‐d) Excessive Noise or Vibration.
Construction Noise
Construction activities generate noise. Ambient and maximum intermittent noise levels
would increase throughout the period when the Project builds out. The South San Francisco
Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section 8.32.050) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also
limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the
property line. Construction activities will comply with the Noise Ordinance. Additionally,
the Project is relatively small, and construction activities involving noisy machinery are not
expected to span more than one construction season.
Groundborne noise and vibration can result from heavy construction practices utilizing pile
drivers or hoe‐rams. No such activities are planned for Project construction. Construction
truck traffic traveling at low speed (25 mph or less) would access the site via Oakmont
Drive, Shannon Drive, and Shannon Court Park, where residential structures are within
about 25 feet of the roadways. Groundborne vibration from a loaded truck at low speed
would be less than 0.08 in/sec Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (Transit
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 43
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation,
Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006). Vibration
levels may be intermittently perceptible, but would be well below a level of 0.30 in/sec PPV
that could cause damage to normal structures.
With standard construction practices and hours, consistent with City regulations, impacts
from noise and vibration generated by construction of the Project would be less than
significant.
Operational Noise
Operation of residential properties does not produce substantial levels of vibration or noise.
Traffic‐related noise impacts generally occur with at least a doubling of traffic volumes on
roadways adjacent to areas already at or above acceptable noise conditions. As detailed in
the Transportation Assessment (Attachment B), the net new traffic would be well below a
doubling of volumes on area roadways. Therefore, impacts related to noise and vibration
during operation would be less than significant.
While the future residents of the proposed Project would be considered sensitive receptors
for noise, the effects of the environment on a project are not considered a CEQA impact
(which is focused to the effects of a project on the environment, and not the reverse).15 The
following is included for informational purposes:
The ambient noise environment at the Project site is primarily affected by traffic nose and is
anticipated to be approximately 60 to 65 dBA, which is considered acceptable for residential
uses. 16
e, f) Airport Noise. The Project is unrelated to airport operation and would not result in changes
or increases in airport noise that could affect others. The Project would have no impact
related to airport noise.
As noted above, the effects of the environment on a project are not considered
environmental impacts under CEQA, and the following is included for informational
purposes. The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport, located
approximately 4 miles from the Project site. The Project site is not within the airport land
use plan area (generally 2 miles) and is not within the area impacted by airplane flyover
noise.17 There are no other airports, either public or private within the vicinity of the Project.
15 California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, Case No.
S213478.
16 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October
1999, as amended, Table 9.2‐1 and Figure 9‐2.
17 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, Exhibit IV‐6.
Page 44 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Substantial Population Growth. The proposed Project would result in 19 housing units with a
population of approximately 59 residents.18 The proposed development is consistent with
site zoning and the site’s land use designation and would be within the population growth
assumed in the General Plan. As an infill project surrounded by developed properties and
roadways, the Project would not indirectly induce additional population growth. Therefore,
the impact in relation to inducement of substantial population growth would be a less than
significant.
b‐c) Displacement of People or Housing. There is no housing or residents at the existing Project
site, which is currently vacant. The Project would displace neither existing housing nor
people. (No impact)
18 State Department of Finance, E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011‐2015,
indicates an average household size of 3.12 persons in South San Francisco in 2015.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 45
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public services? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fire protection.
b) Police protection.
c) Schools.
d) Parks.
e) Other public facilities.
a‐e) Public Services. The proposed Project is located on a developed site within South San
Francisco that is already served by public services. The Project would add population
consistent with development assumptions under the General Plan, but the minimal
increases in demand for services expected with the population growth (see section 13),
would be offset through payment of development fees and annual taxes, a portion of which
go toward ongoing provision of and improvements to public services. The Project is not
large enough to require the need for new or physically altered facilities to address Project
demand, and such demand is consistent with and would have been assumed under the
General Plan. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than significant.
Page 46 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
15. RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.
a‐b) Recreation. Project development would result in the construction of 19 single‐family
residences and would result in approximately 59 additional residents. The City’s Quimby
Act Park dedication ordinance requires three acres of park dedication for every 1,000
persons, which would equate to 0.177 acres of park required for this Project. The Project
includes a private 2.6‐acre open space area to provide recreational opportunities to Project
residents, which greatly exceeds the Quimby Act park dedication ratio. A development
impact fee would additionally be assessed for the Project unless the on‐site open space area
is dedicated to the City as public park to meet the 0.177 acre public park requirement.
Increased recreational demand of Project residents would be largely met through on‐site
provisions and contribution to public parks through in‐lieu fees, but in any case, would not
be large enough to substantially physically deteriorate existing parks or require the need for
new or physically expanded facilities to address Project demand. The construction of the on‐
site open space has been included in the environmental analysis of this Project. Therefore,
the Project impact related to recreation would be considered less than significant.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 47
16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
a, b) Vehicle Circulation and Congestion. A transportation assessment was prepared by W‐
Trans (2016) to assess the potential for transportation impacts resulting from development
of the proposed Project. The transportation assessment was used to complete this section
and is included as Attachment A to this document.
The proposed Project would generate an average of 155 new trips daily, with 12 new trips
during the a.m. peak hour and 16 new trips during the p.m. peak hour. The City of South
San Francisco has established the minimally acceptable LOS standard of D or better at all
intersections in the City. The Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard intersection is
located on State Route 35, Skyline Boulevard, which is a facility in the County’s
Management Program (CMP) and included in the traffic assessment for this Project. All
study intersections were operating between LOS A and LOS D during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours and would continue to do so with the addition of Project traffic (see Table 5 in
Page 48 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
the traffic study included as Attachment B). The transportation assessment therefore
determined that, based on the addition of the Project generation trips to current conditions,
the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS and impacts would be less
than significant.
Alternate modes (pedestrian, bicycle and transit) are discussed under item “f” below.
c) Air Traffic Patterns. The Project would not contain any features or characteristics that would
result in a change in air traffic patterns nor would any feature be of sufficient height to affect
air traffic. (No Impact.)
d) Hazards. The design of the Project would be required to meet all local design and
construction standards, and as such, would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature. The proposed Project would have one ingress/egress with a designated
turnaround at the north end of the site. Per City standards, once the intersection is
completed, adequate signage should be installed to promote safety. The Project would have
a less than significant impact related to site hazards.
e) Inadequate Emergency Access. The proposed Project would have one access road for all
ingress and egress. Emergency vehicles would be able to enter the site and maneuver in the
designated turnaround area located at the north end of the site near the townhomes to turn
around and exit the site. The site’s road, which is designed to meet City standards, would be
of adequate width, and the turnaround would be of adequate size. The Project would have
no impact with regard to inadequate emergency access.
f) Alternative Modes. The assessment found that bicycle trips generated by the Project would
be adequately served by the existing dedicated Class II bicycle lanes along the northern
project frontage and Class III bicycle route on the west side of the Project frontage on
Oakmont Drive. The Project would also be adequately served by existing transit facilities
and would adhere to the General Plan’s Guiding Policy that alternative modes should be
encouraged. The site plan has a pedestrian path to and from the site to Oakmont Drive near
an existing SamTrans bus stop. Sidewalks are planned along the private roadway, Shannon
Place, providing direct routes in and out of the development. As Shannon Place would not
be a public street, it would not be required to meet City of South San Francisco standards
requiring sidewalks on both sides of a minor street’s right‐of way although this is
recommended by W‐Trans. The inclusion (or not) of additional sidewalks would not be an
environmental impact and would be negotiated between the City and the Applicant. The
Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to alternative modes.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 49
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
a‐g) Utilities. Development of the Project would add approximately 59 people to the Project
area, resulting in a slight increase demand for utilities at the site. The increases would be
incremental and remain a very small fraction of City or area‐wide utility demand that is not
expected to substantially contribute to any exceedances of available capacity or requirement
for new or expanded facilities. As infill development consistent with site zoning and land
use designation, the demand for utilities at the site would have been accounted for in the
General Plan and utility planning. The impact on utilities and service systems would be less
than significant.
Page 50 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
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?
a) Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality. With the implementation of mitigation
measure Bio‐1 to protect nesting birds during construction, the Project would not 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, or threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community. The Project would not impact rare or endangered
wildlife species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory.
b) Cumulative Impacts. The Project would not result in adverse impacts that are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable, including effects for which project‐level mitigation
were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. All of these potential effects
would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this
document, including mitigation measures Air‐1 and Air‐2 to address construction period
dust and emissions, and would not contribute in considerable levels to cumulative impacts.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings. The Project would not result in substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures Air‐1, Air‐2, and
Haz‐1 will minimize the potential for safety impacts related to construction‐period
emissions and disturbance of potentially hazardous undocumented fill and the potential
adverse effects on human beings would be less than significant.
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Page 51
DOCUMENT PREPARERS
Lamphier–Gregory, Inc.
Rebecca Auld, Senior Planner
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
510.535.6690
City of South San Francisco
This document was prepared in consultation with Billy Gross, Senior Planner, City of South San
Francisco.
SOURCES
The following document sources are included as attachments with this document:
1. W‐Trans, Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment, February 12, 2016. (Attachment
B)
2. South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier & Associates, Oakmont Vistas/Storage USA
Project, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 1999. (Attachment A)
The document sources listed below are available for review at the City of South San Francisco.
3. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, June 2008. Responses to Geotechnical Peer Review
Comments, Oakmont Meadows Development, Westborough Unit 5, Parcel One, Southwest
Corner of Oakmont Drive and Westborough Boulevard, South San Francisco, California.
4. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, April 2008. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation,
Oakmont Meadows, Oakmont Drive and Westborough Boulevard, South San Francisco,
California.
5. Smith‐Emery Company, February 2007. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Westborough
Unit 5, Parcel 1, Proposed Oakmont Meadows, South San Francisco, California.
6. Earth Systems Consultants, December 2003. Supplemental Geologic Fault Study,
Westborough Unit 5, Parcel 1, “Proposed Oakmont Village,” Westborough Boulevard at
Oakmont Drive, South San Francisco, California.
7. Earth Systems Consultants, December 2000. Geologic Fault Study, Westborough Unit 5,
Parcel One, Proposed Oakmont Village, Westborough Boulevard & Oakmont Drive, South
San Francisco, California.
8. City of South San Francisco, prepared by PMC, February 2014. City of South San Francisco
Climate Action Plan.
9. City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General
Plan, adopted October 1999, as amended.
Page 52 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
This page is intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT A:
OAKMONT VISTAS/STORAGE USA PROJECT, INITIAL STUDY
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ATTACHMENT TO THE
APRIL 2016
OAKMONT MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
• Any conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
Setting, Background and Methods
No impact
The following biological assessment conducted by Environmental Collaborative
provides information on the biological resources of the site, evaluates potential impacts
on sensitive resources, and identifies measures to mitigate adverse impacts of the
project. Biological resources were identified through the review and compilation of
existing information and conduct of three field reconnaissance surveys, the first on 1
December 1998. The first review and field recormaissance provided information on
common biological resources, the extent of sensitive natural communities, potential
jurisdictional wetlands, and the distribution and habitat requirements of special-status
species which have been recorded from or are suspected to occur in the project
vicinity. Two additional detailed surveys were conducted on 30 March and 7 May
1999 which confirmed absence of any populations of special-status plant populations
or essential habitat for any special-status animal species of concern.
Natural Community Types and Wildlife Habitat
The site has been extensively altered by past grading activities which has eliminated
most of the native plant cover. Non-native grassland now forms the predominant
cover over most of the site. Some locations support areas of native scrub and remnant
native grasslands, as well as dense stands of highly invasive non-native shrubs and
ornamental trees. A summary of the various community types and associated wildlife
species is provided below. Figure 15 shows the extent of the various cover types on
the site.
Grassland
Most of the grassland habitat on the site is composed of non-native annual grasses and
forbs. These include: slender wild oat (Avena barbata), wild oat (A. fatua), ripgut
brome (Bromus diandrus), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), broad-leaf filaree
(Erodium botrys), and plantain (Plantago coronopus). Ruderal or weedy species such
as bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and wild
PAGE 44 OAKMONT VISTAS/STORAGE USA PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ATTACHMENT B:
OAKMONT MEADOWS TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
ATTACHMENT TO THE
APRIL 2016
OAKMONT MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
475 14th Street, Suite 290 Oakland, CA 94612 510.444.2600 w-trans.com
SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND • SAN JOSE
Memorandum
Date:February 12, 2016 Project:SSF010
To:Nathaniel Taylor
Lamphier-Gregory From:Mark Spencer
mspencer@w-trans.com
Subject:Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment
As requested,W-Trans has prepared a transportation assessment in support of an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the proposed Oakmont Meadows residential development to be located at 3460
Westborough Road in the City of South San Francisco in the County of San Mateo.The analysis focuses
on the project’s traffic impacts based and the potential for increased traffic associated with the additional
19 residential units.The transportation assessment was completed in accordance with the criteria
established by the City of South San Francisco and the City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG), and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.
Study Area
The study area consists of the following intersections:
1.Westborough Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard
2.Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard
3.Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard
4.Oakmont Drive and Shannon Drive
All of the intersections are signalized with the exception of Oakmont Drive/Shannon Drive intersection which
has stop-controlled side-streets.
Intersection turning movement volume counts were obtained January 12, 2016 for all study intersections.
The counts were collected during typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods to evaluate the highest
potential impacts for the proposed project. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and
reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between
4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound
commute.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions,
and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general there is a network of
sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the vicinity of
the proposed project site.
Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012, classifies bikeways
into three categories:
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 2 February 12, 2016
Class I Multi-Use Path –a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and
pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
Class II Bike Lane –a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bike Route –signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a
street or highway.
In the project area,there are Class II bike lanes on Westborough Boulevard between Skyline Boulevard-
Sharp Park Road and Galway Drive, as well as on Callan Boulevard north of the project site.There are
class III bike routes on Westborough Boulevard from Galway Drive and east through the study area. There
are also class III bike routes on Oakmont Drive.
Transit Facilities
Currently there are several bus stops within walking distance serviced by SamTrans.Bus stops for routes
122 and 28 are currently on Oakmont Drive adjacent to the proposed project site and routes 121 and 140
are near the Skyline Boulevard/Westborough intersection.
Route 122 connects to the Stonestown Shopping Center and San Francisco State University to the north
and South San Francisco BART station to the South.Additional stops include the Colma BART station,
Seton Medical Center, and King Plaza Shopping Center with options to transfer to other routes along the
routes. On weekdays, the route begins at 5:15 a.m. or 6:00 a.m., depending on the direction of travel, and
ends at 11:10 p.m. with about 30 minute headways.The route operates on a reduced schedule on the
weekends.
Route 28 runs school days to and from South San Francisco High School. The route runs twice in the
morning and evening hours around the high school bell schedule.There is an additional route for early
dismissal on Wednesdays.While the route caters to the high school, it can be used for public use.
Route 121 provides service every day of the week with varying headways, 30 minutes on weekdays and
60 minutes on weekends. The limits of the service are between Lowell Street/Hanover Street intersection
in San Francisco to the north and the Skyline College Transit Center to the south with stops at the Daily
City and Colma BART station.
Route 140 provides service between the SFO AirTrain and the intersection of Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue
in Pacifica. The route operates every day of the week with varying start and end times, headways ranging
from 30 minutes to an hour, and limited stops.
Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate
a safety issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway
Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most
current five-year period available is July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014.
As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average
collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2012 Collision Data on California State
Highways, California Department of Transportation.Generally, the intersections operate below or near the
statewide average for similar facilities.The collision rate calculations are attached.
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 3 February 12, 2016
Table 1 –Collision Rates at the Study Intersections
Study Intersection Number of
Collisions
(2009-2014)
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide
Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
1.Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 31 0.39 0.27
2.Westborough Blvd/Oakmont Dr-Callan Blvd 11 0.20 0.27
3.Westborough Blvd/Gellert Blvd 18 0.20 0.27
4.Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 0 0.00 0.15
Note:c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering
Westborough Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard had a calculated collision rate of 0.39 collisions per million
vehicles entering the intersection (c/mve), which is slightly higher than the Statewide Average of 0.27 c/mve.
Of the 31 collisions recorded, more than a third were rear-end collisions and of those, the majority were
due to unsafe speeds or following too closely.This could be mitigated with increased enforcement but is
generally common for congested urban areas.
Capacity Analysis
Levels of Service Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes
and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service
A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions.
A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of
intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per
vehicle.
Traffic Operation Standards
The City of South San Francisco, in General Plan Transportation Policy 4.2.G-9, has established minimally
acceptable LOS standards.
Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal
arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
In addition, it states that an LOS of E or F are acceptable after finding that:
There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic
volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic
volumes. Volume data was collected while local schools were in session.
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 4 February 12, 2016
Under existing conditions,each of the study intersections operate acceptably. A summary of the
intersection level of service calculations is contained in Table 2, and copies of the Level of Service
calculations are attached.
Table 2 –Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1.Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 28.5 C 30.5 C
2.Westborough Blvd/Oakmont Dr-Callan Blvd 25.0 C 18.4 B
3.Westborough Blvd/Gellart Blvd 42.4 D 27.1 C
4.Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 3.7 A 2.6 A
Eastbound Approach 13.2 B 9.8 A
Westbound Approach 9.6 B 9.0 A
Notes:Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches
to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics;
Project Description
The proposed infill project would develop 12 single family homes and seven townhomes located on the
southwest corner of the Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard/Westborough Boulevard intersection.The project
access would connect to an existing, but currently incomplete, segment of road off of Shannon Park Court.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition,2012 for “Single
Family Detached Housing” (ITE LU #210)and “Residential Condominiums/Townhouses” (ITE LU #230).
The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 155 trips per day, including 12 trips during the
a.m. peak hour and 16 during the p.m. peak hour.The expected trip generation potential for the proposed
project is indicated in Table 3.
Table 3 –Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Proposed
Single Family Detached
Housing
12 du 9.52 114 0.75 9 2 7 1.00 12 8 4
Condominium/Townhouse 7 du 5.81 41 0.44 3 1 2 0.52 4 2 2
Total 155 12 3 9 16 10 6
Note:du = dwelling unit;
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was determined from the residential
distribution used for the same proposed site, but different proposed project,in the Initial Study and Mitigated
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 5 February 12, 2016
Negative Declaration for Oakmont Vistas/Storage USA South San Francisco (October 1999).The applied
distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 –Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent
Callan Blvd to/from the North 17%
Oakmont Dr to/from the South 6%
Shannon Dr to/from the East 7%
Sharp Park Rd to/from the West 4%
Skyline Blvd to/from the North 8%
Skyline Blvd to/from the South 10%
Westborough Blvd to/from the East 39%
Gellert Blvd to/from the North 9%
TOTAL 100%
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, the study intersections are expected to
continue operating acceptably at the same LOS. These results are summarized in Table 5.Project traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 5.
Table 5 –Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1.Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 28.5 C 30.5 C 28.6 C 30.5 C
2.Westborough Blvd/Oakmont
Dr-Callan Blvd 25.0 C 18.4 B 25.1 C 18.5 B
3.Westborough Blvd/Gellart Blvd 42.4 D 27.1 C 42.6 D 27.2 C
4.Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 3.7 A 2.6 A 4.0 A 2.8 A
Eastbound Approach 13.2 B 9.8 A 13.5 B 10.2 B
Westbound Approach 9.6 B 9.0 A 9.7 B 9.2 A
Notes:Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches
to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics;
Conclusion: Upon the addition of the project trips, the study intersections would continue operating at
acceptable levels of service set forth by the City of South San Francisco and C/CAG.
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
In the study area, there are currently continuous sidewalk facilities.The proposed on-site sidewalks would
conform with existing facilities.According to the site plan,there would not be a continuous sidewalk onsite
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 6 February 12, 2016
but at any on location, there would be a sidewalk on at least one side of the street.There would also be a
pedestrian path along the eastern perimeter of the project site starting near where the proposed access
road would conform to existing facilities and ending on Oakmont Drive between the proposed townhomes
and the existing residences.
Per municipal code, 19.20.010, for minor street in a residential subdivision, a sidewalk is required on each
side of the right of way. Additionally,the 4.3-G-2 guiding policy encourages providing safe and direct
pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
Recommendations:A continuous pedestrian network should be provided with sidewalks on both sides of
Shannon Place,to meet City Standards in addition to promoting alternative modes through safe and direct
pedestrian routes to the alternative modes available on Oakmont Drive adjacent to the site.
Bicycle Facilities
According to the proposed site plan, there are no proposed bicycle facilities or modification to the existing
facilities. Residents would be expected to use their personal garage for bicycle parking.
Conclusion: The existing bicycle facilities and proposed individual garages would adequately serve the
residents of the site.
Transit Facilities
There are several bus stops within walking distance to the project site. It is reasonable to assume that
residents of the proposed project would use public transportation.The General Plan’s guiding policy, 4.4-
G-1, states that local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco should be promoted. The
proposed project is located adjacent to an existing bus stop.According to the site plan, a pedestrian path
leaving the site is proposed within 100 feet of the bus stops.T
Conclusion:The proposed project site should be adequately served by the existing transit facilities.
Parking Requirements
Per the South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.330.004,the townhomes and single family dwelling would
each require two spaces with at least one of the spaces covered.Per the site plan, each of the units would
be provided with a two-car garage.Additionally, 19 parking would be provided along Shannon Place.If
each residence only parked one car in the garage, the proposed parking supply along Shannon Place would
accommodate the other vehicle.The proposed parking supply adequately meets the City Municipal Code.
For a comparison, the anticipated parking demand was estimated using standard rates published by ITE in
Parking Generation, 4th Edition, 2010. The parking demand for the proposed project was estimated using
the published standard rates for Residential Townhouse (ITE LU#230)and Single-Family Detached
Housing (ITE LU#210), both of which estimate demand based on the number of dwelling units.Based on
the parking generation rates, the average parking demand would be 32 parking stalls which would be
accommodated with the proposed two car garages and the 19 parking stalls along Shannon Place.
Conclusion: The proposed parking supply would adequately serve the site’s residential uses.
CEQA Initial Checklist: Project Impacts
a.Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 7 February 12, 2016
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
The following discussion addresses project impacts on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit.
Impacts on intersections are addressed under (b) below.
Impact on Pedestrian Facilities
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation.It is reasonable to assume that residents would want
to walk to the adjacent street network.Per South San Francisco Municipal Code, 19.20.010, sidewalks
are required on both sides of a minor street’s right of way. Additionally, the 4.3-G-2 guiding policy from
the City’s General Plan states that safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through
residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers should be encourage.
With the proposed recommendation to design for sidewalks on both sides of the street, the residents
would be adequately served and adhere to the City’s guiding policy.
Impact on Bicycle Facilities
No Impact. There are existing dedicated Class II bicycle lanes along the northern project frontage and
Class III bicycle route on the west side of the project frontage on Oakmont Drive. Bicycle trips
generated by the project would be adequately served by these existing facilities.
Impact on Transit
No Impact. The proposed project would adequately be served by the existing facilities as well as
adhering to the General Plan’s Guiding Policy that alternative modes should be encouraged. The
proposed site plan has a pedestrian path to and from the site to Oakmont Drive in close proximity to an
existing SamTrans bus stop.
b.Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The City of South San Francisco has established the minimally
acceptable LOS standard to strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all
intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.In addition, it states that an LOS
of E or F are acceptable after finding that there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower
level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
The Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard intersection is located on State Route 35, Skyline
Boulevard, which is a facility in the County’s Management Program (CMP); however, the intersection
is not one of the 16 intersections in the CMP.Based on the CMP,that segment of Skyline Boulevard
has an LOS standard of E but the intersection must maintain the LOS Standard set forth by the City of
South San Francisco which is LOS D.
Based on the counts collected during the morning and evening peak hours on January 12, 2016, each
of the study intersections are operating at an acceptable set forth by the City. Upon the addition of the
project generation trips to the existing network, the intersections would continue to operate at their
existing LOS.
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?
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 8 February 12, 2016
No Impact. The project would not contain any features or characteristics that would result in a change
in air traffic patterns nor would any feature be of sufficient height to affect air traffic.
d.Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The design of the project would be required to meet all local design
and construction standards, and as such, would not substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature.The proposed project would have one ingress and one egress with a designated turnaround
located on the north end of the site. The proposed point of ingress and egress would conform to an
existing leg of the Shannon Drive/ Shannon Court intersection.Per City standards, once the intersection
is completed, adequate signage should be installed to promote safety.
e.Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The proposed project would have one access road for all ingress and
egress.Emergency vehicles would be able to enter the site and maneuver in the designated turnaround
area located at the north end of the site near the townhomes to turn around and exit the site. The site’s
road, which is designed to meet City standards, would be of adequate width,and the turnaround would
be of adequate size.
f.Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. See discussion under (a) above. The proposed project
would be adequately served by existing bicycle and transit facilities.It is recommended that the on-
site pedestrian facilities be improved by incorporating sidewalks on both sides of Shannon Place such
that the improvements meet the City’s specifications.This recommendation would also ensure
consistency with General Plan Policy regarding pedestrian pathways. With this mitigation measure, the
project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative modes.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed project would generate an average of 155 new trips daily,with 12 new trips during the
a.m. peak hour and 16 new trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Upon the addition of project generated trips, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better which
is the lowest acceptable LOS standard as established by the City of San Francisco and C/CAG
thresholds of significance.
The proposed parking supply of 19 parking spaces and a two-car garage for each unit adheres to the
City’s requirements as well as the anticipated average parking demand for the site based ITE’s parking
generation rates.
Sidewalks should be constructed on each of Shannon Place to provide a continuous pedestrian
connection.
The proposed project would be accommodated by the existing bicycle and transit facilities.
MES/bkb/SSF010.M1
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 9 February 12, 2016
Attachments:
Collision Rate Calculations
LOS Calculations
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 31
Number of Injuries: 13
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 44100
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
31 x
44,100 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.39 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.27 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 11
Number of Injuries: 9
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 29600
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
11 x
29,600 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.20 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.27 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Oakmont Meadows
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
41.9%
collision rate = 365
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
collision rate =
1,000,000
Westborough Boulevard & Oakmont Drive-Callan
Boulevard
41.9%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
July 1, 2009
365
Intersection #
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
0.0%
collision rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.4%
81.8%
Collision Rate
Intersection Collision Rate Calculations
July 1, 2009
June 30, 2014
Intersection #Westborough Boulevard-Sharp Park Road & Skyline
Boulevard1:
2:
June 30, 2014
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
0.4%
collision rate = ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
41.9%
1,000,000
Fatality Rate
0.0%
Collision Rate Injury Rate
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
2/11/2016
Page 1 of 10
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 18
Number of Injuries: 11
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 48700
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
18 x
48,700 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.20 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.27 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 0
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 4300
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
0x
4,300 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.00 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.15 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Shannon Drive & Oakmont Drive
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.4% 41.9%
0.0%
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
1.0%
collision rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.0% 0.0%
1,000,000
365
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
collision rate =
Collision Rate
3: Westborough Boulevard & Gellart Boulevard
collision rate = 1,000,000
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
June 30, 2014
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
61.1%
4:
Injury Rate
June 30, 2014
Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
365
Collision Rate
Oakmont Meadows
July 1, 2009
41.9%
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
July 1, 2009
collision rate =
Intersection #
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
2/11/2016
Page 2 of 10
AM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:08 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.645 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.5 Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Skyline Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:15 - 8:15 Base Vol: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 103 175 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 103 175 90 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 108 184 95 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 108 184 95 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 108 184 95 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 2.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 1.86 0.14 1.00 1.39 1.61 1.00 1.32 0.68 Final Sat.: 3502 2897 619 1805 3318 252 1805 2301 2675 1805 2262 1164 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.27 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.31 Delay/Veh: 50.1 35.8 35.8 35.4 26.8 26.8 28.6 21.7 21.7 52.1 29.5 29.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.1 35.8 35.8 35.4 26.8 26.8 28.6 21.7 21.7 52.1 29.5 29.5 LOS by Move: D D D D C C C C C D C C HCM2k95thQ: 8 13 13 13 22 22 8 23 23 7 7 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:10 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.581 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.5 Optimal Cycle: 54 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Skyline Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 647 701 140 147 430 72 113 248 237 189 393 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 647 701 140 147 430 72 113 248 237 189 393 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 681 738 147 155 453 76 119 261 249 199 414 176 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 681 738 147 155 453 76 119 261 249 199 414 176 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 681 738 147 155 453 76 119 261 249 199 414 176 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.53 1.47 1.00 1.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 3502 2934 586 1805 3027 507 1805 2567 2453 1805 2419 1028 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.58 0.58 Delay/Veh: 28.2 21.3 21.3 42.3 33.4 33.4 46.2 36.5 36.5 36.2 30.9 30.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.2 21.3 21.3 42.3 33.4 33.4 46.2 36.5 36.5 36.2 30.9 30.9 LOS by Move: C C C D C C D D D D C C HCM2k95thQ: 17 20 20 10 15 15 9 11 11 10 15 15 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:08 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Westborough Boulevard/Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.699 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.0 Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:30-8:30 Base Vol: 35 79 55 345 113 72 50 821 26 179 302 294 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 35 79 55 345 113 72 50 821 26 179 302 294 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 39 89 62 388 127 81 56 922 29 201 339 330 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 89 62 388 127 81 56 922 29 201 339 330 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 89 62 388 127 81 56 922 29 201 339 330 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.61 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.31 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 526 1186 1615 1167 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.33 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.70 0.14 0.11 0.45 0.70 0.05 0.70 0.21 0.45 Delay/Veh: 15.0 15.0 14.4 24.6 14.8 14.6 47.3 28.7 20.5 47.2 16.4 19.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 15.0 15.0 14.4 24.6 14.8 14.6 47.3 28.7 20.5 47.2 16.4 19.1 LOS by Move: B B B C B B D C C D B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 4 2 19 4 3 3 22 1 14 6 13 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:10 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Westborough Boulevard/Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.394 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 18.4 Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 38 50 22 149 47 34 112 402 31 45 670 275 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 38 50 22 149 47 34 112 402 31 45 670 275 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 40 53 23 157 49 36 118 423 33 47 705 289 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 53 23 157 49 36 118 423 33 47 705 289 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 53 23 157 49 36 118 423 33 47 705 289 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.62 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.43 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 729 959 1615 1178 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.54 0.54 0.12 0.50 0.50 Volume/Cap: 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.39 0.08 0.07 0.39 0.22 0.04 0.22 0.39 0.36 Delay/Veh: 23.3 23.3 22.3 25.9 22.5 22.5 38.1 12.0 10.8 40.2 15.9 15.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 23.3 23.3 22.3 25.9 22.5 22.5 38.1 12.0 10.8 40.2 15.9 15.7 LOS by Move: C C C C C C D B B D B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 4 1 8 2 2 6 7 1 3 14 11 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:08 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.956 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 42.4 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Gellert Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:30-8:30 Base Vol: 56 46 362 557 57 130 119 1604 29 124 650 161 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 56 46 362 557 57 130 119 1604 29 124 650 161 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 60 49 385 593 61 138 127 1706 31 132 691 171 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 49 385 593 61 138 127 1706 31 132 691 171 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 49 385 593 61 138 127 1706 31 132 691 171 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 3455 1727 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.17 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.47 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.37 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.10 0.96 0.96 0.11 0.28 0.36 0.96 0.04 0.96 0.36 0.28 Delay/Veh: 40.8 29.0 70.4 64.6 24.7 26.4 35.3 36.7 13.0 108.9 22.7 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.8 29.0 70.4 64.6 24.7 26.4 35.3 36.7 13.0 108.9 22.7 22.2 LOS by Move: D C E E C C D D B F C C HCM2k95thQ: 4 2 29 25 3 7 7 52 1 14 11 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:10 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.637 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.1 Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Gellert Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 41 79 169 437 81 218 168 615 13 203 1295 444 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 79 169 437 81 218 168 615 13 203 1295 444 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 44 84 180 465 86 232 179 654 14 216 1378 472 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 84 180 465 86 232 179 654 14 216 1378 472 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 84 180 465 86 232 179 654 14 216 1378 472 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 3466 1733 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.01 0.12 0.27 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.24 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.25 0.64 0.64 0.15 0.44 0.64 0.49 0.02 0.49 0.58 0.64 Delay/Veh: 48.7 36.0 43.1 37.6 23.6 26.8 44.4 24.5 20.0 33.3 20.3 22.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.7 36.0 43.1 37.6 23.6 26.8 44.4 24.5 20.0 33.3 20.3 22.5 LOS by Move: D D D D C C D C C C C C HCM2k95thQ: 4 5 12 15 4 11 12 16 1 12 21 21 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:08 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Shannon Drive/Oakmont Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive Shannon Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:45-8:45 Base Vol: 2 84 5 50 110 9 13 4 2 4 1 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 84 5 50 110 9 13 4 2 4 1 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 PHF Volume: 3 122 7 72 159 13 19 6 3 6 1 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 122 7 72 159 13 19 6 3 6 1 86 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 172 xxxx xxxxx 129 xxxx xxxxx 486 446 166 446 449 125 Potent Cap.: 1417 xxxx xxxxx 1469 xxxx xxxxx 495 510 884 526 508 931 Move Cap.: 1417 xxxx xxxxx 1469 xxxx xxxxx 430 483 884 498 481 931 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.09 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.5 xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 466 xxxxx xxxx 871 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.2 xxxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.2 9.6 ApproachLOS: * * B A ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:10 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Shannon Drive/Oakmont Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.8] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive Shannon Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 2 68 1 24 57 12 3 1 2 2 2 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 68 1 24 57 12 3 1 2 2 2 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 2 83 1 29 70 15 4 1 2 2 2 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 2 83 1 29 70 15 4 1 2 2 2 33 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 84 xxxx xxxxx 84 xxxx xxxxx 241 224 77 226 231 84 Potent Cap.: 1525 xxxx xxxxx 1525 xxxx xxxxx 717 678 990 734 672 981 Move Cap.: 1525 xxxx xxxxx 1525 xxxx xxxxx 680 664 990 720 658 981 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 756 xxxxx xxxx 930 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * A * * A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.8 9.0 ApproachLOS: * * A A ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:12 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for am Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total % Of # Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total ---- ------------ ------- -------------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 Oakmont Mead 1.00 Residential 3.00 9.00 3 9 12 100.0 Zone 1 Subtotal ............................. 3 9 12 100.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL .................................................. 3 9 12 100.0 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:16 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for pm Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total % Of # Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total ---- ------------ ------- -------------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 Oakmont Mead 1.00 Residential 10.00 6.00 10 6 16 100.0 Zone 1 Subtotal ............................. 10 6 16 100.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL .................................................. 10 6 16 100.0 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:13 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.646 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.6 Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Skyline Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:15 - 8:15 Base Vol: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 103 175 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 103 175 90 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 104 175 91 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 109 184 96 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 109 184 96 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 109 184 96 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 2.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 1.86 0.14 1.00 1.39 1.61 1.00 1.32 0.68 Final Sat.: 3502 2897 619 1805 3318 252 1805 2301 2675 1805 2254 1172 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.27 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.31 Delay/Veh: 50.1 35.9 35.9 35.5 26.9 26.9 28.7 21.8 21.8 52.1 29.4 29.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.1 35.9 35.9 35.5 26.9 26.9 28.7 21.8 21.8 52.1 29.4 29.4 LOS by Move: D D D D C C C C C D C C HCM2k95thQ: 8 13 13 13 22 22 8 23 23 7 7 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:17 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.581 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.5 Optimal Cycle: 54 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Skyline Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 647 701 140 147 430 72 113 248 237 189 393 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 647 701 140 147 430 72 113 248 237 189 393 167 Added Vol: 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 647 701 141 148 430 72 113 248 237 190 393 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 681 738 148 156 453 76 119 261 249 200 414 176 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 681 738 148 156 453 76 119 261 249 200 414 176 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 681 738 148 156 453 76 119 261 249 200 414 176 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.53 1.47 1.00 1.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 3502 2930 589 1805 3027 507 1805 2567 2453 1805 2419 1028 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.58 0.58 Delay/Veh: 28.2 21.4 21.4 42.3 33.4 33.4 46.2 36.6 36.6 36.1 30.9 30.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.2 21.4 21.4 42.3 33.4 33.4 46.2 36.6 36.6 36.1 30.9 30.9 LOS by Move: C C C D C C D D D D C C HCM2k95thQ: 17 20 20 10 15 15 9 11 11 10 15 15 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:13 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Westborough Boulevard/Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.703 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.1 Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:30-8:30 Base Vol: 35 79 55 345 113 72 50 821 26 179 302 294 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 35 79 55 345 113 72 50 821 26 179 302 294 Added Vol: 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 37 81 58 345 114 72 50 821 27 180 302 294 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 42 91 65 388 128 81 56 922 30 202 339 330 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 42 91 65 388 128 81 56 922 30 202 339 330 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 42 91 65 388 128 81 56 922 30 202 339 330 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.61 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.31 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 535 1171 1615 1157 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.34 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.45 0.45 Volume/Cap: 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.70 0.14 0.11 0.45 0.70 0.05 0.70 0.21 0.45 Delay/Veh: 14.9 14.9 14.3 24.6 14.7 14.5 47.3 28.9 20.7 47.4 16.5 19.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 14.9 14.9 14.3 24.6 14.7 14.5 47.3 28.9 20.7 47.4 16.5 19.2 LOS by Move: B B B C B B D C C D B B HCM2k95thQ: 5 5 2 19 4 3 3 22 1 14 7 14 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:17 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Westborough Boulevard/Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.394 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 18.5 Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 38 50 22 149 47 34 112 402 31 45 670 275 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 38 50 22 149 47 34 112 402 31 45 670 275 Added Vol: 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 51 24 149 49 34 112 402 33 48 670 275 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 41 54 25 157 52 36 118 423 35 51 705 289 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 54 25 157 52 36 118 423 35 51 705 289 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 41 54 25 157 52 36 118 423 35 51 705 289 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.62 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.43 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 730 955 1615 1174 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.53 0.53 0.13 0.50 0.50 Volume/Cap: 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.39 0.08 0.07 0.39 0.22 0.04 0.22 0.39 0.36 Delay/Veh: 23.3 23.3 22.2 25.9 22.5 22.4 38.1 12.4 11.1 39.6 16.0 15.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 23.3 23.3 22.2 25.9 22.5 22.4 38.1 12.4 11.1 39.6 16.0 15.8 LOS by Move: C C C C C C D B B D B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 4 1 8 2 2 6 7 1 3 14 11 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:13 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.957 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 42.6 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Gellert Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:30-8:30 Base Vol: 56 46 362 557 57 130 119 1604 29 124 650 161 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 56 46 362 557 57 130 119 1604 29 124 650 161 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 56 46 362 557 57 130 120 1608 29 124 651 161 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 60 49 385 593 61 138 128 1711 31 132 693 171 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 49 385 593 61 138 128 1711 31 132 693 171 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 49 385 593 61 138 128 1711 31 132 693 171 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 3455 1727 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.17 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.47 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.08 0.37 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.10 0.96 0.96 0.11 0.28 0.36 0.96 0.04 0.96 0.36 0.28 Delay/Veh: 40.8 29.0 70.8 64.9 24.7 26.4 35.2 36.8 13.0 109.3 22.8 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.8 29.0 70.8 64.9 24.7 26.4 35.2 36.8 13.0 109.3 22.8 22.2 LOS by Move: D C E E C C D D B F C C HCM2k95thQ: 4 2 29 25 3 7 7 52 1 14 11 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:17 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.638 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.2 Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Gellert Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 41 79 169 437 81 218 168 615 13 203 1295 444 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 79 169 437 81 218 168 615 13 203 1295 444 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 4 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 41 79 169 437 81 219 169 617 13 203 1299 444 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 44 84 180 465 86 233 180 656 14 216 1382 472 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 84 180 465 86 233 180 656 14 216 1382 472 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 84 180 465 86 233 180 656 14 216 1382 472 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 3466 1733 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.01 0.12 0.27 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.24 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.25 0.64 0.64 0.15 0.44 0.64 0.49 0.02 0.49 0.58 0.64 Delay/Veh: 48.8 36.0 43.1 37.6 23.7 26.8 44.3 24.5 20.0 33.3 20.3 22.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.8 36.0 43.1 37.6 23.7 26.8 44.3 24.5 20.0 33.3 20.3 22.6 LOS by Move: D D D D C C D C B C C C HCM2k95thQ: 4 5 12 15 4 11 12 16 1 12 21 21 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:13 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Shannon Drive/Oakmont Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.5] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive Shannon Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:45-8:45 Base Vol: 2 84 5 50 110 9 13 4 2 4 1 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 84 5 50 110 9 13 4 2 4 1 59 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 1 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 84 5 50 110 11 19 6 3 4 2 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 PHF Volume: 3 122 7 72 159 16 28 9 4 6 3 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 122 7 72 159 16 28 9 4 6 3 86 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 175 xxxx xxxxx 129 xxxx xxxxx 488 447 167 450 451 125 Potent Cap.: 1413 xxxx xxxxx 1469 xxxx xxxxx 494 509 882 523 507 931 Move Cap.: 1413 xxxx xxxxx 1469 xxxx xxxxx 428 482 882 492 480 931 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.09 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 465 xxxxx xxxx 859 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.5 xxxxx xxxxx 9.7 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.5 9.7 ApproachLOS: * * B A ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:17 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Shannon Drive/Oakmont Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive Shannon Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 2 68 1 24 57 12 3 1 2 2 2 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 68 1 24 57 12 3 1 2 2 2 27 Added Vol: 1 0 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 68 1 24 57 19 7 2 2 2 4 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 4 83 1 29 70 23 9 2 2 2 5 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 83 1 29 70 23 9 2 2 2 5 33 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 93 xxxx xxxxx 84 xxxx xxxxx 249 231 81 233 242 84 Potent Cap.: 1515 xxxx xxxxx 1525 xxxx xxxxx 708 672 984 726 663 981 Move Cap.: 1515 xxxx xxxxx 1525 xxxx xxxxx 669 658 984 710 649 981 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 708 xxxxx xxxx 904 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.2 9.2 ApproachLOS: * * B A ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
APPENDIX B:
OAKMONT MEADOWS TRANSPORTATION
ASSESSMENT, REVISED PROJECT
Attachment to the October 2018 Recirculated IS/MND for the Revised
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com
SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND • SAN JOSE
October 11, 2018
Ms. Rebecca Auld
Lamphier-Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
Revised Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment
Dear Ms. Auld;
As requested, W-Trans has prepared a transportation assessment in support of a Recirculated Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Oakmont Meadows residential development to be
located at 3460 Westborough Road in the City of South San Francisco in the County of San Mateo. The analysis
focuses on the project’s traffic impacts based and the potential for increased traffic associated with the additional
22 residential units. The analysis performed was based on a previously proposed project that resulted in more
peak hour trips than is currently proposed. As such, the analysis is considered conservative. The transportation
assessment was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of South San Francisco and the
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) and is consistent with standard traffic
engineering techniques.
Study Area
The study area consists of the following intersections:
1.Westborough Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard
2.Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard
3.Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard
4.Oakmont Drive and Shannon Drive
All the intersections are signalized except for Oakmont Drive/Shannon Drive intersection which has stop-
controlled side-streets.
Intersection turning movement volume counts were obtained January 12, 2016 for all study intersections. The
counts were collected during typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods to evaluate the highest potential
impacts for the proposed project. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects
conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00
p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound commute.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and
various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, there is a network of sidewalks, crosswalks,
pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians near the proposed project site.
Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012, classifies bikeways into
three categories:
Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
Ms. Rebecca Auld Page 2 October 11, 2018
Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street
or highway.
In the project area, there are Class II bike lanes on Westborough Boulevard between Skyline Boulevard-Sharp Park
Road and Galway Drive, as well as on Callan Boulevard north of the project site. There are class III bike routes on
Westborough Boulevard from Galway Drive and east through the study area. There are also class III bike routes on
Oakmont Drive.
Transit Facilities
Currently there are several bus stops within walking distance serviced by SamTrans. Bus stops for routes 122 and
28 are currently on Oakmont Drive adjacent to the proposed project site and routes 121 and 140 are near the
Skyline Boulevard/Westborough intersection.
Route 122 connects to the Stonestown Shopping Center and San Francisco State University to the north and South
San Francisco BART station to the South. Additional stops include the Colma BART station, Seton Medical Center,
and King Plaza Shopping Center with options to transfer to other routes along the routes. On weekdays, the route
begins at 5:15 a.m. or 6:00 a.m., depending on the direction of travel, and ends at 11:10 p.m. with about 30-minute
headways. The route operates on a reduced schedule on the weekends.
Route 28 runs school days to and from South San Francisco High School. The route runs twice in the morning and
evening hours around the high school bell schedule. There is an additional route for early dismissal on
Wednesdays. While the route caters to the high school, it can be used for public use.
Route 121 provides service every day of the week with varying headways, 30 minutes on weekdays and 60 minutes
on weekends. The limits of the service are between Lowell Street/Hanover Street intersection in San Francisco to
the north and the Skyline College Transit Center to the south with stops at the Daily City and Colma BART station.
Route 140 provides service between the SFO AirTrain and the intersection of Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue in
Pacifica. The route operates every day of the week with varying start and end times, headways ranging from 30
minutes to an hour, and limited stops.
Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety
issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway Patrol as published
in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The five-year period reviewed is July 1, 2009
through June 30, 2014.
As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average
collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways,
California Department of Transportation. Generally, the intersections operate below or near the statewide
average for similar facilities. The collision rate calculations are attached.
Ms. Rebecca Auld Page 3 October 11, 2018
Table 1 – Collision Rates at the Study Intersections
Study Intersection Number of
Collisions
(2009-2014)
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide
Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
1. Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 31 0.39 0.27
2. Westborough Blvd/Oakmont Dr-Callan Blvd 11 0.20 0.27
3. Westborough Blvd/Gellert Blvd 18 0.20 0.27
4. Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 0 0.00 0.15
Note: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering
Westborough Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard had a calculated collision rate of 0.39 collisions per million vehicles
entering the intersection (c/mve), which is slightly higher than the Statewide Average of 0.27 c/mve. Of the 31
collisions recorded, more than a third were rear-end collisions and of those, the majority were due to unsafe
speeds or following too closely. This could be mitigated with increased enforcement but is generally common for
congested urban areas.
Capacity Analysis
Levels of Service Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and
roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents
free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure
that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM),
Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection
control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
Traffic Operation Standards
The City of South San Francisco, in General Plan Transportation Policy 4.2.G-9, has established minimally
acceptable LOS standards.
Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials
in the CMP during peak hours.
In addition, it states that an LOS of E or F are acceptable after finding that:
There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes
during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic volumes. Volume
data was collected while local schools were in session.
Ms. Rebecca Auld Page 4 October 11, 2018
Under existing conditions, each of the study intersections operate acceptably. A summary of the intersection level
of service calculations is contained in Table 2, and copies of the Level of Service calculations are attached.
Table 2 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 28.5 C 30.5 C
2. Westborough Blvd/Oakmont Dr-Callan Blvd 25.0 C 18.4 B
3. Westborough Blvd/Gellart Blvd 42.4 D 27.1 C
4. Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 3.7 A 2.6 A
Eastbound Approach 13.2 B 9.8 A
Westbound Approach 9.6 B 9.0 A
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor
approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Project Description
The currently proposed project consists of 22 townhomes while the previously proposed project would have
developed seven single family homes and 15 townhomes. The site is located on the southwest corner of the
Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard/Westborough Boulevard intersection and would be accessed at two locations.
For 13 of the units, access would be via an existing, but currently incomplete, segment of road off Shannon Park
Court. For the remaining nine units, access would be provided via a driveway on Oakmont Drive. Internally, there
would be road connecting these two areas and access points though it would only serve as an emergency vehicle
access road.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the currently proposed project was estimated using standard rates published
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 for “Residential
Condominiums/Townhouses” (ITE LU #230). While there is a more recent version of the Trip Generation Manual,
to be consistent with work previously done, the 9th edition rates were used. The currently proposed project is
expected to generate an average of 128 trips per day, including 10 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 11 during
the p.m. peak hour. The expected trip generation for the proposed project is indicated in Table 3.
Table 3 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Proposed
Condominium/Townhouse 22 du 5.81 128 0.44 10 2 8 0.52 11 8 3
Note: du = dwelling unit
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was determined from the residential
distribution used for the same proposed site, but different proposed project, in the Initial Study and Mitigated
Ms. Rebecca Auld Page 5 October 11, 2018
Negative Declaration for Oakmont Vistas/Storage USA South San Francisco (October 1999). The applied distribution
assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent
Callan Blvd to/from the North 17%
Oakmont Dr to/from the South 6%
Shannon Dr to/from the East 7%
Sharp Park Rd to/from the West 4%
Skyline Blvd to/from the North 8%
Skyline Blvd to/from the South 10%
Westborough Blvd to/from the East 39%
Gellert Blvd to/from the North 9%
TOTAL 100%
Existing plus Project Conditions
As noted earlier in this memo, the service level analysis was run for a previously proposed project that was
projected to result more peak hour trips. Since the currently proposed project is expected to generate fewer trips
than the previously analyzed project, the results presented below are still considered accurate, as well as
conservative.
Upon the addition of the previously project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, the study intersections are
expected to continue operating acceptably at the same LOS. These results are summarized in Table 5. Project
traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5.
Table 5 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 28.5 C 30.5 C 28.6 C 30.5 C
2. Westborough Blvd/Oakmont Dr-Callan Blvd 25.0 C 18.4 B 25.1 C 18.5 B
3. Westborough Blvd/Gellart Blvd 42.4 D 27.1 C 42.6 D 27.2 C
4. Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 3.7 A 2.6 A 4.0 A 2.8 A
Eastbound Approach 13.2 B 9.8 A 13.5 B 10.2 B
Westbound Approach 9.6 B 9.0 A 9.7 B 9.2 A
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way
stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Finding: Upon the addition of the project trips, the study intersections would continue operating at acceptable
levels of service set forth by the City of South San Francisco and C/CAG.
Ms. Rebecca Auld Page 6 October 11, 2018
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
In the study area, there are currently continuous sidewalk facilities. The proposed on-site sidewalks would
conform to existing facilities. According to the site plan, there would not be a continuous sidewalk on-site but at
any on-site location, there would be a sidewalk on at least one side of the street.
Per municipal code, 19.20.010, for minor streets in a residential subdivision, a sidewalk is required on each side of
the right of way. Additionally, the 4.3-G-2 guiding policy encourages providing safe and direct pedestrian routes
and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
Recommendations: A continuous pedestrian network should be provided with sidewalks on both sides of
Shannon Place, to meet City Standards in addition to promoting alternative modes through safe and direct
pedestrian routes to the alternative modes available on Oakmont Drive adjacent to the site.
Bicycle Facilities
According to the proposed site plan, there are no proposed bicycle facilities or modification to the existing
facilities. Residents would be expected to use their personal garage for bicycle parking.
Finding: The existing bicycle facilities and proposed individual garages would adequately serve the residents of
the site.
Transit Facilities
There are several bus stops within walking distance to the project site. It is reasonable to assume that residents of
the proposed project would use public transportation. The General Plan’s guiding policy, 4.4-G-1, states that local
and regional public transit serving South San Francisco should be promoted. The proposed project is located
adjacent to an existing bus stop that serves SamTrans routes 28 and 122. According to the site plan, a pedestrian
path that would provide access the site is proposed within 100 feet of the bus stops.
Finding: The proposed project site should be adequately served by the existing transit facilities.
Parking Requirements
Per the South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.330.004, the townhomes would each require two spaces with at
least one of the spaces covered for a total of 44 provided spaces. Per the site plan, each of the units would be
equipped with a two-car garage, for a total of 44 covered parking spaces. Additional parking includes 27 driveway
spaces, and 14 on-street spaces, for a total of 85 proposed parking spaces. The proposed parking supply would
adequately satisfy the City’s Municipal Code.
For a comparison, the anticipated parking demand was estimated using standard parking demand rates published
by ITE in Parking Generation, 4th Edition, 2010. The parking demand for the proposed project was estimated using
published standard rates for Residential Townhouse (ITE LU#230), which estimates demand based on the number
of dwelling units. Based on the parking generation rates, the average weekday parking demand would be 31
parking stalls which would be accommodated with the proposed parking supply.
Finding: The proposed parking supply would adequately serve the site’s residential uses.
Ms. Rebecca Auld Page 7 October 11, 2018
Sight Distance
At unsignalized intersections a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a
vehicle waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle. Adequate time must be provided for
the waiting vehicle to either cross, turn left, or turn right, without requiring the through traffic to radically alter
their speed. Sight distance should be measured from a 3.5-foot height at the location of the driver on the minor
road to a 4.25-foot object height in the center of the approaching lane of the major road. Setback for the driver
on the crossroad shall be a minimum of 15 feet, measured from the edge of the traveled way.
Although sight distance requirements are not technically applicable to urban driveways, sight distance along
Oakmont Drive at the project driveway was evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway
Design Manual published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distance at a driveway is based on stopping sight
distance, which uses the approach travel speeds as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance.
Additionally, the stopping sight distance needed for a following driver to stop, if there is a vehicle waiting to turn
into a driveway, is evaluated based on stopping sight distance criterion and the approach speed on the major
street.
Based on a posted speed limit of 25 mph, the minimum stopping sight distance needed is 150 feet. Sight distance
at the proposed driveway was field measured, and in both directions, there is not a clear line of sight due to on-
street parking on west side of Oakmont Drive along the project frontage near the proposed driveway. To improve
sight lines to the north, it is recommended that parking be prohibited on the west side of Oakmont Drive, north
of the driveway, for a total length of 60 feet. This would leave about 45 feet, roughly two parking spaces on the
west side of Oakmont Drive between the project driveway and the intersection of Westborough
Boulevard/Oakmont Drive.
To provide the recommended sight lines to the south of the project driveway, parking should be prohibited from
the proposed project driveway through the pedestrian curb ramp to the south, which is about 20 feet from the
driveway. This would provide adequate sight lines as well as discourage motorists from parking vehicles in front
of the pedestrian curb ramp (which was observed at the time of the site visit).
The line of sight between a vehicle at the proposed project driveway and a vehicle at Bantry Lane, across from the
driveway, was also reviewed and determined to be clear.
Finding: Stopping sight distance at the project driveway is inadequate.
Recommendation: To provide adequate sight lines, parking should be prohibited for 60 feet to the north of the
project driveway on the west side of Oakmont Drive, and prohibited to the south of the project driveway for 20
feet on the west side of Oakmont Drive, extending through the pedestrian curb ramp.
CEQA Initial Checklist: Project Impacts
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
The following discussion addresses project impacts on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit. Impacts
on intersections are addressed under (b) below.
Ms. Rebecca Auld Page 8 October 11, 2018
Impact on Pedestrian Facilities
Less-than-Significant Impact. It is reasonable to assume that residents would want to walk to the adjacent
street network. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code, 19.20.010, sidewalks are required on both sides of a
minor street’s right of way. Additionally, the 4.3-G-2 guiding policy from the City’s General Plan states that
safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to
transit centers should be encouraged. However, the streets in the proposed project would be private and
these standards would not necessarily apply. Having sidewalks located on only one side of the street is
consistent with the adjacent development connecting through Shannon Drive. Therefore, this would not be
a significant impact under CEQA, however, it remains the recommendation that the design accommodate
sidewalks on both sides of the street, to be enhance the residents’ pedestrian access.
Impact on Bicycle Facilities
No Impact. There are existing dedicated Class II bicycle lanes along the northern project frontage and Class
III bicycle route on the west side of the project frontage on Oakmont Drive. Bicycle trips generated by the
project would be adequately served by these existing facilities.
Impact on Transit
No Impact. The proposed project would adequately be served by the existing facilities as well as adhering to
the General Plan’s Guiding Policy that alternative modes should be encouraged. The proposed site plan has
a pedestrian path to and from the site to Oakmont Drive near an existing SamTrans bus stop.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City of South San Francisco has established the minimally acceptable LOS
standard to strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on
principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. In addition, it states that an LOS of E or F are acceptable after
finding that there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting
in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
The Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard intersection is located on State Route 35, Skyline Boulevard,
which is a facility in the County’s Management Program (CMP); however, the intersection is not one of the 16
intersections in the CMP. Based on the CMP, that segment of Skyline Boulevard has an LOS standard of E, but
the intersection must maintain the LOS Standard set forth by the City of South San Francisco which is LOS D.
Based on the counts collected during the morning and evening peak hours on January 12, 2016, each of the
study intersections are operating at an acceptable set forth by the City. Upon the addition of the project
generation trips to the existing network, the intersections would continue to operate at their existing LOS.
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?
No Impact. The project would not contain any features or characteristics that would result in a change in air
traffic patterns nor would any feature be of sufficient height to affect air traffic.
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Ms. Rebecca Auld Page 9 October 11, 2018
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Stopping sight distance at the proposed project driveway at
Oakmont Drive is inadequate. To provide adequate sight lines, parking shall be prohibited for at least 60 feet
to the north of the project driveway on the west side of Oakmont Drive, and prohibited to the south of the
project driveway for at least 20 feet on the west side of Oakmont Drive, extending through the pedestrian
curb ramp. With the proposed parking prohibitions on Oakmont Drive, stopping site distances would be
consistent with design safety standards.
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less-than-Significant Impact. For 13 of the units, access would be via an existing, but currently incomplete,
segment of road off Shannon Park Court. For the remaining 9 units, access would be provided via a driveway
on Oakmont Drive. Internally, there would be road connecting these two areas and access points though it
would only serve as an emergency vehicle access road. Emergency vehicles would be able to enter the site
and maneuver in the designated cul-de-sac or turnaround areas or proceed through the site on the
emergency vehicle access road. The project would result in adequate emergency access.
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Less-than-Significant Impact. See discussion under (a) above. The proposed project would be adequately
served by pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs regarding alternative modes. While not a significant impact, it is recommended that the on-site
pedestrian facilities be enhanced by incorporating sidewalks on both sides of proposed streets such that the
improvements meet the City’s specifications for public streets.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed project would generate an average of 128 new trips daily, with 10 new trips during the a.m.
peak hour and 11 new trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Upon the addition of project generated trips, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better which is the
lowest acceptable LOS standard as established by the City of San Francisco and C/CAG thresholds of
significance.
The proposed parking supply of 27 driveway spaces and 14 on-street spaces, and a two-car garage for each
unit, would satisfy the City’s requirements as well as the anticipated average parking demand for the site
based ITE’s parking generation rates.
While not a CEQA impact, sidewalks could be constructed on each side of project streets to enhance
pedestrian connections.
The existing bicycle and transit facilities would accommodate the anticipated needs of the proposed project.
Currently, the sight distance at the proposed project driveway on Oakmont Drive is inadequate and would
result in a site hazard. As such, parking to the north of the driveway on the west side of Oakmont Drive shall
be prohibited and the curb painted red for at least 60 feet. To the south, the curb on the west side of Oakmont
Drive shall be painted red so that parking is prohibited for a length of at least 20 feet (through the pedestrian
curb ramp).
475 14th Street, Suite 290 Oakland, CA 94612 510.444.2600 w-trans.com
SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND • SAN JOSE
Memorandum
Date:February 12, 2016 Project:SSF010
To:Nathaniel Taylor
Lamphier-Gregory From:Mark Spencer
mspencer@w-trans.com
Subject:Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment
As requested,W-Trans has prepared a transportation assessment in support of an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the proposed Oakmont Meadows residential development to be located at 3460
Westborough Road in the City of South San Francisco in the County of San Mateo.The analysis focuses
on the project’s traffic impacts based and the potential for increased traffic associated with the additional
19 residential units.The transportation assessment was completed in accordance with the criteria
established by the City of South San Francisco and the City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG), and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.
Study Area
The study area consists of the following intersections:
1.Westborough Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard
2.Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard
3.Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard
4.Oakmont Drive and Shannon Drive
All of the intersections are signalized with the exception of Oakmont Drive/Shannon Drive intersection which
has stop-controlled side-streets.
Intersection turning movement volume counts were obtained January 12, 2016 for all study intersections.
The counts were collected during typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods to evaluate the highest
potential impacts for the proposed project. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and
reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between
4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound
commute.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions,
and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general there is a network of
sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the vicinity of
the proposed project site.
Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012, classifies bikeways
into three categories:
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 2 February 12, 2016
Class I Multi-Use Path –a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and
pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
Class II Bike Lane –a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bike Route –signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a
street or highway.
In the project area,there are Class II bike lanes on Westborough Boulevard between Skyline Boulevard-
Sharp Park Road and Galway Drive, as well as on Callan Boulevard north of the project site.There are
class III bike routes on Westborough Boulevard from Galway Drive and east through the study area. There
are also class III bike routes on Oakmont Drive.
Transit Facilities
Currently there are several bus stops within walking distance serviced by SamTrans.Bus stops for routes
122 and 28 are currently on Oakmont Drive adjacent to the proposed project site and routes 121 and 140
are near the Skyline Boulevard/Westborough intersection.
Route 122 connects to the Stonestown Shopping Center and San Francisco State University to the north
and South San Francisco BART station to the South.Additional stops include the Colma BART station,
Seton Medical Center, and King Plaza Shopping Center with options to transfer to other routes along the
routes. On weekdays, the route begins at 5:15 a.m. or 6:00 a.m., depending on the direction of travel, and
ends at 11:10 p.m. with about 30 minute headways.The route operates on a reduced schedule on the
weekends.
Route 28 runs school days to and from South San Francisco High School. The route runs twice in the
morning and evening hours around the high school bell schedule.There is an additional route for early
dismissal on Wednesdays.While the route caters to the high school, it can be used for public use.
Route 121 provides service every day of the week with varying headways, 30 minutes on weekdays and
60 minutes on weekends. The limits of the service are between Lowell Street/Hanover Street intersection
in San Francisco to the north and the Skyline College Transit Center to the south with stops at the Daily
City and Colma BART station.
Route 140 provides service between the SFO AirTrain and the intersection of Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue
in Pacifica. The route operates every day of the week with varying start and end times, headways ranging
from 30 minutes to an hour, and limited stops.
Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate
a safety issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway
Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most
current five-year period available is July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014.
As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average
collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2012 Collision Data on California State
Highways, California Department of Transportation.Generally, the intersections operate below or near the
statewide average for similar facilities.The collision rate calculations are attached.
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 3 February 12, 2016
Table 1 –Collision Rates at the Study Intersections
Study Intersection Number of
Collisions
(2009-2014)
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide
Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
1.Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 31 0.39 0.27
2.Westborough Blvd/Oakmont Dr-Callan Blvd 11 0.20 0.27
3.Westborough Blvd/Gellert Blvd 18 0.20 0.27
4.Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 0 0.00 0.15
Note:c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering
Westborough Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard had a calculated collision rate of 0.39 collisions per million
vehicles entering the intersection (c/mve), which is slightly higher than the Statewide Average of 0.27 c/mve.
Of the 31 collisions recorded, more than a third were rear-end collisions and of those, the majority were
due to unsafe speeds or following too closely.This could be mitigated with increased enforcement but is
generally common for congested urban areas.
Capacity Analysis
Levels of Service Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes
and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service
A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions.
A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of
intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per
vehicle.
Traffic Operation Standards
The City of South San Francisco, in General Plan Transportation Policy 4.2.G-9, has established minimally
acceptable LOS standards.
Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal
arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
In addition, it states that an LOS of E or F are acceptable after finding that:
There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic
volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic
volumes. Volume data was collected while local schools were in session.
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 4 February 12, 2016
Under existing conditions,each of the study intersections operate acceptably. A summary of the
intersection level of service calculations is contained in Table 2, and copies of the Level of Service
calculations are attached.
Table 2 –Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1.Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 28.5 C 30.5 C
2.Westborough Blvd/Oakmont Dr-Callan Blvd 25.0 C 18.4 B
3.Westborough Blvd/Gellart Blvd 42.4 D 27.1 C
4.Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 3.7 A 2.6 A
Eastbound Approach 13.2 B 9.8 A
Westbound Approach 9.6 B 9.0 A
Notes:Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches
to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics;
Project Description
The proposed infill project would develop 12 single family homes and seven townhomes located on the
southwest corner of the Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard/Westborough Boulevard intersection.The project
access would connect to an existing, but currently incomplete, segment of road off of Shannon Park Court.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition,2012 for “Single
Family Detached Housing” (ITE LU #210)and “Residential Condominiums/Townhouses” (ITE LU #230).
The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 155 trips per day, including 12 trips during the
a.m. peak hour and 16 during the p.m. peak hour.The expected trip generation potential for the proposed
project is indicated in Table 3.
Table 3 –Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Proposed
Single Family Detached
Housing
12 du 9.52 114 0.75 9 2 7 1.00 12 8 4
Condominium/Townhouse 7 du 5.81 41 0.44 3 1 2 0.52 4 2 2
Total 155 12 3 9 16 10 6
Note:du = dwelling unit;
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was determined from the residential
distribution used for the same proposed site, but different proposed project,in the Initial Study and Mitigated
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 5 February 12, 2016
Negative Declaration for Oakmont Vistas/Storage USA South San Francisco (October 1999).The applied
distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 –Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent
Callan Blvd to/from the North 17%
Oakmont Dr to/from the South 6%
Shannon Dr to/from the East 7%
Sharp Park Rd to/from the West 4%
Skyline Blvd to/from the North 8%
Skyline Blvd to/from the South 10%
Westborough Blvd to/from the East 39%
Gellert Blvd to/from the North 9%
TOTAL 100%
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, the study intersections are expected to
continue operating acceptably at the same LOS. These results are summarized in Table 5.Project traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 5.
Table 5 –Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1.Westborough Blvd/Skyline Blvd 28.5 C 30.5 C 28.6 C 30.5 C
2.Westborough Blvd/Oakmont
Dr-Callan Blvd 25.0 C 18.4 B 25.1 C 18.5 B
3.Westborough Blvd/Gellart Blvd 42.4 D 27.1 C 42.6 D 27.2 C
4.Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr 3.7 A 2.6 A 4.0 A 2.8 A
Eastbound Approach 13.2 B 9.8 A 13.5 B 10.2 B
Westbound Approach 9.6 B 9.0 A 9.7 B 9.2 A
Notes:Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches
to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics;
Conclusion: Upon the addition of the project trips, the study intersections would continue operating at
acceptable levels of service set forth by the City of South San Francisco and C/CAG.
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
In the study area, there are currently continuous sidewalk facilities.The proposed on-site sidewalks would
conform with existing facilities.According to the site plan,there would not be a continuous sidewalk onsite
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 6 February 12, 2016
but at any on location, there would be a sidewalk on at least one side of the street.There would also be a
pedestrian path along the eastern perimeter of the project site starting near where the proposed access
road would conform to existing facilities and ending on Oakmont Drive between the proposed townhomes
and the existing residences.
Per municipal code, 19.20.010, for minor street in a residential subdivision, a sidewalk is required on each
side of the right of way. Additionally,the 4.3-G-2 guiding policy encourages providing safe and direct
pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
Recommendations:A continuous pedestrian network should be provided with sidewalks on both sides of
Shannon Place,to meet City Standards in addition to promoting alternative modes through safe and direct
pedestrian routes to the alternative modes available on Oakmont Drive adjacent to the site.
Bicycle Facilities
According to the proposed site plan, there are no proposed bicycle facilities or modification to the existing
facilities. Residents would be expected to use their personal garage for bicycle parking.
Conclusion: The existing bicycle facilities and proposed individual garages would adequately serve the
residents of the site.
Transit Facilities
There are several bus stops within walking distance to the project site. It is reasonable to assume that
residents of the proposed project would use public transportation.The General Plan’s guiding policy, 4.4-
G-1, states that local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco should be promoted. The
proposed project is located adjacent to an existing bus stop.According to the site plan, a pedestrian path
leaving the site is proposed within 100 feet of the bus stops.T
Conclusion:The proposed project site should be adequately served by the existing transit facilities.
Parking Requirements
Per the South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.330.004,the townhomes and single family dwelling would
each require two spaces with at least one of the spaces covered.Per the site plan, each of the units would
be provided with a two-car garage.Additionally, 19 parking would be provided along Shannon Place.If
each residence only parked one car in the garage, the proposed parking supply along Shannon Place would
accommodate the other vehicle.The proposed parking supply adequately meets the City Municipal Code.
For a comparison, the anticipated parking demand was estimated using standard rates published by ITE in
Parking Generation, 4th Edition, 2010. The parking demand for the proposed project was estimated using
the published standard rates for Residential Townhouse (ITE LU#230)and Single-Family Detached
Housing (ITE LU#210), both of which estimate demand based on the number of dwelling units.Based on
the parking generation rates, the average parking demand would be 32 parking stalls which would be
accommodated with the proposed two car garages and the 19 parking stalls along Shannon Place.
Conclusion: The proposed parking supply would adequately serve the site’s residential uses.
CEQA Initial Checklist: Project Impacts
a.Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 7 February 12, 2016
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
The following discussion addresses project impacts on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit.
Impacts on intersections are addressed under (b) below.
Impact on Pedestrian Facilities
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation.It is reasonable to assume that residents would want
to walk to the adjacent street network.Per South San Francisco Municipal Code, 19.20.010, sidewalks
are required on both sides of a minor street’s right of way. Additionally, the 4.3-G-2 guiding policy from
the City’s General Plan states that safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through
residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers should be encourage.
With the proposed recommendation to design for sidewalks on both sides of the street, the residents
would be adequately served and adhere to the City’s guiding policy.
Impact on Bicycle Facilities
No Impact. There are existing dedicated Class II bicycle lanes along the northern project frontage and
Class III bicycle route on the west side of the project frontage on Oakmont Drive. Bicycle trips
generated by the project would be adequately served by these existing facilities.
Impact on Transit
No Impact. The proposed project would adequately be served by the existing facilities as well as
adhering to the General Plan’s Guiding Policy that alternative modes should be encouraged. The
proposed site plan has a pedestrian path to and from the site to Oakmont Drive in close proximity to an
existing SamTrans bus stop.
b.Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The City of South San Francisco has established the minimally
acceptable LOS standard to strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all
intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.In addition, it states that an LOS
of E or F are acceptable after finding that there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower
level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
The Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard intersection is located on State Route 35, Skyline
Boulevard, which is a facility in the County’s Management Program (CMP); however, the intersection
is not one of the 16 intersections in the CMP.Based on the CMP,that segment of Skyline Boulevard
has an LOS standard of E but the intersection must maintain the LOS Standard set forth by the City of
South San Francisco which is LOS D.
Based on the counts collected during the morning and evening peak hours on January 12, 2016, each
of the study intersections are operating at an acceptable set forth by the City. Upon the addition of the
project generation trips to the existing network, the intersections would continue to operate at their
existing LOS.
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?
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 8 February 12, 2016
No Impact. The project would not contain any features or characteristics that would result in a change
in air traffic patterns nor would any feature be of sufficient height to affect air traffic.
d.Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The design of the project would be required to meet all local design
and construction standards, and as such, would not substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature.The proposed project would have one ingress and one egress with a designated turnaround
located on the north end of the site. The proposed point of ingress and egress would conform to an
existing leg of the Shannon Drive/ Shannon Court intersection.Per City standards, once the intersection
is completed, adequate signage should be installed to promote safety.
e.Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The proposed project would have one access road for all ingress and
egress.Emergency vehicles would be able to enter the site and maneuver in the designated turnaround
area located at the north end of the site near the townhomes to turn around and exit the site. The site’s
road, which is designed to meet City standards, would be of adequate width,and the turnaround would
be of adequate size.
f.Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. See discussion under (a) above. The proposed project
would be adequately served by existing bicycle and transit facilities.It is recommended that the on-
site pedestrian facilities be improved by incorporating sidewalks on both sides of Shannon Place such
that the improvements meet the City’s specifications.This recommendation would also ensure
consistency with General Plan Policy regarding pedestrian pathways. With this mitigation measure, the
project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative modes.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed project would generate an average of 155 new trips daily,with 12 new trips during the
a.m. peak hour and 16 new trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Upon the addition of project generated trips, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better which
is the lowest acceptable LOS standard as established by the City of San Francisco and C/CAG
thresholds of significance.
The proposed parking supply of 19 parking spaces and a two-car garage for each unit adheres to the
City’s requirements as well as the anticipated average parking demand for the site based ITE’s parking
generation rates.
Sidewalks should be constructed on each of Shannon Place to provide a continuous pedestrian
connection.
The proposed project would be accommodated by the existing bicycle and transit facilities.
MES/bkb/SSF010.M1
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor Page 9 February 12, 2016
Attachments:
Collision Rate Calculations
LOS Calculations
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 31
Number of Injuries: 13
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 44100
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
31 x
44,100 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.39 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.27 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 11
Number of Injuries: 9
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 29600
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
11 x
29,600 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.20 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.27 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Oakmont Meadows
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
41.9%
collision rate = 365
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
collision rate =
1,000,000
Westborough Boulevard & Oakmont Drive-Callan
Boulevard
41.9%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
July 1, 2009
365
Intersection #
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
0.0%
collision rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.4%
81.8%
Collision Rate
Intersection Collision Rate Calculations
July 1, 2009
June 30, 2014
Intersection #Westborough Boulevard-Sharp Park Road & Skyline
Boulevard1:
2:
June 30, 2014
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
0.4%
collision rate = ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
41.9%
1,000,000
Fatality Rate
0.0%
Collision Rate Injury Rate
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
2/11/2016
Page 1 of 10
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 18
Number of Injuries: 11
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 48700
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
18 x
48,700 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.20 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.27 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 0
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 4300
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
0x
4,300 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.00 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.15 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Shannon Drive & Oakmont Drive
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.4% 41.9%
0.0%
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
1.0%
collision rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.0% 0.0%
1,000,000
365
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
collision rate =
Collision Rate
3: Westborough Boulevard & Gellart Boulevard
collision rate = 1,000,000
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
June 30, 2014
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
61.1%
4:
Injury Rate
June 30, 2014
Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
365
Collision Rate
Oakmont Meadows
July 1, 2009
41.9%
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
July 1, 2009
collision rate =
Intersection #
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
2/11/2016
Page 2 of 10
AM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:08 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.645 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.5 Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Skyline Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:15 - 8:15 Base Vol: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 103 175 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 103 175 90 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 108 184 95 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 108 184 95 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 108 184 95 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 2.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 1.86 0.14 1.00 1.39 1.61 1.00 1.32 0.68 Final Sat.: 3502 2897 619 1805 3318 252 1805 2301 2675 1805 2262 1164 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.27 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.31 Delay/Veh: 50.1 35.8 35.8 35.4 26.8 26.8 28.6 21.7 21.7 52.1 29.5 29.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.1 35.8 35.8 35.4 26.8 26.8 28.6 21.7 21.7 52.1 29.5 29.5 LOS by Move: D D D D C C C C C D C C HCM2k95thQ: 8 13 13 13 22 22 8 23 23 7 7 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:10 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.581 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.5 Optimal Cycle: 54 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Skyline Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 647 701 140 147 430 72 113 248 237 189 393 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 647 701 140 147 430 72 113 248 237 189 393 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 681 738 147 155 453 76 119 261 249 199 414 176 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 681 738 147 155 453 76 119 261 249 199 414 176 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 681 738 147 155 453 76 119 261 249 199 414 176 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.53 1.47 1.00 1.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 3502 2934 586 1805 3027 507 1805 2567 2453 1805 2419 1028 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.58 0.58 Delay/Veh: 28.2 21.3 21.3 42.3 33.4 33.4 46.2 36.5 36.5 36.2 30.9 30.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.2 21.3 21.3 42.3 33.4 33.4 46.2 36.5 36.5 36.2 30.9 30.9 LOS by Move: C C C D C C D D D D C C HCM2k95thQ: 17 20 20 10 15 15 9 11 11 10 15 15 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:08 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Westborough Boulevard/Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.699 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.0 Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:30-8:30 Base Vol: 35 79 55 345 113 72 50 821 26 179 302 294 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 35 79 55 345 113 72 50 821 26 179 302 294 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 39 89 62 388 127 81 56 922 29 201 339 330 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 89 62 388 127 81 56 922 29 201 339 330 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 89 62 388 127 81 56 922 29 201 339 330 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.61 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.31 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 526 1186 1615 1167 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.33 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.70 0.14 0.11 0.45 0.70 0.05 0.70 0.21 0.45 Delay/Veh: 15.0 15.0 14.4 24.6 14.8 14.6 47.3 28.7 20.5 47.2 16.4 19.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 15.0 15.0 14.4 24.6 14.8 14.6 47.3 28.7 20.5 47.2 16.4 19.1 LOS by Move: B B B C B B D C C D B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 4 2 19 4 3 3 22 1 14 6 13 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:10 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Westborough Boulevard/Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.394 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 18.4 Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 38 50 22 149 47 34 112 402 31 45 670 275 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 38 50 22 149 47 34 112 402 31 45 670 275 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 40 53 23 157 49 36 118 423 33 47 705 289 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 53 23 157 49 36 118 423 33 47 705 289 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 53 23 157 49 36 118 423 33 47 705 289 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.62 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.43 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 729 959 1615 1178 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.54 0.54 0.12 0.50 0.50 Volume/Cap: 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.39 0.08 0.07 0.39 0.22 0.04 0.22 0.39 0.36 Delay/Veh: 23.3 23.3 22.3 25.9 22.5 22.5 38.1 12.0 10.8 40.2 15.9 15.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 23.3 23.3 22.3 25.9 22.5 22.5 38.1 12.0 10.8 40.2 15.9 15.7 LOS by Move: C C C C C C D B B D B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 4 1 8 2 2 6 7 1 3 14 11 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:08 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.956 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 42.4 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Gellert Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:30-8:30 Base Vol: 56 46 362 557 57 130 119 1604 29 124 650 161 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 56 46 362 557 57 130 119 1604 29 124 650 161 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 60 49 385 593 61 138 127 1706 31 132 691 171 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 49 385 593 61 138 127 1706 31 132 691 171 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 49 385 593 61 138 127 1706 31 132 691 171 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 3455 1727 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.17 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.47 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.37 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.10 0.96 0.96 0.11 0.28 0.36 0.96 0.04 0.96 0.36 0.28 Delay/Veh: 40.8 29.0 70.4 64.6 24.7 26.4 35.3 36.7 13.0 108.9 22.7 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.8 29.0 70.4 64.6 24.7 26.4 35.3 36.7 13.0 108.9 22.7 22.2 LOS by Move: D C E E C C D D B F C C HCM2k95thQ: 4 2 29 25 3 7 7 52 1 14 11 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:10 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.637 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.1 Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Gellert Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 41 79 169 437 81 218 168 615 13 203 1295 444 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 79 169 437 81 218 168 615 13 203 1295 444 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 44 84 180 465 86 232 179 654 14 216 1378 472 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 84 180 465 86 232 179 654 14 216 1378 472 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 84 180 465 86 232 179 654 14 216 1378 472 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 3466 1733 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.01 0.12 0.27 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.24 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.25 0.64 0.64 0.15 0.44 0.64 0.49 0.02 0.49 0.58 0.64 Delay/Veh: 48.7 36.0 43.1 37.6 23.6 26.8 44.4 24.5 20.0 33.3 20.3 22.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.7 36.0 43.1 37.6 23.6 26.8 44.4 24.5 20.0 33.3 20.3 22.5 LOS by Move: D D D D C C D C C C C C HCM2k95thQ: 4 5 12 15 4 11 12 16 1 12 21 21 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:08 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Shannon Drive/Oakmont Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive Shannon Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:45-8:45 Base Vol: 2 84 5 50 110 9 13 4 2 4 1 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 84 5 50 110 9 13 4 2 4 1 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 PHF Volume: 3 122 7 72 159 13 19 6 3 6 1 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 122 7 72 159 13 19 6 3 6 1 86 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 172 xxxx xxxxx 129 xxxx xxxxx 486 446 166 446 449 125 Potent Cap.: 1417 xxxx xxxxx 1469 xxxx xxxxx 495 510 884 526 508 931 Move Cap.: 1417 xxxx xxxxx 1469 xxxx xxxxx 430 483 884 498 481 931 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.09 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.5 xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 466 xxxxx xxxx 871 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.2 xxxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.2 9.6 ApproachLOS: * * B A ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:10 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Shannon Drive/Oakmont Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.8] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive Shannon Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 2 68 1 24 57 12 3 1 2 2 2 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 68 1 24 57 12 3 1 2 2 2 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 2 83 1 29 70 15 4 1 2 2 2 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 2 83 1 29 70 15 4 1 2 2 2 33 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 84 xxxx xxxxx 84 xxxx xxxxx 241 224 77 226 231 84 Potent Cap.: 1525 xxxx xxxxx 1525 xxxx xxxxx 717 678 990 734 672 981 Move Cap.: 1525 xxxx xxxxx 1525 xxxx xxxxx 680 664 990 720 658 981 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 756 xxxxx xxxx 930 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * A * * A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.8 9.0 ApproachLOS: * * A A ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:12 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for am Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total % Of # Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total ---- ------------ ------- -------------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 Oakmont Mead 1.00 Residential 3.00 9.00 3 9 12 100.0 Zone 1 Subtotal ............................. 3 9 12 100.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL .................................................. 3 9 12 100.0 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:16 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for pm Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total % Of # Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total ---- ------------ ------- -------------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 Oakmont Mead 1.00 Residential 10.00 6.00 10 6 16 100.0 Zone 1 Subtotal ............................. 10 6 16 100.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL .................................................. 10 6 16 100.0 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:13 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.646 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.6 Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Skyline Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:15 - 8:15 Base Vol: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 103 175 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 103 175 90 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 166 337 72 227 764 58 147 641 745 104 175 91 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 109 184 96 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 109 184 96 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 175 355 76 239 804 61 155 675 784 109 184 96 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 2.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 1.86 0.14 1.00 1.39 1.61 1.00 1.32 0.68 Final Sat.: 3502 2897 619 1805 3318 252 1805 2301 2675 1805 2254 1172 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.27 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.31 Delay/Veh: 50.1 35.9 35.9 35.5 26.9 26.9 28.7 21.8 21.8 52.1 29.4 29.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.1 35.9 35.9 35.5 26.9 26.9 28.7 21.8 21.8 52.1 29.4 29.4 LOS by Move: D D D D C C C C C D C C HCM2k95thQ: 8 13 13 13 22 22 8 23 23 7 7 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:17 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.581 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.5 Optimal Cycle: 54 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Skyline Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 647 701 140 147 430 72 113 248 237 189 393 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 647 701 140 147 430 72 113 248 237 189 393 167 Added Vol: 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 647 701 141 148 430 72 113 248 237 190 393 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 681 738 148 156 453 76 119 261 249 200 414 176 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 681 738 148 156 453 76 119 261 249 200 414 176 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 681 738 148 156 453 76 119 261 249 200 414 176 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.53 1.47 1.00 1.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 3502 2930 589 1805 3027 507 1805 2567 2453 1805 2419 1028 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.58 0.58 Delay/Veh: 28.2 21.4 21.4 42.3 33.4 33.4 46.2 36.6 36.6 36.1 30.9 30.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.2 21.4 21.4 42.3 33.4 33.4 46.2 36.6 36.6 36.1 30.9 30.9 LOS by Move: C C C D C C D D D D C C HCM2k95thQ: 17 20 20 10 15 15 9 11 11 10 15 15 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:13 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Westborough Boulevard/Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.703 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.1 Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:30-8:30 Base Vol: 35 79 55 345 113 72 50 821 26 179 302 294 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 35 79 55 345 113 72 50 821 26 179 302 294 Added Vol: 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 37 81 58 345 114 72 50 821 27 180 302 294 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 42 91 65 388 128 81 56 922 30 202 339 330 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 42 91 65 388 128 81 56 922 30 202 339 330 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 42 91 65 388 128 81 56 922 30 202 339 330 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.61 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.31 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 535 1171 1615 1157 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.34 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.45 0.45 Volume/Cap: 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.70 0.14 0.11 0.45 0.70 0.05 0.70 0.21 0.45 Delay/Veh: 14.9 14.9 14.3 24.6 14.7 14.5 47.3 28.9 20.7 47.4 16.5 19.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 14.9 14.9 14.3 24.6 14.7 14.5 47.3 28.9 20.7 47.4 16.5 19.2 LOS by Move: B B B C B B D C C D B B HCM2k95thQ: 5 5 2 19 4 3 3 22 1 14 7 14 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:17 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Westborough Boulevard/Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.394 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 18.5 Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive-Callan Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 38 50 22 149 47 34 112 402 31 45 670 275 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 38 50 22 149 47 34 112 402 31 45 670 275 Added Vol: 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 51 24 149 49 34 112 402 33 48 670 275 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 41 54 25 157 52 36 118 423 35 51 705 289 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 54 25 157 52 36 118 423 35 51 705 289 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 41 54 25 157 52 36 118 423 35 51 705 289 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.62 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 0.43 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 730 955 1615 1174 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.53 0.53 0.13 0.50 0.50 Volume/Cap: 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.39 0.08 0.07 0.39 0.22 0.04 0.22 0.39 0.36 Delay/Veh: 23.3 23.3 22.2 25.9 22.5 22.4 38.1 12.4 11.1 39.6 16.0 15.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 23.3 23.3 22.2 25.9 22.5 22.4 38.1 12.4 11.1 39.6 16.0 15.8 LOS by Move: C C C C C C D B B D B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 4 1 8 2 2 6 7 1 3 14 11 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:13 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.957 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 42.6 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Gellert Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:30-8:30 Base Vol: 56 46 362 557 57 130 119 1604 29 124 650 161 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 56 46 362 557 57 130 119 1604 29 124 650 161 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 56 46 362 557 57 130 120 1608 29 124 651 161 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 60 49 385 593 61 138 128 1711 31 132 693 171 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 49 385 593 61 138 128 1711 31 132 693 171 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 49 385 593 61 138 128 1711 31 132 693 171 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 3455 1727 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.17 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.47 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.08 0.37 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.10 0.96 0.96 0.11 0.28 0.36 0.96 0.04 0.96 0.36 0.28 Delay/Veh: 40.8 29.0 70.8 64.9 24.7 26.4 35.2 36.8 13.0 109.3 22.8 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.8 29.0 70.8 64.9 24.7 26.4 35.2 36.8 13.0 109.3 22.8 22.2 LOS by Move: D C E E C C D D B F C C HCM2k95thQ: 4 2 29 25 3 7 7 52 1 14 11 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:17 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.638 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.2 Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Gellert Boulevard Westborough Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 41 79 169 437 81 218 168 615 13 203 1295 444 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 79 169 437 81 218 168 615 13 203 1295 444 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 4 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 41 79 169 437 81 219 169 617 13 203 1299 444 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 44 84 180 465 86 233 180 656 14 216 1382 472 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 84 180 465 86 233 180 656 14 216 1382 472 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 84 180 465 86 233 180 656 14 216 1382 472 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 3466 1733 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.01 0.12 0.27 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.24 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.25 0.64 0.64 0.15 0.44 0.64 0.49 0.02 0.49 0.58 0.64 Delay/Veh: 48.8 36.0 43.1 37.6 23.7 26.8 44.3 24.5 20.0 33.3 20.3 22.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.8 36.0 43.1 37.6 23.7 26.8 44.3 24.5 20.0 33.3 20.3 22.6 LOS by Move: D D D D C C D C B C C C HCM2k95thQ: 4 5 12 15 4 11 12 16 1 12 21 21 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:13 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Shannon Drive/Oakmont Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.5] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive Shannon Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 7:45-8:45 Base Vol: 2 84 5 50 110 9 13 4 2 4 1 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 84 5 50 110 9 13 4 2 4 1 59 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 1 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 84 5 50 110 11 19 6 3 4 2 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 PHF Volume: 3 122 7 72 159 16 28 9 4 6 3 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 122 7 72 159 16 28 9 4 6 3 86 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 175 xxxx xxxxx 129 xxxx xxxxx 488 447 167 450 451 125 Potent Cap.: 1413 xxxx xxxxx 1469 xxxx xxxxx 494 509 882 523 507 931 Move Cap.: 1413 xxxx xxxxx 1469 xxxx xxxxx 428 482 882 492 480 931 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.09 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 465 xxxxx xxxx 859 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.5 xxxxx xxxxx 9.7 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.5 9.7 ApproachLOS: * * B A ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Mon Feb 8, 2016 18:20:17 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Shannon Drive/Oakmont Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Oakmont Drive Shannon Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Jan 2016 << 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 2 68 1 24 57 12 3 1 2 2 2 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 68 1 24 57 12 3 1 2 2 2 27 Added Vol: 1 0 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 68 1 24 57 19 7 2 2 2 4 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 4 83 1 29 70 23 9 2 2 2 5 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 83 1 29 70 23 9 2 2 2 5 33 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 93 xxxx xxxxx 84 xxxx xxxxx 249 231 81 233 242 84 Potent Cap.: 1515 xxxx xxxxx 1525 xxxx xxxxx 708 672 984 726 663 981 Move Cap.: 1515 xxxx xxxxx 1525 xxxx xxxxx 669 658 984 710 649 981 Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 708 xxxxx xxxx 904 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.2 9.2 ApproachLOS: * * B A ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
EXHIBIT B:
COMMENTS, RESPONSE, AND ERRATA RECEIVED FOR
THE OCTOBER 2018 RECIRCULATED IS/MND
Attachment to the Review and Discussion of Comment Letters for the
October 2018 Recirculated IS/MND for the
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2016042067
OAKMONT MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, Recirculated IS/MND Errata Page 1
ERRATA
PURPOSE OF THE ERRATA SHEET
This errata document is intended to be amended to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) for the proposed Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project (Project).
The revisions in this document are considered minor only and not “substantial revision” that would
trigger recirculation of the IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. These revisions do not
identify a new significant effect, or revise findings of the residual levels of effects.
REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND
The following are minor text changes, additions or modifications made to the IS/MND.
A page number from the IS/MND and explanation of each revision is included in italics preceding each
revision.
Existing and revised IS/MND text is indented. Deletions are noted by strikethrough; additions are
underlined.
Page 12: The Hazardous Materials Impact and Mitigation Measure Haz-1 are hereby removed from the
list of potentially significant impacts requiting mitigation. As detailed in changes to pages 36 to 37, the
results of the Environmental Site Assessments conclude hazardous materials are not present at the site
and therefore there is no potentially significant impact related to this topic and no mitigation is needed.
a-d) Hazardous Materials. The Project site was fully assessed for hazardous materials under the Prior
MND, which found that the site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but that portions of the site were filled in the 1960s,
before there were regulatory requirements for the source and contents of fill material and the potential
exists for fill at the site to contain materials which would now be classified as hazardous and could be
released during construction activities. Since that time, the site has been maintained as a vacant lot so
conditions related to hazardous materials would not have changed. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment was performed by ENGEO for the applicant in November 2017, which confirmed there
were no other concerns of hazardous materials at the site other than the undocumented fill. A follow-
up Phase II Environmental Site Assessment performed by ENGEO in December 2017 included
sampling of the undocumented fill and determined that all tested constituents were below applicable
residential screening criteria or within background concentrations of the San Francisco Bay Area and
Page 2 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, Recirculated IS/MND Errata
therefore that development of the site (with no further need for studies or restrictions) would not pose
a human health risk. The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are available with the
Project case file at the South San Francisco Planning Division.
Page 30: The following revisions are hereby made to the Cultural Resources section to include updated
discussion of Tribal Cultural Resources per the request by NAHC.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Public Resources Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either: 1) a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in ter ms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or 2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the
historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1 (c), and
considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American
tribe.
a) Historic Resources. There are no existing structures at the site. The revised Project would have no
impact related to historic resources.
b, c, e) Archaeological/Paleontological Resources/Human Remains. The Project site was fully assessed
for cultural resources under the Prior MND, which found no known cultural, Native American, or
archaeological resources at the site but recommended measures to address the unexpected discovery
of such resources during ground-disturbing construction activities. These measures are covered under
current regulations, as outlined below.
If Native American, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered on site, these
resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5(c), which calls on lead agencies to
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, Recirculated IS/MND Errata Page 3
refer to the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 21084.1 if the
archaeological site is determined to be a historical resource or Section 21084.3(a) if the site is
determined to be a tribal cultural resource. This is standard procedure for any project in California, so
the impact is considered less than significant.
d, e) Human Remains. There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the proposed
Project. If human remains are found during construction activities at the Project site, they will be
handled according to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native
American, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code as per CEQA Section 15064.5(d). This is
standard procedure for any project in California, so the impact is considered less than significant.
Pages 36 to 37: The following revisions are hereby made under the Hazardous Materials discussion to
add in results of the Environmental Site Assessments, which conclude hazardous materials are not
present at the site and mitigation is not needed, and to note expected use of common household hazardous
waste products by future residential uses upon request from DTSC.
a-d) Hazardous Materials. The Project site was fully assessed for hazardous materials under the Prior
MND, which found that the site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but that portions of the site were filled in the 1960s,
before there were regulatory requirements for the source and contents of fill material and the potential
exists for fill at the site to contain materials which would now be classified as hazardous and could be
released during construction activities. Since that time, the site has been maintained as a vacant lot so
conditions related to hazardous materials would not have changed. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment was performed by ENGEO for the applicant in November 2017, which confirmed there
were no other concerns of hazardous materials at the site other than the undocumented fill. A follow-
up Phase II Environmental Site Assessment performed by ENGEO in December 2017 included
sampling of the undocumented fill and determined that all tested constituents were below applicable
residential screening criteria or within background concentrations of the San Francisco Bay Area and
therefore that development of the site (with no further need for studies or restrictions) would not pose
a human health risk. The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are available with the
Project case file at the South San Francisco Planning Division.
The Project site is located approximately 450 feet southwest of the Westborough Middle School, so is
within the vicinity of a school. To mitigate the potential for upset of hazardous materials during the
construction period, the revised Project shall implement the following measure:
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1: Halting Work on Encountering Materials Believed to be Hazardous. In the event
that materials which are believed to be hazardous are encountered during site
preparation or excavation work, all such activity at the project site shall be halted
until the material in question has been evaluated by the South San Francisco Fire
Department and/or the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department. Prior to
the resumption of work at the project site, implementation of appropriate response
measures and disposal methods in accordance with applicable state and local
regulations and as approved by the Fire Department would reduce the impact to a
level of less than significant.
Additionally, it is likely that equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize
substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline. However,
all construction activities would be required to conform with Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Page 4 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, Recirculated IS/MND Errata
Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances
and procedures, which would minimize the potential for accidental release.
The average household on the project site may at times purchase and store cleaning products, paint,
solvents, and garden-related supplies that may be classified as hazardous waste. These are referred to
as of household hazardous waste (HHW) would be handled in such limited quantities and stored/used
in such a manner so as not to pose a significant threat to the environment.
Potential impacts are confined to the temporary construction period. As discussed above oOnce
operational, residential uses would not be considered a substantial potential source for hazardous
material use or release. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 and conformance with
applicable regulations, the impact related to hazardous materials would be less than significant with
mitigation.
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
LAMPHIER-GREGORY
MEMO
TO: Billy Gross
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
FROM: Rebecca Auld, Senior Planner
Lamphier-Gregory
SUBJECT: Oakmont Meadows Project Recirculated IS/MND – Review and Discussion of
Comment Letters
DATE: November 19, 2018
PURPOSE OF THIS MEMO
This memo provides a brief discussion of comments received in response to the Recirculated Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“Recirculated IS/MND”) for the Oakmont Meadows Residential
Development Project (“Project”). Though the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not
require a lead agency to formally respond to written comments received on a Recirculated IS/MND, this
memorandum is being provided by the Recirculated IS/MND preparer to demonstrate that the comments
do not present substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have a significant
environmental impact, or that the Recirculated IS/MND should be revised and recirculated for public
review.
While this memo is focused to environmental consideration, all comment letters have been provided to
City staff and decision makers in their entirety for their information and consideration.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the letters have not raised any issues that would require recirculation of the Recirculated
IS/MND or preparation of an EIR under section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as no new significant
effects were identified and the significance of identified impacts remains unchanged and do not result in
significant impacts that cannot be mitigated.
BILLY GROSS 11/16/18 PAGE 2
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The 30-day comment period for the Recirculated IS/MND ran from 10/12/2018 to 11/13/2018. Four
comment letters were received during the comment period, as listed below. Comments are included in full
as Attachment 1.
Agency Comments
NAHC Letter: Gayle Totton, Associate Governmental Project Analyst, Native American Heritage
Commission, dated 10/22/2018
DTSC Letter: Isabella Roman, Environmental Scientist, Site Mitigation and Restoration Program,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, dated 10/26/2018
Public Comments
Wai Letter Erlie & Stanley Wai, dated 11/6/2018
Correa Letter: Samuel H. Jones with Parker-Stanbury LLP for Maureen Correa, dated 11/7/2018
Kong Letter: Kong Residence, dated 11/11/2018
COMMENTS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED
Comments had previously been received following circulation of the original April 2016 IS/MND. Those
comments, the response, and errata for the April 2016 IS/MND are included with this document as
Attachment 2. The prior comment/response/errata process was taken into account during preparation of
the Recirculated IS/MND and these prior comment letters do not raise any additional environmental
concerns related to the revised project and Recirculated IS/MND.
DISCUSSION OF THE AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS
NAHC Letter
This letter requests update of the Tribal Cultural Resources assessment in the recirculated document to the
current standards. Revisions have been added in an errata document to address these requests, including
the addition of the updated checklist language and identification of the appropriate procedures in the
event of discovery. The City complies with AB 52 and no tribes have requested consultation for this area
in South San Francisco.
The comments in this letter do not identify any new significant effects of the Project and the significance
of identified impacts in the Recirculated IS/MND remains unchanged.
DTSC Letter
This letter requested a Phase I for the Project site. The Project Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments (ESAs) were provided and are available as part of the case file with the City. The ESAs
conclude that constituents in the undocumented fill were below applicable residential screening criteria or
within background concentrations of the San Francisco Bay Area and therefore that development of the
site (with no further need for studies or restrictions) would not pose a human health risk. Revisions have
BILLY GROSS 11/16/18 PAGE 3
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
been added in an errata document to reflect the conclusions of the ESAs, which includes removal of the
potential impact and mitigation measure Haz-1 related to the undocumented fill.
This letter also requested reference to the potential for residences to store limited quantities of household
hazardous waste. Revisions have been added in an errata document to address this request.
The comments in this letter do not identify any new significant effects of the Project and the significance
of identified impacts in the Recirculated IS/MND remains unchanged.
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment letters are included as attachments to this memo and the comments they contain are
addressed by topic below.
Traffic (Wai, Correa, Kong letters)
Commenters discussed the increased volume of traffic resulting from Project development, either in
general or specifically related to vicinity streets and intersections. The Recirculated IS/MND states on
pages 49-50 under the Vehicle Circulation and Congestion heading:
The revised Project would generate an average of 128 new trips daily, which is 27 fewer than
under the 2016 Project, with 10 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 11 new trips during the
p.m. peak hour (was 12 and 16 respectively under the 2016 Project). The reduced amount of
projected trips compared to the 2016 Project is due to lower trip generation of townhouse units
compared to single-family detached units.
The City of South San Francisco has established the minimally acceptable LOS standard of D or
better at all intersections in the City. The Westborough Boulevard/Skyline Boulevard intersection
is located on State Route 35, Skyline Boulevard, which is a facility in the County’s Management
Program (CMP) and included in the traffic assessment for this Project. All study intersections
were operating between LOS A and LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and would
continue to do so with the addition of Project traffic (see Table 5 in the traffic study included as
Attachment A). The transportation assessment therefore determined that, based on the addition of
the revised Project generation trips to current conditions, the intersections would continue to
operate at acceptable LOS and impacts would be less than significant.
The volume of vehicles generated by the Project equates to 10 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 11 trips in
the p.m. peak hour. The resultant level of traffic on nearby residential streets would be well within traffic
levels expected in a low-density residential neighborhood and on low-volume residential streets and
would not be considered a level of traffic that is unsafe or otherwise incompatible with a residential
neighborhood. Full details of the analysis in the Transportation Assessment can be found in Attachment B
of the Recirculated IS/MND.
Some commenters noted concerns related specifically to the intersection of Oakmont Drive and Shannon
Drive and the worsening of intersection traffic and safety conditions. Further information specific to the
Oakmont Drive and Shannon Drive intersection traffic and safety conditions is included in the
Transportation Assessment (Attachment B of the Recirculated IS/MND) under Collision History on pages
2-3 as well as on page 5 under Existing Plus Project Conditions, as excerpted below. Additional
discussion and data tables can be found in the source document.
BILLY GROSS 11/16/18 PAGE 4
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were
compared to average collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2012
Collision Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation.
Generally, the intersections operate below or near the statewide average for similar
facilities.
The intersections for which safety concerns were identified in the letters included Westborough
Blvd/Oakmont Dr/Callan Blvd had a collision rate of 0.20 compared to a statewide average for that type
of intersection of 0.27 and Shannon Dr/Oakmont Dr, which had a collision rate of 0.00 compared to a
statewide average for that type of intersection of 0.15. Both these intersections are operating better than
statewide safety averages and the Project would not result in changes to the intersections or levels of
traffic that would be expected to change the safety rate of the intersections.
Safety of pedestrians in particular was noted as a concern by some commenters. As noted above, the
Project would meet all local design and construction standards and would not result in an increase in
design hazards. Alternative modes, and specifically sidewalk provisions for pedestrians, were additionally
reviewed and found to be adequate to provide safe and direct pedestrian access (as discussed under item f
on page 51 of the Recirculated IS/MND). Proposed sidewalks would connect to existing sidewalks on
Shannon Drive and Oakmont Drive and pedestrians would be able to move freely along sidewalks.
The traffic-related comments do not identify any new significant effects and the significance of identified
impacts in the Recirculated IS/MND remains unchanged.
Construction Dust and Noise (Wai and Correa letters)
These comments note concerns related to construction-period dust and/or noise.
The potential for air quality impacts to occur during the Project’s construction period were analyzed on
pages 20 through 25 of the Recirculated IS/MND, with the requirement to implement construction
management practices and construction emissions minimization practices (mitigation measures Air-1 and
Air-2) to minimize dust and emissions during the construction period, which resulted in a conclusion that
impacts related to construction-period dust and emissions would not be significant with implementation
of the identified mitigation.
The potential for the Project to result in noise impacts during the construction period was analyzed on
pages 44 and 45 of the Recirculated IS/MND. The Project would comply with the City’s noise ordinance
as it relates to noise limits on construction equipment and hours of construction activities and would not
result in significant vibrations at nearby residences. The Project would not result in a significant i mpact
related to construction noise or vibration.
The comments do not identify any new significant effects and the significance of identified impacts in the
Recirculated IS/MND remains unchanged.
Non-CEQA Topics
Homeowner-related Issues (Wai letter)
Comments were submitted regarding homeowners’ association-related issues including the use of private
roads in the Oakmont Vistas neighborhood for Project access during construction and operation, use of
Oakmont Vistas private recreational facilities by Project residents, or other perceived homeowners’
association costs.
BILLY GROSS 11/16/18 PAGE 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
These comments relate to the specifics of homeowners’ association social and economic considerations
and are not comments on the environmental analysis in the Recirculated IS/MND and are not further
addressed herein. All comment letters have been provided to City staff and decision makers and the
applicant for their information and review.
Property Values (Wai and Correa letters)
These comments relate to the assertion there may be a lowering of property values as a result of
developing the Project.
Economic impacts are not generally studied under CEQA. As noted in section 15131(a) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, “Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on
the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project
through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in
turn by the economic or social changes.” Such “physical changes” are often referred to as urban decay.
Urban decay is the process whereby a previously functioning city, or part of a city, falls into disrepair and
decrepitude. Turnover of ownership and/or reduction in values would not in and of themselves be
considered urban decay. The construction and operation of the Project would not reasonably be
considered to result in physical decay due to economic or social effects.
The Correa letter questions the change in views as it relates to property values. As not ed on page 17 of the
Recirculated IS/MND, the Project would not substantially change views toward identified regional scenic
features and in any case, changes to private views would not generally be considered an environmental
impact. Therefore, the discussion of changes in views in relation to property values is correctly addressed
as a non-CEQA topic.
These comments are not comments on the environmental analysis in the Recirculated IS/MND and are
not further addressed herein. All comment letters have been provided to City staff and decision makers
and the applicant for their information and review.
Privacy (Correa letter)
The Correa letter expresses concerns about privacy at their property, which has windows facing the
Project site, and questions whether there will be a structural boundary between her property and the
Project site. As shown on Figures 2 and 3 of the Recirculated IS/MND, a wood perimeter fence is
proposed above the existing retaining wall near the commenter’s northern property line. The fence will
meet City regulations and guidelines related to residential fencing. As shown on the plans, this fence will
turn east and connect to the existing wood fence to remain along the eastern property lines of properties
fronting Oakmont Drive.
Parking-related Issues (Wai, Correa, and Kong letters)
These comments relate to parking by residents of the Project and reduction in parking on Oakmont Drive
for the proposed driveway and related site clearance. The traffic study (Attachment B of the
environmental document), noted the following about parking:
Per the South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.330.004, the townhomes would each require two
spaces with at least one of the spaces covered for a total of 44 provided spaces. Per the site plan,
each of the units would be equipped with a two-car garage, for a total of 44 covered parking
spaces. Additional parking includes 27 driveway spaces, and 14 on-street spaces, for a total of 85
BILLY GROSS 11/16/18 PAGE 6
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
proposed parking spaces. The proposed parking supply would adequately satisfy the City’s
Municipal Code.
For a comparison, the anticipated parking demand was estimated using standard parking demand
rates published by ITE in Parking Generation, 4th Edition, 2010. The parking demand for the
proposed project was estimated using published standard rates for Residential Townhouse (ITE
LU#230), which estimates demand based on the number of dwelling units. Based on the parking
generation rates, the average weekday parking demand would be 31 parking stalls which would
be accommodated with the proposed parking supply.
The provision of parking spaces in the Project was determined to exceed both City requirements and
projected Project demand. Unless parking provisions are severely inadequate such that significant impacts
related to traffic and air quality could occur from vehicles circling to find parking, the availability of
parking is considered a social issue, and not an environmental issue, and is therefore not addressed under
CEQA. As discussed, parking provisions are considered adequate and there would be no environmental
impact related to parking availability.
The Kong letter additionally asserted that the Project would result in parking within a bus stop and the
Correa letter requested reassurance that the bus stop on the corner of Oakmont would not be blocked or
removed. The Project does not propose allowing parking on any existing streets where it is currently
prohibited, so would not be the cause of allowing parking in a bus stop, and does not propose otherwise
blocking or removing the bus stop.
Therefore, these comments are not comments on the environmental analysis in the Recirculated IS/MND
and are not further addressed herein. All comment letters have been provided to City staff and decision
makers for their information and review.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Environmental and Cultural Department
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Phone (916) 373-3710
Fax (916) 373-5471
October 22, 2018
Billy Gross
City of South San Francisco, Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Also sent via e-mail: billy.gross@ssf.net
Re: SCH# 2016042067, Oakmont Meadows Residential Development (Revised) Project, City of South San Francisco; San
Mateo County, California
Dear Mr. Gross:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the
project referenced above. The review included the Introduction and Project Description; and the Initial Study/ Environmental
Checklist, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, section 5, Cultural Resources prepared by Lampher-Gregory for the City of
South San Francisco. We have the following concerns:
• There is no Tribal Cultural Resources section or subsection in the Initial Study / Environmental Checklist that addresses
the questions of significance for Tribal Cultural Resources as per California Natural Resources Agency (2016) “Final
Text for tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form,”
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab52/Clean-final-AB-52-App-G-text-Submitted.pdf
• There is no documentation of government-to-government consultation by the lead agency under AB-52 with Native
American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated to the project area as required by statute, or that mitigation
measures were developed in consultation with the tribes.
• Mitigation for inadvertent finds of Archaeological Resources, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and
Human Remains is missing or incomplete. Standard mitigation measures should be included in the document. Please
refer to Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code § 5097.98 for the process for inadvertent finds of
human remains. Sample mitigation measures for Tribal Cultural Resources can be found in the CEQA guidelines at
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_AB_52_Technical_Advisory_March_2017.pdf
• Cultural Resources assessments are out of date (1999). These should be current to adequately assess the existence
and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of
project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources. The lack of documented resources does not preclude
inadvertent finds, which should be addressed in the mitigation measures.
Please contact me at gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov or call (916) 373-3714 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gayle Totton, B.S., M.A., Ph.D.
Associate Governmental Project Analyst
Attachment
cc: State Clearinghouse
Gayle Totton
2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1, specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project
that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment.2 If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared.3 In order to determine
whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to
determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE).
CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AB 52).4 AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation
or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 created a
separate category for “tribal cultural resources”5, that now includes “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.6 Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.7 Your project may
also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code 65352.3, if it also involves
the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space.
Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. Additionally, if your project is also subject to the federal
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 8 may also apply.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable
laws.
Agencies should be aware that AB 52 does not preclude agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52. For that reason, we urge you
to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request
forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. Additional information regarding AB 52 can be found online
at http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf, entitled “Tribal Consultation Under
AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices”.
The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of
Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources.
A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources
assessments is also attached.
Pertinent Statutory Information:
Under AB 52:
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to
undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of,
traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice.
A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California
Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.9 and prior to
the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. For purposes of AB
52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code § 65352.4 (SB 18).10
The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects.11
1. The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
1 Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.
2 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b)
3 Pub. Resources Code § 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064 subd.(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (a)(1)
4 Government Code 65352.3
5 Pub. Resources Code § 21074
6 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.2
7 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.3 (a)
8 154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. § 800 et seq.
9 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)
10 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (b)
11 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a)
3
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources.
If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the
lead agency. 12
With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources
submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the
environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public,
consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native
American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the
environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the
information to the public.13
If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall
discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource.
b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified
tribal cultural resource.14
Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal
cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.15
Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2
shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and
reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3,
subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable.16
If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in
the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if
consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal
cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3
(b).17
An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be
adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources
Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage
in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days.18
This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document.
Under SB 18:
Government Code § 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of
“preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described § 5097.9 and § 5091.993 of the Public Resources
Code that are located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. Government Code § 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for
consultation with Native American tribes on the open-space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of
protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code.
• SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes
prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local
governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can
be found online at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf
• Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to
designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal
Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the
plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter
timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.19
• There is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law.
12 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a)
13 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (c)(1)
14 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (b)
15 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (b)
16 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (a)
17 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (e)
18 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (d)
19 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (a)(2)).
4
• Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research,20 the city or
county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of
places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city’s or
county’s jurisdiction.21
• Conclusion Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
o The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation
or mitigation; or
o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual
agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation.22
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments:
• Contact the NAHC for:
o A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands
File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that
are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist
in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.
The request form can be found at http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.
• Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center
(http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
o If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE.
o If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
o If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
• If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the
findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.
o The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately
to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and
associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public
disclosure.
o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate
regional CHRIS center.
Examples of Mitigation Measures That May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal
Cultural Resources:
o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate
protection and management criteria.
o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning
of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource.
Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management
criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
o Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California
Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric,
archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the
conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed.23
o Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be
repatriated.24
The lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface
existence.
o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the
identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources.25 In areas of identified
20 pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2,
21 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b)).
22 (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
23 (Civ. Code § 815.3 (c)).
24 (Pub. Resources Code § 5097.991).
25 per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f)).
5
archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of
cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the
disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native
Americans.
o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the
treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code
section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5,
subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be
followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave
goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
From: Roman, Isabella@DTSC [mailto:Isabella.Roman@dtsc.ca.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 8:24 AM
To: Gross, Billy
Subject: Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project Draft IS and MND
Hello,
I am representing a responsible agency reviewing the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project referenced above.
I’m writing to inquire if a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and/or any other
environmental sampling has previously been conducted for the project area? If so, I
would like a copy of the documentation. Past land uses could have resulted in
hazardous materials releases within the project area that should be investigated prior to
the proposed development project for public health protection. The proposed project
contains uncharacterized fill that will be disturbed during construction which could
potentially impact nearby receptors including construction workers and the school. Once
built, these residences would have backyards with this uncharacterized soil.
The Mitigation Measure Haz-1 is insufficient to prevent exposure to hazardous material.
It is proposed that if workers encounter material that is believed to be hazardous, all
activity will halt until the material has been evaluated by the Fire Department and/or
Environmental Health Department. However, there is no way to tell if a material is
hazardous just by looking at it. It would be best to have sampling data prior to the start
of construction.
On page 37 it is stated that “once operational, residential uses would not be considered
a potential source for hazardous material use or release.” It would be best to mention
the potential for these residences to store limited quantities of household hazardous
waste (HHW) such as drain cleaners, pesticides and herbicides. All residences have the
potential to contain HHW in limited quantities and aren’t that concerning but it is good to
acknowledge the potential for their presence. This is mentioned in the prior MND but
from what I can tell is not mentioned in the current version of the MND.
Please advise.
Thanks,
Isabella Roman
Environmental Scientist
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
700 Heinz Avenue Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
(510)-540-3879
From: Erlie [mailto:erlie_1999@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 2:21 PM
To: Gross, Billy
Cc: Stanley
Subject: Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
November 6, 2018
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Dear Mr. Gross,
We received the attached notice from the mail. We reside at Belfast Court under Oakmont Vista
Complex. We strongly oppose the proposed development project for the following reasons:
From our understanding, the newly built homes will have the same entrance
as Oakmont residents. This will create chaos and major traffic - we have one single road to go in
for 33 homes (approximately 105-150 cars) plus the new proposed 19 homes with about 50-70
additional cars making it approximately 155 – 220 cars using a narrow single road
entrance. The right turn to the entrance is already dangerous as it is in its current situation with
the cars parked on both sides of entrance let alone adding more cars.
It would be congested and unsafe with these many cars passing in the same entrance. It
would overwhelm the already crowded area. Our roads are in gridlock already especially in the
morning with school nearby the area. Recently, there was a huge accident right in the corner of
the entrance. Increasing cars would only increase accidents in the corner entrance.
The wear and tear to our road would be exorbitant to the Oakmont Vista residents. We are
the ones who pay for the maintenance of the road via our monthly HOA fee, so it would be
grossly unfair for these extra cars to use our road.
Also, this would lead to parking congestion. Currently, we are already having issues with lack
of parking. I am certain that the occupants of the newly built homes will end up using our
parking.
The noise and dust of construction would be intolerable and will result serious health issues.
One of our family members has extreme allergies from the dust.
Furthermore, the homes around our area are single-family homes, not townhomes. Adding
townhomes would devalue the properties around the area. Even in desirable communities,
having townhomes may not gain value as quickly as a neighborhood full of single homes.
These are only few protests we have. We are anticipating a public hearing to voice out our objections.
Please keep us inform.
Sincerely,
Erlie & Stanley Wai
Oakmont (Belfast) Resident
(Sent by regular mail and e-mail)
1 | 4
From:
Kong Residence
3420 Oakmont Dr.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
November 11, 2018
To:
Mr. Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development Department
315 Maple Ave.
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Email: Billy.Gross@ssf.net
Re: Recirculated Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Revised Oakmont
Meadows Residential Development Project
Dear Mr. Gross,
We’d like to take this opportunity to express our concerns regarding the revised Oakmont Meadows
Residential Development Project. The updated development proposed access to eight (8) new
townhomes off a new driveway from the busy Oakmont Drive. As residents of this community for 20+
years and neighbors who live directly across from the proposed site, we believe this proposed plan and
new access road will have major negative impact on parking, pedestrian safety, and traffic. We
highlighted three (3) potential bottlenecks areas caused by the new development. Please refer to the
attached Exhibits A, B, and C for reference.
Bottleneck 1: Existing overflowed parking
Over the last couple of years, we’ve seen influx in population. Due to housing cost, economic, and/or
social factors, more than one family may be living under one roof. Parking has become a challenge for
our neighbors. Most nights, we see cars parked around corners or blocks from their houses because a 2-
car garage is just not enough. With the current parking problems, the Oakmont Meadows Residential
Development Project is expecting at least seventy (70) new residents while providing only eighty-five
(85) parking spaces as noted in the W-Trans’s Revised Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment
dated October 11, 2018. It may fulfill the South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.330.004, but
realistically from 20+ years of observation, that is not enough and will put more burden on the current
parking challenges.
Bottleneck 2: Proposed Driveway Off Busy Oakmont Drive
Per W-Trans’s Revised Oakmont Meadows Transportation Assessment dated October 11, 2018, the
report acknowledges issues with the sight distance of having the proposed project driveway off
Oakmont Drive. The report recommends taking away sixty (60) feet of parking spaces to the north side
of the new driveway and twenty (20) feet to the south side as illustrated in Exhibit A. This create a
pedestrian hazard and major parking impact for existing residents.
First, an existing bus stop is located about sixty (60) feet from the proposed driveway. This bus stop
serves students to South San Francisco High School and drop-off for Westborough Middle School during
peak hours. To make room for sight distance, the report’s recommendation to eliminate parking to only
2 | 4
two (2) parking spaces on the north side on the west side of Oakmont Dr would require one of the
parking spaces to block the bus stop. Kids would have to walk out to the street to get onto the bus. In
addition, the buses would be blocking the west side of Oakmont Drive during pickups, causing
overflowed traffic into major intersection of Westborough/Oakmont/Callan. This is a potential
pedestrian and traffic hazard. Traffic is traveling 45+ mph on Westborough Blvd. despite the 35 mph
signage.
Second, the report has just pointed out its impact on existing parking by eliminating eighty (80) feet of
parking spaces on the west side of Oakmont Drive. Exhibits B and C illustrate the current parking
challenges of this neighborhood. Cars parked in front of the proposed driveway.
It is highly troubling to discover the projected parking demand and an ticipated trip generation for the
proposed revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project are based on manuals; ITE in
Parking Generation, 4th Edition, 2010 and ITE in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012, respectively.
Manuals don’t factor in the recent neighborhood growth.
Bottleneck 3: Intersection of Westborough Blvd/Oakmont Dr/Callan Blvd
With the proposed driveway just two hundred (200) feet from this major intersection, it creates a
bottleneck for both cars coming out of the new development and buses picking up riders, not to
mention pedestrians crossing the intersection. During peak hours, traffic on the east side of Oakmont
Drive can end up blocks from this intersection. Having to accommodate another set of traffic from the
new development is another major hurdle for a growing neighborhood that hasn’t been addressed in
the development plan.
We welcome plans to address housing shortage, but the results does not justify its means if we put
pedestrian safety at risk. We request the City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community
Development Department to reconsider this project and open the discussion to a Townhall meeting
before moving forward.
Thank you,
Kong Residence
3420 Oakmont Drive
South San Francisco, CA 94080
3 | 4
Exhibit A
4 | 4
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
EXHIBIT C:
COMMENTS, RESPONSE, AND ERRATA FOR THE
APRIL 2016 IS/MND
Attachment to the Review and Discussion of Comment Letters for the
October 2018 Recirculated IS/MND for the
Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2016042067
OAKMONT MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, IS/MND Errata Page 1
ERRATA
PURPOSE OF THE ERRATA SHEET
This errata document is intended to be amended to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) for the proposed Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project (Project).
The revisions in this document are considered minor only and not “substantial revision” that would
trigger recirculation of the IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. These revisions do not
identify a new significant effect, or revise findings of the residual levels of effects.
REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND
The following are minor text changes, additions or modifications made to the IS/MND.
A page number from the IS/MND and explanation of each revision is included in italics preceding each
revision.
Existing and revised IS/MND text is indented. Deletions are noted by strikethrough; additions
are underlined.
Page 3: The following addition is made under the Project Entitlements section to reflect the requirement
for Airport Land Use Commission review:
Requested approvals from the City of South San Francisco include Planned Development, Tentative
Parcel Map, and Design Review.
The Project also requires San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission review of a project within
San Francisco International Airport’s Airport Influence Area B.
Page 36: The following change is made under the Airport Hazards discussion in the Hazards and
Hazardous Materials section to reflect the presence of the Project site within an airport influence area:
e, f) Airport Hazards. The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport, located
approximately 4 miles from the Project site. The Project site is not within Airport Influence Areas
A and B of the October 2012 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs for the San
Francisco International Airport (ALUCP).1 Tthe airport land use plan area (generally 2 miles)
or Project site is outside the constraints related to heights and airplane safety and would not
1 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, Exhibits IV-1 and IV-2.
Page 2 Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project, IS/MND Errata
contain other incompatible flight hazards as described in the ALUCP.2 There are no other
airports, either public or private within the vicinity of the Project. There would be no impact
related to airport hazards.
Page 43: The following change is made under the Airport Noise discussion in the Noise section to reflect
the presence of the Project site within an airport influence area:
e, f) Airport Noise. The Project is unrelated to airport operation and would not result in changes or
increases in airport noise that could affect others. The Project would have no impact related to
airport noise.
As noted above, the effects of the environment on a project are not considered environmental
impacts under CEQA, and the following is included for informational purposes. The closest
airport is the San Francisco International Airport, located approximately 4 miles from the
Project site. The Project site is not within Airport Influence Areas A and B of the October 2012
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs for the San Francisco International
Airport, the airport land use plan area (generally 2 miles) and but is not within the area
impacted by airplane flyover noise.17 There are no other airports, either public or private within
the vicinity of the Project.
17 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Compatibility for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, Exhibit IV-6.
2 Ibid, pages IV-59 to IV-60.
LAMPHIER -GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
LAMPHIER-GREGORY
MEMO
TO: Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
FROM: Rebecca Auld
Lamphier-Gregory
SUBJECT: Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project IS/MND – Review and
Discussion of Comment Letters
DATE: June 3, 2016
PURPOSE OF THIS MEMO
This memo provides a brief discussion of comments received in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
(“Project”). Though the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not require a lead agency
to formally respond to written comments received on an IS/MND, this memorandum is being provided by
the IS/MND preparer to demonstrate that the comments do not present substantial evidence supporting a
fair argument that the Project may have a significant environmental impact, or that the IS/MND should be
revised and recirculated for public review.
In summary, the letters have not raised any issues that would require recirculation of the IS/MND under
section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as no new significant effects were identified and the
significance of identified impacts remains unchanged.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The comment period ran from April 25, 2016 to May 24, 2016. Nine comment letters were received
during (or soon after) the comment period, as listed below. All the listed comments letters are attached to
this memo.
Agency Comments
• San Francisco International Airport Letter: John Bergener, Airport Planning Director, dated May
23, 2016
• County of San Mateo Department of Public Works Letter: Mark Chow, Principal Civil Engineer,
dated May 24, 2016
BILLY GROSS 6/3/16 PAGE 2
LAMPHIER -GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
• State Clearinghouse Letter: Scott Morgan, Director, dated May 25, 2016
Public Comments
• Li Letter: Wesley Li, dated May 11, 2016
• Ofrecio Letter: Dominador Ofrecio, undated, received May 12, 2016
• Wai Letter: Erlie Wai, dated May 12, 2016
• Lyons Letter: Ben and Molly Lyons, dated May 16, 2016
• Hong Letter: Richard Hong, dated May 23, 2016
• Oakmont Vistas Homeowners Association Letter: Larry Barney, President, dated May 24, 2016
DISCUSSION OF AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS
Agency comment letters are included as attachments to this memo and addressed by letter below.
San Francisco International Airport
The comments in this letter relate to consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco
International Airport and the identification of the Project site within the Airport Influence Areas A and B.
Revisions been added to the IS/MND via the Errata Sheet, to reflect this information as necessary. This
information does not change the impact conclusions in the IS/MND. Information regarding real estate
disclosures has been provided to City staff and decision makers and the applicant for their information
and review.
County of San Mateo Department of Public Works
The comments in this letter relate to compliance with the District policy of requiring that post-
development discharge rate not exceed the existing discharge rate. The District also requested the
inclusion of additional trash management measures.
All approval procedures must be successfully completed for the Project to proceed and the information in
this letter has been provided to City staff and decision makers and the applicant for their information and
review.
The comments do not identify any new significant effects and the significance of identified impacts in the
IS/MND remains unchanged.
State Clearinghouse
The State Clearinghouse letter acknowledges that the lead agency has complied with State Clearinghouse
review requirements pursuant to CEQA. This letter contained no comments on the environmental
analysis.
BILLY GROSS 6/3/16 PAGE 3
LAMPHIER -GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment letters are included as attachments to this memo and the comments they contain are
addressed by topic below.
Traffic (Li, Ofrecio, Wai, Lyons, Hong, and Oakmont Vistas Homeowners Association letters)
Several commenters discussed the increased volume of traffic resulting from Project development, either
in general or specifically related to vicinity streets and intersections. The IS/MND states on pages 46-47
under the Vehicle Circulation and Congestion heading:
All study intersections were operating between LOS A and LOS D during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours and would continue to do so with the addition of Project traffic (see
Table 5 in the traffic study included as Attachment B). The transportation assessment
therefore determined that, based on the addition of the Project generation trips to current
conditions, the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS and impacts
would be less than significant.
The volume of vehicles generated by the Project equates to 12 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 16 trips in
the p.m. peak hour. The resultant level of traffic on nearby residential streets would be well within traffic
levels expected in a low-density residential neighborhood and on low-volume residential streets and
would not be considered a level of traffic that is unsafe or otherwise incompatible with a residential
neighborhood. Full details of the analysis in the Transportation Assessment can be found in Attachment
B of the IS/MND.
Some commenters noted concerns related specifically to the intersection of Oakmont Drive and Shannon
Drive and the worsening of intersection traffic and safety conditions. Further information specific to the
Oakmont Drive and Shannon Drive intersection traffic and safety conditions is included in the
Transportation Assessment (Attachment B of the IS/MND) under Collision History on pages 2-3 as well
as on page 5 under Existing Plus Project Conditions, as excerpted below. Additional discussion and data
tables can be found in the source document.
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns
that may indicate a safety issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records
available from the California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most current five-year period available is
July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014.
As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were
compared to average collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2012
Collision Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation.
Generally, the intersections operate below or near the statewide average for similar
facilities. The collision rate calculations are attached.
To summarize, while some commenters noted the desire for additional stop signs at this intersection, the
traffic analysis identified no warrant, either from a congestion or safety aspect, for such a requirement.
Safety of pedestrians in particular was noted as a concern by some commenters. As noted above, the
Project would meet all local design and construction standards and would not result in an increase in
design hazards. Alternative modes, and specifically sidewalk provisions for pedestrians, were additionally
reviewed and found to be adequate to provide safe and direct pedestrian access (as discussed under item f
on page 48 of the IS/MND).
BILLY GROSS 6/3/16 PAGE 4
LAMPHIER -GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
The traffic-related comments do not identify any new significant effects and the significance of identified
impacts in the IS/MND remains unchanged.
Emergency Access (Lyons letter)
This comment relates to the adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND regarding emergency evacuation.
The IS/MND states on page 36 under the Emergency Response Plan heading:
The Project would not substantially alter traffic patterns and would not impair
implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact in this regard.
The IS/MND further states on page 48 under the Inadequate Emergency Access heading:
The proposed Project would have one access road for all ingress and egress. Emergency
vehicles would be able to enter the site and maneuver in the designated turnaround area
located at the north end of the site near the townhomes to turn around and exit the site.
The site’s road, which is designed to meet City standards, would be of adequate width,
and the turnaround would be of adequate size. The Project would have no impact with
regard to inadequate emergency access.
To summarize, the construction of 19 homes consistent with the City’s planning documents for the
currently undeveloped Project site would not result in a significant environmental impact related to
emergency access or evacuation.
The comments do not identify any new significant effects and the significance of identified impacts in the
IS/MND remains unchanged.
Construction Dust and Noise (Wai letter)
This comment notes health concerns related to construction-period dust and noise.
The potential for air quality impacts to occur during the Project’s construction period were analyzed on
pages 21 through 24 of the IS/MND, with the requirement to implement construction management
practices and construction emissions minimization practices (mitigation measures Air-1 and Air-2) to
minimize dust and emissions during the construction period, which resulted in a conclusion that impacts
related to construction-period dust and emissions would not be significant with implementation of the
identified mitigation.
The potential for the Project to result in noise impacts during the construction period was analyzed on
pages 42 and 43 of the IS/MND. The Project would comply with the City’s noise ordinance as it related
to noise limits on construction equipment and hours of construction activities and would not result in
significant vibrations at nearby residences. The Project would not result in a significant impact related to
construction noise or vibration.
The comments do not identify any new significant effects and the significance of identified impacts in the
IS/MND remains unchanged.
BILLY GROSS 6/3/16 PAGE 5
LAMPHIER -GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
Non-CEQA Topics
Public Noticing and other Construction-related Issues (Ofrecio, Wai, and Hong letters)
Comments were submitted regarding construction-related issues include the anticipated timeframe for
construction; providing the community with information regarding noise, dust pollutants, hazardous
materials, traffic, and security and well as the presence of these issues; and site access during
construction.
These comments are not comments on the environmental analysis in the IS/MND and are not further
addressed herein. All comment letters have been provided to City staff and decision makers and the
applicant for their information and review.
Homeowner-related Issues (Ofrecio, Wai, Lyons, Hong. and Oakmont Vistas Homeowners Association
letters)
Comments were submitted regarding homeowners’ association-related issues including the use of private
roads in the Oakmont Vistas neighborhood for Project access during construction and operation, use of
Oakmont Vistas private recreational facilities by Project residents, or other perceived homeowners’
association costs.
These comments relate to the specifics of homeowners’ association social and economic considerations
and are not comments on the environmental analysis in the IS/MND and are not further addressed herein.
All comment letters have been provided to City staff and decision makers and the applicant for their
information and review.
Property Values (Wai letter)
This comment related to the lowering of property values as a result of developing the Project.
Economic impacts are not generally studied under CEQA. As noted in section 15131(a) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, “Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on
the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project
through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in
turn by the economic or social changes.” Such “physical changes” are often referred to as urban decay.
Urban decay is the process whereby a previously functioning city, or part of a city, falls into disrepair and
decrepitude. Turnover of ownership and/or reduction in values would not in and of themselves be
considered urban decay. The construction and operation of the Project would not reasonably be
considered to result in physical decay due to economic or social effects.
These comments are not comments on the environmental analysis in the IS/MND and are not further
addressed herein. All comment letters have been provided to City staff and decision makers and the
applicant for their information and review.
Parking-related Issues (Wai and Lyons letters)
These comments relate to parking by residents of the Project and specifically the potential for parking to
occur in the existing Oakmont Vistas neighborhood.
The Project proposes a two-car garage for each residential unit (38 off-street spaces) and 19 additional
spaces off of the proposed new street, for a total of 57 parking spaces within the Project. The provision of
parking spaces in the Project was discussed on page 6 of the Transportation Assessment (Attachment B of
BILLY GROSS 6/3/16 PAGE 6
LAMPHIER -GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO, OAKLAND, CA 94606 PHONE 510 535-6690 FAX 510 535-6699
the IS/MND) and determined to be consistent with City requirements and exceed the projected Project
demand for 32 parking spaces. Unless parking provisions are severely inadequate such that significant
impacts related to traffic and air quality could occur from vehicles circling to find parking, the availability
of parking is considered a social issue, and not an environmental issue. As discussed, parking provisions
are considered adequate and there would be no environmental impact related to parking availability.
These comments are not comments on the environmental analysis in the IS/MND and are not further
addressed herein. All comment letters have been provided to City staff and decision makers for their
information and review.
From: Wesley Li [mailto:lipeace70@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 5:56 PM
To: Gross, Billy
Subject: Oakmont Meadow Residential Project
Dear city planners,
My name is Wesley Li, a resident at Oakmont Estate since 2010. I go through the intersection of
Oakmont street and Shannon drive several times everyday going to work as well as running
errands. I see first hand how dangerous the intersection can be with cars speeding up and down
Oakmont street, especially during morning and afternoon rush hours. I strongly urge the city to
consider installing 4 ways Stop Signs at this intersection to enhance traffic control and better
safety measures for the many individuals whom go through this intersection. It will save lives.
Thank you!
Wesley Li
Subject: Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project
Dear Mr. Gross,
As a concerned Oakmont Vista resident and homeowner I put before you my concerns and the
severe impact this proposed new development will have in our existing community. We are
currently a community of 33 private single family homes that will be greatly impacted when
construction begins.
Below are my questions and concerns:
Questions:
1. When is start date and end date of proposed project?
2.Will there be regular updates informing our community of how noise, dust pollutants,
hazarduous materials, traffic and security will be addressed?
3.Is Shannon Park Ct the only access road going in & out while development is in
progress?
4.The Shannon Park Ct is a narrow road which is accessed by Oakmont Vista residents to
go to our tot playground, how safe are the kids crossing this road while construction
trucks go through?
5.Since Oakmont Vista has maintained our own roads being a private community, will the
new developer pay our homeowners association right of way fees accessing thru our
road while construction is in progress?
6.Traffic along intersection of Oakmont & Shannon Drive will increase due to this new
development, how are you going to address the increased volume of traffic? Should
there be a 4 way stop along these intersections?
Dominador Ofrecio
5227 Belfast Ct. SSF
d.ofrecio@yahoo.com
TO: Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of SSF, Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
DATE: May 16, 2016
FROM: Ben & Molly Lyons
5233 Belfast Court; SSF, CA 94080
RE: Written Comments regarding Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Planning Division: We have lived in Oakmont Vistas for almost seven years; first as a
renters at 7233 Shannon Park Court from August 2009 to June of 2011, and now as homeowners
since June 2011 at 5233 Belfast Court. Here are our main concerns:
1. Evacuation in the event of an Emergency, e.g. brush fires, earthquake
Will Shannon Park Court and Shannon Place be able to accommodate an emergency
evacuation for nearly 50 households, and well over 100 cars from both developments
safely? The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) did not address adequately.
2. Liability, Repair and Maintenance of Shannon Park Court and Shannon Place
Will Oakmont Vistas HOA be financially responsible for the safety and maintenance of the
shared street in front of the park and entrance to Oakmont Meadows? The MND did not
address this issue.
3. Pedestrian Safety on Shannon Park Court and Shannon Place
The road in front of the Oakmont Vista park and mail box as well as the entrance to
Oakmont Meadows will not be as safe for pedestrians and children due to all the traffic
entering and exiting both developments. The MND did not address pedestrian safety.
4. Traffic Safety of Oakmont Drive and Shannon Drive
Westborough Boulevard, Oakmont Drive and Shannon Drive intersections will become
less safe for motorists, pedestrians, and the Westborough Middle School children.
The new grocery mall and restaurants on Westborough Boulevard and Callan have
already noticeably increased traffic congestion. The additional traffic from Oakmont
Meadows is going to make the Oakmont Drive and Shannon Drive even worse. The MND
did not include the impact of the new shopping center on traffic congestion.
5. Oakmont Vistas’ much needed Guest Parking near the Park will be difficult to use
Pulling in and out of the guest parking places in front of Oakmont Vistas’ private park and
mail box will be more hazardous with the increased traffic coming and going from
Oakmont Meadows. It will be a financial burden for the HAO to monitor our guest parking.
6. Additional Parked Cars Outside of both Developments
The planned number of parking spaces in Oakmont Meadows is not sufficient. Limited
parking will greatly increase the number of parked cars on Shannon Drive and Oakmont
Drive negatively impacting the whole area.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
CJM Association Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 190, Pleasanton, CA 94566
Voice ~ 925-4296-1508 or 800-223-6272; Fax ~ 925-426-1494
Email ~ Robert@cjmasi.com
May 24, 2016
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL to Billy.Gross@ssf.net
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Re: Response to Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Oakmont Meadows
Dear Mr. Gross:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Oakmont Meadows. The following are comments from the
Oakmont Vistas Homeowners Association (“Association”), the homeowners association
for the residential common interest development adjacent to the proposed Oakmont
Meadows project. Overall, we appreciate the care with which the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. However, there are a few areas of
concern in which we believe that the impact of the Oakmont Meadows project on the
existing Oakmont Vistas community has been understated or omitted entirely.
Our specific comments are as follows:
1. Transportation and Traffic (Page 47).
a. Damage to Existing Private Street by Construction Vehicles. Construction
vehicles and other traffic associated with the development of Oakmont Meadows will be
using the lower portion of Shannon Park Court for access. Shannon Park Court is a
private street, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the Association. We
appreciate that construction noise was considered in Section 12 at page 42; however,
we see no consideration of damage to the actual roadway. We anticipate that there will
be damage and excessive wear and tear of our street during the course of construction
due to repeated trips by heavy machinery and construction equipment. Some
mechanism for repair and/or replacement of Shannon Park Court must be included in
any project approval for Oakmont Meadows.
Oakmont Vistas
Homeowners Association
CJM Association Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 190, Pleasanton, CA 94566
Voice ~ 925-4296-1508 or 800-223-6272; Fax ~ 925-426-1494
Email ~ Robert@cjmasi.com
b. Damage to Existing Private Street by Residents of New Development. Residents
of Oakmont Meadows will be using Shannon Park Court heavily, as it will be the only
way to access the public streets (i.e., Oakmont Avenue). The current maintenance
budget for Shannon Park Court contemplates only residents of Oakmont Vistas using
this private street. Upon development of Oakmont Meadows (and, we assume, but
cannot confirm, creation of an Oakmont Meadows homeowners association), the
maintenance of the private streets used by both associations must be shared.
c. Traffic Calming and Control. The report minimizes, and we believe understates,
the impact of new traffic affecting the Oakmont Vistas community. While 155 new trips
daily, including 12 during the morning peak and 16 during the evening peak, may not
seem significant, in the context of our small neighborhood, this increase is statistically
significant and is likely to be highly noticeable to members of the community. Our family
neighborhood is filled with children, bicyclists, pedestrians, runners and pets. We are
very concerned that the increase in trips will correspond to traffic hazards. Effective
traffic control and traffic calming measures must be included in the project plans in order
to protect the health and safety of our Oakmont Vistas community members.
2. Overuse/Trespass of Private Recreational Facilities. The Association’s common
area includes significant common private recreational facilities, including a large
landscaped lawn area and a tot lot. As with the private streets in the Oakmont Vistas
development, maintenance, repair and replacement of these facilities is the sole
responsibility of the Association, paid for by residents of Oakmont Vistas. We are
concerned that our recreational facilities will be used and possibly abused by non-
residents drawn to the area by the new development, and that the safety of our children
using the tot lot may be compromised by the presence of trespassers. Some
consideration of maintaining the private nature of these recreational amenities must be
included in any project approval for Oakmont Meadows.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to further discussion
regarding the Oakmont Meadows project as the approval process continues.
Sincerely,
Larry Barney
President, Oakmont Vistas Homeowners Association
OAKMONT MEADOWS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 1
Oakmont Meadows Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Air 1: Standard Construction Best Management Practices: The
contractor shall reduce implement the following BAAQMD
recommended Best Management Practices:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil
piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered
two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material
off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall
be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least
once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles
per hour.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as
soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5
minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly
tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All
equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publically visible sign with the telephone number and
person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints.
This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits and
during
project
construction
Applicant for the
development
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
PAGE 2 180 EL CAMINO REAL – CENTENNIAL VILLAGE PROJECT MMRP
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Air-2: Construction Emissions Minimization Practices. The project
shall demonstrate compliance with the following Construction
Emissions Minimization Practices prior to issuance of demolition,
building or grading permits:
1. All off-road equipment greater than 25 horse power (hp) and
operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration
of construction activities shall meet the following requirements:
a. Where access to alternative sources of power are available,
portable diesel engines shall be prohibited;
b. All off-road equipment shall have:
i. Engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or California Air
Resources Board (ARB) Tier 2 off-road emission
standards, and
ii. Engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3
Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).
c. Exceptions:
i. Exceptions to 1(a) may be granted if the project
sponsor has submitted information providing evidence
to the satisfaction of the City that an alternative source
of power is limited or infeasible at the project site and
that the requirements of this exception provision apply.
ii. Exceptions to 1(b)(ii) may be granted if the project
sponsor has submitted information providing evidence
to the satisfaction of the City that a particular piece of
off-road equipment with an ARB Level 3 VDECS is:
(1) technically not feasible, (2) would not produce
desired emissions reductions due to expected operating
modes, (3) installing the control device would create a
safety hazard or impaired visibility for the operator, or
(4) there is a compelling emergency need to use off-
road equipment that are not retrofitted with an ARB
Level 3 VDECS and the sponsor has submitted
documentation to the City that the requirements of this
exception provision apply. If granted an exception to
1(b)(ii), the project sponsor must comply with the
During
project
construction
Applicant for the
development
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
OAKMONT MEADOWS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 3
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
requirements of 1(c)(iii).
iii. If an exception is granted pursuant to 1(c)(ii), the
project sponsor shall provide the next cleanest piece of
off-road equipment, including a Tier 2 engine standard
and the following emissions control/alternative fuel in
order of preference if available: 1) ARB Level 2
VDECS, 2) ARB Level 2 VDECS, or 3) Alternative
Fuel..
Bio-1: Nesting Birds. If construction occurs during the breeding season
(February through August), the site and a surrounding radius of not less
than 0.5 miles shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the
presence or absence of nesting birds protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code.
Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 15 days prior to
start of work and shall be submitted to the Building Division. If the
survey indicates the potential presences of nesting birds, the applicant
shall comply with recommendations of the biologist regarding an
appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be
allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest
buffer will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its
sensitivity to disturbance.
During
project
construction
Applicant for the
development
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
Traffic-1: Sight Distance. To provide adequate sight lines at the
project’s connection to Oakmont Drive, parking shall be prohibited for
at least 60 feet to the north of the project driveway on the west side of
Oakmont Drive, and prohibited to the south of the project driveway for
at least 20 feet on the west side of Oakmont Drive.
During
project
construction
and prior to
issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy
Applicant for the
development
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
and prior to
issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-15 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9b.
Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map (RZ18-0005)to rezone one vacant parcel (APN
091-151-040)from Low Density Residential (RL-8)to a Planned Development District (PD-1)to allow the
construction of 22 single family attached townhouse units at the corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont
Dr.
WHEREAS,Warmington Residential (“Applicant”)has proposed construction of 22 single-family attached
townhouse units and 3.41 acres of open space on the vacant 4.91acre site at the southwest corner of
Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive, APN 091-151-040 (collectively referred to as “Project”); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS,Applicant seeks approval of an amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning Map (RZ18-
0005),Planned Development (PD15-0001),Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PM15-0001),Affordable Housing
Agreement (AHA18-0004) and Design Review (DR15-0041), for the Project; and,
WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS,on December 20,2018 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (“IS/MND”)and the proposed entitlements,take public testimony,and make a recommendation
to the City Council on the Project.
WHEREAS,on December 20,2018 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco reviewed
and carefully considered the information and recommended that the City Council approve the IS/MND,adopt
an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map,and approve the Planned Development,Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map, Affordable Housing Agreement and Design Review; and,
WHEREAS,on February 27,2019 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully
noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND (ND18-0001),Zoning Map
Amendment (RZ18-0005),Planned Development (PD15-0001),Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PM15-0001),
Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA18-0004) and Design Review (DR15-0041).
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,as described
below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
A.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The Record for these proceedings,and upon which this Ordinance is based,includes withoutCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-15 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9b.
2.The Record for these proceedings,and upon which this Ordinance is based,includes without
limitation,Federal and State law;the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code
§21000,et seq.(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et
seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and
updates thereto;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the draft Zoning Map;the Project
applications;the Project plans,as prepared by KTGY Group,Inc.,Carlson,Barbee &Gibson,Inc.
and BFS Landscape Architects,dated June 25,2018;the Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project,including
all attachments thereto;all site plans,and all reports,minutes and public testimony submitted as part
of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 20,2018 meeting;all site plans,and all reports,
minutes and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 27,
2019 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and
§21082.2).
3.The Draft Zoning Map Amendment attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance is incorporated by
reference and made a part of this Ordinance, as if set forth fully herein.
4.By Resolution No.,the City Council,exercising its independent judgment and analysis,
has found that an IS/MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA,which IS/MND
adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental
impacts.For those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance,the City
has identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than-
significant.Accordingly,the City Council certifies the IS/MND for the Project in accordance with
CEQA.
5.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
B.Zoning Map Amendment Findings
1.As described in more detail in Exhibit A,approval of the proposed Project will include adoption of an
amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning Map,maintained by the Planning Division.The
Zoning Map will be amended to revise the zoning district designation from Low Density Residential
(RL-8) to a Planned Development (PD-1) for Assessor’s Parcel Number 091-151-040.
2.The proposed Zoning Map Amendment meets the purposes of Chapter 20.550 of the Municipal Code
and is consistent with the General Plan because the General Plan land use designation of Low Density
Residential allows for single-family residential
development with densities up to 8 units per acre.This classification is mainly intended for detached
single-family dwellings,but attached single-family units may be permitted,provided each unit has
ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space.The Planned Development project is
proposing attached single-family units that provide both ground-floor living space and private outdoor
open space,is within the allowable density over the entire property,and that is in keeping with the
single-family residential uses in close proximity to the site.Further,the change in zoning designation
does not conflict with any specific plans,and will remain consistent with the surrounding land uses,
which include single-family residential to the south and east,and will serve as a transitional use for
the commercial and high-density residential uses to the north and west.The proposed amendment will
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-15 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9b.
the commercial and high-density residential uses to the north and west.The proposed amendment will
not conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals,policies,or land use designations
established in the General Plan.
3.The subject property is suitable for the uses proposed in the Planned Development district in terms of
access,size of parcel,relationship to similar or related uses,and other considerations deemed relevant
by the Planning Commission and City Council.The Project proposes single-family attached
residential units and open space areas in the Low Density Residential land use designation,which is
intended for this type of use,and would be developing a vacant underutilized parcel that is adjacent to
Westborough Boulevard,with site access provided off of Oakmont Drive.The General Plan has
analyzed this type of use and concluded that such uses are suitable to the surrounding area.The
proposed parcels are smaller than typical due to the limitations created by the required setbacks to the
fault traces and the fact that sloped portions of the site are not being built on,but the overall density
and access is in keeping with surrounding development in the area.The Zoning Map Amendment is
consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those related to low density residential uses.
4.The proposed Zoning Map Amendment is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone
because the Planned Development District will provide low-density residential development within
the Low Density Residential land use classification.The Project will provide a transition between the
existing single family residential neighborhoods south of the site to multi-family residential and
commercial neighborhoods to the north and west.
SECTION 2 AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the South San Francisco Zoning Map,as shown in Exhibit A to reflect the
proposed Zoning Map Amendment.All other areas of the Zoning Map that are not amended by this Zoning
Map Amendment are not included in Exhibit A, and shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or
unconstitutional,the remainder of this Ordinance,including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall
continue in full force and effect.To this end,provisions of this Ordinance are severable.The
City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each
section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase hereof irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences,
clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by
the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be
adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of
this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the
summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk ’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the
names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting.This Ordinance
shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-15 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9b.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Rezone Map
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
Zoning Map Amendments
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-16 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9c.
Resolution approving a Planned Development PD15-0001,Tentative Parcel Map PM15-0001,Affordable
Housing Agreement AHA18-0004,and Design Review DR15-0041,to allow the construction of 22 single
family attached townhouse units at the corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Dr in a new Planned
Development District.
WHEREAS,Warmington Residential (“Applicant”)has proposed construction of 22 single-family attached
townhouse units and 3.41 acres of open space on the vacant 4.91acre site at the southwest corner of
Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive, APN 091-151-040 (collectively referred to as “Project”); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS,Applicant seeks approval of an amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning Map (RZ18-0005),
Planned Development (PD15-0001),Tentative Parcel Map (PM15-0001),Affordable Housing Agreement
(AHA18-0004) and Design Review (DR15-0041), for the Project; and,
WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS,on December 20,2018 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to review the
Project and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”),as well as supporting documents,at
the conclusion of which the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council find that the IS/MND is
the appropriate environmental document and to approve the Project; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 27,2019 to consider the
entitlements request for a Zoning Map Amendment,Planned Development,Tentative Parcel Map and Design
Review and take public testimony; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed and carefully considered the information in the IS/MND,including all
comment letters submitted,and by separate resolution adopts the IS/MND as an objective and accurate
document that reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project’s
environmental impacts.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the Project
applications;the Project plans,as prepared by KTGY Group,Inc.,Carlson,Barbee &Gibson,Inc.and BFS
Landscape Architects,dated June 25,2018;the Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Revised Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project,including all attachments thereto;all site
plans,and all reports,minutes and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly
noticed December 20,2018 meeting;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted asCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-16 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9c.
noticed December 20,2018 meeting;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as
part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 27,2019 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning
of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
A.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A),the
Oakmont Meadows Planning Application Project Plans (Exhibit B),the Oakmont Meadows Tentative
Parcel Map Plans (Exhibit C)and the Affordable Housing Agreement (Exhibit D)are each incorporated
by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
4.By Resolution No.________,the City Council,exercising its independent judgment and analysis,finds
that an IS/MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA,which IS/MND adequately
discloses and analyzes the proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.For those
impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance,the City has identified and
imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant.
B.Planned Development
1.The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan,including the density and intensity limitations
that apply,because the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential allowed for single
-family residential development with densities up to 8 units per acre.This classification is mainly
intended for detached single-family dwellings,but attached single-family units may be permitted,
provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space.The project is
proposing attached single-family units that provide both ground-floor living space and private outdoor
open space, and is within the allowable density over the entire property.
2.The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the single-family land use being
proposed,because the proposed use is consistent with the approved uses in both the General Plan and
the density of the proposed project is consistent with densities approved in the adjacent Low Density
Residential zoning district and the nearby Medium Density Residential zoning district.The Project
proposes single-family attached residential units and open space areas in the Low Density Residential
zoning district,which is intended for this type of use,and would be developing a vacant underutilized
parcel that is adjacent to Westborough Boulevard.The General Plan has analyzed this type of use and
concluded that such uses are suitable to the surrounding area.Further,the project applicant has
prepared environmental studies,including a geotechnical report,which confirms residential structures
can be supported with standard post tension slab foundations,and that underlying soils are suitable for
installation of roads and utilities.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-16 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9c.
3.Adequate transportation facilities and public services exist or will be provided in accord with the
conditions of development plan approval,to serve the proposed development,and the approval of the
proposed development will not result in a reduction of traffic levels of service or public services so as to
be a detriment to public health,safety or welfare because the Project is bounded by Westborough
Boulevard to the northwest,which provides access to a regional highway just to the west of the project
site and to the remainder of South San Francisco to the northeast,and by Oakmont Drive to the east,
from which direct access to the Project Site will occur.The Transportation Assessment prepared for the
Project concludes that upon the addition of the project trips,the study intersections would continue
operating at acceptable levels of service as set forth by the General Plan.All public services are in
existence in the surrounding neighborhoods,and will be provided in the Project Site per the conditions
of development plan approval.
4.The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding land uses and will
be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area,because the
Project proposes single-family attached residential uses in the Low Density Residential land use
classification,which specifically allows for such uses subject to specific standards related to living area
on the ground floor and private open space,which the Project meets.The overall Project site,which is
comprised of 4.91 acres,will only have development on 21-percent of the site,while the remainder of
the site will remain undeveloped or will be comprised of common open space, pathways and roads.
5.The Project generally complies with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in
that the proposed Project is consistent with the Residential District Standards included in Chapter
20.080,except as requested to be amended by the Planned Development request,and is also consistent
with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the
project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on May 15,2018 and found to be consistent
with each of the eight design review criteria.
6.The Project is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards
applicable to the underlying base district,and will achieve superior community design,environmental
preservation and/or substantial public benefit, due to the following factors:
a.The Project is appropriate at the proposed location because it is a low-density residential
development within the Low Density Residential land use classification.The Project will
provide a transition between the existing single family residential south of the site to multi-
family residential to the north and west.
b.The mix of uses,housing types,and housing price levels includes 22 single-family attached
residences that will all have either three-or four-bedrooms.Nineteen of the residences will be
sold at market rate,while the remaining three residences will be affordable to low and moderate
income households.
c.The provision of units affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income or to
lower income households.The proposed development is obligated to provide fifteen percent of
the proposed dwellings as affordable to low and moderate income households,and therefore the
applicant is required to restrict a minimum of three units to fulfill the affordable housing
obligation.
d.Provision of infrastructure improvements.The Project will include new water,sanitary sewer,
storm drains,gas,electric,communications,streets,sidewalks and landscaping throughout the
site.
e.Provision of open space,because the Project will provide each home with a minimum of 150
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-16 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9c.
e.Provision of open space,because the Project will provide each home with a minimum of 150
square feet of private outdoor open space,and an additional 2.75 acres of common landscaped
open space.The majority of the central open space area will consist of a wild-grass area,which
will be ringed by a sidewalk along the southern boundary,with a decomposed granite path
meandering through the eastern and northern portions of the open space area.The central
portion of the open space area will contain more formal areas,including a trellis-covered seating
and barbecue area,a bocce ball court,and area with a fire pit and chairs,and a large lawn area.
The formal open space areas will be surrounded by Orchard Trees,while the remainder of the
open space area throughout the site will include a mixture of trees,shrubs/perennials and
groundcovers.
f.Compatibility with uses within the development area because it will create a residential
community in an area designated as Low Density Residential in the General Plan,and will
provide a transition between the existing single family residential south of the site to multi-
family residential to the north and west.
g.Quality of design and adequacy of light and air to the interior spaces of the buildings,because
the design has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and found to be consistent with
applicable design review criteria.The units will all have ample glazing to allow in natural light,
with many of the units having a second story deck with sliding glass doors that provide
additional light and air.
h.Overall contribution to the enhancement of neighborhood character and the environment of
South San Francisco in the long term,because the Project will develop one of the last vacant
properties in the area with a residential development that is of suitable density to the
neighborhood,serving as a transition between the existing single family residential south of the
site to multi-family residential to the north and west.The Project will also provide larger units
and affordable housing, which will allow more families to reside in South San Francisco.
i.Creativity in design and use of land,because the Project efficiently uses the smaller amount of
buildable area on the property to construct a small residential community.The fault setbacks do
not allow for residential development within the setback areas,so the non-residential detached
garages were able to be placed within these otherwise unusable areas.The balance of the
unbuildable area is committed to open space, trails and amenities.
C.Design Review
1.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code because the Project has been designed as a low-density residential development which will
provide a residential environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated.
2.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the General Plan for the reasons stated in
Findings B.1 and B.2 above.
3.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by
the City Council for the reasons stated in Finding B.3 above.
4.The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco Municipal
Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the project has been evaluated by the
Design Review Board on April 18,2017 and July 18,2017,and found to be consistent with each of the
eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria”section of the Ordinance,and the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-16 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9c.
Design Review Board.
D.Tentative Parcel Map
1.The proposed tentative subdivision map,including the proposed designs and improvements,are
consistent with the City’s General Plan as set forth in Finding B.2 above,and because the tentative
subdivision map would facilitate the development of a low density residential development that would
not conflict with the Low Density Residential Land Use designation.
2.The proposed tentative subdivision map is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Planned Development Zoning District.
3.The tentative subdivision map complies and meets all of the requirements of Title 19 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code (“Subdivisions”),and with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map
Act.
4.The Project site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,as the low-
density residential development will be located in a new Planned Development adjacent to the Low
Density Residential zoning district,and subject to the adoption of the Planned Development the size and
number of residential units is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning
standards.
5.The Project,including the proposed designs and improvements,are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage,or serious public health problems,since such impacts have been thoroughly
evaluated as part of the CEQA process and determined not to exceed any stated thresholds of
significance.
6.The design and improvements of the tentative subdivision map are not in conflict with any existing
public easements.
7.The property is located in a developed,urban setting,and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract,on
open space easement,a conservation easement,or an agricultural conservation easement.The
surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support agricultural uses;the resulting parcels
would result in residential development not incidental to commercial agricultural use of the land.
SECTION 2 DETERMINATION
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby makes the findings made in this Resolution,and approves the Planned Development,Tentative Parcel
Map,Affordable Housing Agreement and Design Review entitlements,subject to the draft Conditions of
Approval attached as Exhibit A.
Be it further resolved that the City Council approvals stated herein are conditioned upon the City Council’s
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-16 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:9c.
Be it further resolved that the City Council approvals stated herein are conditioned upon the City Council’s
adoption of the Zoning Map Amendment and will become effective upon the effective date of the Zoning Map
Amendment ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/22/2019Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P15-0048: PD15-0001, DR15-0041, PM15-0001, AHA18-0004
WESTBOROUGH BLVD & OAKMONT DR
(As recommended by Planning Commission on December 20, 2018)
A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division’s standard Conditions and Limitations
for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects, as amended
and attached to this document, except where otherwise amended by the following Conditions
of Approval.
2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared
by Warmington Residential, dated June 25, 2018 and approved by the City Council in
association with P15-0048 as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner.
3. The construction drawings shall comply with the City Council approved plans, as amended by
the conditions of approval, including the plans prepared by Warmington Residential, dated
June 25, 2018.
4. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012
(“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior design
modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief Planner for a
determination.
5. The developer shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Oakmont Meadows Residential Development
Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
applicant shall prepare a checklist outlining mitigation measures and status of implementation,
for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee.
6. In conformance with the Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project IS/MND Air
Quality section, the following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor:
Air 1: Standard Construction Best Management Practices: The contractor shall reduce
implement the following BAAQMD recommended Best Management Practices:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publically visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations.
Air-2: Construction Emissions Minimization Practices. The project shall demonstrate
compliance with the following Construction Emissions Minimization Practices prior to issuance
of demolition, building or grading permits:
1. All off-road equipment greater than 25 horse power (hp) and operating for more than 20
total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet the following
requirements:
a. Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel engines
shall be prohibited;
b. All off-road equipment shall have:
i. Engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 2 off-road emission
standards, and
ii. Engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions
Control Strategy (VDECS).
c. Exceptions:
i. Exceptions to 1(a) may be granted if the project sponsor has submitted
information providing evidence to the satisfaction of the City that an alternative
source of power is limited or infeasible at the project site and that the
requirements of this exception provision apply.
ii. Exceptions to 1(b)(ii) may be granted if the project sponsor has submitted
information providing evidence to the satisfaction of the City that a particular
piece of off-road equipment with an ARB Level 3 VDECS is: (1) technically
not feasible, (2) would not produce desired emissions reductions due to
expected operating modes, (3) installing the control device would create a
safety hazard or impaired visibility for the operator, or (4) there is a compelling
emergency need to use off-road equipment that are not retrofitted with an ARB
Level 3 VDECS and the sponsor has submitted documentation to the City that
the requirements of this exception provision apply. If granted an exception to
1(b)(ii), the project sponsor must comply with the requirements of 1(c)(iii).
iii. If an exception is granted pursuant to 1(c)(ii), the project sponsor shall provide
the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment, including a Tier 2 engine standard
and the following emissions control/alternative fuel in order of preference if
available: 1) ARB Level 2 VDECS, 2) ARB Level 2 VDECS, or 3) Alternative
Fuel.
7. In conformance with the Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project IS/MND
Biological Resources section, the following measure shall be implemented by the construction
contractor:
Bio-1: Nesting Birds. If construction occurs during the breeding season (February through
August), the site and a surrounding radius of not less than 0.5 miles shall be surveyed by a
qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds protected under the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code. Pre-
construction surveys shall be conducted within 15 days prior to start of work and shall be
submitted to the Building Division. If the survey indicates the potential presences of
nesting birds, the applicant shall comply with recommendations of the biologist regarding
an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the
young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be based to a large extent
on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance.
8. In conformance with the Oakmont Meadows Residential Development Project IS/MND
Transportation and Traffic section, the project’s construction drawings and operational plan
shall comply with the following mitigation measure:
Traffic-1: Sight Distance. To provide adequate sight lines at the project’s connection to
Oakmont Drive, parking shall be prohibited for at least 60 feet to the north of the project
driveway on the west side of Oakmont Drive, and prohibited to the south of the project
driveway for at least 20 feet on the west side of Oakmont Drive.
9. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the
applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the
City’s Landscape Architect. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC
§ 20.300.007 “Landscaping”, including Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation
calculations.
10. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San
Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or pruning of
protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and obtain a permit for
any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoid tree roots during trenching for
utilities.
11. Prior to issuance of any building permits for vertical construction, the developer shall revise
the development plans to address the Design Review Board comments from the meeting of
May 15, 2018 subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
a. Revise the landscape plan to incorporate the following changes:
i. Add street trees along the southern portion of Westborough Blvd where needed to
provide additional screening of the residential development.
ii. Remove Arctostaphylos groundcover, which is not a successful species for the SSF
elements, and consider replacing with Ceanothus “Anchor Bay” which can tolerate
the SSF elements or propose a different ground cover that will strive in SSF.
iii. Remove Muhlenbergia Rigens (Deer Grass), which is not a successful species due
to the windy conditions in this area. Consider replacing with Muhlenbergia
Capillaris (Pink Muhly) as this can be a successful species. Review other clumping
grasses that can tolerate the elements in this area.
b. Revise the project plans to incorporate common areas for children to use recreationally;
these may include a grass area, a play area or other family-oriented amenities.
12. Prior to issuance of any building permits for vertical construction, the developer shall
include in the development plans the following Climate Action Plan requirements, subject
to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
a. Install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
b. Use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the
voluntary CALGreen standards.
c. Implement the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Establish a variable-speed pump
exchange for water features
i. Restrict hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 AM and two hours after sunrise
ii. Install irrigation controllers with rains sensors
iii. Landscape with native, water-efficient plants
iv. Install drip irrigation systems
v. Reduce impervious surfaces to the maximum extent practical
13. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the project, the developer shall revise the street
frontage setback for all buildings fronting on Oakmont Drive to a minimum of ten feet (10’).
14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit C ovenants Conditions &
Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Chief Planner for review and approval. Upon approval, the
applicant shall record the CC&Rs with the San Mateo County Recorder.
15. The applicant shall install three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in the
right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape. A #8
stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system approved by the
City.
16. All parking areas are to be maintained free and clear of litter and storage and shall remain
clear for parking at all times. No outdoor storage of materials or personal items is permitted.
17. The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the
construction process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting, remote
monitors, or on-site security personnel as needed.
18. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view
through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and
landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment
enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a
building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes,
equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the
Chief Planner.
19. No signs are included in this permit application. Prior to installation of any signage, the
applicant shall submit an appropriate sign application per Chapter 20.360 of the Zoning
Ordinance for review and approval.
20. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public
improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer and Chief Planner.
21. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the
applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Chief Planner.
22. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, containing
contact information for questions from the public regarding the construction.
23. Prior to the issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall contact the
South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and
work with staff to locate the trash enclosure in accordance with the zoning ordinance, SSFMC
20.300.014. An approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger shall be provided to the
Chief Planner.
24. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the applicant shall
hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, and Engineering staff and
other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction
manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors.
25. The applicant shall submit a Parking and Traffic Control Plan for construction with the
application for Building Permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner and City
Engineer.
26. The applicant shall provide a large-scale mockup of a section of a representative exterior
wall that shows the cladding materials and finishes, windows, trim, and any other
architectural features of the building to fully illustrate typical building fenestration. A site
inspection by Planning Division staff will be required prior to proceeding with exterior
construction. Upon inspection and approval, the applicant may remove the mock-up wall.
27. The Final Parcel Map shall comply with all applicable requirements of SSFMC Title 19
(Subdivisions) and Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance), to be reviewed and filed by the Engineering
Division.
28. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall:
a. Prior to the Final Inspection the owner shall pay the fee in-lieu of parkland dedication
in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19.24, subject to review and approval of the City’s
Parks and Recreation Director; and,
b. Execute and Record an Affordable Housing Agreement consistent with SSFMC
Chapter 20.380 Inclusionary Housing Regulations.
29. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for residential uses, the applicant shall pay any
applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
20.115. This fee is subject to annual adjustment, and currently is assessed at $1,979.00 per low
density residential unit. Based on the plans dated December 1, 2017, the childcare impact fee
estimate for the residential units is:
Residential: $1,979 x 22= $43,538
30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay applicable bicycle and pedestrian
impact fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.68. This fee is
subject to annual adjustment, and currently is assessed at $243.00 per single-family unit. Based
on the plans dated June 25, 2018, the bicycle and pedestrian impact fee estimate for the project
is:
Residential: $243 x 22 = $5,346
Planning Division contact: Billy Gross, (650) 877-8535
Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows:
General
1. The Owner shall coordinate with the Public Works department to ensure any proposed
repair to the sewer lateral, sidewalks, curb and/or gutter will be satisfactory to the City and
shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work in the public right of way and shall b e
responsible for all applicable fees and deposits. All work related to these requirements shall
be accomplished at the Owner’s expense.
Plan Submittal
2. Developer shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic
file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in
the State of California, along with three printed copies. Incorporated within the
construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and
signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets;
Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan,
Horizontal Plan, Utility Plan(s), Detail Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans,
(landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal).
3. The Developer shall submit a Sanitary Sewer plan that shows plan views of existing and
proposed Sanitary Sewer Main and Manholes. Plan shall include a profile view of all
proposed Sanitary Sewer pipe and manholes.
4. The Developer shall submit Sanitary Sewer plans to Daly City. Prior to issuance of a
building permit by the City of South San Francisco, the Developer shall provide proof of
Sanitary Sewer plan approval from Daly City.
5. The Developer shall submit a grading plan that should clearly state the amount of cut and
fill required to grade the project. The developer shall apply for the grading permit with the
Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits,
bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the application. The developer shall place
an initial $30,000 cash deposit with the City for environmental compliance inspection
personnel time, which includes, but not limited to, air quality, grading and storm water
pollution inspections.
6. The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the Engineering
Division’s “Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals” requirements, copies of
which are available from the Engineering Division. Required items on the site plan include:
A complete topographic survey of the site including existing contours of the property
(extending 15” into adjacent property and the adjacent roads and lanes); show new contours
and proposed elevations on the proposed site plan; size, material, class, slope and invert of
all drain pipes, top of curb.
7. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the
Engineering Division.
8. At the time of Building Permit application, the Developer shall provide the
stormwater/hydrology/hydraulic/C3 and C6 Development Review Checklist. A deposit of
$5,000 shall be provided for technical review and submitted at the same time.
9. The Developer shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water
Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where
required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information.
These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the
subject project.
10. The Developer shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work in
Oakmont Drive, Shannon Drive, Westborough Boulevard, and Callan Boulevard and/or
any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. Applicant shall obtain
Approval from Caltrans Jurisdiction.
11. Plans shall reflect the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Investigation
provided by Berlogar, Stevens & Associates, dated February 28, 2018.
12. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review
of the building permit application.
Mapping
13. All applicable mapping shall be done and recorded in San Mateo County prior to the
Building Permit Submittal.
14. The Applicant shall meet all conditions of Title 19.50 Vesting Tentative Maps. In addition,
as referenced in Chapter 19.50.030 the design and improvements shall comply with the
requirements of Chapters 19.16 through 19.24 and shall show all data required by Sections
19.40.030 or 19.48.020 as applicable.
15. Submit closures for all lots, boundaries, right-of-way, and easements. Submit copies of the
survey field notes for the project and all referenced deeds and maps.
16. The location of all existing and proposed public and private easements shall be shown and
noted on the final map.
17. The Developer or subdivider shall pay the Engineering Division’s actual costs to retain a
Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor to plan check and approve the technical aspects of the
property survey and to sign the subdivision map.
Permits
18. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more
of soil is exported and/or imported. The Developer shall pay all permit and inspection fees,
as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit
requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The
Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website
at http://www.ssf.net/departments/publicworks/engineering-division.
19. Refer to the section “Geotech” for deposit regarding grading permit applications.
20. At the time of Building permit the Developer shall submit a deposit for the following:
a. Hauling/Grading Plan Check and Permit Processing. Provide Cubic Yards for
deposit amount.
b. Improvement Plan Check/Civil Review. Provide cost of improvements for deposit
amount.
21. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per
Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occurs prior to grading. Otherwise,
hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be
found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-
division.
22. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work to be done within the public right-of-
way. The Developer shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or
bonds required to obtain said permits.
Right of Way
23. Developer shall repave the property’s fronting roadway Oakmont Drive with a 2-inch grind
and overlay, curb to curb.
24. A 2" grind and overlay in Westborough will be required if the roadway is damaged,
exclusive of repair work required per Condition of Approval 29, due to the construction of
this project. Pre-construction photos and video will be required.
25. ADA ramps and intersection improvements will be required if applicant replaces or
modifies any of the four existing ADA ramps located in the intersection of
Westborough, Oakmont and Callan Blvd. Pre-construction photos and video will be
required.
26. Developer shall ensure that the pavement markings in Westborough Boulevard and
Oakmont Drive are restored and upgraded to meet current City standards. No partial
removal and replacement of pavement markings is allowed. All pavement markings
damaged or altered shall be fully replaced.
27. Developer shall coordinate with SamTrans to relocate bus stop along the property’s
fronting roadway, Oakmont Drive, during proposed development.
28. Upon completion of the development, the developer shall coordinate with SamTrans a new
bus stop location along Oakmont Drive.
29. The developer shall replace all existing sidewalk along eastbound Westborough Boulevard
and southbound Oakmont Drive. The sidewalks are to be constructed to current City
standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at no cost to the City. Damage due to
tree roots shall be repaired by removing the existing tree(s) (where recommended by the
City’s Landscape Architect) and its root system(s), and reconstructing or replacing all
damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, street pavement structural sections, storm drains, sanitary
sewers and any other affected utilities or appurtenances. Any existing trees requiring
removal shall be replaced with two new trees for each existing tree removed, of a variety
and at a location that will not damage the sidewalk, pavement, or underground utilities in
the future. New root shields shall be installed. Tree species, location and planting shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City’s Landscape Architect.
30. All new public improvements required to be constructed to accommodate the development
shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and
constructed to City standards. The work shall be performed in accordance with an
encroachment permit obtained by the developer from the Engineering Division, prior to the
approval of the final map, or a subdivision improvement agreement approved by the City
Council and shall be accomplished at no cost to the City. All new public improvements
shall be completed within one year of obtaining a Building Permit for the proposed
development, or prior to occupying structures at the site, whichever comes first.
31. The Developer shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the
public right-of way.
Storm Water
32. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or
maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices
within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired and maintained by the property owner or
Homeowner’s Association.
33. The developer shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for
the fully improved subdivision analyzing the impact of the fully improved upstream
drainage basin on the subject project and evaluating the impact of the developed
subdivision on the existing downstream drainage system. The study shall evaluate the
capacity of the existing drainage system and recommend any improvements necessary to
accommodate runoff from the project and upstream properties. The study shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
34. The Developer shall design, construct and install the storm drainage improvements
recommended by the approved storm drainage and hydraulic study at no cost to the city.
Minor storm drains shall be designed to accommodate a 10-year design storm. Major trunk
lines and pipes draining depressions shall be designed to accommodate a 25-year design
storm. Initial time of concentration shall be 5 minutes. Pipes shall be designed for open
channel flow conditions and shall not be surcharged.
35. Storm drains, wherever possible, shall be located within private streets or driveways. Storm
drains shall not be installed along rear property lines, or at other locations not readily
accessible to maintenance vehicles and equipment. Should storm drains be installed
alongside lot lines, the lots to either side of the storm drain shall be designed to
accommodate storm water overflows from the drainage system (due to a blocked pipe or
catch basin) without damage to the adjacent buildings’ structure or foundations.
36. Storm drains shall be designed and installed in accordance with plans submitted by the
developer’s Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. New storm drains
installed within public-streets or drainage easements shall be of minimum 12” diameter
and manufactured of Class III, or better, reinforced gasketed concrete pipes or HDPE (SDR
26) pipe.
37. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision
boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being
provided for this purpose.
38. All off-site drainage facilities required by the City Engineer to accommodate the runoff
from the subdivision shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City.
39. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully
developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the
applicants civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City
Engineer. The expense for the installation of these improvements, and all necessary permits
shall be borne by the Developer.
40. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge
into an approved drainage device or facility. Lot drainage design shall be approved by the
applicant’s soils engineer.
41. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff
shall not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets.
Sanitary Sewer
42. The Developer shall submit a sewer capacity study to determine how the project impacts
the system and determine if there is adequate capacity of the sewer lines. The study shall
include an analysis of both the Oakmont Drive sewer system and the Shannon Drive sewer
system.
43. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building
permit submittal.
44. Sanitary Sewer plan shall show all existing utilities located in Oakmont Drive and Shannon
Drive. Provide minimum horizontal and vertical clearances for all existing and proposed
utilities. Also include all manhole, catch basin and pipe invert elevations.
45. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance
personnel and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance
structure shall be surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area.
46. The on-site sanitary sewer system shall be designed and installed in accordance with the
Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the
requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division.
Utilities
47. Each dwelling unit shall be pre-wired for Cable T.V. and communication services.
48. Prior to the filing of the final map, the developer shall submit letters from each utility
company certifying that satisfactory provisions have been made as the location of their
facilities and that satisfactory easements have been provided on the full map.
49. Developer shall submit utility coordination documentation to the City, which highlights
notification of work to be performed, response(s) from each utility owner (including
existing utility plans from each owner), and proposed utility plans.
50. The Developer shall coordinate with the California Water Service/Westborough Water for
all water related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of
the California Water Service or the Westborough Water District, as appropriate.
On-Site Improvements
51. The developer shall submit proposed stabilization measures along the neighboring property
(Parcel 2, Correa Residence) during the replacement of the existing retaining wall and
proposed construction of Drive B located along Oakmont Drive.
52. The developer shall submit a detailed plan and associated explanation for the re-sloping of
the back of the lot that fronts Westborough Boulevard. This area appears to currently has
steep slopes that appear to provide stabilization measures for Westborough Boulevard
53. Maximum street grade shall be 12%. Minimum street grade shall be 1%. Each private street
shall have a pedestrian walk on at least on side of the street conforming to Title 24 of the
Sate Administrative Code. Each private street shall be bordered on both sides by a 6” high
vertical concrete curb.
54. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15’ wide for one-way travel and 25’ wide of for
areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted
and marked appropriately. Sufficient clear pavement area shall be provided to permit a
minimum of 25’ of maneuvering room at the rear of 90° parking stalls or garages.
55. The developer shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of
proposed access during the proposed development. Be advised, the developer shall not use
Shannon Park Court and Shannon Drive as access points for the proposed development.
56. The developer shall submit the proposed workplan and methodology of expanding
Shannon Drive to the proposed development. This shall include the methodology of
removing the existing gate at the property boundary and Shannon Drive.
57. The developer shall submit the proposed workplan and methodology to ensure the existing
fence line along the neighboring property is protected during the proposed development.
58. Upon completion of the proposed development, the developer shall repair any damage to
the existing fence line along the neighboring property, specifically near Shannon Park
Court and Shannon Drive. Repairs shall be in-kind and of equal or better quality than the
existing fence.
59. The developer shall submit structural design and supporting calculations for the proposed
retaining wall located on Parcel D, near Buildings 2-5.
60. The developer shall provide plan details for removing and replacing the existing retaining
wall located at the west corner of Parcel 2 (Correa). Developer shall also include structural
details for the new retaining wall.
Engineering Division Contact: Jason Baker, (650) 754-6353
Water Quality Conditions shall be as follows:
The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or
Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit:
1. Storm drains must be protected during construction. Discharge of any
demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited.
2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street. Drains in street must have inlet and
throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from vehicular traffic.
3. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to storm drains; they shall discharge
to landscaping first.
4. If fire sprinklers are added/modified, fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to
sanitary sewer.
5. Trash enclosure shall be covered, contained and the floor shall slope to a central drain that
is connected to the sanitary sewer.
6. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment.
7. Submit total number of Studio/1BD, 2BD and 3+BD units on plans. Applicant may be
required to pay a sewer capacity fee (connection fee) at a later time based on anticipated
flow, BOD and TSS calculations if positive net difference and/or discharge type results
from previous site use.
8. Site may be subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (if
so, the following items will apply).
9. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development.
10. Completed attached forms for Low Impact Development. Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in
paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer. Calculations must be
submitted with this package. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms
are no longer sufficient. A completed copy must also be emailed to
andrew.wemmer@ssf.net.
11. Complete attached Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use attached forms
for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient. A finished copy must also
be emailed to andrew.wemmer@ssf.net. Do not sign agreement, as the city will need to
review prior to signature, prepare packet and submit with an address to send for signature.
12. Submit flow calculations and related math for Low Impact Development.
13. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
14. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on
the project site:
a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas
that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions
and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as
soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds,
rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant
interactions to ensure successful establishment.
c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated
into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.
e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged
as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of
IPM principles and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site.
In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach
maturity, as well as seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected
plants.
iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from
affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial
insects.
15. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed.
16. A SWPPP must be submitted. Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect
all year long.
17. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted.
Water Quality Contact: Andrew Wemmer, (650) 829-3840
Fire Department Conditions shall be as follows:
1. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus (75,000lbs) and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities.
2. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096
mm), exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section
503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm).
3. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width
shall be 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders.
4. Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or
markings that include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire
apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means
by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legi ble condition at
all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility.
5. All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications.
6. Install underground piping for water based fire protection systems per NFPA 24 and
SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit.
7. Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix BB.
8. Provide fire hydrants; location, fire flow, and quantity to be determined.
9. Fire hydrants located on a public or private street, or onsite, shall have an unobstructed
clearance of not less than 30 feet (15 feet either side of hydrant), in accordance with
California vehicle code 22514. Marking shall be per California vehicle code 22500.1.
10. A blue reflective dot shall be placed in the middle of the roadway directly in front of each
fire hydrant.
11. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with CFC Section 505.1.
12. Install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors per manufactures directions.
13. This new residential construction will be assessed an adopted Public Safety Impact Fee.
The amounts for low density are $385.50 per unit for the Police Department and $899.50
per unit for the Fire Department.
14. Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13D/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit for overhead and underground.
15. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
Fire Department Contact: Craig Lustenberger, (650) 829 -6645
Police Department Conditions shall be as follows:
1. All construction must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.060
Minimum-security standards for single-family dwellings, (Ord. 1477 § 1B, 2013; Ord.
1166 § 1, 1995)
2. Address numbering. In addition to the numbering requirement for the street side as listed
in 15.48.060(e) SSFMC, all residential dwellings shall display their street number in a
prominent location on the REAR side of the dwelling in such a position that the number is
easily visible to approaching first responders on foot. The numerals shall be no less than
three inches in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they
are attached. The numerals shall be lighted at night. If the backyards have solid fencing,
the number shall be placed high enough on the dwellings that the number is easily visible
to approaching first responders on foot.
3. Tree canopies shall be maintained no lower than (6) six feet above grade and bushes shall
be maintained no higher than (3) three feet above grade.
Police Department Contact: Sgt. Mike Rudis, (650) 829-7260
STANDARD CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL, MIXED USE, AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
(Revised to address the project scope for Oakmont Meadows:
P15-0048: PD15-0001, DR15-0041, PM15-0001, AHA18-0004)
Entitlement and Permit Status
1. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two
(2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that
date. A one-year permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the
SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (“Common Procedures”). The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map may
be extended in accordance SFFMC Chapter 19.50 (“Vesting Tentative Maps).
2. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly
authorized representative files an affidavit, prior to the issuance of a building permit,
stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit.
3. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with
the conditions of approval.
4. Minor changes or deviations from the conditions of approval of the permit may be
approved by the Chief Planner and major changes require approval of the Planning
Commission, or final approval body of the City, per SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (“Common
Procedures”).
5. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize,
require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically
named therein.
6. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s
Building Division.
7. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected
City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy of any building.
Lighting, Signs, and Trash Areas
8. All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that is consistent with SSFMC
Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”), and there shall be no illumination on
adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either objectionable by adjacent
property owners or hazardous to motorists.
9. No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the site
without prior approval, as required by SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (“Signs”).
10. Adequate trash areas within the garage shall be provided as required by SSFMC Chapter
20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”). Interior trash handling area must be covered,
enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to
issuance of a permit. If being installed in a food service facility the drain must be
connected to a grease interceptor prior to the connection to the sanitary sewer.
Landscaping, Construction, & Utilities
11. The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to
a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation.
12. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted.
13. All sewerage and waste disposal shall be only by means of an approved sanitary system.
14. Prior to any on-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer.
15. All existing utility lines, underground cable conduits and structures which are not
proposed to be removed shall be shown on the improvement plans and their disposition
noted.
16. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be
maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC
Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”).
17. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be
kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed
free.
18. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive
cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure
to develop.
19. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally
specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner.
Parking Areas, Screening, & Drainage
20. All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and all
other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent to the
building shall be screened from public view, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.300
(“Lot and Development Standards”).
21. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping
areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving,
landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be
permanently maintained.
22. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-around areas must drain and
be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
23. The onsite stormwater catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo
Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay), as required by SSFMC
Chapter 14.04 (“Stormwater Management and Discharge Control”)
Public Safety
24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SSFMC Chapter 15.48 (“Minimum
Building Security Standards”). The Police Department reserves the right to make
additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised
building plans.
25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SSFMC Chapter 15.24 “California Fire
Code”. The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety conditions, if
necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans.
26. All fire sprinkler test and/or drain lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer.
Revised March 2013
OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CAPLANNING APPLICATION PACKAGEJune 25, 2018KTGY Group, Inc.1814 Franklin St. Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612Phone: 510.272.2910BFS Landscape Architects425 Pacific Street #201Monterey, California 93940Phone: 650.326.6622ARCHITECT:LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL ENGINEER:Warmington Residential2400 Camino Ramon Suite 234San Ramon, CA 94583Phone: 925.984.7914DEVELOPER:Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.2633 Camino Ramon #350,San Ramon, CA 94583Phone: 925.866.0322ContactMichael Banduccimikban@comcast.netContactDavid Burton AIAdburton@ktgy.comContactJason Nerijneri@cbandg.comContactSimon Phillipssimon@bfsla.comBenjamin Hallbhall@ktgy.comEvan Dambacheredambacher@cbandg.comJoy Longjoy@bfsla.com
A0.1VICINITY MAP &OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608010'20'40'80'SHEET INDEXARCHITECTURAL:A0.1 VICINITY MAP & SHEET INDEXA0.2 SITE CONDITIONSA1.0 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANA1.1 PROJECT DATAA1.2 CODE ANALYSISA2.0 STREET PERSPECTIVE & STREET ELEVATIONA2.1 A1: 3 PLEX A BUILDING ELEVATIONSA2.2 A1 ALT: 3 PLEX B BUILDING ELEVATIONSA2.3 A2: 3 PLEX C BUILDING ELEVATIONSA2.4 A3: 2 PLEX A BUILDING ELEVATIONSA2.5 B1: 3 PLEX D & B2: 2 PLEX B BUILDING ELEVATIONSA2.6 C1: 4 PLEX & C2: 1 PLEX GARAGE ELEVATIONSA3.0 A1: 3 PLEX A BUILDING PLANSA3.1 A1 ALT: 3 PLEX B BUILDING PLANSA3.2 A2: 3 PLEX C BUILDING PLANSA3.3 A3: 2 PLEX A BUILDING PLANSA3.4 B1: 3 PLEX D BUILDING PLANSA3.5 B1: 2 PLEX B BUILDING PLANSA3.6 B1: C1: 4 PLEX GARAGE & C2: 1 PLEX GARAGE BUILDING PLANSA5.0 UNIT PLANS 1AA5.1 UNIT PLANS 1BA5.2 UNIT PLANS 2A5.3 UNIT PLANS 3A5.4 UNIT PLANS 4AA5.5 UNIT PLANS 4BA6.0 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILSA7.0 MATERIALS AND COLORSCIVIL:C.1 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPC.2 EXISTING CONDITIONSC.3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANC.4 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC.5 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC.6 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLANLANDSCAPE:L-1.0 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANL-1.1 RENDERED LANDSCAPE PLANImage 3: View from Westborough and Oakmont IntersectionSHEET INDEXImage 4: Aerial perspective of project site from Shannon Park CtImage 1: View from Westborough Blvd looking NorthEastImage 2: View from Westborough Blvd looking EastVicinity MapContext Map0250'500'1000'2000'N.T.S.
A0.2SITE CONDITIONSOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608
SHAN N O N P A R K C T .WE
S
T
B
O
RO
U
G
H B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D300'(TYP.)
300'
(TYP.)
OAKMONT DRIVE
SHANNON DRIVE
SHANNON PARK COURTBANTRY LANEARDEE LANETARA LANESHANNON DRIVEF L E E T W O O D D R I V EMUIRFIELD CIRCLECA
R
T
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
OAKMONT MEADOWS
DATE: AUGUST 28, 2018
0'180'60'240'
1" = 60'SCALE:
PROPERTY DIAGRAM
OAKMONT MEADOWS
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
F:\2820-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-006 PROPERTY DIAGRAM.DWG8/28/2018 2:13 PMSACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
(925) 866 - 0322
www.cbandg.com
(916) 375 - 1877
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
LEGEND
OAKMONT DRIVEPARCEL 173 PM 21WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARDSHANNON DRIVESHANNON PARK COURTBANTRY LANE
ARDEE LANE
TARA LANE
LEGENDDATE: AUGUST 28, 20180'120'40'160'1" = 40'SCALE: EXISTING GRADINGAND DRAINAGEOAKMONT MEADOWSCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIAF:\2820-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-007 EXISTING GRADING AND DRAINAGE.DWG8/28/2018 2:27 PMSACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIASAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERS(925) 866 - 0322www.cbandg.com(916) 375 - 1877Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
EVADRIVE 'C'DRIVE 'B'
'A
'
COURTPARCEL DOAKMONT DRIVEWESTBOROUGH BOULEVARDSHANNON DRIVESHANNON PARK COURTBANTRY LANE
ARDEE LANE
TARA LANEBLDG 9BLDG 1BLDG 2BLDG 3BLDG 4BLDG 5BLDG 6BLDG 7BLDG 8BLDG 10DATE: AUGUST 28, 20180'120'40'160'1" = 40'SCALE: PROPOSED GRADINGAND DRAINAGEOAKMONT MEADOWSCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIAF:\2820-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-008 PROPOSED GRADING AND DRAINAGE.DWG8/28/2018 2:41 PMSACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIASAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERS(925) 866 - 0322www.cbandg.com(916) 375 - 1877Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.LEGEND
Lot 1Lot 2Lot 3Lot 4Lot 5Lot 6Lot 7Lot 8Lot 11Lot 12Lot 13Lot 14Lot 9Lot 10Lot 16Lot 17Lot 15Lot 22 Lot 21 Lot 20 Lot 19 Lot 18Lot 23Lot 24Lot 25Lot 26OAKMONT DRIVEWESTBOROUGH BLVD.21534678910Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3UPBedroom 4 /Opt. Flex11'-6" x 12'-4"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3W.I.C.UPBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-8" x 11'-0"Bath 3W.I.C.UPGarage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Bath 3W.I.C.UPPorchEntryUPUPPwdr.Flex15'-2" x 13'-7"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3UPBedroom 4 /Opt. Flex11'-6" x 12'-4"Flex15'-2" x 13'-7"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryUPUPPwdr.Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3UPBedroom 4 /Opt. Flex11'-6" x 12'-4"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3W.I.C.UPBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-8" x 11'-0"Bath 3W.I.C.UPGarage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Bath 3W.I.C.UPBedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.PorchEntryUPUPPwdr.Flex15'-2" x 13'-7"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3W.I.C.UPBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-8" x 11'-0"Bath 3W.I.C.UPGarage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryUPUPPwdr.Flex15'-2" x 13'-7"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Bath 3W.I.C.UPBedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Bedroom11'-0" x 13'-0"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-6" x 10'-1"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.UPEntryW.I.C.Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.A1.0ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608010'20'40'80'R3 - Townhouse Condominiums+/- 45'-6 (to top of roof)See A2.1 for Building ElevationsSee A3.0 for Building PlansNOTES:1. Refer to Civil sheets for all property lines. easements, site dimensions,accessible unit locations, etc.2. Refer to Landscape Sheets for landscape design, dimensions anddetailed information.R3 - Townhouse Condominiums+/- 44'-0 (to top of roof)See A2.4 for Building ElevationsSee A3.3 for Building PlansR3 - Townhouse Condominiums+/- 41'-6 (to top of roof)See A2.5 for Building ElevationsSee A3.5 for Building PlansR3 - Townhouse Condominiums+/- 45'-6 (to top of roof)See A2.2 for Building ElevationsSee A3.1 for Building PlansU - Private Garage+/- 16'-6 (to top of roof)See A2.6 for Building ElevationsSee A3.5 for Building PlansR3 - Townhouse Condominiums+/- 45'-6 (to top of roof)See A2.3 for Building ElevationsSee A3.2 for Building PlansU - Private Garage+/- 16'-6 (to top of roof)See A2.6 for Building ElevationsSee A3.5 for Building PlansR3 - Townhouse Condominiums+/- 41'-6 (to top of roof)See A2.5 for Building ElevationsSee A3.4 for Building PlansA1 - 3 Plex AA1 Alt - 3 Plex BA2 - 3 Plex CA3 - 2 Plex AB1 - 3 Plex DB2 - 2 Plex BC1 - 4 Plex GarageC2 - 1 Plex GarageBuildings 2,3,4Building 6Building 5Building 1Building 7Building 8Building 10Building 9
Lot 1Lot 2Lot 3Lot 4Lot 5Lot 6Lot 7Lot 8Lot 11Lot 12Lot 13Lot 14Lot 9Lot 10Lot 16Lot 17Lot 15Lot 22 Lot 21 Lot 20 Lot 19 Lot 18Lot 23Lot 24Lot 25Lot 26*****OAKMONT DRIVEWESTBOROUGH BLVD.21534678910A1.1PROJECT DATAOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608NOTES:1. Refer to Civil sheets for all property lines. easements, site dimensions,accessible unit locations, etc.2. Refer to Landscape Sheets for landscape design, dimensions anddetailed information.Project SummaryGeneral Site InformationAssessor Parcel # :Site Area( acres) :Existing General Plan Land Use Designation:Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation :Existing Zoning Designation:Proposed Zoning Designation :Detailed Unit SummaryDenotes Location of BMR Units4 BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS091-151-040-24.91 ACLow Density ResidentialLow Density ResidentialRL-8Planned Development010'20'40'80'Parking SummaryLandscapingLot Coverage / Floor Area Ratio / Average Lot Slope
A1.2CODE ANALYSISOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608SEPARATIONS:(CRC TABLE R302.1(2))FIRE RESISTIVE RATING REQUIREMENTSFOR PROJECTIONS BASED ON FIRESEPARATION DISTANCE:(PER CRC TABLE R302.1(2))APPLICABLE CODES:2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)·CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE)·CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (2015 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE)·CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (2015 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE)·CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (2014 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE)·CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE)·CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE·CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE·LOCAL AND STATE AMENDMENTS, ORDINANCES AND LAWFIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE > 3' FOR TYPE VB CONSTRUCTION AND R3OCCUPANCY SHALL BE ZERO (0) (NON-RATED)FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE < 3' SHALL NOT BE ALLOWEDFIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE > 3' SHALL BE ZERO (0) (NON-RATED)FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE 2' < 3' SHALL BE 1-HOUR ON THE UNDERSIDETOWNHOUSE: TOWNHOUSES NOT MORE THAN THREE STORIES ABOVE GRADE IN HEIGHT WITH ASEPARATE MEANS OF EGRESS. A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT CONSTRUCTED IN A GROUP OFTHREE OR MORE ATTACHED UNITS IN WHICH EACH UNIT EXTENDS FROM FOUNDATION TO ROOF ANDWITH A YARD OR PUBLIC WAY ON AT LEAST TWO SIDES.DEFINITIONS:[ PER CRC R202 & CBC 202 ]R3-TOWNHOUSE &U- PRIVATE GARAGES:R-3TOWNHOUSE - FEE SIMPLEU (PRIVATE GARAGES)TYPE V-BNFPA 13-R3 STORIES, AND < 60 FEET3 STORIESR-3= UNLIMITED PER CBC TABLE 506.2U= 1,000 S.F. PER CBC 406.3.1PER CRC R302.2 EXCEPTION: COMMON WALLS SEPARATING TOWNHOMES - 1 HOUR FIRERESISTANCE-RATED WALL ASSEMBLY PER ASTME 119 OR UL 263OCCUPANCY GROUP:(CRC R302.2)CONSTRUCTION TYPEFIRE SPRINKLERS:ALLOWABLE HEIGHT:ALLOWABLE STORIES:(CBC TABLE 504.3 & SEC. 504.4)ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREAEXTERIOR WALL RATING:ELECTRIC & GAS METERS LOCATED IN COMMON HOA MAINTAINED CLOSETS AT THE END OF EACHBUILDING ARE RUN THROUGH THE BUILDING LATERALLY IN A NON-RATED SOFFIT RACEWAY LOCATEDIN THE GARAGES. ACCESS EASEMENTS EXIST FOR USE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE UTILITY RACEWAY.THROUGH PENETRATIONS OF THE 1-HOUR RATED COMMON WALL SEPARATING UNITS BY ELECTRICALAND PLUMBING LINES SHALL BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC R 302.4.1 & R 302.4.1.2 BYPROVIDING A THROUGH PENETRATION FIRESTOP SYSTEM.UTILITIES / THROUGH PENETRATIONSPRIVATE GARAGE: A BUILDING OR PORTION OF A BUILDING IN WHICH MOTOR VEHICLES USED BY THETENANTS OF THE BUILDING OR BUILDINGS ON THE PREMISES ARE STORED OR KEPT, WITHOUTPROVISIONS FOR REPAIRING OR SERVICING SUCH VEHICLES FOR PROFIT. ACCESSIBILITY: (PER CRC R320.1)AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO AMENITIES AND UNITS IS ONLY REQUIREDFOR “COVERED MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS” AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 11A OF THECBC.THE RELEVANT DEFINITION FOR THIS PROJECT IS FOUND IN SECTION 1102ABUILDING ACCESSIBILITY:“NEWLY CONSTRUCTED MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS AS DEFINED IN THISCHAPTER, INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING:2 CONDOMINIUMS WITH 4 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS INCLUDING TIMESHARECONDOMINIUMS NOT CONSIDERED A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ORTRANSIENT LODGING AS DEFINED IN HEALTH AND SAFETY CODESECTION 19955 (A), AND CHAPTER 2 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.”ALL OF THE DWELLING UNITS IN THIS PROJECT ARE IN BUILDINGS WITH 3 ORFEWER UNITS; THEREFORE THEY DO NOT QUALIFY AS “COVERED MULTIFAMILYDWELLINGS” AND AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS NOT REQUIRED.CHAPTER 11A REFERENCES SITE AND BUILDINGCHARACTERISTICS (SECTION 1106A) AND PARKINGFACILITIES (SECTION 1109A). BOTH SECTIONS NOTE THAT THEY APPLYTO “COVERED MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS” ONLY. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE BUILDINGSON THIS SITE DO NOT QUALIFY AS COVERED MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS;THEREFORE THESE SECTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.
A2.0STREET PERSPECTIVE08'16'32'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608FRONT STREET ELEVATIONFRONT PERSPECTIVE& STREET ELEVATION
± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3***126126± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126*********± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"VARIES9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126A2.1BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1: 3 PLEX A04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608FRONT PERSPECTIVEFRONT ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATIONMaterial Legend:1.Stucco2.Fiber Cement Lap Siding3.Not Used4.Not Used5.Stucco Trim6.Fiber Cement Trim7.Vinyl Windows8.Metal Canopy9.Metal Entry Door10.Metal Garage Door11.Composition Shingle12.Metal Railing13.Light Fixture14.Unit Address*Denotes Egress Window1296110211121211881114137121811819171581113877REAR ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEVATION
***126± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3*********± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3A2.2BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1 ALT.: 3 PLEX B04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608FRONT PERSPECTIVEFRONT ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATION121211211668910128111171371314REAR ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEVATION122511122181311191751Material Legend:1.Stucco2.Fiber Cement Lap Siding3.Not Used4.Not Used5.Stucco Trim6.Fiber Cement Trim7.Vinyl Windows8.Metal Canopy9.Metal Entry Door10.Metal Garage Door11.Composition Shingle12.Metal Railing13.Light Fixture14.Unit Address*Denotes Egress Window887
***± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126*± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126*********± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3± 45'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126A2.3BUILDING ELEVATIONSA2: 3 PLEX C04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608FRONT PERSPECTIVEFRONT ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEVATION2961711011821213966871182121311Material Legend:1.Stucco2.Fiber Cement Lap Siding3.Not Used4.Not Used5.Stucco Trim6.Fiber Cement Trim7.Vinyl Windows8.Metal Canopy9.Metal Entry Door10.Metal Garage Door11.Composition Shingle12.Metal Railing13.Light Fixture14.Unit Address*Denotes Egress WindowREAR ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATION8918921271312111171814115138
**± 44'-0"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126126*± 44'-0"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126******± 44'-0"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3± 44'-0"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3126A2.4BUILDING ELEVATIONSA3: 2 PLEX AFRONT ELEVATION04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608LEFT ELEVATIONFRONT PERSPECTIVE682128119138111026128127138714Material Legend:1.Stucco2.Fiber Cement Lap Siding3.Not Used4.Not Used5.Stucco Trim6.Fiber Cement Trim7.Vinyl Windows8.Metal Canopy9.Metal Entry Door10.Metal Garage Door11.Composition Shingle12.Metal Railing13.Light Fixture14.Unit Address*Denotes Egress WindowREAR ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEVATION1281118772881391118
***126± 41'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3**126± 41'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3***± 41'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3**126± 41'-6"Level 2Level 110'-1"
VARIES
9'-1"T.O.PlateT.O.Roof9'-1"Level 3A2.5BUILDING ELEVATIONSB1: 3 PLEX D & B2: 2 PLEX BFRONT ELEVATION04'8'16'FRONT PERSPECTIVEOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608LEFT ELEVATION16121117811913147RIGHT ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATION178217111399Material Legend:1.Stucco2.Fiber Cement Lap Siding3.Not Used4.Not Used5.Stucco Trim6.Fiber Cement Trim7.Vinyl Windows8.Metal Canopy9.Metal Entry Door10.Metal Garage Door11.Composition Shingle12.Metal Railing13.Light Fixture14.Unit Address*Denotes Egress Window6281113
± 16'-6"T.O.PlateLevel 19'-1"T.O.RoofVARIES
± 16'-6"T.O.PlateLevel 19'-1"T.O.RoofVARIES
126± 16'-6"T.O.PlateLevel 19'-1"T.O.RoofVARIES
± 16'-6"T.O.PlateLevel 19'-1"T.O.RoofVARIES
± 16'-6"T.O.PlateLevel 19'-1"T.O.RoofVARIES
126± 16'-6"T.O.PlateLevel 19'-1"T.O.RoofVARIES
A2.6BUILDING ELEVATIONSC1: 4 PLEX & C2: 1 PLEX GARAGE04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608C1 REAR ELEVATIONTYPICAL SIDE ELEVATIONC1 FRONT ELEVATION110126271351413Material Legend:1.Stucco2.Fiber Cement Lap Siding3.Not Used4.Not Used5.Stucco Trim6.Fiber Cement Trim7.Vinyl Windows8.Metal Canopy9.Metal Entry Door10.Metal Garage Door11.Composition Shingle12.Metal Railing13.Light Fixture14.Unit Address*Denotes Egress Window92611610116213113147C2 REAR ELEVATIONC2 FRONT ELEVATIONC2 TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATIONC2 FRONT PERSPECTIVEC1 FRONT PERSPECTIVE11111026517
77'-2"44'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3UPBedroom 4 /Opt. Flex11'-6" x 12'-4"2'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-8" x 11'-0"Bath 3W.I.C.UPGarage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Bath 3W.I.C.UPDeck20'-2" x 6'-6"PwdrLaund.Kitchen13'-6" x 16'-6"DNUPGreat Room24'-9" x 20'-0"Pant.77'-1 1/2"46'-0"Deck20'-4" x 8'-0"UPDNGreat Room20'-0" x 22'-3"Kitchen18'-7" x 16'-9"PwdrPant.Deck20'-4" x 8'-0"UPDNGreat Room20'-2" x 22'-3"Kitchen18'-9" x 16'-9"PwdrPant.
2'-0"MasterBedroom 113'-11" x 16'-11"Bedroom 310'-6" x 11'-10"Bedroom 213'-11" x 10'-1"Mstr .BathDNBath 2LinenW.I.C.19'-4" L.F.W.I.C.11'-8" L.F.77'-2"46'-0"2'-0"MasterBedroom 113'-7" x 13'-10"Mstr .BathLaund.Bedroom 310'-4" x 11'-10"Bedroom 210'-2" x 10'-10"Bathroom 2LinenDNW.I.C.25'-6" L.F.W.I.C.MasterBedroom 113'-7" x 13'-10"Mstr .BathLaund.Bedroom 310'-4" x 11'-10"Bedroom 210'-4" x 10'-10"Bathroom 2LinenW.I.C.25'-6" L.F.W.I.C.DNRIDGERIDGE VAL
L
E
Y
VALLEYRIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGE
VA
L
L
E
Y
VALLEYRIDGE4:126:126:12
6:126:126:126:126:126:12 6:126:126:126:126:12A3.0BUILDING PLANSA1: 3 PLEX A04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608KEY MAPP3P4AROOFP4BP3P4ALEVEL 2P4BP3P4ALEVEL 3P4BP3P4ALEVEL 1P4BZoned Area for AllRoof PenetrationsAsphalt Shingle Roof
77'-2"44'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3UPBedroom 4 /Opt. Flex11'-6" x 12'-4"2'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-8" x 11'-0"Bath 3W.I.C.UPGarage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Bath 3W.I.C.UPDeck20'-2" x 6'-6"PwdrLaund.Kitchen13'-6" x 16'-6"DNUPGreat Room24'-9" x 20'-0"Pant.77'-1 1/2"46'-0"Deck20'-4" x 8'-0"UPDNGreat Room20'-0" x 22'-3"Kitchen18'-7" x 16'-9"PwdrPant.Deck20'-4" x 8'-0"UPDNGreat Room20'-2" x 22'-3"Kitchen18'-9" x 16'-9"PwdrPant.
2'-0"MasterBedroom 113'-11" x 16'-11"Bedroom 310'-6" x 11'-10"Bedroom 213'-11" x 10'-1"Mstr .BathDNBath 2LinenW.I.C.19'-4" L.F.W.I.C.11'-8" L.F.77'-2"46'-0"2'-0"MasterBedroom 113'-7" x 13'-10"Mstr .BathLaund.Bedroom 310'-4" x 11'-10"Bedroom 210'-2" x 10'-10"Bathroom 2LinenDNW.I.C.25'-6" L.F.W.I.C.MasterBedroom 113'-7" x 13'-10"Mstr .BathLaund.Bedroom 310'-4" x 11'-10"Bedroom 210'-4" x 10'-10"Bathroom 2LinenW.I.C.25'-6" L.F.W.I.C.DN6:126:126:126:124:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:12RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEVAL
L
E
Y
VALLEYVAL
L
E
Y
VALLEYA3.1BUILDING PLANSA1 Alt: 3 PLEX B04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608KEY MAPP4 Alt.P4AROOFP4BP4 Alt.P4ALEVEL 2P4BP4 Alt.P4ALEVEL 3P4BP4 Alt.P4ALEVEL 1P4BZoned Area for AllRoof PenetrationsAsphalt Shingle Roof
77'-2"44'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-8" x 11'-0"Bath 3W.I.C.UPGarage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryUPUPPwdr.Flex15'-2" x 13'-7"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"Bath 3W.I.C.UP46'-0"79'-1 1/2"46'-0"Deck20'-4" x 8'-0"UPDNGreat Room20'-0" x 22'-3"Kitchen18'-7" x 16'-9"PwdrPant.Deck11'-5" x 9'-4"PwdrLaund.Pant.UPDNKitchen11'-10" x 17'-0"Great Room14'-10" x 20'-10"Deck20'-4" x 8'-0"UPDNGreat Room20'-2" x 22'-3"Kitchen18'-9" x 16'-9"PwdrPant.
2'-0"79'-2"46'-0"MasterBedroom 113'-7" x 13'-10"Mstr .BathLaund.Bedroom 310'-4" x 11'-10"Bedroom 210'-2" x 10'-10"Bathroom 2LinenDNW.I.C.25'-6" L.F.W.I.C.DNLinenMaster BathMasterBedroom 111'-0" x 15'-7"Bedroom 311'-0" x 10'-10"Bedroom 210'-0" x 10'-10"W.I.C.22'-9" L.F.MasterBedroom 113'-7" x 13'-10"Mstr .BathLaund.Bedroom 310'-4" x 11'-10"Bedroom 210'-4" x 10'-10"Bathroom 2LinenW.I.C.25'-6" L.F.W.I.C.DN2'-0"6:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:124:126:126:126:126:126:12RIDGERIDGERIDGEVALLE
Y
VALLEYVA
L
L
E
Y
VALLEYRIDGE
RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEA3.2BUILDING PLANSA2: 3 PLEX C04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608KEY MAPP2P4AROOFP4BP2P4ALEVEL 2P4BP2P4ALEVEL 3P4BP2P4ALEVEL 1P4BZoned Area for AllRoof PenetrationsAsphalt Shingle Roof
51'-4"43'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3UPBedroom 4 /Opt. Flex11'-6" x 12'-4"Flex15'-2" x 13'-7"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryUPUPPwdr.2'-0"51'-4 1/2"43'-0"Deck20'-2" x 6'-6"PwdrLaund.Kitchen13'-6" x 16'-6"DNUPGreat Room24'-9" x 20'-0"Pant.Kitchen11'-10" x 17'-0"Great Room14'-10" x 20'-10"Deck11'-5" x 8'-4"PwdrLaund.Pant.UPDN2'-0"51'-4"43'-0"MasterBedroom 113'-11" x 16'-11"Bedroom 310'-6" x 11'-10"Bedroom 213'-11" x 10'-1"Mstr .BathDNBath 2LinenW.I.C.19'-4" L.F.W.I.C.11'-8" L.F.MasterBedroom 111'-0" x 15'-7"Bedroom 311'-0" x 10'-10"Bedroom 210'-0" x 10'-10"DNLinenW.I.C.22'-9" L.F.Master Bath2'-0"6:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:12RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGE
VA
L
L
E
Y
VALLEYRIDGE
VA
L
L
E
Y
VALLEY6:126:12A3.3BUILDING PLANSA3: 2 PLEX A04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608KEY MAPP3P2ROOFP3P2LEVEL 2P3P2LEVEL 3P3P2LEVEL 1Zoned Area for AllRoof PenetrationsAsphalt Shingle Roof
51'-8"30'-0"Bedroom11'-0" x 13'-0"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-6" x 10'-1"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.1'-6"51'-8"31'-6"Great Room12'-6" x 19'-5"Kitchen12'-11" x 11'-6"UPDNPwdrGreat Room12'-4" x 21'-1"Kitchen12'-9" x 11'-6"UPDNPwdrGreat Room12'-4" x 21'-1"Kitchen12'-9" x 11'-6"UPDNPwdr2'-0"51'-8"31'-6"Bedroom11'-1" x 9'-10"Bedroom12'-0" x 10'-0"Bathroom8'-9" x 5'-0"Bathroom8'-9" x 5'-0"DNW.I.C.W.I.C.Bedroom10'-11" x 9'-8"Bedroom11'-10" x 11'-10"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"DNW.I.C.W.I.C.Bedroom10'-11" x 9'-8"Bedroom11'-10" x 11'-10"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"DNW.I.C.W.I.C.2'-0"6:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:124:12RIDGERIDGERIDGE
VALLEYRIDGEVALLEYRIDGE
VA
L
L
E
Y
VA
L
L
E
Y
A3.4BUILDING PLANSB1: 3 PLEX D04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608KEY MAPP1BP1ALEVEL 1P1BP1BP1ALEVEL 2P1BP1BP1ALEVEL 3P1BB1: 3 PLEX DP1BP1AROOFP1BZoned Area for AllRoof PenetrationsAsphalt Shingle Roof
34'-4"30'-0"Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.1'-6"34'-4"31'-6"Great Room12'-4" x 21'-1"Kitchen12'-9" x 11'-6"UPDNPwdrGreat Room12'-4" x 21'-1"Kitchen12'-9" x 11'-6"UPDNPwdr2'-0"34'-4"31'-6"Bedroom10'-11" x 9'-8"Bedroom11'-10" x 11'-10"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"DNW.I.C.W.I.C.Bedroom10'-11" x 9'-8"Bedroom11'-10" x 11'-10"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"DNW.I.C.W.I.C.2'-0"
6:126:126:126:126:126:124:12RIDGEVAL
L
E
Y
VALLEYRIDGERIDGEA3.5BUILDING PLANSB2: 2 PLEX B; 04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608KEY MAPP1BP1BLEVEL 1P1BP1BLEVEL 2P1BP1BLEVEL 3B2: 2 PLEX BP1BP1BROOFZoned Area for AllRoof PenetrationsAsphalt Shingle Roof
20'-0"83'-4"20'-7"20'-7"24'-6"
3'-0"1'-6"10'-7 1/2"20'-11"10'-7 1/2"20'-7"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"20'-7"23'-0"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"6:126:12RIDGE6:126:126:126:126:126:126:126:12RIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGERIDGEA3.6BUILDING PLANS04'8'16'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608KEY MAPC1: 4 PLEX GARAGE LEVEL 1C2: 1 PLEX GARAGE LEVEL 1C1: 4 PLEX GARAGE;C2: 1 PLEX GARAGEC1: 4 PLEX GARAGE ROOF PLANC2: 1 PLEX GARAGE ROOF PLANAsphalt Shingle RoofAsphalt Shingle Roof
17'-0"31'-6"17'-0"31'-6"17'-0"30'-0"Bedroom11'-1" x 9'-10"Bedroom12'-0" x 10'-0"Bathroom8'-9" x 5'-0"Bathroom8'-9" x 5'-0"DNW.I.C.W.I.C.Bedroom11'-0" x 13'-0"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-6" x 10'-1"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.Great Room12'-6" x 19'-5"Kitchen12'-11" x 11'-6"Kitchen Opt.W/O Pwdr. Room16'-5" x 11'-6"UPDNPwdr1'-6"2'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"A5.0UNIT PLANS02'4'8'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608LEVEL 1LEVEL 2LEVEL 3PLAN 1A:3 Bedrooms / 3.5 Baths / Opt 3 Baths1,544 G.S.F.KEY MAP
17'-0"31'-6"17'-0"31'-6"17'-0"30'-0"DNW.I.C.W.I.C.Bedroom10'-11" x 9'-8"Bedroom11'-10" x 11'-10"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"Bathroom8'-7" x 5'-0"Bedroom10'-10" x 12'-10"Bathroom8'-0" x 5'-1"Living12'-4" x 9'-11"UPPorchEntryW.I.C.UPDNPwdrGreat Room12'-4" x 21'-1"Kitchen12'-9" x 11'-6"Kitchen Opt.W/O Pwdr. Room16'-5" x 11'-6"CANOPY AT B1: 3 PLEX DEND UNIT ONLY1'-6"2'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"A5.1UNIT PLANS02'4'8'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608LEVEL 1LEVEL 2LEVEL 3PLAN 1B:3 Bedrooms / 3.5 Baths / Opt. 3 Bath1,544 G.S.F.KEY MAP
25'-6"34'-10 1/2"DNLinenMaster BathMasterBedroom 111'-0" x 15'-7"Bedroom 311'-0" x 10'-10"Bedroom 210'-0" x 10'-10"W.I.C.22'-9" L.F.PorchEntryUPUPPwdr.Flex15'-2" x 13'-7"Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PwdrLaund.Pant.UPDNDeck11'-5" x 9'-4"Kitchen11'-10" x 17'-0"Great Room14'-10" x 20'-10"25'-6"34'-10 1/2"25'-6"34'-10 1/2"2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"
2'-0"2'-0"A5.2UNIT PLANS02'4'8'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608LEVEL 1KEY MAPLEVEL 2LEVEL 3PLAN 23 Bedrooms / 2 Baths / 2 Pwdr.2,173 G.S.F.
25'-6"44'-0"25'-6"44'-0"25'-6"44'-0"MasterBedroom 113'-11" x 16'-11"Bedroom 310'-6" x 11'-10"Bedroom 213'-11" x 10'-1"Mstr .BathDNBath 2LinenW.I.C.19'-4" L.F.W.I.C.11'-8" L.F.Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3UPBedroom 4 /Opt. Flex11'-6" x 12'-4"Bath 3Opt. Flex19'-1" x 12'-2"Deck20'-2" x 6'-6"PwdrLaund.Kitchen13'-6" x 16'-6"DNUPGreat Room24'-9" x 20'-0"Pant.CANOPY AT A1 ALT.3 PLEX 2 ONLYA5.3UNIT PLANS02'4'8'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608LEVEL 1LEVEL 2LEVEL 3PLAN 3:4 Bedrooms / 3.5 Baths2,441 G.S.F.KEY MAPOPTIONAL FLEX ROOM
25'-6"46'-0"25'-6"46'-0"25'-6"44'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"Mstr .BathLaund.Bathroom 2LinenDNW.I.C.MasterBedroom 113'-7" x 13'-10"Bedroom 310'-4" x 11'-10"Bedroom 210'-4" x 10'-10"W.I.C.25'-6" L.F.Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBath 3W.I.C.UPBedroom 414'-10" x 11'-2"UPDNPwdrPant.Deck20'-4" x 8'-0"Great Room20'-2" x 22'-3"Kitchen18'-9" x 16'-9"2'-0"2'-0"A5.4UNIT PLANS02'4'8'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608LEVEL 1LEVEL 2LEVEL 3PLAN 4A:4 Bedrooms / 3.5 Baths2,616 G.S.F.KEY MAP
25'-6"46'-0"25'-6"46'-0"25'-6"44'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"MasterBedroom 113'-7" x 13'-10"Mstr .BathLaund.Bedroom 310'-4" x 11'-10"Bedroom 210'-2" x 10'-10"Bathroom 2LinenDNW.I.C.25'-6" L.F.W.I.C.Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"PorchEntryBedroom 414'-8" x 11'-0"Bath 3W.I.C.UPDeck20'-4" x 8'-0"UPDNGreat Room20'-0" x 22'-3"Kitchen18'-7" x 16'-9"PwdrPant.
2'-0"2'-0"A5.5UNIT PLANS02'4'8'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608LEVEL 1LEVEL 2LEVEL 3PLAN 4B:4 Bedrooms / 3.5 Baths2,616 G.S.F.KEY MAP
A6.0ARCHITECTURAL DETAILSOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608Lighting FixtureStuccoUnit AddressEntry DoorPlan 3 Front Entrance atA1 Alt.: 3 Plex BPlan 4B Front EntranceTOW1224WTBKWFMetal RailingLighting FixtureStuccoMetal CanopyUnit AddressEntry Door4" Painted FiberCement TrimGarage DoorFiber Cement LapSidingMetal RailingExterior Lighting FixtureFiber Cement LapSiding4" Painted FiberCement TrimComposition ShingleComposition ShingleMetal Canopy
A7.0MATERIALS AND COLORSOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 2018#2017-0608ASPHALTSHINGLECOLORS &MATERIALSBODY 1/TRIM 1/FASCIA 1/BODY 2/TRIM 2/FASCIA 2/BODY 3/TRIM 3/FASCIA 3/BODY 4/TRIM 4/FASCIA 4/ACCENT 1/TRIM 6/FASCIA 6/ENTRY DOOR 1ACCENT 2/TRIM 7/FASCIA 7/ENTRY DOOR 2ACCENT 3/TRIM 8/FASCIA 8/ENTRY DOOR 3METAL RAILING/METAL CANOPYGARAGEDOOR 1ASPHALTSHINGLEBODY 1/TRIM 1/FASCIA 1/BODY 2/TRIM 2/FASCIA 2/BODY 3/TRIM 3/FASCIA 3/BODY 4/TRIM 4/FASCIA 4/ACCENT 1/TRIM 6/FASCIA 6/ENTRY DOOR 1ACCENT 2/TRIM 7/FASCIA 7/ENTRY DOOR 2METAL RAILING/METAL CANOPYGARAGEDOOR 2COLOR SCHEME ACOLOR SCHEME BBODY 5/TRIM 5/FASCIA 5/GARAGEDOOR 2BODY 5/TRIM 5/FASCIA 5/GARAGEDOOR 1
2 ZE9 DvWood Perimeter FenceBenchExisting Wood Fenceto remain(Ex) Trees: RemoveExistingWallSignageWESTBOROUGH BLVDOAKMONT DRIVETableBBQBocce Ball CourtExistingWall17 Cs5 QA8 PE10 PE15 GE6 QA5 QA3 QA13 La12 Ph17Fire Pit & Chairs12 AR3 AR3 AR2 AR3 AR12 PmBenchTrellisOrchard TreesBioretention4 GE3 GE7 ML1 GE1 GE(Ex) Trees: Remove(Ex) Trees: Remove4 ML6 ZE1 MLLow Wood SplitRail FenceWood Perimeter Fence, Typ.Retain (E) TreesWhere Feasible, Typ,Retain (E) TreeWood and Wire MeshFence, this sideWood PerimeterFenceSLSLSLSLSLSLSLSLBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBL5 GE2Orchard TreesWood Perimeter Fence1 MLNatural or Syntheticto be determinedLawn LEGENDSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZETreesARArbutus marinaStrawberry Tree15 Gal.GEGeijera parvifoliiumAustralian Willow15 Gal.MLMelaleuca linariifoliaFlaxleaf Paperbark15 Gal.MEMetrosiderus excelsusNew ZealandChristmas Tree15 Gal.PEPinus eldericaAfghan Pine15 Gal.QAQuercus agrifoliaCoast Live Oak15 Gal., multiULUlmus parvifoliaChinese Elm15 Gal.ZEZelkova serrataSawleaf Zelkova15 Gal.Orchard TreesAPAppleApple TreeLECitrusMeyer LemonLICitrusLimeORCitrusOrangeShrubs/PerennialsAaAgave attenuataFoxtail Agave1 Gal.CiCallistemon citrinusBottlebrush1 Gal.CpColeonema pulchrum 'Compacta'Breath of Heaven1 Gal.CsCeanothus 'Snow Flurry'Coast Lilac1 Gal.CvCoreopsis verticillata 'Golden Gem'NCN1 Gal.DvDodonaea viscosa 'Purpurea'Hopseed Bush5 Gal.EcEchium fastuosmPride of Madeira5 Gal.EfEscallonia x exoniensis 'Fradesii'Pink Escallonia1 Gal.FrFrancoa ramosaMaidenwreath1 Gal.FsFeijoa sellowianaPineapple Sage5 Gal.LaLavandula angustifoliaEnglish Lavender1 Gal.LeLeucadendron spp.5 Gal.PfPhlomis fruticosaJerusalem Sage1 Gal.PbPhormium 'Bronze Baby'New Zealand Flax1 Gal.PhPhormium 'Apricot Queen'New Zealand Flax1 Gal.PgPhormium 'Guardsman'New Zealand Flax1 Gal.PmPolystichum munitumSword Fern1 Gal.RoRosemarinus spp.Rosemary1 Gal.SaSalvia spp.Sage1 Gal.WfWoodwardia fimbriataChain Fern5 Gal.Groundcovers/GrassesArctostaphylos spp.Manzanita1 Gal. @ 4' O.C.Ceanothus griseus horizontalisCarmel Creeper1 Gal. @ 6' O.C.Helictotrichon sempervirensBlue Oat Grass1 Gal. @ 2' O.C.Muhlenbergia rigensDeer Grass1 Gal. @ 3' O.C.VinesFpFicus pumilaCreeping Fig1 Gal.Hydroseed Mix 1:Festuca rubra 'Molata' 15#/acFestuca ovina var Ingrata 10#/acFestuca idahoensis 5#/acEschscholzia calififornica 2#/acLupinus nanus 4#/acFencesWood FenceWood and Wire Mesh FenceStabilized Decomposed Granite Path with header on both sides.Hydroseed Mix 2:Festuca rubra 'Molata' 15#/acFestuca ovina var Ingrata 10#/acFestuca idahoensis 5#/acIrrigation Notes:All planting to be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system. Irrigationsystem shall be a mix of drip irrigation for all the tree, shrub, andgroundcover plantings, and shall be overhead irrigation for hydroseed areas.Irrigation system shall include a flow sensor and master valve assembly, andbe controlled via an automatic controller. A weather sensor shall beconnected to the controller. Plantings of similar exposure and water demandshall be grouped together to allow for like plant types to be irrigated on thesame valves.Existing Tree to be RemovedLightingStreet Light: Model Viper S series by Beacon. Mount on 15' high pole.Bollard Light: Model SQ-BOL-DN-20LED-9-CA-30" by Evergreen Lighting.SLBLSynthetic TurfM:\PRODUCTION\Projects\2018\18.011\CAD\18011_01_ConceptPlanting.dwg 6/22/2018
OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 201860'30'15'0'1"=30'PROJECTNORTHNProposed Wood Perimeter Fence6'-0" HighProposed Wood and Wire Mesh Fence6'-0" HighBFS Project #: 18.011Proposed Low Wood Split Rail Fence3'-0" HighL-1.0CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANStreet LightBollard
Wood Perimeter FenceBenchExisting Wood Fenceto remainExistingWallSignageTableBBQBocce Ball CourtExistingWallFire Pit & ChairsBenchTrellisBioretentionLow Wood SplitRail FenceWood Perimeter Fence, Typ.Retain (E) TreesWhere Feasible, Typ,Retain (E) TreeWood and Wire MeshFence, this sideWood PerimeterFenceOrchard TreesWood Perimeter FenceNatural or Syntheticto be determinedLawn M:\PRODUCTION\Projects\2018\18.011\CAD\18011_01_ConceptPlanting.dwg 6/22/2018
OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJune 25, 201860'30'15'0'1"=30'PROJECTNORTHNBFS Project #: 18.011L-1.1RENDERED LANDSCAPE PLAN
WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARDPARCEL EPARCEL DLOT1LOT2LOT3LOT4LOT5LOT6LOT7LOT8LOT9LOT10LOT11LOT12LOT13LOT14LOT 15LOT 16LOT 17LOT 18LOT 19LOT 20LOT 21LOT 22PARCEL BPARCEL COAKMONT DRIVESHANNON DRIVESHANNON PARK
CT
.
BANTRY LANE
ARDEE LANE
TARA LANE
EVA
PARCEL ALOT 23LOT 24LOT 25LOT 26VICINITY MAPNGENERAL NOTESCONTACTSSITEC.1SHEET INDEXVESTING TENTATIVE MAPC.2EXISTING CONDITIONSC.3PRELIMINARY SITE PLANC.4PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC.5PRELIMINARY UTILTIY PLANSHEET NO.SHEET TITLEC.6PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLANOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJUNE 25, 2018GRAPHIC SCALE0'80'40'20'0'F:\2820-000\ACAD\TM\C.1.DWG
C.1VESTING TENTATIVE MAPABBREVIATIONSLEGENDEXISTINGPROPOSED
OAKMONT DRIVEPARCEL 173 PM 21WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARDSHANNON DRIVE123465SHANNON PARK COURTBANTRY LANE
ARDEE LANE
TARA LANEOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJUNE 25, 2018GRAPHIC SCALE0'80'40'20'0'F:\2820-000\ACAD\TM\C.2.DWG
LEGENDC.2EXISTING CONDITIONSEXISTING EASEMENTS123456DEMOLITION MEASURESPRESERVATION MEASURES
OAKMONT DRIVEWESTBOROUGH BOULEVARDSHANNON DRIVESHANNON PARK
CT
.
BANTRY LANE
ARDEE LANE
TARA LANE1234567891011121314151716182019212223242526BLDG 7BLDG 8BLDG 6EVA DRIVE 'C'DRIVE 'B'
'A
'
COURTBLDG 5BLDG 4BLDG 3BLDG 2BLDG 1PARCEL EPARCEL DPARCEL CPARCEL A
PARCEL BBLDG 9BLDG 10OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJUNE 25, 2018GRAPHIC SCALE0'80'40'20'0'F:\2820-000\ACAD\TM\C.3.DWG
C.3PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 'A' COURT (AT PARKING)'A' COURT (WITHOUT PARKING)EMERGENCY VEHICLEACCESS (EVA) ROADDRIVE 'C'DRIVE 'B'1LEGENDEXISTINGPROPOSEDBUILDING SETBACKSLOTSFRONT SETBACKREAR SETBACKSIDE YARD SETBACK
OAKMONT DRIVEWESTBOROUGH BOULEVARDSHANNON DRIVEBANTRY LANE
ARDEE LANE
TARA LANEBDCEFABLDG 10BLDG 9EVADRIVE 'C'DRIVE 'B'
'A
'
COURTBLDG 1BLDG 2BLDG 3BLDG 4BLDG 5BLDG 6BLDG 7BLDG 8PARCEL DPARCEL CPARCEL ESHANNON PARK CT.SECTION CSECTION BSECTION DSECTION ESECTION FSECTION AOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJUNE 25, 2018GRAPHIC SCALE0'80'40'20'0'F:\2820-000\ACAD\TM\C.4.DWG
C.4PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANLEGENDPROPOSEDEXISTINGPRELIMINARY EARTHWORK SUMMARYCUTFILLAVERAGE DEPTH OF GRADINGCUTFILL
OAKMONT DRIVEWESTBOROUGH BOULEVARDSHANNON DRIVESHANNON PARK
CT
.
BANTRY LANE
ARDEE LANE
TARA LANEBLDG 7BLDG 8BLDG 6DRIVE 'C'
'A
'
COURTBLDG 5BLDG 4BLDG 3BLDG 2BLDG 1
EVA
PARCEL DPARCEL CPARCEL APARCEL BBLDG 9BLDG 10PARCEL EDRIVE 'B'OAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJUNE 25, 2018GRAPHIC SCALE0'80'40'20'0'F:\2820-000\ACAD\TM\C.5.DWG
C.5PRELIMINARY UTILTIY PLANLEGENDEXISTINGPROPOSED
OAKMONT DRIVEBANTRY LANEWESTBOROUGH BOULEVARDSHANNON DRIVESHANNON PARK
CT
.
ARDEE LANE
TARA LANEBLDG 7BLDG 6DRIVE 'C'
'A
'
COURTBLDG 5BLDG 4BLDG 3BLDG 2BLDG 1
DRIVE 'B'EVA BLDG 8B1B2B1B3B4B5B6B7S3S2S1PARCEL DPARCEL CPARCEL APARCEL BBLDG 9BLDG 10PARCEL EOAKMONT MEADOWSSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPLANNING APPLICATIONJUNE 25, 2018GRAPHIC SCALE0'80'40'20'0'F:\2820-000\ACAD\TM\C.6.DWG
C.6PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLANLEGENDEXISTINGPROPOSEDBIORETENTION SUMMARYBMP IDTOTAL IMPERVIOUSAREA (SF)BIORETENTION AREAREQUIRED (SF)BIORETENTION AREAPROVIDED (SF)SELF-RETAINING/SELF-TREATING SUMMARYBMP IDTOTAL IMPERVIOUSAREA (SF)LANDSCAPE AREAREQUIRED (SF)TOTAL LANDSCAPEAREA (SF)BIORETENTION AREA / DETENTION BASINTYPICAL BIORETENTION DETAILB1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Community Development Department
EXCEPTION FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383
(Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Use)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
FOR BELOW MARKET RATE PROPERTY
This Affordable Housing Agreement for Below Market Rate Property (“Agreement”) is
entered into as of this _____ day of _____________, 201_, by and between the City of South San
Francisco (“City”) and Warmington Residential California, Inc., a California corporation
(“Developer”). City and Developer are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Chapter 20.380 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth the
requirements for Inclusionary Housing (“Inclusionary Housing Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer is, or will become, the fee simple owner of that certain real
property (“Property”) located in the City of South San Francisco, State of California, and more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its entitlements, the Developer intends to construct twenty-two
(22) for-sale housing units (the “Project”) on the Property and has submitted site development
plans for the Project; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of development of the Project, Developer must comply with
the City of South San Francisco’s housing policies and programs as set forth in the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, as it applies to the provision of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 15
percent of the dwelling units in all such developments shall be Inclusionary Units, with 50 percent
designated for moderate income households and 50 percent designated for lower income
households; and
2
WHEREAS, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance permits a portion of the
inclusionary housing requirement to be satisfied through payment of an in lieu fee; and
WHEREAS, Developer will satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance through providing
one (1) inclusionary unit to purchasers earning not more than eighty percent (80%) of area median
income, one (1) inclusionary unit to purchasers earning not more than ninety percent (90%) of area
median income, and one (1) inclusionary unit to purchasers earning not more than one hundred ten
percent (110%) of area median income, and by paying an in-lieu fee for 0.3 inclusionary units; and
WHEREAS, the Developer and City agree to adhere to the schedule and terms as set forth
in the Inclusionary Unit Sale Terms and Conditions, and more particularly described in Exhibit D
attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Developer proposes meeting these requirements by selling the required
number of Inclusionary Units (as defined below) and paying the required in lieu fee.
NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. As a condition of developing and constructing twenty-two (22) single-family
housing units on the Property, Developer shall designate three (3) units in the Project as
Inclusionary Units and shall make the units available for sale as Inclusionary Units (the
“Inclusionary Units”). The location of the Inclusionary Units shall be identified as set forth in the
Inclusionary Units Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Inclusionary Units shall be affordable
to Low- and Moderate-income level households (“Eligible Income Households”) guaranteed by
the Resale Restriction Documents as set forth in Section 5 hereof. Developer shall sell:
(i) One (1) _____-bedroom housing unit in the Project to a household whose
annual gross income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the annual median income
for San Mateo County, adjusted for household size, as published by the State of California
annually, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932 (“Area
Median Income”).
(ii) One (1) _____-bedroom housing unit in the Project to a household whose
annual gross income does not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the Area Median Income,
adjusted for household size.
(iii) One (1) _____-bedroom housing unit in the Project to a household whose
annual gross income does not exceed one hundred ten percent (110%) of the Area Median
Income, adjusted for household size.
2. Developer shall pay to the City the sum of Ninety-Two Thousand Four Hundred
Dollars ($92,400) as the In Lieu Fee for the fractional Inclusionary Unit. The In Lieu Fee shall be
paid prior to the City’s issuance of the first building permit for the Project.
3
3. Developer shall price the Inclusionary Units in accordance with the terms and
conditions outlined in the Inclusionary Unit Sale Terms and Conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit
D. City shall approve the sales prices for the Inclusionary Units prior to Developer entering into
agreements with buyers for the sale of the Inclusionary Units.
4. The Inclusionary Units shall be constructed according to the schedule set forth in
the Inclusionary Unit Sale Terms and Conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Sales of the
Inclusionary Units shall occur concurrently with sales of the market rate units located in the
Project.
5. Developer shall require each buyer of the Inclusionary Units to execute a Resale
Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreement (“Resale Restriction Agreement”), an Excess Sale
Proceeds Promissory Note (“Promissory Note”), and a Performance Deed of Trust (“Deed of
Trust”) substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C (collectively, the “Resale Restriction
Documents”). The Resale Restriction Documents shall be recorded against the parcels containing
the Inclusionary Units upon close of escrow of sale for such Inclusionary Units. The Inclusionary
Units shall remain restricted and affordable to Eligible Income Households for a term of fifty-five
(55) years, commencing on the date each of the Inclusionary Units are first sold. The restrictions
shall apply to all subsequent buyers during the term.
6. Developer shall ensure that each purchaser of the Inclusionary Units is a Lower
Income Household or Moderate Income Household which meets the income requirements set forth
in Section 1 hereof. Developer shall obtain an income verification from each proposed purchaser,
and shall submit such information to the City for City’s approval as provided in Exhibit D.
Developer shall work with the City and/or the City’s Housing Administrator to identify and qualify
eligible buyers for said units. At the time of sale, Developer shall pay an administrative fee to
reimburse the City for all administrative and processing costs and fees incurred in processing the
sale of the Inclusionary Unit, which may include the City’s Housing Administrator fees.
7. The Inclusionary Units shall remain owner-occupied units as enforced by the City
through the Resale Restriction Agreement.
8. Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City in consultation
with Developer, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes
of action arising or allegedly arising out of or relating in any manner to Developer’s performance
or nonperformance under this Agreement, except to the extent arising from the gross negligence
or willful misconduct of the City. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
other termination of this Agreement or any release of part or all of the Property from the burdens
of this Agreement.
9. Developer shall reimburse the City for all administrative/processing costs and fees
incurred in processing this Agreement, which may include reasonable attorney’s fees and costs,
and implementing the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
10. Developer hereby subjects the Property to the covenants, conditions and restrictions
set forth in this Agreement. The Parties hereby declare their express intent that all such covenants,
4
conditions and restrictions shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and
be binding upon Developer’s successors in title to the Property. All covenants without regard to
technical classification or designation shall be binding for the benefit of the City, and such
covenants shall run in favor of the City. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter
executed applicable to or conveying the Property or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held
to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such covenants, conditions and
restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants, conditions and restrictions are set forth in such
contract, deed or other instrument. This Agreement shall be recorded on the Property upon final
map recordation or, if a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for
the Property.
11. Prior to the closing of the sale of all of the Inclusionary Units to Eligible Income
Households, the Developer may not transfer the whole or any part of the Property, the Project or
this Agreement unless (i) such transfer is to a limited liability company or limited partnership or
corporation formed for purposes of carrying out the Project and which takes title to the Property,
and (ii) the Developer first notifies the City of the proposed transfer or assignment and delivers to
the City the organizational documents of the transferee or assignee (the "Transferee"), and (iii) the
Developer causes the Transferee to execute an agreement, in form and substance approved in
writing by the City, accepting and assuming (and releasing Developer from) the obligations of the
Developer under this Agreement.
Developer shall reimburse City for all City costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’
fees, incurred in reviewing instruments and other legal documents proposed to effect a permitted
transfer or assignment under this Agreement within ten (10) days following City’s delivery of an
invoice detailing such costs.
12. Provided that Developer has complied with all of the terms and conditions set forth
herein, upon the sale by Developer of the Inclusionary Units, Developer shall be released from,
and shall have no further obligations under this Agreement. Such release shall be effective upon
the sale and shall not require any further action or documentation by any party to this Agreement.
13. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be processed in the same manner as an
original application for approval pursuant to Section 20.380.014 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code. Nothing, however, shall prevent the body granting final approval of the project
development, from modifying the location and phasing of the Inclusionary Units as a condition of
approval for the Project.
14. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement without regard to
principles of conflicts of laws. In the event that either party brings any action against the other
under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusivel y in the
state courts of California in the County of San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
15. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory
relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled
to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.
The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
5
16. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged
shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this
Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
17. Any notice or demand shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt
requested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below:
Developer: Warmington Residential California, Inc.
______________________________
______________________________
City: City of South San Francisco
Attn: Community Development Director
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
18. Notwithstanding any previous provision of this Agreement, the terms of this
Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.380 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE.
6
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
DEVELOPER :
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL
CALIFORNIA, INC.
By: ________________________________
Name Printed: _______________________
Its: _________________________________
CITY:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
By: ___________________________
Mike Futrell, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney
SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED.
7
State of California )
) SS.
County of _______________ )
On _____________________, 2018, before me, _______________________________, a Notary
Public, personally appeared ____________________________________________, who proved
to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ____________________________ (Seal)
(This area for official notarial seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document
8
State of California )
) SS.
County of _______________ )
On _____________________, 2018, before me, _______________________________, a Notary
Public, personally appeared ____________________________________________, who proved
to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ____________________________ (Seal)
(This area for official notarial seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document
9
Exhibit A
Legal Description
That real property located in the City of South San Francisco , County of San Mateo, State of
California, described as follows:
PARCEL I:
PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP 98-054",
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON OCTOBER 19, 2000 IN BOOK 73 OF PARCEL MAPS AT
PAGES 21 AND 22.
PARCEL II:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS OVER
AND ACROSS THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON THAT
CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP 98-054" FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN BOOK 73
OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 21 AND 22 AND DEPICTED THEREON AS "NON-
EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR THE
BENEFIT OF PARCEL 1".
APN: 091-151-040-2
JPN: 091-15-151-03.01A
10
Exhibit B
Inclusionary Units Plan
11
Exhibit C
Form of Resale Restriction Documents
12
Exhibit D
Inclusionary Unit Sale Terms and Conditions
1. Developer shall sell each of the inclusionary sale units at an affordable initial sales price.
The City shall approve the affordable initial sales price for each inclusionary unit prior to the sale
of the unit.
a. For the inclusionary unit to be sold to a buyer earning up to 80% of AMI, the
affordable initial sales price shall be set at a level at which allowable housing expenses do not
exceed 30% x 70% of AMI for a household size appropriate to the unit.
b. For the inclusionary unit to be sold to a buyer earning up to 90% of AMI, the
affordable initial sales price shall be set at a level at which allowable housing expenses do not
exceed 35% x 90% of AMI for a household size appropriate to the unit.
c. For the inclusionary unit to be sold to a buyer earning up to 110% of AMI, the
affordable initial sales price shall be set at a level at which allowable housing expenses do not
exceed 35% x 110% of AMI for a household size appropriate to the unit.
d. “Allowable housing expenses” means the total monthly or annual recurring
expenses required of a household to obtain shelter. Allowable housing expenses include loan
principal and interest at the time of initial purchase by the homebuyer, allowances for property
and mortgage insurance, property taxes, homeowners association dues and a reasonable
allowance for utilities.
e. “Reasonable allowance for utilities” means the utility allowance published by the
Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo from time to time. If the foregoing utility
allowance is no longer published, then a reasonable allowance for utilities shall be calculated
based upon comparable governmental published figures as determined by regulation of the City.
f. “Utilities” means garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other
heating, cooling, cooking and refrigeration fuels for a dwelling unit. Utilities does not include
telephone, cable or internet service.
2. The Developer shall, prior to the initial sale of an Inclusionary Unit, obtain and cause to
be submitted to the City a verification of all household sources of income demonstrating that
such household is a Lower or Moderate Income Household, and meets the eligibility
requirements established for the Inclusionary Unit. Such income verification shall be submitted
on such form as approved by the City. City shall approve each purchaser of an Inclusionary Unit
prior to the sale of the unit.
3. Inclusionary units required shall be constructed and have had final inspections for
occupancy prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the related market rate units in any
residential project that is developed in a single phase. If the project is developed in phases, the
rate of building permit issuance, construction and final inspection of affordable units shall be
proportional to the rate of building permit issuance, construction and final inspection of the
market rate units within the residential project.
13
4. Inclusionary units shall be comparable in overall quality of exterior appearance and
overall quality of construction to market rate units in the same residential project. Interior
features and finishes in affordable units shall be durable, of good quality and consistent with
contemporary standards for new housing.
3090171.1
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-99 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:10.
Report regarding a resolution accepting mid-year financial report and amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19
adopted budget.(Justin Lovell, Financial Services Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the mid-year financial report and
amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19 adopted budget.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Fiscal Year (FY)2018-19 mid-year report was presented to the Budget Standing Committee (BSC)on
February 11,2019.The BSC is comprised of Councilmember Mark Addiego and Councilmember Flor
Nicholas.Since the BSC meeting there are two changes to the staff report and staff recommendation that has an
impact to the Parks and Recreation Department request and the Information Technology Department request.
There is a net impact of $50,000 on the General Fund. The changes will be further explained in the staff report.
This report summarizes the City’s mid-year financial status by providing an analysis of revenues and
expenditures through the first half of the Fiscal Year (FY)for the General Fund,Measure W Fund and the
Information Technology Fund.The intent of this report is to provide the Budget Standing Committee with a
brief update on how these funds are performing in comparison to the requested budget appropriations.
General Fund
Through the mid-year,total revenues are on track to meet budgeted amounts inclusive of the proposed
adjustments.Current revenues are estimated to exceed $111.6 million,which combined with committed
reserves for encumbrances of $6.8 million from the prior year,total $118.4 million in available General Fund
resources.
The FY 2018-19 amended expenditure budget is $116 million and staff has requested an additional $925,500 in
expenditures via this mid-year adjustment.If approved,the mid-year adjustment will result in a FY 2018-19
amended expenditure budget of $116.9 million.It is anticipated the General Fund will generate a net surplus of
$1.5 million at year-end,of which $300,000 is anticipated to be contributed to the General Fund reserves in
compliance with the City’s Reserves Policy.
General Fund Revenues
Based on current year-to-date revenues,General Fund revenues are projected to be $111.6 million,an increase
of $1.5 million over the amended budget.This increase is a mix of revenue types performing better than
anticipated and others not reaching expected levels.Staff recommends that each of the revenue types below be
adjusted as follows:
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) Refund from County +$790,084
The ERAF property tax refund from the County is expected to be $3.3 million at year-end,better than
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-99 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:10.
originally anticipated.
Revenue from other Agencies +$368,562
The Fire Department expects an additional $368,562 of additional revenue from reimbursements from the
Governor’s Office of Emergency Service (Cal OES)from the Fire Department’s mutual aid assistance at
several wildfires.
Charges for Services +$340,000
The Fire Department expects an additional $340,000 of additional revenue from ambulance billing.
General Fund Expenditures
Including the $925,500 in requested mid-year appropriations,projected expenditures are expected to be $1.5
million less than available resources.Mid-year appropriation requests are intended to be one-time
appropriations to the current Fiscal Year budget.There is an exception in the Human Resources Department
that includes on-going staff costs and the Information Technology Department that will have a multi-year
impact.
City Manager +$200,000
The communications division within the City Manager’s office is requesting an additional $200,000 for
communications and outreach related to the potential formation of a community facilities district (CFD)that the
City is pursuing to secure land based financing for infrastructure projects.If a CFD is formed,the City can be
reimbursed for certain preliminary expenses related to formation costs.
Finance + $20,000
The Finance Department is requesting an additional $20,000 for consultant services related to potential CFD
formation.If a CFD is formed the City can be reimbursed for certain preliminary expenses related to formation
costs.
Human Resources +$87,500
The Human Resources Department is requesting additional budget for the following items:an estimated
$25,000 is needed based on current third-party investigations of claims,an additional $20,000 is requested to
pay for mandatory classification and compensation surveys per labor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
an additional $30,000 is requested for sexual harassment prevention training,and an additional $12,500 to
promote a Human Resources Analyst I to an Analyst II.
Economic and Community Development +$40,000
The Economic and Community Development Department is requesting $40,000 for consultant services related
to developing renderings and other supporting material related to the formation of a CFD.If a CFD is formed,
the City can be reimbursed for certain preliminary expenses related to formation expenses.
Fire Department +$368,561
The Fire Department is requesting additional funding for reimbursable expenses related to mutual aid
deployments for wildfires and hurricanes.Fire crews responded to four in-State and out of State mutual aid
deployments during FY 2018-19.This activity is reimbursable through various government agencies.There is a
corresponding revenue increase for these expenses.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-99 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:10.
Parks and Recreation +$4,500
The Parks and Recreation Department is requesting an additional $4,500 for music licenses that will allow the
City to play copy written songs at events and programs.
The BSC presentation and staff report included $100,000 for the replacement of eight HVAC units at the
Community Learning Center (CLC).The South San Francisco School District owns the CLC and indicated that
they will pay for the replacement of the HVAC units.
Transfer Out to Information Technology Fund +$205,000
The Information Technology Department is requesting an additional $55,000 to fund through the end of the FY
monthly web-based timecard maintenance with VistaTime.
In the FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 Biennial Budget Council approved replacing the current phone system and
allocated $200,000 to proceed in a phased,multi-year approach.The current phone system has been in place for
over 20 years;it is antiquated and requires significant maintenance.The vendor no longer supports this
maintenance,and replacement parts are not available on the market.In January 2019 Information Technology
(IT)staff released a request for proposal (RFP)for a new phone system.At the time of the BSC,the final cost
was not known for the phone replacement.Now that the proposals have been received and the total cost known,
the Information Technology Department is requesting an additional $150,000 to fund the phone system
replacement.The Information Technology Department will return to City Council in March 2019 for approval
of the agreement.
Requests from other Funds
Measure W (Fund 101) +$2,426,550
The City’s sales tax consultants are projecting that the City’s ½cent sales tax,Measure W is anticipated to have
$12.1 million in FY 2018-19 revenues, up from the adopted budget of $9.7 million.
Information Technology (Fund 785) +$205,000 Revenues +$205,000 Expenditures
As mentioned above,the Information Technology Department is requesting an additional $55,000 to fund the
monthly web-based timecard maintenance and $150,000 to fund the replacement of the citywide phone system.
There will be an increase in the revenue budget for transfers in from General Fund and an increase in the
expenditure budget.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the additional appropriations from the General Fund will result in a $1.5 million in revenues and
$925,500 in expenditure appropriations current appropriations for FY 2018-19.Inclusive of the proposed
increases,it is anticipated that General Fund will end the fiscal year with an operating surplus of $1.5 million.
At year end,staff will calculate the amount of any surplus necessary to meet minimum reserve requirements,
currently this is estimated to be $300,000,which will provide an estimated General Fund Surplus of $1.1
million.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Reviewing the mid-year Fiscal Year budget and making adjustments as necessary is part of the Financial
Stability priority area of the strategic plan.
CONCLUSION
The City’s operating budget at the mid-year point remains on target.The additional revenues and offsetting
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-99 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:10.
The City’s operating budget at the mid-year point remains on target.The additional revenues and offsetting
appropriations maintain the City’s prudent financial position.Staff continues to recommend fiscal conservatism
in light of the escalating pension costs.
Attachments:
1.General Fund Summary
2.Measure W Fund Summary
3.Information Technology Fund Summary
4.Mid-Year PowerPoint Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
ATTACHMENT 1: FY2018‐19 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
Property Taxes 31,594,035$ 32,006,068$ 32,006,068$ 13,462,428$ 32,006,068$
ERAF Refund from County 2,549,591 2,549,591 2,549,591 ‐ 790,084 3,339,675
Sales Tax 17,567,674 17,203,726 17,203,726 6,794,354 17,203,726
Transient Occupancy Tax 13,978,533 15,834,000 15,834,000 6,893,160 15,834,000
Business License 1,579,099 1,503,455 1,503,455 651,675 1,503,455
Commercial Parking Tax 3,248,569 3,829,573 3,829,573 1,367,696 3,829,573
Franchise Fees 4,403,493 4,000,000 4,000,000 1,093,881 4,000,000
Building and Fire Permits 14,674,810 12,072,049 12,072,049 7,551,739 12,072,049
Revenue from Other Agencies 2,610,231 1,473,470 2,391,195 1,022,084 368,562 2,759,757
Charges for Services 9,518,743 7,550,726 7,550,726 3,795,928 340,000 7,890,726
Administrative Charges 1,405,923 1,437,801 1,437,801 718,901 1,437,801
Fines 423,604 618,500 618,500 465,220 618,500
Interest & Rent 6,837,571 5,309,459 5,309,459 2,226,898 5,309,459
Transfers In & Other 10,018,903 3,665,276 3,786,276 1,434,407 3,786,276
Revenues 120,410,779$ 109,053,694$ 110,092,419$ 47,478,371$ 1,498,646$ 111,591,065$
Plus committed reserves from prior year 6,800,262
Total Revenues 120,410,779$ 109,053,694$ 110,092,419$ 47,478,371$ 1,498,646$ 118,391,327$
City Council 239,260$ 280,694$ 280,694$ 116,920$ ‐$ 280,694$
City Clerk 660,306 817,567 817,567 358,628 ‐ 817,567
City Treasurer 135,218 132,900 132,900 47,077 ‐ 132,900
City Attorney 996,380 1,063,691 1,063,691 356,926 ‐ 1,063,691
City Manager 2,668,716 2,958,815 3,161,832 1,105,903 200,000 3,361,832
Finance 3,080,770 3,022,116 3,364,365 1,422,714 20,000 3,384,365
Non‐Departmental 1,034,800 1,072,087 1,130,087 316,984 ‐ 1,130,087
Human Resources 1,555,907 1,535,163 1,692,597 805,999 87,500 1,780,097
Economic & Community Development 7,722,681 9,009,367 12,003,981 4,550,983 40,000 12,043,981
Fire 26,059,068 27,711,586 28,491,019 14,120,574 368,562 28,859,581
Police 26,639,005 29,174,475 29,254,475 15,089,339 ‐ 29,254,475
Public Works 5,014,342 6,284,775 6,530,146 2,428,940 ‐ 6,530,146
Library 5,379,836 5,806,294 5,921,858 2,977,016 ‐ 5,921,858
Parks & Recreation 15,468,353 16,294,509 16,739,007 8,291,016 4,500 16,743,507
CIP 921,818 2,383,001 4,932,057 623,656 4,932,057
Transfers Out 19,965,646 500,000 500,000 250,000 205,000 705,000
Total Expenditures 117,542,108$ 108,047,038$ 116,016,276$ 52,862,673$ 925,562$ 116,941,838$
Net Surplus/ (Deficit) 1,449,489$
Estimated amount to fully fund reserves (299,729)
Remaining surplus 1,149,760$
2018‐19
Requested
2018‐19
Projected
(Amended +
Requested)
2018‐19
Requested
2018‐19
Projected
(Amended +
Requested)
Expenditures 2017‐18
Actual
2018‐19
Adopted
2018‐19
Amended
2018‐19
YTD
Revenues 2017‐18
Actual
2018‐19
Adopted
2018‐19
Amended
2018‐19
YTD
ATTACHMENT 2: MEASURE W FUND SUMMARY
MEASURE W
Measure W 11,162,238$ 9,731,450$ 9,731,450$ 5,352,156$ 2,426,550$ 12,158,000$
‐
Total Revenues 11,162,238$ 9,731,450$ 9,731,450$ 5,352,156$ 2,426,550$ 12,158,000$
Operating Expenses 22,350$ ‐$ 53,650$ 40,975$ ‐$ 53,650$
Transfer Out to General Fund 2,440,861 ‐
Transfer Out to CIP 6,585,030 9,399,224 16,714,909 1,539,891 16,714,909
Total Expenditures 9,048,241$ 9,399,224$ 16,768,559$ 1,580,866$ ‐$ 16,768,559$
Surplus/(Deficit) 2,113,996 332,226 (7,037,109) (4,610,559)
Fund Balance 11,404,142$ 11,736,368$ 4,699,259$ 7,125,809$
2018‐19
Projected
(Amended +
Requested)
2018‐19
Requested
2018‐19
Projected
(Amended +
Requested)
Expenditures 2017‐18
Actual
2018‐19
Adopted
2018‐19
Amended
2018‐19
YTD
2018‐19
Requested
Revenues 2017‐18
Actual
2018‐19
Adopted
2018‐19
Amended
2018‐19
YTD
Measure W
FY18‐19 Mid Year
ATTACHMENT 3: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND SUMMARY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Charges for Services 56,001$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 46,615$ ‐$ 40,000$
Use of Money & Property 1,676 14,000 14,000 ‐ ‐ 14,000
Other Revenues 2,584,771 2,670,676 2,670,676 1,335,338 ‐ 2,670,676
Transfer in 240,000 240,000 ‐ 205,000 445,000
Total Revenues 2,642,448$ 2,964,676$ 2,964,676$ 1,381,953$ 205,000$ 3,169,676$
Payroll 1,145,674$ 1,313,513$ 1,313,513$ 756,954$ ‐$ 1,313,513$
Supplies & Services 1,078,430 1,739,317 2,265,574 533,565 205,000 2,470,574
Interdepartmental Charges 11,077 11,845 11,845 5,923 11,845
Total Expenditures 2,235,180$ 3,064,675$ 3,590,932$ 1,296,441$ 205,000$ 3,795,932$
Surplus/(Deficit) 407,267$ (100,000)$ (626,257)$ (626,257)$
Fund Balance 1,009,575$ 909,575$ 283,319$ 283,319$
2018‐19
Projected
(Amended +
Requested)
Expenditures 2017‐18
Actual
2018‐19
Adopted
2018‐19
Amended
2018‐19
YTD
2018‐19
Requested
2018‐19
Projected
(Amended +
Requested)
Revenues 2017‐18
Actual
2018‐19
Adopted
2018‐19
Amended
2018‐19
YTD
2018‐19
Requested
Information Technology
FY18‐19 Mid Year
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCILFEBRUARY 27, 2019FY 2018-19 Mid-Year Budget1
OverviewGeneral Fund SummaryGeneral Fund RevenuesGeneral Fund Mid-Year Budget RequestsOther Fund Mid-Year Budget Requests2
General Fund SummaryTotal Revenues $ 111.6M Plus Carry Over PO & CIP from Prior Year $ 6.8M Total Resources Available $ 118.4M Total Expenditures $ 116.0M Mid Year Requests $ 0.9M Amended Expenditures $ 116.9M Projected Net Surplus $ 1.5M Contribution to reserves ($ 0.3M)3
General Fund RevenuesERAF Refund from County +$790,084Revenue from Other Agencies +$368,562Charges for Services +$340,0004
General Fund Mid-Year Budget RequestsCity Manager CFD Outreach $200,000Finance CFD Consulting Services $20,000Human ResourcesSexual Harassment Prevention Training $30,000Class and Comp Studies $20,0003rdParty Investigations $25,000Upgrade HR Analyst I to II $12,500Economic and Community DevelopmentCFD Consulting Services $40,0005
General Fund Mid-Year Budget RequestsFireMutual Aid OT $368,562Parks & Recreation Music License $4,500Non-Departmental Transfer out to IT Fund $205,0006
Other Fund Mid-Year Budget RequestsMeasure W Fund (101)Estimated increase in Measure W Revenues $2.4MInformation Technology Fund (785)Transfer In from General Fund $205,000Web-based timecard system $55,000Citywide phone system replacement $150,0007
RecommendationStaff Recommends Council adopt a resolution to accept the mid-year financial report and amend the FY 2017-18 budget8
Questions/Discussion9
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-100 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:10a.
Resolution accepting mid-year financial report and amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19 adopted budget.
WHEREAS,city staff presented the Fiscal Year (FY)2018-19 mid-year financial report to the Budget Standing
Committee (BSC) on February 11, 2019; and
WHEREAS,city staff incorporated direction and comments from the BSC and presented the FY 2017-18 mid-
year financial report to the City Council.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does
hereby:
1.Accept the FY 2018-19 mid-year financial report; and
2.Amend the FY 2018-19 adopted budget based on the list of mid-year budget adjustments attached
herein as Exhibit A.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
EXHIBIT A: RECOMMENDED FY 2018‐19 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Fund Name Fund Department Account Number Adjustment +/(‐) Account Type Description
General Fund 100 Non‐Dept. 100‐00000‐30109 790,084 Revenue Actual ERAF received
General Fund 100 Fire 100‐11610‐35207 340,000 Revenue Ambulance billing
General Fund 100 Fire 100‐11710‐34041 368,562 Revenue
OT Reimbursable by CAL OES‐ mutual
aid
General Fund 100
CM/Communica
tions 100‐05130‐5005 200,000 Expenditure
CFD communications outreach
consulting
General Fund 100 Finance 100‐06110‐5005 20,000 Expenditure Consulting services for CFD formation
General Fund 100 HR 100‐09110‐5013 30,000 Expenditure
Sexual Harassment Prevention
Training
General Fund 100 HR 100‐09110‐4001 12,500 Expenditure Re‐class HR Analyst I to II
General Fund 100 HR 100‐09110‐5001 20,000 Expenditure
Class/Comp study‐labor MOU's &
Reclassification studies
General Fund 100 HR 100‐09110‐5038 25,000 Expenditure HR Claims evaluations
General Fund 100 ECD 100‐10410‐5005 40,000 Expenditure Consulting services for CFD formation
General Fund 100 Fire 100‐11710‐4101 368,562 Expenditure
OT Reimbursable by CAL OES‐ mutual
aid
General Fund 100 P&R 100‐17260‐5061 4,500 Expenditure Music Licensing
General Fund 100 Non‐Dept. 100‐00000‐9785 205,000 Expenditure Transfer Out to IT Fund
Information
Technology 785 Information
Technology 785‐16110‐5040 55,000 Expenditure
Vista Time timecard monthly
maintenance
Information
Technology 785 Information
Technology 785‐16110‐5071 150,000 Expenditure Citywide phone system replacement
Information
Technology 785 Information
Technology 785‐00000‐39100 205,000 Revenue Transfer In from General Fund
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-1060 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:11.
..Title
Report regarding a resolution approving an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA)between the City
of South San Francisco,and Firehouse Work,LLC and Firehouse Live,LLC,for the property located at 201
Baden Avenue. (Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Coordinator)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the recommendation made by the Housing Standing
Committee to select Firehouse Work,LLC and Firehouse Live,LLC as the preferred developer team for
the disposition of the City-owned retired Firehouse at 201 Baden Avenue,and authorize the City
Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with the selected developer team.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City-owned retired Firehouse (Property)fronts Baden Avenue to the north and Second Lane to the south.
The area is approximately 22,460 square feet (0.51 acres)and consists of two parcels (APN 012-335-100 and
012-335-110).The site presents Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)possibilities that maximize the use on
this site. Attachment 1 provides a map of the Property.
In 2016,the City followed the Surplus Land Act and offered public entities an opportunity to purchase or lease
the property for the purpose of expanding parks and/or recreation services,open space public schools or
affordable housing. The City did not receive any responses.
In September 2017,the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)to create a high-quality,mixed-use,
transit-oriented development on the Property.Four submittals to the RFQ were received,one team’s proposal
was deemed unresponsive, with an ultimate qualified short list of three developer teams.
Summary of Developer Proposals from Short List
During the RFQ phase,the City received submittals and rough development concepts from the following short-
listed teams:
Firehouse Live, LLC and Firehouse Work, LLC (Formerly “Fire House Live Work”)
This is a joint partnership with Group 4 Architects and Lawlor Land Use.Habitat for Humanity was brought
into the project as a partner on the affordable housing component.As discussed below,the partnership has been
renamed and organized into two companion entities,in order to meet the anticipated financing needs of the
project.
Proposal concept:Retain the firehouse for office/commercial (for occupancy by Group 4 and other
businesses)and develop residential units and some new retail in the current
undeveloped space.
Ideal tenants:Locally sourced food and beverage establishment or creative new experiences not currently
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1060 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:11.
found in the downtown area.
Total number of units:24 units (studios - 2 bedroom units)
BMR units:Proposing 50% units to be affordable
Retail space:9,800 square feet
Old Firehouse Partners
The project team included a joint venture between M² Realty Partners & OTRE Investments.
Proposal concept:Retain the firehouse for office/commercial.
Ideal tenant:Co-working space for the office component and café/boutique retail for the ground floor
Total Number of Units:No residential proposed
BMR Units:No residential proposed
Retail/Commercial Space:10,000 square feet
KASA Partners
The project team included KASA Partners, Kennerly Architecture & Planning and DCI Engineers.
Proposal concept:Multi-family residential,mid-block paseo that provides Baden Avenue to 2nd Lane,
subterranean parking and a roof deck.
Ideal tenant:Co-working space for the office component and café/boutique retail for the ground floor
Total Number of Units:63 (50% of the units are 2 and 3 bedrooms)
BMR Units:Not determined
Retail/Commercial Space:3,000 square feet
In July 2018,the Housing Standing Subcommittee (Subcommittee)convened to interview the three developer
teams on the short list,and in closed session reviewed price and terms information for each.The short list was
reduced from three to two developer teams,with KASA Partners’proposal being removed because their
concept did not retain the firehouse structure.Firehouse Live,LLC and Firehouse Work,LLC and Old
Firehouse Partners were then asked to return to the Subcommittee at its August 20, 2018 meeting.
At its August 20th meeting,the Subcommittee made the recommendation to select Firehouse Live,LLC and
Firehouse Work,LLC as the preferred developer team,and directed staff to begin negotiations to develop an
ENRA to be approved by the City Council.In an effort to bring more affordable housing opportunities to the
downtown,the Subcommittee also directed the developer team to modify their original proposal to maximize
the feasibility of affordable housing into the project.The developer team is now proposing 50%affordable for
the housing component of the project.
Preferred Developer Team
The preferred team will be a joint collaboration with Group 4 Architects,Lawlor Land Use,and Palisade
Builders.As part of the criteria of the Subcommittee’s recommendation to maximize affordable housing into
the project,the developer team will be partnering with Habitat for Humanity on the affordable housing
component of the project, which has currently proposed 50% affordable out of the 24 total units.
Group 4 Architects is a local architectural firm that has been in South San Francisco for over 40 years.In 2013,
the renovation of the Royal Theater building assisted in the relocation of the firm’s offices.Group 4 Architects
is one of the two largest architectural firms in San Mateo County and continues to expand.The firm has been
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1060 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:11.
is one of the two largest architectural firms in San Mateo County and continues to expand.The firm has been
searching for a new larger home for over three years,with a strong preference to remain in South San
Francisco.
Lawlor Land Use has built over 300 units in Santa Cruz and has two major downtown Santa Cruz projects
underway.The firm has been collaborating for many years on mixed-use projects.Palisade Builders has a
proven track record of delivering high quality landmark residential projects.Habitat for Humanity is a nonprofit
developer with a successful track record of building multi-family affordable housing projects in South San
Francisco and other urban areas in the Bay Area.
Proposed Project
To meet the anticipated financing needs of the project,the partnership has proposed to organize themselves into
two companion entities:Firehouse Live,LLC and Firehouse Work,LLC.Firehouse Work,LLC would
rehabilitate the existing firehouse station into a 9,200 square foot retail and commercial space,retaining its old
historical significance through design.Firehouse Live,LLC has proposed the residential construction of a
separate building next to the existing firehouse station,with 24 units,of at least 50%being affordable.
Firehouse Work, LLC is partnering with Habitat for Humanity to maximize affordable housing into the project.
The two LLCs are proposing to split the Property into two parcels (one for the building rehab,and one for the
affordable housing component)by means of a lot line adjustment.There may be some risk with splitting the
Property into two parcels,since the rehab project will likely proceed on a much faster timeline than the
affordable housing component.Given that the development team’s proposal will establish two new parcels that
are unique to their proposal,it may be difficult for the City to dispose of one parcel if only part of the Project is
completed.Staff will be working with the developer team to ensure the Project can be fully completed to ensure
both the commercial and housing portions are synched on a similar schedule to safeguard for additional delays.
This can be achieved through the entitlement process,as well as provisions in the Disposition Agreement to
protect the City.During the ENRA period,this process will be negotiated to the best ability to ensure the entire
project can be completed as was initially presented to the City.
Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA)
The City Council is being asked to accept the recommendation of the Subcommittee and approve a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA)with Firehouse
Work,LLC and Firehouse Live,LLC.The ENRA will bind the City to negotiate exclusively with the developer
team for an initial term of 180 days.The ENRA,as recommended,includes three administrative extensions,
with mutual negotiations to draft a disposition agreement.A disposition agreement would return to the City
Council for approval.
ENRA Performance Milestones
During the negotiation period, the developer team will:
·Demonstrate both a conditional financial and project commitment to maximize the number of affordable
housing units in the Project;
·Demonstrate the Project is financially feasible and capable of completion;
·Submit a planning application that has been deemed complete by the City;
·Determine the purchase price of the Property;
·Engage a retail broker to market the retail component of the Project; and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1060 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:11.
·Negotiate a disposition agreement;
STRATEGIC PLAN
The selection of the preferred developer team achieves the following goals and objectives of the City’s
Strategic Plan:
·Priority Area 2 Quality of Life, Initiative 2.3 - Promote a balanced mix of housing options
·Priority Area 5 Economic Vitality,Initiative 5.1 -Further progress on action items from the Downtown
Station Area Plan
FISCAL IMPACT
Upon execution of an ENRA,the developer team will submit to the City a deposit in the amount of $50,000,to
be credited towards the purchase price of the Property.The current ENRA can also be extended
administratively up to three times,for a payment to the City of $15,000 for each extension.The City will also
collect a cost recovery payment, initially in the amount of $30,000 for staff time.
CONCLUSION
Entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with the developer team will bind the City to work
exclusively with the developer,and allow the team to obtain additional funding sources,begin the entitlement
process,and negotiate a disposition agreement.Accordingly,staff recommends the City Council accept the
recommendation of the Subcommittee and approve the prepared resolution authorizing the City Manager to
enter into an ENRA with the developer team.
Attachment: Site Map
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2019Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
Attachment 1
Property Map
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-1061 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:11a.
Resolution approving an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“ENRA”)between the City of South San
Francisco and,Firehouse Live,LLC and Firehouse Work,LLC for the property located at 201 Baden Avenue
(APNs 012-335-100 and 012-335-110).
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco is the owner of certain real property (the “Property”)located in
the City of South San Francisco,known as County Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”)012-335-100 and 012-
335-110; and
WHEREAS,the Property contains an existing retired firehouse station,located in the historic Downtown area
on Baden Avenue,and benefits from its close proximity to Grand Avenue corridor,and a new Caltrain station
plaza; and
WHEREAS,in March 2016 the City followed the Surplus Land Act (California Government Codes Sections
54220 et seq.)and offered public entities an opportunity to purchase or lease the property for the purpose of
expanding parks and/or recreation services, open space public schools or affordable housing; and
WHEREAS,in 2017 the City went through a developer solicitation process for a qualified developer team for
disposition of the Property, in alignment with the adopted 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS,the City received four responses to the RFQ,which included DP&DK Investments,Firehouse
Live Work,KASA Partners,and M²Realty Partners &OTRE Investments.Staff conducted a paper screening
of the responses and deemed DP&DK Investments as incomplete,bringing forward to the Housing
Subcommittee (“Subcommittee”) a developer short list of three developer teams; and,
WHEREAS,the shortlisted teams were invited to respond to an RFP in April 2018 and were then interviewed
by the Subcommittee in July 2018; and,
WHEREAS,the shortlisted teams were reduced from three to two developer teams,with KASA Partners’
proposal being removed because their concept did not retain the firehouse structure.Firehouse Live,LLC and
Firehouse Work,LLC and Old Firehouse Partners were then asked to return to the Subcommittee at its August
20, 2018 meeting; and,
WHEREAS,at its August 20th meeting,the Subcommittee made the recommendation to select Firehouse Live,
LLC and Firehouse Work,LLC as the preferred developer team,and directed staff to begin negotiations to
develop an ENRA to be approved by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS,in 2018 the Housing Standing Committee made a recommendation for the City Council to
consider Firehouse Live,LLC and Firehouse Work,LLC as the preferred developer team for the Property
because their proposal offers market rate and affordable housing, and retains the firehouse structure; and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/5/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1061 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:11a.
WHEREAS,the project will consist of the rehabilitation of the existing retired firehouse structure into a 9,200
square foot retail and commercial space,as well as the construction of twenty-four housing units of which at
least twelve will be affordable; and
WHEREAS,at its February 27,2019 regular meeting,the City Council approved the recommendation of the
Housing Standing Committee and directed the City Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights
Agreement with the developer team; and
WHEREAS,by approval of the ENRA,City has no legal obligation to grant any approvals or authorizations for
the Disposition Agreement or any development thereon until the Disposition Agreement has been approved by
the City Council; and
WHEREAS,such approvals,and any future approvals required as part of the entitlement process,are subject to
completion of environmental review by City in accordance with CEQA,and City shall not take any
discretionary actions committing it to a particular course of action in connection with the proposed project until
City has completed,considered and certified/approved any additionally required CEQA environmental review
documents.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby approves an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Firehouse Live,LLC and Firehouse
Work,LLC,attached hereto as Exhibit A,for the disposition of the retired Firehouse site at 201 Baden Avenue
for the proposed mixed-use project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into an
Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Firehouse Live,LLC and Firehouse Work,LLC,attached hereto
as Exhibit A,for the disposition of the retired Firehouse site at 201 Baden Avenue for a proposed mixed-use
project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to take any other
actions consistent with the intent of this resolution, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/5/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS AGREEMENT
Firehouse Work, LLC and Firehouse Live, LLC
-0-
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS AGREEMENT
by and between
FIREHOUSE WORK, LLC,
FIREHOUSE LIVE, LLC,
and
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS AGREEMENT
Firehouse Work, LLC and Firehouse Live, LLC
-1-
THIS EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is
entered into by and between the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal
corporation (“City”), FIREHOUSE WORK, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
and FIREHOUSE LIVE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, both collectively
described as (“Developer”) dated as of , 2019 (the “Effective Date”). City and
Developer Team are each referred to as (“Party”) or collectively referred to as the (“Parties”).
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain real property located at 201 Baden Avenue,
in the City of South San Francisco, California, known as County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(“APN”) 012-335-100, 012-335-110, and the portion of Cypress Street that is to be vacated, with
a combined lot size of 22,500 square feet, and more particularly shown attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and,
WHEREAS, the Property, commonly known as the Old Firehouse, was decommissioned
as a fire station in 2006 and has been used for interim storage uses since 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan in 2015 which set forth a vision for the downtown focusing on revitalization, new
residential developments, improvements along Grand Avenue and adjacent corridors, and
encouraging Transit-Oriented Development projects that encourage bicycle and pedestrian links
to regional transportation hubs; and,
WHEREAS in March 2016 the City followed the Surplus Land Act (California
Government Codes Sections 54220 et seq.) noticing requirements and offered public entities an
opportunity to notify the City of its interest in purchasing or leasing the property for the purpose
of expanding parks and/or recreation services, open space public schools or affordable housing,
and received no responses
WHEREAS, in 2017, the City solicited proposals from qualified developers through an
RFQ process, and upon review of the responsive proposals, the City’s Joint Housing Standing
Committee made a recommendation at its November 19, 2018 meeting that the City pursue an
Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) with the selected developer team, Fire
House Live Work for the development of a mixed-use project on the Property; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to rehabilitate the existing Old Firehouse structure
into a 9,200 square foot retail and commercial space, preserving its historical significance, under
Firehouse Work, LLC (“FHW”), as well as construct twenty-four (24) condominium units, of
which approximately twelve (12) units will be deed restricted as Below Market Rate (“BMR”),
with the potential for ancillary retail uses, under Firehouse Live, LLC (“FHL”), as a mixed-use
development on the Property (collectively, both the commercial and residential developments to
be developed on the Property are referred to as the “Project”);
WHEREAS, FHW will be responsible for entitling and developing the commercial
component of the Project and FHL will be responsible the lead role in entitling and developing
the residential component of the Project;
-2-
WHEREAS, the Developer anticipates expending funds to prepare architectural and
design drawings and conduct certain studies that are needed to assess the feasibility of the
Project and seek any additional land use entitlements, and therefore requires a grant of exclusive
negotiating rights in order to be willing to make such expenditures; and,
WHEREAS, at its meeting on ____________________, 2019, the City approved this
Agreement and directed staff to commence negotiating the terms of a disposition agreement or
agreements (collectively, “Disposition Agreement”) in order for the Developer to pursue land
use entitlements for the Project and purchase the Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows.
1. Good Faith Efforts to Negotiate. The Parties agree, for the term of this Agreement, to
negotiate diligently and in good faith the terms of a Disposition Agreement setting forth
the conditions and timetable for the sale of the Property to Developer. Furthermore, the
Parties agree to diligently and in good faith pursue any third-party consent, authorization,
approval, or exemption required in connection with the preparation and execution of a
Disposition Agreement for the future development of the Project. This Agreement does
not, however, impose a binding obligation on City to convey any interest in the Property
to Developer, nor does it obligate City to grant any approvals or authorizations required
for the development of the Project on the Property.
a. If City believes that Developer is not negotiating diligently and in good faith, City
will give written notice thereof to Developer who will then have ten (10) business
days to commence negotiating in good faith. Following the failure of Developer
to thereafter commence negotiating in good faith within such ten (10) business
day period, this Agreement may be terminated by City. If this Agreement is
terminated by City pursuant to the above sentence, Developer acknowledges and
agrees that City will suffer damages, including lost opportunities to pursue other
development alternatives for the Property. Therefore, the Parties agree that if this
Agreement is terminated as provided above, City will retain the full Payment and
Deposit amounts (as defined in Section 5 of this Agreement, infra), plus any
interest thereon, as fixed and liquidated damages and not as a penalty, and
following such termination neither Party will have any further rights against or
liability to the other under this Agreement, except as set forth in Section 16 of this
Agreement.
b. If Developer believes that City is not negotiating diligently and in good faith,
Developer will give written notice thereof to City which will then have ten (10)
business days to commence negotiating in good faith. Following the failure of
City to thereafter commence negotiating in good faith within such ten (10)
business-day period, this Agreement may be terminated by Developer. In the event
of such termination by Developer, City will return a prorated portion of the
Deposit and any remaining balance of the Payment to Developer and neither Party
will have any further rights against or liability to the other under this Agreement,
except as set forth in Section 16 of this Agreement.
-3-
c. If the Parties proceed to negotiate diligently and in good faith, but are unable to
reach agreement on the terms of a Disposition Agreement, then City will return a
prorated portion of the Deposit to Developer in accordance with the provisions of
Section 5(c) of this Agreement and neither Party will have any further rights
against or liability to the other under this Agreement, except as set forth in Section
16 of this Agreement.
2. Developer’s Exclusive Right to Negotiate With City. City agrees that it will not, during
the term of this Agreement, directly or indirectly, through any officer, employee, agent,
or otherwise, solicit, initiate or encourage the submission of bids, offers or proposals by
any person or entity with respect to the acquisition of any interest in the Property or the
development of the Property, and City will not engage any broker, financial adviser or
consultant to initiate or encourage proposals or offers from other parties with respect to
the disposition or development of the Property or any portion thereof. City may, at its
discretion, continue to utilize the Property for public uses until the City conveys
ownership of the Property.
Furthermore, City will not, directly or indirectly, through any officer, employee, agent or
otherwise, engage in negotiations concerning any such transaction with, or provide
information to, any person other than Developer and its representatives with a vi ew to
engaging, or preparing to engage, that person with respect to the disposition or
development of the Property or any portion thereof.
3. Term.
a. The term of this Agreement (“Term”) commences on the Effective Date, and will
terminate one hundred and eighty (180) days from the Effective Date, unless
extended or earlier terminated as provided herein.
b. During the Term, Developer will provide City with written reports every forty-
five (45) days that summarize Developer’s actions taken in furtherance of this
Agreement, which may include to the following: negotiating the terms of a
Disposition Agreement, due diligence review of the Property, commencement of
any environmental requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), preparation of architecture and construction plans, attendance at City
meetings, adherence to a mutually agreed upon master schedule, and general
progress towards future entitlement of the Property.
c. The Term of this Agreement may be administratively extended for up to a
maximum of three separate ninety (90) day periods upon the receipt of an
additional non-refundable payment by Developer of fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000) for each ninety day extension period (“ENRA Extension Payment”),
and the consent of the City acting through and at the discretion of its City
Manager or his/her designee (“City Manager”). Developer understands that the
City will only consider extension(s) of the Term of this Agreement where
Developer has demonstrated, to the City’s satisfaction, substantial progress
toward development of the Property, which may include submittal of a
development application, submittal of environmental review documents necessary
-4-
to satisfy compliance with CEQA, submittal of architecture and construction
plans, payment of any applicable processing and plan check fees, or pursuing land
use entitlements for the Project.
4. Relationship of the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement creates between the Parties the
relationship of lessor and lessee, of buyer and seller, or of partners or joint venturers.
5. Deposit and Payment to City.
a. In consideration for the right to exclusively negotiate under this Agreement,
Developer will, within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, remit to City a
deposit in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) (the “Deposit”). If a
Disposition Agreement is executed, the Deposit will be credited toward the
ultimate purchase price for the Property. City will deposit the Deposit in an
interest bearing account of the City and any interest, when received by City, will
become part of the Deposit.
During the term of this Agreement, Developer will also reimburse City for all
staff and City consultant time incurred in preparing the Disposition Agreement,
entitlements, and any related documents for the disposition of Property to
Developer. Developer will, within five (5) days of the Effective Date, remit to
City an initial payment in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) in
immediately available funds (“Payment”). City will deposit the Payment in an
interest bearing account of City and any interest, when received by City, will
become part of the Payment. The Payment may be drawn upon by City to
reimburse staff, City Attorney, and City consultant costs for preparing the
Disposition Agreement, entitlements, and any other related documents, at their
standard published hourly rates. Should the full amount of the Payment be
exhausted during the Term of this Agreement, City may require the Developer to
provide additional funds necessary to reimburse staff and consultant costs
expended in connection with preparation of the Disposition Agreement and any
related documents. Documentation of City’s rate schedule for staff, staff time
spent, and consultant costs will be retained by City and provided to Developer
upon request.
b. City agrees to account for the Deposit and Payment, any other separate payments
to City that relate to cost recovery for staff time, interest earnings, and any
expenditures made in furtherance of this Agreement. Upon reasonable notice to
City, Developer may receive copies of any records related to expenditures made
in furtherance of this Agreement, subject to any appropriate redactions.
c. In the event that Developer terminates this Agreement before the expiration of the
Term pursuant to Section 1(b), Section 1(c) or Section 13(d), the City will return
any prorated portion of the Deposit to the Developer Team. The prorated Deposit
will be calculated by dividing the full $50,000 Deposit by the number of months
in the Agreement Term. This amount will be multiplied by the number of months
remaining on the Term at the time of Developer’s termination. The resulting
figure will be the prorated Deposit that the City will pay to the Developer Team.
-5-
d. In the event the Agreement is terminated by any Party for any reason other than
Developer’s breach of its obligations under this Agreement, the remaining
balance of the Payment and any interest earned will be returned to Developer,
minus amounts that the City retains attributable to the amount of costs and
consulting fees actually and reasonably incurred and documented by City in
implementing this Agreement, as set forth in subsection (a) of this Section 5.
e. In addition to the payments to City discussed herein, Developer shall be subject to
all applicable fees imposed by the City for processing land use entitlements as set
forth in the City’s adopted Master Fee Resolution and any applicable cost
recovery and indemnification agreements.
6. Terms and Conditions of the Disposition Agreement. The Parties agree to use diligent
and good faith efforts to successfully negotiate a Disposition Agreement which will
address, among other things, the purchase price, the conditions of closing, and the scope
of Developer’s obligations to design and construct improvements on the Property. The
Parties agree that the terms of the Disposition Agreement shall be based on those terms set
forth herein and in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In the
event of an inconsistency between the body of the Agreement and Exhibit B, the language
in the body of the Agreement shall prevail.
7. Developer’s Studies; Right of Entry.
a. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer will bear all costs and expenses
associated with preparing any studies, surveys, plans, specifications and reports
(“Developer’s Studies”) Developer deems necessary or desirable, in Developer’s
sole discretion, to conduct due diligence for the Property. Developer’s Studies
may include, without limitation, title investigation, marketing, feasibility, soils,
seismic and environmental studies, financial feasibility analyses and design
studies. Developer will have rights of access to the Property to prepare
Developer’s Studies.
b. Developer hereby agrees to notify the City seventy-two (72) hours in advance of
its intention to enter the Property.
c. Developer will provide the City with work plans, drawings, and descriptions of
any intrusive sampling it intends to do. Developer must keep the Property in a
safe condition during its entry. Developer shall repair, restore and return the
Property to its condition immediately preceding Developer’s entry thereon at
Developer’s sole expense.
d. Without limiting any other indemnity provisions set forth in this Agreement,
Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel approved by City) and hold the
City, its officials, officers, employees, and volunteers harmless from and against
all claims resulting from or arising in connection with entry upon the Property by
Developer or Developer’s agents, employees, consultants, contractors or
subcontractors pursuant to this Section 7. Developer’s indemnification obligations
set forth in this Section 7 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
-6-
e. If upon expiration of the Term of this Agreement the Parties have not successfully
negotiated a Disposition Agreement, Developer will, upon City’s written request,
provide City within fifteen (15) days following said date of expiration copies of
any non-proprietary Developer’s Studies prepared by third parties completed by
such date. Developer will also provide City with copies of any non-proprietary
Developer’s Studies prepared by third parties completed after the expiration of the
Term within fifteen (15) days following completion of such studies, or if
Developer intends not to complete any such Developer Studies, Developer will
provide City with copies of such uncompleted studies.
8. City’s Reports and Studies. Within twenty (20) days following the Effective Date, City
will take all reasonable efforts to make available or make arrangements to make available
to Developer for review or copying at Developer’s expense all non-privileged studies,
surveys, plans, specifications, reports, and other documents with respect to the Property
that City is able to reasonably locate and has in its possession or control, which have not
already been provided to Developer. Studies or documents prepared by City and its
agents solely for the purpose of negotiating the terms of a Disposition Agreement and
related documents are not required to be provided by City to Developer and are excluded
from this requirement.
9. Developer’s Pro Forma, Evidence of Financing and Project Schedule Related to Potential
Approval of a Disposition Agreement.
a. The Parties agree that the Disposition Agreement will contain language that
provides that: (1) not later than forty-five (45) days prior to the City consideration
of Project entitlements, Developer will provide evidence satisfactory to City that
Developer has identified potential sources and uses of funds to complete the
proposed project, subject only to commercially reasonable conditions, for all
funding necessary for the successful completion of the Project, and (2) issuance of
a building permit for each component of the Project shall be a condition of
closing, as further defined in the Disposition Agreement.
b. Prior to the end of the term of the ENRA, Developer will provide the City with
the following deliverables:
i. Demonstrate both a conditional financial and project commitment (e.g., a
letter of intent) with Habitat for Humanity, with the goal of maximizing
the number of affordable housing units in the Project;
ii. Submit a planning application for each component of the Project that has
been deemed substantially complete by the City; and
iii. Final agreed upon Disposition Agreement.
10. Full Disclosure. Developer is required to make full disclosure to City of its principals;
officers; major stockholders, partners or members; joint venturers; negotiators;
development managers; consultants and directly involved managerial employees
(collectively, “Developer Parties”). Any material change in the identity of the Developer
Parties will be subject to the approval of City Manager and his or her designee, which will
-7-
not be unreasonably withheld. Developer also agrees to disclose both the type of planned
financing and identity of any lenders or mortgagees in connection with the financing of
the Project.
11. Periodic Reporting to Governing Bodies. City will report periodically to the City Council
and other local and regional agencies, on the status of negotiations, and Developer may
be asked to attend such meetings to provide those bodies with a status update of their
development efforts related to this Agreement.
12. No Binding Commitments. City has no legal obligation to grant any approvals or
authorizations for the Disposition Agreement or any development thereon until the
Disposition Agreement have been approved by the City Council. Such approvals, and any
future approvals required as part of the entitlement process, are subject to comp letion of
environmental review by City in accordance with CEQA, and City shall not take any
discretionary actions committing it to a particular course of action in connection with the
Project until City has completed, considered and certified/approved any additionally
required CEQA environmental review documents.
13. Termination.
a. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent.
b. City will have the right to terminate this Agreement upon its good faith
determination that Developer is not proceeding diligently and in good faith to
carry out its obligations pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Section 1 of this Agreement.
c. Developer will have the right to terminate this Agreement upon its good faith
determination that City is not proceeding diligently and in good faith to carry out
its obligations pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with the provisions set
forth in Section 1 of this Agreement.
d. Developer will have the right to terminate this Agreement if the results of
Developer’s investigation of the Property are unsatisfactory, in Developer’s sole
and absolute discretion, with respect to Developer’s desired development
activities, or if Developer is unable to obtain other necessary approvals, rights or
interests. If Developer terminates this Agreement pursuant to this Section 13(d),
then City will return a prorated portion of the Deposit to Developer in accordance
with the provisions of Section 5(c) of this Agreement and the remaining balance
of the Payment in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(d), and neither
Party will have any further rights against or liability to the other under this
Agreement, except as set forth in Section 16 of this Agreement.
e. Neither Party will have the right to seek an award of damages if this Agreement is
terminated pursuant to this Section.
14. Effect of Termination. Upon termination as provided herein, or upon the expiration of the
Term and any extensions thereof without the Parties having successfully negotiated a
Disposition Agreement, this Agreement will terminate, and there will be no further
-8-
liability or obligation on the part of either of the Parties or their respective officers,
employees, agents or other representatives; provided however, the provisions of Section 5
(Payment to City), Section 7(d) (Indemnification), Section 16 (Indemnification), and
Section 20 (Brokers) will survive such termination. Provided further, that upon
termination or expiration of this Agreement without the Parties having successfully
negotiated a Disposition Agreement, Developer will deliver to City any non-proprietary
Developer’s Studies pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of this Agreement.
15. Notices. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices to be sent pursuant
to this Agreement will be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective
addresses specified below or to such other address as a Party may designate by written
notice delivered to the other parties in accordance with this Section. All such notices will
be sent by:
a. Personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery;
b. Certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice will be
deemed delivered on receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt;
c. Nationally recognized overnight courier, with charges prepaid or charged to the
sender’s account, in which case notice is effective on delivery if delivery is
confirmed by the delivery service;
d. Facsimile transmission, in which case notice will be deemed delivered upon
transmittal, provided that
i. A duplicate copy of the notice is promptly delivered by first -class or
certified mail or by overnight delivery, or
ii. A transmission report is generated reflecting the accurate transmission
thereof. Any notice given by facsimile will be considered to have been
received on the next business day if it is received after 5:00 p.m.
recipient’s time or on a nonbusiness day.
City : City of South San Francisco
Attn: City Manager
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Tel (650) 877-8501
Fax (650) 829-6609
mike.futrell@ssf.net
with a copy to: City of South San Francisco
Attn: ECD Director
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Tel (650) 829-6620
alex.greenwood@ssf.net
cc: ernesto.lucero@ssf.net
-9-
with a copy to: Meyers Nave
Attn: Jason Rosenberg
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel (510) 808-200
Fax (510) 444-1108
jrosenberg@meyersnave.com
Developer: for FHW
Attn: Dawn Merkes
211 Linden Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Tel (650) 871-0709
Fax (650) 871-7911
for FHL
Attn: Owen Lawlor
612 Spring Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Tel (831) 212-8594Owen@lawlorlanduse.com
with a copy to: Arent Fox LLP
Attn: Frank Petrilli
55 2nd Street, 22st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel (415) 805-7970
frank.petrilli@arentfox.com
16. Indemnification. Developer hereby covenants, on behalf of itself and its permitted
successors and assigns, to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and its elected and
appointed officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees (“Indemnitees”)
from and against all claims, costs (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees
and litigation costs) and liability, arising out of any breach of this Agreemen t by
Developer or arising out of or in connection with Developer’s access to and entry on the
Property pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement; provided however, Developer will
have no indemnification obligation with respect to the gross negligence or willful
misconduct of any Indemnitee.
17. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof will,
to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, such term or provision will be
ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without invalidating or
rendering unenforceable the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement or the
application of such terms and provisions to circumstances other than those as to which it
is held invalid or unenforceable unless an essential purpose of this Agreement would be
defeated by loss of the invalid or unenforceable provision.
-10-
18. Entire Agreement; Amendments In Writing; Counterparts. This Agreement contains the
entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and
supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral and
written, between the Parties with respect to such subject matter. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument executed by the Parties or th eir successors in
interest. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will
be an original and all of which together will constitute one agreement.
19. Successors and Assigns; No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement will be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns;
provided however, that neither Party will transfer or assign any of such Party’s rights
hereunder by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of the other
Party, and any such transfer or assignment without such consent will be void.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer is permitted to assign this Agreement without
such written consent, provided that Developer assigns this Agreement to an entity that is
controlled by Developer. Subject to the immediately preceding sentence, this Agreement
is not intended to benefit, and will not run to the benefit of or be enforceable by, any
other person or entity other than the Parties and their permitted successors and assigns.
20. Brokers. Each Party warrants and represents to the other that no brokers have been
retained or consulted in connection with the selection of the Developer. Each Party agrees
to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other Party from any claims, expenses, costs
or liabilities arising in connection with a breach of this warranty and representation. The
terms of this Section will survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
21. Amendments. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the City Manager will be
authorized to enter into all written amendments, consents or waivers under this
Agreement on behalf of the City without further authorization by the City Council.
Nothing herein, however, will be deemed to prevent the City Manager from requesting
formal approval by the City Council if the City Manager, in his or her sole discretion,
determines to seek such approval.
22. Captions. The captions of the sections and articles of this Agreement are for convenience
only and are not intended to affect the interpretation or construction of the provisions
hereof.
23. Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of California.
~ SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE ~
-11-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
CITY
By: _______________________________
Mike Futrell
City Manager
ATTEST:
By: _______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Jason Rosenberg
City Attorney
DEVELOPER
By: _______________________________
Dawn Merkes, member
Firehouse Work, LLC
By: _______________________________
Owen Lawlor
Firehouse Live, LLC
-12-
Exhibit A
PROPERTY
-13-
Exhibit B
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Term Description
Term of ENRA 180 days
Parties Involved Firehouse Work, LLC (FHW)
Firehouse Live, LLC (FHL)
Proposed Project Rehabilitation of existing Old Firehouse structure
into a 9,200 square foot retail and commercial space
Preserve historical significance of Old Firehouse
structure
Construct a 24-unit condominium project, of which at
least 12 units will be affordable
Price Offer To be determined during the ENRA period
Deposit $50,000 Deposit to be credited against future
purchase price for the property
Payment $30,000 for reimbursement of staff time; if
exhausted, Developer will be required to provide
additional funds
ENRA Extension Payment $15,000 additional non-refundable payment for each
City approved extension of 90-days with a maximum
of three separate 90-day extension periods.
Entitlements Begin pursuing during the ENRA period
Separate entitlements for FHW and FHL
Complete entitlements for both components upon
execution of Disposition Agreement
Escrow FHW and FHL escrow will occur simultaneously
Development Schedule To be determined during the ENRA and will be
included as a Schedule of Performance in the
Disposition Agreement
Corporate Structure Development team to outline the corporate structure
Retail Component Ideal tenant for the commercial portion of the site
would be those that enhance the user experience,
-14-
those that add value beyond simply paying rent.
These might include locally sourced food and
beverage establishments or new creative experiences
currently not found in the downtown area.
Developers to engage a retail consultant to establish
the commercial feasibility and spatial needs of
potential ideal tenants while going through the
entitlement stages.
No personal and financial services are permitted
Progress Reports To be provided to the City every 45 days
Performance Milestones Negotiation of a Disposition Agreement
Pro forma showing sources and uses of funds for the
Project
Demonstrate both a financial and project commitment
with Habitat for Humanity, for the construction of no
less than 12 BMR units
Show evidence of how the Project is pursuing
entitlements by providing a soft entitlement package
Due Diligence During the term of the ENRA the Seller and Buyers shall
further define and evaluate the project parameters:
The Seller shall provide Buyers with any and all
reports, studies and other documentation including
any existing title policies, surveys, leases, structural
reports, hazardous material reports, appraisals and
other documents relating to the Property, Baden
Avenue, and Airport Boulevard that are in Seller’s
possession and control.
Buyers shall have the opportunity to conduct due
diligence in which to inspect the Property and to
conduct any engineering, environmental, physical
inspection and any other kind of investigation or
study deems necessary.
Buyers may at their own expense, conduct structural
or hazardous material investigations of the existing
improvements on the Property and Seller will allow
access to the Property for this purpose.
Buyers may at their own expense, conduct a
subsurface investigation to confirm the findings in
the Phase I environmental site assessment report
provided by the City.
-15-
If Buyers are not satisfied with the results of any
information they learn during this Due Diligence
phase they may cancel the ENRA in which case the
Deposit will be refunded to Buyers, in accordance
with Section 13.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-145 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:12.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended care
program in collaboration with the South San Francisco Unified School District’s STEAM Summer Program,
and adjusting the Parks and Recreation Department’s operating budget by $41,152 in Fiscal Year 2018-2019
and by $12,117 in Fiscal Year 2019-2020.(Sharon Ranals, Director, Parks and Recreation Department)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation
Department to operate an extended care program in collaboration with the South San Francisco Unified
School District’s STEAM Summer Program,and adjusting the Parks and Recreation Department’s
operating budget by $41,152 in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 and by $12,117 in Fiscal Year 2019-2020
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In early Fall 2018,representatives from the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD)reached out
to staff at the Parks and Recreation Department (Department)about possible collaboration opportunities to
support SSFUSD’s STEAM (Science,Technology,Engineering,Art,and Math)Summer Program.The
Department was invited to participate in this program based on the Department’s successful provision of before
and after school programs for SSFUSD,as well as the variety of recreation programming offered that could
support STEAM curriculum.SSFUSD’s STEM program started in June 2016 as a collaborative effort between
SSFUSD and ENGIE Services U.S.,a national energy infrastructure and building services company.Through
the STEM Summer Program,students in Grades 3 through 8 gain exposure to building energy transformation
machines,engineering solar ovens,designing and testing wind turbine blades,and conducting classroom energy
audits.In summer 2019,SSFUSD is converting their STEM program to a STEAM program by adding a Visual
Arts and Performing Arts (VAPA)curriculum.The program involves two,four-week programs in June through
July;one for elementary school-aged children and the other for middle school-aged children.The elementary
school program will have a capacity for 120 third through fifth grade students,and the middle school program
will have a capacity for 80 sixth through eighth grade students.
In planning out the STEAM Summer Program,SSFUSD and Parks and Recreation Department staff agreed that
the Department could support the program by offering extended care to program participants,assuming that
City Council grants the Department the operating budget to run the program,and given the possibility that the
cost of the Department’s services could be reimbursed with grant funds.In late November 2018,SSFUSD
received notification that they have been awarded a grant through the 2018 Student Support and Academic
Enrichment (SSAE)grant by the California Department of Education that would support the cost of an
extended care program operated by the Parks and Recreation Department in conjunction with the STEAM
Summer Program.The STEAM Summer Program is expected to operate from 8:30 a.m.to 3:00 p.m.,with
extended care being covered by the Parks and Recreation Department from 3:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.Furthermore,
the extended care portion of the program will provide a complimentary STEAM curriculum to support the
learning goals for the summer school.Both the STEAM Summer Program and extended care will be provided
to participants at no cost.
For the STEAM Summer Program in 2018,City Council considered a similar budget request as part of the
midyear budget process in Fiscal Year 2017-2018.That budget request was approved,but the extended careCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-145 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:12.
midyear budget process in Fiscal Year 2017-2018.That budget request was approved,but the extended care
portion of the Department’s services ended up being cancelled due to low enrollment.Under that scenario,
SSFUSD did not have the funds to reimburse the City for the cost of providing the extended care so program
participants were being charged $375 for elementary school students and $475 for middle school students.
These rates aligned with the fees for the Department’s regular After School Recreation Program that takes place
during the school year.SSFUSD and Department staff are hopeful that the ability to offer a free STEAM
Summer Program including free extended care will enable more families to enroll their children into the
program, and provide a valuable opportunity to families who otherwise may not have been able to participate.
FISCAL IMPACT
Although the City anticipates being reimbursed for all costs associated with the STEAM Summer Program
from grant funds,City Council must authorize a budget allocation for these expenditures since they would be in
addition to the Department’s operating budget.Since the program is expected to begin in June 2019,within the
current fiscal year,staff is requesting $41,152 for costs in Fiscal Year 2018-2019,and $12,117 for costs in
Fiscal Year 2019-2020,for a total budget request of $53,269.An itemized budget request is available in
Attachment 1.
It should be noted that the amount of the request anticipates that the STEAM Summer Program will be filled to
capacity and that all students will be enrolled in extended care.If the City Council approves this budget request,
SSFUSD and Department staff will continue to refine the program offerings to suit the anticipated needs of
program participants.Depending on the need,it is possible that fewer participants will elect for the extended
care option,possibly reducing the staffing need and associated costs.The Department expects to be reimbursed
in full by SSFUSD for all costs associated with the extended care portion of the STEAM Summer Program.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Approval of this budget request supports Strategic Plan Priority #2:Build and Maintain a Sustainable City by
strengthening learning programs and supporting the expansion of STEAM and STEAM (includes an Art
component) class offerings in the City.
CONCLUSION
The Department’s collaboration with SSFUSD to provide extended care for the STEAM Summer Program is an
opportunity to enhance a free summer program for SSFUSD children.While some of the program details are
still in the planning stages,staff anticipates that the total budget request of $53,269 for the extended care
portion of the STEAM Summer Program will be able to cover direct costs in the event that extended care is
provided to all students enrolled.
Attachment:Proposed STEAM Summer Program Cost - Extended Care
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Item Costs NotesProgram Staffing0.15 FTE Recreation & Community Services Coordinator $11,800 8 hrs. x 30 days, Step E $35.070.5 FTE Elementary School Recreation Teachers $24,352 4 hrs. x 20 days x 12 staff, Recreation Instructor $22/hr.25 FTE Middle School Recreation Teachers $12,317 4 hrs. x 20 days x 6 staff, Recreation Instructor $22/hrSubtotal Staffing $48,469Supplies/EquipmentStaff Fingerprinting $1,800 18 staffSupplies $2,000Snack $1,000Subtotal Supplies/Equipment $4,800TOTAL Request $53,269$41,152FY 2018‐19: $36,352 (75% staff cost, 15 days in June) + $4,800 (supplies)$12,117FY 2019‐20: 25% staff cost, 5 days in JulyAttachment 1Proposed STEAM Summer Program Cost - Extended CareSummer 2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-154 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:12a.
Resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended care program in
collaboration with the South San Francisco Unified School District’s STEAM Summer Program,and adjusting
the Parks and Recreation Department’s operating budget by $41,152 in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 and by $12,117
in Fiscal Year 2019-2020.
WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD)will be offering a STEAM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math) Summer Program in June through July 2019; and
WHEREAS,SSFUSD has invited the City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department
(Department)to participate in the STEAM Summer Program based on the Department’s successful provision of
before and after school programs for SSFUSD,as well as the variety of recreation programming offered that
could support STEAM curriculum; and
WHEREAS,SSFUSD and Parks and Recreation Department staff agreed that the Department could support the
program by offering extended care to program participants; and
WHEREAS,the STEAM Summer Program is expected to operate from 8:30 a.m.to 3:00 p.m.,with extended
care being covered by the Parks and Recreation Department from 3:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.,and the Department
will provide a complimentary STEAM curriculum to support the learning goals for the summer school; and
WHEREAS,the Department estimates the total cost to operate the extended care program is $53,269,and is
requesting that the Department’s operating budget be adjusted by $41,152 in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 and by
$12,117 in Fiscal Year 2019-2020 to cover costs that cross the fiscal year between June and July 2019; and
WHEREAS,SSFUSD has been awarded a grant through the 2018 Student Support and Academic Enrichment
(SSAE)grant by the California Department of Education that would allow SSFUSD to reimburse the City of
South San Francisco for the cost of the Department’s extended care program not to exceed $53,269;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
authorizes the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended care program in collaboration with the
South San Francisco Unified School District’s STEAM Summer Program,and adjusts the Parks and Recreation
Department’s operating budget by $41,152 in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 and by $12,117 in Fiscal Year 2019-2020.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/17/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-152 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:13.
Report regarding a planned budget request to expand the After School Recreation Program at Buri Buri
Elementary School by 50 students beginning in the 2019-2020 school year.(Sharon Ranals,Director,Parks
and Recreation Department)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council be informed of a planned budget request to expand the After
School Recreation Program at Buri Buri Elementary School by 50 students beginning in the 2019-2020
school year.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Childcare Program is one of seven programs within the Recreation Division of the Parks and Recreation
Department.The Childcare Program serves nearly 1200 children and young adults through its three licensed
preschools,four licensed After School Recreation Programs,two grant-funded R.E.A.L.(Recreation,
Enrichment and Learning)Programs,and seasonal camps.A fact sheet providing more information about the
Childcare Program is available in Attachment 1.
The four After School Recreation Programs (ASRPs)are licensed by the Department of Social Services,
Community Care Licensing Program.These programs take place at Buri Buri,Monte Verde,Ponderosa,and
Spruce Elementary Schools.These ASRPs serve children from Kindergarten through 5th grade and operate in
accordance with the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD)calendar.Families may register
for Before and After School Care (7:30 a.m.to bell time,and bell time to 6:00 p.m.),Before School Care Only
(7:30 a.m.to bell time),or After School Care Only (bell time to 6:00 p.m.),and can also opt for five,three,or
two days of care on a regular schedule.
SSFUSD has requested the expansion of the Buri Buri ASRP by 50 children,bringing the program’s capacity
up to 130 children.The Buri Buri ASRP started with a capacity for 40 children,and Council approved an
expansion to add another 40 children in the current 2018-2019 school year upon request by the SSFUSD.About
40 children remain on the waiting list.SSFUSD has once again asked the City to expand the Buri Buri ASRP,
this time to increase the program’s capacity by 50 children in order to cover families currently on the waiting
list, and in anticipation of growing demand for additional spaces in the program.
Budget for Expansion
Any consideration for expansion must first and foremost be able to meet the licensing requirements for space
allocation,which is a formula that dictates the square footage of space made available to each child in a
licensed program.SSFUSD and staff have identified the appropriate spaces on the Buri Buri campus that meet
these requirements.Given that SSFUSD is able to meet this threshold,staff has put together a budget request
proposal that considers staffing needs,one time startup costs,annual licensing fees,staff fingerprinting fees,
and a snack and supply budget.
The total budget request for the Buri Buri ASRP expansion is $231,302 in the first year of the expanded
program (Fiscal Year 2019-2020),and $228,302 in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 and beyond.Costs for the first year
of the program include a budget for $3,000 in one time startup costs.The revenue earned from user fees fromCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-152 Agenda Date:2/27/2019
Version:1 Item #:13.
of the program include a budget for $3,000 in one time startup costs.The revenue earned from user fees from
the additional 50 children are projected to be $179,500,assuming a charge of $359/month for full-time before
school and after school care for 50 children. Attachment 2 provides an itemized list of the budget request.
Recreation and Community Services Coordinator
The expansion of the Buri Buri ASRP necessitates the addition of 1 full-time equivalent (FTE)Recreation and
Community Services Coordinator (Coordinator).This would be a new position within the Parks and Recreation
Department.Currently,each ASRP school site is managed by a Coordinator who is responsible for supervising
the daily program operations at the site.Currently,Monte Verde ASRP is the only other site where a second
Coordinator position was approved last fiscal year when the program expanded from 150 to 200 kids.
In order to support licensing requirements and to maintain a span of control over the expanded program at Buri
Buri,and considering the need for Coordinator coverage across all Childcare programs,a new Coordinator
position is needed.While Coordinators are assigned to oversee specific sites,they have a shared responsibility
to provide staffing coverage among all Childcare programs when full-time or part-time staff are out sick or on
vacation.Staffing coverage is particularly critical for the licensed childcare programs,which are mandated to
have a ratio of 14 students per teacher.
In addition,if the new Coordinator position is approved,staff anticipates assigning one of the Coordinators to
take on more specialized role in special needs programming,establishing an in-house subject matter expert who
can assist staff and provide classroom support for students with special needs,assist in staff training and
coaching,and play an increased role in planning the Full of Fun Camp for teens and young adults with special
needs.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates that the fiscal impact of this budget request will be minimal.While the budget as requested in
Attachment 2 appears to have a 78%cost recovery rate,it should be noted that within the context of the entire
Childcare Program budget,the program’s current 89%cost recovery rate is minimally affected when adding in
the requested expenditure budget and projected revenue.Attachment 3 provides a detailed comparison of the
existing budget and cost recovery rate compared to the projected budget and cost recovery rates.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Approval of this budget request supports Strategic Plan Priority #2:Build and Maintain a Sustainable City by
expanding and strengthening learning programs offered by the City.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this report is to inform City Council about a planned budget request to expand the After School
Recreation Program at Buri Buri Elementary School by 50 students beginning in the 2019-2020 school year.
Barring any objections or change in direction from City Council,staff will include this budget request as part of
the City’s annual budget planning process for FY 2019-2020.
Attachments:
1.Childcare Program Fact Sheet
2.Buri Buri Expansion Planned Budget Request
3.Buri Buri Expansion Cost Recovery
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Attachment 1
About the Childcare Program
The Childcare Program is one of seven programs within the Recreation Division of the Parks and
Recreation Department. The Childcare Program serves nearly 1200 children and young adults
through:
• three licensed preschools for children 2.5 to 5 years;
o Siebecker Preschool, 510 Elm Court (capacity of 55 children)
o Westborough Preschool, 2380 Galway Drive (capacity of 59 children)
o Little Steps Preschool – grant-funded by the Big Lift Initiative, 520 Tamarack Lane
(capacity of 20 children)
• four licensed after school recreation programs (ASRP) for school-age children Kindergarten-
12 years;
o Buri Buri ASRP, 325 Del Monte Avenue (capacity of 80 children)
o Monte Verde ASRP, 2551 St. Cloud Drive, San Bruno (capacity of 200 children)
o Ponderosa ASRP, 295 Ponderosa Road (capacity of 120 children)
o Spruce ASRP, 501 Spruce Avenue (capacity of 30 children)
• two programs funded by the After School Educate & Safety (ASES) Program, called the
R.E.A.L. (Recreation, Enrichment and Learning) Program designed for academic support for
school age children Kindergarten–12 years old;
o Los Cerritos R.E.A.L. Program, 201 Orange Ave, (grant-funded for 50 children)
o Martin R.E.A.L. Program, 35 School Street, (grant-funded for 50 children)
o *The ASES grant also includes the Homework Club program at the Community
Learning Center.
• Summer Camps (10 weeks)
o Traditional Camp at Orange Park and Ponderosa Elementary School, 110 children at
each site
o Specialty Camps at Terrabay Gymnasium and Recreation Center, 110 children
• Spring and Winter camps for children Kindergarten–12 years old;
• TEEN camp in Summer; and
• Full of Fun Camp (3 weeks) and Nights of Fun (school year) for children and young adults
with special needs.
Staffing
• 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Recreation and Community Services Supervisor
• 1.0 FTE Assistant Recreation Supervisor
• 1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant I
• 7.0 FTE Recreation and Community Services Coordinators
• 8.0 FTE Preschool Teacher I/II
• About 75 to 100 part-time staff between the regular school year and summer months
Funding
The Childcare Program operates on a $2.9 million General Fund operating budget, with an
additional $148,525 in grant funding from the California Department of Education After School
Education and Safety Program (ASES) to support the R.E.A.L. Programs, and $170,000 in grant
funding from San Mateo County’s Big Lift Initiative to support the Little Steps Preschool.
Item
Annual
(Aug - May)Notes
EXPENDITURES
Program Staffing (Salary + Benefits)
1 FTE RCS Coordinator $117,693.00 year-round position
Hrly Rec Leader III x 4 staff $78,718.33
4 staff for 50 children, 25 hrs/wk for
August - May school year
Subtotal Staffing $196,411.33
Custodial
Hrly Bldg Maintenance Custodian $16,320.00 2hrs/200 days
Custodial Supplies/Equipment $4,000.00 $20/day for 200 days
Subtotal Custodial $20,320.00
Supplies/Equipment
Snacks $3,750.00
Annual Licensing Fees $2,420.00
Fingerprinting $400.00
Additional Supplies $5,000.00
Subtotal Supplies/Equipment $11,570.00
One Time Equipment Start Up $3,000.00
TOTAL Request FY 2019-2020 $231,301.33 includes one time startup costs
TOTAL Request FY 2020-2021 $228,301.33
REVENUE
$359/month x 50 kids $179,500.00 August - May school year
DIFFERENCE
FY 2019-2020 -$51,801.33 includes one time startup costs
FY 2020-2021 -$48,801.33
Attachment 2
Buri Buri After School Recreation Program Expansion
Planned Budget Request
Effective 2019-20 School Year
Current
FY 2018-2019
Request Total Request Total
Expenditures $2,929,480 $231,301 $3,160,781 $228,301 $3,157,781
Revenue*$2,620,730 $179,500 $2,800,230 $179,500 $2,800,230
Cost Recovery 89.5%-88.6%-88.7%
* Revenue assumes charge of $359 per month for full-time before school and after school care for 50 children.
Proposed Year 1
FY 2019-2020
Proposed Year 2+
(Begin FY 2020-2021)
Attachment 3
Buri Buri After School Program Expansion
Cost Recovery Comparison of Current Childcare Program Budget to Proposed
CITE' OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISC-0
SPEAKER CARD �J
r
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
l le. e ' kale Ayllich item you'd like to speak oil:
1 Public Comments, or
_Agenda Item
Name: I t 4 1 C, r Date:
Pronounced:
Address (optional ��—
p